Opportunities to Improve Controls over Department of Defense's Overseas Contingency Operations Cost Reporting
Gao ID: GAO-10-562R May 27, 2010From September 2001 through January 2010, Congress provided about $1.023 trillion in supplemental and annual appropriations in response to Department of Defense (DOD) requests for funding to support overseas contingency operations (OCO). In March 2010, DOD reported obligations of about $825 billion attributed to OCO for the period September 2001 through January 2010. DOD uses available cost-related information, along with other financial information, to evaluate OCO trends, formulate OCO funding requests, and monitor the costs of overseas operations. In addition, Congress considers this information in its deliberations on DOD requests for additional OCO funding. Our prior reviews have found the financial information in DOD's monthly OCO reports to be of questionable reliability. For example, we identified problems in DOD's processes for recording and reporting obligations, such as not including all OCO costs and the lack of a systematic process for ensuring that data are correctly entered into those systems. Consequently, we concluded DOD's reported OCO costs should be considered approximations. Based on our prior work, we made a number of recommendations to improve the reliability of OCO reported costs, with which DOD generally concurred. Consistent with our recommendations, DOD has taken steps intended to improve OCO cost reliability, such as clarifying cost category definitions and requiring military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and other DOD components to analyze variances in reported OCO costs. Further, in fiscal year 2009, DOD initiated the Contingency Operations Reporting and Analysis Service (CORAS), an automated system and database through which DOD intended to provide more transparent, accurate, and timely reporting on costs attributed to OCO. Prior to the CORAS initiative, DOD had relied on manual procedures for accumulating data and reporting on costs attributed to OCO from the military services. With CORAS, the intent was to (1) eliminate such manual practices where feasible and instead use automated processes to retrieve and accumulate key financial OCO data from the military services' financial systems using a DOD-wide database and (2) add the capability to report on OCO-related funding (appropriations) and disbursements, as well as obligations. To determine whether DOD had designed adequate internal controls over reporting of OCO cost-related data, we reviewed internal control criteria related to reliably reporting financial data. We reviewed DOD and military service standard operating procedures and practices in comparison with federal and department standards and guidance to determine whether they contained key controls.
While DOD's new cost reporting system and database, CORAS, was intended to provide more transparent, accurate, and timely reporting on costs that DOD attributes to OCO, we found that the design of internal control for reviewing and reporting OCO data did not contain key internal control activities. Specifically, we found the following: (1) In fiscal year 2009, the military services did not have clear, detailed written procedures for reviewing the reliability of OCO reported costs including steps for conducting and documenting validation activities such as reconciliations between CORAS data and OCO data in the services' official accounting systems; (2) DOD's financial management regulation on accounting for contingency operations9 did not clearly define validation activities--such as reconciliations--require documentation of internal control activities, or require the DOD Comptroller to monitor the accuracy of OCO reported data; and (3) DOD's implementation guidance for OCO reporting obscures the accuracy of current and prior-period OCO cost reporting by directing the military services to include, in the monthly data for the current period, adjustments for omissions and errors that occurred in prior periods.
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: Asif A. Khan Team: Government Accountability Office: Financial Management and Assurance Phone: No phone on recordGAO-10-562R, Opportunities to Improve Controls over Department of Defense's Overseas Contingency Operations Cost Reporting
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-562R
entitled 'Opportunities to Improve Controls over Department of
Defense's Overseas Contingency Operations Cost Reporting' which was
released on May 27, 2010.
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.
GAO-10-562R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 27, 2010:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Opportunities to Improve Controls over Department of
Defense's Overseas Contingency Operations Cost Reporting:
From September 2001 through January 2010, Congress provided about
$1.023 trillion in supplemental and annual appropriations in response
to Department of Defense (DOD) requests for funding to support
overseas contingency operations (OCO).[Footnote 1] In March 2010, DOD
reported obligations[Footnote 2] of about $825 billion attributed to
OCO for the period September 2001 through January 2010.[Footnote 3]
DOD uses available cost-related information,[Footnote 4] along with
other financial information, to evaluate OCO trends, formulate OCO
funding requests, and monitor the costs of overseas operations. In
addition, Congress considers this information in its deliberations on
DOD requests for additional OCO funding.
Our prior reviews have found the financial information in DOD's
monthly OCO reports to be of questionable reliability.[Footnote 5] For
example, we identified problems in DOD's processes for recording and
reporting obligations, such as not including all OCO costs and the
lack of a systematic process for ensuring that data are correctly
entered into those systems.[Footnote 6] Consequently, we concluded
DOD's reported OCO costs should be considered approximations. Based on
our prior work, we made a number of recommendations to improve the
reliability of OCO reported costs, with which DOD generally concurred.
Consistent with our recommendations, DOD has taken steps intended to
improve OCO cost reliability, such as clarifying cost category
definitions and requiring military services (Army, Navy, Air Force,
and Marine Corps) and other DOD components to analyze variances in
reported OCO costs. Further, in fiscal year 2009, DOD initiated the
Contingency Operations Reporting and Analysis Service (CORAS), an
automated system and database through which DOD intended to provide
more transparent, accurate, and timely reporting on costs attributed
to OCO. Prior to the CORAS initiative, DOD had relied on manual
procedures for accumulating data and reporting on costs attributed to
OCO from the military services. With CORAS, the intent was to (1)
eliminate such manual practices where feasible and instead use
automated processes to retrieve and accumulate key financial OCO data
from the military services' financial systems using a DOD-wide
database and (2) add the capability to report on OCO-related funding
(appropriations) and disbursements, as well as obligations.
On December 18, 2009, we reported on the status of OCO funding and
cost reporting.[Footnote 7] Among other things, we highlighted our
preliminary observations related to DOD's internal controls for
reliably reporting OCO costs. This letter presents our findings with
respect to those preliminary observations along with related
recommendations. The objective of our review, conducted under the
authority of the Comptroller General to undertake work on his own
initiative, was to determine whether DOD had adequately designed
internal controls that, if implemented effectively, could enable DOD
to provide more transparent and reliable cost-related data
attributable to OCO.
To determine whether DOD had designed adequate internal controls over
reporting of OCO cost-related data, we reviewed internal control
criteria related to reliably reporting financial data as defined in
GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government and
Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and Evaluation
Tool.[Footnote 8] We also reviewed DOD's requirements and guidance on
reporting OCO costs, including DOD Financial Management Regulation
(FMR) 7000.14-R, Volume 12, Chapter 23 on OCO reporting and the Under
Secretary of Defense, Comptroller's (DOD Comptroller) Fiscal Year 2009
Instructions for Contingency Cost Reports. We interviewed key
officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), and
military services to understand the design of internal control
activities over OCO processes and reporting, such as data validation,
and to obtain any evidence that these activities were performed. We
reviewed DOD and military service standard operating procedures and
practices in comparison with federal and department standards and
guidance to determine whether they contained key controls.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2010 to May 2010 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.
Summary of Results:
While DOD's new cost reporting system and database, CORAS, was
intended to provide more transparent, accurate, and timely reporting
on costs that DOD attributes to OCO, we found that the design of
internal control for reviewing and reporting OCO data did not contain
key internal control activities. Specifically, we found the following:
* In fiscal year 2009, the military services did not have clear,
detailed written procedures for reviewing the reliability of OCO
reported costs including steps for conducting and documenting
validation activities such as reconciliations between CORAS data and
OCO data in the services' official accounting systems;
* DOD's financial management regulation on accounting for contingency
operations[Footnote 9] did not clearly define validation activities--
such as reconciliations--require documentation of internal control
activities, or require the DOD Comptroller to monitor the accuracy of
OCO reported data; and:
* DOD's implementation guidance for OCO reporting obscures the
accuracy of current and prior-period OCO cost reporting by directing
the military services to include, in the monthly data for the current
period, adjustments for omissions and errors that occurred in prior
periods.
We are recommending that DOD and the military services clarify their
respective guidance on validating data in the OCO report, retaining
documentation on validation activities, and reporting adjustments
related to prior periods. DOD agreed with four recommendations and
partially agreed with one as discussed in more detail later in this
report.
Design of OCO Controls for Reviewing and Reporting OCO Data Missing
Key Elements:
For fiscal year 2009, as shown in table 1, none of the military
services had fully developed clear, detailed written procedures on how
to review OCO data to help assure reliability, such as (1) performing
monthly data variance analysis activities--a DOD FMR requirement to
review OCO obligation amounts that fluctuate beyond established
limits; (2) establishing criteria for "additional validation analysis"
and performing this analysis monthly--a DOD FMR requirement--other
than variance analysis, to verify that reported data are accurate; and
(3) maintaining documentation of monthly variance and validation
activities conducted--a key internal control activity. While the Army,
Marine Corps, and Air Force had written procedures requiring monthly
data variance analysis, they did not clearly specify the "additional
validation analysis" steps required for all appropriations. Navy's
written procedures did not identify required monthly data variance
analysis or "additional validation analysis" activities. Also, none of
the services' written procedures required maintaining documentation of
the internal controls performed.
Table 1: Comparison of Military Services' Fiscal Year 2009 Written OCO
Procedures with Key Internal Control Elements:
Key internal control elements: Perform monthly data variance analysis
activities;
Army: Incorporates the key element to a large extent;
Navy: Incorporates the key element to little or no extent;
Marine Corps: Incorporates the key element to a large extent;
Air Force: Incorporates the key element to a large extent.
Key internal control elements: Define and perform ’additional
validation analysis“ monthly, such as reconciliation of CORAS data
with official OCO accounting data;
Army: Incorporates the key element to some extent;
Navy: Incorporates the key element to little or no extent;
Marine Corps: Incorporates the key element to little or no extent;
Air Force: Incorporates the key element to some extent.
Key internal control elements: Maintain documentation of ’additional
validation analysis“ performed;
Army: Incorporates the key element to little or no extent;
Navy: Incorporates the key element to little or no extent;
Marine Corps: Incorporates the key element to little or no extent;
Air Force: Incorporates the key element to little or no extent.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
For fiscal year 2010, the Army and Marine Corps issued new OCO
standard operating procedures in February 2010 and November 2009
respectively. Although the Army procedures contained a high-level
description of reconciliation activities, neither contained clearly
detailed steps necessary to perform the reconciliation nor required
documentation of the results of validation activities. However, in
April 2010, the Army provided us with informal desk procedures that
contain detailed reconciliation steps. Navy and Air Force officials
told us that they plan to issue new OCO standard operating procedures
during fiscal year 2010.
We also identified deficiencies in the DOD FMR regarding the internal
control policy on budgeting and accounting for contingency operations.
The FMR requires each service, in its standard operating procedures,
to include steps for validating OCO reported costs as an accurate and
fair representation of ongoing OCO activities. As part of the
validation, the FMR requires variance analysis and "additional
validation analysis." The FMR does not (1) explain the type of tasks
required for "additional validation analysis"--such as specifically
requiring reconciliation and (2) require the military services to
retain documentation of the performance of internal control activities
such as variance analysis and data validation. In addition, the DOD
FMR does not require the DOD Comptroller to prepare a standard
operating procedure covering its OCO monitoring activities. Internal
control standards provide that internal controls should be documented
and all documentation should be properly managed, maintained, and
readily available for examination. Without detailed guidance that
clearly defines conducting and documenting service-level variance
analysis and validation activities and DOD-level monitoring, there is
an increased risk that internal control activities will not be
performed, will be performed inconsistently across the military
services, or will not continue to be performed when key employees
leave, which can lead to unreliable reporting of OCO data.
While not routinely documented, according to DOD Comptroller staff and
military services officials "additional validation analysis" was
performed to help verify the accuracy of reported OCO costs in CORAS.
For example, DOD Comptroller staff told us they carried out
reasonableness checks of the OCO data reported by the military
services but did not retain documentary evidence of their reviews.
Army officials told us that they carried out reconciliations of
accounting system data and the CORAS data. For example, Army officials
informed us that their data reconciliations disclosed a difference of
about $3 billion in OCO obligations retrieved by CORAS and OCO
obligations recorded in its accounting systems, as of July 31, 2009,
which they used to adjust the CORAS data. They also told us that they
worked with DFAS to improve the CORAS data retrieval process for
fiscal year 2010. At Navy, officials told us they have an effort
underway to determine whether Navy accounting data are being properly
coded for OCO. Air Force and Marine Corps officials told us that they
reconcile CORAS to accounting data to some extent.
We also found that the DOD Comptroller's guidance to the services for
compiling data for the OCO report directs them to include, in the
current reporting period, adjustments for omitted or incorrect OCO
transactions in previously issued OCO reports. This guidance, by not
requiring separate reporting of costs attributable to other periods,
obscures the current monthly obligation amounts and thus diminishes
the transparency of the reported data. For example, on the July 2009
OCO report, the Army reported, but did not explain, monthly
obligations of a negative $196 million for fiscal year 2009 Army
National Guard military personnel appropriations. According to Army
officials, this amount represented $46.7 million of July 2009
obligations and a negative $242.7 million of corrections for errors or
omissions related to prior months' reporting. Clearly reporting the
actual monthly obligations would provide more useful information for
monitoring month-to-month financial activity related to actual OCO
operations in a specific month.
Conclusions:
While DOD, by implementing CORAS, has taken steps to improve the
framework for OCO reporting, further actions are needed to improve the
reliability and transparency of OCO reports. The services and DOD lack
sufficient internal control requirements in their guidance and
regulations. Development, documentation, and effective implementation
of internal controls are key factors in improving accountability and
financial reporting. Without complete guidance and regulations, that
require documentation, there is an increased risk that monthly data
validation and monitoring activities will not be performed, will be
performed inconsistently, or will not continue to be performed when
key employees leave, which can lead to unreliable reporting of OCO
data. In addition, Congress does not have assurance that the monthly
OCO reports truly represent that month's costs because DOD
consolidates corrections for prior periods with current month activity.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service
secretaries (as appropriate), to take the following five actions:
* revise the Army procedures to include specific steps required to
retain documentation of the activities performed and related results;
* revise the Marine Corps and Air Force procedures to include specific
steps required to validate data in the OCO report including
reconciliations and retain documentation of the activities performed
and related results;
* establish Navy procedures to include specific steps required to
validate data in the OCO report including variance analysis and
reconciliations, and retain documentation of the activities performed
and related results;
* revise DOD requirements in FMR 7000.14-R, Volume 12, Chapter 23,
Contingency Operations, to provide clear, detailed guidance on (1)
conducting reconciliations and other validations and (2) documenting
military service-level reviews and DOD Comptroller-level reviews; and:
* revise DOD Comptroller guidance to provide clear, detailed steps for
identifying and separately disclosing adjustments related to prior-
period omissions or errors in current month reporting.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, reprinted in full in
enclosure I, DOD agreed with four of our five recommendations and
partially agreed with our fifth recommendation. DOD also stated it has
taken action to address our recommendations.
In agreeing with our first four recommendations, DOD stated it is in
the process of revising the FMR 7000.14-R, Volume 12, Chapter 23,
Contingency Operations, to include requiring components to document
reconciliations, reviews, and validations for monthly cost-of-war
reporting. DOD partially agreed with our fifth recommendation that it
revise DOD Comptroller guidance to provide clear, detailed steps for
identifying and separately disclosing adjustments related to prior-
period omissions or errors in current-month reporting. DOD noted that
it issued guidance for fiscal year 2010 dated August 19, 2009, that
requires all components to provide footnote disclosure for any
adjustment related to prior-period omissions or errors in current-
month reporting processes. In addition, DOD stated that it will
explore the possibility of separating current-month obligations and
prior-period omissions or errors in the monthly cost-of-war reports.
However, as discussed in our draft report, not requiring separate
reporting of costs attributable to other periods obscures the current
monthly obligation amounts and thus diminishes the transparency of the
reported data. Consequently, we continue to believe DOD should require
separate disclosure of prior-period omissions and errors from current
period amounts in its monthly cost-of-war reports. Such a separate
disclosure would assist Congress in more readily identifying DOD's
monthly OCO costs.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; and the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller). In addition, the report will also be available
at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9095 or khana@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 who made key contributions to
this report are listed in enclosure II.
Signed by:
Asif A. Khan:
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance:
Enclosures:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Department of Defense:
Comptroller:
Under Secretary Of Defense:
1100 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-1100:
May 10, 2010:
Mr. Asif Khan:
Director"
Financial Management and Assurance:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Khan:
Enclosed is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report GAO-10-562R, "Opportunities
to Improve Controls over Department of Defense's Overseas Contingency
Operations Cost Reporting" dated April 20. 2010. The Department
concurs with the first four recommendations for executive action and
partially concurs with the last recommendation, and has taken action
to address them. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department's response to GAO's recommendations.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Robert F. Hale:
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated April 20, 2010:
GAO-10-562R (GAO Code 197090):
"Opportunities To Improve Controls Over Department Of Defense's
Overseas Contingency Operations Cost Reporting"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to revise the Army
procedures to include specific steps required to retain documentation
of the activities performed and related results. (p. 10/GAO Draft
Report)
DOD Response: Concur. The Department is in the process of revising the
Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 12, Chapter 23,
Contingency Operations, to require components to document
reconciliations and reviews for monthly Cost of War reporting.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to revise the
Marine Corps, and Air Force procedures to include specific steps
required to validate data in the overseas contingency operations (OCO)
report including reconciliations and retain documentation of the
activities performed and related results. (p. 10/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. The Department is in the process of revising the
Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 12, Chapter 23,
Contingency Operations, to require components to document
reconciliations and reviews for monthly Cost of War reporting.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to establish Navy
procedures to include specific steps required to validate data in the
OCO report including variance analysis and reconciliations, and retain
documentation of the activities performed and related results, (p.
10/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. The Department is in the process of revising the
Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 12, Chapter 23,
Contingency Operations, to require components to document
reconciliations and reviews for monthly Cost of War reporting.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to revise DoD
requirements in Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 12,
chapter 23, Contingency Operations, to provide clear, detailed
guidance on (I) conducing reconciliations and other validations and
(2) documenting military service reviews and DoD Comptroller-level
reviews. (p. 10/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. The Department is in the process of revising the
Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 12, Chapter 23,
Contingency Operations, to require components to document
reconciliations and provide details on validations for monthly Cost of
War reporting.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to revise DoD
comptroller guidance to provide clear, detailed steps for identifying
and separately disclosing adjustments related to prior-period
omissions or errors in current month reporting. (p. 10/GAO Draft
Report)
DOD RESPONSE: Partially Concur. The Department already has established
guidance titled "Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Instructions for Contingency
Operations Cost Reports" dated August 19, 2009, which requires all
Components to provide footnotes for any adjustments related to prior-
period omissions or errors in current month reporting. However, the
Department will explore the possibility of separating current month
obligations and prior-period omissions or errors in the monthly Cost
of War reports.
[End of section]
Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Asif A. Khan (202) 512-9095 or khana@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact above, Mary Ellen Chervenic, Assistant
Director; Maxine Hattery; Sheila D. M. Miller; James Moses; and Laura
Pacheco made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Starting with the fiscal year 2009 supplemental budget request in
April 2009, the administration has replaced the term, "Global War on
Terrorism" with "Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)."
[2] Obligations are a definite commitment that creates a legal
liability of the government for the payment of goods and services
ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of the United States
that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the
part of the other party beyond the control of the United States.
[3] The approximately $198 billion difference between DOD's
appropriations and reported obligations can generally be attributed to
the remaining unobligated balances of the following: annual fiscal
year 2010 appropriations; multiyear procurement appropriations;
military construction appropriations; and research, development, test,
and evaluation appropriations; as well as to obligations for
classified and other items, which DOD considers to be non-OCO related,
that are not reported in DOD's OCO reports.
[4] For purposes of this report, cost-related means appropriations,
obligations, and disbursements that DOD attributes to OCO.
[5] For more information see GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs
to More Accurately Capture and Report the Costs of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-302] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17,
2009); Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Take Action to Encourage
Fiscal Discipline and Optimize the Use of Tools Intended to Improve
GWOT Cost Reporting, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-68] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6,
2007); and Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve the
Reliability of Cost Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control
Costs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-882]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005).
[6] We and the DOD Office of Inspector General have also reported on
the unreliability of DOD's underlying transaction data, including
budgetary accounting, and the lack of reasonable assurance over DOD's
compliance with legal limitations on the use of appropriated funds.
See GAO, DOD Financial Management: Improvements Are Needed in
Antideficiency Act Controls and Investigations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1063] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26,
2008) and Department of Defense Office of Inspector General,
Independent Auditor's Report on the DOD Agency-wide FY 2009 and FY
2008 Basic Financial Statements, Report No. D-2010-016 (Arlington,
Va.: Nov. 12, 2009).
[7] GAO, Overseas Contingency Operations: Funding and Cost Reporting
for the Department of Defense, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-288R] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18,
2009).
[8] GAO, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and
Evaluation Tool, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1008G]
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001) and Internal Control: Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999).
[9] The DOD FMR 7000.14-R, Volume 12, Chapter 23, Contingency
Operations (September 2007), states that each component will develop
and publish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) or other supplemental
guidance that will cover component-specific items for cost reporting
and validating monthly reporting. At a minimum, the SOP should cover
data sources, validation, and variance analysis.
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
