    Millennium Challenge Corporation: Analysis of Compact Development
    and Future Obligations and Current Disbursements of Compact
    Assistance (11-APR-08, GAO-08-577R).

    The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), now in its fourth
    year of operations, provides aid to developing countries that
    have demonstrated a commitment to ruling justly, encouraging
    economic freedom, and investing in people. MCC provides monetary
    assistance to eligible countries through multiyear compact
    agreements to fund specific programs targeted at reducing poverty
    and stimulating economic growth. MCC has received appropriations
    for fiscal years 2004 to 2008 totaling more than $7.5 billion,
    and has set aside about $6.4 billion of this amount for compact
    assistance. The President has requested an additional $2.225
    billion for MCC for 2009, of which MCC plans to use $1.88 billion
    for compact assistance with countries currently eligible for
    compacts. MCC compact development is a four-phase process: (1) an
    eligible country submits a compact proposal; (2) MCC conducts a
    due diligence review of the proposed projects; (3) MCC and the
    country negotiate and sign the compact; (4) MCC and the country
    complete preparations, including developing disbursement plans,
    for the compact to enter into force. After the compact enters
    into force, compact implementation begins, and funds are
    obligated and disbursed. As of March 2008, MCC had selected 28
    countries as eligible for compact assistance and had signed
    compacts with 16 of these countries. Eleven of these compacts
    have entered into force. Ten countries have not signed compacts
    and remain in the compact development process. We conducted this
    performance audit on the initiative of the Comptroller General.
    This report assesses (1) the current status and pace of compact
    development; (2) projected time frames for the commitment and
    obligation of MCC's existing (2004 to 2008) and requested (2009)
    appropriations; and (3) MCC's progress in disbursing compact
    assistance.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-577R
        ACCNO:   A81651
      TITLE:     Millennium Challenge Corporation: Analysis of Compact
    Development and Future Obligations and Current Disbursements of
    Compact Assistance
         DATE:   04/11/2008
      SUBJECT:   Appropriated funds
    	     Developing countries
    	     Economic analysis
    	     Economic development
    	     Economic growth
    	     Eligibility criteria
    	     Eligibility determinations
    	     Evaluation criteria
    	     Federal aid to foreign countries
    	     Foreign aid programs
    	     Foreign economic assistance
    	     Foreign governments
    	     Foreign loans
    	     Funds management
    	     Internal controls
    	     International agreements
    	     International cooperation
    	     International economic relations
    	     International relations
    	     Performance measures
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Program management
    	     Foreign countries

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-08-577R

    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. Because this work
    may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
    material separately.

    GAO-08-577R:

    United States Government Accountability Office:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    April 11, 2008:

    The Honorable John J. Danilovich:
    Chief Executive Officer:
    Millennium Challenge Corporation:
    875 Fifteenth Street NW:
    Washington, D.C. 20005-2221:

    Subject: Millennium Challenge Corporation: Analysis of Compact
    Development and Future Obligations and Current Disbursements of Compact
    Assistance:

    Dear Mr. Ambassador:

    The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), now in its fourth year of
    operations, provides aid to developing countries that have demonstrated
    a commitment to ruling justly, encouraging economic freedom, and
    investing in people. MCC provides monetary assistance to eligible
    countries through multiyear compact agreements to fund specific
    programs targeted at reducing poverty and stimulating economic growth.
    [Footnote 1] MCC has received appropriations for fiscal years 2004 to
    2008[Footnote 2] totaling more than $7.5 billion, and has set aside
    about $6.4 billion of this amount for compact assistance. [Footnote 3]
    The President has requested an additional $2.225 billion for MCC for
    2009, of which MCC plans to use $1.88 billion for compact assistance
    with countries currently eligible for compacts.

    MCC compact development is a four-phase process: (1) an eligible
    country submits a compact proposal; (2) MCC conducts a due diligence
    review of the proposed projects; (3) MCC and the country negotiate and
    sign the compact; (4) MCC and the country complete preparations,
    including developing disbursement plans, for the compact to enter into
    force. After the compact enters into force, compact implementation
    begins, and funds are obligated and disbursed. As of March 2008, MCC
    had selected 28 countries as eligible for compact assistance and had
    signed compacts with 16 of these countries. Eleven of these compacts
    have entered into force. Ten countries have not signed compacts and
    remain in the compact development process.[Footnote 4]

    We conducted this performance audit on the initiative of the
    Comptroller General. This report assesses:

    * the current status and pace of compact development;

    * projected time frames for obligations of MCC's existing (2004 to
    2008) and requested (2009) appropriations; and:

    * MCC's progress in disbursing compact assistance.

    To address these objectives, we analyzed MCC's budget presentations and
    other corporation records for 2004 to 2009 and obtained the views of
    MCC officials. We also compared MCC's actual and planned disbursements
    for compact assistance from July 2005 through December 2007 for 11
    countries that have compacts in force. We conducted this performance
    audit from January to March 2008 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
    perform our work to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
    a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
    objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
    basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
    (See enclosure I for additional information about our scope and
    methodology.)

    Results in Brief:

    The 10 countries without signed compacts are in the first or second
    phase of compact development. Since MCC made its first eligibility
    selections, the length of time required for compact development has
    increased substantially. For example, the first 11 countries to sign
    compacts completed compact development an average of 25 months after
    being selected as eligible. Assuming the next 5 signed compacts enter
    into force as MCC projects, the average length of compact development
    for all 16 countries with signed compacts will increase to 32 months.
    MCC attributed the slowing pace of compact development to several
    factors, such as the increased size of more recent compacts, and
    estimates that future compact development will take an average of 36
    months.

    Assuming that MCC signs two additional compacts for $858 million by the
    end of 2008, as planned, and that compact development continues at the
    pace observed to date, we project that MCC could obligate the balance
    of its existing (2004 to 2008) appropriations by the end of 2009.
    Similarly, at the observed pace of compact development (32 months), and
    assuming MCC funds four compacts with currently eligible countries, we
    project that MCC could obligate its entire 2009 request for compact
    assistance by the fourth quarter of 2010. However, several factors
    could lengthen this projected time frame. For example, if the pace of
    compact development slows or MCC funds compacts with countries newly
    eligible in 2009, it would not obligate all of its requested 2009
    appropriation until 2011.

    MCC's actual disbursements substantially lag behind planned
    disbursements for all 11 countries with compacts in force because
    initial compact disbursement plans underestimated the time required for
    compact countries to establish the structures, agreements, and
    capabilities to begin implementing compact projects. The slow rate of
    disbursements is most critical for Madagascar, Cape Verde, and
    Honduras, which are in the third year of compact implementation. For
    example, as of December 2007, MCC was 29 months (61 percent) into the
    48-month Madagascar compact but had disbursed only $22.7 million (21
    percent) of the $109.8 million compact. Unless disbursements for these
    countries increase significantly, MCC could have significant obligated,
    but undisbursed, balances when the compacts expire and may not be able
    to fully achieve compact goals for economic growth and poverty
    reduction. MCC reports that it is taking steps to increase
    disbursements of compact assistance.

    In commenting on a draft of this report, MCC generally agreed with our
    factual analysis but disagreed with some of the report's emphasis and
    conclusions. MCC concurred with our analysis that the length of time
    required for compact development has increased, and attributed this
    increase to four primary factors. With regard to our analysis of MCC's
    commitment and obligation of funds, MCC said that our report
    underemphasized the link between available appropriations and signing
    new compacts and that it planned to commit the President's entire
    request by the end of 2009, slightly earlier than we projected.
    Finally, MCC concurred with our analysis that actual disbursements lag
    behind original disbursement projections.

    Background:

    A country that has been selected as eligible for assistance may begin
    the four-phase compact development process that can lead to a compact's
    entry into force:

    * Country proposal development. After the MCC Board of Directors
    selects a country as eligible for assistance, MCC invites the country
    to submit a compact proposal. The proposal must be developed in
    consultation with members of civil society, including the private
    sector and nongovernmental organizations. On receiving a proposal, MCC
    conducts a preliminary assessment and reports its findings in an
    internal "opportunity memo" to the MCC investment committee. The
    opportunity memo signifies the end of the proposal development phase
    and the beginning of due diligence review.

    * MCC due diligence review. In conducting due diligence, MCC evaluates
    the eligible country's proposal against MCC criteria to ensure that
    proposed projects will be effective and funds will be well used. For
    example, MCC analyzes the projects' costs and economic, environmental,
    and social impact. MCC also assesses the level of civil society
    participation in proposal development. Based on its assessment of the
    proposal, MCC makes recommendations in an investment memo to the MCC
    investment committee.

    * Compact negotiation and MCC approval. Following the issuance of an
    investment memo, MCC enters into formal compact negotiations with the
    eligible country. If the negotiations are successful, the MCC Board of
    Directors may approve the compact, and MCC and the eligible country
    sign it. MCC commits funds for the compact at signing but does not
    obligate these funds until the compact enters into force. Each signed
    compact includes a multiyear Financial Plan Summary that documents
    MCC's planned projects and disbursements by project in each fiscal
    year.

    * MCC and compact country complete entry-into-force requirements. MCC
    and the country's accountable entity must complete supplemental
    agreements, including a disbursement agreement and a procurement
    agreement, before the compact enters into force and the funds are
    disbursed.[Footnote 5]

    At the successful conclusion of these four phases, the compact enters
    into force, and MCC obligates the full amount of the compact and starts
    disbursing assistance as the country starts implementing projects.

    Actual and Requested Appropriations, 2004 to 2009:

    MCC has received appropriations for fiscal years 2004 to 2008 totaling
    more than $7.5 billion and has set aside about $6.4 billion of this
    amount for compact assistance. As of March 2008, MCC had obligated
    $2.98 billion for 11 compacts that had entered into force and had
    committed an additional $2.55 billion for 5 signed compacts, leaving a
    balance of about $858 million available for compact assistance (see
    table 1). The President has requested $2.225 billion for MCC in 2009,
    of which the corporation plans to use $1.88 billion for compact
    assistance.

    Table 1: Actual and Requested MCC Funding, 2004 to 2009, as of March
    2008 (Dollars in millions):

    Appropriations:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): $7,529;
    2009 (requested): $2,225;
    Total: $9,754.

    Appropriations: Less threshold program[A]:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): (601);
    2009 (requested): (150);
    Total: (751).

    Appropriations: Less administrative:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): (228);
    2009 (requested): (100);
    Total: (388).

    Appropriations: Less due diligence:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): (138);
    2009 (requested): (55);
    Total: (193).

    Appropriations: Less 609 (g)[B]:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): (100);
    2009 (requested): (35);
    Total: (135).

    Appropriations: Less USAID IG[C]:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): (11);
    2009 (requested): (5);
    Total: (16).

    Total available for compact assistance:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): $6,391;
    2009 (requested): $1,880;
    Total: $8,271.

    Appropriations: Obligations for compact assistance (11 compacts):
    2004 to 2009 (actual): (2,983);
    2009 (requested): [Empty];
    Total: (2,983).

    Appropriations: Committed for compact assistance (5 compacts):
    2004 to 2009 (actual): (2,550);
    2009 (requested): [Empty];
    Total: (2,550).

    Balance available for compact assistance:
    2004 to 2009 (actual): $858;
    2009 (requested): $1,880;
    Total: $2,738.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.

    [A] The MCC threshold program is designed to assist countries that have
    not yet qualified for compact assistance but have demonstrated a
    significant commitment to improve their performance on MCC's
    eligibility criteria.

    [B] 609(g) refers to funds paid by MCC under the authority given it by
    section 609(g) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 to make grants
    to facilitate the development and implementation of compacts. If
    certain conditions are met, MCC may fund an eligible country's request
    for "management support payments" for salaries, rent, and equipment for
    the country's technical team prior to compact signature.

    [C] USAID IG refers to the U.S. Agency for International Development
    Office of Inspector General.

    [End of table]

    Currently Eligible Countries Are in the Early Phases of Compact
    Development, and the Average Pace of Compact Development Has Slowed:

    All 10 currently eligible countries without signed compacts are in the
    initial phases of compact development. The average pace of compact
    development has slowed as the 16 countries with signed compacts have
    progressed through the process, and it may slow further as the
    remaining eligible countries complete compact development.

    Eligible Countries Are in the Initial Phases of Compact Development:

    Of the 10 currently eligible countries without signed compacts, 8 are
    under active consideration[Footnote 6] and all 8 are in the first two
    phases of compact development.

    * Five countries--Jordan, Malawi, Moldova, the Philippines, and Ukraine-
    -are in the first (proposal development) phase of the compact
    development process. Of these countries, only Moldova has submitted a
    proposal for compact assistance to MCC.[Footnote 7]

    * Senegal had previously submitted compact proposals and progressed to
    the due diligence phase, but MCC officials expect the country to submit
    a new proposal; thus, it will return to the proposal development phase.

    * The remaining two countries--Burkina Faso and Namibia--have submitted
    proposals and are currently in the second (due diligence)
    phase.[Footnote 8]

    Figure 1 summarizes the status of compact development for the countries
    selected as eligible for compact assistance.

    Figure 1: MCC Compact Development and Implementation, as of March 31,
    2008.

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is an illustration of MCC Compact Development and
    Implementation, as of March 31, 2008, depicted as follows:

    Compact development: average duration 32 months:

    Triggering Event or document: Eligibility determination (selection);
    Compact development phase (Phase 1): Country proposal development;
    Average duration: 11.3 months;
    Eligible countries (months in phase):
    * Bolivia (47);
    * Senegal (47);
    * Timor Leste (29);
    * Jordan (17);
    * Moldova (17);
    * Ukraine (17);
    * Malawi (4);
    * Philippines (1);
    Total amount for compacts: N/A.

    Triggering Event or document: Opportunity memo;
    Compact development phase (Phase 2): MCC's due diligence review;
    Average duration: 10.1 months;
    Eligible countries (months in phase):
    * Namibia (16);
    * Burkina Faso (17);
    Total amount for compacts: $858 million.

    Triggering Event or document: Investment memo;
    Compact development phase (Phase 3): Compact negotiation and MCC board
    approval;
    Average duration: 2.6 months;
    Eligible countries (months in phase): None;
    Total amount for compacts: $0.

    Triggering Event or document: Sign compact (commit funds);
    Compact development phase (Phase 4): MCC and country complete entry-
    into-force requirements;
    Average duration: 7.8 months;
    Eligible countries (months in phase):
    * Mozambique (9);
    * Lesotho (8);
    * Morocco (7);
    * Mongolia (5);
    * Tanzania (1).
    Total amount for compacts: $2,550 million.

    Compact implementation: maximum duration 60 months:

    Triggering Event or document: Entry into force (obligate funds);
    Compact development phase: MCC authorizes fund disbursement and
    oversees country implementation of compact;
    Average duration: N/A;
    Eligible countries (months in phase):
    * Madagascar (32);
    * Honduras (30);
    * Cape Verde (29);
    * Georgia (24);
    * Vanuatu (23);
    * Nicaragua (22);
    * Armenia (18);
    * Benin (18);
    * Ghana (13);
    * Mali (6):
    * El Salvador (6);
    Total amount for compacts: $2,983 million.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.

    Notes:

    Average duration reflects the months that the 16 countries with
    signed compacts spent in each phase of compact development.

    The opportunity memo is MCC's preliminary assessment of the country's
    proposal and is submitted to the MCC investment committee. If the memo
    is approved, MCC launches into a detailed due diligence review of the
    proposal.

    The investment memo contains MCC's findings from its due diligence
    review of the country's proposal and recommendations to the MCC
    investment committee on compact funding.

    Italicized countries were selected as low-middle-income countries
    (based on per capita income). Armenia, Cape Verde, and Morocco were
    selected as low-income countries but are now classified as low-middle-
    income countries.

    MCC is monitoring political developments in Bolivia and Timor Leste.

    [End of figure]

    Average Time Required for Compact Development Has Increased:

    The average pace of compact development--the length of time from a
    country's selection as eligible to its compact's entry into force--has
    slowed substantially since MCC selected the first countries in 2004.

    * The first 11 countries to sign compacts took an average of 19 months
    to complete the first three phases of compact development. In contrast,
    the next 5 countries to sign compacts took an average of 36 months to
    complete the first three phases.

    * The first 11 countries to sign compacts took an average of about 6
    months to complete phase 4 of compact development. Assuming the next 5
    countries' compacts enter into force by the end of 2008, as MCC
    projects,[Footnote 9] these countries will complete phase 4 in an
    average of about 11 months.

    * The first 11 countries to sign compacts completed the four phases of
    compact development in an average of 25 months. Assuming the next 5
    countries' compacts enter into force as MCC projects, the average
    length of time required for all 16 countries with signed compacts to
    complete compact development would be about 32 months.

    Figure 2 compares the average pace of compact development for the first
    11 countries to sign compacts with the estimated average pace for all
    16 countries with signed compacts (assuming the last 5 compacts enter
    into force as MCC projects).

    Figure 2: Average Number of Months to Complete Compact Development:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a illustration of the average number of months to
    complete compact development. The following data is depicted:

    Average for 11 countries with compacts in force:
    6.3 months;
    Total: 25 months.

    Average for all 16 countries with signed compacts: 32 months;
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 11.3
    months;
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 10.1 months;
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.6
    months;
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    7.8 months;
    Total: 32 months.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.

    [End of figure]

    Pace of Compact Development Could Slow Further:

    The average pace of compact development could slow further as the 10
    countries without signed compacts move through the four phases. First,
    as figure 1 shows, 8 of these countries have remained in the first two
    phases of compact development substantially longer than the average for
    the 16 countries with signed compacts.[Footnote 10] Second, the average
    time required to complete the final phase of compact development likely
    will continue to increase. For example, whereas the first 11 compacts
    entered into force an average of 6 months after signature, MCC
    estimates that subsequent compacts will enter into force 6 to 18 months
    after signature. MCC officials plan to use these additional months to
    better prepare for project implementation and disbursement of compact
    assistance. To support these efforts, MCC plans to increase the use of
    compact implementation funding during the period between compact
    signature and entry into force.[Footnote 11] MCC estimates that future
    compact development will take an average of 36 months from eligibility
    selection to entry into force.

    MCC officials attribute the slowing pace of compact development to four
    primary factors:

    * Number of countries selected. MCC's Board of Directors selected 16
    countries as eligible for compact assistance in the corporation's first
    year of operations. MCC officials focused the corporation's resources
    on countries most prepared to move through compact development.

    * Increased compact size. Compact development for larger, recent
    compacts has required more time and effort, particularly in phases 1
    and 2. The average compact size for the first 11 compacts is $271
    million; the average size for the most recent 5 compacts is $510
    million.

    * Country capacity constraints. MCC reports that country capacity
    affects the length of compact development, particularly in phase 1, and
    those countries with lower capacity generally have taken considerably
    longer to complete proposals that support opportunity memos. In this
    regard, MCC noted that the overall pace of compact development is more
    heavily dependent on the country's capacity and the quality of its
    proposal than on MCC.

    * Expanded compact development. Reflecting lessons learned from the
    first 11 compacts, MCC plans to engage countries earlier and invest
    more time and effort in compact development to improve countries'
    implementation capacity before compacts enter into force.

    MCC Could Fully Obligate Its Existing Appropriations by the End of 2009
    and Its Requested Appropriations by Late 2010, at the Earliest:

    Based on MCC projections, the corporation could commit the balance of
    its remaining 2004 to 2008 appropriations by the end of 2008 and
    obligate these funds by the fourth quarter of 2009. Similarly, given
    MCC's projected amount and observed pace of compact awards, and
    assuming that MCC funds compacts with only the currently eligible
    countries, we estimate that MCC could commit and obligate the
    President's entire $1.88 billion 2009 request for compact assistance
    during 2010. However, if the pace of compact development slows or MCC
    funds compacts with countries newly eligible in 2009, we project that
    it would not obligate all of the requested 2009 appropriation until
    late 2011.

    MCC Could Obligate the Balance of Existing 2004 to 2008 Appropriations
    by the End of 2009:

    At MCC's projected amount and observed pace of compact awards, we
    estimate that MCC could commit the balance of its remaining 2004 to
    2008 appropriations by the end of 2008 and obligate these funds by the
    fourth quarter of 2009. Figure 3 shows MCC's obligations for compact
    assistance to date and summarizes the results of our assessment of how
    quickly MCC could obligate the balance of its remaining 2004 to 2008
    appropriations and requested 2009 appropriations.

    Figure 3: Actual and Estimated MCC Obligations for Compact Assistance,
    2004 to 2009.

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a combination of a line graph and a timeline, with the
    following data depicted (dollars in millions):

    Actual obligations for 11 compacts in force:
    Fiscal year 2005 Q4: $324.8;
    Fiscal year 2006 Q1: $434.9;
    Fiscal year 2006 Q2: $434.9;
    Fiscal year 2006 Q3: $970.9;
    Fiscal year 2006 Q4: $1,206.6;
    Fiscal year 2007 Q1: $1,513.9;
    Fiscal year 2007 Q2: $2,060.9;
    Fiscal year 2007 Q3: $2,060.9;
    Fiscal year 2007 Q4: $2,982.6;
    Fiscal year 2008 Q1: $2,982.6;
    Fiscal year 2008 Q2: $2,982.6.

    Project obligations for 5 signed compacts not yet in force:
    Fiscal year 2008 Q2 (Lesotho added): $2,982.6;
    Fiscal year 2008 Q3: $3,345;
    Fiscal year 2008 Q4 (Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique and Tanzania added):
    $5,533.

    Project obligations for compacts with Burkina Faso and Namibia
    Fiscal year 2009 Q1: $5,533;
    Fiscal year 2009 Q2 (Namibia added): $5,858;
    Fiscal year 2009 Q3: $5,858;
    Fiscal year 2009 Q4 (Burkina Faso added)[A]: $5,858;

    Fund compacts with currently eligible countries (MCC plan):
    Fiscal year 2009 Q4: $6,391;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q1: $6,861;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q2: $7,331;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q3: $7,801;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q4[B]: $8,271.

    Fund at least 1 compact with countries newly eligible in 2009:
    Fiscal year 2009 Q4: $6,391;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q1: $6,659;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q2: $6,928;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q3: $7,196;
    Fiscal year 2010 Q4: $7,465;
    Fiscal year: 2011 Q1: $7,734;
    Fiscal year: 2011 Q2: $8,002;
    Fiscal year: 2011 Q3[C]: $8,271.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.

    Notes:

    (A) MCC obligates the balance of its 2004 to 2008 appropriations,
    assuming compacts with Lesotho, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
    and Burkina Faso enter into force by the end of 2009 as projected.

    (B) MCC obligates all of its requested 2009 appropriations ($1.88
    billion), assuming the corporation funds compacts with currently
    eligible countries and compact development proceeds at an average pace.

    (C) MCC obligates all of its requested 2009 appropriations ($1.88
    billion), assuming the corporation funds at least one compact with a
    country newly eligible in 2009 and compact development proceeds at an
    average pace.

    [End of figure]

    * As figure 3 shows, MCC plans to obligate the $2.55 billion it has
    committed for the five signed compacts with Lesotho, Mongolia, Morocco,
    Mozambique, and Tanzania when these compacts enter into force by the
    end of 2008.

    * MCC plans to use the $858 million balance available for compact
    assistance to fund new compacts with Burkina Faso and Namibia. MCC
    plans to sign compacts with these two countries and commit the balance
    of its existing appropriations by the end of 2008.[Footnote 12]
    Assuming that these countries proceed to entry into force as MCC
    projects, it could obligate these funds by the fourth quarter of 2009.

    Figure 4 shows the actual and projected pace of compact development--
    and the actual and projected commitment and obligation dates--for the
    five countries with signed compacts not yet in force and for the two
    projected new compacts with Burkina Faso and Namibia.

    Figure 4: Actual and Projected Compact Development for 2004 to 2008
    Appropriations:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a illustration of the average number of months for
    actual and projected compact development. The following data is
    depicted:

    Five signed compacts:

    Mozambique:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 14.9 months
    (2004 3Q to 2005 3Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 22.1 months (2005 3Q
    to 2007 3Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 1.2
    months (2007 3Q to 2007 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    14.6 months (2007 4Q to 2009 Q1).

    Lesotho:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 26.4 months
    (2004 3Q to 2006 4Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 10.1 months (2006 4Q
    to 2007 4Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.0
    months (2007 4Q to 2007 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    11.3 months (2007 4Q to 2008 Q3).

    Mongolia:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 17.9 months
    (2004 3Q to 2006 1Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 21.4 months (2006 1Q
    to 2007 4Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.2
    months (2007 4Q to 2008 1Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    11.3 months (2008 1Q to 2009 Q3).

    Morocco:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 22.6 months
    (2005 1Q to 2007 1Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 9.4 months (2007 1Q
    to 2007 3Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 1.6
    months (2007 3Q to 2007 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    11.0 months (2007 4Q to 2008 4Q).

    Tanzania:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 10.2 months
    (2006 1Q to 2006 4Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 11.5 months (2006 4Q
    to 2007 4Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 5.6
    months (2007 4Q to 2008 2Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    7.4 months (2008 2Q to 2008 2Q).

    Two proposed compacts:

    Namibia:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 12.9 months
    (2006 1Q to 200& 1Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 16.7 months (2007 1Q
    to 2008 3Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 3.0
    months (2008 3Q to 2008 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    4.9 months (2008 4Q to 2009 4Q).

    Burkina Faso:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 12.0 months
    (2006 1Q to 2007 1Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 17.3 months (2007 1Q
    to 2008 3Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 3.0
    months (2008 3Q to 2008 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    12.0 months (2008 4Q to 2009 4Q).

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data:

    Note: development after 2008 2Q is projected.

    [End of figure]

    MCC Could Obligate All of Its Requested 2009 Appropriations by Late
    2010, at the Earliest:

    The President requested $2.225 billion for MCC in 2009, of which MCC
    plans to use $1.88 billion to fund compacts with up to five of the
    countries that are currently eligible for MCC assistance. At MCC's
    projected amount and observed pace of compact awards, and assuming MCC
    funds compacts with only the currently eligible countries, we estimate
    that MCC could commit all of its 2009 request for compact assistance by
    the first quarter of 2010 and obligate all of these funds by the fourth
    quarter of 2010, at the earliest. This analysis assumes that MCC does
    not use its 2009 appropriation to fund a compact with the Philippines,
    which MCC's Board of Directors selected as newly eligible for compact
    assistance in March 2008. Rather, our projection that MCC could
    obligate its entire 2009 request for compact assistance by the fourth
    quarter of 2010 assumes that MCC signs compacts with at least four of
    the five countries that have been eligible the longest--Jordan, Malawi,
    Moldova, Senegal, and Ukraine.[Footnote 13] Signing compacts with four
    countries implies an average compact size of $470 million.

    Several Factors Could Lengthen Projected Time Frames to Fully Obligate
    2009 Request:

    Several factors could lengthen the projected time frames for MCC to
    obligate the President's 2009 request:

    * First, as of the end of March 2008, only one of the eight countries
    under consideration had submitted a compact proposal.[Footnote 14] Our
    estimate that MCC will fully commit and obligate its 2009 request
    during 2010 assumes that an additional three countries will submit
    proposals by November 2008, and proceed through each phase at the
    average pace for the remainder of compact development. Delays in
    submitting proposals would extend the time frames.

    * Second, at the current pace of compact development, if MCC uses its
    2009 appropriations to fund a compact with the Philippines, we project
    that the corporation could commit all of its funds by the second
    quarter of 2010 and obligate all of its funds by the first quarter of
    2011.

    * Third, at the current pace of compact development, if MCC uses its
    2009 appropriations to fund at least one compact with a country newly
    eligible in 2009, we project that the corporation could commit all of
    its 2009 request in the first quarter of 2011 and obligate all of these
    funds by the end of the third quarter of 2011. MCC plans to select
    eligible countries for 2009 in November or December 2008.

    * Fourth, all of these estimates assume that countries complete compact
    development at the average pace observed to date (32 months). However,
    if countries take an average of 36 months to complete compact
    development (as MCC currently projects), MCC would obligate all of its
    2009 request about one fiscal quarter later.

    Figure 5 shows the actual and projected pace of compact development--
    and the projected commitment and obligation dates--for five eligible
    countries and a country newly eligible for compact assistance for 2009.

    Figure 5: Actual and Projected Compact Development for 2009
    Appropriations.

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a illustration of the average number of months for
    actual and projected compact development. The following data is
    depicted:

    Moldova:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 19.7 months
    (2007 1Q to 2008 3Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 10.1 months (2008 3Q
    to 2009 3Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.6
    months (2009 3Q to 2009 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    7.8 months (2009 4Q to 2010 3Q).

    Jordan:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 19.7 months
    (2007 1Q to 2008 3Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 10.1 months (2008 3Q
    to 2009 3Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.6
    months (2009 3Q to 2009 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    7.8 months (2009 4Q to 2010 3Q).

    Senegal (new proposal):
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 49.8 months
    (2004 3Q to 2008 3Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 10.1 months (2008 3Q
    to 2009 3Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.6
    months (2009 3Q to 2009 4Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    7.8 months (2009 4Q to 2010 3Q).

    Malawi:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 11.3 months
    (2008 1Q to 2009 1Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 10.1 months (2009 1Q
    to 2009 4Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.6
    months (2010 1Q to 2010 1Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    7.8 months (2010 1Q to 2011 1Q);
    Projected entry into force if compact development takes 36 months to
    complete (MCC goal): 2011 2Q.

    Newly eligible in FY 2009:
    Proposal development (phase 1) [Eligibility determination]: 11.3 months
    (2009 1Q to 2009 4Q);
    Due diligence review (phase 2) [Opportunity memo]: 10.1 months (2010 1Q
    to 2010 4Q);
    Compact negotiation and signature (phase 3) [Investment memo]: 2.6
    months (2010 4Q to 2011 1Q);
    Entry into force (phase 4) [Compact entry into force (obligate funds)]:
    7.8 months (2011 1Q to 2011 4Q);
    Projected entry into force if compact development takes 36 months to
    complete (MCC goal): 2012 1Q.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.

    [End of figure]

    Actual Disbursements Substantially Lag Behind Planned Disbursements:

    MCC's actual disbursements (outlays) substantially lag behind planned
    disbursements for all 11 countries with compacts in force. The slow
    rate of disbursements is most critical for Madagascar, Cape Verde, and
    Honduras, which are in the third year of compact implementation. Unless
    the pace of disbursements for these countries increases significantly,
    MCC could have significant obligated, but undisbursed, balances when
    the compacts expire and may not be able to fully achieve compact goals
    for economic growth and poverty reduction.

    Overall, as of December 2007, MCC's actual disbursements are about 25
    percent of planned disbursements.[Footnote 15] As figure 6 shows, over
    the last 9 months, MCC's disbursements have risen from $68 million to
    $156 million. However, actual disbursements as a percentage of planned
    disbursements remain essentially unchanged.

    Figure 6: Comparison of MCC's Total Actual and Planned Disbursements
    for Compact Assistance, as of March 31 and December 31, 2007.

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:

    March 2007:
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 26.4% ($68 million);
    Planned disbursements: $258 million.

    December 2007:
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 25.4% ($156 million);
    Planned disbursements: $616 million.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC disbursement data.

    [End of figure]

    Figure 7 illustrates that actual disbursements for program
    administration, monitoring, and evaluation are roughly half of planned
    disbursements, whereas actual disbursements for project funding are
    about 21 percent of planned disbursements.

    Figure 7: Actual and Planned Disbursements by Program Administration
    and Projects, as of December 31, 2007:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:

    Program administration:
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 51.5% ($42 million);
    Planned disbursements: $81 million.

    Project funding:
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 21.4% ($114 million);
    Planned disbursements: $535 million.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC disbursement data.

    [End of figure]

    Further, MCC has not met its planned rate of compact disbursements for
    any of the 11 compacts currently in force (see fig. 8). The lag is of
    greatest concern for Madagascar, Honduras, and Cape Verde, which are in
    the third year of compact implementation. Given the shorter amount of
    time left in the compacts with these three countries, actual
    disbursements as a percentage of total and planned disbursements are
    critical. For example, as of December 2007, MCC was 29 months (61
    percent) into the 48-month Madagascar compact but had disbursed only
    $22.7 million (21 percent) of the $109.8 million compact. MCC planned
    to have disbursed $85.6 million by this date. MCC's signed compacts
    contain language providing that when a compact expires or is
    terminated, any funding not disbursed by MCC is automatically released
    from an obligation in connection with that compact.

    Figure 8: Elapsed Time, Actual and Planned Compact Disbursements, and
    Total Compact Size for the 11 MCC Compacts in Force, as of December 31,
    2007:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure depicts elapsed time, actual and planned compact
    disbursements, and total compact size for the 11 MCC Compacts in force,
    as of December 31, 2007.

    Compact: Madagascar;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 26.6% ($22.7 million);
    Planned disbursements: $85.6 million;
    Total value of compact: $109.6 million;
    Elapsed time: 61%.

    Compact: Honduras;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 13.6% ($14.9 million);
    Planned disbursements: $110.1 million;
    Total value of compact: $215.0 million;
    Elapsed time: 45%.

    Compact: Cape Verde;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 27.5% ($13.9 million);
    Planned disbursements: $50.6 million;
    Total value of compact: $110.1 million;
    Elapsed time: 44%.

    Compact: Georgia;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 31.0% ($38.7 million);
    Planned disbursements: $124.7 million;
    Total value of compact: $295.3 million;
    Elapsed time: 35%.

    Compact: Vanuatu;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 7.2% ($2.0 million);
    Planned disbursements: $27.7 million;
    Total value of compact: $65.7 million;
    Elapsed time: 34%.

    Compact: Nicaragua;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 31.1% ($14.4 million);
    Planned disbursements: $46.2 million;
    Total value of compact: $175.0 million;
    Elapsed time: 32%.

    Compact: Armenia;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 40.1% ($11.3 million);
    Planned disbursements: $28.1 million;
    Total value of compact: $235.7 million;
    Elapsed time: 25%.

    Compact: Benin;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 366.7% ($17.5 million);
    Planned disbursements: $47.6 million;
    Total value of compact: $307.3 million;
    Elapsed time: 25%.

    Compact: Ghana;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 19.4% ($131.4 million);
    Planned disbursements: $69.2;
    Total value of compact: $547.0 million;
    Elapsed time: 17%.

    Compact: Mali;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 25.7% (3.5 million);
    Planned disbursements: $13.8 million;
    Total value of compact: $460.8 million;
    Elapsed time: 6%.

    Compact: El Salvador;
    Actual disbursements (percentage of planned): 31.8% ($4.0 million);
    Planned disbursements: $12.7 million;
    Total value of compact: $460.9 million;
    Elapsed time: 6%.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.

    [End of figure]

    According to MCC officials, actual disbursements are significantly less
    than what MCC had projected at the time of compact signing because
    initial compact disbursement plans underestimated the time required for
    compact countries to establish the structures, agreements, and
    capabilities to begin implementing compact projects. As a result,
    compact implementation has proceeded at a slower pace than MCC
    anticipated, and actual disbursements lag behind initial disbursement
    projections.

    MCC has set a goal to improve its overall rate of actual disbursements
    to about 42 percent of planned disbursements by the end of
    2008[Footnote 16] and reports that it has taken several steps to meet
    this goal. First, the corporation's 2009 budget justification states
    that it restructured in late 2007 to enhance its ability to monitor and
    support compact implementation. As part of this restructuring, MCC
    officials told us that they had established an internal team to review
    each compact project and identify the steps that need to be taken to
    complete the project by the end of the compact term. Second, in an
    effort to identify potential delays and problems in project
    implementation early on, MCC officials told us that the corporation now
    requires compact countries to submit quarterly reports that project
    detailed disbursements over the next four quarters. Finally, as
    previously discussed, MCC officials told us that they plan to lengthen
    phase 4 (the period between compact signature and entry into force) to
    give countries more time to establish the structures and agreements
    needed to begin implementing compact projects.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

    MCC provided written and oral comments on a draft of this report; the
    corporations' written comments are reprinted in enclosure II. MCC also
    provided additional information on the compact development process,
    commitment and obligation of existing and requested compact assistance,
    and disbursement rates for compact assistance, which we have
    incorporated, as appropriate. In its comments, MCC generally agreed
    with our factual analysis but disagreed with some of our report's
    emphasis and conclusions.

    * Compact development. MCC concurred with our analysis that the length
    of time required for compact development has increased and attributed
    this increase to four primary factors. We have incorporated a
    discussion of these factors in the report, as appropriate. MCC also
    said that the statutory restriction that MCC have no more than one
    compact with a country at a time contributes to the length of the
    compact development process. In addition, MCC noted that it has adopted
    a goal of completing the compact development process in an average of
    36 months and reported that it is implementing several changes to the
    process to achieve this objective.

    * Commitment and obligations. In its comments, MCC does not disagree
    with our factual analysis but states that "by focusing primarily on
    obligations, this report underemphasizes the essential link between
    available appropriations and signing new compacts." We disagree with
    MCC's assertion. Our report clearly projects the timing of both the
    commitment and obligation of funds. For example, figures 4 and 5, which
    present our projections for individual countries, clearly show both the
    projected timing of compact signature (commitment of funds) and compact
    entry into force (obligation of funds). MCC also stated that it plans
    to sign four compacts in 2009, committing all $1.88 billion requested
    for compact assistance for 2009 by the end of that fiscal year. This is
    earlier than our analysis based on the average pace of compact
    development suggests. To achieve MCC's objective, at least one country
    will have to progress from eligibility to compact signature in less
    time than the current average of about 24 months.

    MCC also characterized one scenario in our analysis (under which the
    corporation used its 2009 appropriation to fund at least one compact
    with a country newly eligible in 2009) as "worst case." We maintain it
    is reasonable to consider an alternative scenario where MCC is unable
    to complete compact development with up to five of the countries that
    are currently eligible, as stated in its 2009 budget justification. As
    MCC officials have noted, the overall pace of compact development is
    more heavily dependent on a country's capacity and the quality of its
    proposal than on MCC.

    * Disbursements. MCC concurred with our analysis that actual
    disbursements lag behind original disbursement projections. MCC
    reported that it revised its disbursement projections based on updated
    cost and schedule information and is taking several steps to improve
    disbursement rates in order to fully expend all obligations in the
    compact time remaining.

    We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
    committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
    In addition the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
    at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

    If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this
    material further, please contact me at (202) 512-3149 or
    gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
    Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
    report. Emil , Michael Rohrback, and Jordan Holt made
    significant contributions to this report.

    Signed by:

    David Gootnick:
    Director, International Affairs and Trade:

    Enclosures (2):

    Enclosure 1: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

    This report assesses (1) the current status and pace of compact
    development, (2) projected time frames for obligations of the
    Millennium Challenge Corporation's existing (2004 to 2008) and
    requested (2009) appropriations, and (3) MCC's progress in disbursing
    compact assistance. To address these objectives, we analyzed MCC's
    budget justifications and other corporation records for 2004 to 2009
    and obtained the views of MCC officials.

    * Status and pace of compact development. We reviewed MCC budget
    justifications, country status reports, and other agency records to
    identify the current status of eligible countries and the dates that
    they reached the following key compact development milestones: first
    notification of eligibility, issuance of the opportunity memo, issuance
    of the investment memo, compact signature, and compact entry into
    force. To determine the average pace for each phase of compact
    development, we calculated the time elapsed between the relevant
    milestones for the 16 countries with signed compacts (see table 2).

    Table 2: Months to Complete Compact Development Phases for the 16
    Countries with Signed Compacts.

    Eligible country[A]: Madagascar;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 5.1;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 2.3;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 4;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 3.3
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 14.7.

    Eligible country[A]: Honduras;
    Months to complete proposal development: elapsed between selection as
    eligible and opportunity memo: 3.8;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 7.5;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 1.9;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 3.5;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 16.8.

    Eligible country[A]: Cape Verde;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 5.4;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 7.2;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 1.3;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 3.4;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 17.4.

    Eligible country[A]: Georgia;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 5.7;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 8.1;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 2.4;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 6.8;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 23.

    Eligible country[A]: Vanuatu;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 12.6;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 5.3;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 3.9;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 1.9;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 23.7.

    Eligible country[A]: Nicaragua;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 5.7;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 6.9;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 1.6;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 10.4;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 24.6.

    Eligible country[A]: Armenia;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 12.4;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 6;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 4.3;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 6.1;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 28.8.

    Eligible country[A]: Benin;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 8.7;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 9.7;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 3.2;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 7.4;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 29.

    Eligible country[A]: Ghana;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 8;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 17.5;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 1.3;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 6.5;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 33.4.

    Eligible country[A]: Mali;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 14;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 13.8;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 2.4;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 10.1;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 40.4.

    Eligible country[A]: El Salvador;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 6.3;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 3.4;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 3;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 9.7;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 22.4.

    Eligible country[A]: Average for 11 countries with compacts in force;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 8;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 8;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 2.7;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 6.3;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 24.9.

    Eligible country[A]: Lesotho;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 26.4;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 10.1;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 2;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 11.3[B];
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 49.8.

    Eligible country[A]: Morocco;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 22.6;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 9.4;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 1.6;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 11[B];
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 44.7.

    Eligible country[A]: Mongolia;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 17.9;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 21.4;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 2.2;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 11.3[B];
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 52.8.

    Eligible country[A]: Mozambique;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 14.9;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 22.1;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 1.2;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 14.6[B];
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 52.8.

    Eligible country[A]: Tanzania;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 10.2;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 11.5;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 5.6;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 7.4[B];
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 34.7.

    Eligible country[A]: Average for 16 countries with signed compacts;
    Months to complete proposal development: Time elapsed between selection
    as eligible and opportunity memo: 11.3;
    Months to complete due diligence review: Time elapsed between
    opportunity and investment memos: 10.1;
    Months to complete compact negotiation and signature: Time elapsed
    between investment memo and compact signature: 2.6;
    Months to complete entry into force: Time elapsed between compact
    signature and entry into force: 7.8;
    Total months to complete compact development: Time elapsed between
    selection as eligible and compact entry into force: 31.8.

    Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.

    [A] Countries are listed by the dates that their compacts entered into
    force.

    [B] MCC projects the Lesotho, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, and
    Tanzania compacts will enter into force by the end of 2008.

    [End of table]

    * Commitment and obligation of existing and requested appropriations.
    We reviewed and analyzed MCC�s 2009 and prior budget justifications and
    interviewed agency officials to identify MCC�s plans for committing and
    obligating existing and requested appropriations. For the five
    countries with signed compacts that have not entered into force, we
    used MCC�s most recent projected entry-into-force dates. MCC�s plans to
    sign compacts with Burkina Faso and Namibia by the end of 2008 are
    consistent with our projections based on the average time it has taken
    countries to complete compact negotiation to date. The projections we
    present for Burkina Faso and Namibia are provided by MCC and assume
    that both countries enter the compact negotiation phase by the end of
    April 2008. We projected when MCC could commit and obligate requested
    2009 appropriations under two scenarios: (1) MCC uses the monies to
    fund compacts with currently eligible countries according to the plan
    stated in its 2009 budget presentation, which was confirmed during
    interviews; or (2) MCC uses the monies to fund compacts with at least
    one country that it selects as newly eligible in 2009. We assumed that
    both the currently eligible countries and those that would be newly
    eligible in 2009 would complete compact development phases at the
    average pace for the 16 countries with signed compacts. For the three
    countries that had already been in the proposal development phase for
    longer than average (Moldova, Jordan, and Senegal), we assumed that
    they entered the second phase of compact development (due diligence) by
    November 2008 and proceeded through the remaining phases of compact
    development at the average pace to date.

    * Progress in disbursing compact assistance. To determine the extent to
    which MCC met its planned disbursement schedule, we compared MCC's
    actual and planned disbursements from July 2005 through December 2007
    for the 11 countries with compacts in force. For data on planned
    disbursements, we used the disbursement schedules published in the
    compact documents. For data on actual disbursements, we used MCC's
    disbursement data, as of March 31 and December 31, 2007. We determined
    that MCC's disbursement data were sufficiently reliable for our
    purposes based on discussions with MCC officials and our review of U.S.
    Agency for International Development Inspector General audits of MCC's
    internal controls and 2007 financial statements. In our analysis of
    planned and actual expenditures, we used MCC's assumption that compact
    funds are disbursed evenly throughout the compact implementation year.
    In practice, however, MCC approves disbursements on a quarterly basis
    and disburses compact funds in monthly payments according to the terms
    of the quarterly approval.[Footnote 17] Because the 11 compacts are at
    different points in their implementation, we prorated planned
    disbursements on an annual basis for each country based on the date the
    compact entered into force. In developing our estimates, we included
    actual disbursed amounts classified by MCC as "pending subsequent
    report" as project funding. We discussed the pace of compact assistance
    disbursements with MCC officials; however, we did not assess MCC's
    plans for improving compact assistance disbursement rates.

    We conducted this performance audit from January to March 2008 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
    standards require that we plan and perform our work to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
    the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.

    [End of enclosure 1]

    Enclosure II: Comments from the Millennium Challenge Corporation:

    Millennium Challenge Corporation:
    875 Fifteenth Street NW:
    WASHINGTON, DC 20005-2221:
    P: (202) 521-3600:
    F. (202) 521-3700:
    [hyperlink, http://www.mcc.gov]:

    April 7, 2008:

    Mr. David B. Gootnick:
    Director, International Affairs and Trade:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street, NW:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    Dear Mr. Gootnick:

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the GAO report
    entitled "Millennium Challenge Corporation: Analysis of Compact
    Development and Future Obligations and Current Disbursements of Compact
    Assistance." MCC appreciates GAO's inclusion of key factors affecting
    compact development, but we disagree with some of the report's emphases
    and conclusions. In particular, MCC would highlight the essential link
    between available appropriations and signing new compacts. We address
    report issues below.

    Statutory Background:

    MCC's statute requires that a country have no more than one compact at
    a time. This requirement contributes to the length of the compact
    development process analyzed by GAO in this report. Removing this
    statutory restriction would expedite compact development because
    typical country proposals include multiple projects at different stages
    of preparedness. Thus, amending current law to permit MCC to enter into
    more than one compact at a time with a single country would help MCC's
    planning, programming, and disbursements. [See comment 1]

    Time Required for Compact Development:

    As GAO has pointed out, the time required for compact development, the
    period from eligibility notification to a compact's entry into force
    (EIF), has lengthened from the earliest 11 compacts to the most recent
    five compacts. There are four primary drivers of this lengthening: [See
    comment 2]

    Number of Countries Initially Selected: MCC's Board of Directors
    selected 16 countries as eligible for compact assistance in May 2004,
    and a 17th country in November of that year. MCC focused our limited
    resources on the ten countries from that group most prepared to move
    quickly on compact development. As we now complete the final phase of
    compact development for an additional four of those original 17
    selectees (Lesotho, Mongolia, Morocco, and Mozambique), we know they
    are not representative of the time required for the four phases of
    developing a compact.

    Country Capacity Constraints: Country capacity constraints directly
    affect the length of the first phase for country proposal development.
    After being selected as eligible, a country develops and submits its
    proposal with the guidance and support of MCC staff. MCC provides
    comprehensive guidance and offers assistance to countries, but we do
    not impose deadlines. Countries with lower capacity generally take
    considerably more time to complete proposals meeting the standards to
    support opportunity memos. MCC's adherence to the principle of country
    ownership means that we will not rush our country counterparts in
    developing compacts and will only sign compacts that meet the required
    standards.

    Larger Compacts. More recently, MCC has intentionally signed larger
    compacts. which require more effort at each phase, particularly for
    phases 1 and 2. The average compact size for the first 11 compacts was
    $270 million. The average for the most recent five exceeds $500
    million. MCC projects the average compact size for upcoming compacts
    will exceed $400 million.

    Incorporation of Lessons Learned: MCC has incorporated lessons learned
    from the first 11 compacts to engage countries earlier and invest more
    time and effort to improve compact development and ensure
    implementation capacity before EIF.

    MCC Commitments and Obligations:

    A critical MCC requirement for new compact development is having
    sufficient appropriations at the point of compact signature to commit
    the full compact amount. GAO notes that MCC commits the entire amount
    for each compact at signing, but by focusing primarily on obligations,
    this report underemphasizes the essential link between available
    appropriations and signing new compacts. Congress deliberately
    instituted the requirement for the up-front commitment of the entire
    amount of MCC funding for the full compact term, a key reform of U.S.
    development assistance meant to provide certainty for countries that
    make considerable efforts in policy reform and compact implementation.
    Failure to provide full funding at signing may lead to shorter-term,
    less effective projects and result in higher costs as contractors
    increase bids to reflect new levels of uncertainty about MCC's ability
    to fund long-term contracts. [See comment 3]

    MCC is confident we will commit the balance of FY 2004�2008
    appropriations in FY 2008 and the FY 2009 appropriations by the end of
    FY 2009. GAO's analysis points out that compacts with Burkina Faso and
    Namibia, expected to be signed in FY 2008, will consume all
    appropriations now available for compact assistance. MCC will not have
    any remaining appropriations with which to sign additional compacts
    until FY 2009.

    MCC obligates a portion of the amount committed at compact signing,
    called "compact implementation funding," which we disburse during the
    period between compact signing and EIF. When a compact enters into
    force, MCC obligates and disburses the remaining amount over the five
    years of the compact. Again. GAO's analysis considers the timeframe in
    which MCC may obligate its funding but does not sufficiently emphasize
    that MCC must have the appropriations available at the time of signing
    for commitment.

    MCC strongly disagrees with GAO's estimate that MCC will not commit FY
    2009 appropriations until FY 2010. MCC plans to commit, and begin
    obligating, 2009 appropriations in 2009. [See comment 4] We expect to
    sign four compacts in FY 2009, which will commit the entire $1.8
    billion of the President's request for compacts, with an average
    compact size exceeding $450 million. MCC expects these compacts to
    enter into force by FY 2010, thereby obligating all remaining FY 2009
    funds. The GAO assertion that MCC might not commit our FY 2009
    requested funding until the first quarter of FY 2011 is a worst-case
    scenario that does not reflect the compact development work already
    underway. MCC is already working with four eligible countries on
    developing compacts for FY 2009 funding (Jordan, Moldova, Senegal and
    Malawi) and has already launched planning work with two others
    (Philippines and East Timor). Any four of these six countries would
    fully utilize the requested level of FY 2009 funding. Moreover, in some
    of these, we would expect to begin obligating compact implementation
    funding during FY 2009. Reductions in appropriations below the
    President's request would lengthen the compact development process by
    forcing MCC to postpone signing a portion of these compacts. [See
    comment 5]

    MCC Disbursement Rates:

    MCC concurs that actual compact disbursements are behind the original
    projected disbursements included in the multi-year financial plans for
    the first 11 compacts. As GAO's analysis notes, it took longer than
    initially projected to create host country entities and establish the
    necessary capabilities to begin full implementation. These structures
    are essential to performing MCC's fiduciary responsibilities and
    ensuring results and accountability for compact funds. MCC now begins
    these processes earlier and invests more effort in the compact
    development process at each of the four phases. These efforts will
    lengthen the compact development timeline as compared with the original
    11 compacts, but they should yield more predictable disbursement rates
    for subsequent compacts and help ensure U.S. taxpayer funds are well
    spent.

    A multi-year financial plan included in a compact is a preliminary
    budget based upon the due diligence work done by MCC in the compact
    development process. As additional information becomes available
    regarding project cost and timelines leading up to EIF and beyond, MCC
    revises its disbursement projections. MCC recently completed an
    internal review of disbursement projections for FY 2008 that was
    reviewed with MCC's Board of Directors, and submitted to Congress on
    January 25th. These revisions update the multi-year financial plans and
    reflect the on-the-ground reality in our existing countries. MCC will
    continue to update disbursement projections routinely as part of MCC's
    regular reviews of portfolio work plans and contract schedules.

    MCC's internal review reveals lower disbursements in the early years
    and increased disbursements in later years, yielding an S curve rather
    than a bell curve. This is consistent with the industry standard for
    infrastructure projects. MCC implementation teams are committed to full
    expenditure of all compact dollars in the time remaining under each of
    our compacts.

    Changes in MCC's Compact Development Process:

    Based on experience to date, MCC is modifying its compact development
    process to achieve three objectives:

    1) Target an overall timeframe from eligibility selection to EIF of 36
    months;

    2) Enhance the quality of compact proposals, in terms of the technical
    and economic soundness, while ensuring greater cost certainty; and;

    3) Accelerate compact implementation by completing more preparatory
    work earlier.

    Specific process changes include:

    * MCC now provides partner countries clear guidance during initial high-
    level consultations, based on MCC's experience and requirements, to
    encourage a sharper focus on a limited number of interventions that can
    be designed and implemented in reasonable timeframes.

    * Once eligible, partner countries now lead a series of analyses to
    identify the most significant barriers to economic growth in key
    economic sectors, to guide their internal consultative process and
    proposal development.

    * Partner countries are now developing project concept papers as the
    basis for early discussions with MCC. These project concepts will
    provide both an early screening mechanism and an opportunity for MCC to
    help partners plan for detailed project development.

    * MCC will mobilize financial and technical resources to help partner
    countries develop feasibility studies, environmental impact
    assessments, framework resettlement plans, preliminary technical
    designs, and procurement packages, and to recruit fiscal and
    procurement agents before compact signing. This will ensure greater
    cost certainty and strengthen overall design, thereby reducing the time
    between compact signing and EIF.

    * Finally, MCC will ensure the partner countries have compact
    implementation funding after signing to enable commencement of detailed
    technical designs for the most complex infrastructure projects prior to
    EIF. MCC will work with the government to: develop implementing entity
    agreements; finalize detailed implementation plans; develop initial
    annual budgets; draft terms of reference for procurement; and pre-
    qualify consultants and contractors for early procurement actions.
    These early actions will permit smoother implementation upon EIF.

    The overall timeframe from eligibility to signing and EIF depends
    heavily on the capacity of the host country and the quality of its
    proposal. Efforts to reduce this timeline should be guided by the need
    to complete environmental and social compliance work, economic and
    technical feasibility, design, and implementation planning to ensure
    predictable costs and disbursements. The nature of the proposed
    investments in a compact also will affect the time needed to complete
    these preparatory steps.

    Sincerely,

    Signed by:

    Michael Casella:
    Acting Vice President:
    Administration and Finance:
    Millennium Challenge Corporation:

    [End of letter]

    Our Evaluation:

    The following notes provide our evaluation of the specific comments in
    the Millennium Challenge Corporation�s letter.

    1. Our analysis reflects MCC�s statutory requirement that it have no
    more than one compact with a country at a time. It was beyond the scope
    of this report to evaluate this statutory requirement.

    2. Our report discusses the factors affecting the length of compact
    development on page 8.

    3. We disagree with MCC�s assertion that our report underemphasizes the
    link between available appropriations and signing new compacts. Our
    report projects the timing of both the commitment and obligation of
    funds. For example, figures 4 and 5, which present our projections for
    individual countries, clearly show both the projected timing of compact
    signature (commitment of funds) and compact entry into force
    (obligation of funds). In addition, our report discusses MCC�s use of
    compact implementation funding during the period between compact
    signature and entry into force on page 8. MCC employs these funds under
    the authority granted in section 609(g) of the Millennium Challenge Act
    and includes these funds in the stated compact amount.

    4. MCC plans to sign four compacts and commit the entire $1.88 billion
    requested for compact assistance for 2009 by the end of that fiscal
    year. This is earlier than our analysis based on the average pace of
    compact development suggests. To achieve MCC�s objective, at least one
    country will have to progress from eligibility to compact signature in
    less time than the current average of about 24 months. Although MCC
    states that it expects to begin obligating its requested funds during
    fiscal year 2009, our report projects when MCC would fully obligate all
    of its requested appropriations. MCC states that it expects to obligate
    all 2009 funds by 2010, as our analysis projects.

    5. We maintain it is reasonable to consider a scenario where MCC is
    unable to complete compact development with four or five of the
    countries that are currently eligible and uses its 2009 appropriation
    to fund at least one compact with a country newly eligible in 2009. As
    MCC officials have noted, the overall pace of compact development is
    more heavily dependent on a country�s capacity and the quality of its
    proposal than on MCC. In this regard, six of the eight countries have
    been in the first phase of compact development substantially longer
    than average, particularly Senegal and Timor-Leste (47 and 29 months,
    respectively), and only one of the countries in the first phase
    (Moldova) had submitted a proposal as of the end of March 2008.
    Moreover, as previously discussed, MCC is monitoring political
    developments in Bolivia and Timor-Leste, which has recently experienced
    civil unrest and did not pass MCC�s eligibility indicators for 2008,
    including the control of corruption. Additionally, two of the countries
    (Malawi and Philippines) are at the very beginning of compact
    development (they were selected in December 2007 and March 2008,
    respectively).

    [End of enclosure 2]

    Footnotes:

    [1] The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-199, Division
    D, Section 605) authorizes MCC to provide assistance to countries that
    enter into public compacts with the United States. MCC has negotiated
    compacts with countries that contain agreed upon assistance objectives,
    responsibilities, implementation schedules, expected results, and
    evaluation strategies. The act stipulates that a compact may not last
    longer than 5 years and that MCC may have only one compact with a
    country at a time.

    [2] Unless otherwise noted in this report, all years refer to fiscal
    years.

    [3] About $1 billion has been set aside for MCC's threshold country
    program, administrative expenses, due diligence, monitoring and
    evaluation, and other costs. MCC's threshold program is designed to
    assist countries that have not yet qualified for compact assistance,
    but have demonstrated a significant commitment to improve their
    performance on MCC's eligibility criteria.

    [4] In addition to these countries, MCC had previously selected the
    Gambia and Sri Lanka as eligible for compact assistance. However, MCC
    formally suspended the Gambia's eligibility on June 16, 2006, based on
    evidence of growing human rights abuses, increased restrictions on
    political rights, civil liberties and press freedom, as well as
    deteriorating economic policies and anticorruption efforts. In
    addition, the MCC Board of Directors did not select Sri Lanka as
    eligible for compact assistance for 2008.

    [5] The disbursement agreement sets out the conditions for
    disbursements from MCC and redisbursements by the country's accountable
    entity to any person or entity. These conditions include performance
    targets for the projects outlined in the compact. Procurement
    agreements set forth guidelines for all procurements of goods, works,
    and services financed with MCC funding.

    [6] MCC is monitoring political developments in Bolivia and Timor
    Leste.

    [7] Moldova submitted a proposal for $518 million in compact assistance
    on February 28, 2008.

    [8] MCC projects that Burkina Faso and Namibia will advance to the
    third phase of compact development (compact negotiation and MCC board
    approval) by the end of April 2008.

    [9] In February 2008, the MCC Chief Executive Officer told the House
    Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related
    Programs that the corporation expected the five compacts would enter
    into force in autumn 2008. MCC's 2009 budget justification had
    projected these compacts would enter into force during the spring and
    summer of 2008.

    [10] The MCC Board selected Malawi as newly eligible in December 2007
    and the Philippines as newly eligible in March 2008.

    [11] MCC employs these funds under the authority granted in the
    Millennium Challenge Act for compact development funds and includes the
    funds in the stated compact amount. Section 609(g) of the Millennium
    Challenge Act provides that MCC may enter into contracts or make grants
    to eligible countries for the purpose of facilitating the development
    and implementation of compacts. The 2008 House Appropriations Committee
    Report (110-197) expressed some concerns that eligible countries may be
    misinterpreting MCC's authority under section 609(g) and directed MCC
    to provide guidance to countries on that authority.

    [12] MCC's plans to sign compacts with Burkina Faso and Namibia by the
    end of 2008 are consistent with projections based on the current pace
    of compact development.

    [13] Because Jordan and Ukraine are low-middle-income countries and,
    therefore, limited by the Millennium Challenge Act to no more than 25
    percent of total available compact assistance, MCC is more likely to
    sign a compact using 2009 funds with only one of these countries.
    According to MCC officials, Jordan is more actively engaged in proposal
    development.

    [14] As previously discussed, Moldova submitted a proposal for $518
    million in compact assistance on February 28, 2008.

    [15] Planned disbursements refer to the disbursement schedule published
    in the signed compacts. MCC develops these schedules prior to the
    signing of each compact. As such, its estimates are based either on the
    project's prefeasibility study, feasibility study, or design documents,
    depending on the status of project development at the time the compact
    is signed.

    [16] MCC reports that it plans to disburse $450 million by the end of
    2008, which is about 42 percent of the disbursements it had planned to
    make by that time. See Millennium Challenge Corporation, Budget
    Justification 2009 (Washington, D.C., February 2008), page 12.

    [17] According to agency officials, MCC is in the process of shifting
    to the Department of the Treasury's international payment system,
    whereby vendors submit invoices directly to the Treasury for payment.
    Once MCC has fully implemented this new system, it will no longer
    disburse monthly payments of compact funds directly to MCC country
    entities.

    [End of section]

    GAO's Mission:

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

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
    cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
    and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

    Congressional Relations:

    Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4400:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    Public Affairs:

    Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4800:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    *** End of document. ***