Defense Transportation
DOD Should Ensure that the Final Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan Includes Sufficient Detail to Meet the Terms of the Law and Inform Decision Makers Gao ID: GAO-08-704R April 28, 2008Global mobility is a key component of U.S. national security. Since the end of the Cold War, senior decision makers have relied upon Department of Defense (DOD) mobility studies to provide insights they need to build and maintain the right mix of mobility capabilities. The most recent study, the Mobility Capabilities Study, identified the mobility support needed for the full range of strategic operations in the context of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the global war on terror, and DOD's evolving global defense posture, all in support of the National Military Strategy. According to DOD officials, the department plans to issue the next mobility study--the Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study--in the spring of 2009. The 2005 mobility study also assessed requirements for two overlapping war fights, DOD support to homeland defense, civil support, lesser contingency operations, sustainment of forward-deployed forces, and national strategic missions. In accomplishing these missions, DOD depends on its airlift force. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 mandated a requirements-based study on alternatives for the proper size and mix of the airlift force to meet the needs of the National Military Strategy to be done by a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). The Act specifically defined what the study plan should include and set time frames for the completion of various events. The FFRDC was to submit a study plan to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Comptroller General 60 days after the enactment of the Act. The Act required us to review the study plan to determine if it is complete and objective and whether it has any flaws or weaknesses in scope or methodology and report to the Secretary of Defense and the FFRDC within 30 days. It also required us to include in the report any recommendations that the Comptroller General considers appropriate for improvements to the study plan. DOD selected the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to accomplish the study and signed a task order with IDA outlining the study framework. On March 28, 2008, IDA delivered the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan to DOD, congressional committees, and us. The draft study plan comprises 34 pages of bulleted information, graphs, and diagrams. The seven major sections are introduction, background, scope, objective, study management, staged approach, and schedule. The single objective of the study is to address the numerous airlift issues identified in the Act and to report to the Secretary of Defense and to the Congress by January 10, 2009. We assessed the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan that IDA delivered on March 28, 2008, for completeness, but we were unable to evaluate objectivity or identify flaws or weaknesses in scope or methodology. We also commented on another ongoing airlift-related study, the Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study, because it is related to the scope of the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan.
The draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan does not meet the terms of the Act and lacks sufficient detail for assessment. We are unable to fully assess the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan as required in section 1046 of the Act because the plan does not contain sufficient detail for us to evaluate its objectivity and its scope and methodology. Because the draft study plan did not address all of the specified elements in the Act, it is not complete. The draft plan did not include specific and explicit references that can be traced directly to the Act, such as the assumptions to be included in the study plan and assessments to be accomplished. This absence of detail also precludes us from evaluating the scope and methodology. Moreover, the plan lacked key details expected in such plans, such as assumptions and measures of effectiveness. The lack of details discussed above precludes us from making any recommendations concerning improvements to the study plan. DOD officials stated that because DOD selected IDA and issued a task order for the study only shortly before the mandated deadline, sufficient time was not available to produce a more detailed study plan. Nevertheless, DOD is responsible for ensuring the statutorily required elements of the study plan are fulfilled. IDA officials told us that IDA plans to submit to the Secretary of Defense in June 2008 a final Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan that will be more robust. In addition to the independent draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan, we note that DOD is conducting another study that may also inform decision makers on airlift issues.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-704R, Defense Transportation: DOD Should Ensure that the Final Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan Includes Sufficient Detail to Meet the Terms of the Law and Inform Decision Makers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-704R
entitled 'Defense Transportation: DOD Should Ensure that the Final Size
and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan Includes Sufficient Detail to Meet
the Terms of the Law and Inform Decision Makers' which was released on
April 28, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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.
April 28, 2008:
The Honorable Robert M. Gates:
The Secretary of Defense:
General Larry D. Welch, USAF (Ret.):
President and CEO:
Institute for Defense Analyses:
Subject: Defense Transportation: DOD Should Ensure that the Final Size
and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan Includes Sufficient Detail to Meet
the Terms of the Law and Inform Decision Makers:
Global mobility[Footnote 1] is a key component of U.S. national
security. Since the end of the Cold War, senior decision makers have
relied upon Department of Defense (DOD) mobility studies to provide
insights they need to build and maintain the right mix of mobility
capabilities. The most recent study, the Mobility Capabilities
Study,[Footnote 2] identified the mobility support needed for the full
range of strategic operations in the context of the September 11, 2001
attacks, the global war on terror, and DOD's evolving global defense
posture, all in support of the National Military Strategy. According to
DOD officials, the department plans to issue the next mobility study--
the Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study--in the spring of 2009.
The 2005 mobility study also assessed requirements for two overlapping
war fights, DOD support to homeland defense, civil support, lesser
contingency operations, sustainment of forward-deployed forces, and
national strategic missions. In accomplishing these missions, DOD
depends on its airlift force.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[Footnote 3]
(hereafter referred to as the Act) mandated a requirements-based study
on alternatives for the proper size and mix of the airlift force to
meet the needs of the National Military Strategy to be done by a
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC).[Footnote 4]
The Act specifically defined what the study plan should include and set
time frames for the completion of various events. The FFRDC was to
submit a study plan to the appropriate congressional committees, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Comptroller General 60 days after the
enactment of the Act. The Act required us to review the study plan to
determine if it is complete and objective and whether it has any flaws
or weaknesses in scope or methodology and report to the Secretary of
Defense and the FFRDC within 30 days. It also required us to include in
the report any recommendations that the Comptroller General considers
appropriate for improvements to the study plan. DOD selected the
Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to accomplish the study and signed
a task order with IDA outlining the study framework. On March 28, 2008,
IDA delivered the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan to
DOD, congressional committees, and us. The draft study plan comprises
34 pages of bulleted information, graphs, and diagrams. The seven major
sections are introduction, background, scope, objective, study
management, staged approach, and schedule. The single objective of the
study is to address the numerous airlift issues identified in the Act
and to report to the Secretary of Defense and to the Congress by
January 10, 2009. We assessed the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force
Study Plan that IDA delivered on March 28, 2008, for completeness, but
we were unable to evaluate objectivity or identify flaws or weaknesses
in scope or methodology.[Footnote 5] We also commented on another
ongoing airlift-related study, the Mobility Capabilities Requirements
Study, because it is related to the scope of the draft Size and Mix of
Airlift Force Study Plan.
DOD uses studies to inform decision making, and study plans are
important because they define what will be accomplished, what
methodologies and assumptions will be used in a study, and how it will
be done. DOD has used detailed study plans to address large and complex
issues, including analyses of alternatives supporting acquisitions and
execution plans for force management initiatives. Although DOD has not
published departmentwide guidance, the Army, Air Force, and Navy have
publications that describe study plans and/or note the use and
importance of studies in a variety of efforts.[Footnote 6] Service
publications describe a number of detailed elements that could be
considered for use in study plans and that characterize successful
studies. Our prior work shows that a detailed study plan is a critical
part of a well-executed study, but may not guarantee a fully successful
study.
To conduct our evaluation, we reviewed IDA's submission to determine if
it fulfilled the study plan elements in the Act. We also assessed the
completeness of the study plan by reviewing the plan and comparing it
with study plan descriptions in Army, Air Force, and Navy publications
that identified the key elements that could be included in a study
plan. We reviewed prior GAO work that discussed study plans. To obtain
information on the IDA draft study plan, we interviewed officials from
IDA; officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and U.S. Transportation Command.
We conducted this performance audit from March to April 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit 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.
Results In Brief:
The draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan does not meet the
terms of the Act and lacks sufficient detail for assessment. We are
unable to fully assess the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study
Plan as required in section 1046 of the Act because the plan does not
contain sufficient detail for us to evaluate its objectivity and its
scope and methodology. Because the draft study plan did not address all
of the specified elements in the Act, it is not complete. The draft
plan did not include specific and explicit references that can be
traced directly to the Act, such as the assumptions to be included in
the study plan and assessments to be accomplished. This absence of
detail also precludes us from evaluating the scope and methodology.
Moreover, the plan lacked key details expected in such plans, such as
assumptions and measures of effectiveness. The lack of details
discussed above precludes us from making any recommendations concerning
improvements to the study plan. DOD officials stated that because DOD
selected IDA and issued a task order for the study only shortly before
the mandated deadline, sufficient time was not available to produce a
more detailed study plan. Nevertheless, DOD is responsible for ensuring
the statutorily required elements of the study plan are fulfilled. IDA
officials told us that IDA plans to submit to the Secretary of Defense
in June 2008 a final Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan that will
be more robust. In addition to the independent draft Size and Mix of
Airlift Force Study Plan, we note that DOD is conducting another study
that may also inform decision makers on airlift issues.
Accordingly, we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to ensure that the final Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study
Plan include (1) sufficient detail to address, at a minimum, elements
mandated in section 1046 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008; and (2) sufficient detail to inform decision makers
on airlift issues.
In oral comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
recommendation. DOD's comments are discussed in more detail at the end
of this report. DOD also provided technical comments and we have
incorporated them where appropriate.
Background:
In previous GAO work, we noted the importance of study plans and usage
of study plans as a best practice.[Footnote 7] Specifically, we found
that governmental agencies and the private sector rely on detailed
study plans, or data collection and analysis plans, to guide the
development of studies and the collection and analysis of data.
Additionally, we stated that a study plan provides a feedback loop that
links the outcomes of the study and subsequent analysis to the original
goals and objectives of the study. We also found that particularly
large and complex issues may benefit from a study plan. GAO also
identified a best practice for a study plan process that mirrors
information found in service publications concerning study plans.
Service publications describe the role of studies in complex decision
making in areas such as acquisitions, comparing alternatives, and
evaluations of force capabilities. Service publications also describe
elements, such as assumptions and measures of effectiveness (MOEs),
that may be considered for inclusion in a study plan. The Navy
publication that discusses studies describes determining assumptions,
statements related to the study that are taken as true in the absence
of facts, as a key step in study plan development.[Footnote 8] The Army
publication that discusses preparation of a study also lists
assumptions as a part of a study plan.[Footnote 9] The Air Force
analysis handbook contains a study plan outline that includes
assumptions as well.[Footnote 10] According to these service
publications, MOEs are the level of success to be achieved or how well
tasks are performed. All of the service publications refer to MOEs as
part of a study plan. In the Army and Navy publications, selection of
the MOEs is described as perhaps the most crucial part of any analysis.
The Draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan Does Not Meet the
Terms of the Act and Cannot Be Fully Assessed:
We are unable to fully assess the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force
Study Plan as required in section 1046 of the Act because it does not
contain sufficient detail for us to evaluate the objectivity or to
evaluate the scope and methodology. Since the draft study plan did not
address all of the specified elements in the Act, it is not complete.
This absence of detail also precludes us from evaluating the scope and
methodology. In the absence of a complete study plan, the final study
may not sufficiently inform decision makers concerning the alternatives
for the size and mix of the airlift force to meet requirements of the
National Military Strategy.
The draft study plan is not complete because it did not address all of
the required elements in the Act. While IDA officials described the
draft as generally addressing the three main elements cited in the Act,
we found that it lacks specific and explicit references that can be
traced directly to the Act. Specifically, the Act identified 11
assumptions, at a minimum, to be included in the study plan.[Footnote
11] For example, one required assumption involved the new capability in
airlift to be provided by the KC(X) tanker aircraft. The draft study
plan included a 5-bullet slide concerning the assessment of the KC(X)
as an airlifter, but did not include the required assumptions.
Additionally, the Act required the study plan to include assumptions
concerning airlift mobility requirements in support of homeland defense
and national emergencies. However, the plan only included a number of
bulleted statements about the homeland defense and national emergencies
missions and contained no assumptions. Without the required
assumptions, the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan does
not satisfy the Act and is not complete.
The draft study plan also does not contain key details sufficient for
us to evaluate the scope and methodology. Service publications reflect
the importance of key steps such as identification of MOEs. According
to the service publications, perhaps the most crucial part of any
analysis is the selection of appropriate measures of effectiveness,
which are central to evaluating alternatives. They enable decision
makers to compare the results in a study.[Footnote 12] For example,
MOEs could allow decision makers to compare the results of two analyses
that measure different airlift force mixes. In the draft study plan,
mixes of two aircraft (C27 and C-130) are to be compared for their
fleet effectiveness. In such an example, the time required for an
aircraft fleet to accomplish a mission, such as moving cargo or people,
can be measured in terms of time required, tons moved, or miles flown.
The task order for the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan
specified the use of MOEs. The draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force
Study Plan includes a slide concerning effectiveness analyses but, for
the purposes of our analysis, it does not detail the MOEs or how they
are to be used. Without critical details such as MOEs, the final study
may not sufficiently inform decision makers concerning airlift issues.
In our discussion with IDA officials concerning the draft study plan,
they acknowledged the importance of the use of assumptions and MOEs in
study plans. DOD officials stated that DOD selected IDA only shortly
before the mandated deadline for a draft study plan and added that
sufficient time was not available to produce a more detailed draft
study plan. The plan states that its final stage (phase) will ensure
all issues raised in the Act are addressed. In our discussion with IDA
officials, they explained that the March 2008 version of the Size and
Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan is a draft and that the final study
plan, scheduled for completion in June 2008, will be more robust and
detailed. We note that while DOD is using IDA to perform the study plan
pursuant to a task order, DOD is responsible for ensuring that the
statutorily required elements of the study plan are fulfilled. We also
note that, pursuant to the Act, we were to provide any recommendations
that the Comptroller General considered appropriate for improvement to
the study plan. The lack of details discussed above precludes us from
making any recommendations concerning improvements to the study plan.
In the Navy study guide publication, one of the first steps in
initiating a study is identifying potential uses for anticipated study
results. While our scope only included the draft Size and Mix of
Airlift Force Study Plan, we note that DOD plans to publish results
from both the Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study and the Mobility
Capabilities Requirements Study in 2009 as decision makers consider
airlift requirements. We believe that it is possible that decision
makers may compare the findings and assumptions of the Size and Mix of
Airlift Force Study with the airlift portion of the Mobility
Capabilities Requirements Study. If the Mobility Capabilities
Requirements Study does not consider the objectives and assumptions of
the Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study, it is unclear as to whether
the results of the two studies can be compared and therefore the study
results may not be fully useful to decision makers.
Conclusion:
Well-executed airlift and mobility studies that inform decision making
are important as DOD continues its efforts to sustain, modernize, and
recapitalize its airlift programs. Detailed study plans are a critical
part of well-executed studies and should include key details such as
assumptions and MOEs. Although the draft Size and Mix of Airlift Force
Study Plan does not fulfill the requirements of the Act, the final
version may include corrections and refinements.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to ensure that the
final Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan includes sufficient
detail to address, at a minimum, elements mandated in section 1046 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and ensure
that the study plan includes sufficient detail to inform decision
makers on airlift issues.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In oral comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
recommendation that DOD ensure that the final study plan include
sufficient detail to address, at a minimum, elements mandated in law
and sufficient detail to inform decision makers on airlift issues. As
part of the comments, an official from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
reiterated that IDA was not given adequate time to create a detailed
study plan in compliance with established standards. DOD stated the
intention to continue monitoring IDA's work on the final study plan,
adding that DOD fully expects the final study plan to comply with
established DOD standards regarding studies. DOD also provided
technical comments and we have incorporated them where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Senate and House
Appropriations and Armed Services Committees and other interested
congressional committees; the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Commander of U.S.
Transportation Command; and the Director, Office of Management and
Budget. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff that made contributions to this report
include Ann Borseth, Ron La Due Lake, Charles Perdue, Karen Thornton,
Karen Werner, and Steve Woods.
Signed by:
William M. Solis, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Defense Acquisition: KC-135 Recapitalization Analysis of Alternatives
Does Not Inform Decision Makers Regarding Cost, Effectiveness, and
Suitability. GAO-08-69CR. Washington, D.C.: January 8, 2008.
Defense Acquisitions: Air Force Decision to Include a Passenger and
Cargo Capability in Its Replacement Refueling Aircraft Was Made without
Required Analyses. GAO-07-367R. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007.
Defense Transportation: Study Limitations Raise Questions about the
Adequacy and Completeness of the Mobility Capabilities Study and
Report. GAO-06-938. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2006.
Military Readiness: Navy's Fleet Response Plan Would Benefit from a
Comprehensive Management Approach and Rigorous Testing. GAO-06-84.
Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Air Force defines global mobility as the ability to rapidly
establish an air-bridge and move military capability in support of
operations anywhere in the world under any conditions.
[2] The intent of the December 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS)
was to identify and quantify the mobility capabilities needed to
support U.S. strategic objectives into the next decade. The MCS
determined that the projected mobility capabilities are adequate to
achieve U.S. objectives with an acceptable level of risk during the
period from fiscal years 2007 through 2013; that is, the existing U.S.
inventory of aircraft, ships, prepositioned assets, and other
capabilities were concluded to be sufficient, in conjunction with host
nation support. The MCS emphasized that continued investment in the
mobility system, in line with current departmental priorities and
planned spending, is required to maintain these capabilities in the
future. This included, for example, fully funding Army prepositioned
assets as planned and completing a planned reengineering of the C-5
aircraft. The MCS report also made recommendations to conduct further
studies, develop plans and strategies, and improve data collection and
mobility models.
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-181, §1046 (2008).
[4] The Federal Acquisition Regulation sets forth federal policy
regarding the establishment and use of Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers. An FFRDC meets some special long-term research or
development need which cannot be met as effectively by existing in-
house or contractor resources. FFRDCs enable agencies to use private
sector resources to accomplish tasks that are integral to the mission
and operation of the sponsoring agency. The FFRDC is required to
conduct its business in a manner befitting its special relationship
with the government, to operate in the public interest with objectivity
and independence, to be free from organizational conflicts of interest,
and to provide full disclosure of its affairs to the sponsoring agency.
FFRDCs are operated, managed, and/or administered by either a
university or consortium of universities, another not-for-profit or
nonprofit organization, or an industrial firm, as an autonomous
organization or as an identifiable separate operating unit of a parent
organization.
[5] See GAO, Government Auditing Standards: July 2007 Revision, GAO-07-
731G (Washington, D.C.: July 2007). Government auditing standards
define scope as the boundaries of a study that are directly tied to the
study objectives. The scope defines the subject matter that the
executors will assess. Government auditing standards define methodology
as describing the nature and extent of procedures for gathering and
analyzing evidence to address study objectives. Methodology is to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address objectives and
provide reasonable assurance that the evidence is sufficient and
appropriate to support study findings and conclusions. Methodology
includes both the nature and extent of procedures used to address
objectives.
[6] Studies that might be guided by a study plan include but are not
limited to cost, benefit, or effectiveness analysis of concepts, plans,
training, tactics, forces, systems, policies, personnel management
methods, and policies or programs; cost and operational effectiveness
analyses (COEA); evaluations of force capabilities, organizational
structure, administrative policies, procedures, methods, systems, and
distribution of functions; research and development of data bases,
models, and methodologies for accomplishing specific studies and
analyses; analyses of materiel, personnel, logistics, and management
systems; and studies to establish materiel requirements.
[7] See GAO, Military Readiness: Navy's Fleet Response Plan Would
Benefit from a Comprehensive Management Approach and Rigorous Testing,
GAO-06-84 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2005).
[8] Navy Warfare Development Command, Study Planning and Conduct Guide,
Mr. Richard C. Rigazio, Operations Research Analyst (August 2007).
[9] Department of the Army Pamphlet 5-5, Guidance for Army Study
Sponsors, Sponsor's Study Directors, Study Advisory Groups, and
Contracting Officer Representatives, Headquarters (Washington, D.C. Nov
1, 1996).
[10] Office of Aerospace Studies, Analysis Handbook, A Guide for
Performing Analysis Studies: For Analysis of Alternatives or Functional
Solution Analyses (July 2004).
[11] Pub. L. No. 110-181, §1046 (d)(1) (2008).
[12] According to the Air Force analysis handbook, MOEs are important
to a warfighter because they express both system worth (ability to
contribute to a warfighter's immediate goal) and military worth
(ability to contribute to high-level goals of winning the war).
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:
