Hurricane Katrina: Agency Contracting Data Should Be More	 
Complete Regarding Subcontracting Opportunities for Small	 
Businesses (01-MAR-07, GAO-07-205).				 
                                                                 
In response to Hurricane Katrina, the Departments of Homeland	 
Security (DHS) and Defense (DOD), the General Services		 
Administration (GSA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers	 
(Corps) were responsible for 94 percent of the federal funds	 
awarded for relief efforts via contracting as of May 2006. This  
report, which GAO conducted under the Comptroller General's	 
Authority, describes (1) the amounts that small businesses	 
received from prime contracts with these agencies, (2) the extent
of subcontracting, (3) and the extent to which Disadvantaged	 
Business Enterprises (DBEs) received Department of Transportation
funds for Katrina-related projects. In conducting this study, GAO
analyzed agency contract data, reviewed federal acquisition	 
regulations, and interviewed agency procurement officials.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-205 					        
    ACCNO:   A66365						        
  TITLE:     Hurricane Katrina: Agency Contracting Data Should Be More
Complete Regarding Subcontracting Opportunities for Small	 
Businesses							 
     DATE:   03/01/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Contract administration				 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Federal procurement				 
	     Federal procurement policy 			 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Government information				 
	     Hurricane Katrina					 
	     Procurement regulations				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Small business					 
	     Small business contractors 			 
	     Small business contracts				 
	     Subcontracts					 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     DOT Disadvantaged Business Enterprise		 
	     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-07-205

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background

          * [3]Federal Goals for Contracts with Small and Local Businesses
          * [4]Federal Rules for Contracts with Businesses
          * [5]Agency and Governmentwide Contract Data
          * [6]DOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program

     * [7]Small Businesses Received Varied Amounts of the Contracting
     * [8]Selected Corps Contractors Awarded Most Subcontracting Dolla

          * [9]Corps Contractors Reported Awarding the Majority of their Su
          * [10]Subcontracting Accomplishment Information Is Not Consistentl
          * [11]Incomplete Agency Information on Subcontracting Plan Require

     * [12]Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Participated in FHWA- and

          * [13]DBEs Received about 4 Percent of FHWA Dollars for Katrina-Re
          * [14]DBEs Received About 10 Percent of the FAA Dollars Awarded fo

     * [15]Conclusions
     * [16]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [17]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [18]GAO Contact
     * [19]Staff Acknowledgments
     * [20]GAO's Mission
     * [21]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [22]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [23]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [24]Congressional Relations
     * [25]Public Affairs

Report to Congressional Addressees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

March 2007

HURRICANE KATRINA

Agency Contracting Data Should Be More Complete Regarding Subcontracting
Opportunities for Small Businesses

GAO-07-205

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 5
Small Businesses Received Varied Amounts of the Contracting Dollars
Awarded by Four Agencies 10
Selected Corps Contractors Awarded Most Subcontracting Dollars to Small
Businesses, but Information on Subcontracting Plans for All Four Agencies
Was Incomplete 16
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Participated in FHWA- and FAA-Funded
Contracts and Subcontracts Related to Hurricane Katrina 28
Conclusions 31
Recommendations for Executive Action 32
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 43
Appendix III Comments from the General Services Administration 46
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 53
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56

Tables

Table 1: Dollar Amount of Katrina-Related Contracts Awarded Directly to
Businesses in All States and in States Primarily Affected by Hurricane
Katrina 13
Table 2: Small Businesses Received the Majority of Contracting Dollars
Awarded Directly to Local Businesses 14
Table 3: Awards of Selected Corps Contractors to Small Businesses as a
Percent of the Subcontracting Dollars Awarded to All Businesses 18
Table 4: Amounts Small Businesses Received as Subcontractors as a Percent
of Total Dollars Obligated for Selected Katrina-Related Contracts 19
Table 5: Subcontracting Plan Requirements by Dollar Amount Awarded 24
Table 6: DBE Participation in Katrina-Related State DOT Contracts Awarded
With FHWA Funds 29
Table 7: DBE Participation in Contracts Awarded by Airports with FAA
Grants 30

Figures

Figure 1: Amount and Percentage of Katrina-Related Contract Dollars
Awarded to Businesses by DHS, GSA, DOD, and the Corps 11
Figure 2: Number of Katrina-Related Contract Actions Awarded Directly to
Businesses by Business Size 12
Figure 3: Dollar Amount of Katrina-Related Contracts Awarded Directly to
Small Businesses, by Type of Businesses 13
Figure 4: Katrina-Related Contracting Dollars by Location 15

Abbreviations

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOD Department of Defense
DOT Department of Transportation
eSRS Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System--Next Generation
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HUBZone Historically Underutilized Business Zone
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
GSA General Services Administration
SBA Small Business Administration
SDB Small Disadvantaged Business

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

March 1, 2007

Congressional Addressees

Hurricane Katrina caused billions of dollars in damage and affected about
1.5 million people in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.^1 In response
to the widespread destruction, Congress provided emergency supplemental
disaster appropriations totaling about $88 billion to 23 different federal
agencies. As of May 2006, these 23 agencies had awarded nearly $11 billion
for Katrina-related relief and recovery contracts, with the Departments of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense (DOD) as well as the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) and General Services Administration (GSA) accounting
for 94 percent of these dollars, according to official governmentwide
procurement data.^2 The agencies were to use the funds to, among other
things, award contracts for a range of services related to hurricane
relief and recovery. Some in Congress have raised concerns about how much
access small businesses had to these contracting opportunities, especially
small businesses in the areas that were affected by the hurricane. In
addition, because of substantial damage to the region's transportation
networks and the role of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in
assisting the states with their rebuilding, there has been congressional
interest regarding the extent to which Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBE)^3 received funds from DOT for projects related to Hurricane Katrina.

We have prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority to
conduct evaluations on his own initiative as part of a continuing effort
to assist Congress in reviewing federal activities related to Hurricane
Katrina. Specifically, this report discusses (1) the amounts that small
and local businesses received directly from federal agencies through
contracts for relief and recovery efforts related to Hurricane Katrina,
(2) the extent to which selected large prime contractors subcontracted
with small businesses for relief and recovery efforts, and (3) the extent
to which DBEs received funds through DOT for transportation projects
related to reconstruction and recovery from Hurricane Katrina.^4

1GAO, Disaster Relief: Governmentwide Framework Needed to Collect and
Consolidate Information to Report on Billions in Federal Funding for the
2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes, [26]GAO-06-834 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6,
2006).

^2We are reporting on the Corps and the rest of DOD separately because of
the four supplemental appropriations measures for Department of Defense
activities relating to Hurricane Katrina relief (Pub. L. Nos. 109-61,
109-62, 109-148, and 109-234), the latter three specifically directed
certain funds to the Corps for its disaster relief activities.

^3The definition of a DBE is set forth in DOT Regulation 49 C.F.R. S 26.5.
In general terms, DBEs are small businesses owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

To describe the amounts that small and local businesses received directly
from federal contracts, we analyzed data on contracts awarded or used by
DHS, GSA, DOD, and the Corps for Katrina-related projects in Alabama,
Louisiana, and Mississippi from August 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Our
analysis included contract data from the Federal Procurement Data
System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG), the governmentwide database of
contracting activity, and DD-350, the Department of Defense database that
contains data on individual contracting actions. Although we could not
independently verify the reliability of these data, we reviewed system
documentation, conducted electronic data testing for inconsistency errors
and completeness and compared it with supporting documentation when
available, and interviewed agency officials about each of the systems. On
the basis of these efforts, we determined the data on amounts received
directly from federal contracts to be sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. To describe the extent to which prime contractors
subcontracted with small businesses, we identified contracts that were
awarded or used between August 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, for activities
related to Hurricane Katrina and that required subcontracting plans. We
obtained and analyzed documentation of subcontracting awards for selected
DOD and Corps contractors that received the most dollars from
Katrina-related contracts from August 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. For
those DHS and GSA contracts with subcontracting plan requirements, we
looked for documentation of prime contractors' March 31, 2006,
subcontracting awards report in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting
System (eSRS), a governmentwide database for capturing this information.
In addition, we interviewed officials from each of the four agencies to
gather additional information relating to the use of subcontracting plans.
To describe the extent to which DBEs received funds for DOT-assisted
transportation projects related to reconstruction and recovery from
Hurricane Katrina, we obtained and analyzed data on Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracts
awarded for Katrina-related projects from August 1, 2005, through June 30,
2006 (only FHWA and FAA awarded DOT funds to which DBE requirements
applied). A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is
presented in appendix I. We conducted our work in Washington, D.C.,
between March 2006 and February 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

^4For the purposes of this report, we refer to "contract dollars" that
agencies have awarded when, to be precise, agencies do not award dollars
but instead award contracts or enter into contract actions that are either
valued at certain dollar amounts or which, for example, might have a range
of possible values, depending on how much work the contractor ultimately
performs. We discuss the agencies' activities in terms of contract dollars
because the dollar amount or value of contract actions is one of the key
factors in deciding whether agencies must require a subcontracting plan
and also is the measure used to gauge small business participation in
federal procurement.

Results in Brief

Small businesses received 28 percent of the $11 billion in contracting
dollars DHS, GSA, DOD, and the Corps awarded directly for relief and
recovery from Hurricane Katrina. DHS awarded the highest dollar amount to
small businesses (about $1.6 billion), and GSA awarded the highest
percentage of its Katrina-related contracting dollars directly to small
businesses (72 percent of about $658 million). Of the contracting dollars
that the four agencies awarded directly to small businesses, those
classified as disadvantaged businesses received 24 percent of the
approximately $3 billion that the four agencies awarded to small
businesses. Local businesses, or businesses located in the states
primarily affected by Hurricane Katrina (Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi), received 18 percent, or $1.9 billion, of the $11 billion the
four agencies awarded overall. Small businesses received approximately 66
percent of the $1.9 billion awarded to all local businesses. Outside of
this area, businesses in California and Florida received 17 and 15
percent, respectively, of the Katrina-related contracting dollars the four
agencies awarded.

