Posthearing Questions Related to Strategic Human Capital
Management (22-MAY-03, GAO-03-779R).
On April 8, GAO testified before the Subcommittee on Civil
Service and Agency Reform, House Committee on Government Reform
and the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs at a hearing on "The Human Capital
Challenge: Offering Solutions and Delivering Results". This
letter responds to requests from Chairman Voinovich, Chairwoman
Davis, and Senator Carper that we provide answers to follow-up
questions from the hearing.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-779R
ACCNO: A06968
TITLE: Posthearing Questions Related to Strategic Human Capital
Management
DATE: 05/22/2003
SUBJECT: Federal personnel legislation
Human resources training
Human resources utilization
Internal controls
Personnel evaluation
Personnel management
Personnel recruiting
Strategic planning
Labor force
Performance measures
Compensation
Hiring policies
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-779R
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 Comptroller
General
of the United States
May 22, 2003 The Honorable George V. Voinovich Chairman The Honorable
Richard J. Durbin Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Committee on
Governmental Affairs United States Senate
The Honorable Jo Ann Davis Chairwoman The Honorable Danny Davis Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives
Subject: Posthearing Questions Related to Strategic Human Capital
Management
On April 8, I testified before your Subcommittees at a hearing on *The
Human Capital Challenge: Offering Solutions and Delivering Results*. 1
This letter responds to requests from Chairman Voinovich, Chairwoman
Davis, and Senator Carper that I provide answers to follow- up questions
from the hearing. The questions, along with my responses, follow.
Questions from Chairman Voinovich 1. In your testimony, you discuss the
need to preserve and share an agency*s institutional knowledge in light of
the impending retirement wave by using various means of *phased
retirement.* Proposed in my Federal Workforce Flexibility Act are
provisions to make it more desirable for individuals to work part- time at
the end of their career. What other options might Congress consider to
ease this transition?
There are a variety of options that should be considered; however, they
all require further analysis to ensure they would be cost- effective in
retaining the institutional knowledge of key employees as they approach
and become eligible for retirement.
1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Building on the Current
Momentum to Address High- Risk Issues, GAO- 03- 637T (Washington, D. C.:
Apr. 8, 2003).
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 2 For example, one option would be to
allow retirement eligibles to continue working
after retirement eligibility on a part- time basis and factor in that
service when making pension calculations. However, for those employees who
are under the Civil Service Retirement System, legislation would be needed
to remove the so- called penalty on their retirement annuity for working
part time. Another option would be to allow certain employees to retire
and receive their annuity and continue to work part time for up to a
stated period of time (e. g., 1 * 2 years) without a pension offset. Both
of these options would help agencies address succession planning and
knowledge transfer challenges. In all cases, however, Congress should
consider placing certain criteria along with numerical or percentage of
workforce caps on agencies* use of such authorities to prevent abuse.
2. GAO has been successful in implementing personnel reforms that clearly
emphasize the importance of human capital. Part of your success has been
achieved through GAO- specific legislation, but your agency also has been
successful in implementing governmentwide reforms. Unfortunately, other
agencies have not been as successful. As agencies begin to consider the
governmentwide flexibilities included in last year*s homeland security
legislation, please discuss in a bit more detail how GAO has been
successful in the past.
As noted in my statement for the hearing, we have reported on the
capabilities that agencies need to have in place to effectively use the
human capital flexibilities and authorities that Congress has provided. 2
Our own approach to the use of the authorities that Congress has provided
us has been consistent with the practices of leading organizations, as
shown in figure 1.
2 U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Effective Use of
Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, GAO- 03- 2
(Washington, D. C.: Dec. 6, 2002).
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 3
Figure 1: Key Practices for Effective Use of Human Capital Flexibilities
In our specific situation, we developed data- driven business cases to
demonstrate the need for the authorities, how they would be used, and took
steps to assure that safeguards were in place to ensure their proper and
fair use. We also have involved our employees at all levels in the
development and implementation of our human capital policies and programs
to improve the quality of those policies and programs and build GAO- wide
ownership for the changes we are making. Further, we have used our human
capital initiatives as part of, and consistent with, broader efforts we
have underway to instill a more results- oriented culture throughout GAO.
