    Hurricane Katrina: Army Corps of Engineers Contract for
    Mississippi Classrooms (01-MAY-06, GAO-06-454).

    In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) tasked the Army Corps of Engineers (the
    Corps) to purchase temporary classrooms for Mississippi schools.
    To accomplish its task, the Corps placed a $39.5 million order
    with Akima Site Operations for the purchase and delivery of 450
    such classrooms. GAO received an allegation on its Fraud Hotline
    that the Corps paid inflated prices for the classrooms, and in
    response, we reviewed the facts and circumstances related to the
    Corps' issuance of the order.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-454
        ACCNO:   A52840
      TITLE:     Hurricane Katrina: Army Corps of Engineers Contract for
    Mississippi Classrooms
         DATE:   05/01/2006
      SUBJECT:   Disaster recovery
    	     Educational facilities
    	     Federal procurement
    	     Fraud
    	     Hurricane Katrina
    	     Limited procurement
    	     Overpayments
    	     Procurement evaluation
    	     Questionable procurement charges
    	     Schools
    	     SBA 8(a) Business Development 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-06-454

         * Results in Brief
         * Background
         * Circumstances Surrounding the Purchase of the Classrooms Res
              * Late Assignment of Classroom Mission Hampered the Corps' Abi
              * Corps Did Not Use Available Information to Negotiate a Lower
         * Conclusion
         * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * GAO Contact
         * Staff Acknowledgments
         * GAO's Mission
         * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
              * Order by Mail or Phone
         * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * Congressional Relations
         * Public Affairs

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Report to Congressional Committees

    GAO

    May 2006

    HURRICANE KATRINA

              Army Corps of Engineers Contract for Mississippi Classrooms

    GAO-06-454

    HURRICANE KATRINA

    Army Corps of Engineers Contract for Mississippi Classrooms

      What GAO Found

    Corps contracting officials did not expect to be buying classrooms and, in
    fact, were not assigned the task until after Hurricane Katrina had struck.
    With no prior experience, no advance notice, and the need to buy the
    classrooms as quickly as possible, Corps contracting officials lacked
    knowledge of the industry and information about classroom suppliers,
    inventories, and prices that would have been useful in negotiating a good
    deal. Faced with these circumstances, they chose to purchase the
    classrooms by placing an order, noncompetitively, on an existing agreement
    with Akima Site Operations, LLC. Because of Akima's special status as a
    subsidiary of an Alaska Native corporation certified under the Small
    Business Administration's 8(a) business development program, the Corps
    could make the award without competition.

    The Corps accepted Akima's proposed price of $39.5 million although it had
    information that the cost for the classrooms was significantly less than
    what Akima was charging. Based on our analysis of a quote obtained by
    Akima from a local Mississippi business, the price that Akima actually
    paid for the classrooms, and prices for similar units from GSA schedule
    contracts, we believe the Corps could have, but failed to, negotiate a
    lower price.

                           Classroom units being transported

    Source: Akima.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

      Letter 1

    Results in Brief 1 Background 2 Circumstances Surrounding the Purchase of
    the Classrooms

    Resulted in the Corps Paying High Prices 4 Conclusion 7 Agency Comments
    and Our Evaluation 8

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Appendix II Comments from the Army Corps of Engineers

    Appendix III Comments from Akima

    Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

      Table

                           Table 1: Classroom Price Increases

      Figures

    Figure 1: Classroom Units at Staging Area and Units Being

    Transported. 3 Figure 2: Timeline for Corps' acquisition of classrooms 4

    Abbreviations

    ANC                  Alaska Native corporation
    BOA                  basic ordering agreement
    FEMA                 Federal Emergency Management Agency
    GSA                  General Services Administration
    MEMA                               Mississippi Emergency Management Agency
    SBA                  Small Business Administration

    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.

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

    May 1, 2006

    Congressional Committees:

    In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA) tasked the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to purchase
    temporary classrooms for Mississippi schools. 1 To accomplish its mission,
    the Corps awarded a $39.5 million order to Akima Site Operations, LLC
    (Akima) for the purchase and delivery of 450 temporary classrooms. GAO
    received a tip on its Fraud Hotline alleging that the Corps paid inflated
    prices for the classrooms. 2

    In response to the allegation, we reviewed the facts and circumstances
    surrounding the Corps' acquisition of the classrooms to determine how the
    Corps selected Akima and negotiated the price of the classrooms. We
    reviewed government contract files and obtained pricing information on the
    classrooms from several sources, including the Corps, Akima, suppliers
    involved in the transaction, and the General Services Administration
    (GSA). The results of our review follow. Further details on the scope and
    methodology of our review are in appendix I. We conducted our review from
    September 2005 to March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards.

