U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Selected Contracting and Human	 
Capital Issues (17-NOV-05, GAO-06-16).				 
                                                                 
In January 2005, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC)	 
implemented a plan, in part, to address a backlog of pending	 
cases. This report discusses actions related to the development  
of this plan, including whether required practices and procedures
were followed in contracting for the services of a management	 
consulting company and in hiring an intermittent employee as a	 
consultant. Also, the report identifies avenues of redress	 
available to OSC employees for filing prohibited personnel	 
practice allegations against OSC, and other redress options that 
could be made available.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-16						        
    ACCNO:   A41637						        
  TITLE:     U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Selected Contracting and 
Human Capital Issues						 
     DATE:   11/17/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Agency proceedings 				 
	     Competitive procurement				 
	     Consultants					 
	     Contract administration				 
	     Contracting officers				 
	     Contractors					 
	     Grievance procedures				 
	     Prices and pricing 				 
	     Prohibited personnel practices			 
	     Sole source procurement				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-16

                 United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2005

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

                 Selected Contracting and Human Capital Issues

                                       a

GAO-06-16

November 2005

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

Selected Contracting and Human Capital Issues

[IMG]

  What GAO Found

At OSC's request, the Administrative Resource Center (ARC), an office
within the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt
which provides OSC with contracting support for a fee, issued a $140,000
sole-source task order for an organizational assessment to a consulting
firm, Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). In doing so, several
required steps were not taken:

o 	competition was not sought among Schedule vendors and there was no
convincing demonstration of why a sole-source order was necessary.

o 	the determination of the reasonableness of MPRI's price was not
documented, and

o 	OSC officials performed duties normally done by contracting officer's
representatives without authorization or training and, further, performed
other duties that should have been reserved for the contracting officer.

ARC officials told us they relied largely on OSC's input in justifying the
solesource order and determining MPRI's price to be reasonable and that
they were unaware that the OSC officials had performed contracting-related
duties. They told us that they are now paying particular attention to
requests from their customers, including OSC, for sole-source orders. OSC
officials said that they relied on ARC's expertise, as their contracting
office, to ensure that proper contracting procedures were followed.

The tasks specified in the statement of work for the consultant that OSC
hired as an intermittent employee and that he completed before his
departure were consistent with Office of Personnel Management criteria for
appropriate uses of expert and consultant appointments. The intermittent
employee was tasked with two major lines of work related to efficiency and
curriculum development. OSC management expressed confidence in the
individual's qualifications and was within its discretion to both hire him
and set his level of compensation.

While OSC employees, like other federal employees, are protected against
prohibited personnel practices and may seek redress from OSC in making
such allegations, this option becomes unworkable because of potential
conflicts of interest when an OSC employee raises such an allegation of a
prohibited personnel practice against either of the two top OSC officials.
Two other federal agencies with redress roles, the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
have taken steps to address potential conflicts of interest when their own
employees use their agency's respective redress processes. Steps could be
taken to ensure that OSC employees have alternative avenues of recourse;
for example, they could have an external investigation conducted through
an independent body or broader appeal rights to the MSPB. OSC could not
independently implement these options, and would need to be given
authority to do so.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Order for Organizational Assessment Did Not Comply with Rules
Tasks Specified for OSC-Appointed Intermittent Employee Were

Consistent with OPM Criteria

Redress Actions for OSC Employees Are Not Workable in Certain
Cases; Other Agencies Have Developed Procedures for Internal
Cases

Additional Redress Options Could Be Made Available to OSC

Employees
Conclusions
Matter for Congressional Consideration
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments

1 3 5 7

12

16

20 21 22 22 22

Appendixes

Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Special Counsel 26

Appendix II:	Comments from the Administrative Resource Center, Bureau
of the Public Debt, U.S. Department of the Treasury 29

Contents

Abbreviations

ALJ administrative law judge
ADEA Age Discrimination in Employment Act
ARC Administrative Resource Center
EEO Equal Employment Opportunity
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ECIE Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
GSA General Services Administration
MOBIS Management, Organizational and Business Improvement

Services MPRI Military Professional Resources, Inc. MSPB Merit Systems
Protection Board OEO Office of Equal Opportunity OGE Office of Government
Ethics OMB Office of Management and Budget OPM Office of Personnel
Management OSC Office of Special Counsel PCIE President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency

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.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

November 17, 2005

Congressional Requesters

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is charged with safeguarding the merit
system by protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel
practices, such as retaliation against whistleblowing, discrimination, and
nepotism.1 If an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment in
the federal government believes that a prohibited personnel practice has
occurred, that individual may file a complaint with OSC.2 In March 2004,
we reported that OSC had not been consistently processing its cases within
statutory time limits, creating backlogs.3 In January 2005, in part to
reduce these backlogs, the Special Counsel created a plan to reorganize
OSC offices and change certain internal procedures.

You raised some questions about certain actions taken as part of OSC's
plan, including OSC's sole-source procurement of an organizational
assessment from a management consulting company and the hiring of an
intermittent employee to perform consulting services. Additionally, you
had questions about redress options that were available to OSC employees
who might want to file a prohibited personnel practice allegation against
OSC. This report responds to your interest by assessing (1) whether
required practices and procedures were followed in contracting for the
services of a management consulting company to conduct an organizational
assessment, (2) whether OSC followed required procedures and policies when
it hired an individual to perform consulting services on an intermittent
basis, (3) the avenues of redress available to OSC employees who wish to
file prohibited personnel practice allegations and how two other federal
agencies with redress roles handle complaints by their employees against
their agency, and (4) other redress options that could be made available
to OSC employees.

1Prohibited personnel practices are specified in 5 U.S.C. S: 2302(b).

25 U.S.C. S: 1214. OSC also carries out a number of other
responsibilities, including handling whistleblower disclosure claims,
advising federal and certain state and local employees concerning
permissible political activities under the Hatch Act and handling alleged
violations of that act, and handling complaints concerning the employment
rights of individuals serving in the uniformed military service.

3GAO, U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Strategy for Reducing Persistent
Backlog of Cases Should Be Provided to Congress, GAO-04-36 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 8, 2004).