Finally, we monitor and evaluate our efforts and publicly report on our
use of the authorities both to assure our own accountability as well as to
provide lessons for other agencies.
3. You have recommended the creation of a nonpolitical chief operating
officer at federal agencies. While your roundtable discussion did not
achieve consensus on the concept, it did lay out three *themes* that
should be considered. Would you like to elaborate a bit more on these
themes and what more Congress and agencies can do to facilitate this
discussion?
GAO convened a roundtable on September 9, 2002, to discuss the Chief
Operating Officer (COO) concept and how it might apply within selected
federal departments and agencies as one strategy to address certain
systemic federal governance and management challenges. We reported that
there was general agreement that the following three themes provide a
course for action. 3 3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Highlights of a
GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer
Concept: A Potential Strategy To Address Federal Governance Challenges,
GAO- 03- 192SP (Washington, D. C.: Oct. 4, 2002).
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 4 Elevate attention on management
issues and transformational change.
Integrate various key management and transformation efforts.
Institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and
leading
transformational change. The participants also offered a number of ideas
to help address agencies* management weaknesses and drive transformational
change. First, while there is no *one size fits all* solution to address
the challenges agencies face, the critical point is to craft an approach
in each case that (1) sets responsibility and accountability for
functional management issues and transformational change at an
organizational level appropriate for the types of reforms that are needed
and (2) creates integrated leadership responsibility in a single
organizational position for key management functions such as human
capital, financial management, information technology, acquisition
sourcing strategies, and performance management as well as for
transformational change initiatives, if appropriate.
Second, participants suggested that Congress should make clear in statute
the broad responsibilities and qualifications for at least the senior
official responsible for management and transformation. Congress has taken
this general approach with other important management legislation, such as
the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO), which requires CFOs to *possess
demonstrated ability in general management of, and knowledge of and
extensive practical experience in financial management practices in large
governmental or business entities* and clearly lays out the CFOs*
responsibilities. By establishing the broad CFO responsibilities in
statute, Congress created a number of important advantages: unambiguous
expectations for the position, a professional approach, and an implicit
set of qualification standards and expectations.
Third, participants also widely agreed that augmented accountability
mechanisms are needed to help assure the success of key management and
transformational change efforts. To help provide the continuing focused
attention essential to successfully completing multiyear transformational
change, the important role that congressional oversight has played and can
play in fostering improvements was acknowledged at the forum. Likewise,
public reporting, such as the annual performance plans and performance
reports required by the Government Performance and Results Act and audited
financial statements under the CFO Act, can provide useful information on
agencies* progress in meeting goals and addressing mission- critical
management challenges. The use of performance contracts for senior leaders
was also recognized as being a potentially important mechanism for
clarifying expectations, monitoring progress, and assessing
accountability.
Questions from Chairwoman Davis 1. Far too often, when agency budgets are
short, training is the first item cut. The world*s top companies have a
commitment to training because training helps ensure the skills and
performance necessary for an organization to meet its goals. The Federal
Workforce Flexibility Act, which was introduced by both Senator Voinovich
and myself, enhances the institutional manner in which employees are
trained in the federal government. How critical is
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 5
employee training to attract, retain and improve the performance of the
federal workforce?
A strategically sound training and development program is critical to both
building and retaining an effective federal workforce. Initiatives such as
the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act that Chairwoman Davis and Chairman
Voinovich have introduced are evidence that this area is beginning to
receive the increased emphasis and attention it warrants.
A learning environment, with opportunities to update and enhance an
individual*s skills and competencies, is an attractive feature for
prospective and new employees as well as for current and long- time
employees. People want to work where they will be able to continue to
learn and grow as they develop their careers. As in the private sector,
effective training and development opportunities are an important element
in the package that the federal government needs to be able to offer in
the *war for talent.* Once employees are onboard, strategic training and
development efforts can help ensure that, as part of succession planning,
new leaders are developed and ready to take on new roles and assume
greater responsibilities.
