Recovery Act
Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by Certain Federal Requirements and Other Factors Gao ID: GAO-10-383 February 10, 2010The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) aims to stimulate the economy. It provided $787 billion in spending and tax provisions; more than a third of the money was slated for projects and activities, including construction and certain research projects. To implement a project using federal funds, agencies and funding recipients must comply with federal laws and regulations. GAO was asked to identify key federal requirements that apply to Recovery Act projects and to assess the extent to which (1) selected agencies have obligated and spent funds for Recovery Act projects and (2) federal requirements and other factors have affected, or are expected to affect, project selection and start dates. GAO requested data from 27 agencies that received appropriations under the act. We also spoke with officials responsible for implementing Recovery Act projects in 16 states and the District of Columbia, which together are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available under the act. We also spoke with organizations representing state and local officials and the private sector, as well as private sector contractors. Although GAO is not making recommendations in this report, these findings may be helpful in considering and designing legislation with similar objectives.
As of December 31, 2009, the 27 federal agencies GAO reviewed had obligated a total of $194 billion (63 percent) of the approximately $309 billion that was appropriated by the Recovery Act for projects and activities, according to data provided by agency officials. By this date, the percentage of funds obligated ranged from nearly 100 percent for the National Endowment for the Arts ($50 million) to 18 percent for the Social Security Administration ($183 million). As of that same date, the agencies reported they had spent 20 percent ($61 billion) of their appropriated funds. However, according to agency officials, the amount reported as spent may not accurately reflect the amount of work done on a given project because payment for federal projects generally occurs after work is completed, and the recipient may not yet have submitted an invoice for payment. Some federal agency officials reported that certain federal requirements and other factors affected their ability to select and start Recovery Act projects. These include the following: (1) Davis-Bacon requirements. Four federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency--told us that Davis-Bacon requirements affected the timing of some of their Recovery Act projects. For example, the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program became subject to the Davis-Bacon requirements for the first time after having been previously exempt from those requirements. Thus, the Department of Labor had to determine the prevailing wages for weatherization workers in each county in the United States, a task it completed on September 3, 2009. Seven out of 16 states and the District of Columbia that GAO has been reviewing said that they had waited to begin weatherizing homes until the Department of Labor had determined county-by-county prevailing wage rates for their state. States used only a small percentage of their available funds in 2009, mostly because state and local agencies needed time to develop the infrastructures required for managing the significant increase in weatherization funding and for ensuring compliance with Recovery Act requirements, including Davis-Bacon requirements. (2) Buy American requirements. Five federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency--told us that Buy American provisions had affected their ability, or their grantees' ability, to select or start some Recovery Act projects. (3) The National Historic Preservation Act. Two federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce and Transportation--told us that this act affected the selection and start of projects. Federal agency officials also stated that factors other than federal requirements affected their ability to quickly select or start projects. These include (1) challenges associated with starting entirely new programs, (2) states' budgeting issues, such as difficulties in providing matching funds, (3) higher staff workloads because of the act, (4) seasonal issues or weather, and (5) lack of clarity on the meaning of "shovel-ready."
GAO-10-383, Recovery Act: Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by Certain Federal Requirements and Other Factors
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-383
entitled 'Recovery Act: Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by
Certain Federal Requirements and Other Factors' which was released on
February 18, 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.
Report to the Republican Leader:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2010:
Recovery Act:
Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by Certain Federal
Requirements and Other Factors:
GAO-10-383:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-383, a report to the Republican Leader.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) aims
to stimulate the economy. It provided $787 billion in spending and tax
provisions; more than a third of the money was slated for projects and
activities, including construction and certain research projects. To
implement a project using federal funds, agencies and funding
recipients must comply with federal laws and regulations.
GAO was asked to identify key federal requirements that apply to
Recovery Act projects and to assess the extent to which (1) selected
agencies have obligated and spent funds for Recovery Act projects and
(2) federal requirements and other factors have affected, or are
expected to affect, project selection and start dates. GAO requested
data from 27 agencies that received appropriations under the act. We
also spoke with officials responsible for implementing Recovery Act
projects in 16 states and the District of Columbia, which together are
estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal
assistance available under the act. We also spoke with organizations
representing state and local officials and the private sector, as well
as private sector contractors.
Although GAO is not making recommendations in this report, these
findings may be helpful in considering and designing legislation with
similar objectives.
What GAO Found:
As of December 31, 2009, the 27 federal agencies GAO reviewed had
obligated a total of $194 billion (63 percent) of the $309 billion
that was appropriated by the Recovery Act for projects and activities,
according to data provided by agency officials. By this date, the
percentage of funds obligated ranged from nearly 100 percent for the
National Endowment for the Arts ($50 million) to 18 percent for the
Social Security Administration ($183 million). As of that same date,
the agencies reported they had spent 20 percent ($61 billion) of their
appropriated funds. However, according to agency officials, the amount
reported as spent may not accurately reflect the amount of work done
on a given project because payment for federal projects generally
occurs after work is completed, and the recipient may not yet have
submitted an invoice for payment.
Some federal agency officials reported that certain federal
requirements and other factors affected their ability to select and
start Recovery Act projects. These include the following:
* Davis-Bacon requirements. Four federal agencies”the Departments of
Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)”told us that Davis-Bacon
requirements affected the timing of some of their Recovery Act
projects. For example, the Department of Energy‘s Weatherization
Assistance Program became subject to the Davis-Bacon requirements for
the first time after having been previously exempt from those
requirements. Thus, the Department of Labor (Labor) had to determine
the prevailing wages for weatherization workers in each county in the
United States, a task it completed on September 3, 2009. Seven out of
16 states and the District of Columbia that GAO has been reviewing
said that they had waited to begin weatherizing homes until Labor had
determined county-by-county prevailing wage rates for their state.
States used only a small percentage of their available funds in 2009,
mostly because state and local agencies needed time to develop the
infrastructures required for managing the significant increase in
weatherization funding and for ensuring compliance with Recovery Act
requirements, including Davis-Bacon requirements. As of December 31,
2009, according to data available to Energy, about 9,100 homes had
been weatherized out of a planned 593,000. In addition, officials from
HUD told us that until passage of the Recovery Act, one of its grant
programs had never been subject to Davis-Bacon requirements.
Therefore, agency staff, grantees, and contractors needed to establish
and implement new administrative procedures, which delayed the start
of construction projects. Officials from 10 states and 3 local
agencies said Davis-Bacon requirements had similarly caused delays in
implementing Recovery Act projects.
* Buy American requirements. Five federal agencies”the Departments of
Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, and HUD, as well as EPA”told
us that Buy American provisions had affected their ability, or their
grantees‘ ability, to select or start some Recovery Act projects. For
example, a project within Homeland Security‘s Electronic Baggage
Screening Program was slowed as officials awaited a Buy American
waiver, which became necessary when the contractor learned that U.S.-
made components would have hindered the integration of an airport‘s
security systems. At the local level, officials from the Chicago
Housing Authority (CHA) reported that the only security cameras that
are compatible with the existing CHA system and City of Chicago police
systems are not made in the United States. CHA worked with HUD
officials to determine how to seek a waiver for this particular
project. Officials from 2 states also said that Buy American
requirements affected their ability to select and start projects.
* The National Historic Preservation Act. Two federal agencies”the
Departments of Commerce and Transportation”told us that this act
affected the selection and start of projects. For example, Department
of Transportation officials said that projects to improve the security
of train stations, bridges, and tunnels were delayed because Amtrak
had to obtain clearances for its projects through the various state
historic preservation offices before starting work. Likewise, 7 states
identified this act as a factor that did or could impact the timing of
their Recovery Act projects. For example, officials from the Michigan
Department of Human Services stated that an estimated 90 percent of
the homes slated for weatherization in their state would need a
historic preservation review. As of late fall 2009, the state historic
preservation office had only two employees, so state officials were
concerned that the review process could cause significant delays,
according to Michigan officials. To avoid further delays, Michigan
officials told us that they have since signed an agreement with the
state historic preservation office, which they believe will expedite
the review process.
Federal agency officials also stated that factors other than federal
requirements affected their ability to quickly select or start
projects. These include:
* challenges associated with starting entirely new programs,
* states‘ budgeting issues, such as difficulties in providing matching
funds,
* higher staff workloads because of the act,
* seasonal issues or weather, and,
* lack of clarity on the meaning of ’shovel-ready.“
Officials from some federal agencies told us that federal requirements
did not affect the timing of certain projects. These officials cited
two main reasons why they were able to implement some Recovery Act
projects quickly. First, in certain cases, federal officials said the
award processes for Recovery Act projects were not substantially
different from the processes they follow for non-Recovery Act
projects. Second, to expedite the use of Recovery Act funds, some
federal officials told GAO that they had either (1) intentionally
selected projects that had already satisfied key federal requirements,
such as environmental reviews, or (2) modified existing contracts or
awarded funding to projects that had already undergone peer review
during an earlier review process.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-383[ or key
components. For more information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at (202)
512-3841 or daltonp@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Agencies Had Obligated a Total of $194 Billion of Division A Funds as
of December 31, 2009:
The Effects of Federal Requirements and Other Factors on Project
Selection and Starts Varied:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Recovery Act Division A Appropriations, Obligations, and
Spending (Cumulative) by Federal Agencies, as of June 30, 2009,
September 30, 2009, and December 31, 2009:
Table 2: Percentage of Recovery Act Division A Appropriations
Obligated and Spent by Federal Agencies, as of June 30, 2009,
September 30, 2009, and December 31, 2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Factors Federal Officials Most Often Cited as Affecting
Their Ability to Select or Start Projects:
Figure 2: Factors State and Local Government Officials Most Often
Cited as Affecting Their Ability to Select or Start Projects:
Abbreviations:
BTOP: Broadband Technology Opportunities Program:
CHA: Chicago Housing Authority:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation:
GSA: General Services Administration:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
NACO: National Association of Counties:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act:
NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 8, 2010:
The Honorable Mitch M. McConnell:
Republican Leader:
United States Senate:
Dear Leader McConnell:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) is
intended to promote economic recovery, make investments, and minimize
or avoid reductions in state and local government services.[Footnote
1] Enacted on February 17, 2009, the act was a response to the
economic recession at a time when the jobless rate was approaching 8
percent. The Recovery Act provided funding for a range of programs and
specified that priority should be given to certain infrastructure
projects that could be completed within 3 years. (The Administration
referred to projects that can be quickly initiated as "shovel-ready.")
In early 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the
Recovery Act would increase employment by between 1.2 million and 3.6
million jobs by the end of 2010 and estimated that its net cost would
total approximately $787 billion from 2009 through 2019. Of that
total, more than one-third comes from Division A of the act, which
provides substantial funding for, among other things, projects and
activities.[Footnote 2]
When implementing a project using federal funds, agencies and funding
recipients must typically comply with certain federal laws and
regulations that are intended to, among other things, ensure fair and
open competition and financial integrity, and protect the environment.
These laws and regulations typically include the following:
* The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) establishes uniform
policies and procedures for executive branch agencies to acquire goods
and services.[Footnote 3] Among its many objectives, the FAR strives
to facilitate the purchase of high-value products and services on a
timely basis while maintaining the public's trust in the procurement
process and fulfilling public policy objectives. Generally, the FAR
requires agencies to compete contracts by, among other things,
publishing a notice on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site (a
database of federal government contracting opportunities), accepting
bids from interested parties, evaluating proposals, and awarding
contracts. In addition, each federal agency may institute agency-
specific rules to better meet its procurement objectives.
* The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes national
environmental policies and goals to ensure that federal agencies
properly consider environmental factors before deciding on a
project.[Footnote 4] Under NEPA, federal agencies evaluate the
potential environmental effects of projects they are proposing using
an environmental assessment or, if projects may significantly affect
the environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement.
[Footnote 5]
* The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declares that the
federal government has a responsibility to expand and accelerate
historic preservation programs and activities in order to preserve the
nation's historical and cultural foundations.[Footnote 6] The act
requires that for all projects receiving federal funding or a federal
permit, federal agencies must take into account the project's effect
on any historic site, building, structure or other object that is or
can be listed on the National Historic Register. Under the act and its
implementing regulations, the agency must consult with relevant
federal, state, and tribal officials with regard to such a project.
In addition, the Recovery Act outlines several specific statutory
requirements that agencies and funding recipients must comply with,
including the following:
* Davis-Bacon requirements. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that
contractors and subcontractors pay workers the locally prevailing
wages on most federally funded construction projects, and it imposes
several administrative requirements relating to the payment of workers
on qualifying projects.[Footnote 7] The Recovery Act applies Davis-
Bacon requirements to all Recovery Act-funded projects, requiring
contractors and subcontractors to pay all laborers and mechanics at
least the prevailing wage rates in the local area where they are
employed, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. In addition,
contractors are required to pay these workers weekly and submit weekly
certified payroll records, generally to the contracting federal
agency.[Footnote 8]
* Buy American requirements. The Buy American Act generally requires
that raw materials and manufactured goods acquired for public use be
made or produced in the United States, subject to limited exceptions.
[Footnote 9] Federal agencies may issue waivers for certain projects
under specified conditions, for example, if using American-made goods
is inconsistent with the public interest or the cost of those goods is
unreasonable. Agencies also need not use American-made goods if they
are not sufficiently available or of satisfactory quality. The
Recovery Act has similar provisions, including one limiting the
"unreasonable cost" exception to those instances when inclusion of
American-made iron, steel, or other manufactured goods would increase
the overall project cost by more than 25 percent.
* Recovery Act-specific requirements. Sections 1511 and 1512 of the
Recovery Act establish additional requirements for the expenditure of
Recovery Act funds. Section 1511 requires chief executives of state
and local governments to certify that infrastructure investments have
"received the full review and vetting required by law and that the
chief executive accepts responsibility that the infrastructure
investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars." Section 1512
requires that recipients of Recovery Act funding report quarterly on a
number of measures. Each report is to include the amount of funds
received and the amount of funds expended or obligated to projects or
activities. For each project or activity, the report must include the
project's name and a description, an evaluation of its completion
status, and an estimate of the number of jobs created or retained by
that project or activity.
Many other federal requirements also apply to projects receiving any
government funds. For example, as we reported in December 2008, over
70 requirements may apply to states that accept federal funding for
highway projects.[Footnote 10] Likewise, states often have their own
requirements that apply to implementing federally funded projects.
In this context, you asked us to identify key federal requirements
that apply to Recovery Act projects and to assess the extent to which
(1) selected agencies have obligated and spent funds for Recovery Act
projects and (2) federal requirements and other factors have affected,
or are expected to affect, the selection and start dates of Recovery
Act projects.
To describe the extent to which agencies have obligated and spent
Recovery Act funds,[Footnote 11] we requested financial data from 27
of the agencies that received Division A funding--about one-third of
the act's total--which was for projects and activities. Although the
act provided $787 billion in spending and tax provisions, we focused
on Division A because it contains the majority of funding for
projects. The remaining amount (Division B) comprises additional
mandatory spending and revenue provisions that generally do not
involve funding for specific projects. For example, the mandatory
spending provisions primarily reflect temporary increases in cash
transfers in programs such as Medicaid and unemployment compensation,
while the revenue provisions generally reduce the tax liability for
individuals, families, and businesses.
The 27 federal agencies we reviewed consisted of departments and other
agencies that received funding for almost all projects under the act.
Specifically, we reviewed the departments of:
* Agriculture,
* Commerce,
* Defense,
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,[Footnote 12]
* Education,
* Energy,
* Health and Human Services,
* Homeland Security,
* Housing and Urban Development,
* The Interior,
* Justice,
* Labor,
* State,
* Transportation,
* Treasury,
* Veterans Affairs, and:
Other agencies:
* Corporation for National and Community Service,
* Environmental Protection Agency,
* Federal Communications Commission,
* General Services Administration,
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
* National Endowment for the Arts,
* National Science Foundation,
* Small Business Administration,
* Smithsonian Institution,
* Social Security Administration, and:
* U.S. Agency for International Development.
We requested information on the dates on which the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) first apportioned money for each of the 27
federal agencies in our review.[Footnote 13] We also requested data
from the agencies on their obligations and expenditures for Recovery
Act projects for the quarters ending June 30, 2009; September 30,
2009; and December 31, 2009. We verified the agency-provided data with
agency officials and checked their appropriations figures with
appropriations values in the Recovery Act. However, we did not check
obligations or spending against other sources, with the exception of
the Recovery.gov Web site. Our data differ from those on that site
because of data presentation, coverage, and reporting dates. We
believe the data we collected are sufficiently reliable for the
descriptive purposes of this review. To describe the extent to which
federal requirements have significantly affected, or are expected to
significantly affect, Recovery Act project selection and start dates,
we asked the 27 agencies which federal requirements, if any, affected
the timing of project selection and start dates. We also asked whether
any requirements at the state and local levels, or any other factors,
affected project selection and start dates. To supplement the federal
agencies' responses, we spoke with officials in 16 states and the
District of Columbia who are responsible for implementing Recovery Act
projects. We are reviewing these 16 states and the District of
Columbia for our bimonthly reports to Congress on Recovery Act
implementation.[Footnote 14] These 16 states are Arizona, California,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Texas. To gain an industry perspective on the extent to which
federal requirements affect the timing of Recovery Act projects, we
spoke with representatives of three business associations--the
Associated General Contractors of America, the Professional Services
Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--that represented firms
receiving Recovery Act funds. We also spoke with representatives from
the National Governors Association; the National Association of State
Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; and the National Association
of Counties. We also spoke with contractors that received funds for
large construction projects from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In
addition, we spoke with community action agencies that have contracts
with various states to do weatherization work funded by the Department
of Energy. We obtained contractor names for Recovery Act programs from
state and local officials in states that we reviewed as part of our
bimonthly reporting. We ensured a range of firms were selected by
asking for contacts from different states (geographically dispersed
and different in terms of unionization rates) for different Recovery
Act programs. The examples we provide in this report are illustrative
only and not generalizable to other federal agencies.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to February
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.
Background:
In responding to the deepest recession since the end of World War II,
the Recovery Act employs a combination of tax relief and government
spending. The Recovery Act's purposes are to preserve and create jobs
and promote economic recovery; assist those most impacted by the
recession; provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency
by spurring technological advances in health and science; invest in
transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure
that will provide long-term economic benefits; and stabilize the
budgets of state and local governments.[Footnote 15]
About one-third of the funds provided by the act are for tax relief to
individuals and businesses; one-third is in the form of temporary
increases in entitlement programs to aid people directly affected by
the recession and provide some fiscal relief to states; and one-third
falls into the category of grants, loans, and contracts, which
generally fund projects and activities.
Agencies Had Obligated a Total of $194 Billion of Division A Funds as
of December 31, 2009:
The 27 agencies that we reviewed reported that they had obligated a
total of about $194 billion of the approximately $309 billion in
Division A Recovery Act funds by the end of 2009; $173 billion as of
September 30, 2009; and $106 billion as of June 30, 2009. As of June
30, the percentage of funds obligated ranged from a high of 98 percent
for the Department of Treasury ($98 million) to a low of about 1
percent (about $8.3 million) for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). By December 31, the percentage of funds
obligated ranged from nearly 100 percent for the National Endowment
for the Arts ($50 million) to 18 percent for the Social Security
Administration ($183 million).
Regarding expenditures, the agencies reported that, as of June 30,
2009, they had spent about 5 percent (about $15 billion) of their
appropriated Division A Recovery Act funds; about 12 percent ($38
billion) as of September 30, 2009, and 20 percent ($61 billion) as of
December 31, 2009. Although expenditure data provide some indication
of when funding was spent, officials from several agencies told us
that payment for federal projects generally occurs after work on a
given project is completed. As a result, although work may have been
substantially completed, the expenditure data would not reflect this
fact because the recipient would not have submitted an invoice for
payment. For example, as we reported in July 2009, although funding
has been obligated for more than 5,000 Federal Highway Administration
projects, it may be months before the federal government is billed for
completed work.[Footnote 16] Contractors have to complete work before
receiving payments from the state, which, in turn, invoices the
cognizant federal agency.
Agencies generally have until September 30, 2010 to obligate funds
appropriated by the Recovery Act; some agencies have chosen to
obligate and spend funds over time to ensure they will have a steady
stream of funds for program activities. For example, Department of
Health and Human Services officials noted that some agency projects
involved social service activities, for which funding is intentionally
spent over time. Consequently, outlays for such service-based projects
may be uneven throughout the year, depending on program needs. Table 1
provides data on agencies' Division A obligations and expenditures as
of June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2009.
Table 1: Recovery Act Division A Appropriations, Obligations, and
Spending (Cumulative) by Federal Agencies, as of June 30, 2009,
September 30, 2009, and December 31, 2009 (Dollars in millions):
Department or agency: Agriculture;
Appropriated funding: $27,638;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $3,380;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $6,552;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $10,056;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $2,426;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $4,998;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $7,849.
Department or agency: Commerce;
Appropriated funding: $7,825;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $604;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $1,390;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $1,579;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $267;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $570;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $674.
Department or agency: Federal Communications Commission[B];
Appropriated funding: $91;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $66;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $72;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $79;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $6;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $54;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $59.
Department or agency: Defense;
Appropriated funding: $7,435;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $1,303;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $3,259;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $3,836;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $20;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $241;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $723.
Department or agency: Education;
Appropriated funding: $98,238;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $49,993;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $67,634;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $69,273;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $10,123;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $20,675;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $30,008.
Department or agency: Energy;
Appropriated funding: $43,225[C];
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $6,639;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $17,427;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $23,156;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: 144;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $734;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $1,781.
Department or agency: Health and Human Services;
Appropriated funding: $22,400;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $4,979;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $10,385;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $14,409;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $106;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $1,627;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $3,410.
Department or agency: Homeland Security;
Appropriated funding: $2,755;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $537;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $1,720;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $1,403[D];
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $19;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $107;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $153.
Department or agency: Housing and Urban Development;
Appropriated funding: $13,625;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $5,489;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $11,300;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $11,384;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $932;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $1,529;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $2,483.
Department or agency: Interior;
Appropriated funding: $2,990;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $251;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $833;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $1,239;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $6;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $130;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $247.
Department or agency: Justice;
Appropriated funding: $4,002;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $1,781;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $3,969;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $3,968[E];
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $424;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $1,160;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $1,420.
Department or agency: Labor;
Appropriated funding: $4,806;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $3,563;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $3,680;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $3,814;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $140;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $843;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $1,449.
Department or agency: State;
Appropriated funding: $564;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $38;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $143;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $331;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $6;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $25;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $50.
Department or agency: U.S. Agency for International Development [F];
Appropriated funding: $38;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $5;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $20;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $22;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $0.1;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $4;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $7.
Department or agency: Transportation;
Appropriated funding: $48,120;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $20,717;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $29,471;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $32,856;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $493;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $3,656;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $7,920.
Department or agency: Treasury;
Appropriated funding: $100;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $98;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $99;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $99;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $98;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $99.
Department or agency: Veterans Affairs;
Appropriated funding: $1,401;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $94;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $486;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $588;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $3;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $36;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $86.
Department or agency: Corporation for National and Community Service;
Appropriated funding: $201;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $129;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $154;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $166;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $2;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $17;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $48.
Department or agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Appropriated funding: $7,220;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $4,449;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $7,086;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $7,089;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $16;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $274;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $793.
Department or agency: General Services Administration;
Appropriated funding: $5,857;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $571;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $1,694;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $2,370;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $6;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $297;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $415.
Department or agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Appropriated funding: $1,002;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $8;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $394;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $587;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $37;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $133.
Department or agency: National Endowment for the Arts;
Appropriated funding: $50;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $20;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $50;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $50;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $0.4;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $8;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $19.
