In 2001, the President announced his management agenda for making the government more focused on citizens and results, which included expanding Electronic Government (E-Government). The President’s E- Government Strategy identified several governmentwide initiatives with a goal of eliminating redundant systems and significantly improving the government’s quality of customer service for citizens and businesses. The expected results of the E-Government initiative include providing high- quality customer service regardless of whether a citizen contacts an agency by phone, in person, or on the worldwide Web. The E-Government Act of 2002 codified the President’s E-Government initiatives and expanded OMB’s leadership role by establishing the Office of E- Government and Information Technology within OMB. The act also requires that agencies comply with OMB E-Guidance. One of the 24 presidential E-Government initiatives is developing and deploying governmentwide citizen customer service using industry best practices that will provide citizens with timely, consistent responses about government information and services via e-mail, telephone, Internet, and publications. By congressional direction, OMB also is responsible for establishing and issuing governmentwide guidelines to federal agencies for ensuring the quality of the information disseminated to the public. In response to this direction, OMB issued guidance to agencies in February 2002 that defined the quality of information to include accuracy as one of its fundamental elements and directed agencies to develop procedures for reviewing and substantiating the quality of their information before dissemination. Contact centers are one method agencies use to disseminate information to the public. In the past, public inquiries to the government were often made by telephone and thus federal agencies began establishing call centers. With evolving technology, citizen inquiries to the government now come through various channels such as e-mails, Web-based forms, facsimiles, Web chat rooms, and traditional postal mail. As a result, agencies have established multichannel contact centers to handle these inquiries. Contact centers rely on automated and live telephone response systems, Web site technologies, and trained customer service representatives to provide information to the public. For contractor- operated contact centers, the agency typically provides either scripted responses or the content from which the contractor creates its own scripted responses. The scripts are used for the prerecorded telephone response systems, Web pages, and preformatted responses given by the customer service representatives. Contact centers are staffed in tiers by generalist or specialist representatives or a combination of both. Usually, Tier 1 staff handle general information inquiries and direct more complex or personal issues to specialized Tier 2 or Tier 3 staff or to the agency’s subject matter experts. One method for obtaining information on the contact centers that are operated by contractors on behalf of the government is to review data from FPDS. FPDS is used to report individual procurement transactions, which include the industrial classification of the goods and services procured by the federal government. FPDS was implemented by OMB’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in 1978 in response to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974 requirement of establishing a system for collecting and developing information about federal procurement contracts. Since 1982, GSA has administered FPDS on OFPP’s behalf. In 2003, the system was revised and is now called FPDS- Next Generation. A wide range of users, including those with the executive and legislative branches, rely on FPDS data for information on agency contracting actions, governmentwide procurement trends, and achievement of goals related to small business. The six agencies we reviewed emphasized accuracy of contact center information to varying degrees through the quality assurance mechanisms of their contracts and various oversight practices. Four of the six included a specific metric to measure contractor performance related to providing accurate information to the public, but only one of the six used all four of the oversight practices we identified—such as actively monitoring contacts—to ensure that accurate information is provided to the public. Each of the six agencies we reviewed specified key performance metrics that its contractor is required to meet. These performance metrics define the minimum level of quality acceptable to the agency and provide the basis against which the contractor is to be evaluated. We found that four of the six agencies’ contracts included accuracy of information in one or more of the key performance metrics. The remaining two agencies did not have specific metrics that addressed the need to provide accurate information to the public. Table 2 summarizes the key performance metrics specified in the contracts we reviewed and indicates through shading those that specifically address providing accurate information. The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires agencies to perform and document oversight of their contractors’ performance to ensure the government receives high-quality services as specified in the contract. Agency oversight provides quality assurance independent of the contractors’ own quality control processes. Although each agency employed some oversight practices, only two of the six agencies we reviewed used all four of the oversight practices we identified for ensuring that accurate information is provided to the public. Each agency emphasized accuracy of information to varying degrees within its practices. On