During its review of the draft, USDA officials again did not question the methodology of the work underlying the report. Noncompliance With Regulatory and Statutory Requirements

USDA’s subcontract with Lake Research was handled outside normal contracting practices. In our opinion, however, the work performed by Lake Research was outside the scope of the Global Exchange contract and therefore should have been the subject of a separate procurement action. That act requires agencies planning to collect information from 10 or more persons to obtain the review and approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before the effort is undertaken. Problems With Methodology

The approach and methodology used in conducting this focus group research were inconsistent with achieving the desired purpose of the work as set forth in the contract documents—obtaining the general public’s and food stamp recipients’ perceptions of USDA’s reform initiatives for the Food Stamp Program.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO discussed contracting problems involving a Department of Agriculture (USDA) subcontract for surveying the general public's and food stamp recipients' views of food stamp reform initiatives.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) USDA did not use normal contracting practices in procuring the subcontracted services; (2) USDA conducted price and scope of work negotiations prior to official contract negotiations and bypassed the appropriate contracting office; (3) USDA should have conducted a separate competitive procurement for the services, since the work done by the subcontractor was outside the scope of work of the original contract; (4) USDA failed to obtain required approval from the Office of Management and Budget before conducting its survey; (5) the approach and methodology used in conducting the survey were inconsistent with achieving the desired purpose of the work; and (6) the subcontractor appeared to target areas and groups of political significance and asked leading questions to produce biased results.