Contract Management: Opportunities Continue for GSA to Improve	 
Pricing of Multiple Award Schedules Contracts (26-JUL-05,	 
GAO-05-911T).							 
                                                                 
Each year, federal agencies spend billions of dollars to buy	 
commercial products and services through the General Service	 
Administration's (GSA) Multiple Award Schedules program. The	 
program has grown significantly over the past several years.	 
Currently, federal agencies can directly purchase, through more  
than 16,000 schedule contracts, over 8 million products from more
than 10,000 commercial vendors. In fiscal year 2004, purchases	 
from these contracts totaled more than $32 billion. The multiple 
award schedules program is designed to take advantage of the	 
government's significant buying power. To maximize savings, GSA  
negotiates discounts that are equal to or greater than those	 
given to the vendor's most favored customers. This testimony	 
focuses on GSA's historic use of two proven negotiation tools to 
improve the pricing of schedules contracts--pre-award audits and 
postaward audits of pre-award information. Pre-award audits allow
GSA to avoid potential overpricing by verifying vendor pricing	 
information before contracts are awarded. Postaward audits allow 
GSA to identify overpricing of awarded contracts and recover	 
overcharges.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-911T					        
    ACCNO:   A31119						        
  TITLE:     Contract Management: Opportunities Continue for GSA to   
Improve Pricing of Multiple Award Schedules Contracts		 
     DATE:   07/26/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Auditing procedures				 
	     Audits						 
	     Contract costs					 
	     Federal procurement				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Multiple award procurement 			 
	     Prices and pricing 				 
	     Procurement planning				 
	     Procurement practices				 
	     Federal procurement policy 			 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     GSA Federal Supply Schedule			 
	     Multiple Award Schedule Program			 

******************************************************************
** 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-05-911T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, and International Security, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 a.m. EDT CONTRACT

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

MANAGEMENT

 Opportunities Continue for GSA to Improve Pricing of Multiple Award Schedules
                                   Contracts

Statement of David E. Cooper, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management

GAO-05-911T

[IMG]

July 26, 2005

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Opportunities Continue for GSA to Improve Pricing of Multiple Award Schedules
Contracts

                                 What GAO Found

Historically, GSA has used pre-award and postaward audits sporadically,
thereby minimizing its ability to avoid excessive pricing and recover
overcharges and potentially save millions of federal dollars. For more
than 25 years, GAO has reported on GSA's multiple award schedules program
pricing problems. In March 1977, we reported that pre-award information on
6 of 15 contract proposals was not accurate, complete, or current. In
1979, we again reported that pricing information submitted by some vendors
was unreliable. Moreover, only 1 pre-award audit and 10 postaward audits
had been conducted during fiscal years 1977 and 1978 of which 9 found
inaccurate sales information had been reported by vendors or the
availability of better discounts had not been disclosed. These problems
continued throughout the 1980s. In the early 1990s, GSA made good use of
pre-award and postaward audits, negotiating nearly $480 million in cost
savings and recovering about $90 million in vendor overcharges over 5
years.

However, in August 1997, GSA revised its acquisition regulations and
effectively eliminated the use of postaward audits. While GSA expected
preaward audits to increase, this increase never materialized. In August
2001, the GSA Inspector General reported that GSA was not consistently
negotiating most favored customer pricing. For just one contract, the
Inspector General projected that over the contract's term, GSA customers
would pay nearly $40 million more than they should have. In February 2005,
we completed our most recent review of the multiple award schedules
program and found that pricing problems persist and that the number of
preaward audits continued to decline. We concluded that GSA was continuing
to miss opportunities to save hundreds of millions of dollars.

               Pre-award Audits in Fiscal Years 1992 through 2004

                           Number of pre-award audits

                                      154

60

30

                                       40

0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal
year Savings (in millions of dollars)

200 167.1 174.7
150
100

50

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal
year

Source: GSA Inspector General data.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Chairman Coburn and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the General Services
Administration's (GSA) use of pre-award and postaward audits in pricing
its multiple award schedules contracts. Each year, federal agencies spend
billions of dollars to buy commercial products and professional services
through GSA's multiple award schedules program. The program is designed to
take advantage of the government's significant buying power when
purchasing a wide range of commercially available products-such as office
furniture and supplies, personal computers, and tools-and a variety of
professional services. Through more than 16,000 contracts, federal
agencies can directly purchase more than 8 million products from more than
10,000 commercial vendors. The multiple award schedules program has grown
significantly over the past several years. In fiscal year 2004, federal
agencies purchased more than $32 billion of products and services through
the program.

To get the most out of each taxpayer dollar, GSA seeks to leverage the
government's immense buying power by negotiating discounts from the
vendor's price list that are equal to or greater than the vendor's most
favored customers.1 These negotiations have a direct bearing on how
economically government agencies procure products and services. Today, my
statement will focus on GSA's historic use of two proven negotiation tools
to improve the pricing of schedules contracts-pre-award audits and
postaward audits of pre-award information. Pre-award audits allow GSA
contract negotiators to avoid potential vendor overpricing by verifying
pricing information before contracts are awarded. Postaward audits allow
negotiators to identify overpricing of awarded contracts and recover
overcharges.

In summary, GSA has used these two key price negotiation tools on a
limited basis. When GSA has used pre-award and postaward audits, it has
been able to avoid or recover hundreds of millions of dollars in
overcharges. In recent years, however, the use of these pricing tools has
declined dramatically-despite dramatic increases in program sales.
Consequently, GSA has less assurance that vendor-supplied pricing
information is accurate, complete, and current, and its ability to deter
overpricing and recover overcharges has been minimized. By delaying

1The most favored customer is a customer or category of customers that
receives the best discounts from the vendor's commercial price list. 48
C.F.R. 538.270(a).

Background

action to address its contract pricing problems, GSA continues to miss
opportunities to minimize prices paid for goods and services and save
significant sums of federal dollars.

GSA established the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program in 1949 to
facilitate federal agencies' purchase of common products and services from
commercial vendors through schedule contracts. The multiple award
schedules program, the largest FSS program, was designed to provide
agencies with a simplified method for purchasing varying quantities of a
wide range of commercially available products, such as office furniture
and supplies, personal computers, scientific equipment, network support,
and various professional services.2 The schedules program provides
advantages to both federal agencies and vendors. By using this simplified
method of procurement, agencies can avoid using other more timeconsuming
and administratively costly procurement methods. Vendors receive wider
exposure of their commercial products and services and expend less effort
to sell them.

In administering the multiple award schedules program, GSA is responsible
for ensuring that negotiated prices reflect the government's aggregate
buying power. GSA contracting officials seek discounts from a vendor's
price list that are equal to or greater than the vendor's most favored
customer's discounts. GSA awards contracts to multiple vendors supplying
comparable commercial products and services. Federal agencies order
products and services directly from the vendors that best meet their
needs. Prices paid by federal agencies include a fee for GSA to recover
program costs, including contract administration and program

3

support.

In the mid-1990s, GSA had about 5,200 schedules contracts. By fiscal year
2004, this number had increased to over 16,000 contracts. As the number of
contracts offering products and services to federal agencies increased,
the sales volume skyrocketed. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2004,

2In 1960, GSA delegated authority to the Veterans Administration to manage
and award schedules contracts for all medical products and services needed
throughout the federal healthcare system.

3The GSA schedule fee in fiscal year 2005 is 0.75 percent of negotiated
item or service price. 68 Fed. Reg. 41286 (July 11, 2003).

program sales increased more than sixfold, from $4.9 billion to about
$32.5 billion (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Multiple Award Schedules Sales Volume and Contracts, Fiscal
Years 1995 through 2004

Sales (in billions)

Number of contracts (thousands)

35 18

16 30

14

25 12

20 10

15 8

6 10

4

5 2

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Sales

Number of contracts

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

Because prices that agencies pay for schedule products and services are
the result of negotiations between GSA and individual vendors, the pricing
of products and services being offered is key to the contract negotiation
process. GSA contracting officials use various tools to analyze vendor
offers and establish negotiation objectives. Tools commonly used include
market research, sales histories, invoices and references, and competitor
price lists. Of all the pricing tools available for contract negotiation,
two tools-pre-award audits and postaward audits of pre-award information-
are specifically designed to protect the government from overpricing.
Preaward audits enable contract negotiators to verify that vendor-supplied
pricing information is accurate, complete, and current before the contract
is awarded. Postaward audits serve as a deterrent to overpricing and a
primary tool for recovering vendor overcharges.

