prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: SSA’s mission is to deliver Social Security services that meet the changing needs of the public  The Social Security Act and amendments established three programs that the agency administers: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance provides monthly retirement and survivors benefits to retired and disabled workers, their spouses and their children, and the survivors of insured workers who have died  SSA has estimated that, in fiscal year 2019, $892 billion in old-age and survivors insurance benefits are expected to be paid to a monthly average of approximately 54 million beneficiaries  Disability Insurance provides monthly benefits to disabled workers and their spouses and children  The agency estimates that, in fiscal year 2019, a total of approximately $149 billion in disability insurance benefits will be paid to a monthly average of about 10 million eligible workers  Supplemental Security Income is a needs-based program financed from general tax revenues that provides benefits to aged adults, blind or disabled adults, and children with limited income and resources  For fiscal year 2019, SSA estimates that nearly $59 billion in federal benefits and state supplementary payments will be made to a monthly average of approximately 8 million recipients  SSA relies heavily on its IT resources to support the administration of its programs and related activities  For example, its systems are used to handle millions of transactions on the agency’s website, maintain records for the millions of beneficiaries and recipients of its programs, and evaluate evidence and make determinations of eligibility for benefits  According to the agency’s most recent Information Resources Strategic Plan, its systems supported the processing of an average daily volume of about 185 million individual transactions in fiscal year 2015  SSA’s Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Systems is responsible for developing, overseeing, and maintaining the agency’s IT systems  Comprised of approximately 3,800 staff, the office is headed by the Deputy Commissioner, who also serves as the agency’s CIO  SSA has long been challenged in its management of IT  As a result, we have previously issued a number of reports highlighting various weaknesses in the agency’s system development practices, governance, requirements management, and strategic planning, among other areas  Collectively, our reports stressed the need for the agency to strengthen its IT management controls  In 2016, we reported that SSA’s acting commissioner had stated that the agency’s aging IT infrastructure was not sustainable because it was increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain  Accordingly, the agency requested $132 million in its fiscal year 2019 budget to modernize its IT environment  As reflected in the budget, these modernization efforts are expected to include projects such as updating database designs by converting them to relational databases, eliminating the use of outdated code, and upgrading infrastructure  Among the agency’s priority IT spending initiatives in the budget is its Disability Case Processing System, which has been under development since December 2010  This system is intended to replace the 52 disparate Disability Determination Services’ component systems and associated processes with a modern, common case processing system  According to SSA, the new system is to modernize the entire claims process, including case processing, correspondence, and workload management  However, SSA has reported substantial difficulty in the agency’s ability to carry out this initiative, citing software quality and poor system performance as issues  Consequently, in June 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) placed the initiative on its government- wide list of 10 high-priority programs requiring attention  As previously mentioned, Congress enacted federal IT acquisition reform legislation (commonly referred to as FITARA) in December 2014  This legislation was intended to improve agencies’ acquisitions of IT and enable Congress to monitor agencies’ progress and hold them accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings  It includes specific requirements related to seven areas: (1) agency CIO authority enhancements, (2) federal data center consolidation initiative, (3) enhanced transparency and improved risk management, (4) portfolio review, (5) IT acquisition cadres, (6) government-wide software purchasing program, and (7) the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative  In June 2015, OMB released guidance describing how agencies are to implement FITARA  The guidance identifies a number of actions that agencies are to take to establish a basic set of roles and responsibilities (referred to as the common baseline) for CIOs and other senior agency officials and, thus, to implement the authorities described in the law  More recently, on May 15, 2018, the President signed Executive Order 13833, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information Officers  Among other things, this executive order is intended to better position agencies to modernize their technology, execute IT programs more efficiently, and reduce cybersecurity risks  The order pertains to 22 of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies; the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are exempt  For the covered agencies, including SSA, the executive order strengthens the role of the CIO by, among other things, requiring the CIO to report directly to the agency head; to serve as the agency head’s primary IT strategic advisor; and to have a significant role in all management, governance, and oversight processes related to IT  In addition, one of the cybersecurity requirements directs agencies to ensure that the CIO works closely with an integrated team of senior executives, including those with expertise in IT, security, and privacy, to implement appropriate risk management measures  In June 2018, we issued a report that examined the cybersecurity workforce of the government  We noted that most of the 24 agencies we examined had developed baseline assessments to identify cybersecurity personnel within their agencies that held certifications, but the results were potentially unreliable  However, SSA’s baseline was found to be reliable because it addressed all of the reportable information, such as the extent to which personnel without professional certifications were ready to obtain them or strategies for mitigating any gaps  Further, we found that most of the 24 agencies had established procedures to assign cybersecurity codes to positions, including SSA  We also have ongoing work at SSA, including reviewing its cybersecurity workforce; standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring; cybersecurity strategy; and intrusion detection and prevention capabilities  From July 2011 through January 2018, we issued a number of reports that addressed specific weaknesses in SSA’s management of IT acquisitions and operations and in the role of its CIO  These reports included 15 recommendations aimed at improving the agency’s efforts with regard to data center consolidation, incremental development, IT acquisitions, and software licenses  We also made a recommendation to SSA to address weaknesses related to the role of the CIO in key management areas  SSA has taken steps to improve its management of IT acquisitions and operations by addressing 14 of the 15 recommendations that we previously directed to the agency regarding data center consolidation, incremental development, IT acquisitions, and software licenses  Data center consolidation  OMB established the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative in February 2010 to improve the efficiency, performance, and environmental footprint of federal data center activities  The enactment of FITARA in 2014 codified and expanded the initiative  In addition, pursuant to FITARA, in August 2016, the Federal CIO issued a memorandum that announced the Data Center Optimization Initiative as a successor effort to the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative  Further, in August 2016, OMB released guidance which established the Data Center Optimization Initiative and included instructions on how to implement the date center consolidation and optimization provisions of FITARA  Among other things, the guidance required agencies to consolidate inefficient infrastructure, optimize existing facilities, improve their security posture, and achieve cost savings  In addition, the guidance directed agencies to develop a data center consolidation and optimization strategic plan that defines the agency’s data center strategy for fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018  This strategy is to include, among other things, a statement from the agency CIO indicating whether the agency has complied with all data center reporting requirements in FITARA  Further, the guidance indicates that OMB is to maintain a public dashboard to display consolidation-related cost savings and optimization performance information for the agencies  In a series of reports that we issued from July 2011 through August 2017, we noted that, while data center consolidation could potentially save the federal government billions of dollars, weaknesses existed in agencies’ data center consolidation plans and data center optimization efforts  Specifically with regard to SSA, in 2011, we reported that the agency had an incomplete consolidation plan and inventory of IT assets  In 2016, we reported that SSA did not meet any of the seven applicable data center optimization targets, as required by OMB  In addition, in 2017, we reported that the agency had an incomplete data center optimization plan  We stressed that until SSA completed these required activities, it might not be able to consolidate data centers, as required, and realize expected savings  We made a total of four recommendations to SSA in our 2011, 2016, and 2017 reports to help improve the agency’s reporting of data center-related cost savings and to achieve data center optimization targets  As of September 2018, SSA had implemented all four recommendations  Consequently, the agency is better positioned to improve the efficiency of its data centers and achieve cost savings  In addition, we reported in May 2018 that the agencies participating in the Data Center Optimization Initiative had communicated mixed progress toward achieving OMB’s goals for closing data centers by September 2018  With regard to SSA, we noted that the agency had not yet achieved its planned savings but that its data centers were among the most optimized that we reviewed  In particular, while SSA reported that it planned to save $1 08 million on its data center initiative from 2016 through 2018, it had not achieved any of those savings  However, the agency reported having met the goal of closing 25 percent of its tiered data centers  Further, SSA reported the most progress among the 22 applicable agencies in meeting OMB’s data center optimization targets  Specifically, SSA reported that it had met four of the five targets  (One other agency reported that it had met three targets, 6 agencies reported having met either one or two targets, and 14 agencies reported meeting none of the targets)  Consequently, we did not make any additional recommendations to SSA in our May 2018 report  We also have ongoing work involving SSA related to agencies’ progress on closing data center and achieving optimization targets  Incremental development  OMB has emphasized the need to deliver investments in smaller parts, or increments, in order to reduce risk, deliver capabilities more quickly, and facilitate the adoption of emerging technologies  In 2010, it called for agencies’ major investments to deliver functionality every 12 months and, since 2012, every 6 months  Subsequently, FITARA codified a requirement that covered agency CIOs certify that IT investments are adequately implementing incremental development, as defined in the capital planning guidance issued by OMB  Further, subsequent OMB guidance on the law’s implementation, issued in June 2015, directed agency CIOs to define processes and policies for their agencies to ensure that they certify that IT resources are adequately implementing incremental development  In November 2017, we reported that 21 agencies, including SSA, needed to improve their certification of incremental development  We pointed out that, as of August 2016, agencies had reported that 103 of 166 major IT software development investments (62 percent) were certified by the agency CIO for implementing adequate incremental development in fiscal year 2017, as required by FITARA  With regard to SSA, we noted that only 3 of the agency’s 10 investments primarily in development had been certified by the agency CIO as using adequate incremental development, as required by FITARA  In addition, we noted that SSA’s incremental development certification policy did not describe the CIO’s role in the certification process or how CIO certification would be documented  However, accurate agency CIO certification of the use of adequate incremental development for major IT investments is critical to ensuring that agencies are making the best effort possible to create IT systems that add value while reducing the risks associated with low-value and wasteful investments  As a result of these findings, we recommended that SSA ensure that its CIO (1) reports major IT investment information related to incremental development accurately, in accordance with OMB guidance; and (2) updates the agency’s policy and processes for the certification of incremental development and confirm that the policy includes a description of how the CIO certification will be documented  SSA agreed with our recommendations and implemented both of them
Report 2:  4 (2015)  Holmes, A  V , E  C  Atwood, B  Whalen, J  Beliveau, J  D  Jarvis, J  C  Matulis, and S  L  Ralston  “Rooming-In to Treat Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Improved Family-Centered Care at Lower Cost ” Pediatrics, vol  137, no  6 (2016)  Jones, H  E , K  Deppen, M  L  Hudak, L  Leffert, C  McClelland, L  Sahin, J  Starer, M  Terplan, J  M  Throrp Jr , J  Walsh, and A  A  Creanga  “Clinical Care for Opioid-Using Pregnant and Postpartum Women: The Role of Obstetric Providers ” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol  210, issue 4 (2014)  Jones, H E , C  Seashore, E  Johnson, E  Horton, K E  O’Grady, K  Andringa, M  R  Grossman, B  Whalen, and A V  Holmes  “Brief Report: Psychometric Assessment of the Neonatal Abstinence Scoring System and the MOTHER NAS Scale ” American Journal on Addictions, (2016)  Kraft, W K , M  W  Stover, and J  M  Davis  “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Pharmacologic Strategies for the Mother and Infant ” Seminars in Perinatology, vol  40, issue 3 (2016)  Krans, E  E , G  Cochran, and D  L  Bogen  “Caring for Opioid Dependent Pregnant Women: Prenatal and Postpartum Care Considerations ” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol  58, no  2 (2015)  Lee, J , S  Hulman, M  Musci Jr , and E  Stang  “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Influence of a Combined Inpatient/Outpatient Methadone Treatment Regimen on the Average Length of Stay of a Medicaid NICU Population ” Population Health Management, vol  18, no 5 (2015)  MacMullen, N  J , L  A  Dulski, and P  Blobaum  “Evidence-Based Interventions for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Pediatric Nursing, vol  40, no  4 (2014)  Maguire, D  J , “Mothers on Methadone: Care in the NICU ” Neonatal Network, vol  32, no  6 (2013)  Marcellus, L  “Supporting Women with Substance Use Issues: Trauma- Informed Care as a Foundation for Practice in the NICU ” Neonatal Network, vol  33, no 6 (2014)  McKeever, A  E , S  Spaeth-Brayton, and S  Sheerin  “The Role of Nurses in Comprehensive Care Management of Pregnant Women with Drug Addiction ” Nursing for Women’s Health, vol  18, no 4 (2014)  Meyer, M  and J  Phillips  “Caring for Pregnant Opioid Abusers in Vermont: A Potential Model for Non-Urban Areas ” Preventive Medicine, vol  80 (2015)  Newnam, K  M  “The Right Tool at the Right Time: Examining the Evidence Surrounding Measurement of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Advances in Neonatal Care, vol  14, no 3 (2014)  Orlando, S  “An Overview of Clinical Tools Used to Assess Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, vol  28, no 3 (2014)  Patrick, S W , M M  Davis, C U  Lehman, and W O  Cooper  “Increasing Incidence and Geographic Distribution of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012 ” Journal of Perinatology, vol  35 (2015)  Patrick, S W , H C  Kaplan, M  Passarella, M M  Davis, and S A  Lorch  “Variation in Treatment of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome in U S  Children’s Hospitals, 2004-2011 ” Journal of Perinatology, vol  34, no  11 (2014)  Patrick, S W , J  Dudley, P R  Martin, F E  Harrell, M D  Warren, K E  Hartmann, E W  Ely, C G  Grijalva, and W O  Cooper  “Prescription Opioid Epidemic and Infant Outcomes ” Pediatrics, vol  135, no 5 (2015)  Patrick, S W , R  E  Schumacher, J  D  Horbar, M  E  Buus-Frank, E  M  Edwards, K  A  Morrow, K  R  Ferrelli, A  P  Picarillo, M  Gupta, and R  F  Soll  “Improving Care for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Pediatrics, vol  137, no  5 (2016)  Reece-Stremtan, S , and K  A  Marinelli  “ABM Clinical Protocol #21: Guidelines for Breastfeeding and the Drug-Dependent Woman, Revised 2015 ” Breastfeeding Medicine, vol  10, no 3 (2015)  Shaw, M  R , C  Lederhos, M  Haberman, D  Howell, S  Fleming, and J  Roll  “Nurses Perceptions of Caring for Childbearing Women Who Misuse Opioids ” The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing, vol  41, no  1 (2016)  Sublett, J  “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Therapeutic Interventions ” The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing, vol  38, no  2 (2013)  Sutter, M  B , L  Leeman, and A  Hsi  “Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome ” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, vol  41, issue 2 (2014)  Teague, A  H , A  J  Jnah, and D  Newberry  “Intraprofessional Excellence in Nursing: Collaborative Strategies for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Neonatal Network, vol  34, no 6 (2015)  Terplan, M , A  Kennedy-Hendricks, and M  S  Chisolm  “Prenatal Substance Use: Exploring Assumptions of Maternal Unfitness ” Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment (2015)  Tolia, V  N , S  W  Patrick, M  M  Bennett, K  Murthy, J  Sousa, P  B  Smith, R  H  Clark, and A  R  Spitzer  “Increasing Incidence of the Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome in U S  Neonatal ICUs ” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol  372, no  22 (2015)  Wiles, J  R , B  Isemann, L  P  Ward, A  A  Vinks, and H  Akinbi  “Current Management of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Secondary to Intrauterine Opioid Exposure ” Journal of Pediatrics, vol  165, no  3 (2014)  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published several guidance and educational resources related to neonatal abstinence syndrome and prenatal opioid use  According to HHS, these documents serve as tools to help stakeholders, including state entities and health care providers, and policymakers  Examples of these resources are listed below  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Pregnancy and Opioid Medications Factsheet, accessed June 8, 2017, https://www cdc gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pregnancy_opioid_pain_factsheet- a pdf  CDC Public Health Grand Rounds, Primary Prevention and Public Strategies to Prevent Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (Atlanta, GA: CDC, last updated August 18, 2016), accessed July 19, 2017, https://www cdc gov/cdcgrandrounds/archives/2016/August2016 htm  CDC, Treating for Two: Safer Medication Use in Pregnancy Initiative (Atlanta, GA: CDC, last updated May 5, 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www cdc gov/pregnancy/meds/treatingfortwo  Department of Health and Human Services, Opioids: The Prescription Drug & Heroin Overdose Epidemic (Washington, D C , last reviewed March 24, 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www hhs gov/opioids/index html  Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Substance Abuse and Child Welfare, Resources & Topics on Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, accessed June 8, 2017, https://www ncsacw samhsa gov/resources/opioid-use-disorders-and-me dication-assisted-treatment/neonatal-abstinence-syndrome aspx  Jean Y  Ko  et al , “CDC Grand Rounds: Public Health Strategies to Prevent Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 10, 2017), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www cdc gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6609a2 htm  National Institute on Drug Abuse, Principles of Substance Abuse Prevention for Early Childhood: A Research Based Guide (last updated March 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www drugabuse gov/publications/principles-substance-abuse-prev ention-early-childhood/principles-substance-abuse-prevention-early-child hood  National Institute on Drug Abuse, Substance Use in Women (last updated September 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www drugabuse gov/publications/research-reports/substance-use-i n-women/summary  Reddy, Uma M  J  M  Davis, Z  Ren, and M  F  Greene, “Opioid Use in Pregnancy, Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, and Childhood Outcomes: Executive Summary of a Joint Workshop ” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol  130, issue 1 (July 2017)  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, A Collaborative Approach to the Treatment of Pregnant Women with Opioid Use Disorders  HHS Publications No  (SMA) 16-4978  Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Advancing the Care of Pregnant and Parenting Women With Opioid Use Disorder and Their Infants: A Foundation for Clinical Guidance,” Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Methadone Treatment for Pregnant Women ” HHS Publication No  (SMA) 14-4124 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, revised 2014)  In addition to the contact named above, Rashmi Agarwal, Assistant Director; Amy Leone, Analyst-in-Charge; Melissa Duong; Krister Friday; Jacquelyn Hamilton; Giao N  Nguyen; and Laurie Pachter made key contributions to this report  Drug Control Policy: Information on Status of Federal Efforts and Key Issues for Preventing Illicit Drug Use  GAO-17-766T  Washington, D C : July 26, 2017  Medicaid Expansion: Behavioral Health Treatment Use in Selected States in 2014  GAO-17-529  Washington, D C : July 21, 2017  VA Health Care: Actions Needed to Ensure Medical Facility Controlled Substance Inspection Programs Meet Agency Requirements  GAO-17-242  Washington, D C : February 15, 2017  Highlights of a Forum: Preventing Illicit Drug Use  GAO-17-146SP  Washington, D C : November 14, 2016  Opioid Addiction: Laws, Regulations, and Other Factors Can Affect Medication-Assisted Treatment Access  GAO-16-833  Washington, D C : September 27, 2016  Drug Enforcement Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Address Prior GAO Recommendations  GAO-16-737T  Washington, D C : June 22, 2016  Office of National Drug Control Policy: Progress toward Some National Drug Control Strategy Goals, but None Have Been Fully Achieved  GAO-16-660T  Washington, D C : May 17, 2016  Veterans Justice Outreach Program: VA Could Improve Management by Establishing Performance Measures and Fully Assessing Risks  GAO-16-393  Washington, D C : April 28, 2016  State Marijuana Legalization: DOJ Should Document Its Approach to Monitoring the Effects of Legalization  GAO-16-1  Washington, D C : December 30, 2015  Prescription Drugs: More DEA Information about Registrants’ Controlled Substances Roles Could Improve Their Understanding and Help Ensure Access  GAO-15-471  Washington, D C : June 25, 2015  Mental Health: Better Documentation Needed to Oversee Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Grantees  GAO-15-405  Washington, D C : May 12, 2015  Prenatal Drug Use and Newborn Health: Federal Efforts Need Better Planning and Coordination  GAO-15-203  Washington, D C : February 10, 2015  Medicare Program Integrity: CMS Pursues Many Practices to Address Prescription Drug Fraud, Waste, and Abuse  GAO-15-66  Washington, D C : October 24, 2014  Office of National Drug Control Policy: Office Could Better Identify Opportunities to Increase Program Coordination  GAO-13-333  Washington D C : March 26, 2013  Child Welfare: States Use Flexible Federal Funds, But Struggle to Meet Service Needs  GAO-13-170  Washington, D C : January 30, 2013 

ground_truth: Federal agencies use heavy equipment such as cranes and forklifts to carry out their missions, but there is no government-wide data on federal agencies' acquisition or management of this equipment. GAO was asked to review federal agencies' management of heavy equipment. This report, among other objectives, examines: (1) the number, type, and costs of heavy equipment items that are owned by 20 federal agencies and (2) the heavy equipment that selected agencies recently acquired as well as how they decided whether to purchase or lease this equipment. GAO collected heavy equipment inventory data as of June 2017 from the 24 agencies that have chief financial officers responsible for overseeing financial management. GAO also selected three agencies (using factors such as the heavy equipment fleet's size) and reviewed their acquisitions of and guidance on heavy equipment. These agencies' practices are not generalizable to all acquisitions but provide insight into what efforts these agencies take to acquire thousands of heavy equipment items. GAO also interviewed officials at the three selected agencies. Of the 24 agencies GAO reviewed, 20 reported owning over 136,000 heavy equipment items such as cranes, backhoes, and forklifts, and spending over $7.4 billion (in 2016 dollars) to acquire this equipment. The remaining 4 agencies reported that they do not own any heavy equipment. The three selected agencies GAO reviewed in-depth—the Air Force within the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior (Interior)—spent about $360 million to purchase about 3,500 heavy equipment assets in calendar years 2012 through 2016 and over $5 million to lease heavy equipment from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Officials from all three agencies stated that they consider mission needs and the availability of equipment leases when deciding whether to lease or purchase heavy equipment. Federal regulations provide that agencies should consider whether it is more economical to lease or purchase equipment when acquiring heavy equipment, and federal internal control standards require that management clearly document all transactions in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination. However, in reviewing selected leases and purchases of heavy equipment from these three agencies, GAO found that officials did not consistently conduct or document lease-versus-purchase analyses. Officials at the Air Force and Interior said that there was a lack of clarity in agency policies about when they were required to conduct and document such analyses. Without greater clarity on when lease-versus-purchase analyses should be conducted and documented, these agencies may not be spending funds on heavy equipment effectively. The Department of the Interior and the Air Force should clarify the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchases analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented. The Departments of the Interior and Defense concurred with these recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Agencies generally acquire equipment from commercial vendors and through GSA, which contracts for the equipment from commercial vendors  In acquiring heavy equipment from a commercial vendor or GSA, agencies can purchase or lease the equipment  Generally, agencies use the term “lease” to refer to acquisitions that are time-limited and therefore distinct from purchases  The term “lease” is used to refer to both long-term and short-term leases  For example, the three agencies we reviewed in-depth use the term “rental” to refer to short-term leases of varying time periods  According to Air Force officials, they define rentals as leases that are less than 120 days while FWS and NPS officials said they generally use the term rental to refer to leases that are a year or less  For the purposes of this report, we use the term “rental” to refer to short-term leases defined as rentals by the agency and “long-term lease” to refer to a lease that is not considered a rental by the agency  (See fig  1 ) In 2013, GSA began offering heavy equipment through its Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part to eliminate ownership and maintenance cost for infrequently used heavy equipment  Under this program, agencies can request a short-term equipment rental (less than a year) from GSA, and GSA will work with a network of commercial vendors to provide the requested heavy equipment  Unlike for some other types of federal property, there are no central reporting requirements for agencies’ inventories of heavy equipment  However, each federal agency is required to maintain inventory controls for its property, which includes heavy equipment  Agencies maintain inventory data through the use of agency-specific databases, and each agency can set its own requirements for what data are required and how these data are maintained  For example, while an agency may choose to maintain data in a headquarters database, it could also choose to maintain data at the local level  As another example, an agency may decide to track and maintain data on the utilization of its heavy equipment (such as the hours used) or may choose not to have such data or require any particular utilization levels  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) governs the acquisition process of executive branch agencies when acquiring certain goods and services, including heavy equipment  Under the FAR, agencies should consider whether to lease equipment instead of purchasing it based on several factors  Specifically, the FAR provides that agency officials should evaluate cost and other factors by conducting a “lease-versus-purchase” analysis before acquiring heavy equipment  Additionally, DOD’s regulations require its component agencies to prepare a justification supporting lease-versus-purchase decisions if the equipment is to be leased for more than 60 days  Twenty agencies reported data on their owned heavy equipment, including the (1) number, (2) types, (3) acquisition year, and (4) location of agencies’ owned heavy equipment in their inventories as of June 2017  The 20 agencies reported owning over 136,000 heavy equipment items  DOD reported owning most of this heavy equipment—over 100,000 items, about 74 percent  (See app  I for more information on agencies’ ownership of these items ) The Department of Agriculture reported owning the second highest number of heavy equipment items—almost 9,000 items, about 6 percent  (See fig  2 ) Four agencies—the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International Development—reported owning five or fewer heavy equipment items each  The 20 agencies reported owning various types of heavy equipment, such as cranes, backhoes, and road maintenance equipment in five categories: (1) construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment; (2) airfield-specialized trucks and trailers; (3) self-propelled warehouse trucks and tractors; (4) tractors; and (5) soil preparation and harvesting equipment  Thirty-eight percent (almost 52,000 items) were in the construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance category (see fig  3)  Fifteen of the 20 agencies reported owning at least some items in this category  Twenty-four percent (over 33,000 items) were in the airfield- specialized trucks and trailers category, generally used to service and re-position aircraft on runways  DOD reported owning 99 percent (over 32,000) of these items, while 9 other agencies, including the Department of Labor and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, reported owning the other one percent (317 items)  Twenty-two percent (over 29,000 items) were in the self-propelled warehouse trucks and tractors category, which includes equipment such as forklift trucks  All 20 agencies reported owning at least one item in this category, and five agencies—the Agency for International Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management—reported owning only items in this category  (For additional information on agencies’ ownership of heavy equipment in various categories, see app  I ) The twenty agencies reported acquiring their owned heavy equipment between 1944 and 2017, with an average of about 13 years since acquisition (see fig  4)  One heavy equipment manager we interviewed reported that a dump truck can last 10 to 15 years, whereas other types of equipment can last for decades if regularly used and well-maintained  The 20 agencies reported that over 117,000 heavy equipment items (86 percent) were located within the United States or its territories  Of these, about one-fifth (over 26,000) were located in California and Virginia, the two states with the most heavy equipment (see fig  5)  Of the equipment located outside of the United States and its territories, 94 percent was owned by the Department of Defense  The rest was owned by the Department of State (714 items in 141 countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe) and the National Science Foundation (237 items in areas such as Antarctica)  The twenty agencies reported spending over $7 4 billion in 2016 dollars to acquire the heavy equipment they own (see table 1)  However, actual spending was higher because this inflation-adjusted figure excludes over 37,000 heavy equipment items for which the agencies did not report acquisition cost or acquisition year, or both  Without this information, we could not determine the inflation-adjusted cost and therefore did not include the cost of these items in our calculation  The Army owns almost all of these items, having not reported acquisition cost or acquisition year, or both, for 36,589 heavy equipment items because, according to Army officials, the data were not available centrally but may have been available at individual Army units and would have been resource- intensive to obtain  The heavy equipment items reported by the 20 agencies ranged in acquisition cost from zero dollars to over $2 million in 2016 dollars, with an average acquisition cost in 2016 dollars of about $78,000, excluding assets with a reported acquisition cost of $0  Of the items which we adjusted to 2016 dollars and for which non-zero acquisition costs were provided: 94 percent cost less than $250,000 and accounted for 57 percent of the total adjusted acquisition costs (See fig  6 ) 6 percent of items cost more than $250,000 and accounted for 43 percent of the adjusted acquisition costs  (See fig  6 ) High-cost items included a $779,000 hydraulic crane acquired by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1997 ($1 2 million in 2016 dollars), a $1 4 million ultra-deep drilling simulator acquired by the Department of Energy in 2009 ($1 6 million in 2016 dollars), and several $2 2 million well-drilling machines acquired by the Air Force in 2013 ($2 3 million in 2016 dollars)  In calendar years 2012 through 2016, the Air Force, FWS, and NPS purchased almost 3,500 pieces of heavy equipment through GSA and private vendors at a total cost of about $360 million to support mission needs  (See table 2 ) These agencies also spent over $5 million on long- term leases and rentals during this time period  The Air Force spent over $300 million to purchase over 2,600 heavy equipment assets in calendar years 2012 through 2016 that were used to support and maintain its bases globally  For example, according to Air Force officials, heavy equipment is often used to maintain runways and service and reposition aircraft on runways  While the majority of Air Force heavy equipment purchased in this time period is located in the United States, 41 percent of this heavy equipment is located outside the United States and its territories in 17 foreign countries to support global military bases  The Air Force could not provide complete information on its heavy equipment leases for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  Specifically, the Air Force provided data on 33 commercial heavy equipment leases that were ongoing as of August 2017 but could not provide cost data for these leases because this information is not tracked centrally  Additionally, the Air Force could not provide any data on leases that occurred previously because, according to Air Force officials, lease records are removed from the Air Force database upon termination of the lease  Officials said that rentals are generally handled locally and obtaining complete data would require a data call to over 300 base contracting offices  Air Force officials stated that rentals are generally used in unique situations involving short- term needs such as responding to natural disasters  For example, following Hurricane Sandy, staff at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia used rental equipment to clean up and repair the base  Although Air Force did not provide complete information on rentals, data we obtained from GSA’s Short-Term Rental program indicated that Air Force rented heavy equipment in 46 transactions not reflected in the Air Force data we received totaling over $3 7 million since GSA began offering heavy equipment through its Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program in 2013  FWS spent over $32 million to purchase 348 heavy equipment assets from calendar years 2012 through 2016  FWS used its heavy equipment to maintain refuge areas throughout the United States and its territories, including maintaining roads and nature trails  FWS also used heavy equipment to respond to inclement weather and natural disasters  Most of the heavy equipment items purchased by FWS were in the construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment category and include items such as excavators, which were used for moving soil, supplies, and other resources  FWS officials reported that they did not have any long-term leases for any heavy equipment in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 because they encourage equipment sharing and rentals to avoid long-term leases whenever possible  FWS officials provided data on 228 rentals for this time period with a total cost of over $1 million  Information regarding these rentals is contained in an Interior-wide property management system, the Financial Business Management System (FBMS)  FWS officials told us that they have not rented heavy equipment through GSA’s program because they have found lower prices through local equipment rental companies  NPS spent over $27 million to purchase 471 heavy equipment assets from calendar years 2012 through 2016  NPS uses heavy equipment— located throughout the United States and its territories—to maintain national parks and respond to inclement weather and natural disasters  For example, NPS used heavy equipment such as dump trucks, snow plows, road graders, and wheel loaders to clear and salt the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Washington, D C , following snow and ice storms  Most of the heavy equipment items purchased by NPS were in the construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment category and include items such as excavators, which are used for moving soil, supplies, and other resources  NPS reported spending about $360,000 on 230 long-term leases and rentals in fiscal years 2012 through 2016, not including rentals through GSA’s Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program  As with FWS, NPS leases and rentals are contained in FBMS, which is Interior’s property management system  Data we obtained from GSA’s Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program indicated that NPS rented heavy equipment in 26 transactions totaling over $200,000 since GSA began offering heavy equipment through its Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program in 2013, for a potential total cost of over $560,000 for these long-term leases and rentals  As mentioned earlier, the FAR provides that executive branch agencies seeking to acquire equipment should consider whether it is more economical to lease equipment rather than purchase it and identifies factors agencies should consider in this analysis, such as estimated length of the period that the equipment is to be used, the extent of use in that time period, and maintenance costs  This analysis is commonly referred to as a lease-versus-purchase analysis  While the FAR does not specifically require that agencies document their lease-versus-purchase analyses, according to federal internal control standards, management should clearly document all transactions and other significant events in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination and also communicate quality information to enable staff to complete their responsibilities  As discussed below, we found that most acquisitions we reviewed from FWS, NPS, and the Air Force did not contain any documentation of a lease-versus-purchase analysis  Specifically, officials were unable to provide documentation of a lease-versus-purchase analysis for six of the eight acquisitions we reviewed  FWS officials were able to provide documentation for the other two  Officials told us that a lease-versus- purchase analysis was not conducted for five of the six acquisitions and did not know if such analysis was conducted for the other acquisition  According to agency officials, the main reason why analyses were not conducted or documented for these six acquisitions is that the circumstances in which such analyses were to be performed or documented were not always clear to FWS, NPS, and Air Force officials  In addition to the FAR, Interior has agency guidance stating that bureaus should conduct and document lease-versus-purchase analyses  This July 2013 guidance—that FWS and NPS are to follow—states that requesters of equipment valued at $15,000 or greater should perform a lease-versus- purchase analysis when requesting heavy equipment  According to the guidance, this analysis should address criteria in the FAR and include a discussion of the financial and operating advantages of alternate approaches that would help contracting officials determine the final appropriate acquisition method  At the time the guidance was issued, Interior also provided a lease-versus-purchase analysis tool to aid officials in conducting this analysis  Additionally, in April 2016, Interior issued a policy to implement the July 2013 guidance  The 2016 policy clarifies that program offices are required to complete Interior’s lease-versus-purchase analysis tool and provide the completed analysis to the relevant contracting officer  Within Interior, bureaus are responsible for ensuring that procurement requirements are met, including the requirements and directives outlined in Interior’s 2013 guidance and 2016 policy on lease-versus-purchase analyses, according to agency officials  Within FWS, local procurement specialists prepare procurement requests and ensure that procurement requirements are met and that all viable options have been considered  Regional equipment managers review these procurement requests, decide whether to purchase or lease the requested equipment, and prepare the lease-versus-purchase analysis tool if the procurement specialist has indicated that it is required  Within NPS, local procurement specialists are responsible for ensuring that all procurements adhere to relevant requirements and directives, including documenting the lease- versus-purchase analysis  Of the three FWS heavy equipment acquisitions we reviewed for which the 2013 Interior guidance was applicable, one included a completed lease-versus-purchase analysis tool; one documented the rationale for purchasing rather than leasing, although it did not include Interior’s lease- versus-purchase analysis tool; and one did not include any documentation related to a lease-versus-purchase analysis  (See table 3 ) Regarding the acquisition for which no documentation of a lease-versus- purchase analysis was provided—a 12-month lease of an excavator and associated labor costs for over $19,000—FWS officials initially told us that a lease-versus-purchase analysis was not required because the equipment lease was less than $15,000, and Interior’s guidance required a lease-versus-purchase analysis for procurements of equipment valued at $15,000 or greater  However, we found the guidance did not specify whether the $15,000 threshold includes the cost of labor  We also found that Interior’s guidance did not specify if a lease-versus-purchase analysis was required if the total cost of a rental is less than the purchase price  FWS officials acknowledged that Interior guidance is not clear and that it would be helpful for Interior to clarify whether these leases require a lease-versus-purchase analysis  NPS officials were unable to provide documentation of a lease-versus- purchase analysis for the single heavy equipment acquisition we reviewed—the purchase of a wheeled tractor in 2015 for $43,177  According to these officials, they could not do so because of personnel turnover in the contracting office that would have documented the analysis  In addition, they told us that they believe that such analyses are not always completed for heavy equipment acquisitions because responsibility for completing these analyses is unclear  Specifically, they told us that it was unclear whether the responsibility lies with the official requesting the equipment, the contracting personnel who facilitate the acquisition, or the property personnel who manage inventory data  However, when we discussed our findings with Interior and NPS officials, NPS officials were made aware of the 2016 Interior policy that specifically requires program offices—the officials requesting the equipment—to complete the lease-versus-purchase analysis and provide documentation of this analysis to the contracting officer  As a result, NPS officials told us at the end of our review that program office officials will now be required to complete the lease-versus-purchase analysis tool and document this analysis  According to Air Force officials responsible for managing heavy equipment, financial or budget personnel at individual bases are responsible for conducting lease-versus-purchase analyses, also called economic analyses, to support purchase and lease requests  Air Force fleet officials told us that they then review these requests from a fleet perspective, considering factors such as whether the cost information provided in the request is from a reputable source, expected maintenance costs, and whether a requesting base has the capability to maintain the requested equipment  However, they said they do not check to ensure that a lease-versus-purchase analysis was completed or review the analysis  Equipment rentals can be approved at individual bases  In our review of four Air Force heavy equipment acquisitions, we found no instances in which Air Force officials documented a lease-versus- purchase analysis (see table 4)  For the acquisitions that we reviewed, Air Force officials told us they did not believe a lease-versus-purchase analysis was required because the new equipment was either replacing old equipment that was previously approved or could be deployed  Accordingly, the Air Force purchased two forklifts in 2013 without conducting lease-versus-purchase analyses because the forklifts were replacing old forklifts that were authorized in 1997 and 2005  Furthermore, Air Force officials told us that both of these forklifts could be deployed and indicated that lease-versus-purchase analyses are not required for deployable equipment  However, the Air Force does not have guidance that describes the circumstances that require either a lease-versus-purchase analysis or documentation of the rationale for not completing such analysis  Although we identified several instances in which officials in the three selected agencies did not document lease-versus-purchase analyses, officials from these agencies stated that they consider mission needs and equipment availability, among other factors, when making these decisions  For example, Air Force officials told us following Hurricane Sandy, staff at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia used rental equipment to clean and repair the base because the equipment was needed immediately to ensure the base could meet its mission  Moreover, availability of heavy equipment for lease or rental, which can be affected by factors such as geography and competition for equipment, is a key consideration  For example, FWS officials told us that the specialized heavy equipment sometimes needed may not be available for long-term lease or rent in remote areas such as Alaska and the Midway Islands, so the agency purchases the equipment  In addition, some agency officials told us that they may purchase heavy equipment even if that equipment is needed only sporadically if there is likely to be high demand for rental equipment  For example, following inclement weather or a natural disaster, demand for certain heavy equipment rentals can be high and equipment may not be available to rent when it is needed  While we recognize that mission needs and other factors are important considerations, without greater clarity regarding when to conduct or document lease-versus-purchase analyses, officials at FWS, NPS, and Air Force may not be conducting such analyses when appropriate and may not always make the best acquisition decisions  These agencies could be overspending on leased equipment that would be more cost- effective if purchased or overspending to purchase equipment when it would be more cost-effective to lease or rent  Moreover, without documenting decisions on whether to purchase or lease equipment, they lack information that could be used to inform future acquisition decisions for similar types of equipment or projects  Air Force guidance requires that fleet managers collect utilization data for both vehicles and heavy equipment items, such as the number of hours used, miles traveled, and maintenance costs  The Air Force provided us with utilization data for over 18,000 heavy equipment items and uses such data to inform periodic base validations  Specifically, Air Force officials said that every 3 to 5 years each Air Force base reviews the on- base equipment to ensure that the installation has the appropriate heavy equipment to complete its mission and reviews utilization data to identify items that are underutilized  If heavy equipment is considered underutilized, the equipment is relocated—either moved to another location or sent to the Defense Logistics Agency for reuse or transfer to another agency  According to Air Force officials the Air Force has relocated over 700 heavy equipment items based on the results of the validation process and other factors such as replacing older items and agency needs since 2014  Similarly, FWS guidance for managing heavy equipment utilization sets forth minimum utilization hours for certain types of heavy equipment and describes requirements for reporting utilization data  FWS provided us with utilization data on over 3,000 heavy equipment items  According to officials, condition assessments of heavy equipment are required by FWS guidance every 3 to 5 years  According to FWS officials, condition assessments inform regional-level decision making about whether to move equipment to another FWS location or dispose of the equipment  In contrast, NPS does not require the collection of utilization data to evaluate heavy equipment use and does not have guidance for managing heavy equipment utilization  However, NPS officials told us that they recognize the need for such guidance  NPS officials shared with us draft guidance that they have developed, which would require collection of utilization data for heavy equipment such as hours or days of usage each month  According to NPS officials, they plan to send the guidance to the NPS policy office for final review in March 2018  Until this guidance is completed and published, NPS is taking interim actions to manage the utilization of its heavy equipment  For example, NPS officials stated that they have asked NPS locations to collect and post monthly utilization data, discussed the collection of utilization data at fleet meetings, and distributed job aids to support this effort  During the course of our review, NPS officials provided us with some utilization data for about 1,400 of the more than 2,400 NPS heavy equipment items  Specifically, for the 1,459 heavy equipment items for which NPS provided utilization data, 541 items had utilization data for each month  For the remaining 918 items, utilization data were reported for some, but not all months  The federal government has spent billions of dollars to acquire heavy equipment  There is no requirement that agencies report on the inventory of this equipment, as there is no standard definition of heavy equipment  When deciding how to acquire this equipment, agencies’ should conduct a lease-versus-purchase analysis as provided in the FAR, which is a critical mechanism to ensure agencies are acquiring the equipment in the most cost-effective manner  Because FWS, NPS and the Air Force were unclear when such an analysis was required, they did not consistently conduct or document analyses of whether it was more economical to purchase or lease heavy equipment  In the absence of clarity on the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchase analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented, the agencies may not be spending funds on heavy equipment cost- effectively  We are making two recommendations—one to the Air Force and one to the Department of the Interior  The Secretary of the Air Force should develop guidance to clarify the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchase analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of the Interior should further clarify in guidance the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchase analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, and Veterans Affairs; General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; and U S  Agency for International Development  The departments of Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State and Veterans Affairs, as well as the General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management; and U S  Agency for International Development did not have comments  The Department of Labor provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  In written comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Defense stated that it concurred with our recommendation and plans to issue a bulletin to Air Force contracting officials  In written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, the Department of the Interior stated that it concurred with our recommendation and plans to implement it  If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or RectanusL@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V  Specialized Trucks and Trailers 37   Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 1,733 3                                       Specialized Trucks and Trailers 7   Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 2,925 134                                     Specialized Trucks and Trailers   Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 146             7       - 109       Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 575 64 40                       4                   Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Personnel Management Social Security Administration United States Agency for International Development Grand Total         This report addresses: (1) the number, type, and cost of heavy equipment items that are owned by the 24 CFO Act agencies; (2) the heavy equipment items selected agencies have recently acquired and how selected agencies decided to purchase or lease this equipment; and (3) how selected agencies manage the utilization of their heavy equipment  To identify the number, type, and cost of heavy equipment owned by federal agencies, we first interviewed officials at the General Services Administration to determine whether there were government-wide reporting requirements for owned heavy equipment and learned that there are no such requirements  We then obtained and analyzed data on agencies’ spending on equipment purchases and leases from the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG), which contains government-wide data on agencies’ contracts  However, in reviewing the data available and identifying issues with the reliability of the data, we determined that data on contracts would not be sufficient to answer the question of what heavy equipment the 24 CFO Act agencies own  We therefore conducted a data collection effort to obtain heavy equipment inventory information from the 24 CFO Act agencies, which are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and Agency for International Development  Because there is no generally accepted definition of heavy equipment, we identified 12 federal supply classes in which the majority of items are self- propelled equipment but not passenger vehicles or items that are specific to combat and tactical purposes, as these items are generally not considered to be heavy equipment  (See table 5 ) We then vetted the appropriateness of these selected supply classes with Interior, FWS, NPS, and Air Force agency officials, as well as with representatives from a fleet management consultancy and a rental company, and they generally agreed that items in selected federal supply classes are considered heavy equipment  Federal supply classes are used in FPDS- NG and are widely used in agencies’ inventory systems  Overall, about 90 percent of the heavy equipment items that agencies reported were assigned a federal supply class in the agency’s inventory data  In discussing heavy equipment categories in the report, we use the category titles below  To identify points of contact at the 24 CFO Act agencies, we obtained GSA’s list of contact information for agencies’ national utilization officers, who are agency property officers who coordinate with GSA  As a preliminary step, we contacted these individuals at each of the 24 CFO Act agencies and asked them to either confirm that they were the appropriate contacts or provide contact information for the appropriate contact and to inform us if they do not own heavy equipment  Officials at 4 agencies—Department of Education, Department of the Treasury, General Services Administration, and Small Business Administration— indicated that the agency did not own any items in the relevant federal supply classes  Officials at 16 of these agencies indicated that they would be able to respond on a departmental level because the relevant inventory data are maintained centrally, while officials at 4 agencies indicated that we would need to obtain responses from officials at some other level because the relevant inventory data are not maintained centrally  (See table 7 for a list of organizations within the 20 CFO Act agencies that indicated they own relevant equipment and responded to our data collection effort ) After identifying contacts responsible for agencies’ heavy-equipment inventory data, we prepared data collection instruments for requesting information on heavy equipment and tested these documents with representatives from 4 of the 20 CFO Act agencies that indicated they own heavy equipment to ensure that the documents were clear and logical and that respondents would be able to provide the requested data and answer the questions without undue burden  These agency representatives were selected to provide a variety of spending on federal supply group 38 equipment as reported in FPDS-NG, civilian and military agencies, and different levels at which the agency would be responding to the data collection effort (e g , at the departmental level or at a sub- departmental level)  Our data collection instrument requested the following data on respondent organizations’ owned assets in 12 federal supply classes as of June 2017: Respondents provided data on original acquisition costs in nominal terms, with some acquisitions occurring over 50 years ago  In order to provide a fixed point of reference for appropriate comparison, we present in our report inflation-adjusted acquisition costs using calendar year 2016 as the reference  To adjust these dollar amounts for inflation, we used the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Producer Price Index by Commodity for Machinery and Equipment: Construction Machinery and Equipment (WPU112), compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St  Louis  We conducted the data collection effort from July 2017 through October 2017 and received responses from all 20 agencies that indicated they own heavy equipment  In order to assess the reliability of agencies’ reported data, we collected and reviewed agencies’ responses regarding descriptions of their inventory systems, frequency of data entry, agency uses of the data, and agencies’ opinions on potential limitations of the use of their data in our analysis  We conducted some data cleaning, which included examining the data for obvious errors and eliminating outliers  We did not verify the data or responses received; the results of our data collection effort are used only for descriptive purposes and are not generalizable beyond the 24 CFO Act agencies  Based on the steps we took, we found these data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes  To determine the heavy equipment items that selected agencies recently acquired and how these agencies decided whether to purchase or lease this equipment, we first used data from the FPDS-NG to identify agencies that appeared to have the highest obligations for construction or heavy equipment, or both, and used this information, along with other factors, to select DOD and Interior  At the time, in the absence of a generally accepted definition of heavy equipment, we reviewed data related to federal supply group 38—construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment—because (1) we had not yet defined heavy equipment for the purposes of our review; (2) agency officials had told us that most of what could be considered heavy equipment was in this federal supply group; and (3) our analysis of data from usaspending gov showed that about 80 percent of spending on items that may be considered heavy equipment were in this federal supply group  In meeting with officials at these departments, we learned that agencies within each department manage heavy equipment independently, so we requested current inventory data for Interior bureaus and the DOD military departments and selected three agencies that had among the largest inventories of construction and/or heavy equipment at the time, among other criteria: the U S  Air Force (Air Force); the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and the National Park Service (NPS)  We then used information from our data collection effort—which included the number, type, cost, acquisition year and other data elements—to determine heavy equipment items that these agencies acquired during 2012 through 2016  We interviewed agency officials to determine what lease data were available from the three selected agencies  We assessed the reliability of these data with agency official interviews and reviewed the data for completeness and potential outliers  We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of documenting leased and rental heavy equipment  We also obtained data from GSA’s Short- Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program for August 2012, when the first item was rented under this program, to February 2017, when GSA provided the data  We used these data to identify selected agencies’ rentals of heavy equipment through GSA’s Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program and associated costs  We interviewed officials from GSA’s Short-Term Rental program to discuss the program history as well as the reliability of their data on these rented heavy equipment items  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes  To determine how the three selected agencies decide whether to purchase or lease heavy equipment, we interviewed fleet and property managers at these selected agencies and asked them to describe their process for making these decisions as well as to identify relevant federal and agency regulations and guidance  We reviewed relevant federal and agency regulations and guidance regarding how agencies should make these decisions, including: Federal Acquisition Regulation, Office of Management Budget’s A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit- Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Air Force Manual 65-506, Air Force Guidance Memorandum to Air Force Instruction 65-501, and Interior’s Guidance On Lease Versus Purchase Analysis and Capital Lease Determination for Equipment Leases  We also reviewed the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government for guidance on documentation as well as past GAO work that reviewed agencies’ lease-versus-purchase analyses  To determine whether the three selected federal agencies documented lease-versus-purchase decisions for selected acquisitions and adhered to relevant agency guidance, we selected and reviewed a non-generalizable sample of 10 heavy equipment acquisitions—two purchases each from the Air Force, FWS, and NPS, and two leases each from the Air Force and FWS  Specifically, we used inventory data obtained through our data collection effort, described above, to randomly select two heavy equipment purchases from each selected agency using the following criteria: calendar years 2012 through 2016; the two federal supply classes most prevalent in each selected agency’s heavy equipment inventory, as determined by the data collection effort described above; and for NPS and FWS, acquisition costs of over $15,000  In addition, we used lease data provided by the Air Force and FWS to randomly selected two heavy equipment leases per agency  Because NPS could not provide data on heavy equipment leases, we did not select or review any NPS lease decisions  To select the Air Force and FWS leases we used the following criteria: fiscal years 2012 through 2016; for the Air Force, which included federal supply classes in the lease data provided, the two federal supply classes most prevalent in the lease data and for FWS, which did not include federal supply class in the lease data provided, the two federal supply classes most prevalent in the purchase data; and for FWS, leases over $15,000  After selecting these acquisitions, we determined that one FWS lease and one NPS purchase we selected pre-dated Interior’s 2013 guidance on lease-versus-purchase analysis and excluded these acquisitions from our analysis for a total of eight acquisitions  In reviewing agencies’ documentation related to these acquisitions, we developed a data collection instrument to assess the extent to which agencies documented lease-versus-purchase analyses and, in the case of FWS and NPS, adhered to relevant Interior guidance  We supplemented our review of these acquisition decisions with additional information by interviewing officials at the three selected agencies and requesting additional information to understand specific circumstances surrounding each procurement  Our findings are not generalizable across the federal government or within each selected department  To determine how selected agencies manage heavy equipment utilization, we interviewed officials at the three selected agencies to identify departmental and agency-specific guidance and policies and to determine whether utilization requirements exist  We reviewed guidance identified by these officials, including Interior and Air Force vehicle guidance, both of which apply to heavy equipment, and FWS’s Heavy Equipment Utilization and Replacement Handbook  We also compared their practices to relevant Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  For the selected agencies with guidance for managing heavy equipment—Air Force and FWS—we reviewed the guidance to determine if and how selected agencies measured and documented heavy equipment utilization  For example, we reviewed whether selected agencies developed reports for managing heavy equipment utilization such as Air Force validation reports and FWS conditional assessment reports  We also reviewed Air Force, FWS, and NPS utilization data for heavy equipment but we did not independently calculate or verify the utilization rate for individual heavy equipment items because each heavy equipment item (backhoe, forklift, tractor, etc ,) has different utilization requirements depending on various factors such as the brand, model, or age of equipment  However, we did request information about agency procedures to develop and verify utilization rates  We assessed the reliability of the utilization data with agency official interviews and a review of the data for completeness and potential outliers  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of providing evidence of utilization data collection for heavy equipment assets  We also visited the NPS George Washington Memorial Parkway to interview equipment maintenance officials regarding the procurement and management of heavy equipment and to document photos of heavy equipment  We selected this site because of its range of heavy equipment and close proximity to the Capital region  We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to February 2018 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  In addition to the individual named above, John W  Shumann (Assistant Director), Rebecca Rygg (Analyst in Charge), Nelsie Alcoser, Melissa Bodeau, Terence Lam, Ying Long, Josh Ormond, Kelly Rubin, Crystal Wesco, and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report 


Report 2:  Thus, the agency should be better positioned to realize the benefits of incremental development practices, such as reducing investment risk, delivering capabilities more rapidly, and permitting easier adoption of emerging technologies  IT acquisitions  FITARA includes a provision to enhance covered agency CIOs’ authority through, among other things, requiring agency heads to ensure that CIOs review and approve IT contracts  OMB’s FITARA implementation guidance expanded upon this aspect of the legislation in a number of ways  Specifically, according to the guidance, CIOs may review and approve IT acquisition strategies and plans, rather than individual IT contracts, and CIOs can designate other agency officials to act as their representatives  In January 2018, we reported that most of the CIOs at 22 selected agencies, including SSA, were not adequately involved in reviewing and approving billions of dollars of IT acquisitions  In particular, we found that SSA’s process to identify IT acquisitions for CIO review did not involve the acquisition office, as required by OMB  In addition, we noted that SSA had a CIO review and approval process in place that fully satisfied the requirements set forth in OMB’s guidance  However, while SSA provided evidence of the CIO’s review of most of the IT contracts we examined, the agency had not ensured that the CIO or a designee reviewed and approved each IT acquisition plan or strategy  Specifically, of 10 randomly selected IT contracts that we examined at SSA, 7 acquisitions associated with those contracts had been reviewed and approved, as required by OMB  We pointed out that, until SSA ensured that its CIO or designee reviewed and approved all IT acquisitions, the agency would have limited visibility and input into its planned IT expenditures and would not be effectively positioned to benefit from the increased authority that FITARA’s contract approval provision is intended to provide  Further, the agency could miss an opportunity to strengthen the CIO’s authority and the oversight of IT acquisitions—thus, increasing the potential to award IT contracts that are duplicative, wasteful, or poorly conceived  Accordingly, we made three recommendations to SSA to address these weaknesses  As of September 2018, the agency had made progress by implementing two of the recommendations: to ensure that (1) the acquisition office is involved in identifying IT acquisitions and (2) the CIO or designee reviews and approves IT acquisitions according to OMB guidance  By taking these actions, SSA should be better positioned to properly identify and provide oversight of IT acquisitions  However, SSA has not yet implemented our third recommendation that it issue guidance to assist in the identification of IT acquisitions  SSA stated that, in September 2017, it updated its policy for acquisition plan approval to address this recommendation; however, upon review of this policy, we did not find guidance for identifying IT acquisitions  Without the proper identification of IT acquisitions, SSA’s CIO cannot effectively provide oversight of these acquisitions  Software licenses  Federal agencies engage in thousands of software licensing agreements annually  The objective of software license management is to manage, control, and protect an organization’s software assets  Effective management of these licenses can help avoid purchasing too many licenses, which can result in unused software, as well as too few licenses, which can result in noncompliance with license terms and cause the imposition of additional fees  As part of its PortfolioStat initiative, OMB has developed policy that addresses software licenses  This policy requires agencies to conduct an annual, agency-wide IT portfolio review to, among other things, reduce commodity IT spending  Such areas of spending could include software licenses  In May 2014, we reported on federal agencies’ management of software licenses and determined that better management was needed to achieve significant savings government-wide  Of the 24 agencies we reviewed, SSA was 1 of 22 that lacked comprehensive policies that incorporated leading practices  In particular, SSA’s policy partially met four of the leading practices and did not meet one  Further, we noted that SSA was among 22 of the 24 selected agencies that had not established comprehensive software license inventories—a leading practice that would help the agencies to adequately manage their software licenses  As such, we made six recommendations to SSA to improve its policies and practices for managing software licenses  These included recommendations that the agency develop a comprehensive policy for the management of software licenses and establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses  SSA agreed with the recommendations and, as of September 2018, had implemented all six of them  As a result, the agency should be better positioned to manage its software licenses and identify opportunities for reducing software license costs  While SSA has taken steps that improved its IT management in the areas of data center consolidation, incremental development, IT acquisitions, and software licenses, we reported in August 2018 that the agency had not fully addressed the role of the CIO in its policies  As previously mentioned, FITARA and the President Executive Order 13833, among other laws and guidance, outline the roles and responsibilities for agency CIOs in an attempt to improve the government’s performance in IT and related information management functions  Within these laws and guidance, we identified IT management responsibilities assigned to CIOs in six key IT areas: Leadership and accountability  CIOs are responsible and accountable for the effective implementation of IT management responsibilities  For example, CIOs are to report directly to the agency head or that official’s deputy and designate a senior agency information security officer  Strategic planning  CIOs are required to lead the strategic planning for all IT management functions  An example of a CIO requirement related to the strategic planning area is measuring how well IT supports agency programs and reporting annually on the progress in achieving the goals  IT workforce  CIOs are to assess agency IT workforce needs and develop strategies and plans for meeting those needs  For example, CIOs are responsible for annually assessing the extent to which agency personnel meet IT management knowledge and skill requirements, developing strategies to address deficiencies, and reporting to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving these capabilities  IT budgeting  CIOs are responsible for the processes for all annual and multi-year IT planning, programming, and budgeting decisions  For example, CIOs are to have a significant role in IT planning, programming, and budgeting decisions  IT investment management  CIOs are to manage, evaluate, and assess how well the agency is managing its IT resources  In particular, CIOs are required to improve the management of the agency’s IT through portfolio review  Information security  CIOs are to establish, implement, and ensure compliance with an agency-wide information security program  For example, CIOs are required to develop and maintain an agency-wide security program, policies, procedures, and control techniques  In our August 2018 report, we noted that SSA, along with 23 other agencies, did not have policies that fully addressed the role of the CIO in these six key areas, consistent with the laws and guidance  To its credit, SSA had fully addressed the role of the CIO in the IT leadership and accountability area  In particular, the agency’s policies addressed the requirements that the CIO report directly to the agency head, assume responsibility and accountability for IT investments, and designate a senior agency information security officer  However, the policies did not fully address the role of the CIO in the other five areas (i e , strategic planning, workforce, budgeting, investment management, and information security)  For example, the agency’s policies did not address the IT workforce area at all, including the requirements that the CIO annually assess the extent to which agency personnel meet IT management knowledge and skill requirements, develop strategies to address deficiencies, and report to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving these capabilities  Further, SSA’s policies minimally addressed the requirements for IT strategic planning  Specifically, while the agency’s policies required the CIO to establish goals for improving agency operations through IT, the policies did not require the CIO to measure how well IT supports agency programs and report annually on the progress in achieving the goals  Table 1 summarizes the extent to which SSA’s policies addressed the role of its CIO, as reflected in our August 2018 report  As a result of these findings, we made a recommendation to SSA to address the weaknesses in its policies with regard to the remaining five key management areas  In response, the agency agreed with our recommendation and, subsequently, stated that it planned to do so by the end of September 2018  Following through to ensure that the identified weaknesses are addressed in its policies will be essential to helping SSA overcome its longstanding IT management challenges  In conclusion, effective IT management is critical to the performance of SSA’s mission  Toward this end, the agency has taken steps to improve its management of IT acquisitions and operations by implementing 14 of the 15 recommendations we made from 2011 through 2018 to improve its IT management  Nevertheless, SSA would be better positioned to effectively address longstanding IT management challenges by ensuring that it has policies in place that fully address the role and responsibilities of its CIO in the five key management areas, as we previously recommended  Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Larson, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have  If you or your staffs have any questions about this testimony, please contact Carol C  Harris at (202) 512-4456 or harriscc@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this statement are Kevin Walsh (Assistant Director), Jessica Waselkow (Analyst in Charge), and Rebecca Eyler  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, 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 

ground_truth: SSA delivers services that touch the lives of almost every American, and relies heavily on IT resources to do so. Its systems support a range of activities, such as processing Disability Insurance payments, to calculating and withholding Medicare premiums, and issuing Social Security numbers and cards. For fiscal year 2018, the agency planned to spend approximately $1.6 billion on IT. GAO has previously reported that federal IT projects have often failed, in part, due to a lack of oversight and governance. Given the challenges that federal agencies, including SSA, have encountered in managing IT acquisitions, Congress and the administration have taken steps to improve federal IT, including enacting federal IT acquisition reform legislation and issuing related guidance. This statement summarizes GAO's previously reported findings regarding SSA's management of IT acquisitions and operations. In developing this testimony, GAO summarized findings from its reports issued in 2011 through 2018, and information on SSA's actions in response to GAO's recommendations. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has improved its management of information technology (IT) acquisitions and operations by addressing 14 of the 15 recommendations that GAO has made to the agency. For example, Incremental development . The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized the need for agencies to deliver IT investments in smaller increments to reduce risk and deliver capabilities more quickly. In November 2017, GAO reported that agencies, including SSA, needed to improve their certification of incremental development. As a result, GAO recommended that SSA's CIO (1) report incremental development information accurately, and (2) update its incremental development policy and processes. SSA implemented both recommendations. Software licenses . Effective management of software licenses can help avoid purchasing too many licenses that result in unused software. In May 2014, GAO reported that most agencies, including SSA, lacked comprehensive software license policies. As a result, GAO made six recommendations to SSA, to include developing a comprehensive software licenses policy and inventory. SSA implemented all six recommendations. However, SSA's IT management policies have not fully addressed the role of its CIO. Various laws and related guidance assign IT management responsibilities to CIOs in six key areas. In August 2018, GAO reported that SSA had fully addressed the role of the CIO in one of the six areas (see table). Specifically, SSA's policies fully addressed the CIO's role in the IT leadership and accountability area by requiring the CIO to report directly to the agency head, among other things. In contrast, SSA's policies did not address or minimally addressed the IT workforce and IT strategic planning areas. For example, SSA's policies did not include requirements for the CIO to annually assess the extent to which personnel meet IT management skill requirements or to measure how well IT supports agency programs. GAO recommended that SSA address the weaknesses in the remaining five key areas. SSA agreed with GAO's recommendation and stated that the agency plans to implement the recommendation by the end of this month. GAO has made 15 recommendations to SSA to improve its management of IT acquisitions and operations from 2011 through 2018, and 1 recommendation to improve its CIO policies. While SSA has implemented nearly all of them, it would be better positioned to overcome longstanding IT management challenges when it addresses the CIO's role in its policies.