Agencies’ Reported A&AS Obligations Are Not Accurate or Used for Management Purposes

Agencies’ reported A&AS obligations to OMB for inclusion in the  President’s budget are inaccurate to the point of being meaningless. First, the  different interpretations of the broad A&AS definition contribute to errors  in identifying contracts. Third, the lack of integration  of agency procurement and budget systems thwarts accurate accounting  of A&AS contracts. Agencies Do Not Use Reported A&AS Obligations for Management Purposes

Agency officials told us they see little or no internal value in tracking  A&AS obligations as a separate category of services since they do not use  the information for management purposes. Further, at the agencies we reviewed, officials told us they manage their  A&AS contracts, as they do their other professional support service  contracts, through established acquisition management procedures. Reflecting the lack of a clear distinction between A&AS and other  professional management support services, OMB rescinded its Circular  No. Overall, 63 percent of the  A&AS contract actions were issued or awarded on other than a sole  source basis. Agencies’ A&AS Contract Actions Generally Met Statutory Period of Performance Limits

Most contract actions we reviewed had periods of performance (including  all contract options and award terms) that were less than 5 years—the  statutory limit for A&AS task order contracts, but 2 exceeded and 10 had  the potential to exceed the limit. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

For the Department of Defense and selected civilian agencies, our  objectives were to (1) assess whether reported obligations for advisory  and assistance services (A&AS) are accurate or used for management  purposes and (2) identify the extent to which A&AS contracts are used for  recurring services and periods greater than 5 years, as well as the contract  types and vehicles used. The results of our agency-specific  contract file reviews are generalizable to the particular agency location  where we reviewed contract files. We also  interviewed agency procurement and budget officials to discern their  processes and procedures for reporting A&AS obligations to OMB and  discussed the accuracy and usefulness of reported A&AS obligations with  officials from OMB and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Because  the focus of this report was the government’s budget reporting of A&AS  obligations, we did not address compliance with various A&AS-related  provisions, such as the requirement for multiple awards for A&AS task  order contracts (10 U.S.C. In particular, our contract file  review findings enabled us to analyze the contract types used by agencies  to procure A&AS, the degree of interagency contracting for A&AS, and the  level of competition for A&AS contract actions.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 1994, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been required by law to collect and report obligations for advisory and assistance services (A&AS) in the President's budget. The initial intent for this requirement is not clear, however. The statutory definition of A&AS covers three broad categories of management and professional support services. For many years, GAO and others have reported on inaccuracies in agencies' reporting of A&AS obligations. This report follows up on GAO's past work, pursuant to the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Act. GAO assessed (1) whether reported A&AS obligations are accurate or used for management purposes and (2) the extent to which A&AS contracts are used for recurring services and for longer than 5 years and the contract types and vehicles used. GAO analyzed legislative history and reviewed 334 randomly selected contract files across 10 agencies, the results of which are generalizable to locations visited.

What GAO Found

Agencies' reported A&AS obligations are inaccurate to the point of being meaningless and are not used for management purposes. GAO found a range of factors that contribute to significant inaccuracies in these data. Almost 20 percent of the 334 contract actions GAO reviewed were erroneously identified as A&AS, including services such as fitness center maintenance and telecommunications cabling installation. Agency officials frequently cited the broad nature of the A&AS definition as a problem. Agencies GAO reviewed generally encountered challenges in tying reported A&AS obligations to their corresponding contracts because of the lack of integration of procurement and budget data systems. Agency and OMB officials unanimously told GAO they do not use reported A&AS obligations for management or other purposes. Acquisition officials said they oversee their A&AS contracts, as they do their other professional services contracts, with established contract management procedures. Reflecting the lack of a clear distinction between A&AS and general professional services contracts, DOD retracted its A&AS directive and replaced it with general service contracting guidance in 2004. Even as far back as 1996, a code to specifically designate A&AS contracts was removed from the Federal Procurement Data System, the government's procurement information system. Agencies frequently awarded contracts for A&AS on a recurring basis and to the same contractor. Overall 63 percent of the A&AS contract actions were issued on other than a sole-source basis. Most task order contracts reviewed met the A&AS statutory period of performance limit of 5 years; but 2 exceeded and 10 had the potential (if options were exercised) to exceed this limit. Agencies used various contract types and vehicles to procure A&AS. Almost half of the actions GAO reviewed were time-and-materials, and over 40 percent were under interagency vehicles, primarily orders under the General Services Administration's schedule contracts.