	Contractors Role in Responding to Emergencies is Increasing

The private sector is an important partner with the government in  responding to and recovering from natural disasters such as Hurricanes  Katrina and Rita. There Was Inadequate Planning and Preparation in Anticipating Requirements for Needed Goods and Services

The need for strong planning is one of the themes identified by the  Comptroller General in regard to the government’s overall response to the  hurricanes. In this regard, we found that  some key agencies did not always have adequate plans for contracting in a  major contingency situation. We also noted the competing tensions  between the selection of national contractors and the requirement under  the Stafford Act for a preference for contractors from the affected area. Better planning could have alleviated those tensions. While contracts for some items were in place prior to the storm, the  Federal Emergency Management Agency did not adequately anticipate  needs for such services as providing temporary housing and public  buildings. There Was a Lack of Clearly Communicated Responsibilities Across Agencies and Jurisdictions

We also found that processes for executing contracts were hindered by  poor communication. In some  instances, the local or state officials determine the requirements and  communicate them to FEMA; FEMA may write and award the contract or  communicate the requirements to another agency that writes and awards  the contract; and then FEMA or another agency oversees contract  performance. This approach puts a premium on aligning roles and  responsibilities clearly and maintaining good communications to ensure  effective execution of the contract. Our fieldwork identified examples where unclear responsibilities and poor  communications resulted in poor acquisition outcomes. The process for ordering and delivering ice heavily depends on  effective communications between FEMA and the Corps. However,  according to Corps officials, FEMA did not fully understand the  contracting approach used by the Corps and ordered at least double  the amount of ice required, resulting in an oversupply of ice and a lack  of distribution sites available to handle the volume ordered. There Were Insufficient Numbers and Inadequate Deployment of Personnel to Provide for Effective Contractor Oversight

The purpose of agencies’ monitoring processes is to ensure that  contracted goods and services are delivered in accordance with the  agreed-upon schedule, cost, quality, and quantity provisions stated in the  contract. Without sufficient numbers of trained people properly deployed,  however, effective monitoring is hampered and agencies may not be able  to identify and correct poor contractor performance in a timely manner. Furthermore, agencies can be at risk of paying contractors more than the  value of the services performed. Our work indicated that while monitoring was occurring on the contracts  we reviewed, the number of monitoring staff available was not always  sufficient, and staff were not always effectively deployed. For example:    FEMA’s contracts for installing temporary housing in four states had  only 17 of the 27 technical monitors that had been determined  necessary to oversee contractor performance. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Challenges for the National  Flood Insurance Program. Army Corps of Engineers: Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane  Projection Project. Hurricane Katrina: Providing Oversight of the Nation’s Preparedness,  Response, and Recovery Activities. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States.
Why GAO Did This Study

The devastation experienced throughout the Gulf Coast region in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has called into question the government's ability to effectively respond to such disasters. The government needs to understand what went right and what went wrong, and to apply these lessons to strengthen its disaster response and recovery operations. The federal government relies on partnerships across the public and private sectors to achieve critical results in preparing for and responding to natural disasters, with an increasing reliance on contractors to carry out specific aspects of its missions. At the same time, the acquisition functions at several agencies are on GAO's high-risk list, indicating a vulnerability to fraud, waste, and abuse. This testimony discusses how three agencies--the General Services Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps)--conducted oversight of key contracts used in response to the hurricanes. Efforts are ongoing by these agencies to address issues GAO and others have identified.

What GAO Found

Agency acquisition and contractor personnel have been recognized for their hard work in providing the goods and services required to be responsive. The response efforts nonetheless suffered from three primary deficiencies: First, there was inadequate planning and preparation in anticipating requirements for needed goods and services. Some key agencies did not always have adequate plans for contracting in a major contingency situation. For example, while contracts for some items were in place prior to the storm, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not adequately anticipate needs for such services as providing temporary housing and public buildings. There were also competing tensions between the selection of national contractors and the Stafford Act requirement that there be a preference for contractors from the affected area. Better planning could have alleviated those tensions. Second, there was a lack of clearly communicated responsibilities across agencies and jurisdictions to ensure effective outcomes. In a disaster situation, sometimes local or state officials determine the requirements and communicate them to FEMA, which then may write and award the contract or communicate the requirements to another agency that writes and awards the contract; and then FEMA or another agency will oversee contract performance. To ensure effective execution of the contract, this approach puts a premium on clear alignment of responsibilities and good communications, but our fieldwork identified examples where unclear responsibilities and poor communications resulted in poor acquisition outcomes. For example, the process for ordering and delivering ice heavily depends on effective communications between FEMA and the Corps. However, according to Corps officials, FEMA did not fully understand the contracting approach used by the Corps and ordered at least double the amount of ice required, resulting in an oversupply of ice and a lack of distribution sites to handle the volume ordered. And third, there were insufficient numbers and inadequate deployment of personnel to provide for effective contractor oversight. The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that contracted goods and services are delivered in accordance with the agreed upon schedule, cost, quality, and quantity provisions stated in the contract. Without sufficient numbers of trained people properly deployed, however, monitoring will not be effective, agencies may not be able to quickly identify and correct poor contractor performance, and agencies will be at risk of overpaying contractors. Our work indicated that while monitoring was occurring on the contracts we reviewed, the number of staff available was not always sufficient and staff were not effectively deployed. For example: FEMA's contracts for installing temporary housing in four states had only 17 of the 27 technical monitors that had been determined necessary to oversee contractor performance.