the basis of our review of industry contact center practices and the practices employed by the agencies considered leaders in government contact centers, we identified four agency oversight practices related to ensuring that accurate information is provided to the public via a contractor-operated contact center. Table 3 describes the four accuracy- related oversight practices. The first two practices, knowledge database management and agency contact monitoring, provide direct oversight regarding accuracy of information, because they focus on detecting inaccuracies in the source information used to provide responses to the public and in the actual responses provided by the customer service representatives. The remaining two practices, customer satisfaction surveys and validation of contractor-prepared reports, are more indirect methods of ensuring accuracy in that they review customers’ reactions to the information provided and independent agency corroboration of the contractor’s reporting on its own quality procedures. The agencies we reviewed varied with respect to how they implemented these practices. This variance was due to a number of factors, such as differences among the agencies in staffing levels, funding, and the use of guidance specific to the agency. Table 4 shows the extent to which the six agencies we reviewed employ each of the accuracy-related oversight practices. Most of the agencies we reviewed had a structured process for ensuring accurate information is maintained in the knowledge database. DOL, Education, GSA, and USPS approve contractor-developed information that is created based on government-provided materials. These agencies then perform periodic reviews of the information in the knowledge database. CDC currently prepares all scripted responses and Web site information, which the contractor is required to use, and plans to implement annual reviews of the knowledge database, starting at the first anniversary of operation in February 2006. TMA allows the contractor to develop information based on material TMA provides, but does not review the information used by the contractor to respond to public inquires. DOD said that TMA relies on the expertise and skills of its contractor to provide the required services. Almost all of the agencies we reviewed perform regular monitoring of the contractor’s responses to the public to help assess whether accurate information is provided. CDC, DOL, Education, GSA, and USPS each monitor a number of contacts on a regular basis, although accuracy of information is addressed to varying degrees in the score sheets. For example, accuracy is clearly weighted as an important aspect of the call in CDC’s score sheet. Therefore if an inaccurate answer is provided, the contractor “fails” for that call and the customer service representative is counseled. On the other hand, Education’s score sheet does not clearly weight accuracy of information. Education and its contractor staff could not explain how providing inaccurate information on a call would be indicated on the monitoring score sheet. In addition to giving different weights to accuracy, the five agencies also vary in terms of the frequency with which they monitor their contacts. Education and USPS each employ one full-time staff to monitor a selection of the contact centers’ contacts. CDC has a third-party contractor monitor the contact center on a daily basis and uses this assessment in the determination of the contractor’s award fee. GSA staff monitor a sample of calls on a weekly basis and started performing quarterly audits of the contractor’s monitoring efforts in November 2005. The sixth center, TMA, only monitors calls on an ad hoc basis when officials visit the contact center. Three of the agencies we reviewed conduct customer satisfaction surveys subsequent to the initial contact from an individual. GSA, TMA, and USPS conduct customer satisfaction surveys, which ask, to limited degrees, questions that address the accuracy of information provided. While providing some level of insight regarding accuracy, customer surveys may not always provide a valid basis for oversight of the accuracy of information, since they usually ask the individual’s opinion on the service provided. If the survey is conducted too closely to the time of the inquiry, the individual may not have had time to act upon the information to know whether it is accurate or not. CDC plans to implement three types of postcontact customer satisfaction surveys through a third-party contractor beginning in June 2006. DOL does not conduct postcontact surveys because it does not maintain personal information on the individuals that contact the agency. Three of the six agencies we reviewed take steps to validate the information in the contractor-prepared reports related to contact center performance. These reports generally include some aspects related to accuracy of information provided to the public, such as the contractor’s results of its monitoring of contacts. CDC and USPS validate to some degree the reports provided by the contractor. GSA conducts quarterly audits of its contractor’s supporting data. Although DOL, Education, and TMA review their contractor reports, they rely upon the reports without validation. According to GAO’s standards for internal control in the federal government, good internal control practices require that agencies validate the performance reports provided by the contractor to ensure the information is valid. The federal government does not have comprehensive, centralized guidance for operating a contact center or for overseeing a contractor- operated center. Although operation and oversight of contact centers are the responsibility of individual agencies, GSA, in consultation with