To assess OSC's actions related to contracting for the organizational
assessment, we reviewed OSC's memorandum of understanding with the
Administrative Resource Center (ARC), an office within the U.S. Department
of the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt, to provide procurement
assistance to OSC for a fee. We reviewed the task order that ARC issued to
the company on behalf of OSC, as well as other documents, such as OSC's
sole-source justification and the company's statement of work. We reviewed
relevant sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the
General Services Administration's (GSA) ordering procedures, in effect at
the time the order was placed, for Schedule contracts.4 We met with
current and former OSC officials knowledgeable about the procedures that
were followed in selecting the company to do the organizational
assessment. We also interviewed contracting officials at ARC. For our work
on the hiring of the intermittent employee, we reviewed relevant Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) criteria, as well as documents related to this
particular hiring process and the individual's completed work at OSC. We
also obtained data from OSC officials on general personnel policies and
procedures for making expert and consultant appointments. However, we did
not assess the employee's qualifications to perform the tasks specified in
the statement of work.

In developing information on the process that OSC employees follow when
making prohibited personnel practice allegations against OSC, we reviewed
current OSC policies and procedures and met with current and former OSC
officials. We also met with officials from the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to
determine how they handle their own employees' appeals or complaints
against their agency. Finally, we discussed potential redress options for
OSC employees with numerous OSC officials, former and current, as well as
MSPB and EEOC staff. We conducted our review from February 2005 through
August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

4Under the Schedule program, GSA establishes long-term governmentwide
contracts with commercial firms to provide access to commercial supplies
and services at volume discount pricing. Ordering agencies place delivery
or task orders against these contracts.

Results in Brief	ARC did not satisfy competition requirements in issuing a
$140,000 solesource task order for an organizational assessment, at OSC's
request, to the consulting firm Military Professional Resources, Inc.
(MPRI).5 The required justification for waiving competition was not a
convincing demonstration of why a sole-source order was necessary. It did
not explain how MPRI was determined to be uniquely qualified to perform
the work. In addition, neither ARC, which was responsible for doing so,
nor OSC documented that MPRI's price was determined to be reasonable.
Finally, OSC officials performed duties, normally done by contracting
officer's representatives, without authorization or training and, further,
performed other duties that should have been reserved for the contracting
officer, such as soliciting proposals and negotiating the price with MPRI.
As the contracting office for OSC, ARC is responsible for ensuring that
any justification for waiving competition is adequate and that proper
contracting procedures are followed. ARC officials said they relied
largely on OSC's input in justifying the sole-source order and determining
MPRI's price to be reasonable. They were unaware that the OSC officials
had performed the duties of contracting officer's representatives. They
told us that they are now paying particular attention to requests from
their customers, including OSC, for sole-source orders. OSC officials said
that they relied on ARC's expertise, as their contracting office, to
ensure that proper contracting practices were followed. We are making
recommendations to OSC and ARC to help ensure that the problems we
identified do not occur in the future.

OSC also hired an intermittent employee on March 17, 2004. The tasks
specified in the employee's statement of work and that he completed before
his departure were consistent with OPM criteria for appropriate uses of
expert and consultant appointments. The consultant, who was employed on an
intermittent basis, was tasked with two major lines of work related to
efficiency and curriculum development. OSC management expressed confidence
in the individual's qualifications and was within its discretion to both
hire him and set his level of compensation.

5MPRI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of L3 Communications, whose core
competencies, according to the company, center on security sector reform,
institution-building, leadership development, training, education, and
emergency management.

While OSC employees, like other federal employees, are protected against
prohibited personnel practices and may seek redress from OSC in making
such allegations, this option becomes unworkable when an OSC employee
raises such an allegation of prohibited personnel practice against the two
top officials of OSC-the Special Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel.
This was recently illustrated when two prohibited personnel practice
complaints were filed against the Special Counsel. Citing a potential
conflict of interest, the complainants requested that the cases be
forwarded to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE),6
as an independent third party for review. While OSC policies and
procedures do not provide specific options to OSC employees in such cases,
this case was subsequently forwarded to the PCIE. Two other federal
agencies with redress roles, the MSPB and the EEOC, have taken steps to
address potential conflicts of interest when their own employees use their
agencies' respective redress processes. However, OSC would need specific
authority to implement options, such as establishing the right to an
external investigation or broader appeal rights to the MSPB, since OSC
does not have the mechanism to provide for such investigations and the
MSPB appeals process is in statute.

Due to the unique nature of OSC and the difficulties involved when a
prohibited personnel practice allegation is made against the Special
Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel, Congress should consider affording
OSC employees (and former employees and applicants for employment)
alternative means of addressing prohibited personnel practice allegations
other than going through OSC. These means could include establishing (1) a
right to an external investigation through an independent entity, where
the entity would forward its findings to the President, who would decide
the appropriate action, as is done when OSC handles allegations of
prohibited personnel practices against Senateconfirmed presidential
appointees; or (2) an expansion of the personnel actions that could be the
basis for an appeal directly to the MSPB.

Both ARC and OSC agreed with our recommendations. OSC expressed concern
that some facts were not mentioned in the report and questioned the tone
of the section pertaining to the sole-source order with MPRI. OSC
suggested several wording changes to the report. While we clarified our
wording in several places based on close-out discussions with OSC

6The PCIE is an interagency council, including presidentially appointed
inspectors general, charged with promoting integrity and efficiency in
federal programs.

officials, we did not make the changes suggested by OSC in its comment
letter because they were not supported by the evidence we developed during
our review and OSC did not provide any additional evidence in its
comments.

