oversight

Military Training: Observations on the Army's Implementation of a Metric for Measuring Ground Force Training

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-03-16.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548



       March 16, 2012

       Congressional Committees

       Subject: Military Training: Observations on the Army's Implementation of a
       Metric for Measuring Ground Force Training

       In 2008, the Army issued a field manual that identified the need to expand its training
       focus so units would be trained and ready to operate across a full spectrum of
       operations including offensive, defensive, stability, and civil support operations. 1 To
       support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the last several years, the Army has
       focused its ground force training on preparing units for counterinsurgency operations.
       With the withdrawal from operations in Iraq, fewer units are engaged in
       counterinsurgency operations and now have more time to train for full spectrum
       operations.

       To reflect the shift in training focus, the Army, in April 2011, updated its training
       strategy and also established a new metric to measure training activity—referred to as
       the full spectrum training mile metric. This metric replaced the Army’s traditional tank
       mile metric, which represented the average number of miles the Army expected to drive
       its tanks while conducting training. In its fiscal year 2012 budget materials, the Army
       provided background information on its transition to the new metric, and, starting in
       fiscal year 2012, began using the new metric.

       House report 112-78 2 directed GAO to review the Army’s transition to the full spectrum
       training mile metric and report its findings by February 28, 2012. To address this
       mandate, we determined (1) how the Army's full spectrum training mile metric differs
       from its traditional tank mile metric; (2) the key assumptions associated with the full
       spectrum training mile metric and to what extent these assumptions reflect actual
       conditions; and (3) to what extent the Army uses the full spectrum training mile metric
       to measure training execution and develop training cost estimates and related funding
       needs. Additionally, for background purposes, this report includes information on how
       training is reflected in the Army’s operation and maintenance budget-justification
       materials.

       We briefed the congressional defense committees in January 2012 and have included
       the briefing in enclosure 1 of this report.

       1
        Army Field Manual 7-0, Training for Full Spectrum Operations (Dec. 2008).
       2
        H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, which accompanied a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012,
       Pub. L. No. 112-81 (2011).
                                                                                GAO-12-191R Military Training
Scope and Methodology

To address our objectives, we reviewed and analyzed a number of training- and
budget-related documents including the Army’s: training strategy, field manual for full
spectrum operations training, relevant Army guidance, the Army’s fiscal year 2012
operation and maintenance budget request and supporting budget-justification books,
and several briefings that described the tank mile and full spectrum training mile
metrics. We also reviewed recent evaluations of Army training, including prior GAO
reports, and discussed all of these issues with responsible Department of the Army
headquarters officials. Because it is used in developing cost estimates for training, we
briefly discuss the Army’s Training Resource Model in this report. However, we did not
fully analyze the model or its output estimates.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to March 2012 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for any findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Summary

The full spectrum training mile metric is similar in some ways to the tank mile metric
and dissimilar in other ways. Both metrics measure training activity of nondeployed
units associated with recommended training events based on the Army's approved
training strategy. Specifically, they both calculate the average number of miles a unit is
expected to drive its vehicles on an annual basis for training that occurs during the
reset and train/ready stages of the Army’s Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle. 3
However, the full spectrum training mile metric applies to all Army components (active
component, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard) while the tank mile metric does
not apply to the Army Reserve, because the Army Reserve does not have tanks. The
full spectrum training mile metric also is based on multiple vehicles including the M1
Abrams tank, M2/M3 Bradley, Stryker, up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled
vehicle, medium tactical vehicle, and palletized load system, while the tank mile metric
is limited to the M1 Abrams tank. According to Army officials, the full spectrum training
mile metric—and its incorporation of a wider array of vehicles—is more reflective of the
type of vehicles the Army is actually using to train its ground forces for full spectrum
operations.

The Army’s full spectrum training mile metric is based on certain assumptions
associated with standards set in the Army’s training strategy and force-generation
model. Because the metric is a standard for actual training to be measured against, the
metric’s assumptions are based on desired or expected conditions and may not fully
3
 The Army issued Army Regulation 525-29, Army Force Generation (Mar. 14, 2011), institutionalizing the
Army Force Generation Model (ARFORGEN) and process in March 2011. The ARFORGEN model helps
the Army manage its personnel and equipment, coordinate training, and prioritize resources. Under this
model, units progress through a series of three stages—reset, train/ready, and available—and training
varies during each of the stages.

2                                                                GAO-12-191R Military Training
align with actual conditions. For example, the Army made certain assumptions about
the length of time units would spend in each stage of the ARFORGEN cycle, assumed
that units would have all the vehicles that were included in their modified table of
organization and equipment, 4 and assumed units would accomplish all the training in
the Army’s training strategy. However, prior GAO reports and Army readiness reports
have both shown that units do not always have all the equipment, including vehicles
included in their modified table of organization and equipment, available when they are
conducting training. Army officials have also acknowledged that many units are not
currently executing the ARFORGEN training cycle and the Army’s training strategy as
envisioned. To the extent that units do not have all of their equipment, including
vehicles, or complete all recommended training, the units’ actual miles driven may differ
from the Army’s full spectrum training mile metric. According to a responsible Army
official, the Army tracks historical data on actual miles driven and has, in the past,
adjusted assumptions used to develop its tank mile metric to more closely reflect actual
conditions. The Army plans to continue this practice now with the new metric in place.
For example, when conducting its 2010 training strategy review, the Army reduced its
estimated miles per training day and event to more closely reflect actual miles driven.

The Army uses the full spectrum training mile metric to measure training activity.
Specifically, the Army compares the actual miles its units have driven to conduct
ground force training to its full spectrum training mile metric to determine how well it
executed its training strategy. However, the Army does not use the full spectrum
training mile metric to develop its training cost estimates or related funding needs. The
Army uses its Training Resource Model, rather than its full spectrum training mile
metric, to develop its training cost estimates and funding needs. While some of the
inputs to the full spectrum training mile metric and the Training Resource Model are the
same (i.e., the number and duration of training events and the numbers of units and
vehicles available for training) the Training Resource Model contains unique inputs,
such as cost factors that are not related to the full spectrum training mile metric.
Specifically, the cost calculation in the Training Resource Model includes the cost to
drive a vehicle, expressed as cost per mile, that are linked to the number of units and
vehicles, as well as other indirect nonmileage support costs, such as civilian pay. The
Training Resource Model, like the full spectrum training mile metric, assumes, among
other things, that all recommended training events will be fully executed. To the extent
that all training does not occur or other assumptions do not hold true, requirements
could differ from estimates derived from the Training Resource Model. According to an
Army official, the Training Resource Model is one of several sources of information the
Army considers when developing its funding requests for training. For example, the
official stated the Army uses historical data on actual miles driven to adjust its funding
requests to more closely reflect actual conditions.

We provided a copy of this report to the Department of Defense for review. The
department declined to comment on the report.



4
  The Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) is a document that prescribes the wartime
mission, capabilities, organizational structure, and mission essential personnel and equipment
requirements for military units.
3                                                                    GAO-12-191R Military Training
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the
Army, and to the appropriate congressional committees. The report also is available at
no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff have
any questions concerning this report, please contact me on 202-512-9619 or
pickups@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and
Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who contributed
to this report are listed in enclosure II.




Sharon L. Pickup
Director
Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures - 2




4                                                      GAO-12-191R Military Training
List of Committees


The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Chairman
The Honorable Adam Smith
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. “Bill” Young
Chairman
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives




5                                       GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I

                   Briefing for the Congressional Committees




              Army Full Spectrum Training Mile Metric




              Briefing for the Congressional Committees




6                                                 GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




    Background

       •   In 2008, the Army issued Field Manual 7-0, Training for Full Spectrum
           Operations, which identified the need to expand its training focus so units
           would be trained and ready to operate across a full spectrum of operations
           including offensive, defensive, stability, and civil support operations. The
           manual noted that “the Army learned that [its previous focus on] developing
           proficiency in performing offensive and defensive tasks does not
           automatically develop proficiency in performing stability or civil support
           tasks.” (FM 7-0, page 2-6, paragraph 2-31).
       •   To support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the last several years,
           the Army has focused its ground force training on counterinsurgency
           operations.
       •   With the withdrawal from operations in Iraq, fewer Army units are engaged
           in counterinsurgency operations and now have more time to train for full
           spectrum operations.

                                             2




7                                                         GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




    Background

       •   In April 2011, the Army updated its training strategy to reflect the shift in
           focus away from the counterinsurgency-based demand-driven training
           strategy to a strategy supporting training for full spectrum operations.
       •   In light of the Army’s shift in focus, and in an effort to establish more
           accurate training requirements and measure related training activity, the
           Army has transitioned from the traditional tank mile metric to a full
           spectrum training mile metric, which applies to a wider array of vehicles.
       •   According to Army officials, the full spectrum training mile (FSTM) metric—
           and its incorporation of a wider array of vehicles—is more reflective of the
           vehicles the Army is actually using to train for full spectrum operations.
       •   Both the tank mile and FSTM metrics represent the average number of
           miles a unit is expected to drive its vehicles on an annual basis. According
           to Army officials, the Army measures actual training activity (miles driven)
           against these metrics.
       •   In fiscal year 2012, the Army began using the FSTM metric.


                                               3




8                                                            GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




    Background

    •   In March 2011, the Army issued Army Regulation 525-29 institutionalizing the
        Army’s Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process.
          ARFORGEN is the Army’s force-generation model. Under the model, units
           progress through a series of three stages—reset, train/ready, and
           available—in either a 36 month (active units) or 72 month (reserve and
           guard units) cycle.
          Unit availability and training activity vary during each of the stages.
    •   Both the tank mile and FSTM metrics establish ground force training
        requirements based on an average of the miles expected to be driven while
        conducting recommended training during the ARFORGEN cycle.




                                               4




9                                                            GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Background


        •     H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, which accompanied a bill for the National Defense
              Authorization Act for 2012, directed GAO to review the Army’s transition
              to the full spectrum training mile metric including elements such as the
              methodology, assumptions, and use of the metric.
        •     GAO is to report to the congressional defense committees by February
              28, 2012.




                                             5




10                                                        GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objectives

       1) How does the Army’s FSTM metric differ from its traditional training metric,
          the tank mile?

       2) What are the key assumptions associated with the FSTM metric and to
          what extent do these assumptions reflect actual conditions?

       3) To what extent does the Army use the FSTM metric to evaluate training
          and develop related funding needs?

              In addition, we are providing information on how training is reflected in the
              Army’s operation and maintenance budget justification materials.




                                                6




11                                                            GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 1: How does the Army’s full spectrum training mile metric
     differ from the tank mile metric?

              • The tank mile and FSTM metrics are similar in some ways, including:
                   Both metrics capture training activity (miles) required for ground force training.
                   Both capture average miles associated with recommended training events based on the
                    Army’s approved training strategy and do not include training accomplished while units are
                    deployed.
                   Both metrics serve as a training-strategy standard and the Army uses actual miles driven
                    to assess training activity against that standard.
              • The two metrics differ in several ways, including:
                   FSTM applies to all Army components (active, Reserve and National Guard), whereas tank miles
                    did not apply to the Army Reserve because the Army Reserve does not have tanks.
                   The M1 tank was the only vehicle considered in the tank mile metric. FSTM takes into
                    consideration the M1 tank as well as other vehicles.
                   The only consideration when computing the tank mile metric was the training strategy (number and
                    duration of training events). FSTM also takes into account force structure changes (number of
                    units and number of vehicles) and deployment schedules (number of units available for training).
              • The two metrics are compared in more detail on the next slide.




                                                         7




12                                                                          GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 1: How does the Army’s full spectrum training mile metric
     differ from the tank mile metric? (cont’d)


                Comparison of the Tank Mile and Full Spectrum Training Mile Metrics




                                                8




13                                                              GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum
     training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions


              • The Army used certain assumptions in establishing its FSTM
                requirements. For example:
                   Units will accomplish all recommended training.
                   Units will have all the vehicles that are included in their modified table of
                    organization and equipment.
                   Units will deploy as scheduled.




                                                   9




14                                                                GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum
     training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions
     (cont’d)

         •    Because the FSTM metric is a standard to measure actual training
              against, the metric’s assumptions are based on desired or expected
              conditions and may not fully align with actual conditions. For example:
                    Units may not fully execute recommended training.
                        • GAO has previously reported that unit training has focused on
                          preparing for ongoing operations, often at the expense of training for
                          full spectrum operations.
                        • Army officials acknowledge that, although deployment commitments
                          are not as high as in past years, they are still not executing
                          ARFORGEN and the associated training strategy as envisioned. For
                          example:
                              Many units are not currently progressing through the ARFORGEN cycle
                               in the projected time intervals envisioned.
                              Because of ongoing operations in Afghanistan, some units that are
                               getting set to deploy there are focusing their training on more-limited
                               missions rather than full spectrum operation missions.


                                                   10




15                                                                  GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum
     training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions
     (cont’d)

               Units may not have all the equipment, including vehicles, in their
                modified table of organization and equipment for use during training.
                  • GAO has previously reported that the Army has transferred equipment
                    from nondeploying units to support deploying units, affecting the
                    availability of items for nondeployed units to meet other demands such as
                    training.
                  • GAO’s ongoing work examining the Army’s process for resetting, or
                    restoring equipment to combat capability, indicates units in training rely on
                    several sources to augment their equipment inventory and lessen the
                    effect of equipment shortages.




                                                 11




16                                                              GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 2: Key assumptions associated with the full spectrum
     training mile metric and whether they reflect actual conditions
     (cont’d)

              • To the extent that some units: focus on counterinsurgency or training
                other than the full spectrum training called for in the Army’s training
                strategy; progress through the ARFORGEN cycle slower or quicker
                than the time intervals envisioned; and lack equipment, including
                vehicles that are included in their modified table of organization and
                equipment, when conducting training, their actual miles driven may
                differ from the Army’s established FSTM requirement.
              • According to a responsible Army official, the Army tracks historical
                data on actual miles driven and has, in the past, adjusted
                assumptions used to develop its tank mile metric to more closely
                reflect actual conditions. The Army plans to continue this practice
                now that the new metric is in place.
                   For example, in its 2010 training strategy review, the Army reduced its
                    estimated miles per training day and event to more closely reflect actual
                    miles driven.

                                                12




17                                                             GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 3: To what extent does the Army use the full spectrum
     training mile metric to evaluate training and develop related funding
     needs?

        •     The Army establishes FSTM requirements and then compares actual
              full spectrum training miles to the FSTM requirement to determine how
              well the Army executed its training strategy. The FSTM metric is not a
              model for developing training cost estimates or funding needs.
                The Army uses its Training Resource Model (TRM) rather than FSTM to
                 develop its training cost estimates and related funding needs.
                While FSTM is not used to develop the Army’s training cost estimates and
                 related funding needs, both FSTM and TRM consider some of the same
                 mileage-related inputs (training strategy and force structure).
                Unlike FSTM, TRM also incorporates other cost factors (the cost to drive a
                 vehicle, expressed as cost per mile), and other indirect costs that are not
                 directly associated with vehicle mileage, such as support costs for civilian
                 pay, when determining training cost estimates and related funding needs.




                                                   13




18                                                                GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 3: To what extent does the Army use the full spectrum
     training mile metric to evaluate training and develop related funding
     needs? (cont’d)
          •   The graphic below shows the inputs that are used to calculate FSTM
              mileage requirements and the mileage-related inputs within TRM that are
              used to calculate training funding needs.




                                                 14




19                                                              GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Objective 3: To what extent does the Army use the full spectrum
     training mile metric to evaluate training and develop related funding
     needs? (cont’d)


              • TRM calculations, like the FSTM metric, are based on some of the
                same assumptions such as that units will complete all of the training
                called for in the Army’s training strategy, which as we previously
                stated, may not be occurring. To the extent that all training does not
                occur or other assumptions do not hold true, requirements could differ
                from estimates derived from the TRM.
              • According to an Army official, TRM is one of several sources of
                information the Army considers when developing its funding requests
                for training. For example, the official stated that the Army uses
                historical data on actual miles driven to adjust its funding requests to
                more-closely reflect actual conditions.




                                             15




20                                                         GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s
     Budget Justification Materials

        • The Army’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for operation and maintenance
          was about $44.9 billion (active, Reserve and National Guard).
        • Army training expenses, including those for ground forces training, are
          reported in the operations tempo (OPTEMPO) subactivity groups (SAG)
          111-116.
        • About 21 percent, or $9.5 billion, of the $44.9 billion requested was for
          OPTEMPO SAGs 111-116.
        • Activities other than those associated with training, such as costs to
           operate Army headquarters are also funded in SAGs 111-116.
                             Direct Costs
                                       Fuel and oil
                                       Repair parts
                                       Depot level repairs
                                       Contractor logistics support
                             Indirect Costs
                                       Combat training center support
                                       Soldier support (e.g., clothing, tools, admin. supplies)
                                       Fixed wing aircraft maintenance (contractor logistics support)
                                       Equipment contract logistics support
                                       Civilian pay
        Note: OPTEMPO is a term used within the Department of Defense to refer to the pace of operations. Funding in SAGs 111-116
            is referred to as “OPTEMPO funding.”

                                                                 16




21                                                                                   GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s
     Budget Justification Materials (cont’d)

              • The Army fiscal year 2012 budget justification materials noted some
                training-related adjustments as compared to previous levels of activity.
                For fiscal year 2012,
                   $127 million reduction due to the transition to full spectrum operations
                    training, and
                   $611 million increase to support increased number of units available to
                    conduct home-station training.
              • In addition, the Army anticipates $1 billion savings in OPTEMPO
                funding in fiscal years 2012-2016 as a result of the shift in the Army’s
                training strategy, including the move from major combat operations to
                full spectrum operations training.
                   According to the Army, several factors contribute to the estimated savings
                    including: implementation of reduced training during the 6-month
                    ARFORGEN reset period; and a reduction in the use of tanks—among the
                    most expensive of the Army’s vehicles to operate—in training.
                   Estimated savings are spread as follows: $182 million in 2012, $175 million
                    in 2013, $193 million in 2014, $232 million in 2015, and $301 million in
                    2016.

                                                  17




22                                                               GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s
     Budget Justification Materials (cont’d)

         • When funds are appropriated for the Army’s operation and maintenance
           functions, the Army then allocates those funds to organizations within the
           various subactivity groups, including the OPTEMPO SAGs (SAGs 111-
           116) that fund training.
         • The Army might request OPTEMPO funding at a certain level, but then
           reprogram OPTEMPO funds to other operation and maintenance non-
           training-related SAGs.
         • As shown on the graphic on the following page, over the last 5 years the
           Army has not consistently executed its OPTEMPO dollars, which could
           occur for various reasons including the following:
               Reprogramming funds between SAGs to meet unanticipated or emergent
                requirements,or both, that were not addressed in the initial budget request.
               DOD typically has authority to reprogram funds among SAGs, subject to
                certain conditions.




                                                 18




23                                                              GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure I




     Additional Information on How Training Is Reflected in the Army’s
     Budget Justification Materials (cont’d)

                                                         Army Execution of Training Funds
                                    Obligations Compared to Funds Requested and Designated by the Department




      Note: Data are from Army fiscal year 2006-10 operation and maintenance budget justification materials. The term “designated” above refers to the
      amounts set forth at the subactivity group-level in an appropriation bill’s conference report. These recommended amounts are not binding unless they
      are incorporated directly or by reference into an appropriation act or other statute. DOD adjusts the initial amounts that Congress designates for SAGs
      to reflect congressional intent, undistributed adjustments, and general provisions directed by Congress. We refer to these amounts as “adjusted
      designations” above. The above numbers do not include funding requests or obligations related to overseas contingency operations.
                                                                                     •

                                                                             19




24                                                                                                   GAO-12-191R Military Training
Enclosure II

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments



GAO Contact

Sharon Pickup, (202) 512- 9619 or pickups@gao.gov



Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report included Mike
Ferren, Assistant Director; Bruce Brown; Grace Coleman; Donna Evans; Charles
Perdue; Steve Pruitt: Sharon Reid; Amie Steele; Susan Tindall; and Nicole Willems.




(351632)
                                                        GAO-12-191R Military Training
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product 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.
                      The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
GAO’s Mission         investigative arm of 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
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO Reports and       GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
                      correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony             go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
                      production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
                      publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
                      white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
                      http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                      Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                      TDD (202) 512-2537.
                      Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
                      MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in   Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
                      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.