Watchdog finds dozens of agencies fail to consistently certify procurement data 

A federal watchdog flagged this week that nearly three dozen federal agencies did not consistently certify their procurement data as required, raising concerns about oversight of federal contract spending. 

Federal procurement spending has come into the spotlight this year as the Trump administration pushes forward with efforts to root out waste, fraud and abuse. A new report from the Government Accountability Office argues that quality and reliable data are necessary for this mission, but nearly half of the agencies that reported procurement data in fiscal 2023 did not complete the required data quality reports. 

The report, issued Thursday, found 36 of the 70 agencies that reported procurement data to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) – the government’s central repository for procurement information – completed a data quality report, while the remainder did not. 

While the 34 agencies’ spending made up less than 1% of the contract obligations reported to FPDS in fiscal 2023, the GAO determined these contracts still accounted for almost $2 billion in spending. 

The watchdog emphasized that beyond identifying areas of wasteful spending, the data helps “agencies and policymakers make data-driven decisions, improve public trust, and promote the efficiency and effectiveness of government,” underscoring the need for high-quality results. 

Agencies are required to annually certify to the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration that procurement data submitted to FPDS is “complete, accurate, and timely,” the GAO said. OMB has issued various memoranda with guidance on proper FPDS data verification and validation, including 26 “key data elements” that agencies are expected to review for accuracy. 

When reviewing data quality reports for all Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, GAO found none of the 24 met all of the reporting requirements. The watchdog pointed to OMB’s “outdated and unclear guidance” along with “its lack of monitoring procedures” as potential reasons behind the gaps in reporting. 

“Without procedures to monitor agencies’ procurement data quality reports, OMB is not able to help ensure that agencies are meeting FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] and OMB reporting requirements, including submitting them in a timely manner or properly certifying the quality of the data,” the report states. “Further, outdated and unclear guidance that is not streamlined can result in procurement data quality reports that are inaccurate or incomplete and contain inconsistent information.”

The GSA, according to the report, also had “limited communication” with agencies on the FPDS system issues, which can impact the quality and usefulness of data. “GSA partly relies on agencies to identify system issues and enhance system user experience,” the GAO said. 

The GAO recommended OMB update and consolidate guidance, along with establishing a way agencies and governance groups can engage in “continuous two-way communication” with GSA. OMB did not provide comments on the report, and the GSA concurred with the recommendations. 

The report comes as the Trump administration looks to overhaul the FAR, the more than 2,000-page document detailing the regulations and rules for federal agency procurement, which includes the requirement for federal agencies to submit data to FPDS.

Experts in the procurement space have raised concerns about the reliability of the current procurement data. In a White Paper released by NetChoice last week, acquisition attorney Michael Garland argued the government has overpaid for commercial software because of the “little to no reliability” in the data. 

“Useful information, when it exists, is buried in individual contracts invisible to the public and other agencies,” Garland wrote. “Agencies don’t share contracts unless explicitly requested. Each manages its own data in separate systems. Even when contracts are excavated, pricing and items purchased remain inconclusive.”

“Frankly, in the aggregate, the government has no reliable visibility into its software purchasing, thereby making future software procurement competitions and responsible product price evaluations almost impossible,” he added.