OMB, determined that governmentwide standards would be useful. GSA sponsored an interagency committee that recently provided draft guidelines for operating federal contact centers to OMB and other federal agencies. However, OMB told us it does not plan to issue any governmentwide guidance based on the committee’s recommended guidelines at this time, because OMB has not identified the operation of contact centers as an area of concern. Furthermore, until recently, no governmentwide information specific to contact centers has been collected. Initial attempts to gather governmentwide information about the number and type of activities that agencies use to provide public information proved to be inadequate for providing a comprehensive governmentwide view of contact centers. In addition, officials from the agencies we reviewed told us that no industry classification code in FPDS currently covers the full range of services provided by a contact center. In its 2004 report on the electronic government initiative, OMB highlighted the importance of delivering timely and accurate information to the public and stated that there are opportunities to apply existing and emerging best practices to achieve increases in productivity and delivery of services and information. To date, however, OMB has established only limited guidance on preferred practices at contact centers. The only OMB guidance we found that specifically related to contact centers is focused on the use of performance-based contracting for such services. This guidance is dated and limited in its coverage and does not provide guidance on performance metrics for contact centers or oversight practices. Because of the need for governmentwide standards for operating contact centers, GSA in consultation with OMB, took the initiative to form an interagency working group to propose guidelines to OMB and other federal agencies. Formed in March 2005, the Citizen Service Levels Interagency Committee is composed of 58 contact service representatives from 33 executive branch agencies. In addition to relying on their knowledge in running contact centers, the committee also had a contractor perform two studies to provide insight on citizens’ expectations when contacting government agencies for information and current industry metrics, benchmarks, and best practices for operating contact centers. The committee submitted a report with 37 proposed standards for operating contact centers to OMB in September 2005, including four standards specifically related to ensuring accuracy. The committee plans to continue to work on additional contact center issues and to help agencies implement any contact center standards that OMB might endorse. In October 2005, OMB officials stated that they had reviewed the committee’s report but did not plan to issue any governmentwide guidance based on the committee’s recommended guidelines at this time, because OMB has not identified the operation of contact centers as an area of concern. OMB stated further that if agencies need additional guidance in developing their standards, they can refer to the committee’s report. The agencies we reviewed each performed independent research to develop their contracts and formulate a management strategy for operating their contact centers. Performing independent research resulted in duplication of efforts across agencies, using limited resources and taking valuable time. For example, to develop guidance, the Department of Education performed market research, worked with a contractor on customer services and related standards, and studied industry best practices on a limited basis. Similarly, CDC sent out a request for information to industry to gain insight on the technology available for operating contact centers before it developed its contract. CDC then performed market research, reviewed industry practices, and visited other government contact centers, such as that of the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to learn about the practices of government- and contractor-operated centers. In 2004, GSA created a multiple-award contract called FirstContact to assist agencies in contracting for contact center services. Under this multiple-award contract, agencies can issue a task order to any of five preapproved contractors to operate a contact center. Using FirstContact will minimize the time and effort required of agencies to locate a contractor to manage their centers. To date, the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency, GSA, and the Department of Health and Human Services have placed six task orders against this contract, and three other agencies are looking to place orders as well. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently used this contract vehicle to quickly provide contact center services for the influx of calls and applications for government assistance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Although agencies now have this multiple-award contract as a mechanism to assist them in contracting for contact center service, they still must develop specific performance metrics and oversight practices specific to their center. Given the lack of governmentwide information on the activities that provide information to the public, OMB made an initial attempt to collect such data in 2004. For this effort, OMB issued a data request to all executive branch agencies to obtain basic data, such as the contact center name, volume of contacts, and whether performance and cost metrics are collected, for every activity that provides information directly to the public. OMB normally uses data requests as a census tool to acquire a snapshot of the current budget environment of the government. Agencies responded by self-identifying over 1,800 