Skip to main content

Recovery Act: Contract Oversight Activities of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and Observations on Contract Spending in Selected States

GAO-10-216R Published: Nov 30, 2009. Publicly Released: Dec 01, 2009.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was enacted on February 17, 2009, to help stimulate the United States economy by creating new jobs, as well as saving existing ones, and investing in projects that will provide long-term economic benefits. Estimates show that the Recovery Act's combined spending and tax provisions will cost $787 billion over 10 years--about $207 billion in tax reductions plus about $580 billion in additional federal spending. These funds are being provided directly to federal agencies and also distributed to states, localities, other entities, and individuals through a combination of formula and competitive grants and direct assistance. About $280 billion of the funds will be administered through state and local governments. The Recovery Act delineates an important set of responsibilities for the accountability community. The inspectors general across government are expected to audit the programs, grants, and projects funded under the Recovery Act, both within their particular agency or department and collectively. To address the collective oversight at the federal level, the Recovery Act established the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, the Recovery Act requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to perform bimonthly reviews of the use of funds by selected states and localities and to comment on estimates of jobs created or retained in the quarterly reports of Recovery Act fund recipients. GAO was asked to report on the activities of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (the Board), as well as on contract-related information collected from the work GAO has completed thus far in 16 states and the District of Columbia. This report provides GAO's observations to date on the extent to which (1) the Board is monitoring federal agency contract spending on Recovery Act-related contracts and (2) selected states are using competitive procedures in awarding contracts using Recovery Act funds. To determine the actions taken by the Board, GAO met with representatives of the Board to discuss the initiatives they have taken to monitor the number and types of contracts issued by federal agencies for the Recovery Act and their plans to assess the extent to which laws and regulations are being complied with or circumvented. GAO reviewed available documentation related to the Board's initiatives. The agency also reviewed data reported by federal agencies and states through the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation and www.recovery.gov (Recovery.gov) related to federal contracts awarded using Recovery Act funds. To provide observations on selected states' use of competitive procedures in awarding contracts for Recovery Act funds, GAO met with state procurement officials to discuss the contract award process for a sample of contracts in 16 states and the District of Columbia. The contracts GAO discussed with state officials GAOre selected based on a combination ofseveral factors--such as dollar value, program risk, and project status--that varied among the states; therefore, information reported about contracts cannot be generalized. GAO conducted this performance audit from August 2009 through November 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The standards require that GAO plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for its findings and conclusions based on its audit objectives. GAO believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for its findings and conclusions based on its audit objectives.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

AccountabilityAudit oversightAuditing standardsAuditsContract oversightContract performanceEconomic growthEconomic policiesFederal fundsFederal grantsFund auditsFunds managementGrant monitoringGrantsGrants to local governmentsGrants to statesMonitoringOversight committeesReports management