Department or agency: National Science Foundation;
Appropriated funding: $3,002;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $672;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $2,402;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $2,426;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $11;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $27;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $104.
Department or agency: Small Business Administration;
Appropriated funding: $730;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $130;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $323;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $537;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $36;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $117;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $254.
Department or agency: Smithsonian Institution;
Appropriated funding: $25;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $18;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $21;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $22;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $0.5;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $2;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $8.
Department or agency: Social Security Administration;
Appropriated funding: $1,002;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $25;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $148;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $183;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $22;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $129;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $179.
Department or agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Appropriated funding: $4,600;
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $551;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $2,213;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $2,802;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $62;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $327;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $727.
Department or agency: Total;
Appropriated funding: $308,942[G];
Obligations: 6/30/2009[A]: $106,111;
Obligations: 9/30/2009: $172,923;
Obligations: 12/31/2009: $194,327;
Expenditures: 6/30/2009[A]: $15,273;
Expenditures: 9/30/2009: $37,720;
Expenditures: 12/31/2009: $61,101.
Source: Agency-provided data.
Notes: This table represents funding under Division A of the act,
which consists primarily of discretionary spending, with some
exceptions.
Appropriations totaling $109 million for the Recovery Accountability
and Transparency Board and the Government Accountability Office were
excluded because these funds are used primarily to provide oversight.
We also excluded the Railroad Retirement Board because these funds are
directly paid to beneficiaries.
The numbers in this table may differ from those reported by agencies
on the Recovery.gov Web site. These differences may be attributed to
presentation, coverage, and reporting date.
Some agencies chose to include certain appropriation, obligation, and
outlay information, such as funding for inspector general offices and
salaries and expenses, while others did not.
[A] Some agencies chose to report data for July 3, which was the
Friday after the first quarter reporting period, instead of June 30
data.
[B] Transfer from the Department of Commerce.
[C] The Department of Energy (Energy) was initially appropriated $45.2
billion in the Recovery Act; however, $2 billion for the Loan
Guarantee Program was transferred from Energy's Recovery Act
appropriation. As a result, Energy's appropriations under the Recovery
Act now total $43.2 billion. In addition, this $43.2 billion includes
$6.5 billion in borrowing authority.
[D] Department of Homeland Security officials told us that the decline
in obligations was a result of interagency agreements and a bid
protest. For example, the department has obligated $412 million to
interagency partners, including the General Services Administration
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[E] Department of Justice officials told us that obligations decreased
from September to December because a few Recovery Act grantees
declined their awards, thereby requiring a deobligation of funds.
[F] Transfer from the Department of State.
[G] The total obligations are calculated on the basis of $309 billion
in appropriations, not $311 billion, as sometimes cited by other
sources, because (1) $2 billion for the Loan Guarantee Program was
transferred from Energy's Recovery Act appropriation; (2) we excluded
the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and the Government
Accountability Office from the calculations; and (3) some agencies
chose to exclude certain categories of funding, such as administrative
expenses.
[End of table]
Table 2 shows the percentage of Division A funding that each agency
had obligated and spent as of June 30, September 30, and December 31,
2009.
Table 2: Percentage of Recovery Act Division A Appropriations
Obligated and Spent by Federal Agencies, as of June 30, 2009,
September 30, 2009, and December 31, 2009 (Dollars in millions):
Department or agency: Agriculture;
Appropriated funding: $27,638;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 12;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 24;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 36;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 9;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 18;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 28.
Department or agency: Commerce;
Appropriated funding: $7,825;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 8;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 18;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 20;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 3;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 7;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 9.
Department or agency: Federal Communications Commission[B];
Appropriated funding: $91;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 73;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 79;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 87;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 7;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 60;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 66.
Department or agency: Defense;
Appropriated funding: $7,435;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 18;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 44;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 52;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 3;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 10.
Department or agency: Education;
Appropriated funding: $98,238;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 51;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 69;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 71;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 10;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 21;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 31.
Department or agency: Energy;
Appropriated funding: $43,225[C];
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 15;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 40;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 54;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 2;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 4.
Department or agency: Health and Human Services;
Appropriated funding: $22,400;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 22;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 46;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 64;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 7;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 15.
Department or agency: Homeland Security;
Appropriated funding: $2,755;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 19;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 62;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 51[D];
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 1;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 4;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 6.
Department or agency: Housing and Urban Development;
Appropriated funding: $13,625;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 40;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 83;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 84;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 7;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 11;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 18.
Department or agency: Interior;
Appropriated funding: $2,990;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 8;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 28;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 41;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 4;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 8.
Department or agency: Justice;
Appropriated funding: $4,002;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 44;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 99;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 99[E];
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 11;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 29;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 35.
Department or agency: Labor;
Appropriated funding: $4,806;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 74;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 77;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 79;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 3;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 18;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 30.
Department or agency: State;
Appropriated funding: $564;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 7;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 25;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 59;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 1;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 4;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 9.
Department or agency: U.S. Agency for International Development [F];
Appropriated funding: $38;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 14;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 53;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 59;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 10;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 20.
Department or agency: Transportation;
Appropriated funding: $48,120;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 43;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 61;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 68;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 1;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 8;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 16.
Department or agency: Treasury;
Appropriated funding: $100;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 98;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 99;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 99;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 98;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 99.
Department or agency: Veterans Affairs;
Appropriated funding: $1,401;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 7;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 35;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 42;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 3;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 6.
Department or agency: Corporation for National and Community Service;
Appropriated funding: $201;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 64;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 77;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 83;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 1;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 8;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 24.
Department or agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Appropriated funding: $7,220;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 62;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 98;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 98;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 4;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 11.
Department or agency: General Services Administration;
Appropriated funding: $5,857;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 10;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 29;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 40;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 5;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 7.
Department or agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Appropriated funding: $1,002;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 1;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 39;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 59;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 4;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 13.
Department or agency: National Endowment for the Arts;
Appropriated funding: $50;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 40;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 100;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 100;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 1;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 16;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 38.
Department or agency: National Science Foundation;
Appropriated funding: $3,002;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 22;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 80;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 81;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 0;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 1;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 3.
Department or agency: Small Business Administration;
Appropriated funding: $730;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 18;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 44;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 74;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 5;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 16;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 35.
Department or agency: Smithsonian Institution;
Appropriated funding: $25;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 70;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 83;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 88;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 2;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 7;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 33.
Department or agency: Social Security Administration;
Appropriated funding: $1,002;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 2;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 15;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 18;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 2;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 13;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 18.
Department or agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Appropriated funding: $4,600;
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 12;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 48;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 61;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 1;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 7;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 16.
Department or agency: Total obligated;
Appropriated funding: $308,942[G];
Percentage obligated: 6/30/2009[A]: 34;
Percentage obligated: 9/30/2009: 56;
Percentage obligated: 12/31/2009: 63;
Percentage spent: 6/30/2009[A]: 5;
Percentage spent: 9/30/2009: 12;
Percentage spent: 12/31/2009: 20.
Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
Notes: This table represents funding under Division A of the act,
which consists primarily of discretionary spending, with some
exceptions.
Appropriations totaling $109 million for the Recovery Accountability
and Transparency Board and the Government Accountability Office were
excluded because these funds are used primarily to provide oversight.
We also excluded the Railroad Retirement Board because these funds are
directly paid to beneficiaries.
The numbers in this table may differ from those reported by agencies
on the Recovery.gov Web site. These differences may be attributed to
presentation, coverage, and reporting date.
Some agencies chose to include certain appropriation, obligation, and
outlay information, such as funding for inspector general offices and
salaries and expenses, while others did not.
[A] Some agencies chose to report data for July 3, which was the
Friday after the first quarter reporting period, instead of June 30
data.
[B] Transfer from the Department of Commerce.
[C] Energy was initially appropriated $45.2 billion in the Recovery
Act; however, $2 billion for the Loan Guarantee Program was
transferred from Energy's Recovery Act appropriation. As a result,
Energy's appropriations under the Recovery Act now total $43.2
billion. In addition, this $43.2 billion includes $6.5 billion in
borrowing authority.