For the military agencies, 4 of the top 10 recipients--all large
businesses--of prime contracting dollars for projects related to Hurricane
Katrina reported awarding from 88 to 100 percent of their subcontracting
dollars to small businesses. The amounts subcontracted ranged from $11,000
to $201 million. These 4 prime contractors received their contracting
dollars from the Corps. For the other 6 recipients of contract dollars
from DOD and the Corps, subcontracting plan requirements did not apply or
contracting activities related to Hurricane Katrina could not be separated
from unrelated activities. Information on subcontracting accomplishments
associated with 4 of 7 DHS contracts shows that small businesses received
from 14 to 83 percent of the dollars awarded through subcontracts as of
March 31, 2006. Information on subcontracting accomplishments for the
remaining DHS contracts and all 11 GSA contracts awarded to large
businesses was generally not available because contractors had not
reported the data, the agencies had not finalized the data, or the
available data included both Katrina-related and other contract
activities. While we could document this information, additional key
information about small business subcontracting plans was not consistently
available in official procurement data systems for the four agencies.
These plans, which detail goals for subcontracting to small businesses,
are generally required for acquisitions by executive agencies of more than
$500,000.^5 For DHS and GSA, information on whether the two agencies
required subcontracting plans is generally not available in the data
systems for nearly three-fourths of the contracting dollars each agency
awarded. DHS officials could not explain the lack of subcontracting
information on $861 million in agency contracting dollars; DOD officials
were unable to explain the lack of subcontracting information on $3.3
million in agency contracting dollars. Also, according to official
procurement data systems, the four agencies determined that subcontracting
plans were not required from their large prime contractors for 12 percent
(GSA) to 77 percent (DOD) of their contracting dollars. However,
information on the agencies' reasons for not requiring these plans, which
should be readily available, is incomplete. The lack of information on the
four agencies' compliance with subcontracting plan requirements limits
determining the extent to which they followed federal contracting rules
designed to give small businesses maximum opportunities to participate in
their contracts.^6

To ensure compliance with federal contracting regulations and to more
transparently disclose the extent to which subcontracting opportunities
were available to small businesses, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and the Administrator of
General Services issue guidance to the appropriate procurement offices and
personnel reinforcing, among other things, the necessity for documenting
in publicly available sources the agencies' decisions regarding
subcontracting plan requirements. The Secretaries of DHS and DOD along
with the GSA Administrator should also consider asking their Inspectors
General to conduct a review at an appropriate future date to ensure that
this guidance and related requirements are being followed. In written
comments on a draft of this report, the agencies generally agreed with our
recommendations and described various steps they are taking to implement
them (see appendixes II, III, and IV).

^5For acquisitions related to construction, the amount is $1 million
unless a statutory exception applies. See Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) S 19.702(a).

^6Under FAR S 19.702, a contractor receiving a contract for more than the
simplified acquisition threshold (generally $100,000 for contracts in the
United States) must agree to give small businesses "the maximum
practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent
with (the contract's) efficient performance."

DBEs were awarded about 4 percent, or about $53 million, of the
approximately $1.3 billion that FHWA funded for Katrina-related contracts
in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi between August 1, 2005, and June
30, 2006. The Mississippi DOT awarded about 64 percent of the FHWA dollars
that DBEs were awarded. DBEs also were awarded about 10 percent, or about
$2.4 million, of the $24 million that FAA awarded for Katrina-related
contracts and subcontracts at airports in the three states between August
1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.

Background

When the President declares a state of emergency after a natural or other
major disaster, the declaration gives the federal government the authority
to engage in various emergency response activities, many of which the
agencies provide through contracts with private businesses.^7 Such
activities include, among other things, debris removal, temporary housing
assistance, reconstruction, and the provision of supplies. These contracts
are subject to federal procurement regulations.

Federal Goals for Contracts with Small and Local Businesses

Federal agencies' contracts with private businesses, whether made in the
normal course of agency operations or specifically related to a natural
disaster declaration, are, in most cases, subject to certain goals to
increase participation by various types of small businesses. The Small
Business Act, as amended, defines a small business generally as one that
is "independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field
of operation."^8 In addition, a business must meet the size standards
published by SBA to be considered "small"; these standards use businesses'
annual revenue or their number of employees as criteria for determining
size. The act sets a governmentwide goal for small business participation
of not less than 23 percent of the total value of all prime contract
awards--contracts that are awarded directly by an agency--for each fiscal
year.^9 The Small Business Administration (SBA) is responsible for
reporting annually to the President and Congress on agencies' achievements
relative to the goals.

^7The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
Pub. L. 93-288, as amended, defines an emergency as "any occasion or
instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal
assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and
capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and
safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of
the United States." 42 U.S.C. S 5122(1).

^8Public Law 85-536, as amended, 15 U.S.C. S 632(a).

Because some agencies' activities lend themselves to contracting
opportunities more than others, SBA negotiates goals in annual procurement
with federal executive agencies to achieve the 23 percent governmentwide
goal for contract dollars awarded directly by a federal agency.^10 As a
result, some agencies have goals higher than 23 percent, while others may
have goals that are lower than or just at 23 percent. For example, the
agencies we reviewed had different goals for awarding contract dollars
directly to small businesses in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. DHS's goals
were 23 and 30 percent for 2005 and 2006, respectively. GSA's goals were
43 and 45 percent, respectively, and DOD's (including the Corps) goal was
23 percent for both years. The Small Business Act also sets annual prime
contract dollar goals for participation by five specific types of small
businesses: small businesses (23 percent); small disadvantaged businesses
(5 percent); women-owned or service-disabled, veteran-owned, (5 and 3
percent, respectively); and businesses located in historically
underutilized business zones (HUBZones, 3 percent).^11 The Small Business
Act^12 defines these businesses as follows:

           o Small businesses are those that are independently owned and
           operated, and are not dominant in their field of operations.
           o Small disadvantaged businesses must be owned and controlled by
           socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, such as
           African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Pacific Americans,
           Subcontinent Asian Americans, or Native Americans. These owners
           must have at least a 51 percent stake in the business.
           o Women-owned small businesses must have at least 51 percent
           female ownership. For publicly owned businesses, one or more women
           must hold at least 51 percent of the stock and control both
           management and daily business operations.
           o Service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses must be
           owned--also at least 51 percent--by one or more veterans with a
           service-related disability. In addition, the management and daily
           operations of the business must be controlled by one or more
           veterans with a service-related disability.
           o HUBZone small businesses must have their principal offices
           physically located in these historically underutilized business
           zones, which are economically distressed metropolitan or
           nonmetropolitan areas--that is, areas with low-income levels or
           high unemployment rates--and must employ some staff who live in
           these zones.^13

           Finally, the Stafford Act sets forth requirements for the federal
           response to presidentially declared disasters. It requires federal
           agencies to give contracting preferences, to the extent feasible
           and practicable, to organizations, firms, and individuals residing
           or doing business primarily in the area affected by a major
           disaster or emergency.^14
			  
			  Federal Rules for Contracts with Businesses

           The general rules governing procurement for executive agencies are
           set out in federal procurement statutes and in the Federal
           Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Individual agencies may also have
           additional acquisition regulations to supplement the FAR. The FAR
           requires agencies to measure small business participation in their
           acquisition programs. A small business may participate via
           contracts that are awarded directly by a federal agency or through
           subcontracts with the businesses that receive contracts directly
           from a federal agency. Any business receiving a contract directly
           from a federal executive agency for more than the simplified
           acquisition threshold^15 must agree to give small business the
           "maximum practicable opportunity" to participate in the contract
           "consistent with its efficient performance."^16 Additionally, for
           contracts (or modifications to contracts) that (1) are
           individually expected to exceed $500,000 ($1 million for
           construction contracts) and (2) have subcon	tracting possibilities,
           the prime contractor generally must have in place a subcontracting
           plan.^17 The subcontracting plan must identify the types of work
           the prime contractor believes it is likely to award as
           subcontracts as well as the percentage of subcontracting dollars
           it expects to direct to the specific categories of small
           businesses for which the Small Business Act sets specific
           goals.^18 For contracts that have individual subcontracting plans,
           prime contractors must semiannually and at project completion
           report on their progress toward reaching the goals in their
           subcontracting plans. Contractors that meet or exceed their goals
           may receive monetary incentives if the contract included such
           incentives. Contractors that fail to meet their subcontracting
           goals may be assessed damages if the contracting officer for the
           contract (i.e., the agency official responsible for awarding and
           monitoring the contract) determines that the contractor failed to
           make a good-faith effort to comply with a subcontracting plan.
			  
			  Agency and Governmentwide Contract Data

           When they award contracts, federal agencies collect and store
           procurement data in their own internal systems--typically called
           contract writing systems. The FAR requires federal agencies to
           report the information about procurements directly to the Federal
           Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG), GSA's
           governmentwide contracting database, which collects, processes,
           and disseminates official statistical data on all federal
           contracting activities of more than $2,500.^19 This system
           automatically obtains from other systems or online resources
           additional information that is important to the procurement, such
           as the contractor's location. According to GSA, nearly all
           civilian agencies have directly linked their contract writing
           systems to FPDS-NG so that information about their contracting
           activities is available in "real time." DOD also reports its
           contracting information to FPDS-NG via its system, DD-350, but GSA
           does not publicly reveal these data for 90 days due to security
           considerations.
			  
			  DOTï¿½s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program

           The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program^20 (DBE Program) of
           DOT was enacted to help ensure nondiscrimination in the award and
           administration of DOT-assisted contracts in the department's
           highway, transit, and airport financial assistance programs. State
           DOTs, transit authorities, and airports receiving DOT funding for
           transportation projects are to have a goal-oriented program for
           small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically
           disadvantaged individuals to participate on DOT-assisted
           contracts. The objectives of the DBE Program are to ensure that
           these businesses have an equitable opportunity to participate in
           contracts awarded by the recipients of DOT financial assistance,
           and that they receive a share of the resulting contract awards.
           Within DOT, the three major operating administrations--FHWA, FAA,
           and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)--oversee the DBE
           Program. DOT requires that the state and local transportation
           agencies and airports that receive its funds set two kinds of
           goals for DBE participation: (1) annual goals for the percentage
           of dollars that DBEs would be expected to receive through contract
           and subcontract awards of all DOT-assisted contracts for the year
           absent the effects of discrimination^21 and (2) when appropriate
           and as needed to meet the annual goal for the year,
           contract-specific goals for DBE participation as subcontractors on
           prime contracts that have subcontracting possibilities. According
           to DOT officials, there were no overall DBE goals set for
           Katrina-related contracts as a whole.

           DOT also requires that the state and local agencies certify the
           eligibility of the DBE firms participating in DOT-assisted
           contracts through on-site visits, personal interviews, and reviews
           of business licenses and stock ownership. The purpose of
           certification is to ensure that the firms that state and local
           agencies certify as DBEs are owned and controlled by individuals
           who are socially and economically disadvantaged as the statute and
           implementing regulations define those terms.^22 SBA's Small
           Disadvantaged Business Program (SDB) and DOT's DBE Program share
           many common certification requirements. According to DOT
           officials, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is presently under
           consideration for renewal that establishes processes and
           procedures to streamline the certification of firms certified
           under DOT rules in SBA programs and participation of firms
           certified under SBA rules in DOT programs.^23
			  
			  Small Businesses Received Varied Amounts of the Contracting
			  Dollars Awarded by Four Agencies

           Overall, small businesses received 28 percent of the $11 billion
           that DHS, GSA, DOD, and the Corps awarded for Katrina-related
           projects, but the percentages varied among the four.^24 These four
           agencies awarded about $3 billion of their Katrina-related
           contracting dollars directly to small businesses and over $8
           billion to large businesses between August 1, 2005, and June 30,
           2006 (fig. 1). Assessed individually, DHS awarded the highest
           dollar amount to small businesses--about $1.6 billion dollars--and
           GSA awarded the highest percentage of its dollars to small
           businesses--72 percent of about $658 million.