Historically, GSA Has Not Consistently Made Good Use of Pre-award and
Postaward Audits

GSA's use of pre-award audits and postaward audits of pre-award
information has been sporadic-a finding we have reported for more than 25
years. For example, in March 1977, we reported that although sales from
multiple award schedules contracts amounted to $840 million, vendor
proposals were rarely independently audited and the veracity of the
information submitted was suspect.4 We found that sales and discount
information submitted on 6 of 15 contract proposals was not accurate,
complete, and current. Further, we found that 25 pre-award audits done in
fiscal years 1973 and 1974 had resulted in recommendations of $962,000 in
savings. Eighteen postaward audits done in the same years resulted in GSA
claims of more than $1.4 million. In 1979, we again reported that price
information submitted by some vendors was unreliable.5 Also, our
comparison of 29 products available through four states' annual contracts,
as well as GSA schedules, found that prices were on average 20 percent to
57 percent lower under the state contracts. We estimated that had GSA
obtained the same discounts as did the states, $5.8 million would have
been saved in fiscal year 1978 on purchases of calculators, dictating
equipment, typewriters, and lamps from the same manufacturers. Moreover,
of the 11 audits (1 pre-award and 10 postaward) that had been done during
fiscal years 1977 and 1978, all but 2 found inaccurate sales information
had been reported by vendors or the availability of better discounts had
not been disclosed.

Pricing problems continued throughout the 1980s, and GSA's use of preaward
audits and postaward audits of pre-award information was limited. For
example, in 1986, we again reviewed GSA's price negotiations for the
multiple award schedules program, which at that time consisted of about
3,300 contracts with sales of about $2.3 billion. Our review of 20
contracts found that while the prices GSA obtained appeared to be fair and
reasonable, action was needed to obtain better prices.6 On one multiple
award schedules contract, where the vendor did not offer the government
discounts comparable to the most favored customer, a reopening of contract
negotiations resulted in an estimated savings of $1.6 million. We also
found that the number of pre-award audits decreased between fiscal

4GAO, Federal Supply Service Not Buying Goods at Lowest Possible Price,
PSAD-77-69 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 1977).

5GAO, Ineffective Management of GSA's Multiple Award Schedule Program-A
Costly, Serious, And Longstanding Problem, PSAD-79-71 (Washington, D.C.:
May 2, 1979).

6GAO, GSA Procurement: Are Prices Negotiated for Multiple Award Schedules
Reasonable?, GAO/GGD-86-99BR (Washington, D.C.: July. 8, 1986).

years 1984 and 1985. The decrease was attributed to reductions in the
Inspector General's staff, a shift in resources to audits of higher dollar
value contracts, and the change from single-year to multiple year
contracts. In response to our concern about the continuing decline in the
number of pre-award audits, GSA agreed to take actions to provide adequate
audit coverage, including shifting resources from other GSA offices to the
Inspector General's office, as well as within the office, and an increase
in the Inspector General's fiscal year 1987 budget.

In the early 1990s, schedules sales remained relatively stable, ranging
between $4 billion and $5 billion, annually. During this period, GSA
successfully performed a significant number of pre-award and postaward
audits. For example, from fiscal years 1992 through 1996, the GSA
Inspector General conducted 624 pre-award audits-an average of 125 each
year. These pre-award audits resulted in nearly $480 million in negotiated
cost savings for GSA's customers. Additionally, from fiscal years 1990
through fiscal year 1994, the GSA Inspector General reported that it
recovered an average of $18 million each year in vendor overcharges. Most
of these postaward audit recoveries were the result of vendor failure to
provide accurate, complete, and current information in the negotiation of
their contracts and their failure to report and offer price reductions.

Despite Skyrocketing Sales, Pricing Problems and the Overall Decline in
the Use of Pre-award Audits Have Continued

In August 1997, GSA revised its acquisition regulations to expand access
to commercial products and services and implement greater use of
commercial buying practices. As part of this revision, GSA specifically
removed7 language from the examination of records clause that
automatically granted postaward audit rights for pre-award pricing
information in every schedules contract.8 To offset the reduction in these
postaward audits, GSA proposed to increase emphasis on the use of preaward
audits. According to GSA, this approach would provide the contracting
officer a mechanism for verifying information submitted by vendors and
avoid pricing problems instead of uncovering problems after contract
award. However, recent GSA Inspector General and GAO reviews have shown
that GSA's long-standing pricing problems have continued and the plan to
increase the use of pre-award audits never materialized.

GSA's Inspector General and GAO Continue to Identify Pricing Problems

In August 2001, the GSA Inspector General reported that while schedules
program sales had grown dramatically, certain program fundamentals-
including pricing objectives and other pricing tools-had been
marginalized.9 Specifically, the Inspector General found that contracting
officers were not consistently negotiating most favored customer pricing
or adequately performing price analyses. For example, the Inspector
General reported that a major distributor of information technology
products sold its top 10 GSA-selling models to commercial customers at an
average price that was 6 percent lower than the price offered to federal
agencies. The Inspector General projected that over the contract's term,
GSA customers would pay nearly $40 million more for these products than
they should.

In February 2005, we completed our most recent review of the multiple
awards schedules program and found that contract pricing continues to be

7The revised regulations allow the contracting officers to modify contract
language to provide for postaward access to vendor-supplied information if
they determine there was a likelihood of significant harm to the
government without such access, and obtain the senior procurement
executive's approval.

8GSA, however, retained the right to conduct postaward audits for
overbilling, billing errors, and compliance with the Price Reduction and
Industrial Funding Fee clauses. GSAR 552.215-71.

9General Services Administration, Office of Inspector General, MAS Pricing
Practices: Is FSS Observing Regulatory Provisions Regarding Pricing?
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24, 2001).

a problem.10 Table 1 summarizes the extent of the problems found with 62
contracts in June 2004.

Table 1: Contract Documentation Weaknesses of Schedules Contracts by Acquisition
                                     Center

                             Contracts that                         
                             did                                    
                                             Contracts Contracts    Contracts 
                                   not meet       with that did      that did 
                                    pricing                               not 
                                            inadequate not fully     identify 
                   Contracts  documentation price      document          most 
                                                                      favored 
     Acquisition   reviewed   requirementsa   analysis price         customer 
       center                                          negotiations     price 
     Center for                                                     
     Facilities                                                     
    Maintenance &                                                   
      Hardware             2              2          0            0 
       General                                                      
      Products                                                      
     Acquisition          10              5          5            0 
       Center                                                       
     Information                                                    
     Technology                                                     
       Center             10              8          5            7 
     Management                                                     
      Services                                                      
       Center             10             10          9            9 
      National                                                      
      Furniture                                                     
       Center             10              2          1            2 
Office Supplies                                                  
          &                                                         
Administrative                                                   
      Services                                                      
     Acquisition          10              9          6            6 
       Center                                                       
      Services                                                      
     Acquisition                                                    
       Center             10              1          0            0 
       Totalb             62             37         26           24 

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

aContract file documentation is to clearly establish that the
vendor-supplied pricing information was accurate, complete, and current;
that the vendor information was relied upon during the negotiations;
adequate price analysis was conducted; reasonable negotiation objectives
were established; the leverage of the total government's requirements was
considered in negotiating prices; and the prices awarded were determined
fair and reasonable.

bEach contract could have all, some, or none of the weaknesses listed in
each of the columns.

We found that a GSA review of 62 contract files identified 37 contracts-
nearly 60 percent-that lacked sufficient documentation to clearly
establish that the contracts were effectively negotiated. Twenty-six of
the 62 contracts-roughly 40 percent-lacked adequate price analyses or
price negotiation documentation.

10GAO, Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Pricing of GSA
Multiple Award Schedules Contracts, GAO-05-229 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11,
2005).

Decline of Pre-award Between fiscal years 1997 and 2004, GSA completed
only 155 pre-award

Audits Continued 	audits-an average of about 19 each year, compared to the
average of 125 pre-award audits annually for the prior 5 years (see fig.
2). During this same 8-year period, schedules sales increased nearly
five-fold from about $6.6 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $32.5 billion in
fiscal year 2004.

Figure 2: Pre-award Audits Conducted in Fiscal Years 1992 through 2004

Number of pre-award audits 200

180 160 154 140

                                                          120 100 80 60 40 20

                 0                                                   
       1992 1993 1994 1995   1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
            Fiscal year                                              
       Source: GSA Inspector                                         
           General data.                                             

As the number of pre-award audits performed continued to decline, so too
did the amount of negotiated cost savings. Between fiscal years 1992 and
1997, the GSA Inspector General reported a total of nearly $496 million in
savings-an average of nearly $83 million per year. Between fiscal years
1998 and 2004, the total savings reported had dropped to about $126
million-an average of only $18 million per year (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Negotiated Cost Savings from Pre-award Audits Conducted in
Fiscal Years 1992 through 2004

Savings (in millions of dollars)

200

180 174.7

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal
year

Source: GSA Inspector General data.

