Federal Acquisition
Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement Acquisition Advisory Panel's Recommendations Gao ID: GAO-08-515T February 27, 2008A growing portion of federal spending is related to buying services such as administrative, management, and information technology support. Services accounted for about 60 percent of total fiscal year 2006 procurement dollars. The Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) of 2003 established an Acquisition Advisory Panel to make recommendations for improving acquisition practices. In January 2007, the panel proposed 89 recommendations to improve federal acquisition practices. GAO was asked to testify on how the panel recommendations compare to GAO's past work and identify how the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) expects the recommendations to be addressed. This statement is based on GAO's analysis of the advisory panel's report. GAO's analysis is included in its December 2007 report titled, Federal Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement Acquisition Advisory Panel Recommendation, (GAO-08-160).
The SARA Panel, like GAO, has made numerous recommendations to improve federal government acquisition--from encouraging competition and adopting commercial practices to improving the accuracy and usefulness of procurement data. The recommendations in the SARA Panel report are largely consistent with GAO's past work and recommendations. The panel and GAO have both pointed out the importance of a robust requirements definition process and the need for competition; the need to establish clear performance requirements, measurable performance standards, and a quality assurance plan to improve the use of performance-based contracting; the risks inherent in the use of interagency contracts because of their rapid growth and their improper management; stresses on the federal acquisition workforce and the need for a strategy to assess these workforce needs; concerns about the role of contractors engaged in managing acquisition and procurement activities performed by government employees and the proper roles of federal employees and contractor employees in a "blended" workforce; and the adverse effects of inaccurate and incomplete federal procurement data, such as not providing a sound basis for conducting procurement analyses. The panel also made recommendations that would change the guidance for awarding contracts to small businesses. While GAO's work has addressed some small business policy issues, GAO has not made recommendations that would change the guidance to be used for awarding contracts to small businesses. OFPP representatives told GAO that OFPP agrees with almost all of the panel recommendations and expected that most of the 89 panel recommendations would be implemented through one of the following means: congressional actions; changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation; OFPP actions, such as issuing new or revised policy; and federal agency actions. OFPP has already acted on some SARA recommendations, while other actions are pending or under consideration. Milestones and reporting requirements are in place to help OFPP gauge the implementation status of some recommendations but not for others. Moreover, OFPP does not have a strategy or plan to allow it to exercise oversight and establish accountability for implementing all of the panel's recommendations and to gauge their effect on federal acquisitions.
GAO-08-515T, Federal Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement Acquisition Advisory Panel's Recommendations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-515T
entitled 'Federal Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement
Acquisition Advisory Panel's Recommendations' which was released on
February 27, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and
Procurement, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10 a.m. EST:
Wednesday, February 27, 2008:
Federal Acquisition:
Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement Acquisition Advisory Panel's
Recommendations:
Statement of John P. Hutton Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management:
GAO-08-515T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-515T, a testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Government Management, Organization, and Procurement, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
A growing portion of federal spending is related to buying services
such as administrative, management, and information technology support.
Services accounted for about 60 percent of total fiscal year 2006
procurement dollars. The Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) of 2003
established an Acquisition Advisory Panel to make recommendations for
improving acquisition practices. In January 2007, the panel proposed 89
recommendations to improve federal acquisition practices.
GAO was asked to testify on how the panel recommendations compare to
GAO‘s past work and identify how the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP) expects the recommendations to be addressed. This
statement is based on GAO‘s analysis of the advisory panel‘s report.
GAO‘s analysis is included in its December 2007 report titled, Federal
Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement Acquisition
Advisory Panel Recommendation, (GAO-08-160).
What GAO Found:
The SARA Panel, like GAO, has made numerous recommendations to improve
federal government acquisition”from encouraging competition and
adopting commercial practices to improving the accuracy and usefulness
of procurement data. The recommendations in the SARA Panel report are
largely consistent with GAO‘s past work and recommendations. The panel
and GAO have both pointed out
* the importance of a robust requirements definition process and the
need for competition;
* the need to establish clear performance requirements, measurable
performance standards, and a quality assurance plan to improve the use
of performance-based contracting;
* the risks inherent in the use of interagency contracts because of
their rapid growth and their improper management;
* stresses on the federal acquisition workforce and the need for a
strategy to assess these workforce needs;
* concerns about the role of contractors engaged in managing
acquisition and procurement activities performed by government
employees and the proper roles of federal employees and contractor
employees in a ’blended“ workforce; and;
* the adverse effects of inaccurate and incomplete federal procurement
data, such as not providing a sound basis for conducting procurement
analyses.