           Figure 1: Amount and Percentage of Katrina-Related Contract
           Dollars Awarded to Businesses by DHS, GSA, DOD, and the Corps

           Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and
           percentages were calculated from unrounded numbers.

           While small businesses received 28 percent of the funds that DHS,
           GSA, DOD, and the Corps awarded, they received 55 percent of
           contract actions for activities related to Hurricane Katrina,
           awarded directly by these agencies (fig. 2).^25 Individually, the
           agencies awarded from 41 to 68 percent of their contract actions
           to small businesses, with DHS awarding the lowest percentage and
           GSA awarding the highest. In relation to Hurricane Katrina, small
           businesses have received contracts directly from the four agencies
           to provide a variety of products, such as trailers and sewage
           treatment equipment, and services, such as construction, data
           entry, and housing.

           Figure 2: Number of Katrina-Related Contract Actions Awarded
           Directly to Businesses by Business Size

           Among categories of small businesses, small disadvantaged
           businesses received 24 percent of the approximately $3 billion
           that the four agencies awarded to small businesses. Other
           categories of small businesses, including women- and veteran-owned
           businesses and businesses located in HubZones, received from 2 to
           16 percent (fig. 3).

           Individually, the agencies we reviewed awarded different
           percentages of their contracting dollars directly to various types
           of small businesses. For example, DHS, DOD, and the Corps awarded
           more than 10 percent of their contracting dollars directly to
           HUBZone and women-owned businesses, and from 23 percent to 29
           percent to disadvantaged businesses. GSA awarded 3 percent to
           HubZone businesses, 12 percent to women-owned businesses, and 8
           percent to disadvantaged businesses. Contracting dollars awarded
           directly to businesses can be counted in more than one category,
           so the dollars awarded to various types of small businesses are
           not mutually exclusive.

^915 U.S.C. S 644(g). Under this provision, the President must annually
establish governmentwide goals for, among other things, procurement
contracts awarded to small business concerns. The governmentwide goal for
participation by small business concerns must be not less than 23 percent
of the total value of all prime contract awards for each fiscal year. As
stipulated in the Small Business Act, procurement goals are established as
a percentage of the total value of all contracts directly awarded by the
federal government in a fiscal year.

^10See Goaling Guidelines for the Small Business Preference Programs For
Prime and Subcontract Federal Procurement Goals and Achievements, SBA
Office of Government Contracting (July 3, 2003) (SBA Goaling Guidelines).

^1115 U.S.C. S 644(g).

^12The small business regulations implementing the Small Business Act
further define these businesses. See 13 C.F.R. SS 121.401 - 121.413.

^13These classifications are set forth at 15 U.S.C. S 632.

^1442 U.S.C. S 5150. In this report we do not assess agency compliance
with Stafford Act requirements.

^15FAR section 201.1 defines "simplified acquisition threshold" to mean
$100,000, except when the acquisition of supplies or services is used to
support a contingency operation or facilitate defense against nuclear,
biological, chemical, or radiological attack. In those instances, the term
means $250,000 for contracts to be awarded and performed inside the United
States and $1 million for contracts to be awarded and performed outside
the United States.

^16FAR SS 19.702, 2.101.

^17Id. The dollar threshold was changed to $550,000 on September 28, 2006.
71 Fed. Reg. 57363 (Sept. 28, 2006).

^18These and other aspects of the small business subcontracting plan
requirement are set forth at FAR Part 19.7.

^19The FPDS-NG reporting threshold in FAR 4.602(c) was raised from $2,500
to $3,000. 71 Fed. Reg. 57,364 (Sept. 28, 2006).

^20DOT Regulation 49 C.F.R. S 26.1. Congress most recently reauthorized
the DBE Program under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users, Pub. L. No. 109-59 S
1101(b) (2005).

^21For fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the state DOTs of Alabama, Louisiana,
and Mississippi set annual DBE goals at about 10 percent for contracts
awarded with FHWA dollars. For the same fiscal years, airports across the
three states that set an annual DBE goal and awarded contracts that we
reviewed had goals that ranged from about 7 percent to 20 percent.

^22See C.F.R. Parts 23, 26.

^23While the MOU between DOT and SBA has expired, according to DOT
officials, DOT's regulations, specifically 49 CFR S26.84 and S26.85,
prescribe the same requirements as contained in the MOU. Among other
requirements, DOT recipients must accept SBA certification applications in
lieu of requiring an applicant to complete their own application
documents.

^24Each of the agencies we reviewed establishes annual goals for small
business participation. Among the agencies, these goals ranged from 23 to
45 percent in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, as we note in the background
section of this report. The agencies, and SBA, track their progress in
meeting these goals on an annual (federal fiscal year) basis--that is, in
terms of all of an agency's contract actions in a year rather than on a
case-by-case basis. Because of this, and because the agencies did not set
Katrina-specific small business participation goals, the data we report in
this section should not be used to assess the agencies' accomplishments
with respect to their fiscal years 2005 or 2006 small business
participation goals.

^25Contract actions include actions resulting in a new contract, as well
as actions for additional supplies or services. We excluded contract
modifications that were administrative, or did not adjust the dollar
amount of the contract in order to focus our analysis on modifications of
dollar values.

Figure 3: Dollar Amount of Katrina-Related Contracts Awarded Directly to
Small Businesses, by Type of Businesses

Note: Percentages cannot be totaled across columns because under SBA
Guidelines, contracting dollars awarded directly to businesses can be
counted in more than one category--for example, a small disadvantaged
business owned by a woman can be counted as both disadvantaged and
women-owned. Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and
percentages were calculated from unrounded numbers.

^aThe service-disabled category is a subset of the veteran-owned business
category.

Local businesses, or businesses of all sizes located in the states
primarily affected by Hurricane Katrina--Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi--received 18 percent, or $1.9 billion, of the $11 billion in
contracting dollars that the four agencies directly awarded between August
1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Louisiana businesses received the most
contracting dollars--about $1 billion, or 10 percent of the total amount
of dollars the four agencies awarded during this time period (see table
1).

Table 1: Dollar Amount of Katrina-Related Contracts Awarded Directly to
Businesses in All States and in States Primarily Affected by Hurricane
Katrina

Dollars in millions
              All states^a        Alabama        Louisiana      Mississippi
              Dollar           Dollar          Dollar          Dollar         
Agency     amount  Percent  amount Percent  amount Percent  amount Percent 
DHS^b      $6,418     100%    $160      2%    $460      7%    $138      2% 
GSA           658      100      77      12      48       7     210      32 
DOD           987      100      10       1       7       1      45       5 
Corps       3,110      100      84       3     609      20     114       4 
Total^a   $11,173     100%    $331       3  $1,124      10    $508       5 

Source: FPDS-NG and DD-350 data on contract actions awarded between August
1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand, and percentages
were calculated from unrounded numbers.

^aThe total includes dollars awarded to businesses in all states and the
District of Columbia as well as businesses located outside of the United
States.

^bDHS data are missing information on the contractor's state for 3.5
percent of its records. Where possible, GAO used available information on
the contractor's city and place of performance to identify the state in
which the contractor was located.

Small businesses in these states received 66 percent of the $1.9 billion
in Katrina-related contracting dollars awarded to local businesses by the
four agencies we reviewed. Among the three states, Mississippi saw the
largest proportion (75 percent) of Katrina-related contracting dollars
awarded to small businesses (see table 2). Although small businesses in
Louisiana received the smallest proportion of Katrina-related contracting
dollars (62 percent) awarded directly by the four agencies, the actual
amount these businesses received was nearly double what small businesses
received in Mississippi, and more than three times what they were awarded
in Alabama. In general, these small local businesses received contracting
dollars directly from the four agencies to provide trailers,
administrative and service buildings, restoration activities, and other
supportive services.

Table 2: Small Businesses Received the Majority of Contracting Dollars
Awarded Directly to Local Businesses

Dollalrs in millions
                 Alabama                   Louisiana                 Mississippi
               All     Small              All     Small              All     Small
        businesses   businesses    businesses   businesses    businesses   businesses
            Dollar Dollar              Dollar Dollar              Dollar Dollar         
Agency      amount amount Percent      amount amount Percent      amount amount Percent 
DHSa          $160   $119     75%        $460   $345     75%        $138   $138    100% 
GSA             77     72      92          48     26      54         210    194      92 
DOD             10     10      27           7      6      89          45      9      20 
Corps           84     16      19         609    320      53         114     42      36 
Total         $331   $217     65%      $1,124   $697     62%        $508   $383     75% 

Source: FPDS-NG and DD-350 data on contract actions awarded between August
1, 2005 and June 30, 2006.

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and percentages
were calculated from unrounded numbers.

^aDHS data are missing information on the contractor's state for 3.5
percent of its records. Where possible, GAO used available information on
the contractor's city and place of performance to identify the state in
which the contractor was located.

The remaining 82 percent of the approximately $11 billion awarded by the
four agencies went to businesses throughout the United States (including
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and Canada. For example, the
agencies directly awarded 17 percent of their Katrina-related contracting
dollars, or almost $1.9 billion, to businesses located in California, and
15 percent, or approximately $1.7 billion, to businesses located in
Florida (fig. 4). Businesses located in Virginia received about 9 percent
of the funds the four agencies awarded, or about $996 million.

Figure 4: Katrina-Related Contracting Dollars by Location

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and percentages
were calculated from unrounded numbers.

^a"Other" includes other states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and
Canada.

Selected Corps Contractors Awarded Most Subcontracting Dollars to Small
Businesses, but Information on Subcontracting Plans for All Four Agencies Was
Incomplete

We found that the four Corps contractors that we reviewed awarded the
majority of their Katrina-related subcontracting dollars to small
businesses. However, viewed in terms of the total amounts obligated, we
found that the selected Corps contractors awarded from less than 1 percent
in one case to over half of the total amounts obligated as of March 31,
2006, to small businesses. In addition, subcontracting accomplishment
information was not consistently available for the DHS and GSA contracts
that were awarded to large businesses, and that, according to agency
officials or FPDS-NG, required subcontracting plans. This information was
not consistently available because contractors failed to submit it,
agencies had not finalized the data, or the information could not be
isolated from non-Katrina activities. Also, key information about small
business subcontracting plans was not consistently available in official
procurement data systems even though federal contracting rules state that
the information should be documented there. Specifically, for significant
amounts of contracting dollars, primarily at DHS and GSA, the systems had
no information at all on whether or not the agencies required these plans.
Also, at all four agencies, when they did not require subcontracting
plans, to varying degrees there was no information on the reason for the
agencies' decision even though the FAR requires that contract files
contain "justifications and approvals, determinations and findings, and
associated documents."^26 The incomplete information on subcontracting
plan requirements limits determining the extent to which agencies complied
with contracting rules designed to give small businesses maximum
opportunities to win subcontracts.