Background	OSC, which does not have in-house contracting staff, has an
agreement with ARC, an office within Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt,
to provide contracting support for a fee. As a member of the Treasury
franchise fund, ARC does not receive direct appropriated funds, but
instead relies on revenue from its federal agency customers to pay
organizational expenses. Franchise funds are government-run,
self-supporting, business-like enterprises that provide a variety of
common administrative services, such as payroll processing, information
technology support, and contracting.7

The agreement between ARC and OSC is a mechanism for interagency
contracting. This type of fee-for-service procurement process generally
involves three parties: the agency requiring a good or service, the agency
placing the order or awarding the contract, and the contractors that
provide the goods and services. The requiring agency officials determine
the goods or services needed and, if applicable, prepare a statement of
work, sometimes with the assistance of the ordering agency. The
contracting officer at the ordering agency ensures that the contract or
order is properly awarded or issued (including any required competition)
and administered under applicable regulations and agency requirements. If
contract performance will be ongoing, a contracting officer's
representative-generally an official at the requiring agency with relevant
technical expertise-is normally designated by the contracting officer to
monitor the contractor's performance and serve as the liaison between the
contracting officer and the contractor. While interagency contracting can
offer the benefits of improved efficiency and timeliness, this approach
needs to be effectively managed. Due to the challenges associated with
interagency contracts, we recently designated interagency contracting as a
governmentwide high-risk area.8

7We recently issued a report on franchise funds: Interagency Contracting:
Franchise Funds Provide Convenience, but Value to DOD is Not Demonstrated,
GAO-05-456 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005).

8GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January
2005).

As authorized by OSC's appropriation, OSC may use 5 U.S.C. S: 3109 to hire
intermittent consultants.9 Section 3109 permits agencies, when authorized
by an appropriation or other statute, to acquire the temporary or
intermittent services of experts or consultants. Under the statute,
appointments of experts and consultants may be made without regard to
competitive service provisions and classification and pay requirements.
Individuals appointed under this authority may not be paid in excess of
the highest rate payable for a GS-15 unless a higher rate is expressly
provided for by statute or an appropriation. Under section 3109, OPM is
responsible for prescribing criteria governing circumstances in which it
is appropriate to employ an expert or consultant and for prescribing
criteria for setting pay.

Section 3109 of title 5 and OPM's implementing regulations in 5 C.F.R.
Part 304 provide for broad discretion in the appointment of experts and
consultants. In promulgating its regulations, OPM recognized that agencies
need to obtain outside opinion and expertise to improve federal programs,
operations, and services and that by bringing in the talent and insights
of experts and consultants, agencies can work more economically and
effectively.10

OSC's primary mission is to protect federal employees from prohibited
personnel practices. It carries out this mission by conducting
investigations, attempting informal resolution through discussions with
the agency during the investigation phase (or by offering mediation), and,
when necessary, prosecuting corrective and disciplinary actions before the
MSPB. An individual may also request that the Special Counsel go before
the MSPB to seek to delay an adverse personnel action, such as a
termination, pending an OSC investigation. If an agency fails to remedy a
prohibited personnel practice upon request by OSC, corrective action may
be obtained through litigation before the MSPB. OSC may also seek
disciplinary action against an employee believed to be responsible for
committing a prohibited personnel practice by filing a complaint with the
MSPB. However, when the disciplinary action involves presidential

9See Pub. L. No. 108-199, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, 118 Stat.
3, Division F - Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations, at 118 Stat. 339-340 (Jan. 23, 2004). See also, Pub. L.
No. 108-447, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 118 Stat. 2809,
Division H - Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies and General
Government Appropriations, at 118 Stat. 3263-3264 (Dec. 8, 2004).

1059 Fed. Reg. 67232, Dec. 29, 1994.

appointees (subject to Senate confirmation), OSC forwards its complaint
against the appointee, a statement of supporting facts, and any response
of the appointee to the President for appropriate action.11

Obtaining the assistance of OSC may be an individual's only recourse with
regard to an alleged prohibited personnel practice, unless the individual
can pursue the matter with the MSPB or through the discrimination
complaint process. Only employees who have been subject to an adverse
action, such as a termination, demotion, or suspension beyond 14 days, may
appeal to the MSPB and argue that such adverse action was the result of a
prohibited personnel practice. An employee would not be able to go
directly to the MSPB to complain that a geographic relocation was the
result of a prohibited personnel practice. Even when an employee alleges
that he or she was retaliated against for whistleblowing, he or she must
first go to OSC and wait 120 days before filing directly with the MSPB,
unless that employee was subject to an adverse action as noted above. An
employee may also pursue resolution of a prohibited personnel practice
through the federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) process if the
prohibited practice relates to discrimination covered under the
antidiscrimination laws enforced by the EEOC.12

  Order for Organizational Assessment Did Not Comply with Rules

In contracting with MPRI for the organizational assessment, several
required steps were not taken:

o 	competition was not sought among Schedule vendors, and there was no
convincing demonstration of why a sole-source order was necessary,

o 	the determination of the reasonableness of MPRI's price was not
documented, and

o 	OSC officials performed duties normally done by contracting officer's
representatives without authorization or training and, further, performed
other duties that should have been reserved for the contracting officer.

115 U.S.C. S: 1215(b).

12See GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO
Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures, GAO-03-604 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2003), for a discussion of EEO laws applicable to federal
employees and the process governing EEO complaints.

    No Competition Was Sought and Waiver Lacked Credibility

Contracting officers are generally required by the Competition in
Contracting Act13 to promote and provide for full and open competition in
soliciting offers and awarding government contracts. Use of GSA's Schedule
program is considered a competitive procedure as long as the procedures
established for the program are followed.14 In this instance, GSA's
procedures required ordering offices to prepare a request for quotes and
evaluate contractor catalogs and price lists, transmit the request to at
least three contractors, and after evaluating the responses, place the
order with the Schedule contractor that represented the best value. GSA's
Schedule for Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services
(MOBIS), under which the MPRI task order was issued, includes these
special ordering procedures. At the time the MPRI order was placed (April
2004), neither the FAR nor GSA's ordering procedures explicitly provided
for sole-source orders under GSA Schedule contracts. However, ordering
offices could meet competition requirements by properly justifying such an
order. 15

Rather than follow the required GSA special ordering procedures by placing
the task order competitively on behalf of OSC, ARC approved a written
sole-source justification prepared by OSC. The justification stipulated
that the required services were available from only one responsible
source-MPRI-and no other contractor could satisfy agency requirements.
When supplies or services are available from only one responsible source
and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency
requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for.16
However, the justification merely asserted that "no other contractor
except MPRI, Inc. has the experience and background in this type of
sensitive assessment." It did not contain sufficient facts and rationale
to justify a sole-source order and did not provide the minimum required
information.17

1341 U.S.C. S: 253.

14See FAR 6.102(d)(3) and 8.404(a).

