This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-142T 
entitled 'Department of Homeland Security: Risk Assessment and Enhanced 
Oversight Needed to Manage Reliance on Contractors' which was released 
on October 17, 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. 

Testimony Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, United States Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: 

Wednesday, October 17, 2007: 

Department Of Homeland Security: 

Risk Assessment and Enhanced Oversight Needed to Manage Reliance on 
Contractors: 

Statement of John P. Hutton, Director: 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

GAO-08-142T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-142T, a testimony before the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
obligated $1.2 billion to procure four types of professional and 
management support services. While contracting for such services can 
help DHS meet its needs, using contractors to provide services that 
closely support inherently governmental functions increases the risk of 
government decisions being influenced by, rather than independent from, 
contractor judgments. 

This testimony summarizes our September 2007 report to this Committee 
and others and focuses on (1) the types of professional and management 
support services DHS has contracted for and the circumstances that 
drove its contracting decisions, and (2) DHS’s consideration and 
management of risk when contracting for such services. 

GAO analyzed 117 statements of work and 9 case studies in detail for 
selected contracts awarded in fiscal year 2005 by the Coast Guard, the 
Office of Procurement Operations, and the Transportation Security 
Administration. 

What GAO Found: 

A broad range of program-related and administrative activities was 
performed under the four types of professional and management support 
services contracts we reviewed—program management and support, 
engineering and technical, other professional, and other management 
support. DHS decisions to contract for these types of services were 
largely driven by the need for staff and expertise to get programs and 
operations up and running. While DHS has identified core mission 
critical occupations and plans to reduce skill gaps in core and key 
competencies, it is unclear whether this will inform the department’s 
use of contractors for services that closely support the performance of 
inherently governmental functions. 

Program officials generally acknowledged that their professional and 
management support services contracts closely supported the performance 
of inherently governmental functions, but they did not assess the risk 
that government decisions may be influenced by, rather than independent 
from, contractor judgments—as required by federal procurement guidance. 
In addition, none of the program officials and contracting officers we 
spoke with was aware of these requirements, and few believed that their 
professional and management support service contracts required enhanced 
oversight. Federal guidance also states that agency officials must 
retain control over and remain accountable for policy and program 
decisions. For the nine cases we reviewed, the level of oversight DHS 
provided did not always help ensure accountability for decisions or the 
ability to judge whether contractors were performing as required. DHS’s 
Chief Procurement Officer is implementing an acquisition oversight 
program—designed to allow flexibility to address specific procurement 
issues—with potential to address this issue. 

Table: Range of Contracted Services and Related Risk Level: 

Basic services: 
* Custodial; 
* Food; 
* Landscaping; 
* Snow removal; 
* Storage; 
Low Risk Level. 

Professional and management support services that do not closely 
support inherently governmental functions: 
* Advertising; 
* Banking; 
* Parking; 
* Records maintenance. 

Professional and management support services that closely support 
inherently governmental functions: 
* Acquisition support; 
* Budget preparation; 
* Developing and interpreting regulations; 
* Engineering and technical services; 
* Intelligence services; 
* Policy development; 
* Reorganization and planning; 
High Risk Level. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

Our September 2007 report recommended that DHS take actions to improve 
its ability to manage risk and ensure government control over and 
accountability for decisions resulting from services that closely 
support inherently governmental functions. DHS generally agreed with 
these recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://GAO-08-142T]. For more information, contact John 
Hutton at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Department of 
Homeland Security's (DHS) continued and increasing use of contractors 
for professional and management support services. When DHS was 
established over 4 years ago, it faced an enormous challenge to quickly 
set up numerous offices and programs that would provide wide-ranging 
and complex services critical to ensuring the nation's security. To 
help address this challenge, the department relied on contractors to 
perform many mission-related services. For example, in fiscal year 2005 
DHS obligated $1.2 billion on four types of professional and management 
support services that may closely support the performance of inherently 
governmental functions: program management and support, engineering and 
technical, other professional, and other management support. The use of 
these types of services can increase the risk of contractors unduly 
influencing the government's control over programs and accountability 
for actions, making them vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. For 
this reason, long-standing federal policy requires attention to this 
risk. 

