Contractors improperly influenced Defense audits, GAO finds

Managers at a key Defense Department oversight agency threatened a senior auditor with personnel action if he did not remove negative findings from a report criticizing a large federal contractor, according to a new report published Wednesday by a government watchdog.

The scathing report by the Government Accountability Office found a too-cozy relationship between management at the Defense Contract Audit Agency and some of the contractors they are assigned to audit. GAO also said auditors who complied with the investigation were subject to harassment and intimidation from their supervisors.

GAO "found that contractor officials and the DoD contracting community improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions and opinions of some audits -- a serious independence issue."

In response to the report DCAA acknowledged that there were shortcomings with some internal controls, but it did not agree with the totality of the report.

"DCAA has taken prompt and immediate action to correct the issues and is committed to promptly addressing any remaining significant issues identified by the GAO," wrote Kenneth Saccoccia, DCAA assistant director of policy and plans directorate. "We believe that the three field audit offices at issue are currently operating at a satisfactory level."

The report found that DCAA officials in 2002 made an upfront agreement with a major aerospace company to limit the scope of its work and the basis for its audit opinion.

But even with the agreement, auditors found that the contractor -- who was not named in the report and identified only as "one of the top five government contractors based on contract dollar value" -- still could not produce valid compliance estimates. The auditor eventually issued a draft finding of inadequate.

The contractor, however, objected to the findings, prompting DCAA management to assign a new supervisory auditor to the case, according to the report. Faced with the threat of personnel action if he did not change the draft report, the auditor reportedly changed the findings to adequate.

The Defense Contract Audit Agency said it has no evidence that the supervisors willfully removed findings from audit reports.

DCAA employees also reportedly faced pressure from supervisors not to comply with GAO's investigation. The report noted that "managers took actions against their staff at two locations, attempting to intimidate auditors, discouraging them from speaking with our investigators, and creating a generally abusive work environment." As a result, some auditors were hesitant to speak with GAO investigators, even on a confidential basis.

The report found one instance in which high-level DCAA officials pressured auditors, including trainees on probationary status, to disclose what they had told GAO investigators.

"Further, we learned of verbal admonishments, reassignments and threats of disciplinary action against auditors," the report stated.

Saccoccia said he found no evidence of such intimidation and argued that GAO provided no evidence to back up its conclusions.

GAO launched its investigation after receiving hot-line complaints about 14 DCAA audits at two California locations.

Problems also were found at a third DCAA location that is responsible for auditing five of the largest government contractors. GAO said inexperienced trainees at this site were assigned to at least 18 complex audits, often as their first assignments and without proper supervision.

Investigators also discovered that in each of the 14 audits, DCAA staff could not support their own draft conclusions. Supervisors, meanwhile, failed to instruct or allow auditors to perform additional work before issuing final reports, GAO concluded.

For example, the GAO found that the draft report for a 2005 billing system audit had at least six major deficiencies, one of which allowed the contractor -- indentified as a company that builds and supports military and satellite systems -- to overbill the government by $246,000. Another mistake may have led to $3.5 million in overbillings, the report said.

"DCAA managers replaced the supervisory auditor and auditor, and the new staff worked together to modify working papers and change the draft audit opinion from 'inadequate,' to 'inadequate in part,' and, finally, to 'adequate,' " the report said. "Sufficient testing was not documented to support this opinion. DoD [Inspector General] concluded that DCAA should rescind the final report for this audit, but DCAA did not do so."

On another occasion, a DCAA supervisory auditor directed a member of her staff to write a clean opinion report using boilerplate language without reviewing the documents prepared by the original auditor, the report noted. GAO found multiple problems with that audit.

Are you a current or former DCAA employee who was pressured by a supervisor to change the results of an audit to favor a contractor? Have you been threatened with personnel action or told to limit the scope of your work at the behest of a DCAA manager? Government Executive wants to hear your story. Identities will be protected. Please contact Robert Brodsky at

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Sponsored by One Identity

    One Nation Under Guard: Securing User Identities Across State and Local Government

    In 2016, the government can expect even more sophisticated threats on the horizon, making it all the more imperative that agencies enforce proper identity and access management (IAM) practices. In order to better measure the current state of IAM at the state and local level, Government Business Council (GBC) conducted an in-depth research study of state and local employees.

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    The Next Federal Evolution of Cloud

    This GBC report explains the evolution of cloud computing in federal government, and provides an outlook for the future of the cloud in government IT.

  • Sponsored by LTC Partners, administrators of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program

    Approaching the Brink of Federal Retirement

    Approximately 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age per day, and a growing number of federal employees are preparing themselves for the next chapter of their lives. Learn how to tackle the challenges that today's workforce faces in laying the groundwork for a smooth and secure retirement.

  • Sponsored by Hewlett Packard Enterprise

    Cyber Defense 101: Arming the Next Generation of Government Employees

    Read this issue brief to learn about the sector's most potent challenges in the new cyber landscape and how government organizations are building a robust, threat-aware infrastructure

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    GBC Issue Brief: Cultivating Digital Services in the Federal Landscape

    Read this GBC issue brief to learn more about the current state of digital services in the government, and how key players are pushing enhancements towards a user-centric approach.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.