^26FAR S 4.803 (a)(2), (14).

Corps Contractors Reported Awarding the Majority of their Subcontracting Dollars
to Small Businesses

We reviewed 4 of the top 10 recipients of prime contracting dollars from
DOD and the Corps for projects related to Hurricane Katrina.^27 Together,
these 10 contractors accounted for 60 percent of these agencies' prime
contracting dollars. Of these top 10 recipients, only 4 received contracts
that were strictly for Hurricane Katrina-related projects and were
required to submit small business subcontracting plans for these
projects.^28 These 4 contractors were large businesses and received eight
contracts from the Corps that accounted for $928 million of the Corps'
contracting dollars as of March 31, 2006.^29 In accordance with federal
requirements for reporting of subcontracting information, the contractors
reported the amounts they subcontracted to businesses by business size and
type. According to the reports submitted for the period ending March 31,
2006, these 4 contractors awarded from 88 to 100 percent of their
subcontracting dollars to small businesses, or from about $11,000 to $201
million (table 3).^30 According to their subcontracting plans, the 4
contractors we reviewed intended to use subcontractors to assist with a
variety of clean-up and repair activities, including excavation, debris
removal, and temporary roofing installation.

^27Because DOD does not electronically aggregate information on the
subcontracting accomplishments of all military contractors, we chose to
look at the top 10 military contractors. This is a nonprobability sample
of military contractors because we did not consider including contractors
other than the top 10.

^28Four prime contractors were not required to identify subcontracting
opportunities because they were small businesses or the contract lacked
subcontracting possibilities. Under FAR, a contract is not required to
have a subcontracting plan if, among other things, the contract is with a
small business or if no subcontracting possibilities exist. See FAR SS
19.702(b)(1), 19.705-2(b). Of the remaining six contractors, two had
contracts for both Katrina and other activities, and we excluded these
contractors from our analysis because we could not isolate only the
Katrina-related subcontracting accomplishments using the information that
was available.

^29The four contractors received a total of 15 contracts from the Corps,
but we excluded 7 from our analysis because they either had
non-Katrina-related actions against them or were not required to include
subcontracting plans.

^30We analyzed subcontracting awards to small businesses as of a specific
point in time. However, these contracts may extend past March 31, 2006.
Subcontracting accomplishments may vary over time if the amount prime
contractors award to all businesses, and small businesses specifically,
changes over the life of a contract.

Table 3: Awards of Selected Corps Contractors to Small Businesses as a
Percent of the Subcontracting Dollars Awarded to All Businesses

Dollars in millions
                         Amount contractor        Amount contractor           
Prime        Contract    awarded to all         awarded to small           
contractor     number    subcontractors           subcontractors Percent^a 
Contractor A      A-1              $228                     $201       88% 
Contractor B      B-1                 3                        3       100 
                     B-2               0.6                      0.6       100 
                     B-3                 1                        1       100 
                     B-4               0.4                      0.4       100 
                     B-5              0.01                     0.01       100 
Contractor C      C-1                24                       23        95 
Contractor D      D-1              $212                     $188       89% 

Source: Individual subcontracting reports as of March 31, 2006.

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and percentages
were calculated from unrounded numbers.

^aThe percent of all subcontracting dollars awarded that were awarded to
small businesses.

We also conducted additional analysis on the four selected Corps
contractors. This analysis shows that the percentages of contracting
dollars that small businesses received through subcontracts from the four
Corps contractors are smaller when analyzed in broader terms than those
used for federal reporting requirements. The federal government requires
that, when subcontracting plan requirements apply, contractors must agree
to report the percentages and amounts of the total subcontracting dollars
that small businesses receive, and the four contractors we analyzed met
this reporting requirement.^31 However, as we have previously reported,
because a contractor could decide to subcontract only a small amount of
its total federal contract, the portion of subcontracted dollars going to
small businesses--if reported as a percentage of total subcontracted
dollars rather than of total contract dollars--could appear to be
large.^32 We compared the amounts each of the four selected Corps
contractors subcontracted to small businesses through eight
Katrina-related contracts as of March 31, 2006, with the total amount
obligated for each contract as of March 31, 2006 (table 4). This
comparison, using the total amounts obligated, showed that the contractors
awarded small businesses from less than 1 to 54 percent of the total
amounts obligated. As we have noted, these percentages could change over
time if the contractors award additional dollars to small businesses over
the life of the contracts and if the total amounts obligated change.

^31See, e.g., FAR SS 19.704(a)(10), 52.219-9(d); see also GSA Form 294.

^32GAO, Department of Energy: Improved Oversight Could Better Ensure
Opportunities for Small Business Subcontracting, [27]GAO-05-459
(Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2005).

Table 4: Amounts Small Businesses Received as Subcontractors as a Percent
of Total Dollars Obligated for Selected Katrina-Related Contracts

Dollars in millions
                                                  Amount each prime           
Prime        Contract                      contractor awarded to           
contractor     number Total obligated^a           small business Percent^b 
Contractor A      A-1      $447,025,736                     $201       45% 
Contractor B      B-1         7,130,002                        3        39 
                     B-2        15,189,862                      0.6         4 
                     B-3        28,283,410                        1         4 
                     B-4         8,662,500                      0.4         4 
                     B-5        14,817,225                     0.01      0.08 
Contractor C      C-1        60,000,000                       23        38 
Contractor D      D-1      $347,390,830                     $188       54% 

Source: Individual subcontracting report as of March 31, 2006, DD-350, and
Corps data.

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and percentages
were calculated from unrounded numbers.

^aThis total amount obligated as of March 31, 2006.

^bThe percent of the total amount obligated that was awarded to small
businesses.

Subcontracting Accomplishment Information Is Not Consistently Available for the
DHS and GSA Contracts Related to Hurricane Katrina That Required Subcontracting
Plans

Subcontracting accomplishment information is not consistently available
for the DHS and GSA contracts that were awarded to large businesses for
activities related to Hurricane Katrina, and that, according to agency
officials or FPDS-NG, required subcontracting plans. Contractors that have
individual subcontracting plans are generally required to report on their
subcontracting goals and accomplishments twice a year to the federal
government through eSRS. Furthermore, the agencies' contracting officers
are responsible for monitoring the prime contractors' activities and
ensuring, among other things, that they submit complete and timely
information in accordance with the terms of their federal contract.

For DHS, in response to our inquiries, agency officials researched
contracts that appeared to meet the regulatory criteria for requiring a
subcontracting plan (i.e., awarded to a large business for over $500,000
or $1,000,000 for construction) but which FPDS-NG indicated either did not
require one or the system was missing information on a plan requirement
altogether. For every contract that an agency awards, the agency is
required to indicate in FPDS-NG whether a subcontracting plan is required.
These officials found that subcontracting plans were, in fact, required
for seven contracts, but that this had not been entered into FPDS-NG. DHS
officials determined that subcontracting accomplishment information was
available on four of the seven contracts.^33 For the four contracts, the
contractors reported awarding from 14 to 83 percent of their
subcontracting dollars, which ranged from $154 to $520 million, to small
businesses as of March 31, 2006. For the remaining three contracts,
subcontracting information was not available either because the prime
contractor had not, as required, reported subcontracting accomplishment
information to the electronic subcontracting reporting system (eSRS) as of
March 31, 2006, or the contractor was not required to report on individual
contracts.^34

For GSA, information is generally unavailable on the subcontracting
activities associated with the 11 contracts the agency awarded to large
businesses for Katrina-related activities and which included
subcontracting plans. According to FPDS-NG, GSA awarded 11 Katrina-related
contracts (worth a total of about $9.6 million) for which subcontracting
information was not available because contractors had failed to report it,
the data had not been finalized, or, in one case, the contractor had
reported aggregated figures for both Katrina-related and other
subcontracts. Specifically, information was unavailable on 9 GSA-awarded
contracts because the contractors had not submitted data into eSRS, and on
1 other contract because the data were still in "draft" form in eSRS.^35
While subcontracting information was available on 1 of the GSA-awarded
contracts related to Hurricane Katrina, we could not isolate data related
solely to that disaster, as the contract had been used for other unrelated
activities and the available subcontracting information was reported for
the entire contract. Because subcontracting accomplishments were reported
for the contract as a whole, and not for individual contract actions, it
is not possible, with available data, to disaggregate Katrina and
non-Katrina-related subcontracting accomplishments.

^33The FPDS-NG data for DHS initially showed that a subcontracting plan
was required for two contracts the department awarded for Katrina-related
activities which we could not find in eSRS. DHS officials subsequently
researched these contracts and determined that neither required a
subcontracting plan--one was an award to a small business (for which the
requirement does not apply) and the other indicated that there were no
subcontracting possibilities.

^34One of the contracts DHS awarded was for a commercial item. For
commercial item contracts, contractors are only required to annually
report on their subcontracting activities for all of their government
contracts. These annual reports do not identify subcontracting activities
by individual contracts.

Agency officials could not entirely explain what caused certain DHS and
GSA prime contractors, whose contracts did include subcontracting plans,
to fail to submit the required documentation of their activities and
accomplishments into eSRS for the period ending March 31, 2006. However,
one possible reason may have to do with the effect that incomplete
information about prime contracts in FPDS-NG can have when it carries over
into eSRS. Specifically, eSRS only allows contractors to submit
information on their subcontracting activities when contracts are
correctly coded in FPDS-NG as requiring a subcontracting plan. As a
result, if a contract is not in FPDS-NG or has not been entered correctly
as requiring a subcontracting plan, the contractor will not be able to
submit information about subcontracting activities into eSRS. Without
timely and complete information on the extent to which contractors are
subcontracting with small businesses, the eSRS is less useful as a tool
for providing transparency on the extent to which small businesses are, as
intended, receiving opportunities to participate in federal contracts. In
addition, the ability of eSRS to accurately produce reports on
subcontracting achievements is compromised.

^35Data in eSRS that are in "draft" form means that a contractor has
started creating a subcontracting accomplishment report, but has not yet
submitted it to the government.