At your request, we reviewed DHS's use of contracts for four selected 
services that closely support inherently governmental functions to 
identify the types of activities DHS requested through these contracts 
and the associated risks. Our findings are discussed in detail in a 
report that we are releasing today.[Footnote 1] My statement will focus 
on (1) the types of professional and management support services for 
which DHS has contracted and the circumstances that drove its 
contracting decisions, and (2) DHS's consideration and management of 
risk when contracting for such services. Our findings are based on a 
review of 117 judgmentally selected statements of work for professional 
and management support services for the Coast Guard, the Office of 
Procurement Operations (OPO), and the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) from fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 2] We selected 
nine of the 117 statements as case studies and examined them in detail. 
These nine were spread among the three components and represented a 
variety of services and dollar values among the three components. We 
conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

Summary: 

More than half of the 117 statements of work we reviewed included 
reorganization and planning activities, policy development, and 
acquisition support--services that closely support the performance of 
inherently governmental functions according to federal acquisition 
guidance. For the nine case studies we conducted, decisions to contract 
for these services were largely driven by the need for staff and 
expertise to get DHS programs and operations up and running quickly. 
However, DHS program officials did not assess the risk that contractor 
judgments could influence government decisions and did not provide 
enhanced oversight, despite federal procurement guidance requiring such 
attention. Most contracting and program officials we spoke to were not 
only unaware of federal requirements for enhanced oversight, but did 
not see a need for it based on the services provided. While DHS's human 
capital strategic plan notes the department has identified core mission 
critical occupations and plans to reduce skill gaps in core and key 
competencies, it is unclear whether it will inform the department's use 
of contractors for services that closely support the performance of 
inherently governmental functions. 

Background: 

Inherently governmental functions require discretion in applying 
government authority or value judgments in making decisions for the 
government; as such, they should be performed by government employees-
-not private contractors.[Footnote 3] The Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) provides 20 examples of functions considered to be, or 
to be treated as inherently governmental (see Appendix I), including: 

* determining agency policy and priorities for budget requests, 

* directing and controlling intelligence operations, 

* approving contractual requirements, and: 

* selecting individuals for government employment. 

The closer contractor services come to supporting inherently 
governmental functions, the greater the risk of their influencing the 
government's control over and accountability for decisions that may be 
based, in part, on contractor work. Table 1 provides examples of the 
range of services contractors provide to the federal government--from 
basic activities, such as custodial and landscaping, to more complex 
professional and management support services--and their relative risk 
of influencing government decision making. 

Table 1: Range of Contracted Services and Related Risk Level: 

Basic services: 
* Custodial; 
* Food; 
* Landscaping; 
* Snow removal; 
* Storage; 
* Trash collection; 
Low Risk Level. 

Professional and management support services[A] that do not closely 
support inherently governmental functions: 
* Advertising; 
* Banking; 
* Parking; 
* Records maintenance. 

Professional and management support services[A] that closely support 
inherently governmental functions: 
* Acquisition support; 
* Budget preparation; 
* Developing or interpreting regulations; 
* Engineering and technical services; 
* Intelligence services; 
* Policy development; 
* Reorganization and planning; 
High Risk Level. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected FPDS-NG and FAR subpart 7.5 categories 
of services, and OFPP Policy Letter 93-1. 

[A] Professional and management support services consists of 42 codes 
in the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG). 

[End of table] 

The potential for the loss of government management control and 
accountability for decisions is a long-standing governmentwide concern. 
For example, in 1981, we found that the level of contractor involvement 
in management functions at the Departments of Energy and Defense was so 
extensive that the agencies' ability to develop options other than 
those proposed by the contractors was limited.[Footnote 4] More 
recently, in 2006, government, industry, and academic participants in 
GAO's forum on federal acquisition challenges and 
opportunities[Footnote 5] and the congressionally mandated Acquisition 
Advisory Panel[Footnote 6] noted how an increasing reliance on 
contractors to perform services for core government activities 
challenges the capacity of federal officials to supervise and evaluate 
the performance of these activities. 

