United States General Accounting Office
GAO Testimony
Before the Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Wednesday, April 30, 2003 CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT
Comments on Proposed
Services Acquisition
Reform Act
Statement of William T. Woods, Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management
GAO-03-716T
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.
April 30, 2003
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Comments on Proposed Services
Highlights of GAO-03-716T, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Acquisition Reform Act
Representatives
Since 1997, federal spending on The growth in spending on service contracts, combined with decreases in
services has grown 11 percent and the acquisition workforce and an increase in the number of high-dollar
now represents more than 60 procurement actions, create a challenging acquisition environment. It is
percent of contract spending important that agencies have the authorities and tools they need to maximize
governmentwide. Several their performance in this new environment. The initiatives contained in the
significant changes in the Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) address a number of longstanding
government—including funding for issues in contracting for services and should enable agencies to improve
homeland security—are expected their performance in this area. For example:
to further increase spending on
services. Adjusting to this new
Section 201: Chief Acquisition Officers. Appointing a Chief Acquisition
environment has proven difficult.
Officer would establish a clear line of authority, accountability, and
Agencies need to improve in a responsibility for acquisition decisionmaking.
number of areas: sustaining
executive leadership, strengthening Section 103: Government-Industry Exchange Program. A professional
the acquisition workforce, and exchange program would allow federal agencies to gain from the
encouraging innovative contracting knowledge and expertise of the commercial acquisition workforce.
approaches. Improving these areas
is a key goal of SARA. At the same time, GAO is concerned about some provisions in SARA. For
example:
GAO is not making Section 211: Ensuring Efficient Payment. While GAO supports the intent
recommendations. of this proposal to make payments to government contractors more
timely, GAO has reservations concerning its implementation. GAO’s
work shows that agencies have been hampered by problems such as high
payment volume, inadequate payment systems, and weak controls.
GAO’s review of spending and workforce trends in federal procurement
highlights the significance of services acquisitions. The table below shows
the percent of contract dollars spent on services by federal agencies.
Percent of Contract Dollars Spent on Services In Fiscal Year 2001
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-716T.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact William T.
Woods at (202) 512-4841 or
woodsw@gao.gov.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting the General Accounting Office (GAO) to participate
in today’s hearing on the proposed Services Acquisition Reform Act of
2003 (SARA). Over the past several years, the federal acquisition
environment has changed dramatically. Spending for services has
increased significantly and now represents more than 60 percent of all
federal contract spending. At the same time, there has been a reduction in
the size of the acquisition workforce, and the use of alternative contracting
approaches has been growing. The purpose of SARA is to provide federal
agencies with additional tools for addressing these developments. We fully
support this objective, and look forward to continuing to work with this
Committee and others in finding ways to promote more efficient and
effective acquisitions.
In my testimony today, I will:
• Summarize recent trends in contract spending and in the acquisition
workforce, and
• Discuss our views on selected provisions of SARA based on relevant GAO
reports.
We recently issued several reports on acquisition spending and workforce
Contract Spending trends. These reports show that spending on services acquisitions is
and Workforce Trends increasing at a time when the acquisition workforce is decreasing.
Spending Trends Our report on spending and workforce trends in federal procurement1
shows that federal agencies continue to buy far more services than goods.
Since 1997, spending on services has grown 11 percent. In fiscal year 2001,
over 60 percent of the more than $220 billion in goods and services
purchased by the federal government was for services.2 At six agencies,
1
Federal Procurement: Spending and Workforce Trends, GAO-03-443 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 30, 2003).
2
Federal agencies spent about $140 billion on services and about $81 billion on goods for
contracts valued at more than $25,000. The Federal Procurement Data System does not
provide similar information for contracts valued at $25,000 or less. However, the combined
total of purchases of goods and services for fiscal year 2001 was more than $235 billion.
Page 1 GAO-03-716T
procurement of services exceeded 75 percent of their total spending on
contracts; at one agency, the Department of Energy, nearly 100 percent of
total spending via contracts was for services (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Percent of Contract Dollars Spent on Services in Fiscal Year 2001
Spending on services could increase even further, at least in the short
term, given the President’s recent request for additional funds for defense
and homeland security. The degree to which individual agencies are
currently contracting for services and the growth of services spending
underscore the importance of ensuring that service acquisitions are
managed properly.
Workforce Challenges Industry and government experts alike recognize that the key to a
successful transformation toward a more effective acquisition system is
having the right people with the right skills. To increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of acquiring goods and services, the government is relying
more on judgment and initiative versus rigid rules to make purchasing
decisions.
Agencies have to address governmentwide reductions in the acquisition
workforce. At the same time, government contract actions exceeding
Page 2 GAO-03-716T
$25,000 have increased significantly—by 26 percent between fiscal years
1997 and 2001 (see table 1).
Table 1: Federal Acquisition Personnel and Workload
Acquisition workforce Changes in contract actions, fiscal years 1997 through 2001
Change in
Percent change in Change in total Change in contract contract actions
workforce since contract actions actions exceeding under $25,000
Agency Total Sept. 2001 fiscal year 1997 (percent) $25,000 (percent) (percent)
Governmentwide 103,053 -5 -6 26 -7
DOD 68,513 -9 5 27 4
USDA 5,703 -6 -79 25 -81
DOE 1,449 10 4 19 -3
GSA 2,743 11 -75 68 -82
HHS 2,490 9 -29 44 -31
DOJ 1,457 -2 -11 26 -13
NASA 1,246 -4 -38 -12 -50
DOT 1,514 -7 -37 27 -48
Treasury 2,561 8 12 15 11
VA 2,562 -6 29 -12 30
Sources: OPM, FPDS, and FAA.
Over the past year, GAO issued four reports on the management and
training of the government’s acquisition workforce.3 While the agencies4
we reviewed are taking steps to address their future acquisition workforce
needs, each is encountering challenges in their efforts. In particular,
shifting priorities, missions, and budgets have made it difficult for agencies
to predict, with certainty, the specific skills and competencies the
acquisition workforce may need.
3
Acquisition Workforce: Department of Defense’s Plans to Address Workforce Size and
Structure Challenges, GAO-02-630 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002); Acquisition
Workforce: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Future Needs, GAO-03-55 (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 18, 2002); Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the
Training of Their Employees, GAO-02-737 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 29, 2002); and
Acquisition Management: Agencies Can Improve Training on New Initiatives,
GAO-03-281 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 15, 2003).
4
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of the Treasury, and the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Page 3 GAO-03-716T
Training is critical in ensuring that the acquisition workforce has the right
skills. To deliver training effectively, leading organizations typically
prioritize and set requirements for those in need of training to ensure their
training reaches the right people. Agencies we reviewed5 had developed
specific training requirements for their acquisition workforce and had
efforts underway to make training available and raise awareness of major
acquisition initiatives. However, they did not have processes for ensuring
that training reaches all those who need it. And while agencies had also
developed a variety of systems to track the training of their personnel,
they experienced difficulties with these systems.
We have issued a number of reports on key provisions of SARA. These
GAO Work Related to reports address the areas of acquisition leadership, workforce, contract
SARA innovations, as well as other proposals.
Leadership
Section 201: Chief Acquisition Our discussions with officials from leading companies, which we reported
Officer on last year,6 indicate that a procurement executive or Chief Acquisition
Officer plays a critical role in changing an organization’s culture and
practices. In response to many of the same challenges faced by the federal
government—such as a lack of tools to ensure they receive the best value
over time—each of the companies we studied changed how they acquired
services in significant ways. For example, each elevated or expanded the
role of the company’s procurement organization; designated “commodity”
managers to oversee key services; and/or made extensive use of cross-
functional teams. Taking a strategic approach paid off. One official, for
example, estimated that his company saved over $210 million over a recent
5-year period by pursuing a more strategic approach.
Bringing about these new ways of doing business, however, was
challenging. To overcome these challenges, the companies found they
5
The agencies we reviewed for the two reports on training included Department of Defense
(DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), Department of the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
6
Best Practices: Taking a Strategic Approach Could Improve DOD’s Acquisition of
Services, GAO-02-230 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2002).
Page 4 GAO-03-716T
needed to have sustained commitment from their senior leadership—first,
to provide the initial impetus to change, and second, to keep up the
momentum.
Section 201 of SARA would create a Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO)
within each civilian executive agency. We support this provision. By
granting the CAO clear lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility
for acquisition decision-making, SARA takes a similar approach as leading
companies in terms of the responsibility and decision-making authority of
these individuals.
Acquisition Workforce
Section 103: Government- Comptroller General David Walker testified earlier this month7 that
Industry Exchange Program strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of any
serious government transformation effort and that federal workers can be
an important part of the solution to the overall transformation effort. In
July 2001,8 he recommended that Congress explore greater flexibilities to
allow federal agencies to enhance their skills mix by leveraging the
expertise of private sector employees through innovative fellowship
programs.
The acquisition professional exchange program proposed in section 103 of
SARA could enhance the ability of federal workers to successfully
transform the way the federal government acquires services. The program,
which is modeled after the Information Technology Exchange Program
included in the recently passed E-Government Act of 2002,9 would permit
the temporary exchange of high-performing acquisition professionals
between the federal government and participating private-sector entities.
We support this provision, which begins to address a key question we face
in the federal government: Do we have today, or will we have tomorrow,
the ability to manage the procurement of the increasingly sophisticated
services the government needs? Following a decade of downsizing and
7
Human Capital: Building on the Current Momentum to Address High-Risk Issues,
GAO-03-637T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2003).
8
Human Capital: Building the Information Technology Workforce to Achieve Results,
GAO-01-1007T (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001).
9
Public Law 107-347, Section 209.
Page 5 GAO-03-716T
curtailed investments in human capital, federal agencies currently face
skills, knowledge, and experience imbalances that, without corrective
action, will worsen. The program established by section 103 would allow
federal agencies to gain from the knowledge and expertise of private-
sector professionals and entities.
Section 102: Acquisition Section 102 of SARA would establish an acquisition workforce training
Workforce Training Fund fund using five percent of the fees generated by governmentwide contract
programs. We recently completed a review of fees charged on
governmentwide contracts—covering all five designated executive
agencies for governmentwide acquisition contracts and the General
Services Administration’s Schedules program.10 The Office of Management
and Budget’s guidance directs agencies operating governmentwide
information technology contracts to transfer fees in excess of costs to the
miscellaneous receipts account of the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund.
Further, some of these contracts operate under revolving fund statutes
that limit the use of fees to the authorized purposes of the funds.
Quality training is important, and we recognize the need for adequate
funds for training. In our view, however, the procuring agencies should
ensure that adequate funding is available through the normal budgeting
process to provide the training the acquisition workforce needs. We are
concerned about relying on contract program fees–which can vary from
year to year and which are intended to cover other requirements–as a
source of funding for such an important priority as workforce training.
Innovative Contracting Several sections of SARA would encourage the use of innovative contract
types that could provide savings to the government. For example,
performance-based contracts can offer significant benefits, such as
encouraging contractors to find cost-effective ways of delivering services.
Share-in-savings contracting, one type of performance-based contracting,
is an agreement in which a client compensates a contractor from the
financial benefits derived as a result of the contract performance.
10
Contract Management: Interagency Contract Program Fees Need More Oversight,
GAO-02-734 (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2002). Our review showed that in some years
contract fees exceeded costs and in others the fees fell short of covering the costs
incurred. From fiscal year 1999 to 2001, the revenue generated by the GSA’s Schedules
program fees exceeded program costs by over 50 percent. We recommended that the fee be
adjusted. Based on our recommendation, GSA initiated action toward a 25-percent
reduction in the fee it charges for using the Schedules program.
Page 6 GAO-03-716T
Section 301: Share-in-Savings Share-in-savings contracting can motivate contractors to generate savings
Initiatives and revenues for their clients. We issued a report earlier this year in
response to your request that we determine how the commercial sector
uses share-in-savings contracting.11 We examined four commercial share-
in-savings contracts and identified common characteristics that made
them successful.
In the commercial share-in-savings contracts we reviewed, we found four
conditions that facilitated success:
• An expected outcome is clearly specified. By outcomes, we mean such
things as generating savings by eliminating inefficient business practices
or identifying new revenue centers. It is critical that a client and
contractor have a clear understanding of what they are trying to achieve.
• Incentives are defined. Both the client and contractor need to strike a
balance between the level of risk and reward they are willing to pursue.
• Performance measures are established. By its nature, share-in-savings
cannot work without having a baseline and good performance measures to
gauge exactly what savings or revenues are being achieved. Agreement
must be reached on how metrics are linked to contractor intervention.
• Top management commitment is secured. A client’s top executives
need to provide contractors with the authority needed to carry out
solutions, since change from the outside is often met with resistance. They
also need to help sustain a partnership over time since relationships
between the contractor and client can be tested in the face of changing
market conditions and other barriers.
The companies in our study found that successful arrangements have
generated savings and revenues. In one case highlighted in our report,
$980,000 was realized in annual energy savings.
We have not found share-in-savings contracting to be widespread in the
commercial sector or the federal government. Excluding the energy
industry, we found limited references to companies or state agencies that
use or have used the share-in-savings concept. In addition, there are few
documented examples of share-in-savings contracting in the federal
11
Contract Management: Commercial Use of Share-in-Savings Contracting, GAO-03-327
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2003).
Page 7 GAO-03-716T
government. Officials in federal agencies we spoke with noted that such
arrangements may be difficult to pursue given potential resistance and the
lack of good baseline performance data. In addition, in previous work,12
Department of Energy headquarters officials told us they believe such
contracts can be best used when federal funding is unavailable.
To achieve the potential benefits from the use of share-in-savings
contracting, it may be worthwhile to examine ways to overcome potential
issues. For example, in a letter to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
in March of this year,13 we recognized that share-in-savings contracting
represents a significant change in the way the federal government acquires
services. To address this challenge, we underscored the need for the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy to develop guidance and policies
that could ensure that (1) appropriate data are collected and available to
meet mandated reporting requirements regarding the effective use of
share-in-savings contracting, and (2) members of the federal acquisition
workforce understand and appropriately apply this new authority.
Section 401: Additional Section 401 authorizes agencies to treat a contract or task order as being
Incentives for Use of for a commercial item if it is performance-based—that is, it describes each
Performance-Based task in measurable, mission-related terms, and identifies the specific
Contracting for Services outputs—and the contractor provides similar services and terms to the
public. This provision, which would only apply if the contract or task
order were valued at $5 million or less, would provide another tool to
promote greater use of performance-based contracting.
Our spending and workforce trends report shows that in fiscal year 2001,
agencies reported that 24 percent of their eligible service contracts, by
dollar value, were performance-based. However, there was wide variation
in the extent to which agencies used performance-based contracts. As
figure 2 shows, 3 of the 10 agencies in our review fell short of the Office of
Management and Budget’s goal that 10 percent of eligible service contracts
be performance-based.
12
Energy Conservation: Contractor’s Efforts at Federally Owned Sites, GAO/RCED-94-96
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 1994).
13
Contract Management: OFPP Policy Regarding Share-in-Savings Contracting
Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, GAO-03-552R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24,
2003).
Page 8 GAO-03-716T
Figure 2: Percentage of Eligible Contracts Considered Performance Based
a
DOE and VA officials stated that their internal data systems report a higher use of performance-
based contracting in fiscal year 2001 than the data in FPDS. For example, DOE officials believed
77 percent of their eligible contracts were performance based, while VA officials believed their
agency’s figure should be about 11 percent.
b
Figure reflects data for DOT only; FAA could not provide performance-based service contracting
data because it was not an integral part of its management information systems.
In our September 2002 report,14 we recommended that the Administrator
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy clarify existing guidance to
ensure that performance-based contracting is appropriately used,
particularly when acquiring more unique and complex services that
require strong government oversight. If section 401 is enacted, we believe
that clear guidance will be needed to ensure effective implementation. The
Office of Federal Procurement Policy might be assisted in developing and
updating meaningful guidance by establishing a center for excellence to
identify best practices in service contracting, as required by section 401. A
center for excellence may help federal agencies learn about successful
ways to implement performance-based contracting.
14
Contract Management: Guidance Needed for Using Performance-Based Service
Contracting, GAO-02-1049 (Washington, D.C.: Sept., 23, 2002).
Page 9 GAO-03-716T
Section 501: Authority to Enter Section 501 would authorize those civilian agencies approved by the Office
Into Certain Procurement- of Management and Budget to use so-called “other transactions” for
Related Transactions and to projects related to defense against or recovery from terrorism, or nuclear,
Carry Out Certain Prototype biological, chemical, or radiological attacks. Other transactions are
Projects agreements that are not contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. This
authority would be similar to that currently available to the Departments
of Homeland Security and Defense.
Because statutes that apply only to procurement contracts do not apply to
other transactions, this authority may be useful to agencies in attracting
firms that traditionally decline to do business with the government. In fact,
our work shows that the Department of Defense has had some success in
using other transactions to attract nontraditional firms to do business with
the government. Our work also has shown, however, that there is a critical
need for guidance on when and how other transactions may best be used.
The guidance developed by the Department of Defense may prove helpful
to other agencies should the Congress decide to expand the availability of
other transaction authority.
Additional Comments on
SARA Proposals
Section 211: Ensuring Efficient Section 211 provides for a streamlined payment process under which
Payment service contractors could submit invoices for payment on a biweekly or a
monthly basis. Biweekly invoices would be required to be submitted
electronically.
While we support the intent of this proposal—to make payments to
government contractors more timely—implementation of this provision
could result in increased improper payments and stress already weak
systems and related internal controls. Agency efforts to address improper
payment problems have been hampered by high payment volume, speed of
service, inadequate payment systems and processes, internal control
weaknesses, and downsizing in the acquisition and financial management
community. Until federal agencies make significant progress in eliminating
their payment problems, requirements to accelerate service contract
payments would likely increase the risk of payment errors, backlogs, and
late payment interest.
Section 213: Agency Section 213 would provide for agency-level protests of acquisition
Acquisition Protests decisions alleged to violate law or regulation. An agency would have
Page 10 GAO-03-716T
20 working days to issue a decision on a protest, during which time the
agency would be barred from awarding a contract or continuing with
performance if a contract already had been awarded. If an agency-level
protest were denied, a subsequent protest to GAO that raised the same
grounds and was filed within 5 days would trigger a further stay pending
resolution of that protest.
We believe that a protest process that is effective, expeditious, and
independent serves the interests of all those involved in or affected by the
procurement system. Section 213 appears to address each of these criteria.
First, although protests currently may be filed with the procuring agencies,
section 213 would provide for a more effective agency-level protest
process by requiring that an agency suspend, or “stay,” the procurement
until the protest is resolved. Second, the process would be relatively
expeditious because decisions would be required within 20 working days.
Having an expeditious process at the agency is especially important
because section 213 would provide for a stay both during the agency-level
protest and then during any subsequent GAO protest. It should be noted,
though, that 20 working days may not be adequate for a thorough review,
particularly in complex procurements. Finally, requiring protests to be
decided by the head of the agency may help to mitigate longstanding
concerns about a perceived lack of independence when decisions on
agency-level protests are issued by officials closely connected with the
decision being protested.
Section 402: Authorization of Section 402 would provide for a change to the Federal Acquisition
Additional Commercial Regulation to include the use of time-and-materials and labor-hour
Contract Types contracts for commercial services commonly sold to the general public.
This change would make it clear that such contracts are specifically
authorized for commercial services.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation states that a time-and-materials
contract may be used only when it is not possible to estimate accurately
the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any
reasonable degree of confidence. Therefore, adequate surveillance is
required to give reasonable assurance that the contractor is using efficient
methods and effective cost controls.
Section 404: Designation of Section 404 would designate as a commercial item any product or service
Commercial Business Entities sold by a commercial entity that over the past 3 years made 90 percent of
its sales to private sector entities. We are concerned that the provision
allows for products or services that had never been sold or offered for sale
in the commercial marketplace to be considered a commercial item. In
Page 11 GAO-03-716T
such cases, the government may not be able to rely on the assurances of
the marketplace in terms of the quality and pricing of the product or
service.
The growth in spending on service contracts, combined with decreases in
Conclusion the acquisition workforce and an increase in the number of high-dollar
procurement actions, create a challenging acquisition environment. It is
important that agencies have the authorities and tools they need to
maximize their performance in this new environment. The initiatives
contained in SARA address a number of longstanding issues in contracting
for services, and should enable agencies to improve their performance in
this area.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Contact and Acknowledgments
For further information, please contact William T. Woods at
(202) 512-4841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Blake Ainsworth, Christina Cromley, Timothy DiNapoli, Gayle
Fischer, Paul Greeley, Oscar Mardis, and Karen Sloan.
(120243)
Page 12 GAO-03-716T
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
GAO’s Mission Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
Obtaining Copies of through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-
GAO Reports and text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
Testimony using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site
daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily
E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A
check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Contract Management: Comments on Proposed Services Acquisition Reform Act
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2003-04-30.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)