This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-102 
entitled 'Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign 
Workers in High-Risk Environments Needs to Be Strengthened' which was 
released on November 18, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

November 2014: 

Human Trafficking: 

Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers in High-Risk 
Environments Needs to Be Strengthened: 

GAO-15-102: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-102, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since the 1990s, there have been allegations of abuse of foreign 
workers on U.S. government contracts overseas, including allegations 
of TIP. In 2002, the United States adopted a zero tolerance policy on 
TIP regarding U.S. government employees and contractors abroad and 
began requiring the inclusion of this policy in all contracts in 2007. 
Such policy is important because the government relies on contractors 
that employ foreign workers in countries where, according to State, 
they may be vulnerable to abuse. 

GAO was mandated to report on the use of foreign workers. This report 
examines (1) policies and guidance governing the recruitment of 
foreign workers and the fees these workers may pay to secure work on 
U.S. government contracts overseas and (2) agencies' monitoring of 
contractor efforts to combat TIP. GAO reviewed a nongeneralizable 
sample of 11 contracts awarded by DOD, State, and USAID, composing 
nearly one-third of all reported foreign workers on contracts awarded 
by these agencies at the end of fiscal year 2013. GAO interviewed 
agency officials and contractors about labor practices and oversight 
activities on these contracts. 

What GAO Found: 

Current policies and guidance governing the payment of recruitment 
fees by foreign workers on certain U.S. government contracts do not 
provide clear instructions to agencies or contractors regarding the 
components or amounts of permissible fees related to recruitment. GAO 
found that some foreign workers—-individuals who are not citizens of 
the United States or the host country-—had reported paying for their 
jobs. Such recruitment fees can lead to various abuses related to 
trafficking in persons (TIP), such as debt bondage. For example, on 
the contract employing the largest number of foreign workers in its 
sample, GAO found that more than 1,900 foreign workers reported paying 
fees for their jobs, including to recruitment agencies used by a 
subcontractor. According to the subcontractor, these fees were likely 
paid to a recruiter who assisted foreign workers with transportation 
to and housing in Dubai before they were hired to work on the contract 
in Afghanistan (see figure). Some Department of Defense (DOD) 
contracting officials GAO interviewed said that such fees may be 
reasonable. DOD, the Department of State (State), and the U.S. Agency 
for International Development (USAID) have developed policy and 
guidance for certain contracts addressing recruitment fees in 
different ways. However, these agencies do not specify what components 
or amounts of recruitment fees are considered permissible, limiting 
the ability of contracting officers and contractors to implement 
agency policy and guidance. 

Figure: Sample Recruitment Paths for Foreign Workers on a U.S. 
Government Contract in Afghanistan: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map and associated data] 

1. Recruitment agency identifies workers in their home countries and 
workers travel to Dubai. 

2. In Dubai, recruitment agency connects workers to a subcontractor 
for a U.S. government contract. 

3. Subcontractor assigns workers to work on a U.S. government contract 
in Afghanistan. 

4. Subcontractor transports workers to Afghanistan. 

Travel not affiliated with performance of U.S. government contract: 
Workers from India and Nepal to Dubai. 

Travel affiliated with performance of U.S. government contract: 
Workers from Dubai to Afghanistan. 

Source: GAO analysis based on Department of Defense and contractor 
data; Map Resources (map). GAO-15-102. 

GAO found that agency monitoring, called for by federal acquisition 
regulations and agency guidance, did not always include processes to 
specifically monitor contractor efforts to combat TIP. For 7 of the 11 
contracts in GAO's sample, DOD and State had specific monitoring 
processes to combat TIP. On the 4 remaining contracts, agencies did 
not specifically monitor for TIP, but rather focused on contractor-
provided goods and services, such as building construction. In 
addition, some DOD and State contracting officials said they were 
unaware of relevant acquisitions policy and guidance for combating TIP 
and did not clearly understand their monitoring responsibilities. Both 
DOD and State have developed additional training to help make 
contracting officials more aware of their monitoring responsibilities 
to combat TIP. Without specific efforts to monitor for TIP, agencies' 
ability to implement the zero tolerance policy and detect concerns 
about TIP is limited. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that agencies (1) develop a more precise definition of 
recruitment fees and (2) ensure that contract monitoring specifically 
includes TIP. DOD concurred with the first recommendation, while State 
and USAID noted that forthcoming regulations would prohibit all 
recruitment fees. Agencies concurred with the second recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-102]. For more 
information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or 
melitot@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Current Agency Policy and Guidance on the Payment of Recruitment Fees 
Do Not Provide Clear Instructions: 

Agencies' Monitoring of Contractor Labor Practices in Our Sample 
Varied, but Contractors' Labor Practices Reflect Efforts to Combat TIP: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: International Definitions and Indicators of Trafficking 
in Persons: 

Appendix III: Migrant Workers in Gulf Countries: 

Appendix IV: Federal Acquisition Regulations and Agency Policy and 
Guidance Related to Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices: 

Appendix V: Sample Defense Contract Management Agency Universal 
Examination Record for Combating Trafficking in Persons, May 2011: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing Foreign 
Workers Overseas: 

Table 2: Migrants in and Tier Placement of Gulf Countries, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq in 2013: 

Table 3: Varying Levels of Specificity in the FAR and Agency Policy on 
Recruitment Fees: 

Table 4: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing Foreign 
Workers Overseas: 

Table 5: Number of Migrants in Gulf Countries from Each of the Top 
Five Source Countries in 2013: 

Table 6: Agency Policy and Guidance Related to Recruitment and Labor 
Practices on U.S. Government Contracts: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Examples of Different Paths Foreign Workers Take from Their 
Home Countries to Work on a U.S. Government Contract Overseas: 

Figure 2: Examples of Subcontractor-Provided Housing for Foreign 
Workers on a Base Operations Support Services Contract in Qatar: 

Abbreviations: 

CENTCOM: U.S. Central Command: 

C-JTSCC: U.S. Central Command-Joint Theater Support Contracting 
Command: 

DCMA: Defense Contract Management Agency: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

ILO: International Labour Organization: 

IRIS: International Recruitment Integrity System: 

KSCR: Kuwait-Specific Contract Requirement: 

SPOT: Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker: 

State: Department of State: 

TIP: Trafficking in Persons: 

TVPA: Trafficking Victims Protection Act: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 18, 2014: 

Congressional Committees: 

The U.S. government relies on contractors to provide services 
overseas, such as construction, security, and facilities maintenance. 
In some countries, such as the Gulf countries,[Footnote 1] where the 
local labor force is small, or in countries such as Iraq and 
Afghanistan, where the employment of local labor poses security risks, 
these contractors rely on foreign workers—-individuals who are 
citizens of neither the United States nor the host country-—to perform 
this work.[Footnote 2] According to the Commission on Wartime 
Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government's reliance on 
local nationals and foreign workers leads to considerable cost savings 
compared with the employment of U.S. military personnel or civilians. 
[Footnote 3] Many foreign workers come from developing countries such 
as India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines, where job opportunities and 
wages compare poorly with those in destination countries. The 
disparities in income levels and the methods used to recruit these 
workers often make them vulnerable to a variety of labor abuses. 

There have been allegations of abuse of foreign workers on government 
contracts overseas since at least the 1990s. In 2000, Congress enacted 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) to combat 
trafficking in persons,[Footnote 4] and in 2002, the United States 
adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding government employees and 
contractors engaging in trafficking in persons (TIP) abroad.[Footnote 
5] Since then, Congress and the President have taken further steps to 
address the issue of trafficking in persons, including through 
amendments to the TVPA. In 2007, federal acquisition regulations 
related to combating TIP were amended to require the inclusion of the 
U.S. government's zero tolerance policy in all government contracts. 
[Footnote 6] 

In the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Congress 
included a requirement for GAO to report on the use of foreign workers 
both overseas and domestically—-including those employed on U.S. 
government contracts.[Footnote 7] This report examines (1) policies 
and guidance governing the recruitment of foreign workers and the fees 
these workers may pay to secure work on U.S. government contracts 
overseas and (2) agencies' monitoring of contractor efforts to combat 
TIP.[Footnote 8] 

This report focuses on Department of Defense (DOD), Department of 
State (State), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
contracts with performance in countries with large percentages of 
foreign workers as compared with local nationals, and in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, where U.S. government contractors employ significant numbers 
of foreign workers. We focused on contractor practices related to the 
recruitment of foreign workers, as well as labor practices such as 
housing, wages and hours, access to identity documents, and return 
travel. We selected these practices because they were mentioned 
explicitly in both recent legislation and an executive order on 
combating trafficking in persons, and because the International Labour 
Organization (ILO) has identified potential indicators of TIP related 
to these practices.[Footnote 9] 

To examine the recruitment of foreign workers and agencies' monitoring 
of contractor labor practices, we reviewed acquisition regulations, 
policies, and guidance. We selected a sample of 11 contracts that were 
active at the end of fiscal year 2013, based on the contracts' place 
of performance, value, type of service provided, and the number of 
foreign workers employed to reflect a range of agencies, countries, 
and services. We conducted structured interviews with agency 
contracting officials, contractors, and, in some cases, interviewed 
the subcontractors responsible for these contracts.[Footnote 10] The 
contracts in our sample represent nearly one-third of all reported 
foreign workers employed on contracts awarded by these three agencies 
as reported in the Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker 
(SPOT) database at the end of fiscal year 2013.11 The results of our 
structured interviews are not generalizable but provided us with 
insights about contractor recruitment practices and efforts to combat 
TIP, as well as agencies' monitoring of these efforts. Table 1 
provides basic information on these contracts. In addition, we 
conducted fieldwork in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar, where we spoke 
with contracting officials, contractors, and subcontractors regarding 
contracts in our sample, and in Jordan, where we spoke with State and 
USAID officials to inform our research design and methodology. We also 
spoke with other DOD, State, and USAID officials; host government 
officials; and local nongovernmental organizations to obtain a broader 
view about labor practices and efforts to combat TIP in these 
countries. We chose these countries based on the range of U.S. 
government activities in these countries, the prevalence of foreign 
workers, and State's assessment of the host government's efforts to 
combat TIP. Furthermore, we interviewed contracting officials, 
acquisition policy officials, and officials responsible for 
coordinating agencies' efforts to combat TIP in the United States. The 
contract employing the largest number of foreign workers in our sample 
included a requirement for the contractor to report certain data 
related to alleged violations of the government's zero tolerance 
policy on TIP; we analyzed these data, including reports of foreign 
workers paying for their jobs, to demonstrate the prevalence and 
relative amounts of these payments. Appendix I provides more 
information on our scope and methodology. 

Table 1: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing Foreign 
Workers Overseas: 

Contract description: Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task 
Order 5 (Afghanistan); 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Afghanistan; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $8,714; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 9,807. 

Contract description: Field and Installation Readiness Support Team; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Afghanistan; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $1,417; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 3,658. 

Contract description: Army Pre-positioned Stocks-5; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Kuwait; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $1,022; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 2,570. 

Contract description: Qatar - Base Operations Support Services; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Qatar; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $174; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 650. 

Contract description: Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task 
Order 5 (Bahrain); 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Bahrain; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $48; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 323. 

Contract description: Coalition Compound Construction; 
Contracting agency: DOD/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
Place of performance: Qatar; 
Services provided: Construction; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $45; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 391. 

Contract description: Full Line Food and Beverage Support; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Defense Logistics Agency; 
Place of performance: Kuwait/Iraq/Jordan; 
Services provided: Food services; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $1,092; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 1,889. 

Contract description: Worldwide Protective Services-Baghdad; 
Contracting agency: State; 
Place of performance: Iraq; 
Services provided: Security; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $608; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 1,410. 

Contract description: Operations and Maintenance Support Services; 
Contracting agency: State; 
Place of performance: Iraq; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $150; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 432. 

Contract description: Embassy Doha Local Guard Force; 
Contracting agency: State; 
Place of performance: Qatar; 
Services provided: Security; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $6[A]; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 70. 

Contract description: Kandahar-Helmand Power Project; 
Contracting agency: USAID; 
Place of performance: Afghanistan; 
Services provided: Construction; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $227; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 41. 

Sources: Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State (State), and 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Data on peak number 
of foreign workers provided by contractors. | GAO-15-102: 

[A] Contract value at time of award. 

[End of table] 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to November 2014 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: 

Definition of Trafficking in Persons: 

Human trafficking--the worldwide criminal exploitation of men, women, 
and children for others' financial gain--is a violation of human 
rights. Victims are often lured or abducted and forced to work in 
involuntary servitude. Although the crime of human trafficking can 
take different forms in different regions and countries around the 
world, most human trafficking cases follow a similar pattern. 
Traffickers use acquaintances or false advertisements to recruit men, 
women, and children in or near their homes, and then transfer them to 
and exploit them in another city, region, or country. The U.S. 
government defines severe forms of trafficking in persons to include 
the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of 
a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or 
coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, 
peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.[Footnote 12] International 
organizations have also defined trafficking in persons and developed a 
list of indicators of trafficking for labor exploitation.[Footnote 13] 
Appendix II describes these efforts in more detail. 

Congress and others have highlighted the role that deceptive 
recruitment practices can play in contributing to trafficking in 
persons. Workers who pay for their jobs are at an increased risk for 
human trafficking and other labor abuses. State's Inspector General 
has reported that such recruitment fees, which can amount to many 
months' salary, are a possible indicator of coercive recruitment and 
may indicate an increased risk of debt bondage, as some workers borrow 
large sums of money to pay the recruiter.[Footnote 14] A 2011 ILO 
survey of workers in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates found that 
the recruitment fees and interest on loans may limit workers' ability 
to negotiate the terms of their work contracts.[Footnote 15] This debt 
burden can result in involuntary servitude through excessive work 
hours or virtually no pay for months to recover the advance payments 
of fees and interest. 

U.S. Government Approach to Trafficking in Persons in Acquisitions 
Policy: 

Since 2007, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) has required all 
U.S. government contracts to include a clause citing the U.S. 
government's zero tolerance policy regarding TIP. This clause 
prohibits contractors from engaging in severe forms of trafficking, 
procuring commercial sex acts, or using forced labor during the period 
of performance of the contract.[Footnote 16] In addition, this clause 
establishes several contractor requirements to implement this policy, 
such as notifying the contracting officer of any information that 
alleges a contractor employee, subcontractor, or subcontractor 
employee has engaged in conduct that violates this policy and adding 
this clause in all subcontracts. 

In 2012, Congress and the President took further steps to reduce the 
risk of trafficking on U.S. government contracts. The TVPA, as 
amended,[Footnote 17] and an executive order[Footnote 18] both address 
acts related to TIP, such as denying foreign workers access to their 
identity documents and failing to pay for return travel for foreign 
workers. In September 2013, amendments to the FAR were proposed to 
implement the requirements of the 2013 amendments to the TVPA and the 
executive order related to strengthening protections against 
trafficking in persons.[Footnote 19] As of October 2014, these 
proposed amendments to the FAR are still under review. 

Agencies also have developed their own acquisition policies and 
guidance to augment the FAR that aim to protect foreign workers on 
specific contracts. Many of these policies and much of this guidance 
include requirements related to recruitment and other labor practices, 
including housing, wages, and access to identity documents. 

* DOD policy is intended to deter activities of a variety of actors, 
including contractor personnel, that would facilitate or support TIP. 
[Footnote 20] A region-specific DOD acquisition policy that addresses 
combating TIP has evolved in recent years and has applied to different 
places of performance at different times.[Footnote 21] Currently, this 
policy requires the insertion of a clause to combat TIP into certain 
service and construction contracts that require performance in Iraq or 
Afghanistan. 

* In 2011 and 2012, State issued acquisition guidance, applicable to 
all domestic and overseas contracting activities, on how to monitor 
contracts for TIP compliance and to provide a clause and procedures to 
reduce the risk of abusive labor practices that contribute to the 
potential for TIP. Among other things, this guidance requires 
contracting officers to require offerors to include information 
related to the recruitment and housing of foreign workers in their 
proposals for certain contracts.[Footnote 22] 

* In 2012, USAID issued guidance reminding contracting officials of 
their responsibilities to implement TIP requirements and requiring 
officials to, among other things, discuss issues such as access to 
certain documents and understanding local labor laws with contractors 
following contract award.[Footnote 23] 

Use of Subcontractors: 

Subcontracting is an acquisition practice in which the vendor with the 
direct responsibility to perform a contract, known as the prime 
contractor, enters into direct contracts with other vendors, known as 
subcontractors, to furnish supplies or services for the performance of 
the contract. This practice can help contractors to consider core 
competencies and supplier capabilities to achieve efficiencies from 
the marketplace. In some cases, prime contractors use subcontractors 
to supply labor on government contracts, and these subcontractors may 
use second-tier subcontractors or recruitment agencies to identify 
prospective employees. Our prior work has shown that government 
visibility into subcontracts is generally limited.[Footnote 24] 
Government agencies have a direct relationship only with the prime 
contractor, and generally "privity of contract" limits the 
government's authority to direct subcontractors to perform tasks under 
the contract.[Footnote 25] As a result, agencies generally do not 
monitor subcontractors directly, as they expect the prime contractor 
to monitor its subcontractors. Further, the FAR notes the prime 
contractor's responsibility in managing its subcontractors, and 
officials have underscored the limited role of the government in 
selecting and managing subcontracts. 

Foreign Workers on U.S. Government Contracts Overseas: 

Contractors performing U.S. government contracts overseas operate 
under local conditions and in accordance with local labor practices. 
In Gulf countries, contractors employ large numbers of foreign 
workers, who make up a significant portion of the local labor force. 
These workers typically come from countries such as India, Bangladesh, 
and the Philippines for economic reasons. According to State and the 
ILO, several common and restrictive labor practices in Gulf countries 
stem from these countries' sponsorship system, which limits workers' 
freedom of movement. Appendix III provides further detail on the 
prevalence of foreign workers in Gulf countries, as well as efforts to 
regulate this migration of workers in home and destination countries. 
State's 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report found that certain labor 
practices in the Middle East, including Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain, 
can render foreign workers susceptible to severe forms of trafficking 
in persons.[Footnote 26] 

In addition, U.S. government contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan often 
employ foreign workers for cost and security reasons. As of July 2014, 
DOD reported nearly 17,000 foreign workers on contracts in 
Afghanistan, approximately one-third of the department's total 
contractor workforce in that country. Although DOD reports that it no 
longer has foreign workers in Iraq, it reported more than 40,000 
foreign workers on DOD contracts in Iraq--nearly 60 percent of its 
total contractor workforce in the country--as of January 2011. State 
contractors currently employ foreign workers in Iraq for security and 
operations and maintenance services. GAO and others have reported that 
operating in insecure environments can hinder agencies' ability to 
monitor contracts, including efforts to combat TIP, because of the 
general absence of security, among other factors.[Footnote 27] Table 2 
shows the prevalence of migrants in Gulf countries, Afghanistan, and 
Iraq, as well as State's Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement 
for 2014, which illustrates areas where the risk of TIP is high. 

Table 2: Migrants in and Tier Placement of Gulf Countries, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq in 2013: 

Country: United Arab Emirates; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: 83.7%; 
Total number of migrants[A]: 7,826,981; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 2. 

Country: Qatar; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: 73.8%; 
Total number of migrants[A]: 1,600,955; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 2 Watch List. 

Country: Kuwait; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: 60.2%; 
Total number of migrants[A]: 2,028,053; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 3. 

Country: Bahrain; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: 54.7%; 
Total number of migrants[A]: 729,357; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 2 Watch List. 

Country: Saudi Arabia; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: 31.4%; 
Total number of migrants[A]: 9,060,433; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 3. 

Country: Oman; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: 30.6%; 
Total number of migrants[A]: 1,112,032; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 2. 

Country: Afghanistan; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: not available; 
Total number of migrants[A]: not available; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 2. 

Country: Iraq; 
Migrants as a percentage of total population[A]: not available; 
Total number of migrants[A]: not available; 
Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement (2014)[B]: 2. 

Sources: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 
Trends in International Migrant Stock: the 2013 revision; Department 
of State Trafficking in Persons Report, 2014. GAO-15-102. 

[A] These data do not include the number of foreign workers in each 
country but rather reflect the number of overall migrants, including 
children, to each country. 

[B] In the report, Tier 1 countries fully comply with the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act's minimum standards for the elimination of 
human trafficking; Tier 2 countries do not fully comply with the 
minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring 
themselves into compliance; Tier 2 Watch List countries do not fully 
comply with the minimum standards, but are making significant efforts 
to bring themselves into compliance, among other criteria; and Tier 3 
refers to countries whose governments do not fully comply with the 
minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so. 

[End of table] 

Current Agency Policy and Guidance on the Payment of Recruitment Fees 
Do Not Provide Clear Instructions: 

Agency policy and guidance on combating trafficking in persons has 
attempted to address the payment of recruitment fees by foreign 
workers on certain U.S. government contracts. However, current policy 
and guidance does not specifically define the components or amount of 
permissible fees related to recruitment. Agency officials and 
contractors said that without an explicit definition of what 
constitutes a recruitment fee, they may not be able to effectively 
implement existing policy and guidance on this issue. Despite efforts 
to prohibit or restrict the payment of recruitment fees, we found that 
some foreign workers on U.S. government contracts have reported paying 
for their jobs. Prime contractor reliance on subcontractors for 
recruitment of foreign workers further limits visibility into 
recruitment fees. 

The FAR and Agency Policy and Guidance Lack Specificity Regarding 
Recruitment Fees: 

The FAR provides broad prohibitions against contractors engaging in 
trafficking but does not explicitly address the payment of recruitment 
fees. The FAR prohibits contractors from engaging in severe forms of 
trafficking, including recruitment of a person for labor or services 
through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of 
subjection to debt bondage, but it does not address more specific 
issues related to how contractors recruit foreign workers, such as 
recruitment fees. 

Some agencies have developed policy and guidance that address certain 
recruitment issues more specifically. Although DOD's department-wide 
guidance on combating TIP does not explicitly address recruitment, its 
current region-specific policy requires certain services and 
construction contracts in Afghanistan to include a clause requiring 
contractors to avoid using unlicensed recruitment firms or firms that 
charge illegal recruitment fees.[Footnote 28] However, this policy 
does not define "illegal" recruitment fees. State's 2012 guidance 
required certain contracts to include a clause requiring contractors 
to submit, as part of their proposals, recruitment plans that must 
state that employees will not be charged any recruitment or similar 
fees and that contractors and subcontractors will use only bona fide 
licensed recruitment companies.[Footnote 29] USAID's 2012 guidance on 
combating trafficking in persons reminds officials of the FAR 
requirements, but it provides no further guidance on the recruitment 
of foreign workers for work on USAID contracts. Table 3 illustrates 
how the FAR and agency policy and guidance address recruitment fees 
with varying levels of specificity. 

Table 3: Varying Levels of Specificity in the FAR and Agency Policy on 
Recruitment Fees: 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): FAR § 22.1705(a) and Clause 
52.222-50: No explicit discussion of recruitment fees.[A]: 

Department of Defense policy: U.S. Central Command-Joint Theater 
Support Contracting Command (C-JTSCC) Acquisition Instruction and 
Clauses 952.222-0001 and 5152.222-5900; Prohibits the use of 
unlicensed recruiting firms or firms that charge illegal recruiting 
fees. 

State guidance: Procurement Information Bulletin No.2012-10; Offerors 
are to be required to submit a recruitment plan as part of the 
proposal that states that the recruited employee will not be charged 
recruitment or any similar fees. 

USAID guidance: Procurement Executive's Bulletin No. 2012-07; No 
explicit discussion of recruitment fees. 

Source: GAO analysis of the FAR, C-JTSCC Acquisition Instruction, 
State Procurement Information Bulletin 2012-10, and U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) Procurement Executive's Bulletin 
2012-07. GAO-15-102. 

[A] In September 2013, amendments to the FAR were proposed to 
implement the requirements of the 2013 amendments to the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act and the executive order related to 
strengthening protections against trafficking in persons, including 
the issue of recruitment fees. 

[End of table] 

We found that some agency officials, both on contracts in our sample 
and on others, and contractors in our sample did not have a common 
understanding of what constitutes a permissible fee related to 
recruitment--in terms of components or amount--or whether contractors 
or subcontractors at any level were permitted to charge such fees to 
recruited employees. According to GAO's standards for internal 
control, information should be recorded and communicated to management 
and others in a form that enables them to carry out their internal 
control and other responsibilities.[Footnote 30] Currently, agency 
contracting officials lack policy or guidance that specifies what 
components are considered to be recruitment fees and may not be able 
to determine which fees are permissible, hindering their ability to 
carry out their responsibilities. For example, neither the FAR nor 
agency policy or guidance specifies what components are considered to 
constitute recruitment fees, but these fees could include air tickets, 
lodging, passport and visa fees, or medical screening, among other 
expenses. One subcontractor who hires foreign workers in Dubai for 
work in Afghanistan said that the definition of recruitment fees is 
imprecise and varies widely within the contracting community. He added 
that he believed every foreign worker hired in Dubai for this contract 
had paid someone some type of fee for his or her job, but the fee 
could have included airfare from the home country to Dubai, housing 
and food in Dubai, or a commission for the recruiter, any of which may 
be legal. In addition, the Qatari Under Secretary of Labor noted that 
Qatari law prohibits recruitment fees, but he and State and DOD 
officials in Qatar acknowledged that most foreign workers are 
initially recruited in their home countries, where such fees may or 
may not be allowed. Without explicit definitions of what, if anything, 
constitute permissible fees related to recruitment, contractors said 
that they could not ensure that they were in compliance with 
contractual requirements. DOD contracting officials in Kuwait said 
that a definition of recruitment fees would improve their ability to 
implement the government's antitrafficking policy. 

The President and Congress have both directed that the FAR be amended 
to address several issues related to trafficking, including the 
payment of recruitment fees. The 2012 executive order directed 
amendments to the FAR that would expressly prohibit federal 
contractors from charging employees any recruitment fees,[Footnote 31] 
while amendments to the TVPA in 2013 allow the government to terminate 
a contract if contractors, subcontractors, labor brokers, or other 
agents charge unreasonable placement or recruitment fees.[Footnote 32] 
Public comments on the proposed FAR rule have noted that the FAR 
Council will have to reconcile these prohibitions, deciding whether to 
prohibit all recruitment fees or only unreasonable ones and defining 
what is considered unreasonable.[Footnote 33] 

Other Entities Provide Definitions of Permissible Recruitment Fees: 

The TVPA states that unreasonable placement or recruitment fees 
include fees equal to or greater than the employee's monthly salary, 
or recruitment fees that violate the laws of the country from which an 
employee is recruited.[Footnote 34] The Department of Labor and 
foreign governments have also defined permissible fees paid by workers 
to their employers. 

* A Department of Labor regulation relating to assurances that 
employers must provide in seeking to employ certain temporary foreign 
workers in the United States allows for reimbursements from workers 
for costs that are the responsibility and primarily for the benefit of 
the worker, such as government-required passport fees.[Footnote 35] 

* The government of India permits recruiting agents to recover service 
charges from workers of up to the equivalent of 45 days' wages, 
subject to a maximum of 20,000 rupees (currently about $325), 
according to India's Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs. 

* The government of the Philippines permits recruiters to charge its 
hired workers a placement fee in an amount equivalent to 1 month's 
salary, excluding documentation costs such as expenses for passports, 
birth certificates, and medical examinations, according to the 
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. 

* The International Organization for Migration, with others, has 
established the International Recruitment Integrity System (IRIS), 
which is a voluntary consortium of stakeholders including recruitment 
and employment agents. Members of IRIS are prohibited from charging 
any recruitment fees to job seekers. 

Senior acquisition officials expressed conflicting views regarding the 
feasibility of prohibiting recruitment fees. Senior officials in 
State's Office of the Procurement Executive stated that they would 
prefer that all recruitment fees be prohibited, in line with the 
executive order, to eliminate any uncertainty or ambiguity among 
contracting officials. They said that they had consulted State's 
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, which took the 
same position of the Office of the Procurement Executive given that 
such fees create vulnerability among workers and often are the 
precursor to debt bondage. These officials further stated that the 
term "reasonable recruitment fees" was difficult to define and apply 
in practice. In public comments on the proposed FAR rule, one 
nongovernmental organization noted that "the definition of 
reasonableness is amorphous and is unduly burdensome on private 
industry to enforce." Other officials, including DOD contracting 
officials in Kuwait, stated that it may be reasonable for employees to 
pay a fee for a job in some cases, echoing the recent amendment to the 
TVPA. They noted that eliminating these fees would be nearly 
impossible, and that recruiters would pass these fees on to workers in 
some other form if recruitment fees were explicitly banned. DOD Joint 
Staff officials added that the elimination of recruitment fees will 
cause contractors to change the name from recruitment fees to travel 
or per diem fees to cover air travel, housing and food, thus a precise 
definition of these fees that specifically addresses travel costs is 
needed. A subcontractor supplying foreign workers on the largest 
contract in our sample said that its recruitment agencies likely 
charge fees to recruits for services such as air tickets, housing, and 
food, which the subcontractor deemed reasonable. However, according to 
senior State, DOD, and contractor officials, regardless of whether 
recruitment fees are banned in their entirety or only when 
unreasonable, the ability of contracting officers and contractors to 
implement this restriction will be limited until recruitment fees, 
including what is considered permissible, are defined in regulation, 
guidance, or policy. 

Some Foreign Workers Employed on U.S. Contracts Paid Recruitment Fees 
to Subcontractors or Recruitment Agencies: 

On at least two contracts in our sample, including the one employing 
the largest number of foreign workers, contractors reported that 
workers have paid for their jobs. We found that, on the largest 
contract in our sample, employing nearly 10,000 foreign workers in 
Afghanistan, recruitment agencies have likely charged fees to some 
foreign workers. On this contract, the prime contractor uses several 
subcontractors to supply labor, including one that hires workers 
through more than 10 recruitment agencies in Dubai. We found that from 
September 2012 through April 2014, more than 1,900 subcontractor 
employees reported to the prime contractor that they had paid fees for 
their jobs, including to recruitment agencies with which the 
subcontractor had a recruitment agreement. For 2012 and 2013, 
recruitment agencies used by this subcontractor signed statements 
acknowledging that they would not charge any recruitment fees to 
candidates facilitated as part of their agreements with the 
subcontractor. In April 2014, the last month for which data were 
available, 82 workers reported having paid an average of approximately 
$3,000 to get their jobs. The fees that these workers reported paying 
averaged approximately 5 months' salary and, in one case, amounted to 
more than 1 year's salary.[Footnote 36] According to the subcontractor 
who employed all 82 of these workers, these fees were likely paid to 
an agent who assisted foreign workers with transportation and housing 
prior to being hired for work on the U.S. government contract. 
Although the prime contractor provided DOD information about reported 
fees, neither DOD nor the prime contractor took further action because 
the allegations did not involve the prime contractor or its 
subcontractor. 

On another DOD services contract in Afghanistan, we found that the 
contractor modified its subcontract with a recruiter in January 2014 
to clarify that the contractor would pay recruitment fees previously 
charged to foreign workers--$670 per worker. The contractor reported 
that this modification to the subcontract was a result of its 
interpretation of the FAR clause prohibiting TIP. According to the 
contractor, the contracting agency had not directed it to make this 
modification; it made this change on its own initiative to prevent 
potential TIP abuses in the performance of the contract. 

These practices may be long-standing and widespread in Gulf countries. 
In January 2011, the State Inspector General reported in an evaluation 
of efforts to combat TIP on contracts in four Gulf countries that a 
substantial portion of the workers they interviewed had obtained their 
jobs by paying a recruitment agency in their country of origin. Some 
of these workers reported paying more than 1 year's salary in such 
fees.[Footnote 37] 

Prime Contractors Used Subcontractors to Recruit Foreign Workers, and 
Some Did Not Know if Recruitment Fees Were Paid: 

Nearly all prime contractors in our sample reported that they 
generally used subcontractors or recruitment agencies to recruit 
foreign workers, and some reported that their knowledge about the 
payment of recruitment fees is limited. These subcontractors generally 
recruited foreign workers either from their home countries or in host 
countries where they may have lived and worked for an extended period 
of time. In other cases, subcontractors recruited workers in a third 
country, neither their home country nor the host country, and then 
transported them to the contract location. Figure 1 illustrates a 
variety of potential paths a foreign worker may take to be recruited 
for work on a U.S. government contract overseas. 

Figure 1: Examples of Different Paths Foreign Workers Take from Their 
Home Countries to Work on a U.S. Government Contract Overseas: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 maps and associated data] 

Scenario 1: 

1. Recruitment agency identifies workers in their home countries; 
2. Subcontractor hires workers in their home countries and transports 
them to Kuwait; 
3. Subcontractor assigns workers to work on a U.S. government contract 
in Kuwait. 

Scenario 2: 

1. Recruitment agency identifies workers in their home countries and 
workers travel to Dubai; 
2. In Dubai, recruitment agency connects workers to a subcontractor 
for a U.S. government contract; 
3. Subcontractor assigns workers to work on a U.S. government contract 
in Afghanistan; 
4. Subcontractor transports workers to Afghanistan. 

Scenario 3: 

1. Recruitment agency identifies workers in their home countries and 
workers travel to Qatar; 
2. Recruitment agency connects workers to a Qatari employer; 
3. Workers are assigned to a number of employers while in Qatar; 
4. At a point in time, one employer is a contractor that assigns 
workers to work on a U.S. government contract. 

Source: GAO analysis based on Department of Defense and contractor 
data; Map Resources (maps). GAO-15-102. 

[End of figure] 

For foreign workers recruited in their home countries, prime 
contractors in our sample reported that they often used subcontractors 
who relied on recruitment agencies to identify workers. Since prime 
contractors do not have a direct relationship with these recruitment 
agencies, their visibility into these agencies' practices, including 
whether the agencies charged workers recruitment fees, was limited. 
For foreign workers recruited in host countries, prime contractors in 
our sample reported that they typically also used subcontractors to 
identify workers. When foreign workers are already living in the host 
country, prime contractors may not know whether these workers paid 
recruitment fees when they first came to the host country. For 
example, one subcontractor that employs more than 2,500 foreign 
workers in Afghanistan said that it hired foreign workers from the 
previous contractor and did not know whether these workers had paid 
recruitment fees previously. 

The following examples illustrate how contractors use subcontractors 
to recruit foreign workers and their limited knowledge about 
recruitment fees: 

* On a DOD services contract in Kuwait, a local subcontractor 
recruited, employed, and housed foreign workers supporting the prime 
contract. According to the subcontractor, some employees were 
recruited from an existing pool of foreign workers living in Kuwait. 
The prime contractor reported that it did not monitor the 
subcontractor's recruitment practices, including if recruitment fees 
were paid by foreign workers in this existing pool (see scenario 1, 
figure 1). 

* On a DOD services contract in Afghanistan, the prime contractor used 
a subcontractor to supply labor. This subcontractor recruited workers 
in Dubai using several recruitment agencies. In some instances, these 
agencies identified workers in countries such as India and Nepal and 
transported them to Dubai. As noted above, many workers on this 
contract reported having paid for their jobs, but the prime contractor 
did not investigate these reports because they did not involve the 
prime contractor or its subcontractors (see scenario 2, figure 1). 

* On a DOD construction contract in Qatar, the prime contractor used a 
subcontractor that maintained a pool of foreign workers in Qatar who 
were originally identified by recruitment agencies in source countries 
such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, India, and Jordan. The prime contractor 
reported that it had no way of knowing how these workers had been 
initially recruited, including if they had paid any recruitment fees 
(see scenario 3, figure 1). 

* On a State services contract in Iraq, the prime contractor said that 
it did not use subcontractors. Instead, it transferred workers from 
another contract it was supporting in Djibouti and also employed 
several foreign workers from the contractor that had previously 
performed this work for DOD. Consequently, most workers had already 
been recruited before contract award. 

* On a State security contract in Iraq, the prime contractor used 
subcontractors in Kenya and Uganda to recruit foreign workers. 
According to the prime contractor, subcontractors were paid a fixed 
fee for each worker it hired and the prime contractor did not believe 
workers paid a separate fee for these services. 

Agencies' Monitoring of Contractor Labor Practices in Our Sample 
Varied, but Contractors' Labor Practices Reflect Efforts to Combat TIP: 

The FAR and DOD, State, and USAID guidance outline requirements for 
monitoring contractor labor practices, and DOD and State had processes 
for monitoring these practices and efforts to combat TIP on some 
contracts in our sample. However, we found that DOD, State, and USAID 
did not specifically monitor these practices on other contracts, 
hindering their ability to detect potential TIP abuses and implement 
the U.S. government's zero tolerance policy. For example, we found 
that agencies did not specifically monitor for labor practices on some 
contracts, but rather focused on contractor-provided goods and 
services, such as building construction. The FAR and agency policy and 
guidance require the use of contract clauses that outline contractor 
responsibilities related to labor practices in areas such as wages and 
hours, housing, access to identity documents, and return travel, which 
have been linked to TIP abuses by the U.S. government and 
international organizations. All contractors in our sample reported to 
us that their practices reflect efforts to combat TIP. 

Agencies Monitored Contractor Labor Practices on Some Contracts in Our 
Sample but Not on Others: 

The FAR and agency policy and guidance outline requirements for DOD, 
State, and USAID to monitor contractor labor practices. For some 
contracts in our sample, DOD and State had specific processes to 
monitor efforts to combat TIP. On other contracts, however, neither 
DOD, nor State, nor USAID had such specific processes and focused 
their monitoring on contractor-provided goods and services. In 
addition, some agency contracting officials indicated that they were 
unaware of their monitoring responsibilities to combat TIP. 

Federal Acquisition Regulations and Agency Guidance Include 
Instructions on Monitoring Contractor Labor Practices: 

Federal acquisition regulations and agency guidance provide 
instructions for agencies to monitor contractor labor practices. The 
FAR requires that agencies conduct contract quality assurance 
activities as necessary to determine that supplies or services conform 
to contract requirements, which would include requirements related to 
efforts to combat TIP.[Footnote 38] In addition, DOD guidance states 
that quality assurance surveillance plans should describe how the 
government will monitor a contractor's performance regarding 
trafficking in persons.[Footnote 39] State's guidance requires 
contracting officials to document a monitoring plan to combat TIP, 
obtain information on employer-furnished housing and periodically 
visit to ensure adequacy, and verify that the contractor does not hold 
employee passports or visas. Finally, USAID guidance requires 
contracting officials to monitor all awards to ensure compliance with 
TIP requirements. Specifically, the guidance states that officials 
should conduct appropriate site visits and employee interviews to 
verify that the contractor does not hold employee passports, among 
other things. 

DOD and State Have Developed Specific Processes for Monitoring 
Contractor Labor Practices on Some Contracts: 

DOD and State have developed specific processes for monitoring 
contractor labor practices, including efforts to combat TIP, for some 
contracts in our sample. Specifically, DOD developed a process for 
monitoring efforts to combat TIP for five of the seven DOD contracts 
included in our sample, all of which were awarded by the Army 
Contracting Command, and State had a TIP-specific process for two of 
the three State contracts in our sample. On the other four contracts 
in our sample, DOD, State, and USAID did not monitor specifically for 
TIP because of a focus on contractor provided goods and services, as 
discussed in the next section. 

For DOD, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)[Footnote 40] 
administered four contracts in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar and used 
a checklist to help it conduct systematic audits of contractor 
compliance with certain requirements related to labor practices and 
efforts to combat TIP.[Footnote 41] (See app. V for a sample checklist 
used by DCMA in Afghanistan.) DCMA's checklist included questions 
about foreign worker housing, employment contracts, and policies and 
procedures for reporting potential TIP abuses. DCMA also interviewed a 
sample of foreign workers to further validate contractor compliance 
with requirements related to combating TIP. For example, in Kuwait, 
DCMA inspectors asked workers about wages, hours, overtime, identity 
documents, and return travel. The inspectors asked workers how the 
contractor paid their wages, if the contractor held their passports, 
and if the contractor paid for their return travel. DCMA documented 
contractor noncompliance with contract requirements related to labor 
practices and efforts to combat TIP through corrective action 
requests.[Footnote 42] DCMA issued such requests related to contractor 
labor practices--including housing, wage, and TIP issues--on three out 
of the four contracts it was responsible for administering in our 
sample. According to agency officials, none of these requests was 
issued in response to a serious or unacceptable contract violation. 
For example, on a facilities support contract in Afghanistan, the 
contractor was issued a corrective action request in January 2012 for 
not providing foreign workers an employment contract in their native 
language. This request was closed in December 2012 after the 
contractor provided DCMA a corrective action plan. 

DCMA officials stated that it is transitioning its contract 
administration responsibilities, including its process for monitoring 
efforts to combat TIP in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the military 
services. In 2009, DOD directed selected contract administration 
service tasks to be transferred from DCMA to the military services. 
Although DCMA continued to administer selected contracts until after 
the beginning of fiscal year 2014, DCMA officials said that it is 
currently developing a plan to transition contract administration 
responsibilities to the military services, including the Army's 
contracts in Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan. 

State monitored contract requirements related to labor practices and 
efforts to combat TIP for two contracts in our sample in Iraq. For a 
security contract, State used an inspection checklist to help it 
monitor contractor compliance with these requirements. This checklist 
included verification of wages and access to identity documents, as 
well as other labor practices. State officials responsible for 
monitoring this contract conducted monthly foreign worker housing 
inspections and verified that workers (1) willingly accepted their 
living and working conditions, (2) were paid in accordance with the 
terms of their employment contracts, (3) had access to their 
passports, (4) had access to their employment contracts and fully 
understood them, and (5) were free to end their employment contracts 
at any time, acknowledging that certain penalties may apply. On 
another services contract, State's Contract Management Office--a 
regional office established in August 2013 to improve management and 
oversight of contract performance of major contracts in Iraq--used in-
country interviews of foreign workers to monitor contractor labor 
practices, including access to identify documents and return travel. 

On Some Contracts, Agencies' Monitoring Efforts Were Limited to 
Contractor-Provided Goods and Services: 

For 4 of the 11 contracts in our sample, agency officials stated that 
they did not specifically monitor contractor labor practices or 
efforts to combat TIP, as their monitoring processes were primarily 
focused on contractor-provided goods and services. First, on a 
construction contract in Qatar, DOD officials reported that they 
focused their monitoring on areas such as building design and quality 
of materials and that they did not specifically monitor for potential 
TIP abuses. As a result, according to an agency official, they have no 
ability to monitor the treatment of foreign workers once they step off 
the work site and thus might not be able to detect potential abuses. 
Second, on a DOD food services contract in Kuwait, agency officials 
said that they did not specifically monitor recruitment practices or 
have an audit program or checklist designed to combat TIP. Third, on a 
State security contract in Qatar, an official responsible for contract 
monitoring reported that monitoring efforts were focused on technical 
issues such as personnel qualifications and performance of duties, not 
on contractor labor practices or efforts to combat TIP. Finally, on a 
USAID construction contract in Afghanistan, an agency official stated 
that the agency monitored only for quality assurance and technical 
specifications and did not monitor specifically for TIP abuses. In 
addition, the contractor on this contract said it did not monitor 
subcontractors' labor practices. Agency officials reported that they 
had not documented any concerns regarding recruitment or labor 
practices on any of these 4 contracts. However, without efforts to 
specifically monitor labor practices or efforts to combat TIP, 
agencies' ability to detect such concerns is limited, and they cannot 
ensure that foreign workers are being treated in accordance with the 
U.S. government's zero tolerance policy regarding trafficking in 
persons. 

Some Contracting Officials Were Unaware of Their Monitoring 
Responsibilities to Combat TIP: 

Some DOD and State contracting officials were unaware of relevant 
acquisitions policy and guidance for combating TIP and did not clearly 
understand their monitoring responsibilities. For example, DOD 
officials responsible for monitoring a construction contract in Qatar 
expressed uncertainty about their authorities for combating TIP. As a 
result, these officials indicated that they conducted little 
monitoring of labor practices or other efforts to combat potential TIP 
abuses. Furthermore, a State official in Qatar responsible for 
contract monitoring stated that he had only recently become aware of 
State's 2012 acquisition guidance on combating TIP and his monitoring 
activities did not specifically include efforts to combat TIP. In 
addition, a State official in Afghanistan with monitoring 
responsibilities for a services contract said that he was not aware of 
State's current guidance on combating TIP in contracts. This official 
noted that some State officials responsible for contract monitoring 
may need refresher training because their initial training occurred 
prior to the issuance of this guidance. Finally, State's Inspector 
General found, in a recent inspection of the U.S. embassy in 
Afghanistan, that embassy officials involved in contract 
administration were unaware of their responsibilities for monitoring 
grants and contracts for TIP violations.[Footnote 43] 

Agencies have developed training to help contracting officials become 
more aware of their monitoring responsibilities. DOD has developed new 
training for contracting officials that, according to a senior 
official, will help ensure that these officials are knowledgeable, 
qualified, and authorized to complete their TIP monitoring 
responsibilities. In October 2014, DOD made this training mandatory 
for all DOD personnel with job responsibilities that require daily 
contact with DOD contractors, foreign national personnel, or 
both.[Footnote 44] State officials noted that required training for 
officials responsible for contract monitoring includes a module on 
combating TIP, and State recently conducted a series of web-based 
seminars for acquisition personnel on how to monitor contracts for TIP 
abuses. 

Contractors Reported to Us that Their Labor Practices Reflect Efforts 
to Combat TIP: 

The FAR and agency policy and guidance recognize that contractors 
should follow various labor practices. For example, for certain 
contracts, State requires the inclusion of a clause that prohibits 
contractors from denying employees access to their passports, which 
helps to ensure that workers have freedom of movement. In addition, 
both DOD and State generally require the inclusion of clauses in 
certain contracts that speak to a minimum of 50 square feet of space 
per employee in contractor-provided housing. Contractors in our sample 
reported to us that their practices related to wages and hours, 
housing, access to identity documents, and the provision of return 
travel reflected efforts to combat TIP. Appendix IV provides more 
detailed information about requirements in the FAR and agency policy 
and guidance related to these practices. 

Contractors Reported that Practices Related to Wages, Hours, Leave and 
Overtime Generally Complied with Host Country Labor Laws: 

In general, the FAR and DOD's FAR supplement require the inclusion of 
clauses in certain contracts that require contractors to comply with 
the labor laws of the host country, which, according to officials, 
govern practices related to wages, hours, leave, and overtime for the 
contracts in our sample. State and USAID guidance directs contracting 
officials to discuss the observance of local labor laws with 
contractors after awarding the contract. 

According to agency and contractor officials, local labor laws in 
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Iraq governed wages, hours, leave, and 
overtime for foreign workers on U.S. government contracts in these 
countries.[Footnote 45] All eight of the contractors in our sample 
operating in Gulf countries or Iraq reported that their practices for 
foreign workers' hours, wages, leave, and overtime were generally 
established in accordance with the labor laws of the country in which 
they were performing their U.S. contract. According to agency 
officials and contractors, foreign workers employed on six contracts 
in our sample in these countries worked 8 to12 hours per day and 6 
days per week. On the contracts for which overtime was permitted, 
contractors reported that workers often earned overtime wage rates of 
125 to 150 percent of their base pay for any hours worked in excess of 
their regularly scheduled shifts. Furthermore, employers generally 
provided these workers with 1 day off per week and 3 to 4 weeks of 
leave per year. 

Contractors Reported that Housing Practices Reflect Efforts to Combat 
TIP: 

Both DOD and State generally require the inclusion of clauses in 
certain contracts that speak to a minimum of 50 square feet of space 
per employee in contractor-provided housing. Contractors in our sample 
reported to us that housing practices for contracts in our sample 
generally fell into the following categories, which reflect efforts to 
combat TIP: 

* Foreign workers were provided housing by the U.S. government on U.S. 
installations. All of the DOD and State contractors in our sample that 
were operating in Iraq or Afghanistan reported that their foreign 
workers lived on-site at U.S. installations in U.S. government-
provided housing. 

* Foreign workers lived in contractor-provided housing facilities that 
included at least 50 square feet of living space per person, according 
to the contractors. For example, on a DOD services contract in Qatar, 
the contractor reported that its subcontractors provided housing for 
foreign workers. See figure 2 for examples of subcontractor-provided 
housing on this contract. 

* Foreign workers were provided a housing stipend by the contractor, 
which workers used to secure their own housing. For instance, on the 
same DOD services contract in Qatar, the contractor reported that 
foreign workers who did not live in subcontractor-provided housing 
were given a housing stipend by the subcontractor and found their own 
housing. According to a DOD official associated with this contract, 
foreign workers who had families living in Qatar often choose to take 
the stipend to find housing that would accommodate their families. 

* Foreign workers received no housing support from the contractor and 
had to secure and pay for their housing themselves. For example, on a 
DOD services contract in Bahrain, most foreign workers secured their 
own housing at their own expense, according to the contractor. 

Figure 2: Examples of Subcontractor-Provided Housing for Foreign 
Workers on a Base Operations Support Services Contract in Qatar: 

[Refer PDF for image: 8 photographs] 

Example 1 (top row): 
* Exterior; 
* Kitchen; 
* Bathroom. 

Example 2 (middle row): 
* Exterior; 
* Sleeping area. 

Example 3 (bottom row): 
* Exterior; 
* Kitchen; 
* Sleeping area. 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-102. 

[End of figure] 

Contractors Reported that Foreign Workers Had Access to Identity 
Documents: 

DOD and State require the inclusion of clauses in certain contracts 
that require contractors to provide workers with access to their 
identity documents. DOD's contract clause generally allows contractors 
to hold employee passports only for the shortest time reasonable for 
administrative processing, and State's contract clause prohibits 
contractors from destroying, concealing, confiscating, or otherwise 
denying employees' access to identity documents or passports. 

Contractors reported that foreign workers on the 11 contracts in our 
sample generally had access to their identity documents, such as 
passports. In general, workers either maintained personal possession 
of their documents or were guaranteed access to documents that they 
voluntarily submitted to the contractor for safekeeping. For the 
majority of contracts in our sample, the contractor reported that 
workers maintain possession of their identity documents and therefore 
had access to them. A DOD services contractor in Kuwait, for instance, 
reported that all of its foreign workers kept possession of their 
identity documents, including passports, work permits, driver's 
licenses, and insurance cards. For other contracts in our sample, 
contractors offered foreign workers the option to voluntarily submit 
their identity documents to the contractor for safekeeping and gave 
them access to their documents upon request. For example, on a DOD 
services contract in Bahrain, the contractor reported that it would 
hold foreign workers' identity documents for safekeeping if requested, 
but required them to sign a waiver that stated they had voluntarily 
submitted the documents. 

Contractors included in our sample did not report any instances of 
withholding or restricting employees' access to identity documents; 
however, agency officials at two State posts we visited said that some 
contractors performing smaller-scale contracts for the U.S. government 
restricted access to identity documents. According to State's 2014 
Trafficking in Persons Report, withholding employees' passports is a 
common practice in these countries. State officials in Kuwait, for 
instance, said that a Kuwaiti company providing janitorial services 
for the embassy was found to have withheld employee passports against 
the employees' will. These officials said that they removed the 
employees' supervisor from the contract when they learned of these 
allegations. State officials we spoke to in Jordan reported similar 
allegations of passport withholding against the embassy's janitorial 
services contractor.[Footnote 46] These officials reported that they 
took corrective action against the contractor that partially addressed 
this concern. 

Contractors Reported that They Provided Foreign Workers with Return 
Travel: 

Under certain circumstances, DOD policy and State guidance require the 
inclusion of contract clauses in certain contracts that require 
contractors to provide workers with return travel upon completion of 
their employment contract. Certain DOD contracts in Afghanistan are to 
include a clause generally requiring contractors to return their 
employees to their point of origin or home country within 30 days 
after the end of the contract's period of performance.[Footnote 47] 
State's contract clause notes that contractors are generally 
responsible for repatriation of workers imported for contract 
performance. 

Contractors reported that they provide transportation to foreign 
workers to their home countries at the conclusion of their employment 
on all 11 contracts in our sample. For example, on a USAID 
construction contract in Afghanistan, the contractor provided return 
travel for all of the foreign workers on its contract by purchasing 
one-way plane tickets for the workers back to their home countries. In 
Bahrain, a DOD services contractor provided each foreign worker with a 
range of return travel options, including transportation to their home 
country, to a new employment location, or to any other desired 
location, or allowed them to stay in Bahrain and seek new employment 
arrangements. 

On 6 of the contracts in our sample, officials stated that foreign 
worker repatriation was explicitly addressed in the terms of the 
contract. For example, State officials reported that a security 
contract in Iraq required the contractor to provide return travel for 
its foreign workers and that this requirement was discussed with the 
contractor at the end of the contract.[Footnote 48] On 5 of these 6 
contracts, officials reported that the contract also included 
provisions for repatriation expenses incurred by the contractor to be 
reimbursable by the U.S. government. For instance, State officials 
associated with a services contract in Iraq explained that State 
reimbursed the contractor for repatriation expenses because Iraqi law 
required all foreign workers to leave the country immediately 
following the conclusion of their employment, and State wanted to 
ensure that these workers returned to their home countries. 

Conclusions: 

Human trafficking victimizes hundreds of thousands of men, women, and 
children worldwide, including workers who move from their home 
countries to seek employment overseas and improve their own and their 
families' well-being. The United States conducts diplomatic, defense, 
and development activities throughout the world, including in 
countries with restrictive labor practices and poor records related to 
trafficking in persons. The United States has an obligation to prevent 
entities working on its behalf from engaging in trafficking in 
persons, and when it uses contractors to support its activities in 
such countries, it bears an even greater responsibility to protect 
workers given the increased risk of abuse. Accordingly, it has taken 
several steps to eliminate trafficking in persons from government 
contracts and strengthened these efforts in 2007 with amendments to a 
contract clause required on all contracts that prohibits contractors 
from engaging in a variety of trafficking-related activities. 
Recognizing the need for further guidance on how to implement these 
regulations, agencies developed their own guidance and policy to 
augment worker protections and to clarify agency and contractor 
responsibilities. 

The President and Congress both signaled the need for further clarity 
in reducing the risk of TIP on government contracts by directing 
amendments to existing regulations in 2012. While improving the 
government's ability to oversee its contractors' labor practices is a 
step in the right direction, ambiguity regarding the components and 
amounts of permissible fees related to recruitment can limit the 
effectiveness of these efforts. Many contractors acknowledge that 
their employees may have been charged a fee for their jobs, a common 
practice in many countries, but they do not know if these fees are 
acceptable, given the existing guidance and policy. Some fees may 
appear reasonable, but others could be exploitative or lead to debt 
bondage and other conditions that contribute to trafficking. Without a 
more precise definition of what constitutes a recruitment fee, 
agencies are hindered in effectively determining which fees are 
allowed, and therefore developing effective practices in this area. 

Some agencies have established systematic processes for monitoring 
efforts to combat TIP on some contracts but do not monitor other 
contracts for TIP, focusing rather on contractor-provided goods and 
services. The lack of monitoring could inhibit agencies' ability to 
detect potential abuses of foreign workers and reflects the limited 
utility of existing guidance on monitoring. Further, without 
consistent monitoring of contractors' labor practices, the U.S. 
government is unable to send a clear signal to contractors, 
subcontractors, and foreign workers that the U.S. government will 
follow through forcefully on its zero tolerance human trafficking 
policy. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure agencies can more fully implement their monitoring 
policy and guidance related to recruitment of foreign workers, the 
Secretaries of Defense and State and the Administrator of the U.S. 
Agency for International Development should each develop, as part of 
their agency policy and guidance, a more precise definition of 
recruitment fees, including permissible components and amounts. 

To help improve agencies' abilities to detect potential TIP abuses and 
implement the U.S. government's zero tolerance policy, the Secretaries 
of Defense and State and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 
International Development should each take actions to better ensure 
that contracting officials specifically include TIP in monitoring 
plans and processes, especially in areas where the risk of trafficking 
is high. Such actions could include developing a process for auditing 
efforts to combat TIP or ensuring that officials responsible for 
contract monitoring are aware of all relevant acquisition policy and 
guidance on combating TIP. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this product to DOD, State, and USAID for 
comment. These agencies provided written comments, which are 
reproduced in appendices VI through VIII. 

Regarding our recommendation for agencies to develop a more precise 
definition of recruitment fees as part of their policy and guidance, 
DOD concurred, while State and USAID neither agreed nor disagreed. DOD 
indicated that it would define recruitment fees during the next review 
of its policy related to combating TIP and incorporate this 
requirement in agency acquisition regulations as necessary. Such 
actions, if implemented effectively, should address the intent of our 
recommendation to DOD. State commented that it prohibits charging any 
recruitment fees to foreign workers, and both State and USAID noted 
that the proposed FAR rule on combating TIP would prohibit charging 
employees any recruitment fees. However, even if the final FAR rule 
prohibits all recruitment fees, it remains unclear whether the term 
"recruitment fees" includes components such as air tickets, lodging, 
passport and visa fees, and other fees that recruited individuals may 
be charged before being hired. Contracting officers and agency 
officials with monitoring responsibilities currently rely on policy 
and guidance that do not define recruitment fees, resulting in 
ambiguity over what constitutes such a fee. Without an explicit 
definition of what components constitute recruitment fees, prohibited 
fees may be renamed and passed on to foreign workers, increasing the 
risk of debt bondage and other conditions that contribute to 
trafficking. State also commented that, to ensure consistent treatment 
of recruitment fees across government, we should recommend that the 
Office of Management and Budget draft a FAR definition of recruitment 
fees. However, we believe that each agency should have the flexibility 
to determine, within its implementing regulations or policy, which 
components it considers to be included in the term "recruitment fees" 
to address each agency's contracting practices. Thus we continue to 
believe our recommendation is valid and should be fully implemented by 
State and USAID. 

DOD and State concurred with our recommendation to better ensure that 
contracting officials specifically include TIP in monitoring plans and 
processes in areas where the risk of trafficking is high. DOD said 
that it would update its FAR supplement following the publication of 
the final FAR rule on combating TIP to improve the government's 
oversight of contractor compliance with TIP. State noted that it would 
add a requirement to the process that contracting officer's 
representatives use to certify that they are familiar with 
requirements for TIP monitoring and include verification of TIP 
monitoring in reviews of contracting operations. USAID stated that all 
USAID staff would be required to take training in TIP, which will be 
released by the end of 2014. Further, USAID said that it will develop 
training for contracting officer's representatives on how to include 
combating TIP in monitoring plans, as well as training for contracting 
officers to verify that efforts to combat TIP have been appropriately 
included in the monitoring plans. These actions, if fully implemented, 
may address the intent of our recommendation, but we continue to 
believe that DOD, State, and USAID should ensure that contracting 
officials specifically include TIP in monitoring plans and processes, 
especially in areas where the risk of trafficking is high. 

In addition, USAID stated that it would be useful to obtain further 
guidance to help it and other agencies consistently determine what 
areas are considered high risk for TIP. One useful source of guidance 
is State's annual Trafficking in Persons Report, which places 
countries into tiers based on the extent of their governments' efforts 
to comply with the TVPA's minimum standards for the elimination of 
human trafficking. In addition, in its written comments, State noted 
that it is developing a tool for procurement and contracting officers 
and federal contractors to assess the risk of TIP, expected to be 
completed in spring 2015. 

We also received technical comments from DOD and State, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of the Department of Defense, the Secretary 
of the Department of State, the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, and other interested parties. In addition, 
the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@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 IX. 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito, Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 

List of Committees: 

The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Lamar Alexander: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Chuck Grassley: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John Kline: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George Miller: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte 
Chairman 
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 
Ranking Member 
Committee on the Judiciary 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report responds to a requirement included in the Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 for GAO to report on the use of 
foreign workers both overseas and domestically, including those 
employed on U.S. government contracts.[Footnote 49] Our objectives 
were to examine (1) policies and guidance governing the recruitment of 
foreign workers and the fees these workers may pay to secure work on 
U.S. government contracts overseas and (2) agencies' monitoring of 
contractor efforts to combat TIP. 

This report focuses on Department of Defense (DOD), Department of 
State (State), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
contracts with performance in countries with large percentages of 
migrants as compared with local nationals,[Footnote 50] and in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.S. government contractors employ 
significant numbers of foreign workers. We selected a nongeneralizable 
sample of 11 contracts based on the contracts' place of performance, 
value, type of service provided, and the number of foreign workers 
employed. Specifically, we obtained a list of all contracts in the 
Federal Procurement Data System based on the following criteria: 

* The contract was awarded by DOD, State, or USAID. 

* The contract's completion date was on or after October 1, 2013. 

* The contract's place of performance was in a country with a large 
portion of migrants, according to data from the United Nations, or was 
in Afghanistan or Iraq. 

* The contract's product or service code indicated that the contract 
was for services, construction, or security--areas that were likely to 
include low-wage, low-skilled labor, because these types of jobs may 
be associated with a higher risk of TIP. 

We narrowed this list to reflect a range of agencies, countries, and 
services. We compared this list with data provided by DOD, State, and 
USAID through the Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker 
(SPOT) database at the end of fiscal year 2013 to identify contracts 
that employed large numbers of foreign workers. On the basis of this 
comparison, we selected 11 contracts that represent nearly one-third 
of all reported foreign workers employed on contracts awarded by these 
three agencies as reported in SPOT. Our previous work has described 
several data limitations related to SPOT,[Footnote 51] but we 
determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of identifying and selecting contracts employing large numbers of 
foreign workers for in-depth review. Table 4 provides basic 
information on the selected contracts. 

Table 4: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing Foreign 
Workers Overseas: 

Contract name: Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task Order 5 
(Afghanistan); 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Afghanistan; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $8,714; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 9,807. 

Contract name: Field and Installation Readiness Support Team; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Afghanistan; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $1,417; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 3,658. 

Contract name: Army Pre-positioned Stocks-5; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Kuwait; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $1,022; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 2,570. 

Contract name: Qatar - Base Operations Support Services; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Qatar; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $174; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 650. 

Contract name: Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task Order 5 
(Bahrain); 
Contracting agency: DOD/Army; 
Place of performance: Bahrain; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $48; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 323. 

Contract name: Coalition Compound Construction; 
Contracting agency: DOD/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
Place of performance: Qatar; 
Services provided: Construction; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $45; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 391. 

Contract name: Full Line Food and Beverage Support; 
Contracting agency: DOD/Defense Logistics Agency; 
Place of performance: Kuwait/Iraq/Jordan; 
Services provided: Food services; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $1,092; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 1,889. 

Contract name: Worldwide Protective Services-Baghdad; 
Contracting agency: State; 
Place of performance: Iraq; 
Services provided: Security; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $608; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 1,410. 

Contract name: Operations and Maintenance Support Services; 
Contracting agency: State; 
Place of performance: Iraq; 
Services provided: Facilities support; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $150; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 432. 

Contract name: Embassy Doha Local Guard Force; 
Contracting agency: State; 
Place of performance: Qatar; 
Services provided: Security; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $6[A]; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 70. 

Contract name: Kandahar-Helmand Power Project; 
Contracting agency: USAID; 
Place of performance: Afghanistan; 
Services provided: Construction; 
Total obligations as of fiscal year 2014 (Dollars in millions): $227; 
Peak number of foreign workers: 41. 

Sources: Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State (State), and 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Data on foreign 
workers provided by contractors. GAO-15-102. 

[A] Contract value at time of award. 

[End of table] 

To examine the recruitment of foreign workers and the fees they might 
pay to secure work on U.S. government contracts overseas, we conducted 
structured interviews with agency officials and contractors 
responsible for the contracts in our sample to identify, among other 
things, the relevant laws, regulations in the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR), agency acquisition policies, and agency acquisition 
guidance related to contractor recruitment practices. We reviewed 
these laws, regulations, policies, and guidance, as well as the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act[Footnote 52] and Executive Order 
13627[Footnote 53]--Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in 
Persons in Federal Contracts--which include additional requirements 
related to the recruitment of workers on U.S. government contracts. We 
also obtained detailed information from contractors performing the 
contracts in our sample about their recruitment practices through 
structured interviews, and, in some cases, we interviewed 
subcontractors who recruited and employed foreign workers regarding 
their practices. In addition, we reviewed DOD and State Inspector 
General reports to identify instances where foreign workers have 
reported paying recruitment fees. We conducted site visits in 
Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar to interview DOD, State, and USAID 
officials, including personnel responsible for contract monitoring, 
contractors, subcontractors, host government officials, and 
nongovernmental organizations about the recruitment of foreign workers 
in these countries. We chose these countries based on the range of 
U.S. government activities in these countries, the prevalence of 
foreign workers, and State's assessment of the host government's 
efforts to combat TIP as indicated by State's annual Trafficking in 
Persons Report tier placement. We also spoke with State and USAID 
officials in Jordan during preliminary fieldwork to inform our 
research design and methodology.[Footnote 54] 

On the contract employing the largest number of foreign workers in our 
sample, we obtained data from the contractor detailing cases of 
workers reporting that they had paid for their job. These data, 
collected from September 2012 through April 2014, included 2,534 
reports of workers having paid for their jobs, and to whom, when, and 
where these reported payments were made. We analyzed these data to 
determine the number of unique individuals who had reported paying for 
their jobs. We then compared the data on who received these payments 
with a list of recruitment agencies provided by the subcontractor to 
determine if workers reported paying fees to recruitment agencies with 
which the subcontractor had agreements. We also obtained data from the 
contractor listing the monthly salaries in April 2014 of workers who 
had reported, in April 2014, having paid for their job at some point 
in the past. We then compared these data with the amount these workers 
reported having paid to determine the range and average number of 
months required for workers to earn the amount they reported having 
paid for their job. We analyzed these data to calculate the mean, 
median, and mode of the reported fees for April 2014. We assessed the 
reliability of the survey data by interviewing knowledgeable 
officials, including the contractor and subcontractor, and analyzing 
the data for outliers and duplicate records. We found these data 
sufficiently reliable to show that workers reported having paid for 
their jobs and that these payments were made to several recruitment 
agencies that supplied workers for this contract; and to calculate the 
number of months' reported salary required to pay for the reported fee. 

To assess agencies' monitoring of contractor labor practices affecting 
foreign workers, we obtained information through our structured 
interviews regarding housing, wages and hours, access to identity 
documents, and return travel for foreign workers on contracts in our 
sample. We selected these practices because they were mentioned 
explicitly in either or both an amendment to the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act, contained in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2013,[Footnote 55] and Executive Order 13627--
Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal 
Contracts--and were included in a list of potential indicators of 
trafficking in persons (TIP) by the International Labour Organization 
(ILO). We analyzed information from DOD and State officials regarding 
their monitoring processes for these practices, including monitoring 
checklists and audit procedures for combating TIP provided by the 
Defense Contract Management Agency. We conducted site visits to 
contractor-provided housing for foreign workers on 2 contracts in our 
sample during our fieldwork in Kuwait and Qatar. In these countries 
and in Afghanistan, we interviewed DOD and State officials; 
contractors; and, in some cases, subcontractors about labor practices 
related to foreign workers on the contracts in our sample. We also met 
with DOD and State officials responsible for monitoring contracts to 
discuss their efforts to monitor contracts in our sample for potential 
TIP abuses. We reviewed relevant laws, regulations in the FAR, agency 
acquisition policies, and agency acquisition guidance related to 
contractor labor practices and agencies' responsibilities for 
monitoring these practices. We also reviewed training requirements for 
acquisition personnel related to monitoring for TIP abuses and 
discussed existing and planned training with DOD and State officials. 

We also reviewed relevant studies and reports on TIP and foreign 
workers, including reports by DOD's and State's Inspectors General, 
the United Nations, the International Labour Organization, and 
nongovernmental organizations. We reviewed the methodologies used to 
conduct these studies and, for those that we used to corroborate our 
findings, we determined that they were sufficiently reliable for that 
purpose. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to November 2014 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: International Definitions and Indicators of Trafficking 
in Persons: 

In the United Nations' Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish 
Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing 
the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 
[Footnote 56] trafficking in persons is defined as the recruitment, 
transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons, by means 
of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of 
abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a 
position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or 
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over 
another person, for the purpose of exploitation.[Footnote 57] 

In addition, the ILO has developed a list of indicators of trafficking 
for labor exploitation.[Footnote 58] These indicators specify several 
indicators of deceptive or coercive recruitment, recruitment by abuse 
of vulnerability, exploitation, and coercion or abuse of vulnerability 
at the destination. For example, these indicators include: 

* deception about travel and recruitment conditions, 

* confiscation of documents, 

* debt bondage, 

* excessive working days or hours, and: 

* no respect for labor laws or signed contracts. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Migrant Workers in Gulf Countries: 

Migrants from Source Countries in Asia and Africa Move to Gulf 
Countries for Economic Reasons: 

Migrants, such as foreign workers, from many countries seek employment 
in the Gulf region.[Footnote 59] In 2013, the top five source 
countries of international migrants to Gulf countries were India, 
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, and the Philippines (see table 5). 
Growing labor forces in source countries provide an increasing supply 
of low-cost workers for employers in the Gulf and other host countries 
where, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), 
demand for foreign labor is high. 

Table 5: Number of Migrants in Gulf Countries from Each of the Top 
Five Source Countries in 2013: 

Source country: India; 
Host country: Bahrain: 262,855; 
Host country: Kuwait: 730,558; 
Host country: Oman: 644,704; 
Host country: Qatar: 576,776; 
Host country: Saudi Arabia: 1,761,857; 
Host country: United Arab Emirates: 2,852,207; 
Total: 6,828,957. 

Source country: Bangladesh; 
Host country: Bahrain: 100,444; 
Host country: Kuwait: 279,169; 
Host country: Oman: 148,314; 
Host country: Qatar: 220,403; 
Host country: Saudi Arabia: 1,309,004; 
Host country: United Arab Emirates: 1,089,917; 
Total: 3,147,251. 

Source country: Pakistan; 
Host country: Bahrain: 87,892; 
Host country: Kuwait: 244,281; 
Host country: Oman: 117,208; 
Host country: Qatar: 192,860; 
Host country: Saudi Arabia: 1,319,607; 
Host country: United Arab Emirates: 953,708; 
Total: 2,915,556. 

Source country: Egypt; 
Host country: Bahrain: 65,607; 
Host country: Kuwait: 182,342; 
Host country: Oman: 41,365; 
Host country: Qatar: 143,960; 
Host country: Saudi Arabia: 1,298,388; 
Host country: United Arab Emirates: 711,894; 
Total: 2,443,556. 

Source country: Philippines; 
Host country: Bahrain: 43,971; 
Host country: Kuwait: 122,214; 
Host country: Oman: 21,669; 
Host country: Qatar: 96,487; 
Host country: Saudi Arabia: 1,028,802; 
Host country: United Arab Emirates: 477,139; 
Total: 1,790,282. 

Source country: Rest of the world; 
Host country: Bahrain: 168,588; 
Host country: Kuwait: 469,489; 
Host country: Oman: 138,772; 
Host country: Qatar: 370,469; 
Host country: Saudi Arabia: 2,342,775; 
Host country: United Arab Emirates: 1,742,116; 
Total: 5,232,209. 

Source country: Total; 
Host country: Bahrain: 729,357; 
Host country: Kuwait: 2,028,053; 
Host country: Oman: 1,112,032; 
Host country: Qatar: 1,600,955; 
Host country: Saudi Arabia: 9,060,433; 
Host country: United Arab Emirates: 7,826,981; 
Total: 22,357,811. 

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 
Trends in International Migrant Stock: the 2013 revision. GAO-15-102. 

[End of table] 

Economic conditions and disparities in per capita income between 
source and host countries encourage foreign workers to leave their 
countries to seek employment. In 2012, average per capita income in 
the six Gulf countries was nearly 25 times higher than average income 
per capita in the top five source countries, and some differences 
between individual countries were even more dramatic, according to the 
World Bank. For example, in 2012, annual per capita income in Qatar 
was more than $58,000, nearly 100 times higher than in Bangladesh, 
where per capita income was almost $600. Foreign workers in Gulf 
countries send billions of dollars in remittances to their home 
countries annually. For example, in 2012 the World Bank estimated that 
migrant workers from the top five source countries sent home almost 
$60 billion from the Gulf countries, including nearly $33 billion to 
India, nearly $10 billion to Egypt, and nearly $7 billion to Pakistan. 
[Footnote 60] 

Source Country Regulation of Overseas Employment: 

Source countries regulate the recruitment of their nationals for 
overseas employment in a variety of ways. According to relevant 
regulatory agencies in their countries, some source countries, such as 
India and the Philippines, have a licensing process for recruitment 
agencies and require potential overseas employers to use only licensed 
recruiters. According to these agencies, these countries also permit 
recruiters to charge prospective migrant workers a fee in specified 
circumstances but limit the amount of this fee. For example, according 
to the Indian Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, India's Emigration 
Act and Rules detail requirements for the registration of recruiters, 
prohibit the use of subagents, prescribe the emigration clearance 
process, and permit registered recruiters to charge migrant workers 
fees up to 20,000 rupees, currently about $325, for their services. 
Similarly, according to the Philippines Overseas Employment 
Administration, the government of the Philippines facilitates the 
emigration of Filipino workers employed abroad and provides standards 
and oversight through licensing, required contract provisions, and 
placement fees. Filipino embassies in host countries also provide 
services for its citizens in those countries, such as assistance 
establishing bank accounts and wiring money home and information 
regarding worker rights in the host country, according to the Filipino 
Labor Attaché in Qatar. According to the Bangladeshi Ministry of 
Expatriates' Welfare and Overseas Employment, the ministry was 
established in 2001 to ensure the overall welfare of migrant workers 
and has established a process for licensing recruitment agents. Other 
countries, such as Egypt, do not regulate overseas recruitment, 
lacking a licensing process for recruiters and regulations on the 
amount of fees that these recruiters may charge, according to the 
Egyptian Ministry of Manpower and Emigration. 

Host Country Labor Practices: 

The ILO has reported that in Gulf countries, several common and 
restrictive labor practices stem from the Kafala sponsorship system of 
foreign workers.[Footnote 61] According to the ILO, the Kafala system 
is a sponsorship system whereby a foreign worker is employed in a Gulf 
country by a specific employer that controls the worker's residency, 
immigration, and employment status. Under this system, employers meet 
their demand for labor either by direct recruitment or through the use 
of recruitment agents who find foreign workers. The system generally 
ties workers' residency and immigration status to the employer, which 
can prevent workers from changing employers and limit their freedom of 
movement, according to the ILO. The ILO further stated that sponsors 
can also prohibit workers from leaving the country and have the right 
to terminate workers' employment contracts and have residency permits 
canceled. According to State's Qatar 2013 Human Rights Report, 
international media and human rights organizations alleged numerous 
abuses against foreign workers, including a sponsorship system that 
gave employers an inordinate level of control over foreign workers. 
[Footnote 62] 

In addition to the labor practices associated with the Kafala system, 
the withholding of workers' passports is an additional restrictive 
labor practice common in many Gulf countries. For example, State 
reported that in Qatar, despite laws prohibiting the withholding of 
foreign workers' identity documents, employers withheld the passports 
of a large portion of their foreign workers in that country. According 
to State's most recent Trafficking in Persons Report, the withholding 
of foreign workers' passports contributes to the potential for 
trafficking in persons (TIP). Furthermore, the ILO has reported that 
employers in Gulf countries may refuse to release workers or may 
charge high fees for release, withhold wages as security to prevent 
workers from running away, and withhold personal travel documents. 
[Footnote 63] The ILO also found that workers in these countries may 
be subjected to forced overtime, limited freedom of movement, 
degrading living and working conditions, and physical violence and 
threats. Overall, the ILO estimated that there were 600,000 victims of 
forced labor in the Middle East at any given point in time between 
2002 and 2011.[Footnote 64] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Federal Acquisition Regulations and Agency Policy and 
Guidance Related to Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices: 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires all solicitations 
and contracts to include Clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in 
Persons (TIP). This clause includes a prohibition on contractors 
engaging in severe forms of TIP, which includes the recruitment, 
harboring, transportation, provision or obtaining of a person for 
labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for 
the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt 
bondage, or slavery. However, the clause contains no further 
provisions related to recruitment or other labor practices discussed 
in this report. The Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State 
(State), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
have developed policy and guidance that provides more specificity on 
these practices, as outlined in table 6.[Footnote 65] 

Table 6: Agency Policy and Guidance Related to Recruitment and Labor 
Practices on U.S. Government Contracts: 

Citation: 
DOD: U.S. Central Command-Joint Theater Support Contracting Command (C-
JTSCC) Acquisition Instruction[A]; 
State: Procurement Information Bulletin No. 2012-10, Contractor 
Recruitment of Third-Country Nationals; 
USAID: Procurement Executive's Bulletin No. 2012-07, Combating 
Trafficking in Persons. 

Related contract clause: 
DOD: U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) contracts for services or 
construction that require performance in Afghanistan are to include C-
JTSCC Clause 5152.222-5900, Prohibition Against Human Trafficking, 
Inhumane Living Conditions, and Withholding of Employee Passports 
(August 2011); 
State: All solicitations and contracts valued over $150,000 requiring 
nonprofessional labor where contract performance will require 
recruitment of third-country national labor specifically for contract 
performance must include contract clause "Recruitment of Third Country 
National for Performance on Department of State Contracts" (October 
2012); 
USAID: [Empty]. 

Recruitment: 
DOD: Contractors shall not utilize unlicensed recruiting firms or 
firms that charge illegal recruiting fees; 
State: Requires offerors to submit a recruitment plan as part of the 
proposal. This plan should include, for example, the following 
elements:[B]; State in the offer that the recruited employee will not 
be charged recruitment or any similar fees. The contractor or employer 
pays the recruitment fees for the worker if recruited by the 
contractor or subcontractor to work specifically on Department of 
State jobs[C]; State in the offer that the contractor's recruitment 
practices comply with recruiting nation and host country labor laws; 
Contractor and subcontractors shall only use bona fide licensed 
recruitment companies. Recruitment companies shall only use bona fide 
employees and not independent agents; 
USAID: No specific provisions. 

Wages, hours, leave, and overtime: 
DOD: Contractors shall provide employees with a signed copy of their 
employment contract, in English and the employee's native language, 
that defines the terms of their employment and compensation; 
State: Contractors shall provide employees with signed copies of 
the/their employment contracts, in English and the employee's native 
language, that define the terms of employment, compensation including, 
for example, salary, overtime rates, allowances, and salary increases; 
USAID: Contracting officers to tell implementing partners that they 
should explain to employees when it must make deductions from wages. 

Housing: 
DOD: Contractors shall be required to provide adequate living 
conditions (sanitation, health, safety, living space) for their 
employees. Fifty square feet is the minimum acceptable square footage 
of personal living space per employee; 
State: The offeror will submit a housing plan if the contractor 
intends to provide employer furnished housing for third country 
nationals. The housing plan must describe the location and description 
of the proposed housing. Contractors must state in their offer that 
housing meets host country housing and safety standards and local 
codes or explain any variance. Contractor shall comply with any 
temporary labor camp standards contained in this contract. In 
contracts without a temporary labor camp standard, 50 square feet is 
the minimum amount of space per person without a contracting officer 
waiver. Contractor shall submit proposed changes to their housing plan 
to the contracting officer for approval; 
USAID: No specific provisions. 

Access to identity documents: 
DOD: Contractors shall only hold employee passports and other 
identification documents for the shortest period of time reasonable 
for administrative processing purposes; 
State: Contractor may not destroy, conceal, confiscate, or otherwise 
deny access to an employee's identity documents or passports. 
Contractors and subcontractors are reminded of the prohibition 
contained in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1592, against 
knowingly destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, or 
possessing any actual or purported passport or other immigration 
document to prevent or restrict the person's liberty to move or travel 
in order to maintain the services of that person, when the person is 
or has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons. 
Contractor must be familiar with any local labor law restrictions on 
withholding employee identification documentation; 
USAID: Contracting officers must tell the contractor that it must not 
withhold employee passports or visas without employee permission. 

Return travel: 
DOD: No specific provisions[D]; 
State: Contractor and subcontractors shall comply with sending and 
receiving nation laws regarding transit, entry, exit, visas, and work 
permits. Contractors are responsible for repatriation of workers 
imported for contract performance except an employee legally permitted 
to remain in the country of work and who chooses to do so; 
or an employee who is a victim of trafficking seeking victim services 
or legal redress in the country of employment or a witness in a 
trafficking-related enforcement action; 
USAID: No specific provisions. 

Table 7: We reviewed a draft of this training and found that it 
contained information on FAR requirements and DOD policy and guidance, 
as well as information on how to monitor contractor labor practices 
and efforts to combat TIP. 

Source: GAO analysis of C-JTSCC Acquisition Instruction, State 
Procurement Information Bulletin 2012-10, and USAID Procurement 
Executive's Bulletin 2012-07. | GAO-15-102: 

[A] Certain non-CENTCOM contracts with performance in Afghanistan are 
also to include this clause. See, e.g., Contracting Officer's Guide 
for Theater Business Clearance Afghanistan (Aug. 31, 2013). 

[B] Contractors submit recruitment and housing plans as appropriate. 
Contracts shall only be awarded to contractors submitting acceptable 
plans. 

[C] Once a contractor is chosen for award, and its offer is accepted 
by the government, the terms of the offer generally become binding. 

[D] Another Department of Defense (DOD) policy requires certain DOD 
contracts in Afghanistan to include a clause generally requiring 
contractors to return their employees to their point of origin or home 
country within 30 days after the end of the contract's period of 
performance. DOD Class Deviation 2013-O0017, Contractor Demobilization 
(Aug. 30, 2013). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Sample Defense Contract Management Agency Universal 
Examination Record for Combating Trafficking in Persons, May 2011: 

Defense Contract Management Agency, Afghanistan Universal Examination 
Record Combating Trafficking In Persons 

Examination Guidelines: 

Select Appropriate Response for each Requirement Examined: 

Yes = Requirement performed satisfactory. May comment when key 
observations are noted for PEB. 

No = Requirement performed unsatisfactory. Comment should identify 
corrective action in-place or plan of action i.e. CAR. 

N/O = Performance of requirement not observed. Comment when adverse 
circumstances prevent verification of requirement. 

N/A = Requirement not applicable. Comment when contractor disputes 
validity of requirement. 

Shorthand: RVI = Records Visually Inspected; CAO = Corrective Action 
Observed; CAIP = Corrective Action In Place. 

CTIPS Policy: 

Carry The Required CTIPS Contract Clause(s) With You When Evaluating The
Contractor/subcontractor: 

The United States Government and the United States Department of 
Defense (DoD) has adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding 
trafficking in persons. Contractors, subcontractors and their 
employees shall not: 

(1) Engage in severe forms of trafficking in persons during the period 
of performance of the contract; 

(2) Procure commercial sex acts during the period of performance of 
the contract; 

(3) Use forced labor in the performance of the contract. 

* LOGCAP contract both clauses apply, both sections must be completed.
* TWCA contracts: CTIPs requirement varies, both sections May apply, 
review contract before audit. 

FAR 52.222-50 Combating Trafficking In Persons (Feb 2009): 

Requirement: 
1. Has the contractor informed its employees of the United States 
Government's zero tolerance CTIPs policy, to include informing 
employees of the actions that will be taken against them for 
violations of this policy? FAR Para (c)(1); 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 

2. Has the contractor informed the contracting officer of any 
information it receives (including from host country law enforcement) 
that alleges a contractor employee or subcontractor employee has 
engaged in conduct violating the CTIPs policy? FAR Para (d)(1); 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 

3. Has the contractor informed the contracting officer of any actions 
taken against contractor employees, subcontractor's or subcontractor 
employees pursuant to this clause? FAR Para (d)(2); 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 

4.Does the contractor knowingly destroy or posses any employee 
passport (or other immigration document) to prevent an employee's 
liberty to travel — in order to maintain the labor or services of that 
person? LOGCAP JCC-I/A Para (a); 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 
		
5. Does the contractor only hold employee passports and other 
identification documents for the shortest period of time reasonable 
for administrative processing purposes? LOGCAP JCC-I/A Para; 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 

6. Does the contractor provide all employees with a signed copy of 
their employment contract, in English as well as the employee's native 
language — that defines the terms of their employment/compensation? 
LOGCAP JCC-I/A Para (b)(2); 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 

7. Does the contractor provide adequate living conditions (sanitation, 
health, safety, living space) for their employees? LOGCAP JCC-I/A Para 
(b)(4); 			
Note: Fifty square feet is the minimum acceptable square footage of 
personal living space per employee. Upon contractors' written request, 
contracting officers may grant a waiver in writing in cases where the 
existing square footage is within 20% of the minimum, and the overall 
conditions are determined by the contracting officer to be 
acceptable.					
A copy of the waiver approval shall be maintained at the respective 
life support area. 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 
					
8. Does the contractor's Quality Control program incorporate checks of 
life support areas to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 
Trafficking in Persons Prohibition?; LOGCAP JCC-I/A Para (b)(6); 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 
	
9. Does the contractor advise the Contracting Officer if they learn of 
their employees violating the human trafficking and inhumane living 
conditions? LOGCAP JCC-I/A Para (c); 
Yes: 
No: 
N/O: 
N/A: 
Comment: 

DCMA Examination Record Revision Date: 10 May 2011. 

Source: Defense Contract Management Agency, Afghanistan. GAO-15-102. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Defense Human Resources Activity: 
Headquarters: 
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 06j25-01: 
Alexandria, VA 22350-4000: 

Mr. Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

October 30, 2014: 

Dear Mr. Melito: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft report, 
"Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers 
in High Risk Countries Needs to Be Strengthened" (GAO-15-1 02), dated 
October 17, 2014. The response to the Government Accountability 
Office's recommendations is enclosed. Please direct any questions to 
Mr. Sam Yousef, 571 -372-1939, or sam.yousefzadeh.civ@mail.mil. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Pamela S. Mitchell: 
Director: 

Enclosure: As stated. 

GAO Draft Report Dated October 17, 2014: 
GAO-l5-102 (GAO Code 320985): 

"Human Trafficking: Oversight Of Contractor's Use Of Foreign Workers 
In High Risk Countries Needs To Be Strengthened" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
develop, as part or agency policy and guidance, a more precise 
definition of recruitment fees, including permissible components and 
amounts. 

DoD Response: Concur. The Department will define recruitment fees in 
Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 2200.01, "Combating 
Trafficking in Persons," upon its next review. Once published, DoD 
will incorporate this requirement in the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) as necessary. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
take actions to better ensure that contracting officials specifically 
include TIP in monitoring plans and processes in areas where the risk 
of trafficking is high. Such actions could include developing a 
process for auditing efforts to combat TIP or ensuring that officials 
responsible for contract monitoring are aware of all relevant 
acquisition policy and guidance on combating TIP. 

DoD Response: Concur. The proposed rules under Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) Case 2013-001, "Ending Trafficking in 
Persons/implementing Executive Order 13627 and Title XVII of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 and DFARS Case 2013-0007,
"Further Implementation of Trafficking in Persons Policy," arc both 
currently being prepared for publication. Once the Department of 
Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the 
General Service Administration publish the Final FAR Rule, the Final
DFARS Rule will follow next. These updates represent significant 
improvement of the Government's oversight or contractor compliance 
with TIP. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Comptroller: 
P.o. Box 150008: 
Charleston, SC 29415-5008: 

October 31, 2014: 

Dr. Loren Yager: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Dr. Yager: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Human 
Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers in
High Risk Countries Needs to Be Strengthened" GAO Job Code 320985.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for incorporation
with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Steven Johnston, Senior Advisor, Office of the Procurement Executive, 
Bureau of Administration at (703) 875-6769. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 
Christopher H. Flaggs, Acting: 

cc: GAO - Thomas Melito: 
A - Joyce A. Barr: 
State/OIG - Norman Brown: 

Enclosure: As stated. 

Department of State Comments to GAO Draft Report: 

Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers in 
High Risk Countries Needs to be Strengthened (GAO-15-102, GAO Code 
320985): 

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on 
GAO's draft report “Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use 
of Foreign Workers in High Risk Countries Needs to be Strengthened.”
The following are our responses to the two recommended actions: 

1) The Secretaries of Defense and State and the Administrator of the 
U.S. Agency for International Development should develop, as part of 
their agency policy and guidance, a more precise definition of 
recruitment fees, including permissible components and amounts. 

Response: 

As noted in the GAO draft report, the Department of State forbids the 
charging of any recruitment fees to the recruited individual. To 
ensure consistent treatment of recruitment fees across government we 
believe this recommendation should be directed to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to draft a Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) definition. [See comment 1] In addition, we note that the new 
regulations, which will amend the FAR and implement Executive Order 
13627: “Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in 
Federal Contracts” and Title XVII, entitled "Ending Trafficking in 
Government Contracting, of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013”, will prohibit charging employees recruiting fees. 
We understand that the final regulations will be issued shortly by the 
White House. [See comment 2] The draft regulations are available at: 
[hyperlink, https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/9000-
AM55/federal-acquisition-regulation-far-case-2013-001-ending-
trafficking-in-persons]. 

2) The Secretaries of Defense and State and the Administrator of the 
U.S. Agency for International Development should take actions to 
better ensure that contracting officials specifically include TIP in 
monitoring plans and processes in areas where the risk of trafficking 
is high. Such actions could include developing a process for auditing 
efforts to combat TIP or ensuring that officials responsible for 
contract monitoring are aware of all relevant acquisition policy and 
guidance on combating TIP. 

Response: 

The Department concurs with this recommendation. As noted in the GAO 
report, the Department of State provides training on contract 
monitoring to prevent and mitigate the risk of Trafficking in Persons. 
The Department will add a requirement to the process for Contracting 
Officer's Representatives (CORs) to certify they are familiar with the 
requirements for TIP monitoring. The Department will include 
verification of TIP monitoring in reviews of contracting operations. 

In addition, the Department funded a project that gathered data and 
produced a report on global industries with a significant history or 
indications of trafficking or TIP-related activity (and analyzed the 
overlap between global supply chains deemed to be at risk for TIP and 
patterns of U.S. federal procurement areas). In the spring of 2015 
this project will conclude with a tool for procurement and contracting 
officers and federal contractors (among others) to assess risk. 
Department offices will then work together on how best to highlight 
and disseminate this tool to support the work of procurement 
officials, with appropriate oversight and implementation guidance 
throughout the State Department and its respective contractors. 

[End of section] 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State letter 
dated October 31, 2014. 

GAO Comments: 

1. State said that we should direct our recommendation to develop a 
more precise definition of recruitment fees to the Office of 
Management and Budget. We believe that each agency should have the 
flexibility to determine, within its implementing regulations, which 
items it considers to be included in the term "recruitment fees" to 
address each agency's contracting practices. 

2. State noted that the new regulations that will amend the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation will prohibit charging employees recruitment 
fees. As our report notes, even if the final FAR rule prohibits all 
recruitment fees, it remains unclear whether the term "recruitment 
fees" includes items such as air tickets, lodging, passport and visa 
fees, and other fees that recruited individuals may be charged before 
being hired. Contracting officers and agency officials with monitoring 
responsibilities currently rely on policy and guidance regarding 
recruitment fees that are ambiguous. Without an explicit definition of 
the components of recruitment fees, prohibited fees may be renamed and 
passed on to foreign workers, increasing the risk of debt bondage and 
other conditions that contribute to trafficking. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

USAID: 
From The American People: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade team: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 2014: 

Dear Mr. Melito: 

I am pleased to provide USAID's formal response to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Human Trafficking: 
Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers in High Risk 
Environments Needs to Be Strengthened" (GAO-15-102). 

This letter, together with the enclosed USAID comments, is provided 
for incorporation as an appendix to the final report. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and 
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this audit 
review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Angelique M. Crumbly: 
Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Management: 
U.S. Agency for International Development: 

Enclosure: a/s: 

USAID Comments On GAO Draft Report: 
No. GAO-15-102: 

The U.S . Agency for International Development (USAID) offers the 
following to help ensure that agencies can more fully implement 
policies and guidance related to contractor recruitment of
foreign workers, improve agencies' abilities to detect potential 
trafficking in person (TIP) abuses and implement the U.S. government's 
zero tolerance policy: 

Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and 
State and the Administrator of USAID should develop, as part of their 
agency policy and guidance, a more precise definition of recruitment 
fees, including permissible components and amounts. 

Response: The proposed TIP Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule 
contains language that would prohibit charging contractor employees 
any recruitment fees. The final draft FAR rule contained the same 
language and includes a precise definition. As a result, we do not see 
any need for USAID to establish any policy or guidance that provides a 
"more precise definition of recruitment fees, including permissible 
components and amounts." Once the final FAR rule is published, if it 
contains that same prohibition against any recruitment fees, USAID 
will instruct its contractors to comply with the new FAR rule and not 
charge any recruitment fees to contract employees. [See comment 1] 

Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and 
State and the Administrator of USAID should take actions to better 
ensure that contracting officials specifically include TIP in 
monitoring plans and processes in areas where the risk of trafficking
is high. Such action could include developing a process for auditing 
efforts to combat TIP or ensuring that officials responsible for 
contract monitoring are aware of all relevant acquisition policy and 
guidance on combating TIP. 

Response: All USAID staff in USAID/Washington and the Missions will be 
required to take an online training course on human trafficking, which 
will be released by the end of Calendar Year 2014. In addition, the 
Office of Acquisition and Assistance (MIOAA) will work with the Bureau
for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance/Center of 
Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance to develop 
training for Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) to teach them 
how to include combating TIP in monitoring plans, as well as training 
for Contracting Officers to verify that this has been appropriately 
included in the monitoring plans. M/OAA can also incorporate the TIP 
monitoring requirement into the COR designation letter and require the 
CORs to monitor it through the regular reporting and monitoring 
process. 

It would be useful to obtain further guidance on the recommendation to 
implement this in areas where the " risk of trafficking is high" to 
enable USAID, the State Department and Department of Defense to use 
the same standards or statistics to consistently determine what areas 
are considered to be high risk. [See comment 2] 

The following are GAO's comments on the U.S. Agency for International 
Development letter dated November 5, 2014. 

GAO Comments: 

1. USAID stated that the final draft Federal Acquisition Regulation 
rule contained language that would prohibit charging contractor 
employees any recruitment fees and therefore USAID did not see any 
need to establish any policy or guidance that provides a "more precise 
definition of recruitment fees, including permissible components and 
amounts." As our report notes, even if the final FAR rule prohibits 
all recruitment fees, it remains unclear whether the term “recruitment 
fees” includes items such as air tickets, lodging, passport and visa 
fees, and other fees that recruited individuals may be charged before 
being hired. Contracting officers and agency officials with monitoring 
responsibilities currently rely on policy and guidance regarding 
recruitment fees that are ambiguous. Without an explicit definition of 
the components of recruitment fees, prohibited fees may be renamed and 
passed on to foreign workers, increasing the risk of debt bondage and 
other conditions that contribute to trafficking. 

2. USAID said that it would be useful to obtain further guidance on 
the recommendation to take actions to better ensure that contracting 
officials specifically include TIP in monitoring plans and processes 
in areas where the "risk of trafficking is high." One useful source of 
guidance is State's annual Trafficking in Persons Report, which places 
countries into tiers based on the extent of their governments' efforts 
to comply with the TVPA's minimum standards for the elimination of 
human trafficking. In addition, in its written comments, State noted 
that it is developing a tool for procurement and contracting officers 
and federal contractors to assess the risk of TIP, expected to be 
completed in the spring of 2015. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Leslie Holen, Assistant 
Director; J. Robert Ball; Gergana Danailova-Trainor; Brian Egger; 
Justine Lazaro; Jillian Schofield; and Gwyneth Woolwine made key 
contributions to this report. Lynn Cothern, Etana Finkler, Grace Lui, 
Walter Vance, Shana Wallace, and Alyssa Weir provided technical 
assistance. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

International Labor Grants: DOL's Use of Financial and Performance 
Monitoring Tools Needs to Be Strengthened. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-832]. Washington, D.C.: September 
24, 2014. 

International Labor Grants: Labor Should Improve Management of Key 
Award Documentation. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-493]. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 
2014. 

Human Rights: U.S. Government's Efforts to Address Alleged Abuse of 
Household Workers by Foreign Diplomats with Immunity Could Be 
Strengthened. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-892]. 
Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2008. 

Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects 
Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1034]. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 
2007. 

Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to 
Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-825]. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 
2006. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For the purposes of this report, we use the term "Gulf countries" 
to refer to the six member states of the Cooperation Council for the 
Arab States of the Gulf, also known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. 
These states are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the 
United Arab Emirates. 

[2] These workers are alternately referred to as third-country 
nationals or other-country nationals. 

[3] Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
Transforming Wartime Contracting: Controlling Costs, Reducing Risks 
(Arlington, Va.: August 2011). 

[4] Pub. L. No. 106-386, Div. A, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466-1491, as amended. 

[5] The White House, National Security Presidential Directive-22, 
Combating Trafficking in Persons (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2002). 

[6] Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 22.1705. See also FAR 
clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons; 72 Fed. Reg. 
46,431 (requiring the inclusion of the policy in all contracts) (Aug. 
17, 2007). 

[7] Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 1235, 127 Stat. 54, 146. 

[8] This report addresses the use of foreign workers for labor on U.S. 
government contracts overseas. GAO is scheduled to issue a separate 
report in early 2015 focusing on the recruitment and use of foreign 
workers within the United States. 

[9] The ILO is a tripartite United Nations agency with government, 
employer, and worker representatives. The ILO's mission includes 
promoting fundamental rights at work, creating opportunities for 
decent employment and income, and enhancing social protection. 

[10] For the purposes of this report, we use the term "agency 
contracting officials" to refer to individuals involved in the award, 
administration, and monitoring of government contracts. These 
officials include the contracting officer and the contracting 
officer's representative, among others. The contracting officer is a 
U.S. government employee who has the authority to enter into, 
administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations. 
The contracting officer is responsible for ensuring performance of all 
necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with 
the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the 
United States in its contractual relationships. The contracting 
officer's representative is designated in writing by the contracting 
officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions. 
Unlike the contracting officer, a contracting officer's representative 
has no authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, 
quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the 
contract and cannot direct the contractor or its subcontractors to 
operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions. 

[11] While our previous work has described data limitations related to 
SPOT, we found these data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
identifying and selecting contracts employing large numbers of foreign 
workers to review. App. I provides further information about our 
methodology. 

[12] The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-
386, codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 7101-10. The TVPA defines the 
term "debt bondage" as the status or condition of a debtor arising 
from a pledge by the debtor of his or her personal services or of 
those of a person under his or her control as a security for debt, if 
the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied 
toward the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those 
services are not respectively limited and defined. According to the 
TVPA, severe forms of trafficking also include sex trafficking in 
which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or 
in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 
years of age. 

[13] For an example of a definition of trafficking in persons, see the 
United Nations' Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking 
in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United 
Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2237 
U.N.T.S. 319 (Vienna: Nov. 15, 2000). The United States became a party 
in 2005. 

[14] United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors Office of the Inspector General, Performance Evaluation of 
Department of State Contracts to Assess the Risk of Trafficking in 
Persons Violations in Four States in the Cooperation Council for the 
Arab States of the Gulf, MERO-I-11-06 (Arlington, Va.: January 2011). 

[15] ILO, Kuwait Economic Society, University of Sharjah, Travels of 
Hope, Toils of Despair: The Lives of Migrant Workers in the Gulf 
States (Geneva: December 2011). 

[16] FAR § 22.1705. See also FAR clause 52.222-50, Combating 
Trafficking in Persons. 

[17] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. 
No. 112-239, § 1702, codified at 22 U.S.C. § 7104(g). 

[18] Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in 
Federal Contracts, Exec. Order 13627, 77 Fed. Reg. 60,029 (Oct. 2, 
2012). 

[19] 78 Fed. Reg. 59,317 (Sept. 26, 2013). See also proposed rule to 
amend Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
intended to supplement these changes to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations. 78 Fed. Reg. 59,325 (Sept. 26, 2013). 

[20] DOD, DOD Instruction 2200.01, Combating Trafficking in Persons 
(Arlington, Va.: Sept. 15, 2010). 

[21] For example, see U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)-Joint Theater 
Support Contracting Command (C-JTSCC) Acquisition Instruction (Sept. 
1, 2011) and related C-JTSCC Clause 952.222-0001, Prohibition Against 
Human Trafficking, Inhumane Living Conditions, and Withholding of 
Employee Passports. Previously, similar clauses, such as Kuwait-
Specific Contract Requirement (KSCR) 1-2, Prohibition Against Human 
Trafficking, Inhumane Living Conditions, and Withholding of Employee 
Passports, were to be included in certain contracts whose place of 
performance was Iraq, Kuwait, or Pakistan. 

[22] Department of State, Procurement Information Bulletins No. 2011-
09, Combating Trafficking in Persons (Sept. 19, 2012), and No. 2012-
10, Contractor Recruitment of Third-Country Nationals (Arlington, Va.: 
Oct. 17, 2012). 

[23] USAID, Procurement Executive's Bulletin No. 2012-07, Combating 
Trafficking in Persons (TIP). 

[24] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Additional Guidance Needed to Improve 
Visibility into the Structure and Management of Major Weapon System 
Subcontracts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-61R] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2010). 

[25] "Privity of contract" describes the legal relationship between 
parties to the same contract. It is commonly understood to mean that 
the government's contractual relationship is with the prime 
contractor, not with subcontractors. 

[26] U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2014). This annual report contains information 
on countries' efforts to combat TIP, placing each country on one of 
four tiers based on the extent of their governments' efforts to comply 
with the TVPA's minimum standards for the elimination of human 
trafficking. 

[27] GAO, Contingency Contracting: State and USAID Made Progress 
Assessing and Implementing Changes, but Further Actions Needed, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-229] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 14, 2014), and Congressional Research Service, Trafficking in 
Persons: International Dimensions and Foreign Policy Issues for 
Congress, R42497 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 2013). 

[28] C-JTSCC Clauses 952.222-0001 and 5152.222-5900, Prohibition 
Against Human Trafficking, Inhumane Living Conditions, and Withholding 
of Employee Passports. Officials stated that a similar clause, KSCR1-
2, was included in another contract in our sample whose place of 
performance was Kuwait. Furthermore, on one contract in Qatar, the 
contractor stated in its proposal that it would ensure compliance with 
C-JTSCC clause 952.222-0001, even though it was not required for 
contracts in Qatar. 

[29] Department of State, Procurement Information Bulletin No. 2012-
10, Contractor Recruitment of Third-Country Nationals (Arlington, Va.: 
Oct. 17, 2012). 

[30] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). 

[31] Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in 
Federal Contracts, Exec. Order 13627, 77 Fed. Reg. 60,029 (Oct. 2, 
2012). 

[32] Pub. L. No. 112-239, §§ 1702, 1708(c). 

[33] The FAR Council assists in the direction and coordination of 
government-wide procurement policy and government-wide procurement 
regulatory activities in the federal government. 41 U.S.C. § 1302. 

[34] Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1702. 

[35] 20 C.F.R. § 655.135(j). 

[36] These 82 workers reported paying fees as early as October 2010. 
We compared the fees reported in April 2014 with the workers' April 
2014 salaries, as reported by the prime contractor. According to our 
analysis of these data provided by the prime contractor, these fees 
ranged from $500 to $5,000, with a mean and median fee of about 
$3,000. In comparison, the prime contractor reported that the average 
monthly base salary in April 2014 for these workers was about $650 and 
ranged from less than $400 to about $1,250. 

[37] United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors Office of the Inspector General, Performance Evaluation of 
Department of State Contracts to Assess the Risk of Trafficking in 
Persons Violations in Four States in the Cooperation Council for the 
Arab States of the Gulf, MERO-I-11-06 (Arlington, Va.: January 2011). 
For this review, the Inspector General interviewed a nongeneralizable 
sample of workers in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab 
Emirates. 

[38] FAR § 46.401. 

[39] DOD, Department of Defense Procedures, Guidance, and Information 
§ 222.1703(4). 

[40] DCMA is responsible for providing contract administration 
services for DOD buying activities, working directly with defense 
contractors to help ensure that goods and services are delivered on 
time, at projected cost, and that they meet performance requirements. 
In addition, as a designated combat support agency, DCMA is tasked 
with providing contract administration and support to combatant 
commanders during contingency operations. 

[41] DCMA also administered a DOD contract in Bahrain, but did not use 
the same checklist to help it conduct these audits. However, DCMA did 
not report any concerns related to contractor compliance with certain 
requirements related to labor practices and efforts to combat TIP. 

[42] DCMA used corrective action requests to document contractual non-
compliance issues ranging from minor to unacceptable. These requests 
are intended to bring deficiencies to the contractor's attention for 
appropriate action. 

[43] United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors Office of the Inspector General, Inspection of Embassy 
Kabul, Afghanistan, ISP-I-14-22A (Arlington, Va.: August 2014). 

[44] We reviewed a draft of this training and found that it contained 
information on FAR requirements and DOD policy and guidance, as well 
as information on how to monitor contractor labor practices and 
efforts to combat TIP. 

[45] Currently, for DOD contracts in Afghanistan, where contractors 
are performing work only on U.S. military installations, contractors 
reported that Afghan labor laws do not apply to their foreign workers. 
One contractor stated that the Afghan labor laws do not apply because 
these workers fly directly into U.S. military installations and do not 
leave these facilities for the duration of their employment contract, 
other than for periods of leave where they can transit directly from 
the military base to an international airport and back again. Another 
contractor stated that DOD contractor employees are protected by a 
variety of U.S. laws and contract provisions, and consequently, the 
government of Afghanistan has not expressed concern about the working 
conditions for foreign workers that fly directly into and out of U.S. 
military installations. 

[46] Although none of the contracts in our sample employed foreign 
workers in Jordan, we conducted preliminary fieldwork there where we 
discussed embassy contracts with State officials. 

[47] DOD, Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, DOD 
Class Deviation 2013-O0017, Contractor Demobilization (Aug. 30, 2013). 

[48] In 2010, DOD reported that it had discovered that some foreign 
workers on DOD contracts had been left in Iraq by their previous 
employers. 

[49] Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 1235. 

[50] We used data on migrants as a proxy for the number of foreign 
workers, as data on foreign workers were unavailable. 

[51] In 2011, we reported that it is unclear when SPOT will serve as a 
reliable source of data to meet statutory requirements and be used by 
agencies for management, oversight, and coordination of contracts 
(GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State, and USAID Cannot Fully Account 
for Contracts, Assistance Instruments, and Associated Personnel, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-886] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 15, 2011)). In 2012, we reported that the agencies had made 
improvements to their contractor personnel data and related systems 
that could result in more reliable data, but data comparability across 
years and agencies was limited (GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: Agencies 
Are Taking Steps to Improve Data on Contracting but Need to 
Standardize Reporting, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-977R] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 
2012)). 

[52] Pub. L. No. 106-386, Div. A, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466-1491, as 
amended. 

[53] 77 Fed. Reg. 60,029 (Oct. 12, 2012). 

[54] We did not interview foreign workers as part of this review, 
because doing so in a rigorous and systematic way would have been 
impractical and excessively labor-intensive. 

[55] Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1702. 

[56] This agreement, also known as the Palermo Protocol, seeks to 
prevent and combat trafficking in persons, protect and assist victims 
of trafficking , and promote cooperation among Parties in order to 
meet these objectives. The protocol supplements the U.N. Convention 
Against Transnational Organized Crime. It was opened for signature in 
Palermo, Italy, in December 2000. The United States became a party to 
this protocol in December 2005. 

[57] The term "exploitation" in the protocol is further defined to 
include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others 
or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, 
slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of 
organs. 

[58] ILO, Operational Indicators of Trafficking in Human Beings 
(Geneva: March 2009, revised September 2009). 

[59] For the purposes of this report, we use the term "Gulf countries" 
to refer to the six member states of the Cooperation Council for the 
Arab States of the Gulf, also known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. 
These states are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the 
United Arab Emirates. 

[60] World Bank staff calculation based on data from the International 
Monetary Fund Balance of Payments Statistics database and data 
releases from central banks, national statistical agencies, and World 
Bank country desks. 

[61] ILO, Tricked and Trapped: Human Trafficking in the Middle East 
(Beirut: April 2013). 

[62] Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: Qatar (Washington, 
D.C.: 2013). 

[63] ILO, Tricked and Trapped. 

[64] ILO, Global Estimate of Forced Labour: Results and Methodology 
(Geneva: 2012). 

[65] In September 2013, amendments to the FAR were proposed to 
implement the requirements of the 2013 amendments to the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and the executive order related to 
strengthening protections against TIP. 78 Fed. Reg. 59,317 (Sept. 26, 
2013). 

[End of section] 

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 GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://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, [hyperlink, 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: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

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

[End of document]