This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-215R 
entitled 'Selected Agencies Use of Criminal Background Checks for 
Determining Responsibility' which was released on February 12, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

January 12, 2007: 

The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norm Coleman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations: Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs: 

United States Senate: 

Subject: Selected Agencies Use of Criminal Background Checks for 
Determining Responsibility: 

This letter and its enclosure respond to your request for information 
on selected executive agencies' policies and practices for making 
responsibility determinations before awarding contracts. You requested 
this information because of your continued concern for effective pre- 
contract screening to reduce fraudulent activities by contractors. 

On the basis of discussions with your office, our objectives were to 
(1) identify agency policies and practices for making contractor 
responsibility assessments, and determine under what conditions 
agencies conduct criminal background checks, (2) determine how 
contracting officers use the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) to 
make responsibility assessments and identify planned improvements to 
the system, if any, and (3) determine the number of fraud 
investigations in which the contractor or principals had a prior 
criminal background. 

On August 31, 2006, we briefed your office on the information gathered 
during our preliminary work. This letter summarizes and updates the 
information presented at the briefing. The additional information you 
requested regarding suspensions, debarments, and proposed debarments 
for fiscal years 1996 through 2006 is included in the briefing at 
Enclosure I. 

In developing the information for this report, you asked us to focus 
our work in the following agencies: Department of Defense (DOD), 
General Services Administration (GSA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We reviewed appropriate sections 
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); agency supplements for 
DOD, GSA, DOJ, and DHS; and discussed our objectives with agency 
officials from offices of policy and general counsel (debarment 
officials). We also obtained data on fraud investigations and discussed 
agency efforts to track whether the subjects of these investigations 
had prior criminal backgrounds with agency officials in the Criminal 
Investigative Divisions within the offices of Inspectors 
General.[Footnote 1] In addition, we reviewed relevant Comptroller 
General decisions discussing responsibility determinations and 
documentation for an Army base services contract. We obtained and 
analyzed fiscal year 1996-2006 data from GSA for EPLS, a system that 
contains governmentwide data on suspensions, debarments, and proposed 
debarments. We also obtained fiscal year 2003-2005 data on procurements 
from GSA's Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS- 
NG)[Footnote 2] that contains governmentwide data on agency contract 
awards and obligated funds. We conducted our work between June 2006 and 
October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Background: 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) generally governs most 
executive agencies' acquisitions. The FAR is issued and maintained 
jointly by the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of GSA, and the 
Administrator of NASA.[Footnote 3] However, agencies can supplement the 
FAR with agency-specific regulations. For example, Navy regulations 
include Navy/Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplements, a 
supplement to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation, which is, in 
turn, a supplement to the FAR. A few agencies such as the Federal 
Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration 
are not subject to the FAR, but have regulations that are similar in 
purpose to the FAR. 

Under FAR, contracting officers are responsible for ensuring contracts 
are awarded only to those contractors who are capable, responsible, and 
ethical.[Footnote 4] FAR, Part 9, prescribes policies, standards, and 
practices for determining contractor responsibility and requires that 
agency contracting officers make an affirmative determination of 
responsibility before contract award. 

Responsibility determinations include an assessment of a number of 
specific areas including a contractor's technical capability, past 
performance, financial capability, and business ethics and integrity. 
The contracting officer may also use information from pre-award surveys 
conducted by an outside agency, such as the Defense Contract Management 
Agency. 

There are a number of tools, such as the EPLS and the Central 
Contractor Registration System (CCR), to assist contracting officers in 
obtaining information and determining responsibility. The EPLS is a web-
based listing of those entities that are suspended, debarred, or 
proposed for debarment[Footnote 5] and is maintained by GSA. 

The contracting officer is required to check the contractor's name or 
other identifying information against EPLS data to determine if the 
contractor is eligible to receive a contract.[Footnote 6] 

The CCR is the primary contractor registration database for the U.S. 
federal government. CCR collects, validates, stores, and disseminates 
data in support of agency acquisition missions, including federal 
agency contract and assistance awards. The FAR requires prospective 
federal government contractors to register in CCR in order to be 
awarded contracts by the federal government.[Footnote 7] In September 
2006, these two tools were integrated through the release of EPLS 
Version 3. The new system pulls available data from CCR when the agency 
user enters a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. 

Summary of Findings: 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Governs Responsibility Determinations: 

Agencies base their policies and practices for making responsibility 
determinations on the FAR and their own supplements to the FAR. The FAR 
specifies a number of factors to consider in making responsibility 
determinations, but it does not require any particular type of 
background check.[Footnote 8] Criminal background checks are neither 
required by the FAR nor prohibited in making responsibility 
determinations. 

Although procedures for making responsibility determinations do vary 
among agencies, contracting officers we spoke with generally said they: 

* check the EPLS for debarments or suspensions, 

* conduct pre-award surveys for larger contracts, and: 

* document other aspects of the contractor's ability to perform the 
contract, such as the contractors' technical, financial, and ethical 
capacity to perform the work required. 

Agency officials and contracting officers stated that they rely on past 
performance of the contractor to determine the extent of documentation 
needed to determine responsibility. 

However, according to agency officials, if contracting officers want a 
criminal background check completed, they would need to request it 
through their agency investigative components, such as in the office of 
Inspector General. Apart from determining responsibility, a criminal 
background check could be needed as a condition of the contract if the 
work under the contract required contractor personnel to have access to 
federally controlled facilities or federal information 
systems.[Footnote 9] As another example, contractors or contractor 
personnel may be required to undergo a criminal background check, 
according to officials, if the work requires a National Security 
clearance. National Security clearances include checks of criminal 
databases as well as other background investigations. Agency officials 
we spoke with stated that neither of these background checks is 
normally a part of the contracting officer's determination of 
responsibility. 

Contracting Officers Use EPLS to Determine Eligibility: 

The FAR requires contracting officers to determine whether prospective 
contractors are eligible (not suspended, debarred, or proposed for 
debarment) to receive a contract as part of determining responsibility 
before awarding the contract.[Footnote 10] Contracting officers stated 
they generally search the EPLS by using (1) an identifying number such 
as the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) or a Taxpayer 
Identification Number, and/or (2) the name of either the firm or an 
individual. 

A 2005 GAO report[Footnote 11] identified several limitations with 
reporting data on suspensions, debarments and administrative 
agreements: 

* an identifying number such as the DUNS was not a required field when 
officials added suspension and debarment data to the EPLS; 

* there was no common forum for sharing information on administrative 
agreements and compelling reason waivers;[Footnote 12] and: 

* searches using names might not identify an excluded contractor or 
person because of name changes. 

GAO recommendations included making a contractor identification number 
a required data element in reporting suspensions and debarments and 
providing information about administrative agreements to contracting 
officers. As we noted above, and in response to the reported 
limitations, GSA released an updated version of EPLS in September 2006 
that provides a required data field for the DUNS number and pulls in 
data from the CCR system. The Interagency Suspension and Debarment 
Committee is discussing how to make information on administrative 
agreements more readily available to agencies. 

Enclosure I contains data you asked for on the number of suspensions, 
debarments, and proposed debarments from the four agencies. The data we 
reviewed from the 1996-2006 time period did not show any trends. 

Data on Instances of Previous Fraud by Contractor Principals Not 
Readily Available: 

According to officials, agencies receive allegations of irregularities 
from many sources including contracting officers, oversight 
organizations such as the Defense Contract Management Agency, agency or 
contractor employees, competitors, other federal agencies, 
whistleblower cases, and hotlines. Agencies assign investigations of 
fraud to criminal investigative units within the within the agencies, 
such as the office of Inspector General. The investigative offices 
coordinate with offices of General Counsel to report indictments or 
evidence to initiate suspensions; they report convictions for debarment 
proceedings. According to agency officials, detailed information on 
whether investigations include employees or principals of the company 
or whether the parties had a prior criminal history may be contained in 
the case files if it is a part of the information collected in 
developing the investigation. For example, an official at DOJ told us 
that prior criminal history checks are a routine part of case 
development. However, the case files are narrative in nature and, 
therefore, obtaining the information requires a case-by-case analysis. 

Two agencies, DOJ and GSA, did perform such a review and were able to 
tell us in addition to the number of investigations, the number of 
principals and the number of principals with prior convictions. 
Together the agencies reported six principals with prior criminal 
histories who had been investigated for fraud over the 3-year period. 
DHS and DOD officials said that they were unable to provide the number 
of principals who had previous criminal histories within the timeframe 
of this work. 

Table 1 shows the number of cases of fraud by agency closed in fiscal 
years 2003 - 2006 from the Office of Inspector General investigative 
offices at DHS, GSA, DOJ, and DOD. 

Table 1: Closed Investigations for Fiscal Years 2003-2006: 

Agency: DHS; 
Closed Investigations: 41. 

Agency: GSA; 
Closed Investigations: 33. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Closed Investigations: 33. 

Agency: DOD[A]: Defense Criminal Investigative Service; 
Closed Investigations: 856. 

Agency: DOD[A]: Air Force; 
Closed Investigations: 536. 

Agency: DOD[A]: Department of Navy; 
Closed Investigations: 394. 

Agency: DOD[A]: Army; 
Closed Investigations: 168. 

[A] We do not total cases for DOD because joint cases are counted in 
each component, and we could not obtain an unduplicated total. 

[End of table] 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD, DHS, DOJ and GSA. DOD, DHS, 
and GSA provided technical comments which we incorporated as 
appropriate. DOJ stated that it did not have any comments. 

As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the 
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it 
until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time we will send 
copies to the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Justice, and 
Homeland Security; the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration; appropriate congressional committees; and other 
interested parties. We will also make this report available at no 
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Major contributors to this report included Michael J. Hesse, Letisha T. 
Jenkins, John A. Krump, Carol T. Mebane, and Carol Dawn Petersen. If 
you have any questions about the report, please contact me at (202) 512-
4841. 

Signed by: 

Cristina T. Chaplain: 
Acting Director, 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

Enclosure I: 

Briefing to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate: 

Making Responsibility Determinations: 

Objectives: 

To ensure that agencies award contracts to those who are technically, 
financially, and ethically responsible, you asked GAO to: 

Identify agency policies and practices for making contractor 
responsibility assessments and under what conditions criminal 
background checks are conducted. 

Determine how the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) is used in making 
responsibility assessments and identify planned improvements to the 
system. 

Determine what is known about the number of fraud investigations in 
which the contractor or principals had a prior criminal background. 

Scope and Methodology: 

You asked us to address these objectives in the following agencies: 

* Department of Defense (DOD): 

* General Services Administration (GSA): 

* Department of Justice (DOJ): 

* Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 

We reviewed appropriate sections of: 

* Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): 

* Agency supplements for DOD, GSA, DOJ, and DHS: 

We discussed our objectives with agency officials from offices of 
policy and general counsel (debarment officials). 

We also obtained data on fraud investigations and discussed agency 
efforts to track whether the subjects of these investigations had prior 
criminal backgrounds with officials from offices of Inspectors General, 
Criminal Investigative Divisions. 

In addition, we: 

Reviewed: 

* Relevant Comptroller General decisions: 

* Army documentation for base services contract for Redstone Arsenal: 

Obtained and analyzed data from GSA: 

* Federal Procurement Data System Next Generation (FPDS-NG): containing 
governmentwide data on agency contract awards and obligated funds (2003-
2005): 

* EPLS: containing governmentwide data on suspensions, debarments and 
proposed debarments (1996-2006): 

Background: Contracting Dollars for Fiscal Year 2005: 

* FPDS-NG reports $377.1 billion in contracting for fiscal year 2005. 

* DOD's share over 70 percent is about $268.9 billion. 

* Other agencies in this review, GSA, DHS, and DOJ comprise about $28 
billion. 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure]  

Background: Contracting Dollars for Four Federal Agencies for Fiscal 
Years 2003-2005: 

[See PDF for Image] 

[End of table] 

Background: Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) generally governs most executive 
agencies' acquisitions. 

* Agencies can supplement the FAR with agency-specific regulations. 

* A few agencies are not subject to the FAR but have regulations that 
are similar in purpose to the FAR: 

- Federal Aviation Administration: 

- Transportation Security Administration: 

FAR is issued and maintained jointly by Secretary of Defense, the 
Administrator of GSA, and the Administrator of NASA under the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 USC 405, 421). 

FAR Part 9 prescribes policies, standards, and practices for 
determining contractor responsibility and requires that agency 
contracting officers make an affirmative determination of 
responsibility before contract award. 

Responsibility determinations include an assessment of a number of 
specific areas including a contractor's: 

* technical capability, 

* past performance, 

* financial capability, and: 

* business ethics and integrity. 

The contracting officer should check the EPLS to determine whether the 
contractor is prohibited (suspended, debarred, proposed for debarment, 
or otherwise ineligible) from receiving an award. 

FAR Part 9 also regulates debarments and suspensions. 

Agencies may suspend or debar contractors for a number of reasons 
including: 

* fraudulent or criminal offenses associated with contracts such as 
embezzlement, theft, or bribery; or: 

* any serious or compelling reason that affects contractor 
responsibility including failure to comply with the requirements of the 
Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 or the Clean Air and Water Acts. 

Suspensions are generally for a period not to exceed 12 months. 
Generally, debarments may be for up to 3 years. 

A debarment or suspension precludes any government agency from awarding 
a contract to the debarred or suspended entity except for a compelling 
reason as determined by the agency head. 

Background: Excluded Parties List System: 

The EPLS is a Web-based listing of debarred, suspended or otherwise 
excluded contractors and other entities. The list is maintained by GSA. 

Each agency has a representative on the Interagency Suspension and 
Debarment Committee, a policy-making body in the Office of Management 
and Budget. 

Agency Policies and Practices in Making Responsibility Determinations: 

DOD, GSA, DOJ, and DHS officials all cited the FAR as providing the 
basis for responsibility determinations. 

Each agency has its own supplemental regulations that provide agency 
specific procedures. 

Agencies or their components may also have standardized operating 
procedures they follow: 

* Some agency components such as the Army or Transportation Security 
Administration use checklists of required steps and documentation that 
outline FAR or agency regulations and operating procedures. 

* Some components reported that they conduct compliance reviews to 
assure that contract files are properly documented. 

Procedures vary among agencies, but contracting officers reported that 
in general, they: 

* check EPLS for debarments or suspensions, 

* conduct pre-award surveys for larger contracts, and: 

* document other aspects of the contractor's ability to perform the 
contract. 

Contracting officers also stated that they rely on the past performance 
of the contractor to determine the extent of documentation needed. 

Background Checks in Responsibility Determinations: 

The FAR defines a number of factors to consider and address in making 
responsibility determinations but does not mandate any particular type 
of background check. 

Neither the FAR nor agency supplemental regulations require criminal 
background checks for contractors or principals as a part of 
responsibility determinations. 

Criminal background checks are not prohibited; however, 

* according to agency officials, if contracting officers want a 
criminal background check, they would need to request it through an 
office such as the Inspector General with authority to access the 
relevant databases. 

Other Background Checks: 

Implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 could 
require that contractor personnel who have access to federally 
controlled facilities or federal information systems undergo a criminal 
background check. 

The procedures and rules amend FAR Parts 2, 4, 7, and 52. 

The addition does not change responsibility determinations for contract 
award. 

Officials we talked to reported that agencies that award contracts to 
do work involving national security or intelligence may require 
additional background checks. 

Contractors may be required to obtain national security clearances for 
their principals, facilities, and personnel to respond to a 
solicitation. 

National security clearances require checks of criminal databases as 
well as other background investigation. 

Use of EPLS in Determining Responsibility: 

FAR requires contracting officers to determine whether prospective 
contractors are eligible to receive a contract as part of an initial 
determination of responsibility and again before awarding the contract. 

Contracting officers stated they generally search the EPLS in either of 
two ways: 

* by an identifying number if it was provided to the database: 

- Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS): 

- Taxpayer Identification Number: 

* by name of either the firm or an individual. 

Excluded Parties List System Data for Selected Agencies: 

FY 1996-2006 Suspensions, Debarments and Proposed Debarments for DOD: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

FY 1996-2006 Suspensions, Debarments and Proposed Debarments for GSA: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Suspensions, Debarments, and Proposed Debarments by Agency from 1996 to 
2006: 

DOD; 
1996: 1,045; 
1997: 1,569; 
1998: 1,769; 
1999: 1,254; 
2000: 1,192; 
2001: 1,069; 
2002: 1,262; 
2003: 2,081; 
2004: 2,104; 
2005: 810; 
2006: 871. 

DOJ; 
1996: 0; 
1997: 0; 
1998: 2; 
1999: 1; 
2000: 4; 
2001: 0; 
2002: 4; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 2; 
2006: 2. 

GSA; 
1996: 363; 
1997: 240; 
1998: 144; 
1999: 101; 
2000: 147; 
2001: 217; 
2002: 242; 
2003: 326; 
2004: 244; 
2005: 243; 
2006: 241. 

DHS*; 
1996: 0; 
1997: 0; 
1998: 2; 
1999: 13; 
2000: 9; 
2001: 5; 
2002: 10; 
2003: 13; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0. 

* Although DHS was not created until 2003, data include information 
from the legacy agencies that now comprise DHS. 

[End of table]  

Planned Modifications to EPLS to Address Identified Limitations: 

A 2005 GAO report (GAO-05-479) identified several limitations with 
reporting data on suspensions and debarments and administrative 
agreements: 

* an identifying number such as the DUNS was not a required field when 
officials added suspension and debarment data to EPLS; 

* there was no common forum for sharing information on administrative 
agreements or compelling reason waivers; and: 

* searches using names might not identify an excluded contractor or 
person because of name changes. 

GAO recommendations included making a contractor identification number 
a required data element in reporting debarments. 

GSA released EPLS version 3 in September 2006. Version 3 requires 
inclusion of the DUNS number and pulls information from the CCR. 

The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee is discussing how to 
make information on administrative agreements and compelling reason 
determinations more readily available. 

Investigating Fraud Allegations: 

According to officials, agencies receive allegations of irregularities 
from many sources including: 

* contracting officers, 

* oversight organizations such as Defense Contract Management Agency, 

* agency or contractor employees, 

* competitors, 

* other federal agencies, and: 

* hotlines. 

Agencies assign investigations of fraud to offices with investigative 
units such as offices of Inspectors General. 

The offices of the Inspectors General coordinate with offices of 
General Counsel to report indictments or evidence to initiate 
suspensions; they report convictions for debarment proceedings. 

Contractor Principals with Prior Criminal Backgrounds: 

Agencies we reviewed do not uniformly keep data on prior criminal 
backgrounds, if any, of contractor principals investigated for fraud or 
make a distinction in their investigations about whether the allegation 
involves a principal or an employee. 

Fiscal year 2003 - 2006 to date: 

* DOD: information on principals not readily available* 

- DCIS: 856 investigations: 

- OSI: 536 investigations: 

- NCIS: 394 investigations: 

- CID: 168 investigations. 

DHS - 41 investigations; information on principals not readily 
available. 

GSA - 33 investigations; 5 principals with prior criminal histories: 

DOJ - 33 investigations; 1 principal with prior criminal history: 

* Each DOD component includes joint investigations in totals. 

[End of section] 

(120562): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] We were asked to obtain data specifically on fraud investigations 
by contractors and the number of contractor principals who had previous 
criminal convictions. We were not asked to identify the nature of the 
previous criminal convictions to be reported, for example, such as 
those for nonpayment of taxes or product substitution. Only two 
agencies, DOJ and GSA, were able to provide us with data on the numbers 
of contractors with previous convictions. 

[2] FPDS-NG is a computer-based system for collecting, developing, and 
disseminating procurement data to the Congress, the Executive Branch, 
and the private sector. The Federal Procurement Data Center, managed by 
GSA, oversees the system. Fiscal Year 2005 information was the latest 
available data at the time we completed our work. 

[3] Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)1.103(b) (2006). 

[4] FAR 9.104-1. 

[5] Suspensions temporarily disqualify a contractor from doing business 
with the government for a specified period of time--generally not to 
exceed 12 months. Debarments preclude a contractor from receiving 
further government contracts or assistance from any federal agency and 
generally may be for up to three years. 

[6] FAR 9.405(d)(1) and (4). 

[7] FAR 4.1102(a). 

[8] FAR 9.104-1. 

[9] Criminal background checks could be required to implement Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive 12. This Directive sets forth policy 
for a common identification standard for federal employees and 
contractors who need physical access to secure federal facilities, and 
logical access to federally controlled information systems. In order to 
enhance security, increase government efficiency, reduce identity 
fraud, and protect personal privacy, the directive establishes a 
mandatory, governmentwide standard for secure and reliable forms of 
identification issued by the federal government to its employees and 
contractors. 

[10] FAR 9.104-1 and 9.405(d)(1) and (4). 

[11] Federal Procurement: Additional Data Reporting Could Improve the 
Suspension and Debarment Process, GAO-05-479 (Washington, D.C.: July 
29, 2005). 

[12] Administrative agreements are actions to be taken by a contractor 
in place of other remedies such as suspension or debarments. A 
contractor might agree to pay a fine or institute an ethics program, 
for example, in order to remain eligible to receive contracts. A 
compelling reason determination, which is an exception that allows the 
award of a contract to a debarred or suspended entity, may be sought 
from the head of an agency if there is an urgent need for supplies or 
services or if the debarred or suspended contractor is the only known 
source.  

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: