This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-741T 
entitled 'Defense Transformation: DOD's Proposed Civilian Personnel 
System and Governmentwide Human Capital Reform' which was released on 
May 01, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:00 a.m. EDT:

Thursday, May 1, 2003:

Defense Transformation:

DOD's Proposed Civilian Personnel System and Governmentwide Human 
Capital Reform:

Statement of David M. Walker 
Comptroller General of the United States:

GAO-03-741T:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-741T, testimony before the Committee on Armed 
Services, House of Representatives

Why GAO Did This Study:

DOD is in the midst of a major transformation effort including a number 
of initiatives to transform its forces and improve its business 
operations.  DOD’s legislative initiative would provide for major 
changes in civilian and military human capital management, make major 
adjustments in the DOD acquisition process, affect DOD’s organization 
structure, and change DOD’s reporting requirements to Congress, among 
other things.

DOD’s proposed National Security Personnel System (NSPS) would provide 
for wide-ranging changes in DOD’s civilian personnel pay and 
performance management, collective bargaining, rightsizing, and a 
variety of other human capital areas.  The NSPS would enable DOD to 
develop and implement a consistent DOD-wide civilian personnel system.  

This testimony provides GAO’s preliminary observations on aspects of 
DOD’s legislative proposal to make changes to its civilian personnel 
system and discusses the implications of such changes for 
governmentwide human capital reform.  This testimony summarizes many of 
the issues discussed in detail before the Subcommittee on Civil Service 
and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives on April 29, 2003.

What GAO Found:

Many of the basic principles underlying DOD’s civilian human capital 
proposal have merit and deserve serious consideration.  The federal 
personnel system is clearly broken in critical respects—designed for a 
time and workforce of an earlier era and not able to meet the needs and 
challenges of our current rapidly changing and knowledge-based 
environment.  DOD’s proposal recognizes that, as GAO has stated and the 
experiences of leading public sector organizations here and abroad have 
found, strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of 
any serious government transformation effort.  

More generally, from a conceptual standpoint, GAO strongly supports the 
need to expand broad banding and pay for performance-based systems in 
the federal government.  However, moving too quickly or prematurely at 
DOD or elsewhere, can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong.  
This could also serve to severely set back the legitimate need to move 
to a more performance- and results-based system for the federal 
government as a whole.  Thus, while it is imperative that we take steps 
to better link employee pay and other personnel decisions to 
performance across the federal government, how it is done, when it is 
done, and the basis on which it is done, can make all the difference in 
whether or not we are successful.  One key need is to modernize 
performance management systems in executive agencies so that they are 
capable of supporting more performance-based pay and other personnel 
decisions.  Unfortunately, based on GAO’s past work, most existing 
federal performance appraisal systems, including a vast majority of 
DOD’s systems, are not currently designed to support a meaningful 
performance-based pay system.

The critical questions to consider are: should DOD and/or other 
agencies be granted broad-based exemptions from existing law, and if 
so, on what basis?  Do DOD and other agencies have the institutional 
infrastructure in place to make effective use of any new authorities?  
This institutional infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a human 
capital planning process that integrates the agency’s human capital 
policies, strategies, and programs with its program goals and mission, 
and desired outcomes; the capabilities to effectively develop and 
implement a new human capital system; and, importantly, a set of 
adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate 
accountability mechanisms to ensure the fair, effective, and credible 
implementation of a new system.  

In GAO’s view, as an alternative to DOD’s proposed approach, Congress 
should consider providing governmentwide broad banding and pay for 
performance authorities that DOD and other federal agencies can use 
provided they can demonstrate that they have a performance management 
system in place that meets certain statutory standards, that can be 
certified to by a qualified and independent party, such as OPM, within 
prescribed timeframes.  Congress should also consider establishing a 
governmentwide fund whereby agencies, based on a sound business case, 
could apply for funding to modernize their performance management 
systems and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards to 
prevent abuse.  This approach would serve as a positive step to promote 
high-performing organizations throughout the federal government while 
avoiding further human capital policy fragmentation.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-741T.

To view the full testimony, click on the link above.  For more 
information, contact Derek Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or 
stewartd@gao.gov. 

[End of section]

Chairman Hunter, Mr. Skelton, and Members of the Committee:

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to provide our preliminary 
observations on the Department of Defense's (DOD) proposed National 
Security Personnel System (NSPS) included as part of the Defense 
Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003. As you know, I 
testified on Tuesday on the NSPS before the Subcommittee on Civil 
Service and Agency Organization, House Committee on Government 
Reform.[Footnote 1] We have provided the statement prepared for that 
hearing to the Armed Services Committee for the record for today's 
hearing. Therefore, in the interests of brevity this morning, I will 
highlight some of the major points covered in that statement.

DOD is in the midst of a major transformation and it has undertaken a 
number of related initiatives to transform its forces and fundamentally 
improve its business operations. As part of DOD's transformation 
process, the Secretary of Defense and senior civilian and military 
leaders have committed to adopt a capabilities-based approach to 
acquisition planning and to improve the linkage between overall 
strategy and individual investments. At the same time, DOD has embarked 
on a series of efforts to achieve strategic savings and improve its 
business processes, including strengthened financial management, 
support infrastructure reforms to include base closures, information 
technology modernization, logistics reengineering, and more strategic 
human capital management. In that regard, I am pleased to serve as an 
observer to the Defense Business Practice Implementation Board. 
Notwithstanding these ongoing efforts, GAO has reported a range of DOD 
challenges for many years. Importantly, DOD also is covered by 9 of the 
25 areas on our January 2003 high-risk list, including the area of 
strategic human capital management.

The proposed Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003 
represents a substantive legislative proposal that has far-reaching 
implications for the way DOD is managed. DOD's legislative initiative 
would, among other things, provide for major changes in civilian and 
military human capital management, make important adjustments to the 
DOD acquisition process, affect DOD's organization structure, and 
change DOD's reporting requirements to Congress. While my written 
statement today covers just the proposed civilian personnel reforms, I 
have some serious concerns with other sections of the proposed 
legislation especially in connection with the acquisition reform and 
reporting requirements parts of the DOD proposal, and I look forward to 
discussing those concerns with the Committee.

DOD's NSPS proposal recognizes that, as GAO has stated and the 
experiences of leading public sector organizations here and abroad have 
found, strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of 
any serious government transformation effort. Many of the basic 
principles underlying DOD's civilian human capital proposals have merit 
and deserve serious consideration. The federal personnel system is 
clearly broken in critical respects--designed for a time and workforce 
of an earlier era and not able to meet the needs and challenges of our 
current rapidly changing and knowledge-based environment. The proposed 
NSPS would provide for wide-ranging changes in DOD's civilian personnel 
pay and performance management, collective bargaining, rightsizing, and 
a variety of other human capital areas. The NSPS would enable DOD to 
develop and implement a consistent, DOD-wide civilian personnel system 
bringing together the many disparate systems that exist today. DOD 
officials have said that the Department's current thinking is that NSPS 
will be based on the work done by DOD's Human Resources Best Practices 
Task Force. The Task Force reviewed federal personnel demonstration 
projects and selected alternative personnel systems to identify 
practices that it considered promising for a DOD civilian human 
resources strategy. These practices were outlined in a April 2, 2003, 
Federal Register notice asking for comment on DOD's plan to integrate 
all of its current science and technology reinvention laboratory 
demonstration projects under a single human capital framework 
consistent with the best practices DOD identified.[Footnote 2]

Given the massive size of DOD and the nature and scope of the changes 
that are being considered, DOD's proposal also has important precedent-
setting implications for federal human capital management in general, 
and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in particular. As a 
result, NSPS should be considered in that context. Several critical 
questions are raised by the Department's proposal, including should DOD 
and/or other agencies be granted broad-based exemptions from existing 
law, and if so, on what basis; and whether they have the institutional 
infrastructure in place to make effective use of the new authorities. 
This institutional infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a human 
capital planning process that integrates the agency's human capital 
policies, strategies, and programs with its program goals and mission, 
and desired outcomes; the capabilities to effectively develop and 
implement a new human capital system; and importantly, the existence of 
a modern, effective, and credible performance management system that 
includes adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and 
appropriate accountability mechanisms, to ensure the fair, effective, 
and non-discriminatory implementation of a new system. Based on our 
experience, while the DOD leadership has the intent and the ability to 
implement the needed infrastructure, it is not consistently in place 
across DOD at the present time.