The panel also made recommendations that would change the guidance for
awarding contracts to small businesses. While GAO‘s work has addressed
some small business policy issues, GAO has not made recommendations
that would change the guidance to be used for awarding contracts to
small businesses.
OFPP representatives told GAO that OFPP agrees with almost all of the
panel recommendations and expected that most of the 89 panel
recommendations would be implemented through one of the following
means: congressional actions; changes to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation; OFPP actions, such as issuing new or revised policy; and
federal agency actions. OFPP has already acted on some SARA
recommendations, while other actions are pending or under
consideration. Milestones and reporting requirements are in place to
help OFPP gauge the implementation status of some recommendations but
not for others. Moreover, OFPP does not have a strategy or plan to
allow it to exercise oversight and establish accountability for
implementing all of the panel‘s recommendations and to gauge their
effect on federal acquisitions.
What GAO Recommends:
In its December 2007 report, GAO recommended that OFPP develop an
oversight strategy or plan with milestones and reporting requirements
to help it ensure the implementation of the SARA Panel recommendations
and to gauge how they improve federal acquisition. OFPP agreed in
principle with GAO‘s recommendation.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-515T]. For more information, contact John
Hutton at (202) 512-7773 or huttonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our review of the Services
Acquisition Reform Act's Acquisition Advisory Panel report. Each year
the federal government--the single largest buyer in the world--spends
billions of dollars to procure goods and services. In fiscal year 2006,
it spent over $400 billion. A growing portion of this spending is
related to buying services, such as administrative, management, and
information technology support. Services now account for about 60
percent of total procurement dollars.
Congress passed the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (SARA),
which provided federal agencies an array of tools to improve how they
acquire services. The act also established an acquisition advisory
panel, which began work in February 2005, to review acquisition laws
and regulations and make recommendations to improve federal acquisition
practices. The SARA Acquisition Advisory Panel issued its final report
dated January 2007, making 89 recommendations to improve federal
acquisition in the following seven areas: commercial practices,
performance-based acquisitions, interagency contracting, small
business, the federal acquisition workforce, the role of contractors
supporting government, and federal procurement data. The panel directed
most of its recommendations to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
implementation, while the others were directed to Congress and federal
agencies.
As you requested, my testimony will focus on our review of the panel's
report. Specifically, I will address (1) how the panel recommendations
compare with our past work and recommendations and (2) how OFPP is
addressing the recommendations. My statement is based on our report
issued in December 2007.[Footnote 1]
Summary:
The recommendations in the SARA Panel report are largely consistent
with GAO's past work and recommendations. Like the panel report, our
past work pointed out:
* the importance of a robust requirements definition process;
* the need for competition, which is a mandate that runs through the
statutes and regulations governing federal procurement;
* the need for clear performance requirements, measurable performance
standards, and a quality assurance plan to improve the use of
performance-based contracting;
* the risks inherent in the use of interagency contracts because of
their rapid growth and their improper management;
* the stresses on the federal acquisition workforce and the need for a
strategic approach to assess workforce needs;
* concerns about the role of contractors engaged in managing
acquisition and procurement activities traditionally performed by
government employees and the proper roles for contractor employees in a
"blended" workforce; and:
* the adverse effects of inaccurate and incomplete federal procurement
data, that cannot be relied on to conduct procurement analyses.
Like the panel, we have made numerous recommendations to address many
of these issues and bring improvement to government procurement. The
panel also made recommendations that would change the guidance for
awarding contracts to small businesses. While our work on small
business has addressed a number of these policy issues, we have not
made recommendations that would change the guidance for awarding
contracts to small businesses.
OFPP agrees with almost all of the 89 panel recommendations and has
already acted on some of them, while other actions are pending or under
consideration. Generally, OFPP expects implementation of the
recommendations to fall into the broad categories of (1) legislative
action; (2) changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); (3)
OFPP actions, such as issuing or revising policy; and (4) federal
agency action. OFPP noted that legislative actions and pending FAR
cases could address about one-third of the recommendations. OFPP is
expected to address most of the remaining recommendations and plans to
work with the chief acquisition officer or senior procurement official
within each agency to do so.
Based on the information OFPP provided, an overall strategy or plan
with milestones and reporting requirements has not yet been established
to help provide visibility over the progress and results of
implementing the recommendations. Without an overall strategy or plan,
it is unclear how OFPP will gauge how the panel recommendations are
being implemented and their successes and shortcomings in improving
federal acquisitions.
Most SARA Panel Recommendations Are Consistent with GAO's Past Work:
The 89 recommendations in the panel report are largely consistent with
our past work and recommendations. I will now discuss each of the seven
areas the panel reviewed, the general thrust of the panel's
recommendations, and our views on them.
Commercial Practices:
The first area the panel reviewed was commercial practices. According
to the panel, the bedrock principle of commercial acquisition is
competition. The panel found that defining requirements is key to
achieving the benefits of competition because procurements with clear
requirements are far more likely to produce competitive, fixed-price
offers that meet customer needs. Further, the panel found that
commercial organizations invest the time and resources necessary to
understand and define their requirements. They use multidisciplinary
teams to plan their procurements, conduct competitions for award, and
monitor contract performance. Commercial organizations rely on well-
defined requirements and competitive awards to reduce prices and obtain
innovative, high-quality goods and services. Hence, practices that
enhance and encourage competition were the basis of the panel
recommendations. The panel recommended, among other things, that the
requirements process be improved and competitive procedures be
strengthened.
Our work is generally consistent with the panel's recommendations, and
we have issued numerous products that address the importance of a
robust requirements definition process and the need for competition.
For example, in January 2007, we testified that poorly defined or
broadly described requirements have contributed to undesired services
acquisition outcomes. To produce desired outcomes within available
funding and required time frames, our work has shown that DOD and its
contractors need to clearly understand acquisition objectives and how
they translate into the contract's terms and conditions. The absence of
well-defined requirements and clearly understood objectives complicates
efforts to hold DOD and contractors accountable for poor acquisition
outcomes. This has been a long-standing issue.
Regarding competition, we have stated that competition is a fundamental
principle underlying the federal acquisition process. Nevertheless, we
have reported numerous times on the lack of competition in DOD's
acquisition of goods and services. For example, we noted in April 2006
that DOD awarded contracts for security guard services supporting 57
domestic bases, 46 of which were let on an authorized sole-source
basis. The sole-source contracts were awarded by DOD despite
recognizing it was paying about 25 percent more than previously paid
for the contracts awarded competitively.
Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition:
The second area the panel reviewed was improving the implementation of
performance-based acquisitions. The panel reported that performance-
based acquisition (PBA) has not been fully implemented in the federal
government even though OMB has encouraged greater use of it--setting a
general goal in 2001 of making performance-based contracts 40 percent
or more of all eligible service acquisitions for fiscal year 2006. The
panel reported that agencies were not clearly defining requirements,
not preparing adequate statements of work, not identifying meaningful
quality measures and effective incentives, and not effectively managing
the contract. The panel noted that a cultural emphasis on "getting to
award" still exists within the government, an emphasis that precludes
taking the time to clarify agency needs and adequately define
requirements. The panel recommended that OFPP issue more explicit
implementation guidance and create a PBA "Opportunity Assessment" tool
to help agencies identify when they should consider using PBA
contracts.
Like the panel, we have found that agencies have faced a number of
issues when using PBA contracts. For example, we reported in April 2003
that there was inadequate guidance and training, a weak internal
control environment, and limited performance measures and data that
agencies could use to make informed decisions on when to use PBA. We
have made recommendations similar to the panel's. For example, we have
recommended that the Administrator of OFPP work with agencies to
periodically evaluate how well agencies understand PBA and how they can
apply it to services that are widely available in the commercial
sector, particularly more unique and complex services. The panel's
concern that agencies are not properly managing PBA contracts is also
consistent with our work on surveillance of service contracts. In a
March 2005 report, we found that proper surveillance of service
contracts, including PBAs, was not being conducted, leaving DOD at risk
of being unable to identify and correct poor contractor performance.
Accordingly, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense ensure the
proper training of personnel in surveillance and their assignment to
contracts no later than the date of contract award. We further
recommended the development of practices to help ensure accountability
for personnel carrying out surveillance responsibilities. We have also
found that some agencies have attempted to apply PBA to complex and
risky acquisitions, a fact that underscores the need to maintain strong
government surveillance to mitigate risks.
Interagency Contracting:
The third area the panel reviewed was interagency contracting. The
panel found that reliance on interagency contracts is significant.
According to the panel report, 40 percent of the total 2004
obligations, or $142 billion, was obligated through the use of
interagency contracts. The panel also found that a significant reason
for the increased use of these contracts has been reductions in the
acquisition workforce accompanied by increased workloads and pressures
to reduce procurement lead times. Accordingly, the panel made numerous
recommendations to improve the use of interagency contracts with the
intent of enhancing competition, lowering prices, improving the
expertise of the acquisition workforce, and improving guidance for
choosing the most appropriate interagency contract for procurements.
Our work is generally consistent with the panel's recommendations on
interagency contracting. In fact, 15 of our reports on interagency
contracting were cited in the panel report. These included numerous
recommendations that are consistent with the panel's recommendations.
Our reports recognize that interagency contracts can provide the
advantages of timeliness and efficiency by leveraging the government's
buying power and providing a simplified and expedited method of
procurement. However, our prior work has found that agencies involved
in the interagency contracting process have not always obtained
required competition, evaluated contracting alternatives, or conducted
adequate oversight. A number of factors render the use of interagency
contracts high risk; these factors include their rapid growth in
popularity, their use by some agencies that have limited expertise with
this contracting method, and the number of parties that might be
involved. Taken collectively, these factors contribute to a much more
complex procurement environment--one in which accountability is not
always clearly established. In 2005, because we found that interagency
contracts can pose risks if they are not properly managed, we
designated the management of interagency contracting a governmentwide
high-risk area.
Small Business:
The fourth area the panel reviewed was small business. The panel made
recommendations to change the guidance to contracting officers for
awarding contracts to small businesses. These recommendations are
intended to improve the policies and, hence, address the socioeconomic
benefits derived from acquiring services from small businesses. OFPP
has taken the position that all but one of the recommendations requires
legislation to implement. While our work on small business has
addressed a number of policy issues, we have not made recommendations
for statutory and regulatory changes when arguments for such changes
are based on value judgments, such as those related to setting small
business contracting goals.
Federal Acquisition Workforce:
The fifth area the panel reviewed was the federal acquisition
workforce. The panel recognized a significant mismatch between the
demands placed on the acquisition workforce and the personnel and
skills available within the workforce to meet those demands. The panel
found, for example, that demands on the federal acquisition workforce
have grown substantially while at the same time, the complexity of the
federal acquisition system as a whole has increased. Accordingly, the
panel made a number of recommendations designed to define, assess,
train, and collect data on the acquisition workforce and to recruit
talented entry level personnel and retain its senior workforce.
Our work is generally consistent with the panel's findings and
recommendations on the acquisition workforce. On the basis of
observations made by acquisition experts from the federal government,
private sector, and academia, we reported in October 2006 that agency
leaders have not recognized or elevated the importance of the
acquisition profession within their organizations. The agency leaders
further noted that a strategic approach had not been taken across
government or within agencies to focus on workforce challenges, such as
creating a positive image essential to successfully recruit and retain
a new generation of talented acquisition professionals. In September
2006, we testified that while the amount, nature, and complexity of
contract activity has increased, DOD's acquisition workforce, the
largest component of the government's acquisition workforce, has
remained relatively unchanged in size and faces certain skill gaps and
serious succession planning challenges. Further, we testified that
DOD's acquisition workforce must have the right skills and capabilities
if it is to effectively implement best practices and properly manage
the goods and services it buys. In July 2006, we reported that in the
ever-changing DOD contracting environment, the acquisition workforce
must be able to rapidly adapt to increasing workloads while continuing
to improve its knowledge of market conditions, industry trends, and the
technical details of the goods and services it procures. Moreover, we
noted that effective workforce skills were essential for ensuring that
DOD receives fair and reasonable prices for the goods and services it
buys and identified a number of conditions that increased DOD's
vulnerabilities to contracting waste and abuse.
Contractors Supporting the Federal Government:
The sixth area the panel reviewed was contractors supporting the
federal government. The panel reported that, in some cases, contractors
are solely or predominantly responsible for the performance of mission-
critical functions that were traditionally performed by government
employees, such as acquisition program management and procurement,
policy analysis, and quality assurance. Further, the panel noted that
this development has created issues with respect to the proper roles
of, and relationships between, federal employees and contractor
employees in the "blended" workforce. The panel stated that although
federal law prohibits contracting for activities and functions that are
inherently governmental, uncertainty about the proper scope and
application of this term has led to confusion, particularly with
respect to service contracting outside the scope of OMB's Circular A-
76, which provides guidance on competing work for commercial activities
via public-private competition. Moreover, according to the panel, as
the federal workforce shrinks, there is a need to ensure that agencies
have sufficient in-house expertise and experience to perform inherently
governmental functions by being in a position to make critical
decisions on policy and program management issues and to manage the
performance of contractors. The panel recommended (1) that the FAR
Council consider developing a standard organizational conflict-of-
interest clause for solicitations and contracts that sets forth a
contractor's responsibility concerning its employees and those of its
subcontractors, partners, and any other affiliated organization or
individual; (2) that OFPP update the principles for agencies to apply
in determining which functions government employees must perform; and
(3) that OFPP ensure that the functions identified as those that must
be performed by government employees are adequately staffed.
On the basis of our work, we have similar concerns to those expressed
by the panel, and our work is generally consistent with the panel's
recommendations on the appropriate role of contractors supporting the
federal acquisition workforce. We have testified and reported on the
issues associated with an unclear definition of what constitutes
inherently governmental functions, inadequate government experience and
expertise for overseeing contractor performance, and organizational
conflicts of interest related to contractor responsibilities. We found
that there is a need for placing greater attention on the type of
functions and activities that could be contracted out and those that
should not, for reviewing the current independence and conflict-of-
interest rules relating to contractors, and for identifying the factors
that prompt the government to use contractors in circumstances where
the proper choice might be the use of government employees or military
personnel. In our recent work at DHS, we found that more than half of
the 117 statements of work we reviewed provided for services that
closely supported the performance of inherently governmental functions.
We made recommendations to DHS to improve control and accountability
for decisions resulting in buying services that closely support
inherently governmental functions. Accordingly, our work is consistent
with panel recommendations to update the principles for agencies to
apply in determining which functions government employees must perform;
and to ensure that the functions identified as those that must be
performed by government employees are adequately staffed.
Report on Federal Procurement Data:
Finally, the seventh and last area the panel reviewed was federal
procurement data. The Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation
(FPDS-NG) is the federal government's primary central database for
capturing information on federal procurement actions. Congress,
Executive Branch agencies, and the public rely on FPDS-NG for a wide
range of information including agencies' contracting actions,
governmentwide procurement trends, and how procurement actions support
socioeconomic goals and affect specific geographical areas and markets.
The panel reported that FPDS-NG data, while insightful when aggregated
at the highest level, continue to be inaccurate and incomplete at the
detailed level and cannot be relied on to conduct procurement analyses.
The panel believes the processes for capturing and reporting FPDS-NG
data need to be improved if that data is to meet user requirements. As
a result, the panel made 15 recommendations aimed at increasing the
accuracy and the timeliness of the FPDS-NG data. For example, the panel
recommended that an independent verification and validation should be
undertaken to ensure all other validation rules are working properly in
FPDS-NG.
Our work has identified similar concerns as those expressed by the
panel. In fact, the panel cited our work numerous times in its report.
Like the panel, we have pointed out that FPDS-NG data accuracy has been
a long-standing problem and have made numerous recommendations to
address this problem. As early as 1994, we reported that the usefulness
of federal procurement data for conducting procurement policy analysis
was limited. More recently, in 2005, we again raised concerns about the
accuracy and timeliness of the data available in FPDS-NG. We have also
reported that the use of the independent verification and validation
function is recognized as a best business practice and can help provide
reasonable assurance that the system satisfies its intended use and
user needs.
OFPP Plans to Address Most SARA Panel Recommendations:
OFPP representatives told us the office agrees with almost all of the
89 panel recommendations and has already acted on some, while potential
actions are pending on others. OFPP identified legislative actions and
FAR cases that could address over one third of the recommendations.
OFPP expects to address at least 51 of the remaining recommendations
and plans to work with the chief acquisition officer or senior
procurement official within each agency to do so. In some cases, OFPP
has established milestones and reporting requirements to help provide
it with visibility over the progress and results of implementing the
recommendations. Although OFPP has taken some steps to track the
progress of selected recommendations, it does not have an overall
strategy or plan to gauge the successes and shortcomings in how the
panel's recommendations are implemented and how they improve federal
acquisitions. Table 1 shows how OFPP expected the 89 recommendations to
be implemented.
Table 1: OFPP Expectations for SARA Panel Recommendations as of October
2007:
Legislative action:
Number of recommendations: 23.
Changes to the FAR:
Number of recommendations: 9.
OFPP actions:
Number of recommendations: 51.
Agency actions:
Number of recommendations: 6.
Total:
Number of recommendations: 89.
Source: GAO analysis of OFPP data.
[End of table]
In October 2007, OFPP representatives noted that while the panel
directed 17 recommendations to Congress, legislative actions could
address as many as 23 panel recommendations. Panel recommendations
directed to Congress include potential legislative changes such as
authorizing the General Services Administration to establish a new
information technology schedule for professional services and enacting
legislation to strengthen the preference for awarding contracts to
small businesses. An example of the latter is amending the Small
Business Act to remove any statutory provisions that appear to provide
for a hierarchy of small business programs. According to the panel,
this is necessary because an agency would have difficulty meeting its
small business goal if any one small business program takes a priority
over the others. Since October 2007, some panel recommendations have
been addressed by legislative actions. For example, the panel
recommended that protests of task and delivery orders valued in excess
of $5 million be permitted. Section 843 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 allows for such protests, but
raised the dollar threshold to orders valued in excess of $10 million.
For those recommendations that were expected to be addressed by
legislative actions but have not yet been the subject of congressional
action, OFPP representatives told us the office could take
administrative actions, such as issuing a policy memorandum or
initiating a FAR case, to implement most of them.
Conclusions and Recommendation:
In closing, the SARA Panel, like GAO, has made numerous recommendations
to improve federal government acquisition--from encouraging competition
and adopting commercial practices to improving the accuracy and
usefulness of procurement data. Our work is largely consistent with the
panel's recommendations, and when they are taken as a whole, we believe
the recommendations, if implemented effectively, can bring needed
improvements in the way the federal government buys goods and services.
OFPP, as the lead office for responding to the report, is now in a key
position to sustain the panel's work by ensuring that panel
recommendations are implemented across the federal government in an
effective and timely manner. To do this, we recommended in our recent
report that OFPP work with the chief acquisition officers and senior
procurement officials across all the federal agencies to lay out a
strategy or plan that includes milestones and reporting requirements
that OFPP could use to establish accountability, exercise oversight,
and gauge the progress and results of implementing the recommendations.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might
have.
For questions regarding this testimony, please call John P. Hutton at
(202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this testimony.
Key contributors to this testimony include James Fuquay, Assistant
Director, Daniel Hauser, John Krump, Robert Miller, and Robert
Swierczek.
[End of section]
Footnote:
[1] GAO, Federal Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement
Acquisition Advisory Panel Recommendations, GAO-08-160 (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 20, 2007).
[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 "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