According to GSA Inspector General and contracting officials, the decline
in pre-award audits was largely due an organizational culture that
stresses making award decisions quickly and because pre-award audits were
not emphasized institutionally in GSA. Also, GSA management officials told
us that they believe increasing the contract length from 1 year in the
mid1990s to the 5 years of today has also limited pre-award audits because
the number of opportunities for pre-award audits has been reduced. We
believe, however, that the potential for pre-award audits is substantial.
Since the mid-1990s, the number of schedules contracts awarded increased
from about 5,200 in fiscal year 1995 to over 16,000 in fiscal year 2004,
significantly increasing the potential for pre-award audits.

While conducting our review, we tested GSA's assertion that longer-term
contracts reduced the opportunity for pre-award audits, applying GSA's
guidance11 to contract negotiators on when to request audit assistance. As
we reported in February 2005, we found that 71 contracts awarded or
extended in fiscal year 2003 met the pre-award audit threshold, but GSA

11Procurement Information Bulletin (PIB) 03-4: Audit Assistance-Multiple
Award Schedule (MAS) Contracts; General Services Administration, June 20,
2003. This guidance instructs contract negotiators to request audit
assistance when the dollar value for estimated sales of a contract offer
or extension exceeds $25 million for the 5-year contract period.

only completed 14 pre-award audits-57 fewer than we identified as
potential audits. In fiscal year 2004, GSA selected 55 contract offers for
pre-award audits. The GSA Inspector General completed 40 of these audits.

In our most recent review, we also found that GSA has not conducted
postaward audits of pre-award information since 1997-when GSA revised its
policy on the use of such audits. The revised policy had the effect of
eliminating the use of postaward audits. With the dramatic increase in
sales and the continuing decline in pre-award audits, the potential for
significant recoveries of vendor overcharges could be substantial.

Recent GSA Actions to Improve Price Negotiations

In our February 2005 report, we made three recommendations aimed at
helping GSA ensure that prices are effectively negotiated for schedules
contracts. We recommended that the GSA Administrator (1) ensure that
pre-award audits are conducted when the threshold is met for both new
contract offers and contract extensions, (2) develop guidance to help
contracting officers determine when postaward audits are needed, and (3)
direct GSA program management to revise its quality control program to (a)
determine the underlying causes for contract pricing deficiencies and (b)
develop appropriate plans to implement corrective actions.

GSA management officials agreed with our recommendations, and stated that
GSA would

o  	continue to work with the Inspector General to increase and improve
the number of pre-award audits,

o  	publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register to request comments on the role of postaward audit reviews in the
acquisition process,12 and

o  	evaluate the results of the fiscal year 2004 contract file review and
that this evaluation would involve a discussion and identification of the
underlying reasons for any weaknesses.

12GSA published advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register on March 11, 2005, requesting comments on whether postaward audit
provisions should be included in its FSS contracts and governmentwide
acquisition contracts. The Federal Register notice was amended on March
17, 2005 (70 FR 13005) and again on April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19051) to extend
the comment period until May 10, 2005, and to add further comments
concerning the Examination of Records clause at GSAR 552.215-71.

Contact and Acknowledgments

(120471)

We believe that GSA's actions are a good first step toward addressing its
long-standing pricing problems with multiple award schedules contracts.
However, unless these actions are effectively implemented the risk of
pricing problems will continue.

In conclusion, while GSA's schedules program has provided the government
with a more flexible and cost-effective approach to buying commercial
items, our work has shown that the program has long been fraught with
problems of contract overpricing-resulting in millions of taxpayer dollars
being wasted. Historically, pre-award and postaward audits have proven
their value in deterring overpricing and recovering vendor overcharges.
Until GSA takes steps to ensure the appropriate use of available pricing
and negotiation tools, it will continue to miss opportunities to save the
government hundreds of millions of dollars in the procurement of goods and
services.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared
statement. I will be happy to address any questions you may have at this
time.

For further information, please contact David E. Cooper at (202) 512-4841
or by e-mail at [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this testimony. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include James Fuquay, Sanford Reigle, Victoria Klepacz, Karen Sloan, and
Sylvia Schatz.

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.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

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

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

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

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

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***