Incomplete Agency Information on Subcontracting Plan Requirements Raises
Concerns about Compliance with Contracting Rules and Opportunities for Small
Businesses

As was the case with certain agency data on subcontracting
accomplishments, in two respects, key information on small business
subcontracting plans was not consistently available in official
procurement data systems for the four agencies. First, the official
procurement data system, primarily for DHS and GSA, had no information at
all on whether or not they required subcontracting plans for 70 percent or
more of their contracting funds. DHS and GSA officials were, to varying
degrees, unable to explain the lack of information on subcontracting plan
requirements associated with their Katrina-related contracting dollars.
Second, the four agencies, according to procurement data systems,
determined that subcontracting plans were not required for contracts
representing 12 to 77 percent of the dollars they awarded to large
businesses for Katrina-related projects that appeared to meet the criteria
for including such plans. Data on the four agencies' reasons for their
determinations about not requiring these plans, which should be in the
data systems or readily available, were incomplete.

For the types of contracts we reviewed, executive agencies generally must
require subcontracting plans when they award federal contracts of more
than $500,000 to large businesses.^36 According to the FAR, agencies must
make the maximum practical opportunities available for small businesses to
participate in federal procurements and agencies must take steps to ensure
that prime contractors play a role in ensuring those opportunities are
made available.^37 Additionally, the FAR requires that federal executive
agencies must maintain public files of data on their procurement
activities, such as whether or not they have required prime contractors to
submit and report on subcontracting plans.^38 We also note that the FAR
requires that federal agencies have readily accessible information on each
of the contracts that they have awarded.^39 Finally, under the FAR, a
contractor is not required to submit a subcontracting plan if the
contracting officer determines that no subcontracting possibilities
exist.^40 The contracting officer's determination must be approved at a
level above the contracting officer and documented in the contract
file.^41 This information is to be captured in FPDS-NG for civilian
agencies and in its military counterpart, DD-350, for military agencies.
By capturing the reason for decisions about forgoing subcontracting plans,
such as the lack of subcontracting possibilities, these systems provide
transparency into a process intended to ensure maximum opportunities for
small businesses to participate in federal procurements.

^36As we previously noted, the dollar threshold was changed to $550,000 on
September 28, 2006. 71 Fed. Reg. 57363 (Sept. 28, 2006).

^37In July 2006, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council published, with a request for comments,
interim rules establishing Part 18 of FAR, which are intended "to provide
a single reference to acquisition flexibilities that may be used to
facilitate and expedite acquisitions of supplies and services during
emergency situations." 71 Fed. Reg. 38247 (July 5, 2006). According to GSA
officials, these interim rules do not specifically address the
subcontracting plan requirements discussed in this report. The FAR is
available at http://acquisition.gov/far/index.html.

^38See FAR S 4.601(a); see also FPDS-NG User's Manual, SBA Goaling
Guidelines.

As we noted, information about whether the four agencies met the criteria
for requiring subcontracting plans and, when they did not require a plan,
their reasons for doing so were incomplete. Specifically, for contracts
representing the majority of the dollars that DHS and GSA awarded to large
businesses for contracts valued over $500,000, no information was
available in FPDS-NG on whether the two agencies required subcontracting
plans or had waived this requirement (see table 5, column 6). Also, for
contracts representing 12 to 77 percent of the funds they awarded to large
businesses through contracts for over $500,000, the procurement system
showed that the agencies determined that subcontracting plans were not
required (table 5, column 5). Agency officials were unable to explain why
subcontracting plans were not required for contract dollars ranging from
at least $16 million to $861 million.

^39The FAR states that agencies must transmit procurement information into
FPDS-NG in accordance with the system's procedures. The FPDS-NG User Guide
states that contracting officers shall submit complete and accurate data
on contract actions to FPDS-NG within 3 business days after contract
award. Moreover, under FAR subpart 4.8, agency contract files are to
contain specified information about the contract and agencies should be
able to locate them promptly. See FAR SS 4.801 - 4.803.

^40FAR S 19.705-2. According to the FAR, in determining whether
subcontracting possibilities exist, a contracting officer must determine
relevant factors such as: (1) whether firms engaged in the business of
furnishing the types of items to be acquired customarily contract for
performance of part of the work or maintain sufficient in-house capability
to perform the work; and (2) whether there are likely to be product
prequalification requirements (a qualification requirement means a
requirement for testing or other quality assurance demonstration that must
be completed before award of a contract).

^41Id.

Table 5: Subcontracting Plan Requirements by Dollar Amount Awarded

Dollars in millions
                                                     Percent of     Percent of
                                                    total amount   total amount
               Total   Percent of     Percent of    awarded and    awarded and
              amount  total amount   total amount  dollar amount  dollar amount
          awarded to  awarded and    awarded and    reported as      with no
               large dollar amount  dollar amount  not requiring  information on
          businesses  requiring a      with no           a        subcontracting
                over subcontracting subcontracting subcontracting      plan
Agency $500,000^a      plan      possibilities       plan       requirements
DHS      $4,866.2   1%     $27.2    0%    $16.3  29%  $1,406.0  70%  $3,416.7 
GSA         127.1    7       8.9     4      4.7   12      15.1   77      98.4 
DOD         631.2   22     141.4     0            77     483.6    1       6.2 
Corps    $2,468.7  76%  $1,880.1    0%           23%    $574.5   1%     $14.1 

Source: GAO analysis of FPDS-NG and DD-350 data for contract actions
awarded between August 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and percentages
were calculated from unrounded numbers.

^aOne million dollars for construction.

Overall, procurement officials from the four agencies were able to explain
some of the missing or incomplete subcontracting plan information, for
example, by identifying data entry errors or providing evidence of
additional justification for not requiring the subcontracting plans.
Nonetheless, for each agency, there remain contracting dollars for which
the subcontracting plan information is incomplete and which agency
officials have not been able to explain. Specifically:

           o For DHS, table 5 shows that $3.4 billion in contracting dollars
           lacked any information on whether a subcontracting plan was
           required. DHS officials stated that information was missing for
           $3.2 billion of these dollars due to data entry errors. For
           example, for nearly $3 billion of these dollars, subcontracting
           plans were in fact required.^42 DHS officials were unable to
           explain the lack of information on subcontracting plan
           requirements associated with the remaining $191 million of the
           dollars for which subcontracting plan requirement information is
           missing. Table 5 also shows that DHS did not require
           subcontracting plans for $1.4 billion of the funds it awarded. DHS
           officials indicated $545 million of these funds were miscoded and
           should have been entered in FPDS-NG as having "no subcontracting
           possibilities." DHS officials were unable to explain why the
           remaining $861 million were not required to have subcontracting
           plans.
           o According to GSA officials, contracting officers did not require
           subcontracting plans for the Katrina-related contracts awarded to
           large businesses for over $500,000 in some cases because of a
           temporary increase (to $10 million) in the threshold for requiring
           these plans and in other cases because the emergency nature of the
           situation required a faster response than normal contracting
           procedures would have allowed.^43 Table 5 shows that GSA awarded a
           total of almost $114 million through acquisitions that were coded
           in FPDS-NG as either not requiring a subcontracting plan or for
           which there was no information on whether a subcontracting plan
           was required (columns 5 and 6 of table 5, which round to $114
           million); of this amount, GSA officials indicated that $72 million
           was awarded at amounts below the $10 million threshold.^44 Of the
           remaining $42 million, GSA determined that a subcontracting plan
           was not required for a $26 million contract for ice because the
           urgent nature of the situation required procuring and delivering
           the ice faster than normal contracting procedures would have
           allowed. According to GSA officials, contracts such as this and
           others for which GSA did not require subcontracting plans, such as
           one for ambulance services to transport people from nursing homes,
           illustrate their point about the need to expedite contracting in
           an emergency situation. The ambulance services contract they cited
           was valued high enough that they ordinarily would have had to
           include a subcontracting plan which, in the normal course of
           operations, would require review by the SBA's Procurement Center
           Representatives for advisory purposes as well as a certain amount
           of market research to determine if subcontracting possibilities
           existed for potential prime contractors. In the judgment of the
           GSA contracting officials, the urgency of the situation requiring
           the ambulances was sufficient justification for forgoing the
           subcontracting plan requirements and procedures. GSA officials
           were unable to explain the lack of information on subcontracting
           plan requirements associated with the remaining $16 million.^45 
           o Table 5 shows that DOD's data system, DD-350, had no information
           at all on subcontracting plan requirements for $6.2 million of its
           Katrina-related contracts. Based on our queries, DOD officials
           determined that these contracts actually did require such plans.
           The system lacked this information because the DFARS instructions
           do not require this information for orders under a supply schedule
           contract. Of the $483.6 million that table 5 shows as not
           requiring a subcontracting plan, based on our inquiries, DOD
           officials determined that $475.9 million of these contract actions
           represented data entry errors and did, in fact, require such plans
           or should have been coded as having "no subcontracting
           possibilities." Moreover, DOD officials stated that about $4.4
           million in contract actions were correctly coded as not requiring
           subcontracting plans because they were awarded as blanket purchase
           agreements, purchase orders, or were awarded to a small business.
           DOD officials were unable to explain why the remaining $3.3
           million in contracting dollars coded as not requiring
           subcontracting plans were not required to have such plans.
           o For the Corps, table 5 shows $14 million for which DD-350
           contained no information on subcontracting plan requirements.
           Corps officials determined that these were orders against existing
           GSA federal supply schedule contracts and for which, according to
           these officials, the FAR does not require subcontracting plans.
           Table 5 also shows $574.5 million for which the Corps determined
           that subcontracting plans were not required; according to Corps
           officials, data entry errors explain $437.2 million of these
           funds--some small businesses (which do not have to have
           subcontracting plans) were miscoded as large, some contracts were
           miscoded as not requiring a subcontracting plan when they actually
           did, and some should have been coded as having "no subcontracting
           possibilities." Corps officials were unable to explain why
           subcontracting plans were not required for the remaining $102
           million in contracting dollars that were coded as not requiring a
           subcontracting plan.

           More than 1 year after Hurricane Katrina, key information about
           subcontracting plan requirements remains incomplete, as we show in
           table 5. As we noted in reporting on the agencies' efforts to
           respond to our inquiries, data entry errors explain some of what
           we found. Additionally, officials from GSA and DOD stated that in
           the emergency situation that Hurricane Katrina presented, they
           placed priority on awarding contracts for vital supplies with the
           expectation that data entry would be completed at a later time.
           However, as we noted, these agencies were still unable to explain
           why data were missing on subcontracting plan requirements, or why
           subcontracting plans were not required for from $3.3 million to
           $861 million in contract dollars. The incomplete information
           limits using the agencies' procurement data systems and publicly
           reported contracting data to tell the extent to which agencies
           complied with federal contracting rules designed to give small
           businesses the maximum practical opportunity to participate in
           federal contracts.
			  
