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



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

Report 1: According to the President’s budget, the federal government plans to invest more than $96 billion for IT in fiscal year 2018—the largest amount ever budgeted  Despite such large IT expenditures, we have previously reported that investments in federal IT too often result in failed projects that incur cost overruns and schedule slippages, while contributing little to the desired mission-related outcomes  For example: The tri-agency National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System was disbanded in February 2010 by the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy after the program spent 16 years and almost $5 billion  The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secure Border Initiative Network program was ended in January 2011, after the department obligated more than $1 billion for the program  The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise program was intended to be delivered by 2014 at a total estimated cost of $609 million, but was terminated in October 2011  The Department of Defense’s Expeditionary Combat Support System was canceled in December 2012 after spending more than a billion dollars and failing to deploy within 5 years of initially obligating funds  The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) decided to terminate its Integrated Health Information System project in 2015  As reported by the agency in August 2017, the Coast Guard spent approximately $60 million over 7 years on this project, which resulted in no equipment or software that could be used for future efforts  Our past work has found that these and other failed IT projects often suffered from a lack of disciplined and effective management, such as project planning, requirements definition, and program oversight and governance  In many instances, agencies had not consistently applied best practices that are critical to successfully acquiring IT  Such projects have also failed due to a lack of oversight and governance  Executive-level governance and oversight across the government has often been ineffective, specifically from CIOs  For example, we have reported that some CIOs’ roles were limited because they did not have the authority to review and approve the entire agency IT portfolio  In addition to failures when acquiring IT, security deficiencies can threaten systems once they become operational  As we previously reported, in order to counter security threats, 23 civilian Chief Financial Officers Act agencies spent a combined total of approximately $4 billion on IT security-related activities in fiscal year 2016  Even so, our cybersecurity work at federal agencies continues to highlight information security deficiencies  The following examples describe the types of risks we have found at federal agencies  In November 2017, we reported that the Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid did not consistently analyze privacy risks for its electronic information systems, and policies and procedures for protecting information systems were not always up to date  In August 2017, we reported that, since the 2015 data breaches, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had taken actions to prevent, mitigate, and respond to data breaches involving sensitive personal and background investigation information  However, we noted that the agency had not fully implemented recommendations made to OPM by DHS’s United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team to help the agency improve its overall security posture and improve its ability to protect its systems and information from security breaches  In July 2017, we reported that IT security at the Internal Revenue Service had weaknesses that limited its effectiveness in protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of financial and sensitive taxpayer data  An underlying reason for these weaknesses was that the Internal Revenue Service had not effectively implemented elements of its information security program  In May 2016, we reported that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, and the Department of Veteran Affairs did not always control access to selected high-impact systems, patch known software vulnerabilities, and plan for contingencies  An underlying reason for these weaknesses was that the agencies had not fully implemented key elements of their information security programs  In August 2016, we reported that the IT security of the Food and Drug Administration had significant weaknesses that jeopardized the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its information systems and industry and public health data  Congress and the President have enacted various key pieces of reform legislation to address IT management issues  These include the federal IT acquisition reform legislation commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA)  This legislation was intended to improve covered agencies’ acquisitions of IT and enable Congress to monitor agencies’ progress and hold them accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings  The law includes specific requirements related to seven areas: Agency CIO authority enhancements  CIOs at covered agencies have the authority to, among other things, (1) approve the IT budget requests of their respective agencies and (2) review and approve IT contracts  Federal data center consolidation initiative (FDCCI)  Agencies covered by FITARA are required, among other things, to provide a strategy for consolidating and optimizing their data centers and issue quarterly updates on the progress made  Enhanced transparency and improved risk management  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and covered agencies are to make detailed information on federal IT investments publicly available, and agency CIOs are to categorize their investments by level of risk  Portfolio review  Covered agencies are to annually review IT investment portfolios in order to, among other things, increase efficiency and effectiveness and identify potential waste and duplication  Expansion of training and use of IT acquisition cadres  Covered agencies are to update their acquisition human capital plans to support timely and effective IT acquisitions  In doing so, the law calls for agencies to consider, among other things, establishing IT acquisition cadres (i e , multi-functional groups of professionals to acquire and manage complex programs), or developing agreements with other agencies that have such cadres  Government-wide software purchasing program  The General Services Administration is to develop a strategic sourcing initiative to enhance government-wide acquisition and management of software  In doing so, the law requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, the General Services Administration should allow for the purchase of a software license agreement that is available for use by all executive branch agencies as a single user  Maximizing the benefit of the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative  Federal agencies are required to compare their purchases of services and supplies to what is offered under the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative  In June 2015, OMB released guidance describing how agencies are to implement FITARA  This guidance is intended to, among other things: assist agencies in aligning their IT resources with statutory establish government-wide IT management controls to meet the law’s requirements, while providing agencies with flexibility to adapt to unique agency processes and requirements; strengthen the relationship between agency CIOs and bureau CIOs; strengthen CIO accountability for IT costs, schedules, performance, and security  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  For example, agencies are to conduct a self-assessment and submit a plan describing the changes they intend to make to ensure that common baseline responsibilities are implemented  In addition, in August 2016, OMB released guidance intended to, among other things, define a framework for achieving the data center consolidation and optimization requirements of FITARA  The guidance directs 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 costs savings and optimization performance information for the agencies  Congress has recognized the importance of agencies’ continued implementation of FITARA provisions, and has taken legislative action to extend selected provisions beyond their original dates of expiration  Specifically, Congress and the President enacted laws to: remove the expiration date for enhanced transparency and improved risk management provisions, which were set to expire in 2019; remove the expiration date for portfolio review, which was set to expire in 2019; and extend the expiration date for FDCCI from 2018 to 2020  In addition, Congress and the President enacted a law to authorize the availability of funding mechanisms to help further agencies’ efforts to modernize IT  The law, known as the Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act, authorizes agencies to establish working capital funds for use in transitioning from legacy IT systems, as well as for addressing evolving threats to information security  The law also creates the Technology Modernization Fund, within the Department of the Treasury, from which agencies can “borrow” money to retire and replace legacy systems, as well as acquire or develop systems  Further, in February 2018, OMB issued guidance for agencies to implement the MGT Act  The guidance was intended to provide agencies additional information regarding the Technology Modernization Fund, and the administration and funding of the related IT working capital funds  Specifically, the guidance allowed agencies to begin submitting initial project proposals for modernization on February 27, 2018  In addition, in accordance with the MGT Act, the guidance provides details regarding a Technology Modernization Board, which is to consist of (1) the Federal CIO; (2) a senior official from the General Services Administration; (3) a member of DHS’s National Protection and Program Directorate; and (4) four federal employees with technical expertise in IT development, financial management, cybersecurity and privacy, and acquisition, appointed by the Director of OMB  Congress and the President enacted the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) to improve federal cybersecurity and clarify government-wide responsibilities  The act addresses the increasing sophistication of cybersecurity attacks, promotes the use of automated security tools with the ability to continuously monitor and diagnose the security posture of federal agencies, and provides for improved oversight of federal agencies’ information security programs  Specifically, the act clarifies and assigns additional responsibilities to entities such as OMB, DHS, and the federal agencies  Table 1 describes a selection of OMB, DHS, and agency responsibilities  Beyond the implementation of FITARA, FISMA, and related actions, the current administration has also initiated other efforts intended to improve federal IT  Specifically, in March 2017, the administration established the Office of American Innovation, which has a mission to, among other things, make recommendations to the President on policies and plans aimed at improving federal government operations and services  In doing so, the office is to consult with both OMB and the Office of Science and Technology Policy on policies and plans intended to improve government operations and services, improve the quality of life for Americans, and spur job creation  In May 2017, the Administration also established the American Technology Council, which has a goal of helping to transform and modernize federal agency IT and how the federal government uses and delivers digital services  The President is the chairman of this council, and the Federal CIO and the United States Digital Service Administrator are among the members  In addition, on May 11, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13800, Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure  This executive order outlined actions to enhance cybersecurity across federal agencies and critical infrastructure to improve the nation’s cyber posture and capabilities against cyber security threats  Among other things, the order tasked the Director of the American Technology Council to coordinate a report to the President from the Secretary of DHS, the Director of OMB, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, regarding the modernization of federal IT  As a result, the Report to the President on Federal IT Modernization was issued on December 13, 2017, and outlined the current and envisioned state of federal IT  The report focused on modernization efforts to improve the security posture of federal IT and recognized that agencies have attempted to modernize systems but have been stymied by a variety of factors, including resource prioritization, ability to procure services quickly, and technical issues  The report provided multiple recommendations intended to address these issues through the modernization and consolidation of networks and the use of shared services to enable future network architectures  Further, in March 2018, the Administration issued the President’s Management Agenda, which lays out a long-term vision for modernizing the federal government  The agenda identifies three related drivers of transformation—IT modernization; data, accountability, and transparency; and the workforce of the future—that are intended to push change across the federal government  The Administration also established 14 related Cross-Agency Priority goals, many of which have elements that involve IT  In particular, the Cross-Agency Priority goal on IT modernization states that modern IT must function as the backbone of how government serves the public in the digital age and provides three priorities that are to guide the Administration’s efforts to modernize federal IT: (1) enhancing mission effectiveness by improving the quality and efficiency of critical services, including the increased utilization of cloud-based solutions; (2) reducing cybersecurity risks to the federal mission by leveraging current commercial capabilities and implementing cutting edge cybersecurity capabilities; and (3) building a modern IT workforce by recruiting, reskilling, and retaining professionals able to help drive modernization with up-to-date technology  Most 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 IT systems, execute IT programs more efficiently, and reduce cybersecurity risks  The order pertains to 22 of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies: the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are exempt  For the covered agencies, the executive order strengthens the role of agency CIOs by, among other things, requiring to report directly to their agency head; to serve as their 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 the February 2017 update to our high-risk series, we reported that agencies still needed to complete significant work related to the management of IT acquisitions and operations We stressed that OMB and federal agencies should continue to expeditiously implement FITARA and OMB’s related guidance, which include enhancing CIO authority, consolidating data centers, and acquiring and managing software licenses  Our update to this high-risk area also stressed that OMB and agencies needed to continue to implement our prior recommendations in order to improve their ability to effectively and efficiently invest in IT  Specifically, from fiscal years 2010 through 2015, we made 803 recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to address shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations  In addition, in fiscal year 2016, we made 202 new recommendations, thus, further reinforcing the need for OMB and agencies to address the shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations  As stated in the update, OMB and agencies should demonstrate government-wide progress in the management of IT investments by, among other things, implementing at least 80 percent of our recommendations related to managing IT acquisitions and operations within 4 years  As of May 2018, OMB and agencies had fully implemented 489 (or about 61 percent) of the 803 recommendations  Figure 1 summarizes the progress that OMB and agencies have made in addressing our recommendations as compared to the 80 percent target  Overall, federal agencies would be better positioned to realize billions in cost savings and additional management improvements if they address these recommendations, including those aimed at implementing CIO responsibilities, review of IT acquisitions; improving data center consolidation; and managing software licenses  In all, the various laws, such as FITARA, and related guidance assign 35 IT management responsibilities to CIOs in six key areas  These areas are: leadership and accountability, budgeting, information security, investment management, workforce, and strategic planning  In a draft report on CIO responsibilities that we have provided to the agencies for comment and plan to issue in June 2018, our preliminary results suggest that none of the 24 agencies we reviewed had policies that fully addressed the role of their CIO, as called for by federal laws and guidance  In this regard, a majority of the agencies fully or substantially addressed the role of their CIOs for the area of leadership and accountability  In addition, a majority of the agencies substantially or partially addressed the role of their CIOs for two areas: information security and IT budgeting  However, most agencies partially or minimally addressed the role of their CIOs for two areas: investment management and strategic planning  These preliminary results are shown in figure 2  Despite these shortfalls, most agency officials stated that their CIOs are implementing the responsibilities even if the agencies do not have policies requiring implementation  Nevertheless, the CIOs of the 24 selected agencies acknowledged in responses to a survey that we administered for our draft report that they were not always very effective in implementing the six IT management areas  Specifically, our preliminary results show that at least 10 of the CIOs indicated that they were less than very effective for each of the six areas of responsibility  We believe that until agencies fully address the role of CIOs in their policies, agencies will be limited in addressing longstanding IT management challenges  Figure 3 depicts that extent to which the CIOs reported their effectiveness in implementing the six areas of responsibility  Beyond the actions of the agencies, however, our preliminary results indicate that shortcomings in agencies’ policies also are partially attributable to two weaknesses in OMB’s FITARA implementation guidance  First, the guidance does not comprehensively address all CIO responsibilities, such as those related to assessing the extent to which personnel meet IT management knowledge and skill requirements, and ensuring that personnel are held accountable for complying with the information security program  Correspondingly, the majority of the agencies’ policies did not fully address nearly all of the responsibilities that were not included in OMB’s guidance  Second, OMB’s guidance does not ensure that CIOs have a significant role in (1) IT planning, programming, and budgeting decisions and (2) execution decisions and the management, governance, and oversight processes related to IT, as required by federal law and guidance  In the absence of comprehensive guidance, CIOs will not be positioned to effectively acquire, maintain, and secure their IT systems  Based on our preliminary results, 24 agency CIOs also identified a number of factors that enabled and challenged their ability to effectively manage IT  As shown in figure 4, five factors were identified by at least half of the 24 CIOs as major enablers and three factors were identified by at least half of the CIOs as major challenges  Specifically, most agency CIOs cited five factors as being enablers to effectively carry out their responsibilities: (1) NIST guidance, (2) the CIO’s position in the agency hierarchy, (3) OMB guidance, (4) coordination with the Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO), and (5) legal authority  Further, three factors were cited by CIOs as major factors that have challenged their ability to effectively carry out responsibilities: (1) processes for hiring, recruiting, and retaining IT personnel; (2) financial resources; and (3) the availability of personnel/staff resources  As our draft report states, although OMB has issued guidance aimed at addressing the three factors that were identified by at least half of the CIOs as major challenges, the guidance does not fully address those challenges  Further, regarding the financial resources challenge, OMB recently required agencies to provide data on CIO authority over IT spending; however, its guidance does not provide a complete definition of the authority  We believe that in the absence of such guidance, agencies have created varying definitions of CIO authority  Further, until OMB updates its guidance to include a complete definition of the authority that CIOs are to have over IT spending, it will be difficult for OMB to identify any deficiencies in this area and to help agencies make any needed improvements  In order to address challenges in implementing CIO responsibilities, we intend to include in our draft report recommendations to OMB and each of the selected 24 federal agencies to improve the effectiveness of CIOs’ implementation of their responsibilities for each of the six IT management areas  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; CIOs can designate other agency officials to act as their representatives, but the CIOs must retain accountability; CAOs are responsible for ensuring that all IT contract actions are consistent with CIO-approved acquisition strategies and plans; and CAOs are to indicate to the CIOs when planned acquisition strategies and acquisition plans include IT  In January 2018, we reported that most of the CIOs at 22 selected agencies were not adequately involved in reviewing billions of dollars of IT acquisitions  For instance, most of the 22 agencies did not identify all of their IT contracts  In this regard, the agencies identified 78,249 IT- related contracts, to which they obligated $14 7 billion in fiscal year 2016  However, we identified 31,493 additional contracts with $4 5 billion obligated, raising the total amount obligated by these agencies to IT contracts in fiscal year 2016 to at least $19 2 billion  Figure 5 reflects the obligations that the 22 selected agencies reported to us relative to the obligations we identified  The percentage of additional IT contract obligations we identified varied among the selected agencies  For example, the Department of State did not identify 1 percent of its IT contract obligations  Conversely, 8 agencies did not identify over 40 percent of their IT contract obligations  Many of the selected agencies that did not identify these IT contract obligations did not follow OMB guidance  Specifically, 14 of the 22 agencies did not involve the acquisition office in their process to identify IT acquisitions for CIO review, as required by OMB  In addition, 7 agencies did not establish guidance to aid officials in recognizing IT  We concluded that until these agencies involve the acquisitions office in their IT acquisition identification processes and establish supporting guidance, they cannot ensure that they will identify all IT acquisitions  Without proper identification of IT acquisitions, these agencies and CIOs cannot effectively provide oversight of these acquisitions  In addition to not identifying all IT contracts, 14 of the 22 selected agencies did not fully satisfy OMB’s requirement that the CIO review and approve IT acquisition plans or strategies  Further, only 11 of 96 randomly selected IT contracts at 10 agencies that we evaluated were CIO-reviewed and approved as required by OMB’s guidance  The 85 IT contracts not reviewed had a total possible value of approximately $23 8 billion  We believe that until agencies ensure that CIOs are able to review and approve all IT acquisitions, CIOs will continue to have limited visibility and input into their agencies’ planned IT expenditures and will not be able to use the increased authority that FITARA’s contract approval provision is intended to provide  Further, agencies will likely miss an opportunity to strengthen CIOs’ authority and the oversight of IT acquisitions  As a result, agencies may award IT contracts that are duplicative, wasteful, or poorly conceived  As a result of these findings, we made 39 recommendations in our January 2018 report  The recommendations included that agencies ensure that their acquisition offices are involved in identifying IT acquisitions and issuing related guidance, and that IT acquisitions are reviewed in accordance with OMB guidance  OMB and the majority of the agencies generally agreed with or did not comment on the recommendations  In our February 2017 high-risk update, we stated that OMB and agencies needed to demonstrate additional progress on achieving data center consolidation savings in order to improve the management of IT acquisitions and operations  Further, data center consolidation efforts are key to implementing FITARA  Specifically, OMB established the FDCCI 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 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 several areas, including agencies’ data center consolidation plans, data center optimization, and OMB’s tracking and reporting on related cost savings  In these reports, we made a total of 160 recommendations to OMB and 24 agencies to improve the execution and oversight of the initiative  Most agencies and OMB agreed with our recommendations or had no comments  As of May 2018, 80 of these 160 recommendations remained unimplemented  Further, we recently reported in May 2018 that the 24 agencies participating in OMB’s Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) had communicated mixed progress toward achieving OMB’s goals for closing data centers by September 2018  Over half of the agencies reported that they had either already met, or planned to meet, all of their OMB- assigned goals by the deadline  This would result in the closure of 7,221 of the 12,062 centers that agencies reported in August 2017  However, 4 agencies reported that they do not have plans to meet all of their assigned goals and 2 agencies are working with OMB to establish revised targets  With regard to agencies’ progress in achieving cost savings, 24 agencies reported $3 9 billion in cost savings through 2018  The 24 agencies also reported limited progress against OMB’s five data center optimization targets for server utilization and automated monitoring, energy metering, power usage effectiveness, facility utilization, and virtualization  As of August 2017, 1 agency reported that it had met four targets, 1 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  Further, as of August 2017, most agencies were not planning to meet OMB’s fiscal year 2018 optimization targets  Specifically, 4 agencies reported plans to meet all of their applicable targets by the end of fiscal year 2018; 14 agencies reported plans to meet some of the targets; and 4 reported that they did not plan to meet any targets  Figure 6 summarizes agency-reported plans to meet or exceed the OMB’s data center optimization targets, as of August 2017  In 2016 and 2017, we made 81 recommendations to OMB and the 24 DCOI agencies to help improve the reporting of data center-related cost savings and to achieve optimization targets  As of May 2018, 71 of these 81 recommendations have not been fully addressed  In our 2015 high-risk report’s discussion of IT acquisitions and operations, we identified the management of software licenses as an area of concern, in part because of the potential for cost savings  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 selected agencies we reviewed, only 2 had comprehensive policies that included the establishment of clear roles and central oversight authority for managing enterprise software license agreements, among other things  Of the remaining 22 agencies, 18 had policies that were not comprehensive, and 4 had not developed any policies  Further, we found that only 2 of the 24 selected agencies had established comprehensive software license inventories, a leading practice that would help them to adequately manage their software licenses  The inadequate implementation of this and other leading practices in software license management was partially due to weaknesses in agencies’ policies  As a result, we concluded that agencies’ oversight of software license spending was limited or lacking, thus potentially leading to missed savings  However, the potential savings could be significant considering that, in fiscal year 2012, 1 major federal agency reported saving approximately $181 million by consolidating its enterprise license agreements, even when its oversight process was ad hoc  Accordingly, we recommended that OMB issue a directive to help guide agencies in managing software licenses  We also made 135 recommendations to the 24 agencies to improve their policies and practices for managing licenses  Among other things, we recommended that the agencies regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software licenses and analyze the inventory to identify opportunities to reduce costs and better inform investment decision making  Most agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no comments  As of May 2018, 78 of the 135 recommendations had not been implemented  Table 2 reflects the extent to which the 24 agencies implemented the recommendations in these two areas  Since information security was added to the high-risk list in 1997, we have consistently identified shortcomings in the federal government’s approach to cybersecurity  We have previously testified that, even though agencies have acted to improve the protections over federal and critical infrastructure information and information systems, the federal government needs to take the following actions to strengthen U S  cybersecurity: Effectively implement risk-based entity-wide information security programs consistently over time  Among other things, agencies need to (1) implement sustainable processes for securely configuring operating systems, applications, workstations, servers, and network devices; (2) patch vulnerable systems and replace unsupported software; (3) develop comprehensive security test and evaluation procedures and conduct examinations on a regular and recurring basis; and (4) strengthen oversight of contractors providing IT services  Improve its cyber incident detection, response, and mitigation capabilities  DHS needs to expand the capabilities and support wider adoption of its government-wide intrusion detection and prevention system  In addition, the federal government needs to improve cyber incident response practices, update guidance on reporting data breaches, and develop consistent responses to breaches of personally identifiable information  Expand its cyber workforce planning and training efforts  The federal government needs to (1) enhance efforts for recruiting and retaining a qualified cybersecurity workforce and (2) improve cybersecurity workforce planning activities  Expand efforts to strengthen cybersecurity of the nation’s critical infrastructures  The federal government needs to develop metrics to (1) assess the effectiveness of efforts promoting the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity and (2) measure and report on the effectiveness of cyber risk mitigation activities and the cybersecurity posture of critical infrastructure sectors  Better oversee protection of personally identifiable information  The federal government needs to (1) protect the security and privacy of electronic health information, (2) ensure privacy when face recognition systems are used, and (3) protect the privacy of users’ data on state-based health insurance marketplaces  As we have previously noted, in order to take the preceding actions and strengthen the federal government’s cybersecurity posture, agencies should implement the information security programs required by FISMA  In this regard, FISMA provides a framework for ensuring the effectiveness of information security controls for federal information resources  The law requires each agency to develop, document, and implement an agency- wide information security program  Such a program includes risk assessments; the development and implementation of policies and procedures to cost-effectively reduce risks; plans for providing adequate information security for networks, facilities, and systems; security awareness and specialized training; the testing and evaluation of the effectiveness of controls; the planning, implementation, evaluation, and documentation of remedial actions to address information security deficiencies; procedures for detecting, reporting, and responding to security incidents; and plans and procedures to ensure continuity of operations  Since 2010, we have made 2,733 recommendations to agencies aimed at improving the security of federal systems and information  These recommendations have identified actions for agencies to take to strengthen technical security controls over their computer networks and systems  They also have included recommendations for agencies to fully implement aspects of their information security programs, as mandated by FISMA  Nevertheless, many agencies continue to be challenged in safeguarding their information systems and information, in part because many of these recommendations have not been implemented  As of May 2018, 793 of information security-related recommendations we have made have not been implemented  In order to determine the effectiveness of the agencies’ information security programs and practices, FISMA requires that federal agencies’ inspectors general conduct annual independent evaluations  The agencies are to report the results of these evaluations to OMB, and OMB is to summarize the results in annual reports to Congress  In these evaluations, the inspectors general frame the scope of their analysis, identify key findings, and detail recommendations to address the findings  The evaluations also are to capture maturity model ratings for their respective agencies  Toward this end, in fiscal year 2017, the inspector general community, in partnership with OMB and DHS, finalized a 3-year effort to create a maturity model for FISMA metrics that align to the five function areas in the NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (Cybersecurity Framework): identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover  This alignment is intended to help promote consistent and comparable metrics and criteria and provides agencies with a meaningful independent assessment of their information security programs  This maturity model is designed to summarize the status of agencies’ information security programs on a five-level capability maturity scale  The five maturity levels are defined as follows: Level 1 Ad-hoc: Policies, procedures, and strategy are not formalized; activities are performed in an ad-hoc, reactive manner  Level 2 Defined: Policies, procedures, and strategy are formalized and documented but not consistently implemented  Level 3 Consistently Implemented: Policies, procedures, and strategy are consistently implemented, but quantitative and qualitative effectiveness measures are lacking  Level 4 Managed and Measurable: Quantitative and qualitative measures on the effectiveness of policies, procedures, and strategy are collected across the organizations and used to assess them and make necessary changes  Level 5 Optimized: Policies, procedures, and strategy are fully institutionalized, repeatable, self-generating, consistently implemented and regularly updated based on a changing threat and technology landscape and business/mission needs  In March 2018, OMB issued its annual FISMA report to Congress, which showed the combined results of the inspectors general’s fiscal year 2017 evaluations  Based on data from 76 agency inspector general and independent auditor assessments, OMB determined that the government-wide median maturity model ratings across the five NIST Cybersecurity Framework areas did not exceed a level 3 (consistently implemented)  Table 3 shows the inspectors general’s median ratings for each of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework areas  In its efforts toward strengthening the federal government’s cybersecurity, OMB also requires agencies to submit related cybersecurity metrics as part of its Cross-Agency Priority goals  In particular, OMB developed the IT modernization goal so that federal agencies will be able to build and maintain more modern, secure, and resilient IT  A key part of this goal is to reduce cybersecurity risks to the federal mission through three strategies: manage asset security, protect networks and data, and limit personnel access  The key targets supporting each of these strategies correspond to areas within the FISMA metrics  Table 4 outlines the strategies and their associated targets  In conclusion, FITARA and FISMA present opportunities for the federal government to address the high-risk areas on improving the management of IT acquisitions and operations, and ensuring the security of federal IT, thereby saving billions of dollars  Most agencies have taken steps to execute key IT management and cybersecurity initiatives, including implementing CIO responsibilities, requiring CIO review of IT acquisitions, realizing data center consolidation cost savings, managing software assets, and complying with FISMA requirements  The agencies have also continued to address the recommendations that we have made over the past several years  However, further efforts by OMB and federal agencies to implement our previous recommendations would better position them to improve the management and security of federal IT  To help ensure that these efforts succeed, we will continue to monitor agencies’ efforts toward implementing these recommendations  Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, and Members of the Subcommittees, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact David A  Powner, Director, Information Technology, at (202) 512- 9286 or pownerd@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Kevin Walsh (Assistant Director), Chris Businsky, Rebecca Eyler, Meredith Raymond, and Jessica Waselkow (Analyst in Charge)  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 


Report 2:  According to an Air Force analysis, doing so would achieve savings of over $67 million as it replaces or retires devices  As of July 2018, the Air Force had not fully implemented this guidance  Efforts by the military services to demonstrate that they have achieved print device reduction goals have been limited because they have not monitored the actions they have taken to reduce the number of print devices  Military service officials we interviewed said they were unaware of any efforts by the DOD CIO to ensure that device reductions occurred and that DOD components achieved their planned savings, such as providing information to the CIO on the status of their efforts to implement the guidance in the memorandum or data on reductions in the number of devices  Standards for internal control state that management should implement control activities through policies that use quality information to achieve an entity’s objectives, monitor the internal control system, and evaluate the results of the system  Efforts to implement the memorandum to achieve print device reduction goals have also been limited because responsibility for implementation was not clearly assigned  According to a DOD CIO official, the responsibility for the memorandum is not clearly assigned to a member of the CIO staff  This official also stated that because of the consolidation of information technology services in the Pentagon and the national capital region, the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Joint Service Provider assumed responsibility for implementing the memorandum  According to Joint Service Provider officials, however, they were only responsible for implementing the memorandum for the customers they serve in the Pentagon and the national capital region, and not for other DOD components outside those areas, such as military