[D] Department of Homeland Security officials told us that the decline
in obligations was a result of interagency agreements and a bid
protest. For example, the department has obligated $412 million to
interagency partners, including the General Services Administration
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[E] Department of Justice officials told us that obligations decreased
from September to December because a few Recovery Act grantees
declined their awards, thereby requiring a deobligation of funds.
Because the amount is small (about $1 million), the decrease is not
reflected in table 2.
[F] Transfer from the Department of State.
[G] The total obligations are calculated on the basis of $309 billion
in appropriations, not $311 billion, as sometimes cited by other
sources, because (1) $2 billion for the Loan Guarantee Program was
transferred from Energy's Recovery Act appropriation; (2) we excluded
the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and the Government
Accountability Office from the calculations; and (3) some agencies
chose to exclude certain categories of funding, such as administrative
expenses.
[End of table]
The Effects of Federal Requirements and Other Factors on Project
Selection and Starts Varied:
Officials at some of the 27 agencies said federal requirements had
affected their ability to implement Recovery Act projects. For
example, Davis-Bacon, Buy American, and National Historic Preservation
Act requirements slowed some project selection and starts. Other
factors unrelated to federal requirements also affected the timing of
some projects, according to federal and state officials. On the other
hand, officials from some agencies and certain programs within other
agencies said they were able to implement Recovery Act projects
quickly for two main reasons. First, the award processes for some
Recovery Act projects were not substantially different from the
processes agencies use for non-Recovery Act projects. Second, to
expedite the use of Recovery Act funds, some federal agencies selected
projects that had already satisfied key federal requirements, such as
NEPA, that need to be met before a federal project can start.
Some Agencies Reported That Certain Federal Requirements Affected the
Timing of Project Selection and Starts:
Officials from some agencies cited certain federal requirements that
had affected their ability to select or start some Recovery Act
projects.[Footnote 17] Figure 1 shows the factors that federal
officials most often cited as affecting their ability to select or
start projects, and figure 2 shows the factors most often cited by
state and local officials.
Figure 1: Factors Federal Officials Most Often Cited as Affecting
Their Ability to Select or Start Projects:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Agency: Agriculture;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: Agency stated that this
factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects.
Agency: Commerce;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: Agency stated that this factor
caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: Agency stated that this factor caused
delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: Agency stated that this
factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects.
Agency: Defense;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: Agency stated that this factor caused
delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects.
Agency: Education;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: Agency stated that this
factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Energy;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: Agency stated that this factor
caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: Agency stated that this factor caused
delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects.
Agency: Homeland Security;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: Agency stated that this factor
caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Housing and Urban Development;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: Agency stated that this factor
caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: Agency stated that this factor caused
delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Interior;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: Agency stated that this factor could
cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects.
Agency: Justice;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: Agency stated that this
factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: Agency stated that
this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Labor;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: Agency stated that
this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: State;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Transportation;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Veterans Affairs;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: Agency stated that this factor caused
delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: Agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: Agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: Agency stated that this factor
caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: National Endowment for the Arts;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: Agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Small Business Administration;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Newness of programs: Agency stated that this factor
caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: Agency stated that this factor caused
delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Federal requirement: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Project selection process: [Empty];
Federal requirement: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirement: National Environmental Policy Act: Agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Newness of programs: [Empty];
Other factors: State, local, or tribal issues: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Source: Federal agency officials.
Notes: The following agencies did not identify any factors as
affecting their ability to select or start Recovery Act projects and
thus are not included in figure 1: Corporation for National and
Community Service; Federal Communications Commission; General Services
Administration; Smithsonian Institution; Department of the Treasury;
and U.S. Agency for International Development. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers said that efforts to fulfill the purposes and principles of
the act were a factor in slowing its ability to select projects; this
factor is not included in figure 1.
This figure is not comprehensive; it includes only the most commonly
cited factors affecting the timing of Recovery Act project selection
and starts. Some agencies also listed additional factors.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Factors State and Local Government Officials Most Often
Cited as Affecting Their Ability to Select or Start Projects:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
State: Arizona;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: State agency stated that this factor caused delays in
implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: California;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State and local agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: State
and local agency stated that this factor caused delays in implementing
Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: State agency stated that this factor could cause delays
in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State-specific laws: State agency stated that this
factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: State agency stated that this factor
caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Colorado;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: Local agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: State
agency stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: State agency stated that this factor caused delays in
implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Florida;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: State
agency stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: State agency stated that this factor caused delays in
implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Georgia;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: State agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: Local agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Iowa;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: State agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects.
State: Michigan;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State and local agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Mississippi;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: State agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: State agency stated that this factor could
cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: State agency stated that this
factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: New Jersey;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: Local agency stated that this factor caused
delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: State agency stated that this
factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: State agency stated that
this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects.
State: New York;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State and local agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: North Carolina;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: State
agency stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: [Empty];
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: [Empty];
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: [Empty];
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: [Empty];
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: State
agency stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
State: Texas;
Federal requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: State agency stated
that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act projects;
Federal requirements: Buy American requirements: State agency stated
that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Historic Preservation Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Federal requirements: Recovery Act-specific requirements: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Federal requirements: National Environmental Policy Act: State agency
stated that this factor could cause delays in implementing Recovery
Act projects;
Other factors: Federal guidance delayed or changing: State agency
stated that this factor caused delays in implementing Recovery Act
projects;
Other factors: Contract issues at the state and local levels: [Empty];
Other factors: State or local grant planning and application process
for Recovery Act funds: [Empty];
Other factors: Local agencies‘ lack of familiarity with federal
requirements: [Empty];
Other factors: State-specific laws: [Empty];
Other factors: Staff capacity: [Empty];
Other factors: Seasonal issues or weather: [Empty].
Source: State and local agency officials.
Note: This figure is not comprehensive; it includes only the most
commonly cited factors affecting the timing of Recovery Act project
selection and starts. Some state and local agencies also listed
additional factors.
[End of figure]
As figures 1 and 2 show, federal, state, and local agency officials
identified several factors affecting their ability to select or start
projects. For example:
* Davis-Bacon requirements. Officials in 4 of the 27 federal agencies--
the Departments of Commerce and Energy and HUD, as well as EPA--cited
these requirements as affecting project timing, and officials from
another 2 federal agencies said Davis-Bacon requirements may affect
the timing of projects. Similarly, officials from 10 states and 3
local agencies said Davis-Bacon requirements had caused delays in
implementing Recovery Act projects. In particular, Energy's
Weatherization Assistance Program became subject to the Davis-Bacon
requirements for the first time after having been previously exempt
from those requirements.[Footnote 18] Thus, Labor had to determine the
prevailing wages for weatherization workers in each county in the
United States. In July 2009, Energy and Labor issued a joint
memorandum to Weatherization Assistance Program grantees authorizing
them to begin weatherizing homes using Recovery Act funds, provided
they pay construction workers at least Labor's wage rates for
residential construction, or an appropriate alternative category, and
compensate workers for any differences if Labor establishes a higher
local prevailing wage rate for weatherization activities. On September
3, 2009, Labor completed its determinations; later that month, we
reported that Davis-Bacon requirements were a reason why some states
had not started weatherizing homes. Specifically, 7 out of 16 states
and the District of Columbia decided to wait to begin weatherizing
homes until Labor had determined county-by-county prevailing wage
rates for their state. These officials explained that they wanted to
avoid having to pay back wages to weatherization workers who started
working before the prevailing wage rates were known.[Footnote 19]
States used only a small percentage of their available funds in 2009,
mostly because state and local agencies needed time to develop the
infrastructures required for managing the significant increase in
weatherization funding and for ensuring compliance with Recovery Act
requirements, including Davis-Bacon requirements.[Footnote 20]
According to data available to Energy, as of December 31, 2009, about
9,100 homes had been weatherized out of a planned 593,000. Moreover,
HUD officials told us that until passage of the Recovery Act, its
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control grant program had
never been subject to Davis-Bacon requirements. Therefore, agency
staff, grantees, and contractors needed to establish and implement new
administrative procedures, which delayed the start of construction
projects. In another case, Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs officials told us that Davis-Bacon's administrative
requirements affected their ability to start projects in two ways.
First, the state had to wait until late December 2009 for wage rates
for a particular county. Second, officials experienced delays of 30 to
45 days to (1) provide training to ensure an understanding of the
Davis-Bacon Act at the grantee, subrecipient, and subcontractor
levels, and (2) have sufficient staff to collect, monitor, and
document that data and check its reliability through payment
verifications and employee interviews.
* Buy American provisions. According to officials from 5 of the 27
federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce, Education, Homeland
Security (DHS), and HUD, as well as EPA--these provisions had affected
their ability, or their grantees' ability, to select or start some
Recovery Act projects. Moreover, officials from 3 additional federal
agencies said Buy American provisions may affect their ability to
select or start projects. At the state level, 2 states and 1 local
entity said that Buy American provisions had affected the timing of
Recovery Act projects. In some cases, federal agencies had to develop
guidance for compliance with Buy American provisions, including
issuing guidance on waivers to recipients that were unable to comply.
For example, according to EPA officials, developing Buy American
guidance was particularly challenging because of the need to establish
a waiver process for Recovery Act projects. Likewise, DHS officials
told us that a project under the Transportation Security
Administration's Electronic Baggage Screening Program was slowed as
officials awaited a Buy American waiver to allow contractors to use
foreign-made components.[Footnote 21] The waiver became necessary when
the contractor learned that U.S.-made components would have hindered
the integration of an airport's security systems. At the local level,
officials from the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) reported that the
only security cameras that are compatible with the existing CHA system
and City of Chicago police systems are not made in the United States.
CHA worked with HUD to determine how to seek a waiver for this
particular project. Moreover, an industry representative told us that
the Buy American provisions could interrupt contractors' supply
chains, requiring them to find alternate suppliers and sometimes
change the design of their projects, which could delay project starts.
* The National Historic Preservation Act. According to officials from
2 of the 27 federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce and
Transportation--NHPA requirements affected some Recovery Act project
selection and starts, and officials at another 6 federal agencies
stated that the NHPA may affect the timing of project implementation.
Officials from 7 states identified this act as a factor that did or
could impact the timing of their Recovery Act projects. At the federal
level, Transportation officials said that projects to improve the
security of train stations, bridges, and tunnels have been delayed
because Amtrak must obtain clearances for its projects through the
various state historic preservation offices before starting work.
Commerce officials also said that some state historic preservation
officers were slow to issue NHPA clearances because of the increased
workload stemming from the Recovery Act. At the state level,
Mississippi officials said the NHPA's clearance requirements
represented one of the biggest potential delays to project selection
in the energy programs. In part because of this requirement, the state
had to adjust program plans and limit the scope of eligible recipients
and projects to avoid historic preservation issues. For example, many
of the city-and county-owned facilities that could benefit from the
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program could be
subject to historic preservation requirements.[Footnote 22] These
program requirements mandate that projects must be identified within
180 days of award.
Likewise, officials from the Michigan Department of Human Services
told us that the NHPA requires that weatherization projects receiving
federal funds undergo a state historic preservation review. According
to Michigan officials, this requirement means that the state historic
preservation office may review every home over 50 years of age if any
work is to be conducted, regardless of whether the home is in a
historic district or on a national registry. State officials told us
that an estimated 90 percent of the homes to be weatherized would need
a historic review. These reviews are a departure from Michigan's
previous experience; the state's historical preservation office had
never considered weatherization work to trigger a review. Furthermore,
Michigan officials told us that the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) policy is to review weatherization applications for these homes
within 30 days after receiving the application and advise the state
Department of Human Services on whether the work can proceed. However,
as of October 29, 2009, SHPO only had two employees, so state
officials were concerned that this process could cause a significant
delay, according to officials in the state's Department of Human
Services. To avoid further delays, Michigan officials told us that in
November 2009, they signed an agreement with the SHPO that is designed
to expedite the review process. They also told us that with the
agreement in place, they expect to meet their weatherization goals.
* Project selection process. This process--including requesting and
reviewing applications--was cited as a factor affecting the timing of
projects by 5 of the 27 federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce,
Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and DHS--and 2 agencies
said it may be a factor. For example, according to Commerce officials,
before selecting or awarding grants, the department's rules require
that each application to the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program (BTOP) be reviewed by a panel of at least three reviewers.
[Footnote 23] The agency within Commerce that oversees BTOP received
more than 1,800 applications for funding. According to agency
officials, ensuring that each application was evaluated by three
independent reviewers resulted in a moderate delay in awarding funds.
The agency originally anticipated starting to announce BTOP awards in
November 2009, but it delayed these initial announcements until
December 2009 to ensure that each application received a thorough
review and evaluation. Likewise, officials from DHS's Federal
Emergency Management Agency said that it needed to carry out very
rigorous technical reviews of its new Fire Station Construction Grants
program so that the (1) recommended costs would be appropriate and
allowable and (2) "shovel-ready" aspect of the grant would be
verified.[Footnote 24] Technical review of grant applications,
therefore, affected the timing of projects funded under this program.
* Recovery Act-specific requirements. Five of the 27 federal agencies--
the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and
Transportation, as well as EPA and NASA--stated that some Recovery Act
requirements, particularly sections 1511 (certification) and 1512
(reporting), affected the timing of projects. In addition, Education
told us that both sections 1511 and 1512 may cause delays. Officials
from 5 states also said that Recovery Act-specific requirements caused
delays. At the federal level, Transportation officials told us that
the section 1511 certification requirement added a step to the process
for both states and the department, and in a few cases, the
certification and posting requirement delayed the start of a project.
At the state level, officials from the Illinois State Board of
Education reported that section 1511 delayed approval of fiscal year
2010 grant applications that contain construction costs. Specifically,
because of the need to develop a state-level certification process,
the approval of construction funding requests was delayed, in some
cases by several months, for a few districts that submitted requests
prior to completing a state-level process. Illinois officials
indicated that an approval process was subsequently put in place; as a
result, districts usually received approval within days of the request
submission. Similarly, officials from California stated that section
1511 certification caused a delay of about 30 days.
NASA officials told us that contractors sometimes resisted the
Recovery Act's section 1512 public reporting requirement. For example,
one company negotiated with the agency for about 2 months, mainly over
the impact of the Recovery Act's reporting requirements on its
subcontractors. In addition, officials at the Texas Criminal Justice
Division told us that the state invested more than 1,000 hours to
develop and implement technology system updates to accommodate the
Recovery Act reporting requirements, which included redesigning their
system to collect data from grantees and adding new data elements to
the information that they already collected. These system updates,
along with the need to send a large volume of applications back to
applicants as new or changing federal guidance was released, added an
estimated 3 weeks to program implementation.
* National Environmental Policy Act. Officials from 3 federal
agencies--Commerce, Energy, and HUD--stated that NEPA had affected
project timing; another 8 federal agencies stated that NEPA may affect
project timing. Officials from 3 states also said that NEPA affected
project timing. Although Energy officials stated that the agency had
taken steps to expedite the NEPA review process and the agency's
funding opportunity announcements specified that projects must be
sufficiently developed to meet the Recovery Act's timetable for
commitment of funds, officials in California and Mississippi
nonetheless told us that NEPA had caused delays in Energy programs.
For example, California officials said that the State Energy
Commission must submit some of its Recovery Act projects to Energy for
NEPA review because they are not covered by Energy's existing
categorical exclusions.[Footnote 25] State officials said that such
reviews can take up to 6 or more weeks. Both California and
Mississippi officials told us that activities that are categorically
excluded under NEPA (e.g., road repaving or energy-efficient upgrades
to existing buildings) still require clearance before the state can
award funds. Staff must spend time filling out forms and supplying
information to Energy on projects that may qualify for a categorical
exclusion. Similarly, Arizona state transportation officials and
Mississippi economic development officials stated that NEPA was
causing some delays in project selection and starts. In particular,
Arizona officials explained that delays have occurred at the local
level because local officials do not have experience in dealing with
federal highway requirements, including NEPA requirements.
Factors Other than Federal Requirements Have Also Affected the Timing
of Project Selection and Starts:
Officials also told us that factors other than federal requirements
have affected the timing of project selection or starts. For example:
* Newness of programs. Because some Recovery Act programs were newly
created, officials at several federal agencies told us that before
implementing projects, they needed time to establish procedures and
provide guidance. HUD officials, for example, told us that because
HUD's Office of Native American Programs had not previously
administered a competitive Native American Housing Block Grant,
[Footnote 26] they had to develop a new notice of funding availability
and new forms for the program, which then had to be cleared by both
the department and OMB.[Footnote 27] The Energy Inspector General
noted that the awards process for the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant Program, newly funded under the Recovery Act,
was challenging to implement because there was no existing
infrastructure. Hence, Recovery Act funds were not awarded and
distributed to recipients in a timely manner.
* State, local or tribal issues. The economic recession affected some
states' budgets, which, in turn, affected their ability to use some
Recovery Act funds. For example, an Army National Guard cooperative
agreement program required states to provide matching funds for such
things as window and roof replacement at certain facilities. However,
because states were experiencing difficulties in passing their current-
year budgets, some were unable to provide the matching funds. As a
result, according to Defense officials, Defense had to revise its
Recovery Act project plan to cancel or reduce the number of Army
National Guard projects with state matching funds and replace them
with other projects that did not require matching funds. In addition,
according to officials at the National Endowment for the Arts, one
state arts agency had to delay its release of Recovery Act grant funds
by 3 months, from July to October 2009, because of the state's
budgetary constraints. Because the state had not approved its budget
on time, it authorized agencies to spend funds only in quarterly
allotments, which were not sufficient to make the recommended grants.
The state arts agency ultimately received approval of its special
request for the funds to be released as one allotment. Finally, HUD
told us that project starts in some instances were affected by the
need for state and local governments to furlough employees as a result
of the economic downturn.
* Staff capacity. Federal officials at some agencies told us they have
experienced heavy workloads as a result of the Recovery Act, which has
impaired their ability to initiate programs. For example, officials
from the Small Business Administration (SBA) said that they were
unable to begin their two secondary markets programs until the fall of
2009 because of limited staff resources and the need to sort out other
issues related to these programs, including contracting and Recovery
Act recipient reporting requirements.[Footnote 28] In addition, as we
reported in December 2009, smaller localities, which are often rural,
told us that they faced challenges because of a lack of staff to
understand, apply for, and comply with requirements for federal
Recovery Act grants.[Footnote 29] For example, some local government
officials reported that they did not employ a staff person to handle
grants and therefore did not have the capacity to understand which
grants they were eligible for and how to apply for them. In the
District of Columbia, moreover, Department of the Environment
officials explained that weatherization funds had not been spent as
quickly as anticipated because they needed to develop the
infrastructure to administer the program. For example, the department
needed to hire six new staff members to oversee and manage the
program. Officials reported that, as of late January 2010, the
department had still not hired any of the six new staff required.
However, the job posting was closed, and Department of the Environment
officials expected Recovery Act-funded weatherization work to begin in
early February 2010. Officials from the National Association of
Counties (NACO), moreover, said that some localities had turned down
Recovery Act funding to avoid the administrative burdens associated
with the act's numerous reporting requirements.
* Seasonal issues or weather. Officials at some federal agencies said
that winter and other seasonal concerns impeded their ability to start
or continue construction projects. For example, according to Interior
officials, construction starts in Alaska and some northern areas of
the continental United States may be delayed because of long winter
seasons there. In addition, an Interior official stated that seasonal
wildland fires can also affect the agency's ability to start certain
Recovery Act projects. Likewise, Defense officials told us that
construction on a pier was delayed because the contractor missed the
"fish window," when construction activities underwater can be
performed with minimal impact on fish habitat. Finally, contractors in
Massachusetts said that inclement weather delayed the progress of some
paving projects.
* Lack of clarity on the meaning of "shovel-ready." Although officials
from several federal agencies said they made "shovel-ready" projects a
priority for funding, officials from NACO told us that there was no
official definition of "shovel-ready." Hence, local officials had
different interpretations of the concept. According to NACO officials,
localities had designated certain projects "shovel-ready," but the
necessary background work for these projects had not in fact been
completed.
Some Federal Officials Reported That Federal Requirements Did Not
Affect the Timing of Recovery Act Projects for Two Reasons:
Federal officials from some agencies offered two reasons why federal
requirements did not affect the timing of certain Recovery Act
projects. First, officials from these agencies said that the
procedures for awarding and implementing Recovery Act funds for some
programs and projects were similar to, or the same as, their usual
procedures and did not pose any new challenges or cause any particular
delays. For example, officials from Agriculture's Farm Direct
Operating Loans program used Recovery Act dollars to fund an existing
backlog of direct operating loan applications that had been previously
approved but for which no funding was available. According to agency
officials, the requirements for direct operating loans funded through
the Recovery Act were thus the same as those for direct operating
loans funded with regular annual appropriations. Therefore, there was
no additional burden on applicants. These preapproved loans accounted
for more than 75 percent of the funding made available through the
Recovery Act. Within 3 weeks of receipt, according to USDA officials,
nearly 100 percent of the Recovery Act direct operating loan funds had
been obligated. Likewise, General Services Administration (GSA)
officials stated that GSA has been operating under the Davis-Bacon
requirements within the United States for years and has accounted for
these requirements in its project plans. According to these officials,
in cases where Davis-Bacon newly applies to Recovery Act projects
(i.e., projects in the territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands), the agency's experience with the requirements has
facilitated its ability to implement these projects. Hence, according
to GSA officials, the impact of any federal requirements on Recovery
Act projects has been negligible.
Furthermore, in some cases, agencies provided Recovery Act funding
through major programs that have historically received large sums of
funding and already had the infrastructure in place to administer the
high level of funding involved. For instance, a significant amount of
Transportation's Recovery Act funding is being provided to state and
local transportation authorities through existing program structures,
helping to ensure that these funds will be used expeditiously. Of the
$48 billion that Transportation received under the act, nearly $39
billion was distributed through existing funding programs, such as
highway formula grant programs.
Second, to expedite the use of Recovery Act funds, some federal
agencies selected--or encouraged states to select--projects that had
already satisfied key federal requirements that need to be met before
a federal project can start. For example, agency officials reported
the following:
* Transportation's Federal Highway Administration encouraged states to
select projects that had completed preconstruction requirements,
including NEPA reviews, preconstruction procedures, right-of-way
acquisition, planning, and administration of engineering-and design-
related services.
* The National Science Foundation awarded the majority of its funding
to proposals that had been received by the agency or gone through its
merit review process prior to September 30, 2009.
* NASA and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
mainly modified existing contracts, rather than developing new ones,
to implement projects expeditiously. NASA officials estimated that
about 80 percent of their programs consist of modifications to
existing contracts. USAID officials said they simply included a
reference to a new FAR clause for the Recovery Act and took the
appropriate procurement and contracting actions required by the FAR
before obligating funds.
Similarly, many state transportation officials said they selected a
large percentage of resurfacing and other pavement improvement
projects for Recovery Act funding because they did not require
extensive environmental clearances and because other processes could
also occur quickly, such as design, request for bids, obligation of
funds, and employment. In addition, projects could be completed within
3 years.[Footnote 30] For example:
* Massachusetts transportation officials said that they had avoided
significant delays in starting projects by selecting those that were
likely to have little environmental impact--such as impairing air
quality--that require additional permitting before the project could
get under way. These officials also said that they did not select
projects involving entities with a history of lengthy permitting
processes. For example, if a project had permitting requirements that
involved the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, or a
municipality, the state did not generally select the project for
Recovery Act funding because, according to state officials, the
permitting process with these entities typically takes a year or more
to resolve.
* Mississippi officials told us that prior to the enactment of the
Recovery Act, the state's Department of Transportation appointed a
selection committee to identify projects that could be advertised no
later than June 2009. Projects placed on the list to be funded by the
Recovery Act were required to have all rights-of-way acquired,
utilities adjusted, environmental clearances obtained, and plans
developed. In addition to selecting highway construction projects, the
committee identified transportation enhancement projects that could be
obligated before February 17, 2010, 1 year after the act's enactment.
[Footnote 31] Such projects included improving the department's rest
areas and welcome centers to enhance tourism and encourage new
industry in the state. All identified projects were reviewed and
ranked on the basis of (1) need, (2) location in an economically
distressed area, (3) the likelihood of statewide job creation, (4)
expected economic benefit to the area, and (5) the projects' ability
to meet requirements for timely obligation. When the state was
notified of its share of Recovery Act funds, officials selected
projects from this group of reviewed and ranked projects and
emphasized obligating 50 percent of a subset of the funds within 120
days.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to all 27 agencies and OMB for
review and comment and received technical comments from 17 agencies.
We have incorporated these comments into the report as appropriate. We
also provided a copy of the relevant sections to GAO teams responsible
for reviewing Recovery Act work in the states mentioned in this
report. In some cases, those teams forwarded relevant sections to
officials within those states. We included these comments as
appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to all 27
agencies reviewed in this report and other interested parties. The
report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or daltonp@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 major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix I.
Sincerely Yours,
Signed by:
Patricia A. Dalton:
Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Patricia A. Dalton, (202) 512-3841 or daltonp@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Other key contributors to this report were Mark Gaffigan (Director),
Ric Cheston (Assistant Director), Kimberly Gianopoulos (Assistant
Director), Anne K. Johnson (Analyst-in-Charge), and Amanda Krause.
Important contributions were also made by Jessica Bryant-Bertail,
Janice Ceperich, Richard P. Johnson, Jonathan Kucskar, Anne Rhodes-
Kline, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009).
[2] The Recovery Act consists of two divisions, Division A and
Division B. Division A consists primarily of discretionary spending,
with some exceptions; Division B consists of mainly mandatory spending
and revenue provisions, with some exceptions, and includes tax,
unemployment, health, state fiscal relief, and some other provisions.
We focused on Division A of the Recovery Act. (Discretionary spending
refers to outlays from budget authority that is provided in and
controlled by appropriation acts. Examples of discretionary projects
and activities include federal construction projects and certain
research activities. Spending from budget authority that is provided
in laws other than appropriation acts is referred to as mandatory
spending, which includes spending for entitlement programs such as
Medicare, Food Stamps [now known as the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program], and veterans' pensions.)
[3] 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 et seq.
[4] 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
[5] Section 1609 of the Recovery Act directs agencies to devote
"adequate resources" to ensure that applicable environmental reviews
under NEPA "are completed on an expeditious basis using the shortest
existing applicable environmental review process." Section 1609
further requires the President to produce periodic reports on the
status and progress of NEPA compliance for Recovery Act projects.
[6] 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.
[7] 40 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.
[8] Separately, we will be reporting on the impact of Davis-Bacon
requirements on Recovery Act programs subject to those requirements
for the first time.
[9] 41 U.S.C. § 10a.
[10] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Federal Requirements for Highways May
Influence Funding Decisions and Create Challenges, but Benefits and
Costs Are Not Tracked, GAO-09-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2008).
[11] An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal
liability of the government for the payment of goods and services
ordered or received. An agency incurs an obligation, for example, when
it places an order, signs a contract, awards a grant, purchases a
service, or takes other actions that require the government to make
payments to the public or from one government account to another.
[12] The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is part of the Army that has
both military and civilian responsibilities.
[13] Apportionment is the action the OMB uses to distribute amounts
available for obligation. An apportionment divides amounts available
for obligation by specific time periods (usually quarters),
activities, projects, objects, or a combination thereof.
[14] The states selected for our bimonthly reviews contain about 65
percent of the U.S. population and are estimated to receive
collectively about two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal
assistance funds available through the Recovery Act. We selected these
states and the District of Columbia on the basis of federal outlay
projections; percentage of the U.S. population represented;
unemployment rates and changes; and a mix of states' poverty levels,
geographic coverage, and representation of both urban and rural areas.
[15] Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 3, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).
[16] GAO, Recovery Act: States' and Localities' Current and Planned
Uses of Funds While Facing Fiscal Stresses, GAO-09-829 (Washington,
D.C.: July 8, 2009).
[17] Most federal agencies and departments covered in this review have
multiple programs under the Recovery Act. While certain programs
within each agency or department may have encountered challenges in
implementing Recovery Act projects in a timely manner, this may not be
true for all programs within that particular agency or department.
[18] The Recovery Act appropriated $5 billion for the Weatherization
Assistance Program, which Energy is distributing to each of the
states, the District of Columbia, and seven territories and Indian
tribes. The program seeks to assist low-income families by making such
long-term energy efficiency improvements to their homes as installing
insulation; sealing leaks; and modernizing heating equipment, air
circulation fans, and air conditioning equipment.
[19] GAO, Recovery Act: Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to
States and Localities, While Accountability and Reporting Challenges
Need to Be Fully Addressed, GAO-09-1016 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23,
2009).
[20] The Department of Homeland Security‘s Electronic Baggage
Screening Program ($700 million) includes airport facility
modification projects, such as the construction of baggage handling
systems and the purchase and installation of explosives detection
equipment.
[21] The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants program,
administered by Energy, provides funds through competitive and formula
grants to units of local and state government and Indian tribes to
develop and implement projects to improve energy efficiency and reduce
energy use and fossil fuel emissions in their communities. The
Recovery Act includes $3.2 billion for the program.
[21] DHS's Electronic Baggage Screening Program ($700 million)
includes airport facility modification projects, such as the
construction of baggage handling systems and the purchase and
installation of explosives detection equipment.
[22] The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) administers the Recovery Act's
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. This program was
appropriated $4.7 billion, including up to $350 million for the
purposes of developing and maintaining a broadband inventory map. The
State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program is a competitive,
merit-based matching grant program that funds projects that collect
comprehensive and accurate state-level broadband mapping data, develop
state-level broadband maps, aid in the development and maintenance of
a national broadband map, and fund statewide initiatives directed at
broadband planning.
[23] The Recovery Act Assistance to Firefighters Fire Station
Construction Grants program--appropriated $210 million and is
administered by the DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency--
provides federal grants directly to fire departments on a competitive
basis to build or modify existing non federal fire stations in order
for departments to enhance their response capability and protect the
communities they serve from fire and fire-related hazards.
[24] If an agency determines that activities of a proposed project
fall within a category of activities the agency has already determined
has no significant environmental impact--called a categorical
exclusion--then the agency generally need not prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement.
[25] HUD's Native American Housing Block Grant program ($510 million)
assists tribes in developing, operating, maintaining, and supporting
affordable housing for rental and homeownership housing.
[26] Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, federal agencies may not
conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless approved by
OMB. OMB is required to determine that the agency collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility. Consistent with the act's requirements, OMB has established a
process to review all proposals by executive branch agencies
(including independent regulatory agencies) to collect information
from 10 or more persons, whether the collections are voluntary or
mandatory.
[27] One of SBA's secondary market programs provides loans to market
broker/dealers to support their continued purchase of SBA loan
products; the other provides financing to acquire fixed assets, such
as real estate or equipment, for expansion or modernization.
[28] GAO, Recovery Act: Status of States' and Localities' Use of Funds
and Efforts to Ensure Accountability, GAO-10-231 (Washington, D.C.:
Dec. 10, 2009).
[29] The Recovery Act contains a requirement to give priority to
certain transportation projects that can be completed within 3 years.
[30] Transportation enhancements include activities such as provision
of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, preservation of
abandoned railway corridors, acquisition of scenic easements, and
historic preservation projects.
[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:
