The United States, along with its coalition partners and various international organizations and donors, has embarked on a significant effort to rebuild Iraq following multiple wars and years of neglect. In April 2003, Congress passed the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, which created the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund and appropriated approximately $2.48 billion for reconstruction activities. These funds—referred to as IRRF I—were to be used by USAID, State, DOD, Treasury, and Health and Human Services for a broad range of humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. In November 2003, Congress enacted an additional emergency supplemental appropriations act, which provided approximately $18.4 billion for reconstruction activities in Iraq. This appropriation—referred to as IRRF II—focused on security and infrastructure, and the funding was allocated across multiple sectors. Additionally, the November 2003 act required that full and open competition be used to enter into contracts using IRRF funds unless the use of an authorized statutory exception was properly documented and approved, and the specified congressional committees notified. As of August 29, 2006, about 94 percent, or approximately $20 billion, of all IRRF funds had been obligated by all agencies. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) generally requires that federal contracts be awarded on the basis of full and open competition. This process is intended to permit the government to rely on competitive market forces to obtain needed goods and services at fair and reasonable prices. However, the law and implementing regulations recognize that there may be circumstances under which full and open competition would be impracticable, such as when contracts need to be awarded quickly to respond to urgent needs or when there is only one source for the required product or service. In such cases, agencies are given authority by law to award contracts without providing for full and open competition (e.g., using limited competition or on a sole-source basis), provided that the proposed approach is appropriately justified, approved, and documented. Additionally, regarding task orders issued under an existing contract, the competition law does not require competition beyond that obtained for the initial contract award, provided the task order does not increase the scope of the work, period of performance, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued. While no single, comprehensive system currently tracks governmentwide Iraq reconstruction contract data, we obtained competition information on $10 billion of the total $11.6 billion in obligations for Iraq reconstruction contracts collectively awarded by DOD, USAID, and State from October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2006, and found that about $9.1 billion, or 91 percent, of the obligations was for competitive awards. We obtained information on approximately $7 billion of the $8.55 billion DOD obligated and found that competition occurred for nearly all of the obligations. Both USAID and State provided information on all of their IRRF obligations made during the period of our review. However, where USAID information showed that almost all of its Iraq reconstruction contract obligations were for competitive awards, State information showed that few of its contract action obligations were for competitive awards. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the three agencies’ competed and noncompeted contract actions based on available data. Based on available data, we found that the majority of DOD’s IRRF contract obligations incurred during the period we reviewed were for competitive awards. Competition information was available for approximately 82 percent of DOD’s total $8.55 billion in Iraq reconstruction contract obligations. Of this, we found that DOD competitively awarded about $6.83 billion, and noncompetitively awarded about $189 million. Most of the DOD offices we spoke with reported that, when possible, contract actions were competed. JCC-I/A—the office performing the majority of Iraq contracting for the DOD offices we reviewed—and its predecessor organizations, including the Project and Contracting Office and Program Management Office, obligated $3.82 billion, of which $3.81 billion was obligated for competitive awards. Additionally, the other DOD offices we reviewed, including the Army Corps of Engineers’ Gulf Region Division and Transatlantic Programs Center; the Army’s TACOM Life Cycle Management Command; and the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence obligated approximately $2.25 billion, and of these obligations, approximately $2.08 billion were for competitive awards and $177 million for noncompetitive awards. Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers’ Southwestern Division competitively awarded two contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil infrastructure with obligations totaling $941 million. Complete information on DOD’s contract actions and competition type for the period of our review was not available, in part because not all offices consistently tracked or reported this information. Currently, DOD is transitioning its contract-writing systems to interface with the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG). Until this transition is completed, the majority of DOD components are expected to use DD Form 350s to report contract actions. However, we found that while the DD 350 system tracks competition information by contract, not all offices report their contracts to the system. For example, the JCC-I/A and its predecessor organizations did not fully input detailed, individual contract action information into DOD-wide systems including DD 350, which would provide information on competition. Furthermore, according to JCC-I/A officials, JCC-I/A did not track competition information until after May 2005. Consequently, we relied on multiple sources in order to obtain competition information for the DOD components within our review. USAID provided competition information for 100 percent of the $2.27 billion in IRRF contract obligations that the agency reported incurring between October 1, 2003, and March 31, 2006. These data indicated that USAID competitively awarded contract actions for about $2.25 billion, or 99 percent, of the approximately $2.27 billion it obligated; approximately $20.4 million, or about 1 percent, of these obligations were noncompetitively awarded. Agency contracting staff reported that USAID has pursued competition with very few exceptions when awarding contracts and issuing task orders for Iraq reconstruction. During our contract file review, we identified three instances in which the competition information provided by USAID was inaccurate. In two cases, USAID reported contracts as being awarded competitively when they were actually awarded under limited competition. In the third case, USAID reported a contract as “not competed,” when it was actually awarded competitively. In each of these instances, we used corrected competition information for our analysis. State obligated the smallest portion of IRRF funding among the three agencies, however, it incurred most if its obligations for noncompetitive awards. State provided competition information for 100 percent of the $762 million in IRRF contract obligations that the agency reported incurring between October 1, 2003, and March 31, 2006. These data indicated that State incurred obligations of approximately $73 million in competitive awards, or approximately 10 percent, of the approximate $762 million it obligated for IRRF contract actions; approximately $688 million, or about 90 percent, of these obligations were incurred under noncompetitive awards. In several of these cases, State cited urgency as the reason for awarding the contract actions noncompetitively. Specifically, justifications in two of the contract files we reviewed cited FAR § 6.302-2, unusual and compelling urgency, as the basis for using other than full and open competitive procedures. Additionally, one task order we reviewed was an unauthorized commitment that had to be ratified by State. The ratification amounted to the issuance of a noncompetitive task order to the contractor. During our contract file review, we identified three instances in which the competition information provided by State was inaccurate. In two of these cases, we found that contracts that were reported as awarded competitively were actually awarded noncompetitively. In the third case, State misclassified the competition type reported for a contract that was awarded competitively. In each of these instances, we used corrected competition information for our analysis. We reviewed 51 contract actions totaling $1.55 billion—35 at DOD, 11 at USAID, and 5 at State. We found that the agencies generally followed the FAR and the applicable agency supplements regarding documentation requirements for contract actions but did not always comply with congressional notification requirements. Of the 51 contract actions that we reviewed, 22 were awarded noncompetitively, while 29 were awarded competitively. Only 1 of the 22 noncompetitive contract action files did not contain justifications or other documentation as required in the FAR or agency supplements. Of the 29 competed contract actions, DOD was unable to provide documentation that competition had occurred, such as evidence of bidders or price negotiation memos, in 4 cases. Additionally, of the 22 noncompeted contract actions, State should have notified Congress of 2 actions it awarded using other than full and open competition in accordance with the notification requirements. While State failed to provide the required notifications, State officials told us that they have taken steps to address the problem for future awards. Within our sample, we did not find any additional instances where DOD, USAID, and State should have notified Congress of a noncompeted award but did not. Of the 35 DOD IRRF contract actions we reviewed, 15 were indicated as noncompeted and 20 indicated as competed. The files for the 15 noncompeted contract actions contained documentation required by the FAR, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. Of the 15 noncompeted actions, 4 were sole source contract awards; 4 were awarded using limited competition; 3 were noncompeted task orders under a multiple award IDIQ contract; 3 were sole source awards under the 8(a) program; and 1 was an out of scope modification. Based on our review, all of the contract actions that were awarded non-competitively had justification and approval documentation citing the reason for either limiting competition or using a sole source award when required.