    Faced with a compressed time frame for acquiring classrooms and no

    Results in Brief

    prior knowledge about the classroom mission they were assigned by FEMA
    after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Corps contracting officials
    chose to use an existing agreement and placed an order with Akima. Because
    of Akima's special status as a subsidiary of an Alaska Native corporation
    under the Small Business Administration's 8(a)

    1

    We are using the term "temporary classrooms" in this report. The
    classrooms were also referred to as relocatable, modular, and portable.

    2

    The purpose of GAO's FraudNET is to facilitate reporting of allegations of
    fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of federal funds. Allegations are
    received via e-mail at fraudnet@gao.gov. The allegation we reviewed
    concerned the price paid by the government, not the contractor's
    performance under the contract. Accordingly, we did not review contract
    performance. Both the Corps and Akima represent that Akima performed in
    accordance with the terms of the contract by delivering the required
    quantities of classrooms within the time frames agreed to by the Corps.

                                       Background

    Business Development Program, the Corps was able to make the award without
    competition even though the dollar amount of the award would have normally
    required competition under the program. 3

    The Corps accepted Akima's proposed price of $39.5 million although it had
    information that the cost for the classrooms was significantly less than
    what Akima was charging. Based on our analysis of a quote obtained by
    Akima from a local Mississippi business, the price that Akima actually
    paid for the classrooms, and prices for similar units from GSA schedule
    contracts, we believe the Corps could have, but failed to, negotiate a
    lower price.

    We are not making recommendations in this report. In written comments on a
    draft of this report, the Department of the Army recognized that under
    trying conditions mistakes are possible and plans to include the temporary
    classroom procurement in its remedial action program review. The Army did
    not endorse our findings, but did not provide any specific concerns. In
    written comments, Akima believes that the report does not provide a
    complete picture of the circumstances related to the contract for the
    classrooms. Our findings are based on information relevant to the review
    objective. The comments from DOD and Akima, and our responses to them are
    discussed beginning on page 8 and are reproduced in their entirety in
    appendices II and III, respectively.

    On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall along the Gulf Coast,
    causing severe damage and destruction. In addition to damaging areas in
    Louisiana and Alabama, the hurricane wreaked havoc along the entire
    Mississippi Gulf Coast. In response, the Mississippi Emergency Management
    Agency, on September 8, 2005, asked for federal assistance in providing
    temporary classrooms. On September 10, FEMA delegated the mission for
    buying the classrooms to the Corps.

    3

    Alaska Native corporations (ANCs), created under the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act to help settle Alaska Native land claims and to foster
    economic development for Alaska Natives, have been accorded special
    advantages under SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. ANC 8(a) firms
    are considered small disadvantaged businesses, and as long as they meet
    relevant size standards for the procurement and other eligibility
    requirements, they can be awarded contracts noncompetitively for any
    dollar amount (see 13 C.F.R. S: 124.506(b)). Generally, acquisitions
    offered to other 8(a) businesses where the contract value is more than $3
    million or $5 million (for manufacturing) must be competitively awarded.

    Figure 1: Classroom Units at Staging Area and Units Being Transported.

    Source: Akima.

    Upon accepting the mission, the Corps proceeded to acquire the classrooms.
    A chronology of key events surrounding the Corps efforts is shown in the
    following timeline.

        Figure 2: Timeline for Corps' acquisition of classrooms

    Sat.,Sept. 17th Sat.,Sept. 10th Akima providesFri.,Sept. 23rd FEMA tasking
    to the Corpsabid First classroomsFri., Oct. 7th

    Corps of EngineersThurs.,Sept. 15th schedule in itsTue.,Sept. 20th arrive
    in Gulfport, Modification 3 (Corps) Army contracting basis of estimate
    Corps issuesMSstaging areafor substitution agency modification

    order to Akima

    to the basic ordering

    to purchase 450 agreement (BOA)

    classrooms for to clarify use

    $39.5 million

          Mon., Aug. 29th

    Hurricane Katrinamakes landfall

          Wed., Sept. 14th

                                         Corps contract specialist contacts Akima

          Sun.,Sept. 18th

    Wed., Oct. 5th

    Corpsand Akima

    Modification 2 agree, in principle,

    to substitute to contract price.

    unitsand delay

                                     Corps provides

    shipping Thurs.,Sept. 8th Fri.,Sept. 16th Akima with the Wed.,Sept. 21th
    FEMA action request form Akima provides Corpsnotice to proceed
    Modification 1 to signed by Mississippi a rough order of mag-move 200
    Emergency Management nitude estimate. CorpsclassroomsAgency (MEMA)
    Vicksburg provideslegal okay to use the basic ordering agreement

    Source: GAO analysis.

    Circumstances Surrounding the Purchase of the Classrooms Resulted in the
    Corps Paying High Prices

    Corps contracting officials did not expect to be buying classrooms and, in
    fact, were not assigned the task until after Hurricane Katrina had struck.
    With no prior experience, no advance notice, and the need to buy the
    classrooms as quickly as possible, Corps contracting officials lacked
    knowledge of the industry and information about classroom suppliers,
    inventories, and prices that would have been useful in negotiating a good
    deal. Faced with the urgent need for classrooms, they chose to purchase
    them by placing an order, noncompetitively, on an existing agreement with
    Akima.

    Based on our analysis of a price quote obtained by Akima from a local
    Mississippi classroom supplier, the price that Akima actually paid for the

    Late Assignment of Classroom Mission Hampered the Corps' Ability to Get a
    Good Price

    classrooms, and prices for similar units from GSA Schedule contracts, we
    believe the Corps could have, but failed to, negotiate lower prices.

    Once Hurricane Katrina had struck, the Mississippi Emergency Management
    Agency, on September 8, 2005, identified a need for temporary classrooms.
    FEMA accepted the requirement. On September 10, FEMA assigned the Corps
    the mission of acquiring the classrooms and two days later set November 1,
    2005, as the deadline for completing the Corps' mission. According to
    Corps officials, the short completion date drove their decisions about how
    to acquire the classrooms and did not allow them to follow normal
    contracting procedures.

    To accomplish this task, the Corps awarded an order to Akima through an
    existing basic ordering agreement established by the Army Contracting
    Agency intended for acquiring and installing modular buildings. 4
    According to Corps officials, the agreement was selected because it could
    be used to quickly procure the classrooms. Akima is a subsidiary of an
    Alaskan Native corporation certified under the Small Business
    Administration's 8(a) Business Development Program. 5 Due to its status as
    an Alaska Native corporation under the 8(a) program, the company could be
    awarded contracts-without competition-for any dollar value. 6 While the
    agreement used by the Corps was already in place, it contained no prices,
    specifications, or other information the Corps could have used in
    negotiating the order.

    4

    A basic ordering agreement is a written instrument of understanding
    between the government and a contractor that contains (1) terms and
    clauses for future contracts (orders) between the parties during its term;
    (2) a description, as specific as possible, of supplies or services to be
    provided; and (3) methods for pricing, issuing, and delivering future
    orders under the agreement. A basic ordering agreement is not a contract
    but is used to expedite contracting for supplies or services when specific
    items, quantities, and prices are not known but a substantial number of
    requirements are anticipated.

    5

    This program, established by section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15
    U.S.C. S: 637(a), authorizes the Small Business Administration to enter
    into contracts with procuring agencies and award subcontracts for
    performing those contracts to eligible firms. These subcontractors, known
    as 8(a) contractors, must be small disadvantaged business concerns. SBA
    has delegated to DOD its authority to enter into 8(a) prime contracts and
    to award the performance of those contracts to eligible 8(a) program
    participants.

    6

    SBA may accept, on a sole-source basis, a requirement into the 8(a)
    program on behalf of an Alaska Native corporation even if the value of the
    acquisition exceeds the normal threshold for competitive 8(a) awards.

    Corps Did Not Use Available Information to Negotiate a Lower Price

    According to Akima officials, they were contacted by the Corps on
    September 14 to see if they could provide 450 classrooms. In response,
    Akima provided the Corps several estimates over the next few days,
    including an "order of magnitude" estimate on September 16, 2005, and a
    formal proposal for $39.5 million on September 17 (which became the
    contract price). The estimates included classroom prices, freight costs,
    project management charges, general and administrative expenses, and
    profit. The price proposal of September 17 was significantly higher than
    the "order of magnitude" from the day before. While we believe the
    increase in Akima's price should have raised questions among Corps
    contracting officials, we found no evidence they conducted any analysis to
    determine why the prices had increased. Instead, the Corps' contracting
    files attribute the increase to the need to expedite delivery of the
    classrooms to meet FEMA's requirements. On the basis of a comparison of
    Akima's September 16 and 17 estimates, though, we found the increase could
    not be attributed to expedited delivery-since we found freight costs
    remained roughly the same in both estimates. The increase was in the price
    of the classrooms, as shown in the following table.

     Table 1: Classroom Price Increases
                September 16, 2005, estimate September 17, 2005, proposal
                                                                           Percent
     Classroom Quantity   Unit         Total Quantity   Unit          Total change
     type                price                          price
     Single w/
     bathroom       100 $59,750b $5,975,000       148  $84,395  $12,490,450
     Single
     w/o
     bathroom       100 $55,750b $5,575,000        52  $89,956  $4,677,734
     Subtotal       200          $11,550,000      200           $17,168,184    49%
     Double w/
     bathroom       125a $91,288 $11,411,000      125a $108,371 $13,546,336    19%
     Total           450         $22,961,000       450          $30,714,520    34%

    Source: GAO analysis.

    Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Notea: 125 double classrooms
    are the equivalent of 250 single classrooms. Noteb: As discussed below,
    these unit prices reflect a quote Akima received from a local Mississippi

    classroom supplier.

    The increase in classroom estimates between September 16 and 17 was very
    substantial and should have triggered further questions on the part of the
    Corps as to the reason. For example, the increase in the price of single

                                       Conclusion

    classrooms was particularly significant, increasing about $5.6 million
    dollars, or nearly 49 percent.

    Akima's September 17 proposal reflected classroom prices substantially
    higher than the quote Akima had received from a local Mississippi
    classroom supplier for existing single classrooms that were available to
    be transported from a supplier in Florida. On September 14, the local
    Mississippi business received quotes for single classrooms with and
    without bathrooms for $49,750 and $45,750, respectively. On the following
    day, the local business provided a written quote to Akima reflecting the
    quotes and its markup. Akima used the local Mississippi business' quote as
    a basis for its September 16 "order of magnitude" estimate and provided
    the Corps a copy of the quote. However, there is no evidence that Corps
    contracting officials used the information to seek reductions during
    negotiations.

    Given that Akima's September 16 estimate was based on a quote for existing
    single classrooms in Florida, we question why the Corps accepted the
    higher classroom prices proposed by Akima on September 17 without price
    negotiation. In addition, Akima purchased the classrooms in Florida
    directly from the supplier identified by the local Mississippi business at
    prices lower than the quote.

    In addition, we found GSA Schedule contract prices for double classrooms
    ranged from $30,000 to $54,000 each, or amounts considerably less than
    proposed by Akima and included in the price accepted by the Corps.
    Clearly, conditions post-Hurricane Katrina were anything but normal and
    thus may not have allowed the classrooms to have been ordered from the
    Schedule in the quantities and time frame required. Nevertheless, this
    information could have been useful to Corps contracting officials in
    analyzing Akima's prices and in negotiating a lower price.

    Acquiring goods and services in any emergency situation can be difficult-
    particularly in a situation where there is confusion about missions, roles
    and responsibilities-but those difficulties should not provide an excuse
    for poor pricing outcomes. By neither using information that was available
    nor seeking out additional information which would have provided a sound
    basis to negotiate price, we believe the Corps could have, but failed to,
    negotiate lower prices.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Army and Akima
    for review and comment. Their written comments are included as appendices
    II and III, respectively.

    In its comments, the Army recognized that under trying conditions mistakes
    are possible and stated that it plans to include the temporary classroom
    procurement in its remedial action program review. The Corps plans to take
    steps to address deficiencies, if any, identified in after action reports
    so that future operations can be improved. The Army did not endorse our
    findings, but did not provide any specific concerns. In its comments, the
    Army also stated that the Corps was tasked with providing 450 temporary
    buildings, with approximately 350 of them to be used for classrooms. This
    statement is not correct. The task order issued on September 20, 2005,
    clearly states that the contract was for 450 classrooms. In fact Akima's
    response to our report indicates that this was a fixed price contract to
    deliver 450 classrooms.

    Generally, Akima expressed concern that our report did not use appropriate
    comparative data pertaining to pricing of the contract, did not recognize
    the risks faced by Akima, did not recognize that requirements were
    changing during the negotiations, and did not adequately recognize its
    contract performance. We are not responding to every aspect of Akima's
    comments, because our report focuses on the prices the Corp paid for the
    classrooms and the Corp's actions in awarding the classroom contract to
    Akima.

    Our report recognizes other elements of cost under the contract, but
    focuses on classroom costs because they comprise over three-quarters of
    the price negotiated. The difference between Akima's "order of magnitude
    estimate" and the proposal ultimately accepted by the Corps was
    significant. We believe that the about $8 million difference should have
    prompted an inquiry and price negotiation by the contracting officer. We
    found no evidence that the contracting officer attempted to negotiate for
    a better price.

    In its comments to our report, Akima has stated that its proposal reflects
    the unknowns it faced at the time of contract award. We recognize, by
    entering into a fixed price contract, a contractor assumes the risk of
    contract performance. Furthermore, the report acknowledged that conditions
    post-Hurricane Katrina were anything but normal. However, our review found
    that in spite of these difficult conditions the Corps had available
    information at the time of the contract award that quoted lower costs for
    classrooms, but did not use the information to negotiate a lower price.

    Finally, we recognize again, as we did in the report that the Corps and
    Akima told us that Akima performed in accordance with the terms of the
    contract by delivering the required quantities of classrooms within the
    timeframes agreed to by the Corps.

    We will make copies of this report available on request. In addition, the
    report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
    http://www.gao.gov.

    If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at
    (202) 512-4841 or by e-mail at schinasik@gao.gov. Contact points for our
    Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
    last page of this report.

    Katherine V. Schinasi Managing Director Acquisition and Sourcing
    Management

    List of Committees

    The Honorable John Warner Chairman The Honorable Carl Levin Ranking
    Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate

    The Honorable Susan M. Collins Chairman The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
    Ranking Minority Member Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental
    Affairs United States Senate

    The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe Chair The Honorable John F. Kerry Ranking
    Minority Member Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship United
    States Senate

    The Honorable Robert C. Byrd Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
    Homeland Security Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

    The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking
    Minority Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives

    The Honorable Peter T. King Chairman The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
    Ranking Minority Member Committee on Homeland Security House of
    Representatives The Honorable Donald Manzullo Chairman Committee on Small
    Business House of Representatives

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

    The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
    Homeland Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives

                           Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    GAO received a Fraud Hotline allegation that the Corps of Engineers (the
    Corps) had paid an inflated price for temporary classrooms for Mississippi
    in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In response to the allegation, we
    examined the facts and circumstances surrounding the acquisition to
    determine how the Corps selected Akima and negotiated the price of the
    classrooms.

    To learn how the Corps selected Akima, we obtained information about the
    Army Contracting Agency's basic ordering agreement and its intended uses.
    We contacted the contracting officer who had established the agreement at
    the Northern Region Contracting Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia. The Army
    Contracting Agency official provided the agreement and modifications, and
    described why and how the agreement was established.

    We also obtained information about the steps taken by the Corps to meet
    the requirements for acquisition of the classrooms. We obtained contract
    and related documents from the Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, in
    Vicksburg, Mississippi. We reviewed these documents to find out what
    information the Corps had available to acquire the classrooms. We
    interviewed Corps officials to discuss the available information and
    ascertain how classroom acquisition-related decisions were made. We also
    reviewed cost and price information included in the contract file.

    We met with representatives of Akima Management Services, Inc., the
    holding company for Akima Site Operations, LLC-the titular entity awarded
    the classroom order. Akima representatives provided pertinent
    documentation, including actual performance cost information. In addition,
    we held discussions with and collected information from local Mississippi
    businesses and some of the suppliers that eventually provided the
    classrooms to Akima. Also, we identified pricing information available on
    the General Service Administration's Schedule contracts for similar
    classrooms and modular buildings.

    We conducted our review from September 2005 to March 2006 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II: Comments from the Army Corps of Engineers

                           Appendix III: Comments from Akima

                           Appendix III: Comments from Akima

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Katherine Schinasi, (202) 512-4841or schinasik@gao.gov

    GAO Contact

    In addition to the contact named above, Dave Cooper, Director,

    Staff

    Penny Berrier Augustine, Assistant Director, Ralph Roffo, Bob Swierczek,
    Acknowledgments and Adam Vodraska made key contributions to this report.

      (120500)

    Page 16 GAO-06-454 Hurricane Katrina Contracting

    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.

    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 GAO
    Reports and 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:

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

    Public Affairs

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

        PRINTED ON

    RECYCLED PAPER
    *** End of document. ***