contracts, loans and grants). Data on financial assistance awards (e.g., grants) are received from  reports submitted by agencies in a file format called Federal  Assistance Award Data System PLUS (FAADS+). GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability and  Transparency Act of 2006, GAO-10-365 (Washington, D.C.; Mar. USASpending.gov website, we recommended, among other things, that  the Director of OMB revise guidance to federal agencies on reporting  federal awards to clarify the requirement that award titles describe the  award’s purpose and requirements for validating and documenting  agency award data submitted by federal agencies; and include  information on the city where work is performed in OMB’s public reporting  of the completeness of agency data submissions. Agencies Generally Reported Contracts, but Many Assistance Programs Were Not Reported

Although agencies generally reported information for contracts to  USASpending.gov, they did not properly report information on assistance  awards, totaling nearly $619 billion. One agency, the Millennium  Challenge Corporation, reported an ongoing inability to report its awards  because its recipients are foreign governments or non-governmental  organizations. However, OMB’s guidance describes how to report foreign   In June 2013, OMB  assistance and other agencies report such awards.issued a memorandum directing agencies to establish procedures to  ensure that financial data reported on USASpending.gov is consistent  with agency financial records. If properly implemented, these procedures  could better ensure that agencies fully report future assistance awards. Of the 37 agencies  with budget authority of at least $400 million each in fiscal year 2012, the  website includes information on at least one contract awarded by 33 of  the agencies. Specifically, of our sample of  385 awards, 4 percent contained information that was fully consistent with  agency records for all 21 data elements. determine whether the remaining data elements were significantly  consistent or inconsistent, in large part because of incomplete or  inadequate agency records. Eight Data Elements Had Information That Was Significantly Inconsistent with Information in Agency Records

While only one data element contained information that was significantly  consistent with agency records, eight were significantly inconsistent for  fiscal year 2012 awards, with estimated rates on inconsistency of at least  10 percent (see table 4). OMB did this twice. Four data elements in particular exhibited a significant amount of  unverifiable information, meaning that at least 10 percent of awards  contained unverifiable information for these data elements. By not capturing this information in some authoritative  source, the information displayed on the website is not verifiable. Without more specific guidance on how agencies are to substantiate the  information required to be reported to USASpending.gov and a process to  ensure adherence to that and existing guidance, agencies will be  constrained in their ability to comply with OMB guidance requiring agency  validation of award information. While OMB placed additional  responsibilities on agencies to ensure their reported information was  accurate, our testing of the 2012 awards shows that this approach has  had limited effect on the overall quality of the data. However, the ongoing  inaccuracies in reported non-financial award information reinforce the  need for a more comprehensive oversight process. Finally, gaps in  records used to validate the data on the website continue to exist. Until these issues are addressed, any effort to validate USASpending.gov  data will be hampered by uncertainties about the accuracy of the data. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions to the  USASpending.gov website, we recommend that the Director of the Office  of Management and Budget, in collaboration with Treasury’s Fiscal  Service, take the following two actions:  clarify guidance on: agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual  appropriations;  the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements to  non-classified awards associated with intelligence operations;  the requirement that award titles describe the award’s purpose  (consistent with our prior recommendation); agency maintenance of authoritative records adequate to verify  the accuracy of required data reported for use by  USASpending.gov; and develop and implement a government-wide oversight process to  regularly assess the consistency of information reported by federal  agencies to the website other than the award amount. OMB generally agreed with our recommendations. The Millennium  Challenge Corporation and Treasury neither agreed nor disagreed with  our recommendations. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) federal agencies  report required award data and (2) inconsistencies exist between the data  on USASpending.gov and records at federal agencies.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act was enacted in 2006 to increase the transparency over the more than $1 trillion spent by the federal government on awards annually. Among other things, the act requires OMB to establish a website that contains data on federal awards (e.g., contracts and grants) and guidance on agency reporting requirements for the website, USASpending.gov.
GAO's objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) agencies report required award data and (2) the data on the website are consistent with agency records. To assess reporting, GAO reviewed laws and guidance, analyzed reported award data, and interviewed agency officials. To assess inconsistency, GAO selected a representative sample of 385 fiscal year 2012 awards and traced them back to agency source records.

What GAO Found

Although agencies generally reported required contract information, they did not properly report information on assistance awards (e.g., grants or loans), totaling approximately $619 billion in fiscal year 2012. Specifically, 33 of 37 agencies with a budget authority of at least $400 million reported at least one contract. The other four claimed exemptions from reporting, such as the use of non-appropriated funds, but gaps in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance make it unclear whether such exemptions are appropriate. Also, agencies reported required information for at least one assistance award for 1,390 of 2,183 programs listed in a federal catalog. Another 451 programs did not make an award subject to USASpending.gov reporting. However, agencies did not appropriately submit the required information for the remaining 342 programs, although many reported the information after GAO informed them of the omission. Officials with the Millennium Challenge Corporation said that they could not report because its recipients are foreign. However, OMB's guidance describes how to report foreign assistance and other agencies report such awards. OMB has taken steps to improve the completeness of assistance awards on the website, including issuing a memorandum in June 2013 directing agencies to ensure that data on USASpending.gov are consistent with agency financial records. If properly implemented, these procedures could better ensure that agencies report future assistance awards.
Few awards on the website contained information that was fully consistent with agency records. GAO estimates with 95 percent confidence that between 2 percent and 7 percent of the awards contained information that was fully consistent with agencies' records for all 21 data elements examined. The element that identifies the name of the award recipient was the most consistent, while the elements that describe the award's place of performance were generally the most inconsistent. GAO could not determine whether the remaining data elements were significantly consistent or inconsistent, in large part because of incomplete or inadequate agency records. Four data elements in particular (e.g., program source information and the state of performance) had inadequacies that were significant. This means that for each of the four data elements, at least 10 percent of awards contained unverifiable information. While OMB placed responsibilities on agencies to ensure their reported information is accurate and substantiated by supporting documentation, this approach has had limited effect on the overall quality of the data on the website, reinforcing the need for a more comprehensive oversight process by OMB and more specific guidance from OMB on how agencies are to validate information reported to USASpending.gov. Until these weaknesses are addressed, any effort to use the data will be hampered by uncertainties about accuracy.

What GAO Recommends

To improve reliability of information on the USASpending.gov website, GAO is making recommendations to the Director of OMB to (1) clarify guidance on reporting award information and maintaining supporting records, and (2) develop and implement oversight processes to ensure that award data are consistent with agency records. GAO also recommends that the Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation report its award information, as required. OMB generally agreed with GAO's recommendations. While the Millennium Challenge Corporation neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation, GAO believes it is needed, as discussed in this report.