I believe that it would be more prudent and appropriate for Congress to 
address certain authorities that DOD is seeking on a governmentwide 
basis and in a manner that assures that appropriate performance 
management systems and safeguards are in place before the new 
authorities are implemented in any respective agency. This approach 
would accelerate needed human capital reform throughout the government 
in a manner that assures reasonable consistency on key principles 
within the overall civilian workforce. It also would provide agencies 
with reasonable flexibility while incorporating key safeguards to help 
maximize the chances of success and minimize the chances of abuse or 
significant litigation.

Adequate Safeguards, Reasonable Transparency, Appropriate 
Accountability, and Governmentwide Reform:

There is growing agreement on the need to better link individual pay to 
performance. Establishing such linkages is essential if we expect to 
maximize the performance and assure the accountability of the federal 
government for the benefit of the American people. As a result, from a 
conceptual standpoint, we strongly support the need to expand broad 
banding approaches and pay for performance-based systems in the federal 
government. However, moving too quickly or prematurely at DOD or 
elsewhere can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong. This 
could also serve to severely set back the legitimate need to move to a 
more performance-and results-based system for the federal government as 
a whole. Thus, while it is imperative that we take steps to better link 
employee pay to performance across the federal government, how it is 
done, when it is done, and the basis on which it is done can make all 
the difference in whether or not such efforts are successful. In our 
view, one key need is to modernize performance management systems in 
executive agencies so that they are capable of adequately supporting 
more performance-based pay and other personnel decisions. 
Unfortunately, based on GAO's past work, most existing federal 
performance appraisal systems, including a vast majority of DOD's 
systems, are not designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay 
system.

At the request of Representative Jo Ann Davis and Senator George 
Voinovich, we identified key practices leading public sector 
organizations both here in the United States and abroad have used in 
their performance management systems to link organizational goals to 
individual performance and create a "line of sight" between an 
individual's activities and organizational results.[Footnote 3] These 
practices can help agencies develop and implement performance 
management systems with the attributes necessary to effectively support 
pay for performance.

The bottom line, however, is that in order to implement any additional 
performance-based pay flexibility for broad based employee groups, 
agencies should have to demonstrate that they have modern, effective, 
credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance management systems 
in place with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency 
and appropriate accountability mechanisms, to ensure fairness and 
prevent politicalization and abuse. As a result, Congress should 
consider establishing statutory standards that an agency must have in 
place before it can implement broad banding or a more performance-based 
pay program.

At the request of Congressman Danny Davis, we developed an initial list 
of possible safeguards for Congress to consider to help ensure that any 
pay for performance systems in the government are fair, effective, and 
credible:

* Assure that the agency's performance management systems (1) link to 
the agency's strategic plan, related goals, and desired outcomes, and 
(2) result in meaningful distinctions in individual employee 
performance. This should include consideration of critical competencies 
and achievement of concrete results.

* Involve employees, their representatives, and other stakeholders in 
the design of the system, including having employees directly involved 
in validating any related competencies, as appropriate.

* Assure that certain predecisional internal safeguards exist to help 
achieve the consistency, equity, nondiscrimination, and 
nonpoliticization of the performance management process (e.g., 
independent reasonableness reviews by Human Capital Offices and/or 
Offices of Opportunity and Inclusiveness or their equivalent in 
connection with the establishment and implementation of a performance 
appraisal system, as well as reviews of performance rating decisions, 
pay determinations, and promotion actions before they are finalized to 
ensure that they are merit-based; internal grievance processes to 
address employee complaints; and pay panels whose membership is 
predominately made up of career officials who would consider the 
results of the performance appraisal process and other information in 
connection with final pay decisions).

* Assure reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 
mechanisms in connection with the results of the performance management 
process (e.g., publish overall results of performance management and 
pay decisions while protecting individual confidentiality, and report 
periodically on internal assessments and employee survey results).

The above items should help serve as a starting point for Congress to 
consider in crafting possible statutory safeguards for executive 
agencies' performance management systems. OPM would then issue guidance 
implementing the legislatively defined safeguards. The effort to 
develop such safeguards could be part of a broad-based expanded pay for 
performance authority under which whole agencies and/or employee groups 
could adopt broad-banding and move to more pay for performance oriented 
systems if certain conditions are met. Specifically, an agency would 
have to demonstrate, and OPM would have to certify, that a modern, 
effective, credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance 
management system with adequate safeguards, including reasonable 
transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, is in place to 
support more performance-based pay and related personnel decisions, 
before the agency could implement a new system. OPM should be required 
to act on any individual certifications within prescribed time frames 
(e.g., 30-60 days).