FAR and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) guidance state that 
services that tend to affect government decision-making, support or 
influence policy development, or affect program management are 
susceptible to abuse and require a greater level of scrutiny and an 
enhanced degree of management oversight. This would include assigning a 
sufficient number of qualified government employees to provide 
oversight and to ensure that agency officials retain control over and 
remain accountable for policy decisions that may be based in part on a 
contractor's performance and work products.[Footnote 7] 

DHS Contracting Decisions For A Broad Range Of Activities Were Largely 
Driven By A Lack Of Staff And Expertise And Immediacy Of Need: 

A broad range of program-related and administrative activities was 
performed under the professional and management support services 
contracts we reviewed. DHS decisions to contract for these services 
were largely driven by the need for staff and expertise to get programs 
and operations up and running. While DHS has identified core mission- 
critical occupations and plans to reduce skill gaps in core and key 
competencies, it has not directly addressed the department's use of 
contractors for services that closely support the performance of 
inherently governmental functions. 

DHS Contracts for Selected Services Covered a Broad Range of Activities 
Closely Supporting Inherently Governmental Functions: 

A broad range of activities related to specific programs and 
administrative operations was performed under the professional and 
management support services contracts we reviewed. The categories of 
policy development, reorganization and planning, and acquisition 
support were among the most often requested in the 117 statements of 
work, as well as in the nine case studies. 

* For example, TSA obligated $1.2 million to acquire contractor support 
for its Acquisition and Program Management Support Division, which 
included assisting with the development of acquisition plans and hands- 
on assistance to program offices to prepare acquisition documents. 

* A $7.9 million OPO human capital services order provided a full range 
of personnel and staffing services to support DHS's headquarters 
offices, including writing position descriptions, signing official 
offer letters, and meeting new employees at DHS headquarters for their 
first day of work. 

Contractor involvement in the nine case studies ranged from providing 
two to three supplemental personnel to staffing an entire office. 
Figure 1 shows the type and range of services provided in the nine 
cases and the location of contractor performance. 

Figure 1: Professional and Management Support Services Closely 
Supporting Inherently Governmental Functions in Nine Cases Reviewed: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Categories are based on services that approach being inherently 
governmental in FAR subpart 7.5 and, therefore, may not include all the 
services provided by contractors in each of the nine cases. 

[A] Obligations based on information provided by DHS at the time of our 
review. 

[B] Situations in which contractors might be assumed to be agency 
employees or representatives. FAR section 7.503(d)(13). 

[End of figure] 

DHS Contracting Decisions Were Largely Driven by a Lack of Staff and 
Expertise and Immediacy of Need: 

Many of the program officials we spoke with said that contracting for 
services was necessary because they were under pressure to get program 
and administrative offices up and running quickly, and they did not 
have enough time to hire staff with the right expertise through the 
federal hiring process. For example: 

* According to officials at TSA, federal staff limitations was a reason 
for procuring employee relations support services. Specifically, the 
agency needed to immediately establish an employee relations office 
capable of serving 60,000 newly hired airport screeners--an undertaking 
TSA Office of Human Resources officials said would have taken several 
years to accomplish if they hired qualified federal employees. 

* DHS human capital officials said there were only two staff to manage 
human resources for approximately 800 employees, and it would have 
taken 3 to 5 years to hire and train federal employees to provide the 
necessary services. 

In prior work, GAO has noted that agencies facing workforce challenges, 
such as a lack of critical expertise, have used strategic human capital 
planning to develop long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, 
motivating, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals.[Footnote 
8] While DHS's human capital strategic plan notes that the department 
has identified core mission-critical occupations and seeks to reduce 
skill gaps in core and key competencies, DHS has not determined the 
right mix of government performed and contractor performed services or 
assessed total workforce deployment across the Department to guide 
decisions on contracting for selected services. We have noted the 
importance of focusing greater attention on which types of functions 
and activities should be contracted out and which ones should not, 
while considering other reasons for using contractors, such as a 
limited number of federal employees.[Footnote 9] DHS's human capital 
plan is unclear as to how this could be achieved and whether it will 
inform the Department's use of contractors for services that closely 
support the performance of inherently governmental functions. 

DHS Did Not Consider Risk Or Provide Enhanced Oversight When 
Contracting For Selected Services: 

While program officials generally acknowledged that their professional 
and management support services contracts closely supported the 
performance of inherently governmental functions, they did not assess 
the risk that government decisions may be influenced by, rather than 
independent from, contractor judgments--as required by federal 
procurement policy. In addition, none of the program officials and 
contracting officers we spoke with was aware of these requirements, and 
few believed that their professional and management support service 
contracts required enhanced oversight. Federal guidance also states 
that agency officials must retain control over and remain accountable 
for policy and program decisions. For the nine cases we reviewed, the 
level of oversight DHS provided did not always help ensure 
accountability for decisions or the ability to judge whether 
contractors were performing as required; however, DHS's Chief 
Procurement Officer is implementing an acquisition oversight program 
with potential to address this issue. 

Selected Cases May Have Been at Risk of Contractors Influencing 
Decisions: 

To help ensure the government does not lose control over and 
accountability for mission-related decisions, long-standing federal 
procurement policy requires attention to the risk that government 
decisions may be influenced by, rather than independent from, 
contractor judgments when contracting for services that closely support 
inherently governmental functions. The nine cases we reviewed in detail 
provided examples of conditions that we have found need to be carefully 
monitored to help ensure the government does not lose control over and 
accountability for mission-related decisions. 

* Contractors providing services integral to an agency's mission and 
comparable to those provided by government employees: In seven of the 
nine cases, contractors provided such services. For example, one 
contractor directly supported DHS efforts to hire federal employees, 
including signing offer letters. In another case, a contractor provided 
acquisition advice and support while working alongside federal 
employees and performing the same tasks. 

* Contractors providing ongoing support: In each of the nine case 
studies, the contractor provided services for more than 1 year. In some 
of these cases, the original justification for contracting had changed, 
but the components extended or recompeted services without examining 
whether it would be more appropriate for federal employees to perform 
the service. For example, OPO established a temporary "bridge" 
arrangement without competition that was later modified 20 times, and 
extended for almost 18 months, to avoid disruption of critical support 
including budget, policy, and intelligence services. Subsequently, 
these services were competed and awarded to the original contractor 
under six separate contracts. 

* Broadly defined requirements: In four of the case studies, the 
statements of work lacked specific details about activities that 
closely support inherently governmental functions. In addition, several 
program officials noted that the statements of work did not accurately 
reflect the program's needs or the work the contractors actually 
performed. For example, a Coast Guard statement of work for a $1.3 
million order initially included services for policy development, cost- 
benefit analyses, and regulatory assessments, though program officials 
told us the contractors provided only technical regulatory writing and 
editing support. The statement of work was revised in a later contract 
to better define requirements. 

Officials Did Not Assess Risk or Provide Enhanced Oversight of 
Contracts for Selected Services as Required: 

Federal acquisition guidance highlights the risk inherent in services 
contracting--particularly those for professional and management support 
services--and federal internal control standards require assessment of 
risks.[Footnote 10] OFPP staff we met with also emphasized the 
importance of assessing the risk associated with contracting for 
services that closely support the performance of inherently 
governmental functions. While contracting officers and program 
officials for the nine case studies generally acknowledged that their 
professional and management support services contracts closely 
supported the performance of inherently governmental functions, none 
assessed whether these contracts could result in the loss of control 
over and accountability for mission-related decisions. Furthermore, 
none were aware of federal requirements for enhanced oversight of such 
contracts. Contracting officers and program officials, as well as DHS 
acquisition planning guidance, did not cite services that closely 
support the performance of inherently governmental functions as a 
contracting risk and most did not believe enhanced oversight of their 
contracts was warranted. 

Current DHS initiatives may have the potential to address oversight 
when contracting for services that closely support inherently 
governmental functions. DHS's Chief Procurement Officer is in the 
process of implementing an acquisition oversight program that is 
intended to assess contract administration, business judgment, and 
compliance with federal acquisition guidance.[Footnote 11] This program 
was designed to allow flexibility to address specific procurement 
issues and is based on a series of reviews at the component level that 
could address selected services. 