15Effective July 2004, new procedures in FAR 8.405-6 set forth criteria
for documenting justification and approval of sole-source Schedule orders.

1641 U.S.C. S: 253(c)(1); FAR 6.302-1.

17FAR subpart 6.3 describes the minimum required information in justifying
a sole-source award. The new procedures in FAR 8.405-6 for sole-source
justification and approval of Schedule orders were not in effect at the
time the OSC order was placed with MPRI.

For example, the justification did not

o 	demonstrate that the proposed contractor's unique qualifications or the
nature of the acquisition required an exception to full and open
competition,

o 	describe efforts made to ensure that offers were solicited from as many
potential sources as practicable,

o  determine that the anticipated cost would be fair and reasonable, or

o  describe the market research conducted and the results.

The only support in OSC's justification for the statement that MPRI was
uniquely qualified for the task is a statement that "an informal market
survey reveals that only MPRI has the demonstrated past performance in
bringing together the required unbiased and highly ethical subject matter
experts to complete this type of assessment in the time allocated."
However, the cited market survey does not provide a credible foundation
for the conclusion that only MPRI could perform the work. The Special
Counsel and his Deputy asked three vendors, including MPRI, for
presentations. OSC officials could not recall how these three vendors were
selected, and no documentation was available-such as a request for
quotes-that set forth the requirement to which the vendors were
responding. Rather, the request was communicated orally to the vendors.
OSC provided us with proposals submitted by two of the vendors and stated
that MPRI submitted a statement of work as its proposal. This statement of
work subsequently became part of ARC's official contract file. We found
that the summary statement of OSC's requirement and the scope of work
differ among the three proposals. OSC officials explained that the two
vendors' proposals were not well-matched to what the Special Counsel had
communicated to them as OSC's requirements and that MPRI offered a
"no-frills" approach that met OSC's needs. Nevertheless, in the absence of
a documented request for quotes or other solicitation tool, it is not
possible to determine whether MPRI and the other vendors were responding
to the same set of requirements. Further, our recent search of GSA's Web
site revealed that 1,668 vendors (1,163 of them small businesses) had
contracts under GSA's MOBIS schedule, many of which could have potentially
performed the required services.

The sole-source justification listed other factors as well. It stated that
"there is insufficient time and no contractor's [sic] currently have the
expertise to meet Government's requirements given the required budget
limitations." There is no explanation in the justification as to why only
this contractor could perform the task within the required time frame. In
fact,

despite the reference to urgency, 3 days before the period of performance
was to end, OSC asked ARC to change the required completion date, almost
doubling the time frame from 3 to 5- 1/2 months (with no increase in
price). While acknowledging that the final, written report was a contract
deliverable in the statement of work, OSC officials explained that MPRI
met their needs within the 3-month period by providing a briefing on its
findings that enabled OSC to begin addressing the problems that had been
identified. Further, contracting without providing for full and open
competition cannot be justified on the basis of concerns related to the
amount of funds available. 18 Thus, the justification's reference to
budget constraints necessitating a sole-source order is not a valid
rationale.19

ARC contracting officials did not question or validate OSC's
justification, but told us they relied to a great extent on OSC's input in
justifying the solesource order. They said that they are now paying closer
attention to requests from customer agencies, including OSC, for
sole-source orders. OSC officials told us that, because ARC did not raise
questions about the justification, they assumed it was adequate.

    Price Reasonableness Determination Not Documented

A sole-source justification is required to document a determination by the
contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the government will be
fair and reasonable. Neither ARC, which was responsible for doing so, nor
OSC adequately documented that MPRI's price was reasonable. Although
vendors' GSA Schedule labor rates have already been determined by GSA to
be fair and reasonable, ordering agencies are required to evaluate the
contractor's price for orders requiring a statement of work. The
contractor's price is based on the labor rates in the Schedule contract,
the mix of labor categories, and the level of effort required to perform
the services. Normally, when ordering services from GSA Schedules that
require a statement of work, the ordering office is responsible for
evaluating the contractor's level of effort and mix of labor proposed to
perform the specific tasks being ordered and for making a determination as
to whether the price is reasonable.

1841 U.S.C. S: 253(f)(5); FAR 6.301(c).

19The sole-source justification cites an estimated cost of $110,000.
However, the task order was issued in the amount of $140,000. OSC
officials told us that the additional cost was for a human resource
analysis that was added to the scope of the work.

ARC officials told us that they relied on OSC to conduct the price
reasonableness assessment by reviewing a breakout of MPRI's price by skill
mix, number of hours, and rates for each labor category. They maintain
that the minimum requirements for price reasonableness documentation were
met. However, we found no documentation demonstrating that the required
price evaluation had been performed. OSC officials stated that the
informal market survey was adequate to determine MPRI's price as
reasonable because MPRI's price-which the Deputy Special Counsel
negotiated with the vendor-was lower than the other vendors' prices.
However, the absence of a solicitation instrument that would show all
three vendors responded to the same requirement, and the disparities in
the vendors' proposed scopes of work, do not support OSC's assertion.

    Unauthorized OSC Officials Performed Duties of Contracting Officer's
    Representatives

One of the contracting officer's key responsibilities is ensuring that the
government monitors the contractor's performance. The contracting officer,
in this case ARC, may designate a contracting officer's representative in
the requiring agency, in this case OSC, to act as the contracting
officer's technical expert and representative in the monitoring and
administration of a contract or task order. ARC's standard designation
letter to contracting officer's representatives outlines the scope of
these responsibilities, including such things as monitoring the
contractor's performance, representing the government in meetings with the
contractor, keeping the contracting officer informed, and reviewing the
contractor's invoices. ARC follows Treasury's training program for
contracting officer's representatives, which consists of a basic
acquisition course of at least 24 hours that includes pre-award,
post-award, and procurement ethics training.