			  Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Participated in FHWAï¿½ and
			  FAAï¿½Funded Contracts and Subcontracts Related to Hurricane Katrina

           Through contracts and subcontracts, DBEs were awarded about 4
           percent of almost $1.3 billion of FHWA funding for Katrina-related
           contracts awarded between August 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, in
           the three states primarily affected by Hurricane Katrina.^46 The
           Mississippi Department of Transportation awarded the majority of
           the FHWA dollars DBEs received in these three states. DBEs were
           awarded about 10 percent of FAA dollars that airports in these
           three states awarded for Katrina-related contracts during the same
           period of time.^47 FTA officials said that FTA did not fund any
           grants to transit agencies for Katrina-related recovery
           projects.^48
			  
			  DBEs Received about 4 Percent of FHWA Dollars for Katrina-Related
			  Contracts in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana

           DBEs were awarded about 4 percent of the total dollar value of
           Katrina-related contracting dollars awarded by three state
           transportation agencies through contracts and subcontracts between
           August 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. The DOTs in the three states
           primarily affected by Katrina (Alabama, Louisiana, and
           Mississippi) awarded 76 FHWA-funded, Katrina-related contracts,
           totaling about $1.3 billion (table 6). DBEs were awarded
           approximately $53 million of this amount as prime contractors and
           subcontractors. Specifically, DBEs were prime contractors on 2 and
           subcontractors on 10 of the 76 contracts awarded.
			  
^42Of the other dollars for which information was missing, DHS stated that
some were awarded through purchase orders, to small businesses, or had no
subcontracting opportunities--all of which would exclude the contracts
from subcontracting plan requirements. As noted previously in this report,
FAR does not require subcontracting plans for contracts with small
businesses and when no subcontracting possibilities exist. FAR does not
contain an explicit exception for purchase orders. Under FAR, a purchase
order is a type of contract that, by definition, involves the use of
simplified acquisition procedures. See FAR S 2.101 (definitions of
"Contract" and "Purchase Order"). The simplified acquisition procedures
apply where the contract amount does not exceed the simplified acquisition
threshold. See FAR S 13.000.

^43Additionally, according to GSA officials, data entry errors explain
some of the information missing from their procurement systems.
Specifically, GSA reported that about $18 million were awarded through
purchase agreements, against existing contracts, and to a small business
that was miscoded as a large business--and therefore were not required to
have subcontracting plans.

^44According to GSA officials, under GSA Acquisition Letter V-05-17
(effective September 9, 2005) certain contracts for amounts not exceeding
$10 million were subject to simplified acquisition procedures that did not
require submission of a subcontracting plan. They referred to the
following paragraph in the Sept. 9 letter:

In accordance with section 101(1) of Pub. L. 109-62, the threshold in FAR
13.500(e) ($10 million) is applicable to procurements in support of
Hurricane Katrina rescue and relief operations. In addition, under section
101(2), the micro-purchase threshold for actions in support of Hurricane
Katrina rescue and relief efforts is $250,000.

The GSA officials did not provide a clear explanation of the extent to
which GSA relied on the threshold amount. One official stated that
subcontracting plans were not required for acquisitions of commercial
items in which the contract amount was $10 million or less. Subsequently,
another official indicated that GSA relied on the threshold amount for
Katrina-related contracts generally, without referring specifically to
contracts for commercial items.

^45The dollar amount for which it is unclear why GSA did not require
subcontracting plans may be greater than $16 million. As we indicated
earlier, GSA officials were unclear whether its increase in the threshold
for requiring the plans applied to all contract actions under the $10
million or just those involving commercial items. If the threshold
increase applied to all contract actions, $16 million in GSA contract
dollars remains unexplained. If the threshold increase only applied to
commercial items (a subset of all contract actions), then the dollar
amount for which we do not have information on why GSA did not require a
subcontracting plan is likely greater than $16 million.

^46The state DOTs of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi set annual goals
for DBE participation in FHWA-assisted contracts at about 10 percent for
fiscal years 2005 and 2006, as we note in the background section of this
report. Because these goals are based on DBE participation on an annual
basis using data from all FHWA-assisted contracts in each state, and
because DOT did not set Katrina-specific overall DBE participation goals,
the data we present in this section do not represent noncompliance or the
failure of any of the states to meet annual DBE participation goals.

^47Airports receiving FAA funds set annual DBE participation goals. The
airports' FAA-assisted contracts that we reviewed had goals that ranged
from about 7 percent to 20 percent, as we note in the background section
of this report. Because these goals are based on DBE participation on an
annual basis using data from all FAA-assisted contracts, and because DOT
did not set Katrina-specific DBE participation goals, the data we present
in this section do not represent noncompliance or the failure of any of
the airports to meet annual DBE participation goals.

^48Repairs to transit for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina have been
paid for with FEMA funds that were administered by FTA. According to FTA
officials, DBE participation requirements do not apply to the funds they
provided transit agencies in the affected states because the funds were
FEMA's, not FTA's.

           Table 6: DBE Participation in Katrina-Related State DOT Contracts
           Awarded With FHWA Funds
			  
Dollars in millions
                                    Total dollars  Percentage of total dollar 
                 Total dollar value    awarded to  value of contracts awarded 
State       of contracts awarded        DBEs^a                     to DBEs 
Mississippi               $790.0         $34.2                        4.3% 
Louisiana                  490.0          18.8                         3.8 
Alabama                      2.9           0.1                         4.0 
Total                   $1,282.9         $53.1                        4.1% 

           Source: GAO analysis of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama DOT
           data for contracts awarded between August 1, 2005, and June 30,
           2006.

           Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and
           percentages were calculated from unrounded numbers.

           ^aIncludes amount paid to DBEs for completed projects and amount
           committed to DBEs for ongoing projects through prime contracts and
           subcontracts.

           In Mississippi, DBEs were awarded a total of about $34 million, or
           4.3 percent of the $790 million that the Mississippi DOT awarded
           in FHWA-funded, Katrina-related contracts. The Mississippi DOT
           awarded the $790 million through 55 contracts. DBEs were the prime
           contractor on 2 of these contracts, which totaled about $2
           million, and subcontractors on 6 others. Almost all of the 8
           contracts that DBEs participated in were for debris removal and
           work on U.S. Highway 90, which runs along the Mississippi coast
           and received substantial damage from the hurricane. As of October
           2006, of the approximately $34 million awarded to DBEs in
           Mississippi, about $3 million had been paid for completed work and
           $31 million is committed for work in progress.

           DBEs were awarded a total of about $19 million, or 3.8 percent of
           the $490 million that the Louisiana DOT awarded in FHWA-funded,
           Katrina-related contracts. The Louisiana DOT awarded a total of 19
           contracts, and DBEs were subcontractors on 3 of them. The 3
           subcontracts included work for bridge repair and work on
           Interstate Highway 10, which received significant damage from
           Hurricane Katrina between New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana. As
           of October 2006, of the approximately $19 million awarded to DBEs,
           approximately $700,000 had been paid for completed work, and a
           little more than $18 million had been committed for work in
           progress.

           DBEs were awarded a total of about $100,000, or 4 percent, of the
           nearly $3 million that the Alabama DOT awarded in FHWA-funded,
           Katrina-related contracts. Two contracts accounted for the nearly
           $3 million and two DBEs were subcontractors on one of the
           contracts.^49 As of October 2006, the two DBEs had received over
           half of their awarded amounts, and the remainder was committed for
           the rest of the project, which was designed to repair a ramp on a
           section of Interstate Highway 10.
			  
			  DBEs Received About 10 Percent of the FAA Dollars Awarded for
			  Katrina-Related Contracts

           DBEs were awarded about $2.4 million of the nearly $24 million in
           Katrina-related contracts that airports in Alabama, Louisiana, and
           Mississippi awarded with FAA funds for Katrina-related contracts
           during the period of our analysis (table 7). This $24 million was
           awarded by airports through 44 contracts, and DBEs participated in
           1 contract as a prime contractor and in 10 contracts as
           subcontractors.

           Table 7: DBE Participation in Contracts Awarded by Airports with
           FAA Grants
			  
Dollars in                                                                 
millions                                                                   
               Total dollar value  Total dollar    Percentage of total dollar 
                 of all contracts value awarded value of contracts awarded to 
State                  awarded     to DBEs^a                          DBEs 
Airports in                                                                
Mississippi              $21.1          $2.3                         11.0% 
Airports in                                                                
Louisiana                  2.6           0.1                           4.1 
Airports in                                                                
Alabama                    0.3         ^---b                         ^---b 
Total                    $24.0          $2.4                         10.1% 

           Source: GAO analysis of FAA data for contracts awarded by airports
           between August 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006.

           Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand and
           percentages were calculated from unrounded numbers.

           ^aIncludes amount paid to DBEs for completed projects and amount
           committed to DBEs for ongoing projects through prime contracts and
           subcontracts.

           ^bAirports in Alabama awarded a total of nearly $300,000 in three
           FAA-funded, Katrina-related contracts, and DBEs participated in
           one of the three contracts. For contracts awarded with FHWA or FAA
           funds, we determined that contract values were sufficiently
           reliable to report aggregated contract amounts rounded to the
           nearest $100,000. Because the dollar value awarded to DBEs in
           Alabama was less than $50,000 and rounding this figure would
           require reporting it as zero, we chose not to report on the amount
           or percentage of total dollars DBEs received in Alabama. See the
           detailed discussion of our methodology in appendix I for more
           information.

           DBEs were awarded approximately $2.3 million (11 percent) of about
           $21 million that airports in Mississippi awarded in FAA-funded,
           Katrina-related contracts. DBEs participated in 8 out of 27
           contracts awarded by airports in Mississippi. The contracts
           included repair work for terminal areas and runway lighting, as
           well as construction of a new cargo building.

           DBEs were awarded a total of about $100,000, all through
           subcontracts, of nearly $2.6 million that airports in Louisiana
           awarded in FAA-funded, Katrina-related contracts. The $100,000
           DBEs received accounted for approximately 4 percent of the $2.6
           million that the Louisiana airports awarded. Overall, DBEs
           participated in 2 of 14 contracts that included work to update one
           airport's master plan and consulting services provided to another
           airport.
			  
			  Conclusions

           There is little doubt that Hurricane Katrina posed challenges to
           federal agencies to award contracts expeditiously while adhering
           to federal acquisition regulations, including those governing
           subcontracting plans. We recognize that the response to Katrina
           was unprecedented for most agencies and that complying with
           certain requirements, such as negotiating subcontracting plans and
           documenting compliance with subcontracting requirements, may have
           understandably been deferred to a later time, as GSA and DOD
           officials said was the case. Nonetheless, a substantial amount of
           information about the four agencies' subcontracting requirements
           remains incomplete over a year after the hurricane. Conclusively
           demonstrating compliance with the rules about subcontracting plans
           is important for reasons beyond just documentation. By requiring
           these plans, agencies commit prime contractors to specific goals
           for providing opportunities to small businesses and give
           themselves tools--incentives as well as sanctions--that they can
           use to ensure the contractors engage in good faith efforts to meet
           their small business subcontracting goals. In doing so, the
           agencies ensure compliance with federal procurement regulations
           and that small businesses have all of the practical opportunities
           to participate in federal contracts that they are supposed to
           have. Because so much key information about subcontracting plans
           was incomplete in federal procurement data systems and, at the
           conclusion of our review, remains unresolved, we cannot tell the
           extent to which the agencies are complying with the regulations.
           Furthermore, the lack of transparency surrounding much of the
           agencies' subcontracting data--missing information on plans when
           contracts appear to meet the criteria for having them--may lead to
           unwarranted perceptions about how the federal procurement system
           is working, particularly in terms of the government's stated
           preference for contracting with small businesses.

           For their Katrina-related relief contracts, until DHS, GSA, DOD,
           and the Corps improve documentation of (1) the status of whether
           subcontracting plan requirements are in place and (2) their
           decisions on whether subcontracting plans were required, the
           agencies will lack the ability to provide assurance they offered
           small businesses the maximum practical opportunity to do business
           with them. However, it is questionable whether the benefit from
           clearing up the agencies' incomplete subcontracting information
           would outweigh the costs of doing so for Katrina-related
           contracts. Consequently, the agencies' best course of action in
           response to what we found may be to improve documentation for all
           future contracts and reinforce to all of its contracting officers
           and others involved in the procurement process the importance of
           adhering to subcontracting plan requirements and ensuring that
           publicly available information--such as what the agencies report
           in FPDS-NG--accurately reflects the extent to which the agency
           made subcontracting opportunities available to small businesses.
			  
			  Recommendations for Executive Action

           To ensure compliance with federal contracting regulations and to
           more transparently disclose the extent to which subcontracting
           opportunities are available to small businesses, we recommend that
           the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense and the
           Administrator of General Services take the following two actions:

           o Issue guidance to the appropriate procurement offices and
           personnel reinforcing (1) the reasons for subcontracting plan
           requirements and the importance of complying with them; (2) the
           necessity for documenting in publicly available sources the
           agencies' decisions, particularly in instances when they determine
           not to require subcontracting plans; and (3) where subcontracting
           plans are in place, the need to adhere to the requirement for all
           prime contractors to report on their small business subcontracting
           accomplishments.
           o Consider asking their respective Inspectors General to conduct a
           review at an appropriate future date to ensure that this guidance
           and related requirements are being followed.
			  
			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           We provided a draft of this report to DHS, GSA, DOD, DOT, and the
           SBA for their review and comment. Officials from DOT and SBA
           provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as
           appropriate. Through written comments, DHS, GSA, and DOD--the
           agencies to which our recommendations are addressed--concurred
           with our recommendations. Their comments are reprinted in
           appendixes II, III, and IV.

           In written comments from the Director of DHS's Departmental
           GAO/OIG Liaison Office (app. II), DHS noted actions that it plans
           to take to implement the recommendations within the Federal
           Emergency Management Agency (which was responsible for the vast
           majority of the agency's Katrina-related contracting) and stated
           that it plans to apply them as best practices across all of the
           department. Specifically, the agency plans to:

           o issue guidance to all acquisition offices reinforcing previously
           issued guidance regarding the importance of awarding all
           appropriate contracts to small businesses and encouraging large
           businesses to subcontract all appropriate work to small
           businesses;
           o have an acquisition oversight team within the agency's Office of
           the Chief Procurement Officer review DHS acquisition offices'
           compliance with federal and DHS acquisition regulations, policies,
           and procedures; and,
           o pursue a review by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)
           to benchmark the agency's contract administration efforts,
           including its subcontracting plan administration, against DCMA
           practices and procedures.

           In commenting on our presentation of subcontracting
           accomplishments, DHS stated that many of the DHS contracts did not
           require contractors to enter subcontracting accomplishment data
           into the electronic subcontracting reporting system (eSRS), and
           that inputting subcontracting accomplishment information into eSRS
           was voluntary in fiscal year 2006. However, we note that according
           to a November 2005 memo to Chief Acquisition Officers from the
           Office of Management and Budget, all contractors for civilian
           agencies were required to use eSRS as of fiscal year 2005.

           DHS also stated that we could have emphasized the agency's
           administration of four key contracts with large businesses that
           had subcontracting plans, noting that these businesses provided
           subcontracting information weekly. While we were aware that DHS
           was obtaining weekly subcontracting accomplishment information
           from selected contractors, our methodology for DHS (and the other
           agencies) was to obtain and analyze the subcontracting
           accomplishment information that federal regulations required the
           agency to collect and report (semiannually, in this case, as of
           March 31, 2006).

           DHS also offered comments regarding the report's presentation of
           contracts awarded directly to small businesses. Specifically, DHS
           stated that work under two contracts that were awarded directly to
           large businesses was transferred to multiple small businesses. As
           we note in the report, DHS awarded $1.6 billion in Katrina-related
           contracting dollars directly to small businesses. To the extent
           that DHS accurately indicated in FPDS-NG that the contracting
           dollars were awarded directly to small and not large businesses,
           our report reflects this activity.

           GSA's Administrator generally concurred with our recommendations
           (see app. III). The agency's Office of the Chief Acquisition
           Officer will, among other things, take steps such as:

           o distribute an acquisition alert reminding the acquisition
           community of the importance of subcontracting plan requirements,
           and the need to document decisions, including those regarding
           subcontracting plan requirements;
           o remind contracting officers of their responsibility to ensure
           that contractors properly report their subcontracting
           accomplishments as required; and,
           o include compliance with the guidance about subcontracting plan
           requirements in its regularly scheduled Procurement Management
           Reviews as well as the special reviews it conducts during major
           catastrophes in order to ensure procurement statutes, regulations,
           and guidance are being met; when appropriate, GSA indicated it
           will seek the assistance of the agency's Inspector General to
           support these reviews.

           GSA emphasized--during the course of our review as well as in its
           comments on our draft report--that during catastrophic situations,
           time is of the essence in getting goods and services to a disaster
           area immediately. While its contracting officers and personnel
           worked to comply with all contracting requirements, including the
           subcontracting plan requirement, GSA stated that the latter proved
           to be impossible given the urgency of the needs resulting from the
           hurricane. GSA also noted that the subcontracting plan requirement
           is one it did not address when it waived certain procurement rules
           in early September 2005 during the emergency response. One reason
           GSA did not extend these waivers to the requirement for
           subcontracting plans is that, in the judgment of GSA procurement
           officials, there are no provisions or flexibility in the Federal
           Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that would have given them the
           authority, even in an emergency situation such as the response to
           Hurricane Katrina, to deviate from subcontracting plan
           requirements. We agree with GSA's conclusion that the FAR
           currently does not specifically permit agencies to waive the
           requirement for an approved subcontracting plan prior to contract
           award. This is because the FAR requirement is based on the Small
           Business Act, which does not provide for an agency to waive the
           subcontracting plan requirement or allow deferral of it until
           after the agency has awarded a contract. As a result of our
           findings and the lack of flexibility GSA determined the FAR has on
           subcontracting plan requirements, GSA plans to raise the issue of
           emergency processes with the FAR Council. ^50

           DOD's Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, in the
           Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
           Technology, and Logistics, concurred with our recommendations (see
           app. IV) and noted that the department plans to issue a policy
           memorandum in 2007 containing the guidance we recommend.
           Additionally, DOD indicated it would direct review officials for
           each of its military departments and other defense agencies to
           include subcontracting guidance and compliance as a special
           interest item in the periodic oversight reviews they conduct of
           the organizations within each department or agency. Moreover, DOD
           will ask the military departments' Offices of Inspectors General
           as well as the DOD Inspector General to review the adequacy of
           departmental and agency oversight and management review processes.
			  
^49According to an Alabama DOT official, the Alabama DOT indirectly
awarded 11 additional Katrina-related contracts totaling about $800,000
through various counties in the state. The counties awarded the contracts
and the Alabama DOT reimbursed them. DBE information was not readily
available on these 11 contracts and we excluded them from our analysis.

^50The FAR Council oversees the development and maintenance of the FAR.
Its chair is the Administrator of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement
Policy, who is responsible for providing overall direction for
governmentwide procurement policies, regulations, and procedures. The
Council's members also include the DOD Director of Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy and the GSA Chief Acquisition Officer. The Office of
Federal Procurement Policy chairs quarterly meetings to discuss and
resolve significant or controversial FAR changes.

           We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
           committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator
           of General Services, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
           Transportation, and the Administrator of the Small Business
           Administration. We will also make copies available to others upon
           request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
           the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

           If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report,
           please call me at (202) 512-8678 or [email protected] . Contact
           points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
           Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff
           who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix
           V.

           William B. Shear
			  Director, Financial Markets and Community
           Investment

           List of Congressional Addressees

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

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

           The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
			  The Honorable Sam Brownback
			  Ranking Minority Member
			  Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government
			  Committee on Appropriations
			  United States Senate

           The Honorable Nydia M. Velazquez
			  Chair
			  The Honorable Steve Chabot
           Ranking Member
			  Committee on Small Business
			  House of Representatives

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

           The Honorable Jose E. Serrano
			  Chairman
			  The Honorable Ralph Regula
           Ranking Minority Member
			  Subcommittee on Financial Services
           Committee on Appropriations
			  House of Representatives

           The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo
			  House of Representatives
			  
			  Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

           To identify the amounts that small and local businesses received
           through direct contracts from the four federal agencies for relief
           and recovery efforts related to Hurricane Katrina, we identified
           the agencies that had received the largest supplemental
           appropriations for Katrina-related relief and recovery work, and
           then analyzed data from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next
           Generation (FPDS-NG), the governmentwide database of contracting
           activity, and DD-350, the Department of Defense (DOD) database
           that contains data on individual contracting actions, to identify
           federal agencies that had directly awarded the most contracting
           dollars as of May 2006. This analysis showed that the Department
           of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and the U.S. Army Corps of
           Engineers (Corps) had received the largest supplemental
           appropriations and that these three agencies plus the General
           Services Administration (GSA) had awarded 86 percent of all funds
           for Katrina-related contracts as of May 2006. Our analysis focused
           on these agencies.^1 For consistency, we decided to analyze all
           Katrina-related obligations from August 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006,
           in order to capture contracting actions that occurred in
           preparation for Hurricane Katrina, and because June 30th was the
           most current data available at the time we began data analysis.^2
           In addition, this time frame allowed for analysis of nearly 1
           year's worth of contracting activities.

