Information Technology Services: Agencies Complying with Revision
to Federal Acquisition Regulation (18-DEC-02, GAO-03-32).
Concerned that minimum personnel experience or education
requirements in agency solicitations for information technology
(IT) services were contributing to worker shortages, Congress
included a provision in the fiscal year 2001 Defense
authorization act requiring that the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) be amended to limit the use of such
requirements. Specifically, agencies are not to include such
minimum personnel requirements in solicitations for IT services
that result in performance-based contracts--those with
performance work statements that set forth contract requirements
in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable
outcomes--unless the contracting officer determines that the
needs of the agency cannot be met without them. This law also
required GAO to study and report on the government's
implementation of this provision. Accordingly, GAO assessed
whether the FAR rule implementing this requirement conforms with
the provision (section 813 of P.L. 106-398) and to what extent
executive agencies have complied with the new requirement. GAO
chose nine agencies to review, based on its analysis of data in
FedBizOpps, a governmentwide Web site containing government
business opportunities over $25,000.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-32
ACCNO: A05735
TITLE: Information Technology Services: Agencies Complying with
Revision to Federal Acquisition Regulation
DATE: 12/18/2002
SUBJECT: Contract administration
Education or training
Federal regulations
Hiring policies
Information technology
Labor force
Voluntary compliance
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-32
Report to Congressional Committees
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
December 2002 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
Agencies Complying with Revision to Federal Acquisition Regulation
GAO- 03- 32
The final FAR rule implementing section 813 of P. L. 106- 398, which was
published on December 18, 2001, conforms with the requirements in this
law. Specifically, as required by P. L. 106- 398, the FAR now prohibits
minimum experience or education requirements for contractor personnel in
performance- based solicitations for IT services unless the contracting
officer determines that the needs of the agency cannot be met without such
requirements.
Agencies in GAO*s review have been complying with the FAR*s minimum
experience and education requirements. Specifically, as shown in the chart
below, of the 161 performance- based solicitations in GAO*s review, in
only 1 case* or about 1 percent* was an agency not in compliance with the
FAR; that is, the solicitation contained minimum experience requirements
and the contracting officer had not made a determination of agency need.
In this case, the contracting officer was unaware of the FAR requirement
at the time that the solicitation was issued, but stated that he would
make such a determination in the future, when applicable.
Percentage of Performance- Based Solicitations in GAO*s Review That Did
Not Comply with the FAR Requirement
Source: GAO analysis of agency solicitations. www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/
getrpt? GAO- 03- 32. To view the full report, including the scope and
methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact David
A. Powner at (202) 512- 9286 or pownerd@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03-
32, a report to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, House Committee on Government
Reform, and the House Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy.
December 2002
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
Agencies Complying with Revision to Federal Acquisition Regulation
Concerned that minimum personnel experience or education requirements in
agency solicitations for information technology (IT) services were
contributing to worker shortages, Congress included a provision in the
fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization act requiring that the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) be amended to limit the use of such
requirements. Specifically, agencies are not to include these requirements
in solicitations for IT services that result in performancebased
contracts* those with performance work statements that set forth contract
requirements in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable
outcomes* unless the contracting officer determines that agency needs
cannot be met without them.
This law also required GAO to study and report on the government*s
implementation of this provision. Accordingly, GAO assessed whether the
FAR rule implementing this requirement conforms with the provision
(section 813 of P. L. 106- 398) and to what extent executive agencies have
complied with the new requirement. GAO chose nine agencies to review,
based on its analysis of data in FedBizOpps, a governmentwide Web site
containing government business opportunities over $25,000.
In commenting on a draft of this report, agencies agreed with its findings
or did not indicate a position.
Page i GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 3 FAR Requirement in Conformance with Law 3
Agencies Complying with FAR Requirement 4 Conclusions 6 Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation 6
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 8
Appendix II Number of Solicitations with Minimum Experience or Education
Requirements, by Department/ Agency 11
Appendix III Information on Solicitations with Minimum Experience or
Education Requirements 12
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 13
Appendix V Comments from the Department of the Interior 14
Appendix VI Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 15
Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 16 GAO Contact 16
Acknowledgments 16 Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations Table
Table 1: Number of Performance- Based Solicitations by Department/ Agency
9
Figure
Figure 1: Percentage of Performance- Based Solicitations in Our Review
That Did Not Comply with the FAR Requirement 5
Abbreviations
DOD Department of Defense HHS Department of Health and Human Services FAR
Federal Acquisition Regulation GSA General Services Administration IT
information technology NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Page 1 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
December 18, 2002 The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman The Honorable
Fred Thompson Ranking Minority Member Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Dan Burton Chairman The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives
The Honorable Tom Davis Chairman The Honorable Jim Turner Ranking Minority
Member Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy Committee on
Government Reform House of Representatives
Concerned that agencies were including minimum personnel requirements in
information technology (IT) services contracts, the Congress included
limitations on their use in section 813 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2001 (P. L. 106- 398). Section 813
requires that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) be amended to
prohibit minimum personnel experience or education requirements in IT
services solicitations that result in performance- based 1 contracts
unless the contracting officer determines that the needs of the agency
cannot be met without such requirements. A final FAR rule implementing
this requirement was published on December 18, 2001.
1 According to P. L. 106- 398, performance- based means that the contract
includes the use of performance work statements that set forth contract
requirements in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable
outcomes.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
P. L. 106- 398 also requires that GAO report on the implementation of
section 813. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether the FAR
requirement conforms with P. L. 106- 398 and (2) to what extent executive
agencies have complied with the new FAR requirement. In doing this work,
we reviewed and compared the legislation with the applicable FAR
requirement. In addition, we reviewed 161 solicitations identified as
performance- based by the departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and
Human Services, the Interior, State, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs;
the General Services Administration; and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. In reviewing these solicitations, we ascertained
whether they contained minimum experience or education requirements for
contractor personnel. If the solicitations contained such requirements, we
interviewed agency contracting officials and reviewed applicable documents
to determine the rationale for including the requirements. Appendix I
provides additional information on our scope and methodology.
The FAR rule implementing section 813 of P. L. 106- 398 conforms with the
requirements in this law. Specifically, as required by P. L. 106- 398, the
FAR now prohibits minimum experience or education requirements for
contractor personnel in performance- based solicitations for IT services
unless the contracting officer determines that the needs of the agency
cannot be met without such requirements.
Agencies in our review were complying with the FAR*s limitation on minimum
experience and education requirements. Specifically, only 1 of the 161
performance- based solicitations we reviewed did not comply with the FAR
requirement. In this one case, the solicitation contained minimum
experience requirements for contractor personnel, and the contracting
officer did not make a determination of agency need. The contracting
officer stated that he was unaware of the FAR requirement at the time that
the solicitation was issued but would make the appropriate determination
in the future if applicable circumstances should arise.
In providing comments on a draft of this report, two agencies stated that
they were in agreement with the findings of the report, and six agencies
did not indicate whether they agreed or disagreed. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
The government*s purchases of IT services have tripled over the past
decade, from $5.7 billion in fiscal year 1991 to about $17.1 billion in
fiscal year 2001. 2 To achieve greater cost savings and better outcomes
with this spending, the Congress and the administration have encouraged
greater use of performance- based service contracting. Under this
approach, the contracting agency specifies the outcome or result that it
desires and leaves it to the contractor to decide how best to achieve the
desired outcome. We recently reported that, in 2001, agencies reported
using performance- based contracting methods on about $28.6 billion, or 21
percent, of the $135.8 billion total obligations incurred for all
services. 3
According to the legislative history of section 813, the Congress was
concerned that minimum experience or education requirements included in
agency solicitations for IT services were contributing to worker shortages
by requiring contractors to use highly trained and educated workers to
perform some services that could be done by less educated or experienced
workers. 4 In addition, it was felt that minimum experience requirements
were inappropriate for performance- based services contracts because they
are supposed to be awarded on the basis of measurable outcomes. Finally,
the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement
Policy was also concerned that minimum personnel requirements hampered the
ability of contractors to find qualified personnel to perform the work
under government contracts. As a result of these concerns, the Congress
included a provision in the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization act
requiring that the FAR be amended to prohibit minimum personnel experience
or education requirements in IT services solicitations resulting in
performance- based contracts unless the contracting officer determines
that the needs of the agency cannot be met without such requirements.
On December 18, 2001, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council published the final FAR rule
implementing section 813 of P. L. 106- 398. This rule is in conformance
with section 813 in that it adopts the requirements of the statute and
captures
2 Dollar amounts are in 2001 constant dollars. 3 U. S. General Accounting
Office, Contract Management: Guidance Needed for Using Performance- Based
Service Contracting, GAO- 02- 1049 (Washington D. C.: Sept. 23, 2002). 4
Cong. Rec. S5075 (Daily ed.), June 14, 2000. Background
FAR Requirement in Conformance with Law
Page 4 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
the evident intent of the Congress. Specifically, FAR section 39.104
substantially duplicates the legislative language, stating
*When acquiring information technology services, solicitations must not
describe any minimum experience or educational requirement for proposed
contractor personnel unless the contracting officer determines that the
needs of the agency*
(a) Cannot be met without that requirement; or (b) Require the use of
other than a performance- based contract (see Subpart 37.6).*
The nine agencies in our review were complying with the FAR requirement.
Of the 161 performance- based solicitations in our review, in only one
case was an agency not in compliance with the FAR; that is, the
solicitation contained minimum experience requirements, 5 and the
contracting officer had not made a determination of agency need.
Very few of the solicitations in our review included minimum experience or
education requirements for contractor personnel. Specifically, only about
4 percent, or 7 of 161 solicitations, contained such minimum personnel
requirements (app. II provides the results of our solicitation review by
agency, and app. III contains additional information on the seven
solicitations with minimum personnel requirements). Moreover, of the seven
solicitations that included minimum experience or education personnel
requirements, in six cases the agency complied with the FAR since the
contracting officers made a determination that the needs of the agency
could not be met without such requirements. Accordingly, as illustrated in
figure 1, in only one solicitation* or about 1 percent* that we reviewed
did the agency fail to comply with the FAR requirement
5 Neither the law nor the FAR defines the phrase *minimum experience or
educational requirement* for proposed contractor personnel. For the
purposes of this report, we interpreted the phrase to include only those
solicitation provisions that explicitly set minimum standards. For
example, a requirement that *proposed contractor personnel must have a
minimum 5 years* experience in COBOL programming and/ or master*s degrees
in computer science* would be prohibited under FAR section 39. 104.
However, agencies can consider an offeror*s experience and expertise in
evaluating proposals, consistent with section 813 and the FAR, as long as
the agency does not require minimum experience or education requirements
for contractor personnel. For example, a solicitation provision that
requires offerors to *demonstrate experience or expertise in COBOL
programming* would not violate the FAR. Agencies Complying
with FAR Requirement
Page 5 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
because the contracting officer did not make a determination that the
needs of the agency could not be met without such requirements.
Figure 1: Percentage of Performance- Based Solicitations in Our Review
That Did Not Comply with the FAR Requirement
Source: GAO analysis of agency solicitations.
Regarding the solicitation that was not in compliance with the FAR, the
contracting officer stated that he was unaware of the FAR requirement at
the time that the solicitation was issued in July 2002. He stated that
since he is now aware of the requirement, he will make the required
determination in the future, if applicable.
In two other cases, solicitations contained words such as *extensive
experience* and *strongly desired* levels of experience. Agency
contracting officials explained that such wording does not constitute
minimum personnel requirements because they are not mandatory
requirements. Although we agree that such statements do not legally
establish a minimum personnel requirement, such provisions have the
practical effect of directing vendors to satisfy those requirements in
order to be competitive. Finally, in one case the solicitation provided
minimum experience and education requirements *for informational purposes
only.* The contracting officer explained that the minimum experience and
education requirements were included in the solicitation at the request of
prospective contractors, and were labeled *for informational purposes
Page 6 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
only.* However, a subsequent provision of the solicitation requires that
contractor personnel in various labor categories should possess at least
the minimum experience or education requirements listed in the
solicitation. These provisions are clearly inconsistent. It is unclear
which provision would be determined to prevail if the solicitation was
challenged.
As required by P. L. 106- 398, the FAR was amended to limit the inclusion
of minimum experience or education requirements for contractor personnel
in IT services solicitations resulting in performance- based contracts.
Agencies were complying with this regulation. Specifically, in our review
of 161 solicitations, only 1 contained minimum experience requirements in
which the contracting officer did not make a determination of agency
needs, as required by the FAR.
We received both oral and written comments on a draft of this report from
eight agencies; two agencies stated that they were in agreement with the
findings of the report, and six agencies did not indicate whether they
agreed or disagreed. Specifically:
A procurement analyst in the office of the Director, Defense Procurement
and Acquisition Policy, stated that the Department of Defense had no
comments on the report. In written comments, the Inspector General
stated that the Department of
Health and Human Services had no comments on the report (see app. IV).
In written comments, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and
Budget stated that the Department of the Interior agreed with the contents
and findings of the report (see app. V). An assistant transition
coordinator in the GAO Liaison Office stated that
the Department of State had no comments on the report. The Deputy
Director, Office of the Procurement Executive, stated that the
Department of the Treasury agreed with the findings of the report. The
Director, Congressional Reports and Correspondence, stated that the
Department of Veterans Affairs had no comments on the report. A
management analyst in the Audit Followup and Evaluation Branch
stated that the General Services Administration had no comments on the
report. The written comments of the Deputy Administrator, National
Aeronautics
and Space Administration, did not state whether the agency agreed or
disagreed with the findings in the report (see app. VI). Conclusions
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Page 7 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
We also requested comments from the Department of Commerce, but none were
provided.