Control and Accountability Were Limited: 

Both the FAR and OFPP policy state that when contracting for services-
-particularly for professional and management support services that 
closely support the performance of inherently governmental functions-- 
a sufficient number of qualified government employees assigned to plan 
and oversee contractor activities is needed to maintain control and 
accountability. While most contracting officers and program officials 
that we spoke with held the opinion that the services they contracted 
for did not require enhanced oversight, we found cases in which the 
components lacked the capacity to oversee contractor performance due to 
limited expertise and workload demands. For example: 

* One Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) was 
assigned to oversee 58 tasks, ranging from acquisition support to 
intelligence analysis to budget formulation and planning, across 
multiple offices and locations. Program and contracting officials noted 
the resulting oversight was likely insufficient. To provide better 
oversight for one of the follow-on contracts, the program official 
assigned a new COTR to oversee just the intelligence work and 
established monthly meetings between the COTR and the program office. 
According to program officials, this change was made to ensure that the 
contract deliverables and payments were in order, not to address the 
inherent risk of the services performed. 

* Similarly, a DHS Human Capital Services COTR assigned to oversee an 
extensive range of personnel and staffing services provided by the 
contractor lacked technical expertise, which the program manager 
believed affected the quality of oversight provided. To improve 
oversight for the follow-on contract, the program manager assigned a 
COTR with more human resources experience along with an employee with 
human resources expertise to assist the COTR. 

DHS components were also limited in their ability to assess contractor 
performance, which is necessary to ensure control and accountability, 
in a way that addressed the risk of contracting for professional and 
management support services that closely support the performance of 
inherently governmental functions. Assessing contractor performance 
requires a plan that outlines how services will be delivered and 
establishes measurable outcomes. However, none of the related oversight 
plans and contract documents we reviewed contained specific measures 
for assessing contractors' performance of the selected services. 

Conclusion and Recommendations: 

Until the department provides greater scrutiny and enhanced management 
oversight of contracts for selected services--as required by federal 
guidance--it will continue to risk transferring government 
responsibility to contractors. To improve the department's ability to 
manage the risk associated with contracting for services that closely 
support the performance of inherently governmental functions and help 
ensure government control and accountability, the report we are 
releasing today recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security take 
several actions. These actions include establishing strategic-level 
guidance for determining the appropriate mix of government and 
contractor employees, assessing the risk of using contractors for 
selected services, more clearly defining contract requirements, 
assessing the ability of the government workforce to provide sufficient 
oversight when using selected services, and reviewing contracts for 
selected services as part of the acquisition oversight program. 

DHS generally concurred with our recommendations and provided 
information on what actions would be taken to address them. However, 
DHS partially concurred with our recommendation to assess the risk of 
selected services as part of the acquisition planning process and 
modify existing guidance and training, noting that its acquisition 
planning guidance already provides for the assessment of risk. Our 
review found that this guidance does not address the specific risk of 
services that closely support the performance of inherently 
governmental functions. DHS also partially concurred with our 
recommendation to review selected services contracts as part of the 
acquisition oversight program. DHS stated that rather than reviewing 
selected services as part of the routine acquisition oversight program, 
the Chief Procurement Officer will direct a special investigation on 
selected issues as needed. We did not intend for the formal oversight 
plan to be modified, rather we recognize that the program was designed 
with flexibility to address specific procurement issues as necessary. 
We leave it to the discretion of the Chief Procurement Officer to 
determine how to implement the recommendation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions you or other members of the committee may have 
at this time. 

Contacts And Acknowledgments: 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 
(202) 512-4841 or (huttonj@gao.gov). Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this product. Staff making key contributions to this statement 
were Amelia Shachoy, Assistant Director; Katherine Trimble; Jennifer 
Dougherty; Karen Sloan; Julia Kennon; and Noah Bleicher. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Examples of Inherently Governmental and Approaching 
Inherently Governmental Functions: 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 7.503 provides examples of 
inherently governmental functions and services or actions that are not 
inherently governmental, but may approach being inherently governmental 
functions based on the nature of the function, the manner in which the 
contractor performs the contract, or the manner in which the government 
administers contractor performance. These examples are listed in tables 
1 and 2. 

Table 2: Examples of Inherently Governmental Functions: 

1; 
Directly conduct criminal investigations. 