           To identify and obtain information on the Katrina-related
           contracting dollars awarded by DHS and GSA between August 1, 2005,
           and June 30, 2006, we analyzed data in FPDS-NG on new contracts,
           contract modifications, and task orders against existing
           contracts. We excluded contract modifications that were
           administrative or that did not change the dollar value of the
           contract. We analyzed data that were reported into FPDS-NG as of
           October 23, 2006. Although we could not independently verify the
           reliability of all of these data, we conducted electronic data
           testing for inconsistency errors and completeness, and interviewed
           agency officials. For DHS, we also assessed the reliability of
           contract information in FPDS-NG by comparing these data to
           information that the agency maintained on Katrina-related
           contracts in an ad hoc spreadsheet that it developed in the early
           days after the hurricane; DHS used this spreadsheet to collect and
           maintain Katrina-related contract information from late September
           2005 through the present in order to be able to provide timely
           information to the White House. Subsequently DHS used this
           spreadsheet to check the Katrina-related contract information in
           FPDS-NG, and investigate any anomalies. We determined the data to
           be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

           To identify and obtain information on the Katrina-related
           contracting dollars awarded by DOD and the Corps between August 1,
           2005, and June 30, 2006, we analyzed data in DD-350 on new
           contracts, contract modifications, and task orders against
           existing contracts. We excluded contract modifications that were
           administrative or that did not change the dollar value of the
           contract. We analyzed data for DOD and the Corps that were
           reported into DD-350 as of October 26, 2006, and FPDS-NG as of
           November 13, 2006. Although we could not independently verify the
           reliability of all of these data, we conducted electronic data
           testing for inconsistency errors and completeness, and interviewed
           agency officials. For the Corps, we also assessed the reliability
           of contract information in DD-350 by comparing these data to
           information that the Corps maintained on Katrina-related contracts
           in an ad hoc spreadsheet that it developed following the
           hurricane; the Corps used this spreadsheet to collect and maintain
           current Katrina-related contract information from late in
           September 2005 through the present in order to be able to report
           timely information to the White House. Subsequently the Corps used
           this spreadsheet as a check on the accuracy and completeness of
           Katrina-related contract information in DD-350. Based on these
           efforts, we determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for
           the purposes of this report.

           To describe the extent to which prime contractors subcontracted
           with small businesses, we used different approaches for military
           and civilian agencies. For DOD and the Corps, we obtained
           information on the top 10 contractors because data on the extent
           to which military contractors awarded subcontracts to various
           types of small businesses are not electronically aggregated.^3 To
           identify the 10 contractors that cumulatively had received the
           most funds for Katrina-related contracts from DOD and the Corps
           between August 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, we analyzed information
           from DD-350 and FPDS-NG. Of these 10 contractors, 4 received
           contracts for strictly Katrina-related projects from the Corps,
           and were required to submit subcontracting plans for these
           contracts. These 4 contractors were all large, and received a
           total of eight contracts. For each of the eight contracts, we
           obtained and reviewed the subcontracting plans and the individual
           subcontracting reports as of March 31, 2006. We also interviewed
           contractors about their subcontracting activities. We compared the
           amounts each of the 4 contractors awarded to small businesses to
           the total amounts obligated as of March 31, 2006.

           To identify the extent to which contractors for DHS and GSA
           subcontracted with small businesses to do Katrina-related relief
           and recovery work, we used FPDS-NG to identify those contractors
           that received prime contracting dollars between August 1, 2005,
           and June 30, 2006, for activities that were coded as being related
           to Hurricane Katrina, and were required to submit a subcontracting
           plan. For those contracts that required a subcontracting plan, we
           searched for documentation of subcontracting awards in the
           electronic subcontracting reporting system (eSRS) as of March 31,
           2006.

           In addition, for all four agencies, we assessed the extent to
           which the agencies required subcontracting plans for
           Katrina-related contracting actions to large businesses for over
           $500,000.^4 According to federal acquisition regulations,
           contracts or contract modifications to large business valued at
           over $500,000 ($1 million for construction) and which have
           subcontracting possibilities, are required to submit
           subcontracting plans. For each of the four agencies, we identified
           Katrina-related contracting actions that occurred between August
           1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, that met this criteria. We asked each
           agency to explain why subcontracting plans were not required for
           those contracting activities that met these criteria, but for
           which the data showed they had not been required to submit
           subcontracting plans. We also contacted, where appropriate, the
           procurement and legal officials at each agency to determine any
           basis upon which agencies may have determined not to require
           subcontracting plans for any contracts that otherwise appeared to
           have met the criteria for them.

           To obtain information on the extent to which Disadvantaged
           Business Enterprises (DBEs) received federal funds for
           transportation projects that relate to reconstruction or recovery
           from Hurricane Katrina, we analyzed data on contracts awarded
           between August 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, with Department of
           Transportation funds in the states of Alabama, Louisiana, and
           Mississippi. Specifically, we obtained data on contracts awarded
           through funds from two of the three operating administrations of
           the DBE program--the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
           Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The third operating
           administration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), did not
           provide us with any data since FTA funds were not used to award
           contracts related to Katrina reconstruction or recovery projects
           during the time frame that we examined. For contracts awarded with
           FHWA funds, we obtained contract data from each state department
           of transportation. For contracts awarded with FAA funds, we
           obtained contract data from FAA's Southern and Southwestern
           regional offices, which compiled data from the various airports in
           the three states. The contract data we obtained for contracts
           funded with FHWA and FAA funds included information on DBE
           participation as either prime contractors or subcontractors, and
           the amounts awarded to DBEs, among other data fields. Overall, we
           obtained data on 120 contracts awarded with FHWA and FAA funds. To
           assess the reliability of the data we collected, we contacted a
           simple random sample of 29 contractors and verified specific
           fields used in this report. We verified specific fields for each
           of the contracts in the sample--contract award date, contract
           amount, DBE participation, and amount awarded to DBEs. We
           determined the data for contract award date and DBE participation
           to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We
           identified 3 contracts award amounts in the sample that contained
           minor discrepancies. We estimated, at the 95 percent confidence
           level, that these discrepancies would not exceed $50,000 in total
           error in the population of 120 contracts. Based on this estimate
           we determined the data to be sufficiently reliable to report
           aggregated information rounded to the nearest $100,000. We chose
           to not report any figure below $50,000. To obtain background
           information on the DBE program, we interviewed DOT headquarters
           officials from each of the three operating administrations. We
           also obtained documentation on the DBE program goals, DBE
           certification procedures, and information on the overall
           administration of the program.

^1We are reporting DOD and the Corps separately because three of the four
supplemental appropriations specifically directed certain funds to the
Corps for its disaster relief activities.

^2A Katrina-related action is one that had the National Interest Action
code of "H05K" or for DOD the System Code of "ZHK" or had some variation
of the name "Katrina" in the Description of Requirement field or the Major
Program field.

^3Identifying the top 10 contractors is a nonprobability sample because we
did not consider including contractors other than the top 10.

^4During the period of our analysis, each solicitation of offers to
perform a contract or contract modification over $500,000 ($1 million for
construction) and that had subcontracting possibilities required the
contractor to submit a subcontracting plan. The dollar threshold was
changed to $550,000 on September 28, 2006. 71 Fed. Reg. 57363 (Sept. 28,
2006).
			  
			  Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
			  
			  Appendix III: Comments from the General Services Administration
			  
			  Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense

			  Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  GAO Contact

           William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678, [email protected]
			  
			  Staff Acknowledgments

           In addition to the individual named above, Bill MacBlane,
           Assistant Director; Jim Ashley; Emily Chalmers; Julia Kennon;
           Tarek Mahmassani; Alison Martin; Marc Molino; Lisa Moore; Rhonda
           Rose; Paul Thompson; and Myra Watts-Butler made key contributions
           to this report.

			  GAOï¿½s Mission

           The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.
			  
			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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

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

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

           To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
           (202) 512-6061
			  
			  To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

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

(250288)

GAO's Mission

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-205.

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-07-205, a report to congressional addressees

March2007

HURRICANE KATRINA

Agency Contracting Data Should Be More Complete Regarding Subcontracting
Opportunities for Small Businesses

In response to Hurricane Katrina, the Departments of Homeland Security
(DHS) and Defense (DOD), the General Services Administration (GSA), and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) were responsible for 94 percent
of the federal funds awarded for relief efforts via contracting as of May
2006. This report, which GAO conducted under the Comptroller General's
Authority, describes (1) the amounts that small businesses received from
prime contracts with these agencies, (2) the extent of subcontracting, (3)
and the extent to which Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) received
Department of Transportation funds for Katrina-related projects.

In conducting this study, GAO analyzed agency contract data, reviewed
federal acquisition regulations, and interviewed agency procurement
officials.

[38]What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD, DHS, and GSA (1) issue guidance to key personnel
reinforcing the importance of subcontracting plan requirements and (2)
consider requesting that their Inspectors General review their compliance
with this guidance.

The agencies generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and are taking
steps to implement them.

Small businesses received a total of 28 percent of the $11 billion in
contracting dollars that DHS, GSA, DOD, and the Corps directly awarded in
response to Hurricane Katrina (see fig.). Local businesses of all sizes in
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi received 18 percent, or $1.9 billion
of these funds. Small businesses received 66 percent of the $1.9 billion
awarded in these states.

Required information on small business subcontracting is not consistently
available in official procurement data systems for the four agencies. The
systems had no information on whether DHS or GSA required subcontracting
plans for 70 percent or more of their contracting funds. In addition, when
data showed agencies determined that the plans were not required, the four
agencies often did not document a reason for their determinations, even
though federal rules require such documentation when prime contracts meet
criteria for having these plans. Incomplete information about
subcontracting limits determining the extent to which agencies complied
with contracting rules and gave small businesses maximum opportunities to
win subcontracts.

DBEs were awarded about 4 percent, or about $53 million, of the almost
$1.3 billion the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway
Administration funded for Katrina-related contracts in Alabama, Louisiana,
and Mississippi between August 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. These contracts
were awarded by the three state departments of transportation. DBEs also
received about 10 percent of $24 million that airports in the three states
awarded using Federal Aviation Administration funds for Katrina-related
contracts.

Percentage of Katrina-Related Contracts Awarded to Small Businesses, by
DHS, GSA, DOD, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

References

Visible links
  26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-834
  27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-459
  28. http://www.gao.gov/
  29. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07205.htm#mailto:[email protected]
  30. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07205.htm#mailto:[email protected]
  31. http://www.gao.gov/
  32. http://www.gao.gov/
  33. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  34. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07205.htm#mailto:[email protected]
  35. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07205.htm#mailto:[email protected]
  36. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07205.htm#mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***