Training and development opportunities are also a tangible example of the
need to invest in human capital, both in terms of time and budgetary
resources. The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act calls for agencies to
evaluate their training programs and plans to ensure that they are linked
to strategic and performance goals and contribute to achieving the
agency*s mission. This is a key step in making a business case and
demonstrating that training and development efforts, like other strategic
human capital management investments, are a vital and integrated part of
agencies* ability to marshal, manage, and maintain the human capital
needed to maximize government performance and assure its accountability.
2. At our hearing on April 1, we talked about the crucial importance of
performance management improvements by federal agencies before a payfor-
performance system will work well. At the same time, as the Deputy
Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) pointed out last
week, the current system of lock- step raises provides no incentive for
agency managers to devote their attention to the difficult job of
improving their performance management. So we have a chicken- and- egg
problem here. If we wait for better appraisals before we get to pay for
performance, we may never get there. In your own experience at GAO, what
amount of time separated the first pay raises under a banded pay system
and the first appraisals under the new competency- based performance
management system? What approach would you recommend for this problem?
While there is growing agreement on the need to better link individual pay
to performance, experience has shown that moving too quickly* and
prematurely* significantly raises the risk of doing it wrong, which could
severely set back the current momentum. 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 own case, we began making significant
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 6 changes to our analyst performance
management system in 2000 and made more
direct links between performance and pay as a result of the 2002 appraisal
cycle. It should be noted, that we had over a decade of experience in the
use of pay banding before we undertook our recent changes, so much of the
needed organizational infrastructure was already in place. With regard to
executive branch agencies, the key to progress over the next year is to
create performance management systems that are capable of supporting more
performance based pay and other personnel decisions. Such performance
management systems are based on the practices used by leading
organizations to align individual performance with organizational success
and have the institutional infrastructures that provide adequate
safeguards, reasonable transparency, and appropriate accountability
mechanisms. 4 The critical issue is not so much the length of time needed,
but rather the extent to which agency senior leadership is willing to
provide the priority attention and targeted investments needed to create
and maintain a results- oriented performance management system. Finally,
in our view, appropriate systems and safeguards should be in place before
any additional pay for performance authority is actually implemented or
operationalized under this approach. Congress could authorize such
authority while providing that certain conditions must be met before the
authority can be implemented or operationalized.
3. Last week, when we asked the Deputy Director of OPM about the
desirability of eliminating the General Schedule altogether, he testified
that the Administration*s proposal for a $500 million Human Capital
Performance Fund was a *downpayment* on pay reform. Would you agree that
the Human Capital Performance Fund is a step in the right direction, if
perhaps only a baby step? Do you think the executive branch is capable of
doing a good enough job on performance appraisals to experiment on about
one half of one percent of pay? Maybe this is a way to get some energy
into the agencies when it comes to improving their performance management.
Modern, reliable, effective, and, as appropriate, validated performance
management systems with adequate safeguards, including reasonable
transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, must serve as the
fundamental underpinning of any successful results- oriented pay reform.
Most executive branch agencies are a long way from meeting this essential
test.
To build the necessary performance management systems within agencies and
to create incentives for progress, I suggested in my testimony that
Congress should consider establishing a governmentwide fund where
agencies, based on a sound business case, could apply to OPM for funds to
be used to modernize their performance management systems and ensure that
those systems have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. The basic idea is
to provide for targeted investments needed to prepare agencies to use
their performance management systems as strategic tools to achieve
organizational results and drive cultural change. (If successful, this
approach to targeted investments could be expanded to foster and support
agencies* related transformation efforts, including other aspects of the
High
4 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).
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 7 Performing Organization (HPO) concept
recommended by the Commercial Activities
Panel.) Congress should also consider providing the authority where whole
agencies and/ or employee groups move to a pay for performance approach
only after it has been demonstrated to OPM that a modern, reliable,
effective, and, as appropriate, validated performance management system
with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and
appropriate accountability mechanisms, is in place to support pay and
related personnel decisions. In any case, Congress should consider
establishing statutory principles for the standards that an agency must
have in place before OPM can grant additional pay flexibilities. OPM,
working with the Chief Human Capital Officers* Council, would issue
guidance implementing legislatively- defined principles.