This alternative approach would allow for a broader-based yet more 
conceptually consistent approach to linking federal employee pay and 
other personnel decisions to performance. It would help to assure that 
agencies have the reasonable flexibility they need to modernize their 
human capital policies and practices, while maximizing the chances of 
success and minimizing the potential for abuse. This alternative 
approach would also facilitate a phased-implementation approach 
throughout government.

Congress should also consider establishing a governmentwide fund 
whereby agencies, based on a sound business case, could apply for funds 
to modernize their performance management systems and ensure those 
systems have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. This approach would 
serve as a positive step to promote high-performing organizations 
throughout the federal government while avoiding human capital policy 
fragmentation within the executive branch.

Observations on Selected Provisions of the Proposed NSPS:

With almost 700,000 civilian employees on its payroll, DOD is the 
second largest federal employer of civilians in the nation, after the 
Postal Service. Defense civilian personnel, among other things, develop 
policy, provide intelligence, manage finances, and acquire and maintain 
weapon systems. NSPS is intended to be a major component of DOD's 
efforts to more strategically manage its workforce and respond to 
current and emerging challenges. This morning I will highlight several 
of the key provisions of NSPS that in our view are most in need of 
close scrutiny as Congress considers the DOD proposal:

* The DOD proposal would allow the Secretary of Defense to jointly 
prescribe regulations with the Director of OPM to establish NSPS. 
However, unlike the legislation creating the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), the Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act 
would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement for joint 
issuance of regulations if, in his or her judgment, it is "essential to 
the national security" which is not defined in the act. Therefore, the 
act would, in substance, provide the Secretary of Defense with 
significant independent authority to develop a separate and largely 
autonomous human capital system for DOD.

* As I have noted, performance-based pay flexibility for broad-based 
employee groups should be grounded in performance management systems 
that are capable of supporting pay and related decisions. DOD's 
personnel demonstration projects clearly provide helpful insights and 
valuable lessons learned in connection with broad banding and pay for 
performance efforts. At the same time these projects and related DOD 
efforts involve less than 10 percent of DOD's civilian workforce and 
expanding these approaches to the entire department will require 
significant effort and likely need to be implemented in phases over 
several years.

* Similarly, the NSPS would increase the current total allowable annual 
compensation limit for senior executives up to the Vice President's 
total annual compensation. The Homeland Security Act provided that OPM, 
with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, certify 
that an agency has performance appraisal systems that, as designed and 
applied, make meaningful distinctions based on relative performance 
before an agency is allowed to increase the annual compensation limit 
for senior executives. NSPS does not include such a certification 
provision. On the other hand, the Senior Executive Service needs to 
take the lead in matters related to pay for performance.

* The NSPS would include provisions intended to ensure collaboration 
with employee representatives in the planning, development, and 
implementation of a human resources management system. As discussed at 
the Civil Service and Agency Organization Subcommittee, Committee on 
Government Reform hearing on Tuesday, direct employee involvement in 
the development of the NSPS legislative proposal has thus far been 
limited. Moving forward, and aside from the specific statutory 
provisions on consultation, the active involvement of employees will be 
critical to the success of NSPS, or for any human capital reform for 
that matter.

* The legislation has a number of provisions designed to give DOD 
flexibility to help obtain key critical talent. These authorities give 
DOD considerable flexibility to obtain and compensate individuals and 
exempt them from several provisions of current law. While we have 
strongly endorsed providing agencies with additional tools and 
flexibilities to attract and retain needed talent, the broad exemption 
from some existing ethics and other personnel authorities without 
prescribed limits on their use raises some concern. Congress should 
consider building into the NSPS appropriate numerical or percentage 
limitations on the use of these provisions and basic safeguards to 
ensure such provisions are used appropriately.

* The NSPS proposal would provide DOD with a number of broad 
authorities related to rightsizing and organizational alignment. 
Authorities such as voluntary early retirements have proven to be 
effective tools in strategically managing the shape of the workforce. I 
have exercised the authority that Congress granted me to offer 
voluntary early retirements in GAO in both fiscal years 2002 and 2003 
as one element of our strategy to shape the GAO workforce. In DOD's 
case, while it has used existing authorities to mitigate the adverse 
effects of force reductions in the past, the Department's approach to 
those reductions was not oriented toward strategically shaping the 
makeup of the workforce. Given these problems, there is reason to be 
concerned that DOD may struggle to effectively manage additional 
authorities that may be provided. Importantly, the NSPS provisions 
would create an uneven playing field among agencies in competing for 
experienced talent.

* The legislation would also allow DOD to revise Reduction-in-Force 
(RIF) rules to place greater emphasis on an employee's performance. I 
conceptually support revised RIF procedures that involve much greater 
consideration of an employee's performance. However, as noted above, 
agencies must have the proper performance management systems in place 
to effectively and fairly implement such authorities. Furthermore, DOD 
proposes to lower the degree of preference provided to veterans under 
current law.

* The proposed NSPS would allow the Secretary, after consultation with 
the Merit Systems Protection Board, to prescribe regulations providing 
fair treatment in any appeals brought by DOD employees relating to 
their employment. The proposal states that the appeals procedures shall 
ensure due process protections and expeditious handling, to the maximum 
extent possible. This provision is substantially the same as a similar 
provision in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 allowing DHS to 
prescribe regulations for employee appeals related to their employment. 
Given the transparency of the federal system dispute resolution and its 
attendant case law, the rights and obligations of the various parties 
involved are well developed. It is critical that any due process 
changes that DOD would make under this authority are not only fair and 
efficient but, importantly, minimize any perception of unfairness.

Concluding Observations:

In summary, many of the basic principles underlying DOD's civilian 
human capital proposals have merit and deserve serious consideration. 
They are, however, unprecedented in their size, scope, and 
significance. As a result, they should be considered carefully--and not 
just from a DOD perspective. The DOD proposal has significant 
precedent-setting implications for the human capital area in government 
in general, and for OPM in particular.

The DOD civilian human capital proposal raises several critical 
questions both for DOD as well as for governmentwide policies and 
approaches. Should DOD and/or other federal agencies be granted broad-
based exemptions from existing law, and if so, on what basis? Does DOD 
have the institutional infrastructure in place to make effective use of 
the new authorities? Our work has shown that while progress is being 
made, additional efforts are needed by DOD to integrate its human 
capital planning process with the department's program goals and 
mission. The practices that have been shown to be critical to the 
effective use of flexibilities provide a validated roadmap for DOD and 
Congress to consider.[Footnote 4] We believe it would be more prudent 
and appropriate to approve the broad banding and pay for performance 
issues on a governmentwide basis. Nevertheless, if additional 
authorities are granted to DOD, Congress should consider establishing 
additional safeguards to ensure the fair, merit-based, transparent, and 
accountable implementation of NSPS. This includes addressing the issues 
I have raised in this statement.

As I have suggested, Congress should consider providing governmentwide 
broad banding and pay for performance authorities that DOD and other 
federal agencies can use provided they can demonstrate that they have a 
performance management system in place that meets certain statutory 
standards and can be certified to by a qualified and independent party, 
such as OPM. Congress should also consider establishing a 
governmentwide fund whereby agencies, based on a sound business case, 
could apply for funds to modernize their performance management systems 
and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards to prevent 
abuse. This would serve as a positive step to promote high-performing 
organizations throughout the federal government while avoiding further 
fragmentation within the executive branch in critical human capital 
policies and approaches.

We look forward to continuing to support Congress and work with DOD in 
addressing the vital transformation challenges it faces.

Chairman Hunter, Mr. Skelton, and Members of the Committee, this 
concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 
questions that you may have.

Contacts and Acknowledgments:

For further information on human capital issues at DOD, please contact 
Derek Stewart, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management on (202) 
512-5559 or at stewartd@gao.gov. For further information on 
governmentwide human capital issues, please contact J. Christopher 
Mihm, Director, Strategic Issues, on (202) 512-6806 or at 
mihmj@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 
included William Doherty, Clifton G. Douglas, Jr., Christine Fossett, 
Bruce Goddard, Judith Kordahl, Janice Lichty, Bob Lilly, Lisa Shames, 
Ellen Rubin, Edward H. Stephenson, Jr., Tiffany Tanner, Marti Tracy, 
and Michael Volpe.

FOOTNOTES

[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Transformation: Preliminary 
Observations on DOD's Proposed Civilian Personnel Reforms, GAO-03-717T 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2003). 

[2] 68 Fed. Reg. 16,119-16,142 (2003).

[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating 
a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational 
Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Transformation: Preliminary 
Observations on DOD's Proposed Civilian Personnel Reforms, GAO-03-717T 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2003).

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
:

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. General Accounting 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
:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: