TRANSPORTATION GRANTS

Implementation of Recommendations to Improve Documentation Would Enhance Program for Large, Complex Projects

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2024

GAO-25-107102

United States Government Accountability Office

 

View GAO‑25‑107102. For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at (202) 512-2834 or repkoe@gao.gov.

Highlights of GAO-25-107102, a report to congressional committees

November 2024

TRANSPORTATION GRANTS

Implementation of Recommendations to Improve Documentation Would Enhance Program for Large, Complex Projects

Why GAO Did This Study

The Mega program provides funding for large, complex projects that are difficult to fund by other means and likely to generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits. Mega projects include highways, bridges, intercity passenger rail, and transit. DOT awarded $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2022 funding to nine Mega applications.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision for GAO to examine DOT’s process for selecting Mega projects for award. This report discusses (1) the characteristics of Mega applications, and (2) the extent to which DOT’s selection process aligned with specified DOT guidance and federal regulations for grants management.

GAO reviewed DOT’s Notice of Funding Opportunity, evaluation guidelines, and documentation of the Mega selection process for fiscal year 2022; analyzed application and award data; and interviewed DOT officials. GAO also compared DOT’s selection process with DOT guidance and federal regulations for discretionary grant programs.

What GAO Recommends

In previous reports, GAO recommended that DOT improve documentation of key decisions for other discretionary grant programs and that it defines how an application may qualify as an exemplary project. Implementing these recommendations would enhance the Mega program. GAO will continue to monitor DOT’s progress on this issue as part of ongoing work.

What GAO Found

In March 2022, the Department of Transportation (DOT) announced over $1 billion available for award under its National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) discretionary grant program. Mega provides grants on a competitive basis to support large, complex transportation projects. Of the 259 Mega applications received for fiscal year 2022, DOT advanced 128 for award consideration. Most of these applications were submitted by state governments. Approximately 70 percent of the applications requested a total of $18.1 billion for highway or bridge projects, and the remaining applications requested a total of approximately $10 billion primarily for intermodal, intercity passenger rail, or transit projects. The Secretary of Transportation selected nine applications for award.

GAO found that DOT’s selection process for the Mega program generally aligned with specified DOT guidance and federal regulations for discretionary grant programs. For example, DOT followed up with applicants to obtain additional information as outlined in its evaluation guidelines. However, DOT did not fully document the rationale for key decisions, as required by DOT guidance. Specifically, DOT did not document how it determined some projects were “exemplary,” a designation that applications are highly recommended. According to DOT officials, “exemplary” means standing out among peers as a model. Yet, DOT’s documentation only stated that applications deemed “exemplary” were strong in a particular area and did not explain what distinguished them from other applications. DOT officials stated that they believed DOT had documented its determinations and explained how they related to the program criteria. GAO previously recommended that DOT more fully document key decisions for other DOT discretionary grant programs and clearly define how a project may qualify as exemplary. By implementing these recommendations, DOT can improve the transparency of the selection process for the Mega program.

 

 

 

 

DOT	Department of Transportation
IIJA	Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
INFRA	Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects grant program
Mega	National Infrastructure Project Assistance grant program
MPDG	Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Program
NOFO	Notice of Funding Opportunity
OMB	Office of Management and Budget
RAISE	Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity grant program
Rural	Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program
SRT	Senior Review Team

November 13, 2024

The Honorable Maria Cantwell
Chair
The Honorable Ted Cruz
Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate

The Honorable Sam Graves
Chairman
The Honorable Rick Larsen
Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

In November 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) created a new discretionary grant program, the National Infrastructure Project Assistance program,[1] referred to by the Department of Transportation (DOT) as Mega. This program provides grants on a competitive basis to support large, complex transportation projects that are difficult to fund by other means and likely to generate national or regional benefits. Eligible Mega projects include highways, bridges, rail and highway grade separations, and multimodal combinations. State, local, and other public entities are eligible to apply for funding to complete such projects that are “in significant need of federal assistance.” The IIJA appropriated $5 billion to DOT to carry out Mega program grants for fiscal years 2022 through 2026.[2]

In response to the IIJA, in March 2022, DOT published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that solicited applications for the Mega program along with two other discretionary grant programs: the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program (Rural) and the Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects grant program (INFRA).[3] DOT refers to these three programs as Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant programs (MPDG). DOT plans to use a combined solicitation for the three programs through fiscal year 2026.

In our January 2024 report on the INFRA program, we found that the overall application review process for the MPDG consisted of three steps: (1) the combined solicitation process; (2) a combined evaluation process; and (3) a selection process. During the selection process, a Senior Review Team (SRT)––which consisted of senior officials selected by the Secretary of Transportation––conducted separate reviews for each of the three programs and assembled a list of applications to advance to the Secretary, who then selected applications to award from that list. In the report, we identified ways in which DOT could improve the evaluation processes for the MPDG programs.[4] In addition, in an August 2024 report on the Rural program, we identified similar ways in which DOT could improve the Rural selection process.[5] We will continue to monitor DOT’s administration of the MPDG solicitation, evaluation, and selection processes as part of our ongoing work.[6]

The IIJA includes a provision for us to examine DOT’s processes for evaluating and selecting Mega projects for award.[7] This report discusses (1) the characteristics of Mega applications, and (2) the extent to which DOT’s selection process aligned with specified DOT guidance and federal regulations for grants management. To address these objectives, we reviewed DOT documentation of its selection process for the fiscal year 2022 Mega program, analyzed application data collected by DOT, and interviewed DOT officials.

To describe the characteristics of Mega applications, we analyzed the 128 applications that advanced to the SRT in fiscal year 2022. Specifically, we used data provided by DOT to identify the types of entities that submitted applications, the types of projects proposed, the amounts of funding requested, and the states in which the proposed projects were located, among other information. To assess the reliability of DOT’s data, we interviewed DOT officials and conducted relevant data quality checks, such as looking for outliers, inconsistencies, and missing data. We found the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of producing descriptive statistics on the characteristics of Mega applications.

To assess the extent to which DOT’s selection process aligned with specified DOT guidance and federal regulations for grants management, we analyzed DOT documentation, including DOT’s NOFO and evaluation guidelines, that outlined the criteria and processes for advancing and awarding applications for the Mega program. We then compared this information with the regulations in the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards and the guidance in DOT’s Guide to Financial Assistance.[8] These regulations and guidance collectively establish requirements for discretionary grant programs, including requirements related to consistency and transparency.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2023 to November 2024 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 our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background

Transportation Funding

Funding the nation’s surface transportation system has been on our High Risk List since 2007, as an imbalance has persisted between revenues and spending.[9] Accordingly, we have noted that it is important that federal funding for surface transportation be spent wisely and efficiently. Historically, much of the federal spending for surface transportation programs has been through noncompetitive grants to states, with funds allocated based on distribution formulas prescribed by statute (formula grants). However, we have reported that formula grant funding for surface transportation, particularly for highways, poses challenges to meeting national goals.[10]

In contrast, discretionary grant programs, such as the Mega program, provide funding on a competitive basis. Applications are to be assessed based on applicable statutory requirements and published criteria before projects are selected to receive awards. In 2021, the IIJA established several new surface transportation discretionary grant programs and provided increased funding for many existing discretionary grant programs. In total, the IIJA authorized and appropriated approximately $125 billion for DOT discretionary grant programs for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 for surface transportation infrastructure projects.

While we have identified benefits associated with discretionary grant programs, we have also raised concerns with DOT’s management of them since 2011. For example, we previously found that DOT had not evaluated and selected grant applications for awards under various grant programs in a consistent and transparent manner and we made recommendations to DOT related to these issues. DOT has taken some steps related to these recommendations but has not yet completely addressed them.[11]

Solicitation Process

To facilitate the evaluation and award of discretionary grants, DOT issues a NOFO announcing the availability of funds, as well as the program’s funding priorities and the corresponding criteria by which DOT will evaluate applications. Applicants submit applications in response to the NOFO. OMB regulations address how federal agencies in the executive branch are to administer discretionary grant programs. Specifically, the OMB regulations address what information to include in the NOFO, how to design and execute a merit review process, and how to award grants in a consistent and transparent manner. DOT adopted the guidance by regulation and incorporated it into its Guide to Financial Assistance.[12]

In March 2022, DOT combined the solicitation for the Mega, Rural, and INFRA programs to streamline the process for applicants. Applicants could choose to apply to one, two, or all three programs, and DOT considered an application for all three programs unless applicants explicitly opted out of consideration for one or more. The NOFO also encouraged applicants to apply for multiple programs to maximize their potential for receiving federal funds. With respect to the Mega program’s funding opportunities, the MPDG NOFO solicited applications for up to $1 billion in awards for fiscal year 2022.

While the MPDG NOFO combined the solicitation of three programs, each program has specific programmatic statutory requirements. For example, under the Mega program statute, the Secretary may select a project for award only if the Secretary determines that an applicant’s project meets five statutory project selection requirements. These requirements are that the proposed project (1) will likely generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits; (2) is in need of significant federal funding; (3) will be cost-effective; (4) with respect to related non-federal financial commitments, has stable and dependable sources of funding and financing available; and (5) has, or will have, sufficient legal, financial, and technical capacity.[13]

Evaluation Process

In addition to the combined solicitation process, DOT combined the evaluation process for all three MPDG programs, meaning that DOT evaluated applications for all three grant programs at the same time against the same evaluation criteria. This combined MPDG evaluation process included intake and analysis review phases, which DOT outlined in its evaluation guidelines. The evaluation guidelines—an internal guidance document—described how to rate applications, defined key terms, and outlined documentation requirements for the evaluation and selection processes.

Intake. DOT staff were first to conduct basic eligibility determinations, such as checking for eligible applicant and project types. If staff identified a potential eligibility concern, the Evaluation Management and Oversight Team—composed of staff from the Office of the Secretary—would make a final eligibility determination, though these final determinations may occur at later stages of the process.

Analysis review. DOT Analysis Review Teams were then to (1) rate applications based on a set of selection criteria, as identified in DOT’s NOFO and evaluation guidelines, and provide narrative justifications for the ratings; and (2) assess whether the applications met the statutory project selection requirements, described above.

To assess applications against the selection criteria, DOT Analysis Review Teams were to conduct

·        a project outcome review, to evaluate the extent to which a project offered benefits for six component criteria;

·        an economic analysis, to evaluate a project’s expected benefits relative to its expected costs (cost-effectiveness);[14] and

·        a project readiness analysis, to evaluate environmental risk, technical capacity, and other financial criteria to determine the extent to which the project could begin construction and be fully completed in a timely manner.

See figure 1 for a full list of the selection criteria and possible ratings.

Note: For each project outcome component, DOT assigned ratings ranging from 0 to 3.

In addition, throughout the analysis review phase, DOT’s Evaluation Management and Oversight Team was to use information from the applications and other analyses to determine the extent to which applications met all five statutory project selection requirements for Mega. Applications must meet these statutory requirements to be selected by the Secretary to be awarded funds.[15] For each requirement, the Evaluation Management and Oversight Team was to document whether the application (1) met the requirement, (2) did not meet the requirement, or (3) needed additional information to make a determination.

Further, staff from the Analysis Review Teams were responsible for continually screening applications for other potential eligibility issues, such as ineligible applicant and project types. According to DOT officials, the teams removed applications from the remainder of the evaluation and selection processes only after they had confirmed the applications to be fully ineligible.

Selection Process

Following the combined evaluation process—after each application had received its ratings—the Mega Senior Review Team (SRT) was to assign an overall rating to each application and advance applications to the Secretary for consideration. The Secretary, in turn, selected applications for award.[16]

Senior Review Team. The SRT was to decide which applications to advance to the Secretary after reviewing the Analysis Review Team ratings and statutory project selection requirement determinations. In reviewing the applications, the SRT was to identify projects that had strengths in the outcome criteria but would require additional follow-up on the statutory project selection requirements. For example, an application might need additional documentation to demonstrate that the project met the statutory project selection requirement of being cost-effective. Subsequently, the SRT assigned applications an overall rating of Highly Recommended, Recommended, or Not Recommended (see table 1). An application that met all statutory project selection requirements for award could earn an overall rating of Highly Recommended either by receiving high ratings in all selection criteria, or by the SRT deeming the application to be “exemplary.” The SRT then advanced “Highly Recommended” applications to the Secretary for selection.

Application rating	Criteria
Highly Recommended	DOT determines the project meets all statutory project selection requirements for award, and the application receives high ratings in all of the project outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and project readiness selection criteria; or DOT determines the project meets all statutory project selection requirements for award, and the Senior Review Team determines the project to be an exemplary project of national or regional significance that generates significant benefits in one of the six project outcome criteria.
Recommended	DOT determines the project meets all statutory project selection requirements for award, and the project is not assigned a Highly Recommended or Not Recommended rating.
Not Recommended	DOT determines the project does not meet one or more statutory project selection requirements for award, or additional information is required for one or more statutory project selection requirements; or The application receives one or more low ratings for the project outcome, cost-effectiveness, or project readiness selection criteria; or is otherwise identified by the Senior Review Team to not be suitable for a grant award based on its weakness within a project outcome area.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.  |  GAO‑25‑107102

Secretary’s selection. The NOFO stated that following the SRT process, the Secretary would select applications for award. In doing so, the Secretary must identify the applications that best address program requirements and are most worthy of funding. Following the grant awards, DOT would provide feedback, upon request, to unsuccessful applicants about their applications.

Most Applications Were Submitted by State Governments and Requested Funds for Highway or Bridge Projects

Characteristics of the 128 Mega Applications That Advanced to the Senior Review Team

DOT received 493 applications for all three MPDG grant programs (Mega, INFRA, and Rural) in response to the fiscal year 2022 NOFO. Of those applications, 234 opted out of consideration for Mega. DOT considered the remaining 259 applications for Mega grants and found that 153 were potentially eligible for Mega. Of those 153 applications, DOT removed 25 because they had either already been funded under a different MPDG grant program or were determined to be ineligible after the intake but before the SRT phase.[17] The remaining 128 applications advanced to the SRT for review and are characterized below.

Applicant types. The 128 applicants fit in several categories, including state and local governments, special district governments, regional organizations, and others (such as Amtrak and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). State governments submitted most of the applications. (See table 2.)

Applicant type	Number of applications	Percentage of applications
State government	67	52%
County/city/township government	30	23%
Special district government/regional organization	21	16%
Other	10	8%
Total	128	100%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Transportation data.  |  GAO‑25‑107102

Note: Numbers may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

States from which the applications originated. The 128 applications reviewed by the SRT originated from 39 states and Washington, D.C.

·        California accounted for 20 percent (26) of all applications.

·        New York, Texas, and Virginia accounted for about 16 percent of all applications (seven each).

·        Illinois and Pennsylvania accounted for nearly 8 percent of all applications (five each).

·        Oregon and West Virginia accounted for about 6 percent of all applications (four each).

·        32 states accounted for the remaining, approximately 49 percent (63) of applications.

·        Nine states submitted three applications.

·        Thirteen states submitted two applications.

·        Ten states submitted one application.

None of the applications originated from Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, or Wyoming.[18]

Project types and funding requested. The 128 applications requested funding for the following project types: (1) highway/bridge; (2) intermodal; (3) intercity passenger rail; (4) transit; and (5) rail and highway grade separation.

Approximately 70 percent of the applications requested a total of $18.1 billion in funding for highway/bridge projects. The remaining projects were primarily intermodal, intercity passenger rail, or transit projects that requested a total of approximately $10 billion in funding. (See table 3.)

Project type	Number of applications	Percentage of applications	Grant funds requested (billions)
Highway/bridge	90	70%	$18.1
Intermodal	22	17%	$4.9
Intercity passenger rail	9	7%	$3.5
Transit	4	3%	$1.5
Rail and highway grade separation	3	2%	$.29
Total	128	100%	$28.3

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Transportation data.  |  GAO‑25‑107102

Note: Numbers may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Characteristics of the Mega Applications Selected for Award

Of the 128 project applications that advanced to the SRT, the SRT assigned 16 an overall rating of Highly Recommended and advanced them to the Secretary for consideration. The Secretary selected nine of the 16 projects for award. (See fig. 2.)

These nine applications, which together requested about $3.2 billion in funding, originated from nine different states and were submitted by state governments (six); a city government (one); a special district government (one); and a for-profit government entity (Amtrak). Most of the awarded applications were for highway or bridge projects (seven), in addition to one for a transit project and one for an intercity passenger rail project. To meet the Mega statutory requirements that DOT ensure among grant recipients both geographic diversity and a balance between urban and rural communities,[19] DOT awarded grants to five projects (56 percent) in urban areas and four projects (44 percent) in rural areas. (See table 4.)

Project name	State	Rural/ urban	Applicant type	Project type	Award (millions)
Brent Spence Bridge	KY	Urban	State government	Highway/bridge	$250.0
Hudson Yards Concrete Casing – Section 3a	NY	Urban	Other	Intercity passenger rail	$292.2
I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge Replacement	LA	Rural	State government	Highway/bridge	$150.0
I-44 & US-75 Corridor Improvements	OK	Urban	State government.	Highway/bridge,	$85.0
Improvements to the I-10 Freight Corridor	MS	Rural	State government	Highway/bridge	$60.0
Metra UP North Rebuild: Fullerton to Addison	IL	Urban	Special district government	Transit	$117.0
Roosevelt Boulevard Multimodal Project	PA	Urban	City government	Highway/bridge	$78.0
Strengthening Transportation Evacuation Resilient Lifeline by Improving the Network’s Grid	NC	Rural	State government.	Highway/bridge	$110.0
Watsonville-Santa Cruz Multimodal Corridor Program	CA	Rural	State government.	Highway/bridge	$30.0
Total					$1.172

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Transportation data.  |  GAO‑25‑107102

^aThe Hudson Yards Concrete Casing award is a multiyear grant award for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. Multiyear grant agreements are expressly authorized under the Mega program statute. See 49 U.S.C.  6701(b).

DOT’s Selection Process Generally Aligned with Specified DOT Guidance and Federal Regulations for Discretionary Grant Programs, but DOT Did Not Fully Document Key Decisions

We found that DOT implemented a selection process for advancing and awarding Mega applications that generally aligned with specified DOT guidance and OMB regulations for discretionary grant programs.[20] However, in advancing Mega applications for award consideration, DOT did not fully document how it determined which projects were “exemplary” in comparison to the other eligible applications.

DOT guidance and federal regulations for discretionary grant programs generally allow agencies flexibility to develop their own policies and procedures for selecting applications for award. OMB regulations state that agencies must design and execute a merit review process, in accordance with written standards set forth by the federal awarding agency, with the objective of selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program’s objectives. DOT’s Guide to Financial Assistance also states that DOT’s review process gives it discretion to determine which applications best address program requirements and are most worthy of funding. According to the Guide to Financial Assistance, DOT’s review process must include, at a minimum, a narrative summarizing the results of the merit review; be based on criteria; and be justified by program policy factors.

DOT implemented a selection process for advancing and awarding Mega applications that generally aligned with specified DOT guidance and OMB regulations for discretionary grant programs. For example, we found that the SRT conducted the following activities as outlined in the evaluation guidelines:

·        Following up with the applicants. The SRT may identify applications needing additional follow-up on the five statutory project selection requirements based on strengths in project outcome areas. For example, one SRT meeting summary memorandum we reviewed identified 21 applicants that needed to provide clarifying information on questions related to the data collection plans, financial capacity, or cost-effectiveness of projects, among other things.

·        Assigning overall ratings. The SRT was to assign eligible applications an overall rating of Highly Recommended, Recommended, or Not Recommended based on criteria and guidance established in DOT’s MPDG NOFO and the evaluation guidelines, as discussed above. The SRT rated 16 applications as Highly Recommended. Two of the 16 applications automatically earned this rating because they met all five statutory project selection requirements and received all high ratings in the analysis review phase (i.e., for project outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and project readiness). The SRT deemed the remaining 14 applications “exemplary projects of regional or national significance,” thus conferring on them a rating of Highly Recommended.

·        Assembling a list of projects for the Secretary’s consideration. Once the SRT had assigned a rating to every eligible application, it was to assemble a list of Projects for Consideration for the Secretary. To do so, the SRT was to review the list of Highly Recommended applications and determine if the list was sufficient to satisfy geographic diversity requirements for the Mega program. If the list was not sufficient, then the SRT could add Recommended applications to the list. The SRT determined that the 16 Highly Recommended applications were sufficient to send to the Secretary for award consideration. As noted earlier, the Secretary then selected nine of the 16 applications on the list for award.

DOT’s documentation of its ratings decisions for the applications it selected for the Secretary’s list included each project’s strengths (e.g., any high scores in the project outcome criteria), as well as a general description of each project’s anticipated benefits. However, the documentation did not list the factors or criteria the SRT members used to determine that 14 of the 16 applications they forwarded to the Secretary were “exemplary” in comparison to the other eligible applications—and therefore more worthy of being considered for award consideration. DOT officials told us that the basic definition of exemplary means standing out among peers as a model. Yet, the documentation only stated that an application was strong in a particular outcome area, and did not explain what distinguished the application as “exemplary” in comparison to other applications.

According to DOT’s Guide to Financial Assistance, written justification of the program policy factors used should be included as a part of the federal record when making award decisions. The Guide to Financial Assistance also states that grant documentation should include an explanation for why the selected applications were chosen over other applications. When we asked why DOT did not have full documentation, DOT officials stated that they believed DOT had documented its determinations and explained how they related to the program criteria.

We have previously made several recommendations related to DOT’s documentation of key decisions for its discretionary grant programs.[21] Specifically:

·        In December 2016, we found that DOT’s administration of discretionary grants should be more transparent and recommended that DOT develop a department-wide approach for documenting key decisions for its discretionary grant programs. DOT agreed with this recommendation but has not implemented it.

·        In a January 2024 report on the INFRA program, we recommended that DOT clearly define in its combined MPDG NOFO and evaluation guidelines how an application may qualify as an “exemplary project of national or regional significance that generates significant benefits in one of the project outcome areas.” DOT disagreed with this recommendation, stating that the NOFO provided clear direction for applicants, but that ultimately DOT had discretion to determine which projects were exemplary.

·        In August 2024, we recommended that DOT fully document the rationale for key decisions when advancing and selecting Rural applications for award. DOT disagreed with this recommendation, stating that its documentation was complete.

As discussed above, we similarly found that DOT had not fully documented key decisions in advancing Mega applications for award consideration. However, we are not making a recommendation to DOT in this report, because implementing the prior recommendations described above—particularly the recommendations from December 2016 and January 2024, which directly apply to Mega—would address this concern.[22] By implementing these recommendations, DOT can improve the transparency of its selection process for the Mega program. Moreover, such documentation can position decision-makers to make better-informed selection decisions in support of national goals.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or RepkoE@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 made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix I.

Elizabeth Repko
Director, Physical Infrastructure

GAO Contact

Elizabeth Repko, (202) 512-2834 or RepkoE@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Brandon Haller (Assistant Director), Nick Nadarski (Analyst in Charge), Lindsay Bach, Geoffrey Hamilton, Grant Mallie, Josh Ormond, Laurel Voloder, and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

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, https://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

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, X, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact FraudNet:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Congressional Relations

A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Sarah Kaczmarek, Managing Director, KaczmarekS@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Strategic Planning and External Liaison

Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, Washington, DC 20548