activities that currently provide information to citizens using various communication channels such as telephone, e-mail, and Internet Web sites. The individual activities identified ranged in size from a couple of employees who answer telephone calls as part of their duties to contact centers with staffs of several hundred employees who handle millions of inquiries through several channels. Of the 1,800 activities identified, over 500 categorized themselves as contact centers. Since it was making a nonstandard data request, OMB performed little follow-up on nonresponding agencies and did not verify reported results. We noted that some large agencies, such as DOD, did not report any activities that provide information to the public. In an effort to expand on the information collected through the OMB data request, GSA surveyed 360 activities—approximately a quarter of those who responded to the data request—to develop a baseline snapshot of governmentwide activities providing information to the public. However, GSA’s survey methodology was flawed because the agency selected its sample from an incomplete universe, had a low survey response rate, and did not perform a nonresponder analysis. Thus, the survey results did not provide a representative view of activities across the government. GSA plans to conduct a follow-up survey of government activities in 2007. While OMB and GSA information regarding the universe of federal contact centers is incomplete, another potential source of information on those contact centers that are contracted out by the government is the FPDS. Since its inception in 1978, the FPDS has served as the governmentwide system for collecting federal procurement data. Five of the six agencies we reviewed, however, each used a different code to report their contact center procurement actions to FPDS. Officials from agencies we reviewed told us that no current North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code covers the full range of services provided by a contact center. Table 5 lists the NAICS codes used by the five agencies reporting data to FPDS. The five agencies that reported to FPDS chose different NAICS codes for different reasons. Officials from DOL and GSA stated that they chose alternative NAICS codes because the definition provided for telephone call center does not cover all of the activities handled in a contact center. Education and DOD-TMA officials explained that they chose NAICS codes that encompassed the main work of the contract, since the contact center is only a portion of the work in a contract for a larger program. CDC chose its NAICS code based upon the information technology services required for creating its contact center. No governmentwide procurement information was reported to FPDS using the NAICS codes for telephone call centers in fiscal years 2000 through 2004. This category of NAICS codes—56142—is defined as establishments primarily engaged in answering telephone calls and relaying messages or in telemarketing activities. Although officials from three of the agencies we reviewed expressed the opinion that the definition for telephone call centers is too narrow to encompass all the work performed by a contact center, OMB told us that the telephone call center code is the correct code to use. Specifically, OMB stated that the subcode of 561422— telemarketing bureaus—was written with the intent to cover all the functions of a contact center. OMB is considering issuing a clarification to the description of the 56142 codes to explain that these codes include more than telephones—such as Web sites, e-mails, facsimiles, and so forth—in its next update to the NAICS manual in 2012. Providing timely and accurate information is a key result area for the federal government. Federal agencies that use contractor-operated contact centers to meet the public’s demand for information assume the burden of assuring that the information provided by the contractors is accurate. While the agencies we reviewed have taken a variety of steps to ensure that their contractor-operated contact centers address accuracy, at some agencies accuracy clearly does not have the same priority as other objectives, such as timeliness. Although agencies need flexibility in meeting the needs of the individuals that contact them, they also can benefit from the experience gained by their peers operating other government contact centers. Short of mandating specific guidance, increased sharing among agencies of successful practices for managing contact centers may help improve their abilities to write and oversee contracts for these centers and may avoid needless duplication of effort. The guidelines proposed by the Citizen Service Levels Interagency Committee are a step in this direction. However, whether this effort will result in information sharing across agencies is uncertain. Leveraging knowledge gained by other agencies through the sharing of effective practices could be enhanced by governmentwide leadership. OMB’s leadership of the electronic government initiative, its role in guiding agency dissemination of public information, as well as its procurement policy role, put it in an ideal position to facilitate the exchange of information among agencies to ensure effective oversight of contractors in meeting the public’s need for timely and accurate information. While OMB and GSA have taken initial steps to enhance the oversight of federal contact centers by gathering some information on the universe of these centers, it is not clear whether the data collected provide enough information for governmentwide oversight of contact center operations or whether GSA’s planned data collection efforts will do so either. With additional reliable information, OMB may be able to more quickly identify and act on emerging problems and opportunities. In addition, FPDS can also be more effective in identifying the number of contracts and dollars obligated for contact centers across the government, but only if the agencies consistently use the appropriate NAICS code for these services. To facilitate the sharing of sound oversight practices for the operation of contact centers, to help ensure that providing accurate information to the public by contact centers is a priority outcome, and to improve the quality of information gathered about these centers, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget take the following actions: Building on efforts begun by the GSA-sponsored interagency committee, work with agencies to develop a mechanism for sharing performance metrics and oversight practices for contact centers. Continued efforts should stress that providing accurate information to the public needs to be a key factor in the oversight of federal contact centers. Take steps to ensure consistent reporting on contact centers by developing an industry category or specific code definition in NAICS that encompasses all the services provided by contact centers or by providing further instruction to agencies regarding the appropriate NAICS code to use for contact centers. To improve the quality of information about federal contact centers, we recommend that the Administrator of General Services take the following action: Ensure that further efforts to develop governmentwide data on contact center operations—such as the survey planned for next year—employ sound methodologies to ensure that the resulting information is representative of the activities across the government. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Office of Management and Budget and each of the six agencies we reviewed— Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, General Services Administration, and U.S. Postal Service. The Office of Management and Budget provided oral comments in which they concurred with our findings and recommendations. The Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration provided written comments that are reproduced in appendices III, IV, and V, respectively. OMB and most of the agencies also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration also concurred with our findings and recommendations. The Department of Defense did not concur with our draft report because it believes the report does not fully reflect all the metrics and practices DOD and its contractor use to ensure the accuracy of information provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. In its comments, DOD emphasizes that its approach to contracting for contact center operations relies on the contractor to use industry standards for ensuring information accuracy. DOD states that standards exist in its contract related to the accuracy of information provided by telephone. DOD also cites additional metrics it uses for monitoring contractor performance. In addition, DOD requires the contractor to have a quality management program which must be validated by a nationally recognized third-party organization. DOD points out that it receives monthly briefings on the operation of the contractor’s quality management program and observes call center operations during site visits. Finally, DOD explained that it monitors the expertise and skills of the contractor staff that perform the knowledge management function. We recognize that DOD has decided to use what it calls the “audit the auditor” approach to quality assurance. It was not our objective, however, to assess the merits of any particular approach to ensuring quality, but rather to determine the extent to which contract terms and agency oversight practices emphasize the importance of providing accurate information to the public. In this regard, while the contractor may use specific standards for accuracy in its quality management program, we found no specific metric related to accuracy in the TRICARE contact center contract itself or in the additional metrics cited in DOD’s comments. For the most part, the additional quality control activities listed by the Department are those of its contractor, not oversight activities performed by the agency, which was the focus of our review. While independent validation of the contractor’s quality control program helps to ensure the contractor has a quality process in place for monitoring its responses to the public, this does not substitute for DOD oversight activities such as validating the contractor’s reports of its monitoring efforts. In addition, while DOD performs site visits to oversee the contractor’s operations, it does so only on an ad hoc basis. Based on DOD’s comments, we added additional language to the report regarding DOD’s approach to knowledge management. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this report. We will then send copies of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of General Services, the Postmaster General, and the Secretaries of the Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Labor. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. This report is 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, please call me at (202) 512-4841. An additional GAO contact and staff who made contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. To assess the guidance provided to federal agencies and the information gathered by the federal government about contact centers, we conducted interviews with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration (GSA) officials, and reviewed related guidance and results of their initial data collection efforts. We researched and discussed with OMB the absence of guidance related to the operation and oversight of contact centers. We also discussed the results of OMB’s 2004 request for information to federal agencies that asked for self- identification of any activities that provide information to the public. In addition, we reviewed and discussed the results of GSA’s survey of a sample of agency activities that responded to OMB’s request. We did not assess the validity of the data gathered by OMB and GSA. However, a GAO methodologist reviewed the GSA survey methodology and identified its weaknesses. In addition, we monitored the progress of the GSA-sponsored working group—the Citizen Service Levels Interagency Committee—as it developed and recommended standards to OMB for federal contact centers. We did not assess the committee’s recommendations as a whole, but rather reviewed how accuracy of information was addressed within its proposed standards. We reviewed data from the Federal Procurement Data System for the past 5 fiscal years to determine if any contract actions were reported using the code for telephone call center services. To describe federal agencies’ efforts to ensure accurate information is provided to the public by contractor-operated centers, we reviewed the contract terms and oversight activities for one center at each of six agencies. We selected centers that handle over 1 million inquiries annually and provide information to citizens that could significantly affect their finances, health, or safety. The contact centers selected for our review are Department of Defense TriCare Management Activity (TMA) North region—Healthnet’s contact center: provides general and personalized medical benefit and coverage information and processes enrollments and claims for military families in the North region; Department of Education (Education)—Federal Student Aid Information Center: provides general information about applications and loan issues and personalized information on the status of applications and loans to the public and academic community; Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—CDC INFO contact center: provides information about health and safety issues—including prevention, detection, and outbreak control—to the public and medical professionals; Department of Labor (DOL)—National Contact Center: provides general information and referrals regarding job issues, workplace safety, and pension and health benefits to the public and employers; General Services Administration—National Contact Center: provides general information and referrals related to any agency or government program; and U.S. Postal Service (USPS)—National Contact Center: provides general and individualized information on mail delivery and shipping issues to the public and businesses. To complete our review, we interviewed management and staff responsible for oversight of the contractor-operated contact center at each agency. We reviewed the performance metrics specified in the agency’s contract as well as the related reports used to oversee and evaluate the contractors’ operation of the contact centers. In addition to conducting discussions with the agencies, we visited four contractor-operated centers to observe their operations and quality control procedures. Specifically, we visited locations for the GSA center operated by ICT Group, CDC and Education centers operated by Pearson Government Solutions, and the DOL center operated by Datatrac Information Services. At each center we interviewed management and customer service representatives regarding the oversight practices used to monitor the accuracy of information. We did not test the contractors’ internal control procedures or validate any data from their sample reports. We identified industry practices for ensuring the accuracy of information provided by contact centers, interviewed representatives from two major contact center industry groups—the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals and the Incoming Calls Management Institute—and attended the 2005 Government Customer Support Conference. In addition, we reviewed prior GAO reports concerning contact centers. We also discussed contact center issues with other GAO teams that were currently reviewing or had recently reviewed other federal contact centers. Our work was conducted from February through November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Medical benefits and coverage issues, enrollment, and claims processing Daily 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (eastern time) Languages supported (beyond English) Fiscal year 2005 call volume from February to September 2005 (estimated at 2.7 million calls when fully operational) Total value of contract at award (in millions of dollars) (the contact center is only a portion of this contract) Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to midnight; Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (eastern) Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (eastern) Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (eastern time) 1-year base plus 9 1-year options 1-year base plus 4 1-year options 4-year base plus 6 1-year options $254.6 (for 4-year base only) (the contact center is only a portion of this contract) Firm fixed price plus award fee3 DOL provides service 24 hours a day for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration toll-free number and provided service 24 hours a day during hurricane relief efforts; Education extends its hours during student aid application season; GSA provides service 24 hours a day under emergency situations. The CDC contact center is in its second year of operation and is consolidating the work for 40 different toll-free numbers over a total period of 4 years. The contact center is a portion of a larger service contract. The value shown here is for the entire contract, as the agency could not provide a breakdown of the cost for the contact center alone. In addition to the contact named above, Ruth Eli DeVan, William McPhail, Jean Lee, David Schilling, Nyankor Matthews, Robert Swierczek, John Krump, Monica Wolford, and Karen O’Conor made key contributions to this report. Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation. GAO-05-960R. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005. Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed in Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service. GAO-05-735. Washington, D.C.: August 8, 2005. Immigration Services: Better Contracting Practices Needed at Call Centers. GAO-05-526. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005. Federal Thrift Savings Plan: Customer Service Practices Adopted by Private Sector Plan Managers Should be Considered. GAO-05-38. Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2005. Medicare: Accuracy of Responses from the 1-800-MEDICARE Help Line Should Be Improved. GAO-05-130. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2004. Medicare: Call Centers Need to Improve Responses to Policy-Oriented Questions from Providers. GAO-04-669. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2004. Reliability of Federal Procurement Data, GAO-04-295R. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 2003. Medicare: Communications with Physicians Can Be Improved. GAO-02-249. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2002. IRS Telephone Assistance: Limited Progress and Missed Opportunities to Analyze Performance in the 2001 Filing Season. GAO-02-212. Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2001. IRS Telephone Assistance: Quality of Service Mixed in the 2000 Filing Season and below IRS’ Long-Term Goal. GAO-01-189. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2001. IRS Telephone Assistance: Opportunities to Improve Human Capital Management. GAO-01-144. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2001. Customer Service: Human Capital Management at Selected Public and Private Call Centers. GAO/GGD-00-161. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2000. Social Security Administration: Information on Monitoring 800 Number Telephone Calls. GAO/HEHS-98-56R. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 1997. Social Security Administration: More Cost-Effective Approaches Exist to Further Improve 800-Number Service. GAO/HEHS-97-79. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 1997. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: Federal agencies have increasingly relied on contact centers--centers handling inquiries via multiple channels such as telephone, Web page, e-mail, and postal mail--as a key means of communicating with the public. Many of these centers are contractor-operated. Concerns exist about the accuracy of responses provided through contractor-operated centers. This report examines (1) the extent to which the contract terms and oversight practices for contact centers at selected agencies emphasize the importance of providing accurate information to the public, and (2) whether guidance for the operation of contact centers and basic information needed to provide general oversight exist. GAO reviewed one contractor-operated contact center at each of six agencies: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and the Departments of Defense, Labor, and Education (DOD, DOL, and Education). The contracts and oversight practices for the contact centers of the six agencies reviewed, which handle millions of inquiries annually, varied significantly regarding the emphasis they placed on providing accurate information to the public. Although federal policy for disseminating information to the public specifically emphasizes accuracy, only four of the six agencies include accuracy as a performance metric in their contracts. With respect to oversight, only two of the six agencies used all four of the accuracy-related oversight practices we identified--regular knowledge database reviews, regular contact monitoring, postcontact customer satisfaction surveys, and validation of contractor reports. Although each agency used some form of oversight to assess the accuracy of the information provided by its contact center, each agency differed regarding how it implemented these practices. There is no governmentwide guidance or standards for operating contact centers--including guidance on specifying accuracy as a contract performance metric or as a key focus for oversight. Some agencies indicated that had federal guidance been available, it would have helped them establish performance indicators and develop oversight policies and practices. Recognizing the need for operational standards for contact centers, an interagency working group recently proposed draft guidelines to OMB and other federal agencies, but OMB has no plans to issue these guidelines or any standards for use by agencies. Additionally, until recently the federal government had not collected data on the universe of federal contact centers. OMB and GSA attempted to collect data on the number, types, and costs of federal contact centers in 2004, but the data collected were incomplete. In addition, no governmentwide procurement information was reported to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) in fiscal years 2000 through 2004 using the reporting code for telephone call centers, which OMB said is the appropriate code for contact centers. The five agencies we reviewed that report data to FPDS used a variety of different codes, some because they believe that the telephone call center code is too narrow to cover the services of their multichannel contact centers.