ARC contracting staff named OSC's former human resource chief, who had
taken the required training, as the contracting officer's representative
for the MPRI task order.20 However, two other OSC officials not named by
ARC, the Special Assistant and Director of Management and Budget and the
Deputy Special Counsel, who had not received the training, effectively
acted in the role of contracting officer's representatives on the MPRI

20This official retired in September 2004.

order.21 In an April 20, 2004, e-mail to OSC staff, the Special Counsel
named the Special Assistant as the liaison between the agency and the
contractor. The statement of work names this official as the "governing
authority" for the effort and as responsible for coordinating with the
contractor on "any other direct costs" and certain travel requirements.
Also, the Deputy Special Counsel was responsible for approving MPRI's
contract execution plan and the contract deliverables.

Further, ARC's delegation letter to contracting officer's representatives
prohibits the delegation of or responsibility for certain duties, such as
soliciting proposals, making commitments or promises to a contractor
relating to the award of a contract, and negotiating the price with the
contractor. The Special Counsel and Deputy Special Counsel, as discussed
above, solicited proposals from three vendors, and the Deputy negotiated
the final price with MPRI, functions that should have been performed by
the ARC contracting officer.

ARC contracting staff were not aware that the OSC officials had performed
these duties until we informed them. They said that only the former human
resource chief had received the training and authorization to act as a
contracting officer's representative. OSC officials said that ARC, as
their contracting office, never told them they were not following proper
contracting practices.

  Tasks Specified for OSC-Appointed Intermittent Employee Were Consistent with
  OPM Criteria

The tasks specified in the statement of work for the consultant that OSC
hired on March 17, 2004, and that he completed before his departure were
consistent with OPM criteria for appropriate uses of expert and consultant
appointments. The employee, who was employed on an intermittent basis, was
tasked with two major lines of work related to efficiency and curriculum
development. OSC management expressed confidence in his qualifications and
used its discretion to both hire him and set his compensation rate.

21The Special Counsel's Special Assistant was certified as a contracting
officer's representative on September 16, 2004, 2 weeks before the period
of performance of the MPRI order ended. However, this official was never
designated as a contracting officer's representative for the MPRI order,
according to the ARC contracting officer.

    OSC Gave Intermittent Employee Two Significant Tasks and Said Pay Was Based
    on Qualifications

OPM regulations permit agency heads to establish expert or consultant pay
rates, but in doing so to consider specified factors, including level of
difficulty of the work, qualifications of the expert or consultant, and
pay rates of individuals performing comparable work.22 At the suggestion
of the Special Counsel, OSC officials hired Alan J. Hicks as an
intermittent employee on March 17, 2004, using the appointment authority
under 5 U.S.C. S: 3109. According to the appointment paperwork, Mr.
Hicks's appointment was to last from March 17, 2004, until March 16, 2005,
and he was to work an intermittent schedule. His pay rate was set slightly
below the highest rate for a GS-15.23 Mr. Hicks resigned his appointment
effective October 24, 2004. During the 7 months Mr. Hicks was employed by
OSC, he worked a total of 123 hours for a total of $6,621.09 in pay.

Before hiring Mr. Hicks, the Special Counsel identified him as a possible
consultant based on prior knowledge of Mr. Hicks's work as the headmaster
of a private secondary school. The Deputy Special Counsel told us that he
justified Mr. Hicks's pay on the basis of his qualifications-
specifically, his experience as headmaster and his educational level.24 He
also noted that the Special Counsel had worked with Mr. Hicks and
respected his opinion and judgment. According to Mr. Hicks's resume,
during the 10 years of his headmaster position, he was responsible for a
number of administrative functions, including designing and writing
student curricula, recruiting and training faculty and staff, establishing
financial and organizational structures of the school, hiring and
management decisions, as well as teaching history, logic, and biology.
According to his resume, Mr. Hicks had also taught at the college level.

225 C.F.R. S: 304.104.

23Mr. Hicks's basic pay was set at $53.83 per hour; the maximum rate at
the time of his appointment was $54.47 per hour.

24Although the Deputy Special Counsel indicated that Mr. Hicks had a
Ph.D., Mr. Hicks's resume showed that he had completed coursework for a
Ph.D. but had not completed his dissertation. Subsequently, an OSC
official indicated that the Deputy Special Counsel misspoke about Mr.
Hicks's educational level.

    Statement of Work and Duties Actually Performed by Intermittent Employee
    Were Consistent with OPM Criteria

OPM regulations provide that agencies may appoint qualified experts or
consultants to an expert or consultant position that requires only
intermittent and/or temporary employment.25 While OPM regulations do not
establish specific criteria for determining qualifications, they do
generally describe the expectations for such positions and what
constitutes appropriate tasks for experts and consultants to perform. For
example, the regulations describe a consultant as a person who can provide
valuable and pertinent advice generally drawn from a high degree of broad
administrative, professional, or technical knowledge or experience.
Furthermore, a consultant position is one that requires providing advice,
views, opinions, alternatives, or recommendations on a temporary or
intermittent basis on issues, problems, or questions presented by a
federal official. The regulations also provide examples of inappropriate
uses of expert/consultant appointments, including work performed by the
agency's regular employees.

Mr. Hicks's tasks were related to addressing OSC's backlog that we
identified in our March 2004 report.26 Specifically, an OSC official noted
that his experience in curricula development at the boarding school was
viewed as key to cross-train employees in different units so those
employees could be utilized in a number of ways to address workload.
According to the OSC official, Mr. Hicks's efforts would complement those
of MPRI. The official said he was confident that Mr. Hicks was fully
qualified to do the work, and that OSC used management discretion to
approve the appointment. Another official observed that Mr. Hicks provided
both an outside perspective and experience that regular OSC staff did not
have. Officials also said that although Mr. Hicks only worked at OSC for a
short time, the agency was pleased with the value he added.

Both the duties set out in Mr. Hicks's statement of work, as well as those
duties he actually performed, were consistent with OPM regulations.
According to the statement of work prepared by the human resource chief at
the Deputy Special Counsel's direction, Mr. Hicks was to (1) review and
analyze OSC program policies and procedures for efficiency and make
recommendations and develop written revisions to these policies and
procedures and (2) develop a long-term training curriculum and deliver
training. Shortly before he terminated his consultant work for OSC,

255 C.F.R. Part 304. 26GAO-04-36.

Mr. Hicks submitted a report outlining the work that he performed. In his
report, Mr. Hicks made a number of observations on his concurrence with
MPRI's conclusions. The report also said he was involved in a number of
other tasks, including

o  examining operational training manuals,

o 	meeting with staff concerning the procedures for handling whistleblower
disclosure complaints,

o 	assisting with and attending the Special Counsel's testimony before a
congressional subcommittee,

o 	preparing a paper for presentation at a staff retreat on philosophical
matters related to work,

o 	meeting with MPRI to discuss its assessments and to share his
observations based on his work, and

o 	having numerous conversations with the Special Counsel concerning the
assessment team, his recommendations for curriculum and training, and the
need for streamlined procedures.

While most of the tasks that Mr. Hicks actually performed were consistent
with those enumerated in his statement of work, Mr. Hicks also worked on
whistleblower disclosure cases.27 According to an OSC official, Mr. Hicks
spent approximately 25 percent of his time working through 50 disclosure
case files. The OSC official stated that Mr. Hicks was not provided
disclosure case files that contained sensitive information for which a
security clearance would have been required.

While Mr. Hicks noted in his report that this work on the disclosure cases
"served the dual purpose of analysis of procedures and a reduction of
backlog," an OSC official stated that Mr. Hicks's efforts were related to
an analysis of the process of handling disclosures and not the type of
efforts OSC's disclosure unit employees perform in handling such cases.
According to the OSC official, while Mr. Hicks contacted some of the
whistleblowers directly, it was for the purpose of determining those
individuals' impressions about the process. This official stated that
these activities were performed at the initiative of the Special Counsel
and his senior staff, in order for Mr. Hicks to gain a better
understanding of those processes and procedures specified in the statement
of work. This official stated that prior to Mr. Hicks's arrival at OSC,
the Special Counsel

27Whistleblower disclosures are federal employees' allegations of
wrongdoing by other federal employees, such as violations of laws and
"gross waste" of funds.

forwarded to Mr. Hicks statutory provisions on OSC's duties relating to
disclosures from whistleblowers, including the obligation of OSC to
maintain the confidentiality of a whistleblower's identity.28

  Redress Actions for OSC Employees Are Not Workable in Certain Cases; Other
  Agencies Have Developed Procedures for Internal Cases

Although OSC employees, like other federal employees, can seek redress for
alleged prohibited personnel practices through OSC, this may be unworkable
for OSC employees in certain circumstances. Two other agencies with
redress roles, MSPB and EEOC, have acknowledged the need to avoid
conflicts when their employees have complaints and have taken steps to
avoid such conflicts when their employees use their agency's respective
redress processes.

    Seeking Redress through OSC Can Be Unworkable for OSC Employees for
    Allegations Against the Special Counsel or Deputy Special Counsel

Title 5 of the United States Code protects federal employees, including
OSC employees, from prohibited personnel practices.29 OSC employees who
believe that a prohibited personnel practice has occurred may seek redress
from OSC. OSC employees may also seek redress through appealing adverse
actions to the MSPB and filing EEO complaints.

According to OSC officials, there are two ways in which an OSC employee
could bring a prohibited personnel practice allegation within OSC. First,
OSC employees may use the agency's administrative grievance system.30 If
fact-finding is needed for a complaint filed against OSC staff, an OSC
employee who has not been involved in the matter being grieved and, when
possible, does not occupy a position subordinate to any official involved
in the matter being grieved, is selected to conduct a review and prepare a
report. Ideally, that employee is also located in a different geographic
area; for example, an OSC employee in Dallas could be assigned to a
complaint filed in Washington, D.C. OSC officials stated that this would
ensure objectivity and independence in the processing of the complaint.
Fact

285 U.S.C. S: 1213(h).

29Former federal employees and applicants for federal employment are also
protected against prohibited personnel practices. See 5 U.S.C. S: 2302(b).

30OSC's Directive No. 1400-36, dated October 12, 2000, addresses the
agency's administrative grievance process.

finding is conducted informally and includes the collection of documents
and statements of witnesses, as necessary. The grievant's second-level
supervisor would render a decision based upon the fact-finder's report and
any comments on the report provided by the grievant. The grievant may
appeal this decision to the Deputy Special Counsel, or, if the matter was
grieved to the Deputy Special Counsel in the first instance, to the
Special Counsel. Both current and former OSC officials stated that this
process could be successfully used when the prohibited personnel practice
allegation relates to the actions of an official below the Deputy Special
Counsel level. However, if the administrative grievance system were to be
used to address grievances against the Special Counsel or the Deputy
Special Counsel, there would be a conflict of interest since the final
decision maker in this process is the Special Counsel.

Second, OSC officials stated that OSC employees who believe a prohibited
personnel practice has occurred can file a complaint with OSC in the same
fashion as an individual from outside OSC. However, OSC employees do not
have an outside agency to represent them in an independent manner- the
role that OSC plays for non-OSC employees in cases involving prohibited
personnel practices. When an employee raises a prohibited personnel
practice allegation against the Special Counsel, addressing such an
allegation within OSC becomes unworkable because, OSC officials stated,
all OSC employees ultimately report to the Special Counsel. OSC officials
also stated that there cannot be an independent review when the employee
performing the investigation reports to the individual being investigated.
According to former and current OSC officials, the difficulty also extends
to allegations against the Deputy Special Counsel because the Deputy
Special Counsel, who is typically a noncareer senior executive, has a
confidential relationship with the Special Counsel.

According to the previous Special Counsel, an effort among senior staff to
establish procedures for handling OSC employee allegations of prohibited
personnel practices against senior OSC officers, including the Special
Counsel, was initiated during her tenure. However, the effort was not
completed, she said, noting that OSC staff did not reach a consensus over
what the alternative process should be for handling complaints against the
Special Counsel. The previous Special Counsel and current OSC officials
who were involved in this effort told us that one of the options being
considered was to have the matter investigated by an outside inspector
general. At the time, however, concern was expressed about allowing
inspectors general, who were subject to OSC's investigative and
prosecutorial authority, to investigate the Special Counsel.

    Investigation of Allegations Against the Special Counsel Was Sent to the
    Integrity Committee of the PCIE

The potential difficulties described above were recently illustrated when
a complaint was filed anonymously against the Special Counsel on behalf of
a number of OSC employees.31 The complainants requested that the complaint
be referred to the chairman of the PCIE for an independent investigation,
including a recommendation for corrective or disciplinary action. The PCIE
is an interagency council, including presidentially appointed inspectors
general, charged with promoting integrity and efficiency in federal
programs.32 The complaint stated that OSC could not investigate these
allegations because the Special Counsel could not oversee an investigation
of which he is the subject and that all OSC staff are his subordinates.
The complaint further observed that the complainants' ability to remain
anonymous would be jeopardized if any OSC staff were assigned to work on
the investigation. As discussed above, current OSC policy and procedures
do not provide for special handling of complaints against the Special
Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel. The Deputy Special Counsel told us
that he and the Special Counsel agreed that OSC should not handle the
complaint, and subsequently forwarded it to the PCIE's Integrity Committee
and notified the chair of the PCIE.33 In mid-October, 2005, the chair
assigned OPM's inspector general to conduct the investigation.

31An alliance of public interest organizations also joined the OSC
employees as complainants.

32Executive Order 12805, "Integrity and Efficiency in Federal Programs,"
57 Fed. Reg. 20627, May 11, 1992. The chair of the PCIE is the Deputy
Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Members of the PCIE include all civilian presidentially appointed
inspectors general, Associate Deputy Director for Investigations of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Director of the Office of
Government Ethics (OGE), the Special Counsel, and the Deputy Director of
OPM. A second council of federal inspectors general, the Executive Council
on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE), is composed of all civilian statutory
inspectors general that are not represented on the PCIE. The chair of the
PCIE also serves as chair of the ECIE.

33The Integrity Committee of the PCIE is responsible for receiving,
reviewing, and referring for investigation administrative allegations
against inspectors general and certain inspector general staff members.
Executive Order 12993, "Administrative Allegations Against Inspectors
General," 61 Fed. Reg. 13043, March 21, 1996.

    Other Agencies with Redress Roles Have Addressed Procedures for Complaints
    Against Them by Their Own Employees

Two other agencies in the executive branch with major roles in ensuring
the protection of employee rights, the MSPB and EEOC, have taken steps to
address potential conflicts of interest when their own employees use their
agencies' respective redress processes.

The MSPB is an independent quasi-judicial agency established to protect
federal merit systems against prohibited personnel practices and to ensure
adequate protection for employees against abuses by agency management.
MSPB carries out this mission, in part, by adjudicating federal employee
appeals of adverse personnel actions.

The MSPB has developed regulations which state that MSPB employee appeals
are not to be heard by board-employed administrative judges who hear
appeals from employees of other federal agencies, but instead are to be
heard by administrative law judges (ALJ).34 According to the MSPB General
Counsel, MSPB does not employ its own ALJs; rather, MSPB has a memorandum
of understanding with the National Labor Relations Board to use its ALJs
for MSPB employee appeals and other matters, including whistleblower
retaliation cases brought by OSC.

MSPB regulations further provide that the board's policy is to insulate
the adjudication of its own employees' appeals from agency involvement as
much as possible. The regulations provide that if an initial decision
rendered by the ALJ is appealed to the board, the initial decision will
not be altered unless there has been "harmful procedural irregularity" in
the proceedings or there is a clear error of law. According to the MSPB
General Counsel, this provides the board with very limited review
authority. Finally, the regulations state what procedures are to be
followed if a board member must recuse himself or herself from a specific
case.35

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the federal sector employment
discrimination prohibitions contained in the federal antidiscrimination
statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
36 As

345 C.F.R. S: 1201.13.

355 C.F.R. S: 1200.3.

36The EEOC also has enforcement responsibility over federal sector
employment discrimination prohibitions under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA), as amended.

part of this responsibility, EEOC provides for the adjudication of
complaints and hearing of appeals.

As is the case for all individuals who file a formal complaint of
discrimination, EEOC employees may either request a hearing before an
administrative judge or a final decision by the agency itself. However,
according to EEOC officials, when EEOC employees request a hearing over
their complaint of discrimination, such hearings are not to be conducted
by the administrative judges employed by EEOC, but rather through contract
administrative judges. EEOC officials state that using contract
administrative judges is necessary to preserve the neutrality of the
process, since EEOC's administrative judges are coworkers of any EEOC
complainant.

EEOC officials also told us that if an employee of its Office of Equal
Opportunity (OEO), EEOC's own EEO office, raises an allegation of
discrimination, the matter is sent outside the agency to another agency's
EEO office for informal counseling, investigation, and/or mediation to
guard against potential conflicts of interest within the OEO.

Additional Redress Steps can be taken to ensure that OSC employees have
alternative avenues

of recourse when their prohibited personnel practice allegations
involveOptions Could Be the Special Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel.
Potential options are Made Available to OSC discussed below. However,
unlike the MSPB and the EEOC, which have Employees taken steps to address
potential conflicts of interest when their own

employees use their respective redress processes, OSC would need explicit

authority for implementing such options.

    Independent Body Could Conduct External Investigation

OSC employees could be afforded an external investigation of their
prohibited personnel practice allegations against the Special Counsel or
Deputy Special Counsel through an independent entity. Most of the current
and former OSC officials we spoke with acknowledged that the option of
such an external investigation is warranted. If such an external
investigation were authorized, it may be desirable to also provide the
results of the investigation to the President, who has the authority to
take appropriate corrective action. However, OSC would need specific
authority to implement this option since OSC does not have the mechanism
to provide for such investigations.