2; 
Control prosecutions and perform adjudicatory functions other than 
arbitration. 

3; 
Command military forces. 

4; 
Conduct foreign relations and determine foreign policy. 

5; 
Determine agency policy, including regulations. 

6; 
Determine federal program priorities for budget requests. 

7; 
Direct and control of federal employees. 

8; 
Direct and control intelligence and counter-intelligence operations. 

9; 
Select individuals for federal government employment. 

10; 
Approve position descriptions and performance standards for federal 
employees. 

11; 
Determine the disposal of government property. 

12; 
In federal procurement activities with respect to prime contracts: 
Determine the supplies or services acquired by the government; 
participate as a voting member on any source selection boards; approve 
contractual documents, including documents defining requirements, 
incentive plans, and evaluation criteria; award contracts; administer 
contracts; terminate contracts; determine whether contract costs are 
reasonable, allocable, and allowable; and participate as a voting 
member on performance evaluation boards. 

13; 
Approve agency responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. 

14; 
Conduct administrative hearings to determine eligibility for security 
clearances, or that affect personal reputation or eligibility to 
participate in government programs. 

15; 
Approve federal licensing actions and inspections. 

16; 
Determine budget policy, guidance, and strategy. 

17; 
Collect, control, and disburse public funds, unless authorized by 
statute. Does not include: The collection of public charges to mess 
halls, national parks, and similar entities; and routine voucher and 
invoice examination. 

18; 
Control treasury accounts. 

19; 
Administer public trusts. 

20; 
Draft congressional testimony, responses to congressional 
correspondence, or agency responses to audit reports. 

Source: GAO analysis of FAR section 7.503(c). 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Examples of Services That May Approach Being Inherently 
Governmental Functions: 

1: Involve or relate to budget preparation. 

2: Involve or relate to reorganization and planning activities. 

3: Involve or relate to analyses, feasibility studies, and strategy 
options to be used in developing policy. 

4: Involve or relate to developing regulations. 

5: Involve or relate to evaluating another contractor's performance. 

6: Involve or relate to budget preparation. 

7: Assist in contract management. 

8: Provide technical evaluation of contract proposals. 

9: Assist in developing statements of work. 

10: Support the preparation of responses to Freedom of Information Act 
requests. 

11: Work in situations that may permit access to confidential business 
information. 

12: Provide information regarding agency policies or regulations. 

13: Participate in situations where contractors may be assumed to be 
agency employees or representatives. 

14: Participate as technical advisors to source selection boards or as 
members of a source evaluation board. 

15: Serve as arbitrators or provide alternative methods of dispute 
resolution. 

16: Construct buildings intended to be secure. 

17: Provide inspection services. 

18: Provide legal advice and interpret regulations and statutes for 
government officials. 

19: Provide non-law enforcement security activities that do not 
directly involve criminal investigations. 

Source: GAO analysis of FAR section 7.503(d). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Footnotes:  

[1] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Improved Assessment and 
Oversight Needed to Manage Risk of Contracting for Selected Services, 
GAO-07-990 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2007). 

[2] Fiscal year 2005 was the most recent year for which complete data 
were available at the time we began our review. 

[3] Federal acquisition policy states that contracts shall not be used 
for the performance of inherently governmental functions. 

[4] GAO, Civil Servants and Contract Employees: Who Should Do What for 
the Federal Government?, FPCD-81-43 (Washington, D.C.: June 19, 1981). 

[5] GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Federal Acquisitions Challenges and 
Opportunities in the 21ST Century, GAO-07-45SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
6, 2006). 

[6] Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy and the United States Congress, January 2007; see 
Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-136, Title 
XIV, §1423. 

[7] FAR section 37.114, Special Acquisition Requirements; OFPP Policy 
Letter 93-1: Management Oversight of Service Contracting, Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy, May 18, 1994. 

[8] GAO, Federal Acquisitions and Contracting: Systemic Challenges Need 
Attention, GAO-07-1098T (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007). 

[9] GAO-07-1098T. 

[10] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[11] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress and Challenges in 
Implementing the Department's Acquisition Oversight Plan, GAO-07-900 
(Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2007).

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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, DC 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: [hyperlink, http://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, DC 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: