Government Performance and Results Act: Information on the National
Science Foundation's Performance Report for Fiscal Year 1999 and
Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (Correspondence,
08/30/2000, GAO/RCED-00-281R).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year (FY) 1999 performance report and FY 2000
and 2001 performance plans, focusing on the: (1) extent to which the FY
2000 and 2001 performance plans presented a consistent and coherent
story regarding the agency's support of basic research efforts; (2)
goals and results as reported in its FY 1999 performance report; (3)
extent to which NSF's FY 1999 performance report and FY 2000 and 2001
performance plans link to its FY 2000 and 2001 budget requests; and (4)
limitations with NSF's FY 1999 performance report and FY 2001
performance plan.

GAO noted that: (1) NSF's performance plans and report generally present
a consistent and coherent story regarding NSF's support of basic
research; (2) NSF's 2001 performance plan incorporates its outcome goals
from its FY 2000 performance plan, into three new outcome goals that
broadly capture its investments aimed at encouraging new scientific
discoveries, developing a world-class workforce, and using
state-of-the-art tools for research and education; (3) the FY 1999
performance report evaluated NSF's performance with respect to 5 outcome
goals, 13 investment process goals and 5 management goals; (4) the
performance report indicated that NSF achieved each of its 5 outcome
goals, 9 of its 13 investment goals, and 3 of its 5 management goals;
(5) it is difficult to link NSF's performance report and performance
plans to its budget; (6) for the FY 1999 performance report and FY 2000
and 2001 performance plans, GAO found no clear linkage with the agency's
FY 2000 and 2001 budget requests; (7) NSF acknowledges that there is no
clear linkage between the outcome goals found in its performance report
and the agency's budget; (8) GAO identified a number of limitations with
NSF's FY 1999 performance report and FY 2001 plan; (9) for example,
reports from the external expert review panels, which were the
foundation for the qualitative assessments of whether the agency met its
outcome goals, varied in their attention to detail; (10) some depended
on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic information as the basis
for assessments--some cited specific examples or included meaningful
narrative to support their evaluations while others provided none; (11)
likewise, some provided specific criticisms and recommendations for
improvements, while others did not; and (12) in all cases where GAO has
concerns, NSF recognized that improvements were warranted and had an
action plan for improving internal processes.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-281R
     TITLE:  Government Performance and Results Act: Information on the
	     National Science Foundation's Performance Report
	     for Fiscal Year 1999 and Performance Plans for Fiscal
	     Years 2000 and 2001
      DATE:  08/30/2000
   SUBJECT:  Performance measures
	     Program evaluation
	     Strategic planning
	     Reporting requirements
	     Research and development
IDENTIFIER:  Government Performance and Results Act
	     GPRA

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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/RCED-00-281R

NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science United States
General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B- 286138 August 30, 2000 The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner Chairman,
Committee on Science House of Representatives

Subject: Government Performance and Results Act: Information on the National
Science Foundation's Performance Report for Fiscal Year 1999 and Performance
Plans for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001

Dear Mr. Chairman: As agreed with your office, we are providing you with
information on our review of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal
year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2000 and 2001 performance
plans. NSF serves a unique role in supporting basic research across many
disciplines. Because basic research results are difficult to quantify, NSF
uses external expert review panels to qualitatively evaluate its research
outcome goals that are found in its performance plans and report. NSF also
has quantitative performance goals to gauge performance related to its
internal investment and management processes.

Specifically, we are providing information on (1) the extent to which the
fiscal year 2000 and 2001 performance plans presented a consistent and
coherent story regarding the agency's support of basic research efforts; (2)
the goals and results as reported in its fiscal year 1999 performance
report; (3) the extent to which NSF's fiscal year 1999 performance report
and fiscal year 2000 and 2001 performance plans link to its fiscal year 2000
and 2001 budget requests; and (4) limitations with NSF's fiscal year 1999
performance report and fiscal year 2001 performance plan. We focused on the
fiscal year 2001 performance plan so that our feedback may be considered as
NSF finalizes the plan. Additional information on NSF's implementation of
the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (Results Act) that we
provided to your office on August 11, 2000, is contained in enclosure I.

NSF's performance plans and report generally present a consistent and
coherent story regarding NSF's support of basic research. NSF's 2001
performance plan incorporates its outcome goals from its fiscal year 2000
performance plan, into three new outcome goals that broadly capture its
investments aimed at encouraging new scientific discoveries, developing a
world- class workforce, and using state- of- the- art tools for research and
education. Among the key changes in the fiscal year 2001

GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science 2 performance
plan, NSF expands the definition of merit review by including the

integration of research and education as a factor to be considered in making
awards. The plan also sets higher standards for certain aspects of the
awards process and for increasing reliance on electronic transfer of
information. The plan varies in the level of detail provided regarding its
strategies for achieving its goals.

The fiscal year 1999 performance report evaluated NSF's performance with
respect to 5 outcome goals, 13 investment process goals and 5 management
goals. The performance report indicated that NSF achieved each of its 5
outcome goals; 9 of its 13 investment process goals; and 3 of its 5
management goals. According to external expert reviews of its outcome goals,
NSF supported research awards that led to important discoveries; that were
readily disseminated to the scientific, engineering, and educational
communities; and that provided opportunities for world- class professional
experiences for scientists and engineers. In addition, NSF's outcome goals
also supported improvements in math and science skills and made timely data
available to international science and engineering users. In addressing its
investment process goals, NSF effectively implemented merit review,
identified emerging opportunities, encouraged integration of research and
education, and maintained construction and upgrades of facilities within
cost and schedule estimates. However, improvements are needed in NSF's
customer service. Specifically, NSF is not yet meeting its goal of making 95
percent of its program announcements and solicitations available at least 3
months prior to proposal deadlines. In addition, NSF must also improve its
proposal processing time so that it is completed within 6 months of a
proposal's receipt, at least 70 percent of the time. NSF's goal of
increasing the percentage of competitive research grants going to new
investigators was nearly achieved. NSF's goal was to have 30 percent of its
grants made to new investigators; it achieved 27 percent. As for its
management goals, NSF achieved its electronic proposal processing, staff
diversity, and year 2000 information goals. However, it did not meet the
training goal for FastLane, its electronic information system. Moreover, NSF
did not achieve its goal of having 70 percent of all reports submitted
through the new electronic system. In fiscal year 1999, 59 percent of its
projects were reported through the electronic system.

It is difficult to link NSF's performance report and performance plans to
its budget. For the fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2000
and 2001 performance plans, we found no clear linkage with the agency's
fiscal year 2000 and 2001 budget requests. NSF acknowledges that there is no
clear linkage between the outcome goals found in its performance report and
plans and the agency's budget. As a result, NSF has attempted to improve the
linkage between the fiscal year 2001 performance plan and the agency's
fiscal year 2001 budget request, by including crosswalks on (1) the
distribution of the budget across individual outcome goals, and (2) the
staffing levels and budget figures for each individual NSF directorate.
Moreover, NSF established a team that is reviewing the account structure to
find improved approaches for linking the budget with the goals. According to
NSF officials, a draft report from this team is due to the Director's office
in September 2000.

We identified a number of limitations with NSF's fiscal year 1999
performance report and fiscal year 2001 plan. For example, reports from the
external expert review panels, which were the foundation for the qualitative
assessments of whether the

GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science 3

agency met its outcome goals, varied in their attention to detail. Some
depended on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic information as the
basis for assessments; some cited specific examples or included meaningful
narrative to support their evaluations while others provided none. Likewise,
some provided specific criticisms and recommendations for improvements,
while others did not. In some cases, no ratings were provided, and outcome
goals were not even addressed. In addition, the fiscal year 2001 performance
plan includes performance indicators for each goal, but these indicators do
not provide a clear statement of expected performance for each goal. In
addition, the performance plan does not provide links between resources and
areas of emphasis in the plan; or discuss strategies and resources needed to
achieve goals. In all cases where we have concerns, NSF recognized that
improvements were warranted and had an action plan for improving internal
processes. The challenges ahead for NSF lay primarily in implementing these
improvements, including expansion of its electronic proposal and award
information system, streamlining its electronic proposal preparation
process, and redoing its strategy for conducting external expert reviews to
increase the credibility of information provided by these evaluating
committees.

Agency Comments

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the National Science
Foundation for its review and comment. NSF officials, including the
Director, Office of Integrative Activities, Chairman of the GPRA
Infrastructure Implementation Council, as well as the Chief Information
Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer generally agreed with the
information presented in the report.

Scope and Methodology

Our observations were generally based on the requirements of the Results
Act, guidance to agencies from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A- 11, part 2) and
previous reports and evaluations by us. We also analyzed the final draft of
NSF's 1999 performance report, the latest version of the 2000 performance
plan dated January 2000, and the latest version of the 2001 performance plan
dated February 7, 2000. We also met with officials from NSF's Office of
Integrative Activities, Office of Inspector General and Office of Budget,
Finance and Award Management. We conducted our review from July 2000 through
August 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

---- As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to Dr. Rita R.
Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation and make copies available to
others upon request.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science 4 Please call me
or Derek B. Stewart on (202) 512- 3841 if you or your staff have any

questions about this report. Key contributors to this report were Shawn
Arbogast, Diane Raynes, and Ed Zadjura.

Sincerely yours, Jim Wells, Director, Energy, Resources,

and Science issues Enclosure

5 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science Enclosure I

Briefing Charts

GPRA: Information on the National Science Foundation's Performance Report
for Fiscal Year 1999 and Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001

For the House Committee on Science August 2000

6 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

2

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act

Background Outcome Goals in Performance Plans and Reports Summary of FY 1999
Goals From the Performance Report Linkage of Report and Plans to the
Agency's Budget Limitations With the FY 1999 Performance Report and FY 2001

Performance Plan Challenges Ahead for NSF's Implementation of the Results
Act

7 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

3

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Background

NSF supports basic research across many disciplines Other federal agencies
have mission- oriented research objectives,

such as energy (DOE), biomedicine (NIH), space exploration (NASA), and
weapons systems (DOD)

Implementing the Results Act has been a challenge for NSF and other agencies
whose missions involve research activities because

The substance and timing of research outcomes are unpredictable

It is difficult to link research outcomes to annual budgets Research results
can be difficult to report quantitatively

8 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

4

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Background

With OMB's approval, NSF uses an alternative format to evaluate the extent
to which its research results attain NSF's outcome goals

The alternative format is a qualitative scale for the assessment of outcomes

In using the alternative format, NSF relies on external expert review panels

These review panels assess the quality of research results and report
progress toward the outcome goals

NSF uses quantitative goals for its internal investment and management
process goals

9 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

5

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Outcome Goals in
Performance Plans and Report The outcome goals of the FY 1999 performance
report and the FY

2000 and FY 2001 performance plans address the range of science and
engineering research and education supported by NSF

The FY 2001 performance plan combined the five outcome goals from previous
years into three outcome goals

10 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

6

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Outcome Goals in
Performance Plans and Report The FY 2001 performance plan

Combined the first and second outcome goals from the 1999 performance report
and 2000 performance plan 1999 and 2000: “Discoveries at and across
the frontier of science” and “connections

between discoveries and their use in service to society” 2001:
“IDEAS-- Discovery at and across the frontier of science and
engineering, and

connections to its use in society” Combined the third and fourth
outcome goals from the 1999

performance report and 2000 performance plan 1999 and 2000: “A
diverse, globally- oriented workforce of scientists and engineers” and

“Improved achievement in mathematics and science skills needed by all
Americans” 2001: “PEOPLE-- A diverse, internationally-
competitive, and globally- engaged workforce

of scientists, engineers, and well- prepared citizens”

11 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

7

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Outcome Goals in
Performance Plans and Report Included the fifth goal of the 1999 performance
report and

2000 performance plan under a new and broader outcome goal

1999 and 2000: “Timely and relevant information on the national and
international science and engineering enterprise” In 2001:
“TOOLS-- Broadly accessible state- of- the- art information bases and

shared research and education tools”

12 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

13 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

9

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Summary of FY 1999 Goals
From the Performance Report

The FY 1999 performance report addressed Outcome goals Investment process
goals Management goals

14 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

10

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Summary of FY 1999
Results From the Performance Report

The FY 1999 performance report addressed five outcome goals: Discoveries at
and across the frontier of science and engineering

NSF is successful when awards lead to important discoveries; new knowledge
and techniques, both expected and unexpected, within and across traditional
disciplinary boundaries; and high- potential links across these boundaries.

In FY 1999, all 43 external reports rated NSF successful in achieving this
goal. Connections between discoveries and their use in service to

society NSF is successful when the results of NSF awards are rapidly and
readily available and

feed, as appropriate, into education, policy development, or use by other
federal agencies or the private sector.

In FY 1999, 42 of 43 external reports rated NSF successful in achieving this
goal.

15 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

11

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Summary of FY 1999
Results From the Performance Report

A diverse, globally oriented workforce of scientists and engineers NSF is
successful when participants in NSF activities experience world- class
professional

practices in research and education, using modern technologies and
incorporating international points of reference; when academia, government,
business, and industry recognize their quality; and when the science and
engineering workforce show increased participation of underrepresented
groups.

In FY 1999, 38 of 44 external reports rated NSF successful in achieving all
or most areas of this goal.

Improved achievement in the mathematics and science skills needed by all
Americans NSF is successful when its awards lead to the development,
adoption, adaptation, and

implementation of effective models, products, and practices that address the
needs of all students; well- trained teachers who implement standards- based
approaches in their classroom; and improved student performance in
participating schools and districts.

In FY 1999, 18 of 22 external reports rated NSF successful in achieving all
or most areas of this goal.

16 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

12

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Summary of FY 1999
Results From the Performance Report

Timely and relevant information on the national and international science
and engineering enterprise Decrease the time interval by 10% from the
current average of 540 days between the

reference period (the time to which the data refer) and the reporting of
data. Achieve customer satisfaction ratings with the relevance of products
offered of at least 45%

“excellent” and at least 90% “excellent” or
“good.” FY 1998 baseline is 38% “excellent” and 88%
“excellent” or “good” based on a 1996 customer
survey.

In FY 1999, this goal was achieved; the average time interval decreased to
485 days. In FY 1999, this goal was achieved; ratings were 60%
“excellent” and 90% “excellent to

good.”

17 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

13

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Summary of FY 1999
Results From the Performance Report

The FY 1999 performance report addressed 13 investment process goals, such
as

Use of merit review At least 90% of NSF's funds will be allocated to
projects reviewed by appropriate peers

external to NSF and selected through a merit- based competitive process. In
FY 1999, 95% of projects allocated funds were merit reviewed.

Implementation of merit review criteria NSF's performance in implementation
of the new merit review criteria is successful

when reviewers address the elements of both generic review criteria
appropriate to the proposal at hand and when program officers take the
information provided into account in their decisions on awards.

NSF performance is minimally effective when reviewers consistently use only
a few of the suggested elements of the generic review criteria, although
others might be applicable.

In FY 1999, 36 of 44 external reports rated NSF successful in achieving this
goal.

18 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

14

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Summary of FY 1999
Results From Performance Report

The FY 1999 performance report addressed five management goals, including

Electronic Proposal Processing NSF will achieve at least 25% of full
proposal submissions electronically through

FastLane (the electronic reporting system) improving on the FY 1998 baseline
of 17. 5%. In FY 1999, 44% of full proposal submissions were received
through FastLane.

Diversity In FY 1999, as all appointments for scientists and engineers are
considered, the

recruiting organization will demonstrate efforts to attract applications
from groups that are underrepresented in the science and engineering staff
as compared to their representation among Ph. D. holders in their fields.

In FY 1999, this goal was achieved. Project Reporting System

During FY 1999, at least 70% of all project reports will be submitted
through the new electronic Project Reporting System.

In FY 1999, this goal was not achieved; only 59% of all project reports were
submitted through the electronic Project Reporting System module included in
FastLane.

19 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

15

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Linkage of Report and
Plans to the Agency's Budget

There is no clear linkage between the FY 1999 performance report and the
agency's budget

NSF notes that there is no OMB requirement to link the performance report to
the budget.

NSF acknowledges there is no clear linkage between the outcome goals and the
agency's budget in their reports and plans

NSF has improved this linkage in its FY 2001 budget request. NSF has
established a team to review the account structure to find

improved approaches for linking the budget with the goals; a draft report
from this team is expected in September.

20 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

16

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Linkage of NSF's
Performance Report and Plans to the Agency's Budget

There is no clear linkage between the FY 2000 performance plan and the
agency's budget, rather, the plan provides

A crosswalk that includes key functions rather than outcome goals stated in
the plan

A table that provides the interactions (or overlap) of the outcome goal by
key functions

There is an improved linkage between the FY 2001 performance plan and the
agency's budget because the plan provides

A crosswalk on the distribution of NSF's budget across individual outcome
goals

A crosswalk depicting staffing level and programmatic budget figures by
individual NSF directorates.

21 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

17

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Limitations With NSF's
FY 1999 Performance Report and FY 2001 Performance Plan

The FY 1999 performance report Overall, NSF was generally successful in
meeting its outcome

goals, based on program evaluations by external expert review panels, and
examples of high quality scientific outputs and outcomes chosen to show
NSF's achievement

However, that conclusion depends on the quality of the expert review panels'
reports, which vary widely

Many of the evaluation reports are inconsistent Other reviews depended on
anecdotal knowledge, rather

than on systematic information, as the basis for the assessment.

22 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

18

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Limitations With the FY
1999 Performance Report and FY 2001 Performance Plan

The quality of external expert review panel reports varied, for example

Some panels cited specific examples to support their evaluations while
others provided fewer or no examples

Some panels provided specific criticism or recommendations while others
provided little or no such information

Some panels did not follow the evaluation template

23 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

19

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Limitations With the FY
1999 Performance Report and FY 2001 Performance Plan

Examples of Expert Review Panel Assessments from the Division of
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems Report

Provided examples of NSF- funded activities to justify their ratings such as
research at Stanford University that resulted in the: Creation of novel
“gene cassettes” expanding chemical diversity Filing of patents
as a results of the studies undertaken Development of at least one new
commercial venture Generation of interest in “bio- combinational
chemistry” by pharmaceutical

companies Provided suggestions of metrics to use for evaluation effort

Number of patents, patent disclosures, or licensures Number of start- ups
Number of publications

Provided specific criticism and recommendations for improvement Improve
reporting format to better support evaluation committee needs Anecdotal
information was collected and required validating by Principal

Investigators

24 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

20

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Limitations With the FY
1999 Performance Report and FY 2001 Performance Plan Examples of Expert
Review Panel Assessments from the Division

of Materials Research: Materials Theory Program Report Provided specific
examples of NSF- funded activities to justify their ratings

Researchers Stormer and Tsui won the Nobel Prize for research in Quantum
Hall Effect Researcher Kohn shared in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his
invention of

Density Functional Theory Division of Biological Infrastructure: Training
Cluster Report

Provided no examples or meaningful narrative to justify ratings Division of
Information and Intelligent Systems Report

Did not follow format specified in the NSF external expert review panel
guidelines Provided no ratings Did not address outcome goals or GPRA
requirements

25 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

21

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Limitations With the FY
1999 Performance Report and FY 2001 Performance Plan

The FY 2001 performance plan Does not provide a clear statement of expected
performance

for subsequent comparison Provides only general criteria for evaluating
success in

achieving the revised outcomes Does not clearly discuss strategies and
resources needed to

achieve goals Does not specifically provide links between the resources and

areas of emphasis in the plan Does not address the problem of the
inconsistent quality of

external expert review panel reports and thus offers only limited confidence
that performance information will be credible

26 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

22

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Challenges Ahead for
NSF's Implementation of the Results Act

Improving FastLane, an electronic proposal and award information system

Holds promise for providing systematic, evaluative information over time
Plans include incorporating the external expert review panel process into
this system

Developing a strategy to ensure or increase the credibility of information
compiled by external expert review panels

Reissue guidance and template providing more assistance Reduce subjectivity
in reports Improve the extent to which the reports address the requirements
of the Results Act

Developing ways to address the problems created by the timing of Results Act
reports and plan

Information needed for FY 1999 reports is also essential for the FY 1999
accountability report and the performance plans for fiscal year 2000 and
2002

27 GAO/ RCED- 00- 281R NSF's GPRA Reports Concerning Science

23

The National Science Foundation and the Results Act Challenges Ahead for
NSF's Implementation of the Results Act Diversity of awardees

Currently implementing approaches to increase and retain the number of women
and underrepresented minorities in the proposal application pool

Proposal preparation process Currently identifying bottlenecks in process
and putting in place an electronic system to

improve timeliness in proposal preparations In FY 2001, NSF plans to conduct
10 pilot paperless projects that will manage the

competitive review process in a totally electronic environment

(141471)

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-
mail message with “info” in the body to

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: 1- 800- 424- 5454
*** End of document. ***