We are sending copies of this report to the secretaries of the departments
of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, the
Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the administrators of the General Services
Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please
contact me at (202) 512- 9286 or Linda J. Lambert, Assistant Director, at
(202) 512- 9556. We can also be reached by E- mail at pownerd@ gao. gov
and lambertl@ gao. gov, respectively.
Other contacts and key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VII.
David A. Powner Director (Acting), Information Technology Management
Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 8 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services
Solicitations
To determine whether the FAR requirement conforms with P. L. 106- 398, we
reviewed section 813 of the law and compared it with the applicable
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirement. In addition, we reviewed
the Congressional Record and the applicable conference report to ascertain
the legislative history of this provision.
To determine the extent to which executive agencies complied with the new
FAR requirement, we obtained information on presolicitation notices 1 and
combined synopses/ solicitations 2 issued between December 18, 2001, and
August 11, 2002, that were coded by the agencies as information technology
(IT) and telecommunications services in the General Services
Administration*s (GSA) Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) Web
site. 3 FedBizOpps has been designated the single governmentwide point of
electronic entry on the Internet where vendors can access the information
they need to bid on available government business opportunities greater
than $25,000.
Based on information from FedBizOpps, we chose to review 9 agencies that
had at least 30 presolicitation notices and combined synopses/
solicitations coded as IT services. These agencies were the departments of
Commerce, Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Interior,
State, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; GSA, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). We provided the list of
presolicitation notices and combined synopses/ solicitations from
FedBizOpps to each of these agencies and asked them to identify those that
were performance- based. 4 For agencies that identified 15 or fewer
performance- based solicitations, we reviewed all of their solicitations.
For agencies that identified more than 15 performance- based
solicitations, we reviewed a random sample of these solicitations. Table 1
provides the total number of reported performance- based solicitations by
agency and the number we reviewed.
1 See FAR section 5.204. 2 See FAR section 12.603. 3 www. fedbizopps. gov.
4 As a result of the agencies* analyses of the FedBizOpps data, the number
of possible candidate solicitations was reduced from the number contained
in this Web site at all but one of the agencies because, for example, (1)
they were not performance- based, (2) they had been miscoded in
FedBizOpps, or (3) the solicitation had not been issued or had been
cancelled. We did not validate the agencies* assessment of their
presolicitation notices and combined synopses/ solicitations. Appendix I:
Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 9 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services
Solicitations
Table 1: Number of Performance- Based Solicitations by Department/ Agency
Department/ agency
Number of performance- based
solicitations Number reviewed
Commerce 4 4 DOD
Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization/ Inquiry Quote
Orders a All other components
928 144
50 40 HHS 11 11 Interior 13 13 State 27 15 Treasury 3 3 Veterans Affairs 6
6 GSA 4 4 NASA 21 15
Total 1,161 161
a The Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization uses Inquiry
Quote Orders to support solicitations for long- haul telecommunications
services that cannot otherwise be satisfied through the Defense
Information Systems Network suite of contracts or the FTS 2001 contracts.
Source: Agencies provided the performance- based solicitation numbers; the
numbers were not validated by GAO.
The 161 solicitations we reviewed covered a wide range of IT services,
including software maintenance and support, network support, cellular
services, and technical support services. In addition, 59 or about 37
percent of these performance- based solicitations were sole- source
acquisitions, 5 and the remainder were issued under competitive
procedures.
For solicitations in our review, we obtained copies of the solicitation
and ascertained whether they contained minimum experience or education
requirements for contractor personnel. If the solicitations contained such
requirements, we interviewed agency contracting officials and reviewed
applicable documents to determine the rationale for including the
requirements.
5 FAR subpart 2.1 defines sole- source acquisition as a contract for the
purchase of supplies or services that is entered into or proposed to be
entered into by an agency after soliciting and negotiating with only one
source.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 10 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services
Solicitations
We conducted our review between July and October 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Number of Solicitations with Minimum Experience or Education
Requirements, by Department/ Agency
Page 11 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
Department/ agency Number of
solicitations reviewed
Number with minimum experience or
education requirements
Percentage of solicitations
with requirements
Commerce 4 0 0 DOD Defense Information Technology Contracting
Organization/ Inquiry Quote Orders a All others
50 40
0 5
0 13 HHS 11 1 9 Interior 13 1 8 State 15 0 0 Treasury 3 0 0 Veterans
Affairs 6 0 0 GSA 4 0 0 NASA 15 0 0
Total 161 7 4
a The Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization uses Inquiry
Quote Orders to support solicitations for long- haul telecommunications
services, which cannot otherwise be satisfied through the Defense
Information Systems Network suite of contracts, or the FTS 2001 contracts.
Source: GAO analysis of agency solicitations.
Appendix II: Number of Solicitations with Minimum Experience or Education
Requirements, by Department/ Agency
Appendix III: Information on Solicitations with Minimum Experience or
Education Requirements
Page 12 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
Department/ agency Solicitations including minimum
personnel requirements Determination of agency need? a
DOD/ Air Force Required that the base telecommunications system manager,
outside plant cable technician, and telephone help- desk technician have 1
or 2 years of experience in performing various functions.
Yes* The contracting officer made a determination prior to the issuance of
the solicitation that the inclusion of minimum personnel requirements was
necessary to ensure continuity of operations for a mission- critical
telecommunications system. He noted that the complexity of modern
telecommunications systems requires personnel with experience and training
to operate and maintain these systems without disruption. DOD/ Air Force
Required that contractor personnel have
a minimum of 1 year of experience with network communication, database
management, and systems management.
Yes* According to the former contracting officer, she made a determination
prior to the issuance of the solicitation that the inclusion of the
minimum personnel requirements was necessary because the work involved a
highly technical computing environment in which inexperienced personnel
could cause the delay of the testing schedules for weapons systems
development. DOD/ Army Required that certain types of contractor
employees have a minimum of 1 or 2 years of experience in (1) resolving
technical problems, (2) addressing inquiries regarding hardware/ software
support, or (3) various types of computer repair and troubleshooting
capabilities.
Yes* The contracting officer stated that she made a determination prior to
the issuance of the solicitation that the minimum personnel requirements
were necessary because the majority of the work performed would be mission
critical, directly impacting the various medical missions of the Army and
supporting the war- fighter and various behind- the- scenes personnel who
provide administrative and logistics support. DOD/ Army Required that the
proposed program
manager, database engineer, Web engineer, senior- level programmers, and
mid- level programmers have at least a Bachelor of Science degree and
various minimum levels of experience.
Yes* The contracting officer made a written determination prior to the
issuance of the solicitation that minimum personnel requirements were
necessary because the maintenance of the applicable system database is a
critical function. According to the determination document, the effort was
highly technical in nature, required a vast knowledge of databases and the
Internet, and required personnel who were capable of executing the
contract requirements immediately upon contract award. DOD/ Army Required
that (1) the proposed project
manager have at least 5 years experience in this role and (2) contractor
employees have at least 3 years* experience in various tasks, such as
installing and upgrading electrical, electronic, and optical communication
components.
No* The contracting officer stated that he was unaware of the FAR
requirement at the time that the solicitation was issued. However, he
noted that he included a project manager experience requirement to ensure
that this person was adequately qualified and would not have to be
trained. He added that the 3- year requirement helps avoid liability
issues, which could arise from allowing unlicensed and inexperienced
electricians to work in a remote area on a government facility.
HHS/ National Institutes of Health
Required that the project manager, implementation project manager, and the
leads for infrastructure support and application implementation support
meet various minimum experience requirements.
Yes* The contracting officer made a written determination prior to the
issuance of the solicitation that including minimum personnel requirements
would minimize implementation risks. In addition, the determination noted
that the evaluation of key staff resumes, thorough minimum experience
requirements, and reference checks would enable the agency to make a best
value decision between competing contractors. Interior/ U. S. Geological
Survey
Required that certain technicians and a telephone attendant meet various
minimum experience requirements.
Yes* The contracting officer stated that he made a determination prior to
the issuance of the solicitation that skilled workers who have specific
experience, training, and certifications were needed because lesser
skilled contractor staff could (1) risk personal injury since they would
be working with electrical cabling and (2) seriously damage agency
equipment. a Neither the law nor the FAR requires that a contracting
officer put in writing the determination that the
needs of the agency could not be met without minimum experience or
education requirements. Source: Applicable agencies.
Appendix III: Information on Solicitations with Minimum Experience or
Education Requirements
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Page 13 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Page 14 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Page 15 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 16 GAO- 03- 32 IT Services Solicitations
Linda J. Lambert, (202) 512- 9556 Shannin Addison, Norman Heyl, Michael
Holland, Frank Maguire, and Patricia Slocum made key contributions to this
report. Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments
(310439)
The General Accounting Office, the 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 cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext 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 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.
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: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U.
S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO*s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***