As a first step, the Senior Executive Service needs to lead the way in the
federal government*s effort to better link pay to performance. We have
reported that there are significant opportunities to strengthen efforts to
hold senior executives accountable for results. 5 4. I notice in your
testimony that you believe OPM should play an aggressive
leadership role in the area of human capital management. If pay and
performance management systems are handed over to individual agencies so
they can tailor their systems to their particular needs and objectives,
what role in setting compensation policy would you foresee for OPM?
We have reported that OPM leadership is critical to accomplish its mission
in a decentralized human capital environment in which direct
accountability for strategic human capital management continues to shift
to agencies. 6 In particular, as noted above, OPM should certify that an
agency has a modern, effective, credible, and as appropriate, validated
performance management system in place before the agency is granted the
authority to better link pay to performance for broad- based employee
groups. In addition, OPM should gather, assess, and disseminate leading
practices from federal organizations on a full range of innovative human
capital policies and procedures, such as pay for performance. Further, OPM
should build on its White Paper to design and lead a broad research agenda
to develop a more market- based approach to federal pay.
5. What legislative changes do you think are most important for us to
enact in this Congress to improve the government*s human resources
management over both the short and long term? Or, if we could only get one
change, what should that be?
The need for results- oriented pay reform is one of the most pressing
human capital issues facing the federal government today. As implied in
our answers above, Congress could provide broad- based authority for
broadbanding and pay for performance along with specific statutory
standards that would have to be met
5 U. S. General Accounting Office, Results- Oriented Cultures: Using
Balanced Expectations to Manage Senior Executive Performance, GAO- 02-
966, (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 27, 2002). 6 U. S. General Accounting
Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Office of
Personnel Management, GAO- 03- 115 (Washington, D. C.: January 2003).
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 8 before such authorities can be
operationalized. An agency should have to
demonstrate, and OPM should 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). 6. Similarly, where do you think we should most focus our oversight
attention in the area of human resources management?
Congress has had and will need to continue to have a central role in
improving agencies* human capital approaches. First and foremost,
congressional oversight is important to ensure that agencies human capital
plans and programs are integrated with program missions and goals. Too
often in the past, agencies* program initiatives were designed and
implemented without due regard to the human capital implications that
these program decisions entail. In addition, Congressional oversight is
important to ensure that agencies effectively and properly use human
capital authorities and flexibilities that Congress has provided, for
example those in the Homeland Security Act. While agencies* first priority
should be to improve their human capital management by using the
authorities already available to them, additional flexibilities may be
appropriate where clear business cases have been established. Questions
from Senator Carper 1. In recent years, Congress has granted agencies like
the Internal Revenue
Service and the Federal Aviation Administration some additional personnel
flexibilities aimed at meeting agency- specific problems. Just this year,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration came to this committee
with its own set of problems and suggested some reforms aimed at
recruiting workers with advanced degrees in math and science. Would it be
better for Congress to address human capital issues on an agency- by-
agency basis rather than enacting broad reforms that may not be well
suited for everyone?
We strongly support the concept of modernizing federal human capital
policies, including providing reasonable flexibility to management in this
critical area provided adequate safeguards are in place to prevent abuse.
In this regard, we believe that Congress should consider both
governmentwide and selected agency changes to address the pressing human
capital issues confronting the federal government. Agency- specific human
capital reforms should be enacted to the extent that the problems being
addressed and the solutions offered are specific to a particular agency
(e. g., military personnel reforms for the Department of Defense). In
addition, targeted reforms should be considered in situations where
additional testing or piloting is needed for fundamental governmentwide
reform.