    OSC Employees Could Be Given Broader Appeal Rights to MSPB

OSC employees could be afforded expanded rights to appeal directly to MSPB
that would specifically encompass prohibited personnel actions involving
the Special Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel. As discussed above, OSC
employees, as is the case with other federal employees, can take
allegations of prohibited personnel practices to the MSPB only when
certain adverse actions have been taken against those employees. One OSC
official observed that care should be taken in expanding jurisdiction so
as to prevent minor personnel actions from being appealable to the board.
Since the MSPB appeals process is in statute, this option would require
legislation for implementation.

Conclusions	OSC employees who believe a prohibited personnel practice has
occurred can file a complaint with OSC in the same fashion as an
individual from outside the agency. However, OSC employees do not have an
external, independent agency like OSC to represent them. This becomes
particularly important when the complaint is filed against the Special
Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel. When an employee raises a
prohibited personnel practice allegation against the Special Counsel,
addressing such an allegation within OSC becomes unworkable because OSC
employees ultimately report to the Special Counsel, including the
complainant and any staff who would conduct an internal investigation.
This difficulty extends to allegations against the Deputy Special Counsel
because this individual has a confidential relationship with the Special
Counsel. Steps could be taken to ensure that OSC employees, who cannot
effectively obtain the services of OSC in addressing allegations of
prohibited personnel practices, have alternative avenues of redress.

Adequate management oversight is critical to ensuring that, in an
interagency contracting environment, the requiring agency and the agency
ordering the services on its behalf work together to follow proper
contracting procedures. In agreeing to issue the sole-source order for the
organizational assessment despite the flawed justification, and in being
uninvolved in and unaware of the pre- and post-award activities conducted
by OSC officials, ARC contracting officials neglected to fulfill their
responsibilities. For their part, OSC officials demonstrated a lack of
awareness of their responsibilities in the process of engaging MPRI and
overseeing the contractor's work.

  Matter for Congressional Consideration

Due to the unique nature of OSC and the difficulties involved when a
prohibited personnel practice allegation is made against the Special
Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel, Congress should consider affording
OSC employees (and former employees and applicants for employment)
alternative means of addressing prohibited personnel practice allegations
other than going through OSC. These means could include establishing (1) a
right to an external investigation through an independent entity, where
the entity would forward its findings to the President, who would decide
the appropriate action, as is done when OSC handles allegations of
prohibited personnel practices against Senateconfirmed presidential
appointees; or (2) an expansion of the personnel actions that could be the
basis for an appeal directly to the MSPB.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Director of ARC's Division of Procurement take the
following two actions to ensure that (1) documents prepared by program
offices requesting contracting assistance-such as statements of work and
sole-source justifications-are carefully reviewed for compliance with
competition requirements and (2) ARC contracting staff, through regular
communication with the program offices they support, ensure that only
authorized program officials act as contracting officer's representatives.

We also recommend that the Special Counsel put in place procedures to
ensure that only those officials who have taken the required training and
been designated as contracting officer's representatives act in that role
and that program staff do not exceed their authority in interacting with
contractors.

Agency Comments	On September 23, 2005, we provided a draft of this report
to OSC and to ARC for review and comment. OSC's written response is
included in appendix I, and ARC's written response is included in appendix
II.

OSC and ARC agreed with our recommendations. However, OSC suggested
several wording changes to the report and expressed concern about the tone
of the section on the sole-source order with MPRI. While we clarified our
wording in several places, we did not make other changes suggested by OSC
in its comment letter for the reasons discussed below.

OSC recommended we add a paragraph that, in addition to making reference
to our earlier report on case backlogs at OSC (which is discussed in the
first paragraph of our current report), would make other points that are
already addressed in our report. Thus, we did not include OSC's suggested
language.

OSC pointed out that ARC, as the contracting office, did not question the
sole-source justification and that, if it had done so, another approach
could have been taken for the procurement. Our report already clearly
reflects the fact that this was ARC's responsibility and that ARC
contracting personnel did not question the validity of the sole-source
justification but, rather, relied on OSC's rationale.

OSC suggested we revise the wording in our report to state that program
staff participated in negotiations with MPRI, rather than state that the
Deputy Special Counsel negotiated the price with the company. Our
discussions with OSC officials-including one with the Deputy himself-
support our finding that the Deputy negotiated the final price with MPRI,
and we have added the word "final" to make that clear. There is no
evidence that ARC "set the final price," as OSC suggests; rather, ARC
issued a task order using the final price provided to it by OSC.

OSC also took exception to our statements that the Deputy Special Counsel
was responsible for approving MPRI's contract execution plan and contract
deliverables and suggested we change the wording to "Also, OSC program
officials were included in the approval process for MPRI's contract
execution plan and contract deliverables." Again, the evidence supports
our finding as stated in the report. In fact, the contract's statement of
work names the Deputy as the contracting officer's representative, as the
official responsible for approving MPRI's contract execution plan, and as
the recipient of the contractor's monthly reports. Further, the contract
execution plan is addressed to the Deputy and it identifies him as the
contracting officer's representative.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to OSC, the Bureau of the Public Debt, and interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
If

you or your staff have questions about this report, please call me at
(202) 512-9490. Key contributors to this report included Kimberly
Gianopoulos, Karin Fangman, Sharon Hogan, Michele Mackin, and Adam
Vodraska.

George H. Stalcup Director, Strategic Issues

List of Requesters

The Honorable Steny H. Hoyer
Minority Whip
House of Representatives

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Danny K. Davis
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommitee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Edolphus Towns
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Government Management,

Finance, and Accountability Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives

The Honorable Barney Frank Ranking Minority Member Committee on Financial
Services House of Representatives

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel House of Representatives

                                   Appendix I

                  Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix I
Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix I
Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix II

Comments from the Administrative Resource Center, Bureau of the Public Debt,
U.S. Department of the Treasury

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 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 postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony 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

Congressional 	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 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
*** End of document. ***