Search results

To improve acquisition outcomes, in 1997 the District established the Office of Contracting and Procurement under the direction of a newly created chief procurement officer (CPO). Since then, the District's inspector general and auditor have identified improper contracting practices. This report examines whether the District's procurement system is based on procurement law and management and oversight practices that incorporate generally accepted key principles to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse. GAO's work is based on a review of generally accepted key principles identified by federal, state, and local procurement laws, regulations, and guidance. GAO also reviewed District audit reports and discussed issues with current and former District officials as well as select state and local officials.

In prior work, GAO found that contractors were paid billions of dollars in award fees regardless of acquisition outcomes. In December 2007, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance aimed at improving the use of award fee contracts. GAO was asked to (1) identify agencies’ actions to revise or develop award fee policies and guidance to reflect OMB guidance, (2) assess the consistency of current practices with the new guidance, and (3) determine the extent agencies are collecting, analyzing, and sharing information on award fees. GAO reviewed the Departments of defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-agencies that constituted over 95 percent of the dollars spent on award fee contracts in fiscal year 2008.

Federal agencies are relying increasingly on contractors to perform their missions. With hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent each year on goods and services, it is essential that federal acquisition be handled in an efficient, effective, and accountable manner. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), however--as well as other accountability organizations, inspectors general, and the agencies themselves--continue to identify systemic weaknesses in key areas of acquisition. In fact, the acquisition function at several agencies has been on GAO's high-risk list, which identifies areas in the federal government with greater vulnerability to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In January 2005, we added interagency contracting to this list. Far too often, the result of poor acquisitions has been an inability to obtain quality goods and services on time and at a fair price. We can no longer afford such outcomes. Given current fiscal demands and the fiscal challenges we are likely to face in the 21st century, the federal government must improve its ability to acquire goods and services in a cost-effective manner. GAO developed this framework to enable high-level, qualitative assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the acquisition function at federal agencies. Such assessments can help senior agency executives identify areas needing greater management attention, and enable accountability organizations (including GAO) to identify areas requiring more focused follow-up work. The framework consists of four interrelated cornerstones that our work has shown are essential to an efficient, effective, and accountable acquisition process: (1) organizational alignment and leadership, (2) policies and processes, (3) human capital, and (4) knowledge and information management. The framework supports an integrated evaluation approach, but each of these cornerstones can stand alone so users of this framework may tailor evaluations to an agency's specific needs.

- The aim of this article is to promote the use of free government resources to librarians and library users by focusing on four starting points for finding government information that is freely available.

- This article uses the No Child Left Behind act to compare the types of information that can be found in US Dept. of Education web pages, Congressional Research Service reports, General Accountability Office reports, and Congressional committee hearings.

- Each of the four government resources described in the article provides a wealth of information on the example topic. However, the information found from each resource is influenced by the mission of the organization, creating disparity in the depth of information offered and the manner in which it is presented.

- One can use the federal government agency that works in a subject area to find an overview, legal background, reports, and statistics on that subject, as well as information on how the agency is administering policies related to that topic. The Congressional Research Service can provide a broad outside overview of the subject along with pro and con issues related to the subject. The Government Accountability Office can add detailed analysis and criticism on the subject. Congressional committee hearings can provide testimony and reports from stakeholders and experts on the subject, offering a variety of viewpoints.

- This paper fills an identified need for comparison of these four sources as primary starting points for finding and using government information.

Federal agencies can directly purchase more than 8 million commercial products and services through the General Services Administration’s (GSA) multiple award schedules (MAS) contracts. Over the past 10 years, MAS contract sales have increased dramatically--with sales jumping from $4 billion to $32 billion. In addition to simplifying the procurement process, the MAS program is designed to take advantage of the government’s significant aggregate buying power. While GSA seeks to negotiate best pricing for its MAS contracts by analyzing vendor-provided information--such as discounts given to other customers and recent sales data for the same or similar items--past reports have found that GSA has not always used pricing tools effectively and that management controls for better ensuring fair and reasonable pricing had been reduced. This report discusses GSA’s process for negotiating most favored customer prices for MAS contracts and its efforts to improve the overall quality of negotiations. Contract negotiators at the four MAS acquisition centers that GAO reviewed use a variety of tools for obtaining most favored customer pricing--that is, the prices vendors offer their best customers. However, the GAO analysis of GSA’s review of selected fiscal year 2004 MAS contract files found that nearly 60 percent lacked the documentation needed to establish clearly that the prices were effectively negotiated. Specifically, the contract documentation did not establish that negotiated prices were based on accurate, complete, and current vendor information; adequate price analyses; and reasonable price negotiations. GSA’s efforts to ensure most favored customer pricing have been hindered by the significant decline in the use of pre-award and postaward audits of pre-award pricing information, two independent pricing tools that have helped GSA avoid or recover hundreds of millions of dollars in excessive pricing. In fiscal year 1995, GSA conducted 154 pre-award audits; by 2004 the number of pre-award audits fell to 40. Postaward audits--which resulted in an average annual recovery of $18 million in the early 1990s--were discontinued in 1997 when GSA revised its MAS contract audit policies to increase the use of pre-award audits--an increase that has not materialized. In March 2003, GSA established the Acquisition Quality Measurement and Improvement Program, initiating the use of prenegotiation panels and postaward quality reviews of contracts. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives has been limited due to insufficient oversight. For example, three of the MAS acquisition centers that GAO visited had not reported the results of their 2003 prenegotiation panels--information needed by management to identify problems and make needed improvements. Moreover, the fourth acquisition center--which accounted for about 56 percent of the fiscal year 2004 MAS sales--has yet to hold a panel. While the postaward quality reviews--the second program initiative--have identified deficiencies in contract file documentation, they did not determine the underlying causes of these deficiencies or prescribe actions needed to address them. As a result of these weaknesses, GSA cannot be assured that fair and reasonable prices have been negotiated for its MAS contracts.

The US federal government requires auditors to follow governmental auditing standards when performing audits of entities expending significant federal government dollars. This study explores stakeholder participation during the comment letter phase of government auditing standard setting to determine if participation is symbolic or substantive.

Researchers conduct an analysis of the 179 comment letters submitted to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and received for their 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.

The distribution of stakeholder participation groups in the government auditing standard-setting process differs from the distribution in the private company auditing standard-setting process. On average, participants submit letters that are greater than two pages in length. Participants also contribute feedback on topics that the GAO directly solicits. Taken together, the results demonstrate stakeholder behaviors that are consistent with a substantive rather than symbolic due process involvement for government auditing standards.

Stakeholder beliefs are inferred based on the observed behavior of comment letter submissions. Also, there is a subjective element to the classification of the comment letters for the study.

Given the far-reaching implications of Yellow Book auditing standards on public, private and nonprofit entities, the findings are relevant to a heterogeneous audience. This study reveals opportunities for users of government auditing standards, practitioners and academics for greater involvement in due process standard setting to bring additional legitimacy to the GAO and its standard-setting activities.

Beyond the current study, little empirical research examines Yellow Book auditing standards or the due process through which these standards are established. This is the first study to examine the complete set of comment letters for the 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and its amendment – the Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 – are unique not only in the history of the accounting and auditing profession, but also in international law. The Acts raised awareness of the need for efficient and adequate internal control systems to prevent illegal acts such as the bribery of foreign officials, political parties and governments to secure or maintain contracts overseas. Its uniqueness is also due to the fact that the USA is the first country to pioneer such a legislation that impacted foreign trade, international law and codes of ethics. The research traces the history of the FCPA before and after its enactment, the role played by the various branches of the United States Government – Congress, Department of Justice, Securities Exchange commission (SEC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the contributions made by professional associations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICFA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Bar Association (ABA); and, finally, the role played by various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). A cultural, ethical and legalistic background will give a better understanding of the FCPA as wll as the rationale for its controversy.

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (and the subsequent Government Management Reform Act of 1994) mandated federal agencies to prepare corporate-style annual financial statements and subject them to independent audit. Over a decade later, it is reasonable to ask what the consequences of CFO Act financial statements have been. Accrual accounting produces auditable financial statements that establish accountability, contribute to the credibility of financial information, and identify long-term financial issues; but financial statements are not linked to the processes for resource-allocation decisions, nor do they produce information needed by managers. Some of these shortcomings are explained by contextual and sectoral differences.