In our view, it would be preferable to employ a governmentwide approach to
address certain flexibilities that have broad- based application (e. g.,
broadbanding, pay for performance, part- time employment, reemployment
annuities) and serious potential
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 9 implications for the civil service
system, in general, and OPM, in particular. In these
situations, it may be prudent and preferable for Congress to provide such
authorities on a governmentwide basis and in a manner that ensures that
appropriate performance management systems and safeguards are in place
before the new authorities are implemented by the respective agency. This
approach is not intended to delay action on any individual agency*s
efforts, but rather to accelerate needed human capital reform throughout
the federal government in a manner that ensures reasonable consistency on
key principles within the overall civilian workforce. This approach also
would provide agencies with reasonable flexibility while incorporating key
safeguards to help maximize the chances of success and minimize the
chances of abuse and failure. This approach would also help to maintain a
level playing field among federal agencies in competing for talent and
avoid a further fragmentation of civil service in key areas.
However, in all cases whether from a governmentwide authority or agency
specific legislation, in our view, such additional authorities should be
implemented (or operationalized) only when an agency has 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, credible, and validated performance management system that
includes adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and
appropriate accountability mechanisms, to ensure the fair, effective, and
nondiscriminatory implementation of the system.
2. In your view, how helpful can the streamlined hiring process authorized
through the Homeland Security Act be in helping agencies address their
personnel problems? How helpful can the other governmentwide personnel
provisions included in the bill be?
Much of the authority agency leaders need to manage human capital
strategically is already available under current laws and regulations,
especially in connection with modernizing existing performance appraisal
and management systems. 7 In that regard, we believe that the hiring and
other central provisions of the Homeland Security Act will serve as
important tools for agencies to use to address their hiring and other
human capital needs. For example, the Homeland Security Act included
significant provisions relating to categorical ranking when considering
applicants, direct hire authority, the creation of chief human capital
officer (CHCO) positions and a CHCO Council, an expanded voluntary early
retirement and *buy- out* authority, a requirement to discuss human
capital approaches in Government Performance and Results Act plans and
reports, and a provision allowing executives to receive their total
performance bonus in the year in which it is awarded.
3. What are the specific safeguards against discrimination and abuse that
you believe need to be in place before an agency can implement a *pay for
performance* program?
7 To assist agencies in identifying available human capital flexibilities,
OPM has published Human Resources Flexibilities and Authorities in the
Federal Government (Washington, D. C.: July 2001).
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 10 At the request of Representative 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.
4. What role should employees play in administering any *pay for
performance* initiative tested or put into place at the federal level?
We have reported that the involvement of employees both directly and
indirectly is crucial to the success of new initiatives, including
implementing a pay for performance system. 8 Performance management
systems are more effective when employees perceive the process to be fair
and the criteria to be clearly defined, transparent, and consistently
applied. Leading organizations have found that by
8 U. S. General Accounting Office, Results- Oriented Cultures: Insights
for U. S. Agencies from Other Countries* Performance Management
Initiatives, GAO- 02- 862 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 2, 2002) and
Human Capital: Practices That Empowered and Involved Employees, GAO- 01-
1070 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 14, 2001).
GAO- 03- 779R Human Capital Page 11 actively involving employees, unions,
or other employee associations when
developing results- oriented performance management systems, employee
confidence and belief in the fairness of incentive programs improves due
to an understanding of why certain employees were rewarded. To involve
stakeholders and employees when reforming their performance management
systems, agencies should:
Consult a Wide Range of Stakeholders Early in the Process. Obtain
Feedback Directly from Employees. Directly asking employees to provide
feedback on proposed changes in their performance management systems
encourages a direct sense of involvement and buy- in, allows employees to
express their views, and helps to validate the system to ensure that
performance measures are appropriate. Engage Employee Unions or
Associations. Effective labor- management relations
help to achieve consensus on planned changes, avoid misunderstandings, and
assist in the expeditious resolution of problems.
For additional information on our work on federal agency transformation
efforts and strategic human capital management, please contact me on 512-
5500 or J. Christopher Mihm, Director, Strategic Issues, at 512- 6806 or
at mihmj@ gao. gov.
David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States
(450218)
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.
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 fulltext 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.
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
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 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 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
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. However, 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.
*** End of document. ***