DHS Research and Development
Science and Technology Directorate's Test and Evaluation and Reorganization Efforts Gao ID: GAO-12-239T November 17, 2011In Process
In June 2011, we reported that S&T met some of its oversight requirements for T&E of acquisition programs we reviewed, but additional steps were needed to ensure that all requirements were met. Specifically, since DHS issued the T&E directive in May 2009, S&T reviewed or approved T&E documents and plans for programs undergoing testing, and conducted independent assessments for the programs that completed operational testing during this time period. S&T officials told us that they also provided input and reviewed other T&E documentation, such as components' documents describing the programs' performance requirements, as required by the T&E directive. DHS senior level officials considered S&T's T&E assessments and input in deciding whether programs were ready to proceed to the next acquisition phase. However, S&T did not consistently document its review and approval of components' test agents--a government entity or independent contractor carrying out independent operational testing for a major acquisition--or document its review of other component acquisition documents, such as those establishing programs' operational requirements, as required by the T&E directive. We also reported in June 2011 that S&T and DHS component officials stated that they face challenges in overseeing T&E across DHS components which fell into 4 categories: (1) ensuring that a program's operational requirements--the key performance requirements that must be met for a program to achieve its intended goals--can be effectively tested; (2) working with DHS component program staff who have limited T&E expertise and experience; (3) using existing T&E directives and guidance to oversee complex information technology acquisitions; and (4) ensuring that components allow sufficient time for T&E while remaining within program cost and schedule estimates. Since 2009, S&T has undertaken a series of efforts related to its organizational structure. S&T underwent a new strategic planning process, developed new strategic goals, and conducted a reorganization intended to better achieve its strategic goals. These efforts were implemented after a 2009 National Academy of Public Administration study found that S&T's organizational structure posed communication challenges across the agency and that the agency lacked a cohesive strategic plan and mechanisms to assess performance in a systematic way, among other things. In August 2010, S&T reorganized to align its structure with its top strategic goals, allow for easier interaction among senior leadership, and reduce the number of personnel directly reporting to the Under Secretary of S&T.
GAO-12-239T, DHS Research and Development: Science and Technology Directorate's Test and Evaluation and Reorganization Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-239T
entitled 'DHS Research And Development: Science and Technology
Directorate's Test and Evaluation and Reorganization Efforts' which
was released on November 17, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure
Protection, and Security Technologies, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
November 17, 2011:
DHS Research And Development:
Science and Technology Directorate's Test and Evaluation and
Reorganization Efforts:
Statement of David C. Maurer, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
GAO-12-239T:
Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Clarke, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our prior work examining the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T) and Research and Development (R&D) efforts. The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and, within it, established
S&T with the responsibility for conducting national research,
development, test and evaluation (T&E) of technology and systems for,
among other things, detecting, preventing, protecting against, and
responding to terrorist attacks.[Footnote 1] Since its creation in
2003, DHS, through both S&T and its components, has spent billions of
dollars researching and developing technologies used to support a wide
range of missions including securing the border, detecting nuclear
devices, and screening airline passengers and baggage for explosives,
among others. S&T has a wide-ranging mission, which includes
conducting basic and applied research of technologies,[Footnote 2] and
overseeing the testing and evaluation of component acquisitions and
technologies to ensure that they meet DHS acquisition requirements
before implementation in the field.[Footnote 3] In recent years, we
have reported that DHS has experienced challenges in managing its
multibillion-dollar technology development and acquisition efforts,
including implementing technologies that did not meet intended
requirements and were not appropriately tested and evaluated. These
problems highlight the important role that S&T plays in overseeing DHS
testing and evaluation.
S&T has reorganized to better achieve its goals and provide better
assistance to DHS components in developing technologies. In addition
to the challenge of implementing its varied mission, S&T is also
managing a decline in available R&D resources. S&T's fiscal year 2011
appropriation decreased 20 percent from fiscal year 2010 and, while
its fiscal year 2012 appropriation has not yet been enacted, both the
House and Senate marks for the agency are lower than what was
appropriated in fiscal year 2011.[Footnote 4] As a result, S&T has had
to adjust resources and re-prioritize its efforts. In the past, we
have reported on issues related to the transformation and
reorganization of R&D efforts in the federal government, particularly
related to shifting of priorities and managing a reduction in
resources.[Footnote 5] In addition, we identified DHS R&D as an area
for potential costs savings in our March 2011 report regarding
opportunities to reduce potential duplication in government programs,
save tax dollars, and enhance revenue.[Footnote 6] Specifically, we
reported that DHS could take further actions to improve its management
of R&D and reduce costs by ensuring that testing efforts are completed
before making acquisition decisions and cost-benefit analyses are
conducted to reduce R&D inefficiencies and costs.
My testimony today focuses on the key findings from our prior work
related to S&T's test and evaluation efforts, S&T's recent
reorganization efforts, and key findings from our past work related to
federal R&D. Specifically, this statement will address:
* the extent to which S&T oversees T&E of major DHS acquisitions and
what challenges, if any, S&T officials report facing in overseeing T&E
across DHS; and:
* S&T's recent reorganization efforts and how key findings from our
prior work on R&D in the federal government can inform how S&T moves
forward.
This statement is based on reports and testimonies we issued from
March 1995 to July 2011 related to DHS's efforts to manage, test, and
deploy various technology programs; transformation of federal R&D; and
selected updates conducted from July 2011 to the present related to
S&T's reorganization efforts.[Footnote 7] For the updates, we reviewed
recent S&T testimonies and documentation related to the reorganization
as well as information on annual S&T appropriations and budget
requests from fiscal years 2009 to 2012. For our past work, we
reviewed DHS directives and testing plans, interviewed DHS, Department
of Energy, Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, and
other agency officials, reviewed documentation from these agencies,
visited laboratory facilities, and examined agency databases, among
other things. We conducted this work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. More detailed information on
the scope and methodology from our previous work can be found within
each specific report.
S&T Could Take Additional Steps to Ensure that DHS T&E Requirements
Are Met; Officials Cited Challenges to Overseeing T&E across DHS:
S&T Oversight of DHS Testing and Evaluation:
In June 2011, we reported that S&T met some of its oversight
requirements for T&E of acquisition programs we reviewed, but
additional steps were needed to ensure that all requirements were met.
[Footnote 8] Specifically, since DHS issued the T&E directive in May
2009, S&T reviewed or approved T&E documents and plans for programs
undergoing testing, and conducted independent assessments for the
programs that completed operational testing during this time period.
S&T officials told us that they also provided input and reviewed other
T&E documentation, such as components' documents describing the
programs' performance requirements, as required by the T&E directive.
DHS senior level officials considered S&T's T&E assessments and input
in deciding whether programs were ready to proceed to the next
acquisition phase. However, S&T did not consistently document its
review and approval of components' test agents--a government entity or
independent contractor carrying out independent operational testing
for a major acquisition--or document its review of other component
acquisition documents, such as those establishing programs'
operational requirements, as required by the T&E directive. For
example, 8 of the 11 acquisition programs we reviewed had hired test
agents, but documentation of S&T approval of these agents existed for
only 3 of these 8 programs. We reported that approving test agents is
important to ensure that they are independent of the program and that
they meet requirements of the T&E directive.
S&T officials agreed that they did not have a mechanism in place
requiring a consistent method for documenting their review or approval
and the extent to which the review or approval criteria were met. We
reported that without mechanisms in place for documenting its review
or approval of acquisition documents and T&E requirements, such as
approving test agents, it is difficult for DHS or a third party to
review and validate S&T's decision-making process and ensure that it
is overseeing components' T&E efforts in accordance with acquisition
and T&E directives and internal control standards for the federal
government. As a result, we recommended that S&T develop a mechanism
to document both its approval of operational test agents and component
acquisitions documentation to ensure that these meet the requirements
of the DHS T&E directive. S&T concurred and reported that the agency
has since developed internal procedures to ensure that the approval of
test agents and component acquisition documents are documented.
Challenges in Coordinating and Overseeing T&E across DHS:
We also reported in June 2011 that S&T and DHS component officials
stated that they face challenges in overseeing T&E across DHS
components which fell into 4 categories: (1) ensuring that a program's
operational requirements--the key performance requirements that must
be met for a program to achieve its intended goals--can be effectively
tested; (2) working with DHS component program staff who have limited
T&E expertise and experience; (3) using existing T&E directives and
guidance to oversee complex information technology acquisitions; and
(4) ensuring that components allow sufficient time for T&E while
remaining within program cost and schedule estimates.
Both S&T and DHS, more broadly, have begun initiatives to address some
of these challenges, such as establishing a T&E council to disseminate
best practices to component program managers, and developing specific
guidance for testing and evaluating information technology
acquisitions. In addition, as part of S&T's recent reorganization, the
agency has developed a new division specifically geared toward
assisting components in developing requirements that can be tested,
among other things. However, since these efforts have only recently
been initiated to address these DHS-wide challenges, it is too soon to
determine their effectiveness.
S&T Recently Reorganized and Our Prior R&D Work Could Inform How S&T
Moves Forward:
Since 2009, S&T has undertaken a series of efforts related to its
organizational structure. S&T underwent a new strategic planning
process, developed new strategic goals, and conducted a reorganization
intended to better achieve its strategic goals. These efforts were
implemented after a 2009 National Academy of Public Administration
study found that S&T's organizational structure posed communication
challenges across the agency and that the agency lacked a cohesive
strategic plan and mechanisms to assess performance in a systematic
way, among other things.[Footnote 9] In August 2010, S&T reorganized
to align its structure with its top strategic goals, allow for easier
interaction among senior leadership, and reduce the number of
personnel directly reporting to the Under Secretary of S&T.
Additionally, after the Under Secretary was confirmed in November
2009, S&T instituted a new strategic planning process which helped
inform the development of new strategic goals. The new strategic goals
announced in August 2010 include:
* rapidly developing and delivering knowledge, analyses, and
innovative solutions that advance the mission of DHS;
* leveraging its expertise to assist DHS components' efforts to
establish operational requirements, and select and acquire needed
technologies;
* strengthening the Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responders'
capabilities to protect the homeland and respond to disasters;
* conducting, catalyzing, and surveying scientific discoveries and
inventions relevant to existing and emerging homeland security
challenges; and:
* fostering a culture of innovation and learning in S&T and across DHS
that addresses mission needs with scientific, analytic, and technical
rigor.
According to S&T, the agency has developed a draft strategic plan that
provides its overall approach to meeting these strategic goals, which
is currently in the process of being finalized.
Moreover, according to testimony by the Undersecretary of S&T in March
2011, to ensure that individual R&D projects are meeting their goals,
S&T has committed to an annual review of its portfolio of basic and
applied R&D and all proposed "new start" projects. According to S&T,
the review process uses metrics determined by S&T, with input from DHS
components, that are aligned with DHS priorities. These metrics
consider:
* the impact on the customer's mission;
* the ability to transition these products to the field;
* whether the investment positions S&T for the future;
* whether the projects are aligned with customer requirements;
* whether S&T has the appropriate level of customer interaction; and:
* whether S&T is sufficiently innovative in the way it is approaching
its challenges.
We are currently reviewing DHS and S&T's processes for prioritizing,
coordinating, and measuring the results of its R&D efforts for the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and we
will report on this issue next year.
Our prior work related to R&D at other federal agencies could provide
insight for S&T as it moves forward with new structures and processes
operating within potential fiscal constraints. During the 1990s, we
issued a series of reports on federal efforts to restructure R&D in
the wake of changing priorities and efforts to balance the federal
budget. More recently, we have issued reports on R&D issues at the
Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and DHS. Although the specific
recommendations and issues vary from department to department, there
are key findings across this body of work that could potentially help
inform S&T's efforts to meet DHS's R&D needs, as well as Congressional
oversight of these activities. Since our assessment of R&D efforts at
DHS is currently under way, we have not determined the extent to which
these key findings from our prior work are applicable to DHS's R&D
efforts or the extent to which DHS already has similar efforts under
way. However, our prior work could provide valuable insights into how
DHS could leverage the private sector to help conduct R&D, restructure
R&D efforts in response to fiscal constraints, and develop
comprehensive strategies to mitigate the risk of duplication and
overlap. For example:
* We reported on federal agencies that have restructured their
research and development efforts in response to fiscal constraints.
For example, in January 1998, we reported on efforts by federal
agencies, such as DOD, the DOE National Laboratories, and NASA, to
streamline their R&D activities and infrastructure. We reported that
restructuring research, development, testing and evaluation to meet
current and future needs required interagency agreements and cross-
agency efforts, in addition to ongoing individual efforts.[Footnote
10] Additionally, we reported on five elements that were useful in the
successful restructuring of R&D in corporate and foreign government
organizations. For example, we found that successful restructuring of
R&D activities included having a core mission that supports overall
goals and strategies, clear definitions of those responsible for
supporting that mission, and accurate data on total costs of the
organization's activities.
* In addition, we have reported that comprehensive strategies mitigate
risk of duplication and overlap.[Footnote 11] For example, we reported
in March 2011 that DOD did not have a comprehensive approach to manage
and oversee the breadth of its activities for developing new
capabilities in response to urgent warfighter needs, including
entities engaged in experimentation and rapid prototyping to
accelerate the transition of technologies to the warfighter, and
lacked visibility over the full range of its efforts.[Footnote 12] As
a result, we recommended that DOD issue guidance that defined roles,
responsibilities, and authorities across the department to lead its
efforts. DOD agreed with this recommendation.
* Within DHS itself, we reported in May 2004 that DHS did not have a
strategic plan to guide its R&D efforts. We recommended that DHS
complete a strategic R&D plan and ensure that the plan was integrated
with homeland security R&D conducted by other federal agencies.
[Footnote 13] We also recommended that DHS develop criteria for
distributing annual funding and for making long-term investments in
laboratory capabilities, as well as develop guidelines that detailed
how DOE's laboratories would compete for funding with private sector
and academic entities. DHS agreed with our recommendations. While S&T
developed a 5-year R&D plan in 2008 to guide its efforts and is
currently finalizing a new strategic plan to align its own R&D
investments and goals, DHS has not yet completed a strategic plan to
align all R&D efforts across the department, as we previously
recommended.
* Our work on DOE National Laboratories provides additional insights
related to oversight of R&D efforts that could be useful for DHS S&T.
In 1995, we reported that DOE's national laboratories did not have
clearly defined missions focused on accomplishing DOE's changing
objectives and national priorities.[Footnote 14] DOE, at that time,
managed the national laboratories on a program by program basis which
inhibited cooperation across programs and hindered DOE's ability to
use the laboratories to meet departmental missions. We recommended,
among other things, that DOE develop a strategy that maximized the
laboratories' resources. In responding, DOE said that it had
undertaken a new strategic planning process which resulted in a
strategic plan. Though DOE developed a strategic plan intended to
integrate its missions and programs, in 1998 we reported that the
laboratories did not function as an integrated national research and
development system and recommended that DOE develop a comprehensive
strategy to be used to assess success in meeting objectives, monitor
progress, and report on that progress.[Footnote 15] DOE acknowledged
that it needed to better focus the laboratories' missions and tie them
to the annual budget process, but that it would take time to
accomplish.
* More recently, we reported in June 2009 that DOE could not determine
the effectiveness of its laboratories' technology transfer efforts
because it has not yet defined its overarching strategic goals for
technology transfer and lacks reliable performance data.[Footnote 16]
Instead, individual DOE programs such as the National Nuclear Security
Administration and DOE's Office of Science articulated their own goals
for technology transfer at the national laboratories. We recommended,
among other things, that DOE articulate department wide priorities and
develop clear goals, objectives, and performance measures. DOE
generally agreed with our findings.
* Lastly, our work on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratory
facilities also offers insights into the importance of planning and
coordination in managing R&D.[Footnote 17] Specifically, we reported
in July 2011 that EPA has yet to fully address the findings of
numerous past studies that have examined EPA's science activities.
These past evaluations noted the need for EPA to improve long-term
planning, priority setting, and coordination of laboratory activities,
establish leadership for agency wide scientific oversight and decision
making, and better manage the laboratories' workforce and
infrastructure. We recommended, among other things, that EPA develop a
coordinated planning process for its scientific activities and appoint
a top-level official with authority over all the laboratories, improve
physical and real property planning decisions, and develop a workforce
planning process for all laboratories that reflects current and future
needs of laboratory facilities. EPA generally agreed with our findings
and recommendations.
Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Clarke, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you may have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For questions about this statement, please contact David C. Maurer at
(202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this
statement include Chris Currie, Assistant Director; Emily Gunn and
Margaret McKenna. Key contributors for the previous work that this
testimony is based on are listed within each individual product.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
[End of section]
Homeland Security: DHS Could Strengthen Acquisitions and Development
of New Technologies. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-829T]. Washington, D.C.: July 15,
2011.
Environmental Protection Agency: To Better Fulfill Its Mission, EPA
Needs a More Coordinated Approach to Managing Its Laboratories,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-347]. Washington, D.C.:
July 25, 2011.
DHS Science and Technology: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure Test and
Evaluation Requirements Are Met. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-596]. Washington, D.C.: June 15,
2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2011.
Homeland Security: Improvements in Managing Research and Development
Could Help Reduce Inefficiencies and Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-464T]. Washington D.C.: Mar. 15,
2011.
Warfighter Support: DOD's Urgent Needs Processes Need a More
Comprehensive Approach and Evaluation for Potential Consolidation,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-273]. Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 1, 2011.
Technology Transfer: Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of Innovative
Approaches Could Increase the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at
Department of Energy Laboratories [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-548]. Washington, D.C.: June 16,
2009.
Homeland Security: DHS Needs a Strategy to Use DOE's Laboratories for
Research on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Detection and Response
Technologies. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-653].
Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2004.
Department of Energy: Uncertain Progress in Implementing National
Laboratory Reforms, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-197]. Washington, D.C.: Sept.
10, 1998.
Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing Unneeded
RDT&E Infrastructure. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD/RCED-98-23]. Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 8, 1998.
Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Clearer Missions and
Better Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-95-10]. Washington, D.C.: Jan.
27, 1995.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 302(5), 116 Stat. 2135, 2163 (2002).
[2] According to S&T, basic research includes scientific efforts and
experimentation directed toward increasing knowledge and understanding
in the fields of physical, engineering, environmental, social and life
sciences related to long-term national needs. Applied research
includes efforts directed toward solving specific problems with a view
toward developing and evaluating the feasibility of proposed solutions.
[3] S&T's Test & Evaluation and Standards office is responsible for
overseeing key requirements that DHS components are required to follow
in DHS's Test and Evaluation directive.
[4] The fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill passed by the House of
Representatives would appropriate about 42 percent less for S&T than
what was appropriated in fiscal year 2011, while the bill passed by
the Senate appropriations committee would provide almost 5 percent
less.
[5] GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Needs a Strategy to Use DOE's
Laboratories for Research on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
Detection and Response Technologies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-653] (Washington, D.C.: May 24,
2004); Department of Energy: Uncertain Progress in Implementing
National Laboratory Reforms, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-197] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
10, 1998); Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing
Unneeded RDT&E Infrastructure, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD/RCED-98-23] (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 8, 1998).
[6] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
2011). See also related GAO products at the end of this statement.
[7] See related GAO products list at the end of this statement.
[8] GAO, DHS Science and Technology: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure
Test and Evaluation Requirements Are Met, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-596] (Washington, D.C.: June 15,
2011).
[9] National Academy of Public Administration, Department of Homeland
Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to
Protect America (Washington D.C.: June 2009).
[10] GAO, Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing
Unneeded RDT&E Infrastructure, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD/RCED-98-23] (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 8, 1998).
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP].
[12] GAO, Warfighter Support: DOD's Urgent Needs Processes Need a More
Comprehensive Approach and Evaluation for Potential Consolidation,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-273] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 1, 2011).
[13] GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Needs a Strategy to Use DOE's
Laboratories for Research on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
Detection and Response Technologies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-653] (Washington, D.C.: May 24,
2004).
[14] GAO, Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Clearer
Missions and Better Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-95-10] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
27, 1995).
[15] GAO, Department of Energy: Uncertain Progress in Implementing
National Laboratory Reforms, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-197] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
10, 1998).
[16] GAO, Technology Transfer: Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of
Innovative Approaches Could Increase the Effectiveness of Technology
Transfer at Department of Energy Laboratories, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-548] (Washington, D.C.: June 16,
2009).
[17] GAO, Environmental Protection Agency: To Better Fulfill Its
Mission, EPA Needs a More Coordinated Approach to Managing Its
Laboratories, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-347]
(Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2011).
[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly
posted products, 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
website, [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.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [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, DC 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, DC 20548.