services  Standards for internal control state that management should ensure that key roles in operating the internal control system are clearly assigned  In the absence of these controls, such as reporting procedures to monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices and establishing clear responsibility for implementing the CIO memorandum, DOD has been unable to ensure that it is achieving any estimated savings, which could represent tens of millions of dollars annually  DLA Document Services may be able to realize additional savings from further consolidating facilities beyond those already identified, but it does not currently plan to do so, and it does not have the complete data it would need to make those determinations  As a part of its transformation plan, DLA Document Services identified 38 of its 112 facilities in the continental United States that it would retain  DLA Document Services officials stated that they considered a number of factors in determining whether to consolidate or retain facilities, including the number of staff and customers and the facilities’ workloads, but that they generally consolidated or retained facilities based on whether the facility provided “mission specialty” services  These mission specialties are services that DLA Document Services officials believe cannot be easily outsourced, such as printing and reproduction of classified and sensitive documents and on-demand printing and distribution of certain technical materials  However, our analysis of DLA Document Services data found that some facilities retained for certain mission specialties were responsible for a relatively small share of business for those specialties in fiscal year 2016 (the last full year for which data were provided), which suggests that further consolidations are possible  For example, for each of the four mission specialties for which DLA Document Services provided us with revenue data, the bottom quartile (25 percent) of the facilities retained for each specialty were responsible for less than 5 percent of the total revenue for that specialty, as shown in figure 6  We also found some cases in which DLA Document Services retained facilities that reported less revenue for a given specialty than facilities that it did not retain  According to officials, DLA Document Services took a number of factors into consideration in deciding on consolidations, including the complexity of the work at a facility and whether nearby sites could fulfill the orders  According to these officials, this allowed them to consolidate some facilities even if those facilities had greater revenue from a given mission specialty than other facilities  DOD Instruction 5330 03 requires DLA Document Services to provide effective and efficient document services support to DOD components  Our key practices for efficiency initiatives also note the importance of targeting both short-term and long-term efficiency initiatives  DLA Document Services officials stated that they would consider additional consolidations of facilities, but they have not conducted any analysis or planning to gain further efficiencies and do not currently have plans to do so  These officials stated they are committed to implementing the current transformation plan as announced  Officials also stated that they want to have a better sense of the results from the current transformation, including how workloads may change among facilities as consolidations occur, before considering additional consolidations  DLA Document Services’ current transformation plan includes the possible consolidation of facilities outside the continental United States following the implementation of its current plan (which only addressed facilities inside the continental United States); it does not have any plans for further consolidations within the continental United States  We also found that DLA Document Services did not have revenue data on all of its mission specialties to inform any future decisions on facility consolidations  Standards for internal control state that entities’ management should use quality information to achieve the entities’ objectives  However, DLA Document Services could not provide revenue data on three specific mission specialties—sensitive, classified, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information—for which it retained 30 of its facilities, including some that it retained exclusively for those specialties  According to DLA Document Services officials, they did not collect revenue data for these mission specialties because the facilities responsible for processing this type of information were generally retained, regardless of the revenue they produced, due to the sensitive nature of this work  As noted above, our analysis of available mission specialty data found that some facilities that DLA retained for certain mission specialties did a relatively small share of business for those specialties, indicating that there may be opportunities for additional facility consolidations  DLA Document Services officials told us that they had consulted with managers at the facilities about the amount of sensitive and classified they conducted  Because of these consultations, DLA Document Services is closing some facilities that handled sensitive and classified information  However, DLA Document Services does not routinely collect these data as it does for other mission specialties  By collecting and analyzing more complete revenue data on its mission specialties and using those data to evaluate opportunities for further consolidations, DLA Document Services would be better positioned to determine if opportunities exist to achieve additional cost savings  DOD reports some financial information regarding its document services, but this information does not accurately capture the scope of its document services mission  We reviewed the O&M obligations for printing and reproduction in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 that were reported to Congress by the military services  The total obligations ranged from about $534 million to about $736 million annually for the 5-year period (see fig  7)  Our analysis found that DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction are inaccurate in two ways  First, the budget materials include obligations that are primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  DOD and military service financial management officials prepare budget justification materials for their O&M funding requests on an annual basis  DOD and the services report printing and reproduction costs in the Summary of Price and Program Changes budget exhibit (the “OP-32”)  It contains information by line item, detailing, among other items, printing and reproduction and related operations performed by the military services, DLA, or GPO  It also contains elements of expenses for purchases related to document services that are provided by DLA  The OP-32 exhibits are provided to Congress with the budget justification materials accompanying the President’s annual budget request  Officials from AMRG told us that, in accordance with Army guidance, printing and reproduction obligations are coupled with other obligations, including the purchase of advertising space and radio and television time for recruiting activities  Data provided by these officials show that in fiscal year 2016, AMRG’s obligations for printing and reproduction accounted for only about $2 million, or 2 percent, of the Army’s total fiscal year 2016 obligations included in the printing and reproduction line of the OP-32  Obligations for the publication of notices, advertising, and radio and television time accounted for about $78 million, or 63 percent, of the obligations reported for printing and reproduction  According to officials, the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also follow their respective guidance on reporting printing and reproduction obligations together with these other obligations  Second, the budget justification information does not represent the full scope of the military services’ document services mission  Specifically, we found that the military services’ annual budget requests do not provide distinct information on two areas of their document services mission— print device procurement and electronic content management  Data we reviewed indicate that the military services obligate a considerable amount of resources in these areas  For example, according to DLA Document Services, sales to DOD and the military services for its print device services are comparable to sales for its printing and reproduction services  According to DLA data, in fiscal year 2017, it received in revenue about $108 million for print device and about $105 million for printing and reproduction services  Officials from the military services told us that obligations for these activities are included within the budget requests for various IT procurement categories  For example, Army Budget Office officials noted that the budget request for IT procurement and office supplies would include estimates associated with the purchase and sustainment of devices, but those line items would include other, non-printing obligations as well  According to these officials, the Army has made efforts to standardize the procurement of information technology, including collecting better data on spending for these types of devices  They told us that these efforts will result in shifts in how those obligations are reported in budget justification materials  The accuracy and completeness of DOD’s financial information about its document services can affect the allocation of budgetary resources, and inaccurate or incomplete information can hamper initiatives to gain further efficiencies  The Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards states that its managerial cost accounting concepts and standards are aimed at agencies providing reliable and timely information on the full costs of their federal programs that congressional and executive decision makers can use in making decisions about allocating federal resources and program managers can use in making decisions to improve operating economy and efficiency  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation lays out the structure of the budget exhibits that the military services develop during the department’s budget process  According to a DOD Comptroller official, DOD has historically reported its budget requests following the format prescribed by the Financial Management Regulation, and it follows this format in its reporting of printing and reproduction costs that are coupled with non-printing costs  Although the department has followed this format, the House Armed Services Committee has expressed concern about the military services’ printing budgets, noting that they were excessive and that portions of the budgets should be realigned to address unfunded readiness priorities  Further, as we discussed earlier in this report, DOD has outlined specific steps it intends to take to achieve a recommended goal of 34 percent reduction in spending on its printing and related activities  Without quality information on the scope of its document services mission, DOD will lack the information it needs to assess whether it is achieving this goal  To assess its progress toward achieving this goal, it will be critical for decision makers to have accurate financial information  According to a DOD Comptroller official, the Financial Management Regulation provides flexibility in how obligations are categorized and reported internally and to Congress, but DOD has not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  Unless DOD evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting, DOD and Congress will not have the full visibility over these costs that they need to make informed decisions  DOD is taking important steps to address congressional concerns about its spending on document service activities  Most notably, DOD is implementing its plan to transform its DLA Document Services mission and has taken certain steps to reduce the number and cost of print devices  These efforts have begun to produce results, but DOD can do more to build on these gains  By better managing fragmentation in printing and reproduction services, DOD could ensure that DLA Document Services is providing the best value in obtaining document services  DOD could further reduce overlap in print device procurement by assessing the various approaches employed by DLA and the military services to determine what constitutes the most cost-effective approach for the department  DOD has set goals intended to reduce the number of print devices and realize tens of millions of dollars in savings each year, but it has not demonstrated that it has achieved these savings, because of limitations in internal controls  Additional efforts aimed at collecting and analyzing information to examine areas for further consolidation of DLA Document Services’ mission specialty locations might provide DOD with additional cost savings  DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction activities include information on non-printing activities that make up a much larger portion of its reported spending than printing does  In addition, these O&M budget materials omit information that would capture the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, such as device procurement and electronic content management, which are included with information technology budget materials  By providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make informed decisions  We are making a total of six recommendations to DOD  The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DLA Document Services’ single manager role for printing and reproduction provides the best value to the government—as determined by quality, price, and delivery time and in light of DLA Document Services’ transformation plan—and whether any additional efficiencies are possible, and use the results of that assessment to inform the revision of DOD Instruction 5330 03  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DOD’s current approach to obtaining print devices represents the best value to the government or whether other approaches, such as further consolidations under DLA Document Services as a proposed single manager for print device procurement, would be more cost effective  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO implements controls, such as reporting procedures, to routinely monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices, consistent with department-wide goals for reducing the number of print devices that are included in the CIO’s 2012 memorandum  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO assigns responsibility for implementing the CIO’s 2012 memorandum on optimizing the use of employee information technology devices  (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, DLA, in coordination with the Director, DLA Document Services and following implementation of the current transformation plan, gathers data on workload revenue at retained facilities and all mission specialties and evaluate whether additional opportunities for consolidation exist based on those data  (Recommendation 5) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non-printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  This information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  (Recommendation 6) We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  In its written comments, DOD concurred with five recommendations and identified specific actions and time frames for addressing them, and it partially concurred with the remaining recommendation  DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, where appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluate options to report more accurate funding information and take steps to improve the accuracy of budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non- printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  Our recommendation noted that this information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  DOD stated that the budget materials it submits to Congress are in compliance with OMB Circular A-11’s definitions of printing and reproduction and equipment  It further noted that Working Capital Fund exhibits provided with each annual budget include a breakout, by service, of the appropriated and Working Capital Fund activities and a detailed accounting of unit cost and pricing for all sub- activities of DLA Document Services  As we noted in our report, a DOD Comptroller official told us that the Financial Management Regulation provides DOD with flexibility in categorizing and reporting obligations internally and to Congress  However, we found that, based on this flexibility, DOD’s O&M budget materials reported obligations for printing and reproduction that were primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  This budget information did not represent the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, since it omitted obligations for print device procurement and electronic content management  We also reported that DOD had not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  DOD’s comments did not include plans to address this recommendation  We continue to believe that by providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make more informed decisions  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the DOD Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@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 III  Our objectives were to evaluate (1) the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in achieving efficiencies in its document services and opportunities, if any, for further efficiencies, and (2) the extent to which DOD reports accurate financial information about its document services to key stakeholders  For our first objective, we reviewed DOD documents and interviewed DOD officials in order to understand how each military service obtains document services and identify department-wide and military service efficiency initiatives for these services  We also reviewed the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) and the military services’ document services activities and compared them with a DOD statutory periodic review; DOD Instructions and other guidance; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance; internal control standards; and best practices for consolidation initiatives, efficiency initiatives, and strategic sourcing to identify any potentially unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation and any opportunities for greater efficiencies  For specific efficiency initiatives identified by DOD officials or in DOD documents, we interviewed DOD officials regarding their progress in implementing and meeting the goals of these initiatives  To evaluate DLA Document Services’ transformation plan, we interviewed DLA Document Services officials, reviewed DLA Document Services documents regarding the plan, and assessed that plan based on leading practices for consolidation and efficiency initiatives  To assess the plan against these practices, one analyst reviewed the testimony and documents provided and compared it to our key questions to consider when evaluating proposals to consolidate physical infrastructure and management functions  A second analyst reviewed and concurred with the first analyst’s assessments  In any cases where there was a disagreement, the analysts discussed any discrepancies  If they were not resolved, a third analyst reviewed the assessments  To assess the extent to which there may be additional opportunities for facility consolidations, we obtained DLA Document Services data on revenue reported by each facility, which DOD Document Services officials told us they used in determining which facilities to consolidate as a part of their transformation plan  We analyzed the share of mission specialty revenue reported by facilities that (1) were retained by DLA Document Services for a given mission specialty, (2) were retained but not for a given specialty, and (3) were not retained  We further divided those facilities retained for a given specialty into quartiles to better understand the concentration of revenue in those facilities  To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed DLA Documents Services officials regarding how the data were gathered, analyzed, reported, and used  We found that these data were reliable for the purpose of analyzing the shares of mission specialty revenue represented by each facility or group of facilities  To compare the cost of print devices offered by DLA Document Services, the Army, and the Air Force, we gathered and analyzed data on the monthly cost of multifunction devices with comparable specifications  We compared costs for similar devices based on device specifications including print speeds, monthly volumes, and paper capacities  Because Army and Air Force costs are estimated and there might be other differences in device specifications, approaches to obtaining devices, and which associated services were included, this analysis does not allow us to conclude which sources provide the greatest value  However, it illustrates differences in the cost of print devices across sources  For DLA Document Services, we used DLA Document Services’ standard monthly pricing for 2018 for various categories of multifunction devices  For the Army, Army officials were unable to provide data on the cost of multifunction devices purchased by Army customers  Instead, they provided us with documentation of vendor responses to requests for quotes from the Army’s mandatory source for print devices from April 2017 through January 2018  We reviewed those documents and assigned each device to a DLA Document Services category, based on the device’s specifications as identified in the documentation  We then estimated the monthly cost for each device  For leased devices, we used the monthly cost of the lease  For purchased devices, we used the total cost of the device divided by an estimated service life for the device  We estimated this service life using some indication available in the documentation, such as the length of time a maintenance agreement or extended warranty was provided for the device  Army officials provided 183 quotes for devices  Of those, we were able to include 24 in our analysis  We excluded the other 159 because either we could not determine the cost for individual devices in a quote, there was not enough information on a device’s specifications, there was no DLA Document Services equivalent for the device, or we were unable to estimate a service life based on the information provided  Because the information included all vendor quotes provided and not just those that were selected by a customer, the costs may not represent the actual costs of devices to the customer  For the Air Force, we used an estimated average monthly cost based the standard pricing included in the Air Force’s 2018 catalog for print devices  We reviewed the catalog and assigned each multifunction device offered to a DLA Document Services category, based on the devices’ specifications  The Air Force’s catalog contained 32 devices; we were able to determine the equivalent DLA Document Services category for 13 of those devices  All devices in the Air Force’s catalog are available for purchase and include a 4-year maintenance agreement; therefore, we estimated the average monthly cost as the purchase price divided by 48  To evaluate the extent to which DOD reports accurate and complete financial information to key stakeholders to manage its document services, we analyzed DOD’s operation and maintenance (O&M) budget justification materials for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and Defense Logistics Agency data on its document services mission  We focused our review on O&M obligations reported by DLA and the military services, which accounted for an average of about 92 percent of DOD’s total document service costs reported by DLA Document Services in fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials, including officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), DLA Document Services, and the military services to determine how they reported costs for document services  We assessed the information we collected against federal accounting standards on how information should be recorded and communicated to management and others  To determine the reliability of the O&M budget justification data provided to us by DOD, we obtained information on how the data were collected, managed, and used through interviews with relevant officials  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to represent the military services’ total O&M obligations for document services for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials and, where appropriate, obtained documentation, from the following organizations: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Department of Defense Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Document Services Defense Information Systems Agency – Joint Service Provider Army Chief Information Officer Army Publishing Directorate Army Marketing Research Group Army 7th Signal Command Headquarters Air Force – Chief Information Officer Department of the Navy – Chief Information Officer Headquarters Marine Corps Command, Control, Communications, Headquarters Marine Corps Publishing and Logistics Headquarters Marine Corps Budget and Execution Marine Corps Combat Camera Marine Corps Reprographic Equipment Management Program We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to October 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 contact named above, Matthew Ullengren (Assistant Director), Adam Hatton (Analyst in Charge), Adam Brooks, Joanne Landesman, Amie Lesser, Daniel Ramsey, Carter Stevens, and Walter Vance made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The federal government plans to invest almost $96 billion in IT in fiscal year 2018. Historically, IT investments have too often failed or contributed little to mission-related outcomes. Further, increasingly sophisticated threats and frequent cyber incidents underscore the need for effective information security. As a result, GAO added two areas to its high-risk list: IT security in 1997 and the management of IT acquisitions and operations in 2015. This statement summarizes agencies' progress in improving IT management and ensuring the security of federal IT. It is primarily based on GAO's prior reports issued between February 1997 and May 2018 (and an ongoing review) on (1) CIO responsibilities, (2) agency CIOs' involvement in approving IT contracts, (3) data center consolidation efforts, (4) the management of software licenses, and (5) compliance with cybersecurity requirements. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies have taken steps to improve the management of information technology (IT) acquisitions and operations and ensure the security of federal IT through a series of initiatives. As of May 2018, agencies had fully implemented about 61 percent of the approximately 800 IT management-related recommendations that GAO made from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. Likewise, since 2010, agencies had implemented about 66 percent of the approximately 2,700 security-related recommendations as of May 2018. Even with this progress, significant actions remain to be completed. Chief Information Officer (CIO) responsibilities . Laws such as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) and related guidance assigned 35 key IT management responsibilities to CIOs to help address longstanding challenges. However, in a draft report on CIO responsibilities, GAO's preliminary results suggest that none of the 24 selected agencies have policies that fully address the role of their CIO, as called for by federal laws and guidance. GAO intends to recommend that OMB and each of the selected 24 agencies take actions to improve the effectiveness of CIO's implementation of their responsibilities. IT contract approval . According to FITARA, covered agencies' CIOs are required to review and approve IT contracts. Nevertheless, in January 2018, GAO reported that most of the CIOs at 22 selected agencies were not adequately involved in reviewing billions of dollars of IT acquisitions. Consequently, GAO made 39 recommendations to improve CIO oversight over IT acquisitions. Consolidating data centers . OMB launched an initiative in 2010 to reduce data centers, which was codified and expanded in FITARA. According to agencies, data center consolidation and optimization efforts have resulted in approximately $3.9 billion of cost savings through 2018. Even so, additional work remains. GAO has made 160 recommendations to OMB and agencies to improve the reporting of related cost savings and to achieve optimization targets; however, as of May 2018, 80 of the recommendations have not been fully addressed. Managing 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 better management of licenses was needed to achieve savings, and made 135 recommendations to improve such management. Four years later, 78 of the recommendations remained open. Improving the security of federal IT systems . While the government has acted to protect federal information systems, agencies need to improve security programs, cyber capabilities, and the protection of personally identifiable information. Over the last several years, GAO has made about 2,700 recommendations to agencies aimed at improving the security of federal systems and information. These recommendations identified actions for agencies to take to strengthen their information security programs and technical controls over their computer networks and systems. As of May 2018, about 800 of the information security-related recommendations had not been implemented. From fiscal years 2010 through 2015, GAO made about 800 recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to address shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations. Since 2010, GAO also made about 2,700 recommendations to federal agencies to improve the security of federal systems. These recommendations include those to improve the implementation of CIO responsibilities, the oversight of the data center consolidation initiative, software license management efforts, and the strength of security programs and technical controls. Most agencies agreed with these recommendations, and GAO will continue to monitor their implementation.

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



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



Report 2: The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, more than a quarter of the land in the United States  These lands are heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), where t he federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area  Four federal agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U S  Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands  No single law provides authority for these four agencies to acquire and/or disposal of lands  Rather, Congress provided various acquisition and disposal authorities through laws enacted over more than a century  This report describes the primary authorities of the four agencies  The extent to which each of the agencies has authority to acquire and dispose of land, and the nature of the authorities, varies considerably  Some of the agencies have relatively broad authority to acquire and/or dispose of land  Most notably, the BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals  By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands  The extent of the acquisition and disposal authorities for the FS and the FWS are not nearly as broad as the BLM's but not nearly as restrictive as the NPS's  The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest  The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used  The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands  The acquisition authorities differ as to the circumstances in which they apply, and the disposal authorities likewise differ as to their purposes  Thus, where a specific acquisition or disposal by an agency is contemplated, the particular authority at issue should be consulted  In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow federal agencies to acquire lands that could be viewed as benefitting from federal management  Among other circumstances, acquisition might be authorized to bring inholdings or lands adjacent to federal lands into federal ownership to improve or simplify management of federal lands  Acquisitions also might be authorized to conserve species, protect natural and cultural resources, and increase opportunities for recreation  The disposal authorities generally are designed to allow federal agencies to dispose of land that is no longer required for a federal purpose, might be inefficient to manage, or might be chiefly valuable for another purpose  For instance, disposal might be authorized to allow lands to be used for agriculture, community development, mineral extraction, or educational purposes  Agencies also acquire and dispose of federal land in exchanges  Exchanges are not discussed separately in this report, as often the authorities to acquire and dispose of lands also apply to land exchange  However, there are provisions of law particularly applicable to exchanges  The exchange authorities for the NPS and the FWS are relatively narrow  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U S C  §§1701-1781) provides broader exchange authority and is the main authority governing exchanges by the BLM and the FS  Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; the extent of federal land ownership overall; and the sources and levels of land acquisition funds, among other issues  The suitability of the acquisition and disposal authorities, and the extent and circumstances of their use by the agencies, forms the backdrop for congressional consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate the use of authorities  With regard to the establishment of new authorities, for instance, some 115 th Congress proposals would authorize states to exchange land grant parcels for federal lands  Other measures would authorize the BLM and FS to convey small tracts to adjacent landowners and to govern the use of proceeds from these conveyances  Proposals to modify authorities include measures in the 115 th Congress to reauthorize and amend BLM authority to sell or exchange land under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA; 43 U S C  §§2301 et seq ), as well as bills to amend the Small Tracts Act (16 U S C  §521e) regarding the type and value of FS lands that can be disposed of and the use of related proceeds  Among the provisions to eliminate the use of authorities are those to prevent the disposal of federal land under the General Mining Law of 1872, which have been contained in annual Interior appropriations laws since FY1995  In addition, Congress frequently considers legislation authorizing and governing the acquisition or disposal of specific parcels  For example, Title XXX of P L  113-291 contained various provisions to authorize the acquisition and/or disposal of land  Congress may consider such legislation to provide an agency with acquisition or disposal authority in a particular instance because it is lacking  In other cases, Congress directs a particular acquisition or disposal to facilitate the action  For instance, the legislation may seek to direct an acquisition based on Congress's assessment of public needs and priorities  It may expedite the process for acquiring a parcel of land, such as by limiting the assessments and evaluations that ordinarily would be required under law  The legislation also might authorize actions not ordinarily permitted, such as the conveyance of land at reduced or no cost rather than at fair market value  Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of deliberations on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally  The extent to which the federal government should own land remains controversial  Many westerners contend that there is excessive federal influence over their lives and economies and that the federal government should divest itself of many lands  Many others support the policy of retaining lands in federal ownership on behalf of the public and sometimes advocate adding more lands to enhance protection  Recent Congresses considered diverse bills pertaining to the extent of federal land ownership  Among others, 115 th Congress measures would authorize or direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to offer to sell a certain percentage of land in each of several fiscal years  Other bills provide that where a land management agency acquires land, an equal number of acres is to be offered for sale  Another set of issues pertains to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition  The principal financing mechanism for federal land acquisition is discretionary appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)  Provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF Act; 54 U S C  §§200301 et seq ) had provided for $900 million in specified revenues to be deposited in the LWCF annually  These provisions expired September 30, 2018  Each year, Congress determines the level of appropriations from the LWCF for federal land acquisition  Total appropriations for land acquisition and the amount provided to each of the federal land management agencies have varied substantially since the program's origin in 1965  In the 115 th Congress, some measures propose permanent reauthorization of the LWCF and/or mandatory appropriations at the authorized level  Advocates of such bills typically seek stable, predictable funding to promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive resources  Other measures would direct a portion of funding to particular purposes, such as acquisitions in areas with restricted access for fishing, hunting, and other types of recreation  Still other proposals would allow LWCF to be used for a broader array of purposes, including nonacquisition purposes, due to concerns about the extent of federal land ownership and the availability of funding for other federal activities  Additional sources of funding are available for some agencies or under certain authorities  For instance, the FWS has a mandatory source of funds for land acquisition through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as discussed below  As another example, the BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the agency to keep the proceeds of land sales and use these proceeds for subsequent acquisitions and other purposes  These authorities are discussed below  The application of mandatory spending authorities, including the uses of the proceeds, has been the subject of congressional debate  As noted above, various laws authorizing and governing specific land acquisitions have been enacted  In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for acquiring lands  In general, all four agencies are authorized to accept land as gifts and bequests  In addition, each generally is authorized to use eminent domain —taking private property, through condemnation, for public use—while compensating the landowner  However, this practice is controversial, and it is rarely used by the land management agencies  The primary land acquisition authorities are described below for each of the four federal land management agencies  In general, the agencies are presented in the order of the breadth of their authorities, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last  The NPS does not have standing authority to acquire lands for new or existing units of the National Park System, except in limited circumstances  Rather, most units have been created by Congress, and the law creating a park unit typically includes specific authority for the NPS to acquire nonfederal inholdings within the identified boundaries of that park  The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make certain boundary adjustments of park units for "proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management" and to acquire the nonfederal lands within the adjusted boundary, under specified provisions and conditions (54 U S C  §100506(c))  Some of these conditions have been interpreted to apply particularly to boundary adjustments requiring land purchases, as opposed to those in which added lands are acquired by donation, transfer, or exchange  The President has authority to create national monuments on federal lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U S C  §§320301 et seq )  In total, 158 monuments have been created by presidential proclamation  Most are managed by the NPS, but some are managed by the BLM and other agencies  Under law, the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS have responsibilities related to the potential acquisition of lands for the National Park System  Among other requirements, the Secretary is directed "to investigate, study, and continually monitor the welfare of" areas that could potentially be added to the system and to report to Congress on possible additions (54 U S C  §100507)  Furthermore, the general management plan for each unit is to include potential changes to the boundaries of the unit and the reasons for such changes (54 U S C  §100502)  The Secretary also is to conduct a "systematic and comprehensive review of certain aspects of the National Park System" and to submit a related report to Congress at least every three years (54 U S C  §100505(a)) that includes a list of all authorized but unacquired lands within the boundaries of park units and a priority listing of these unacquired parcels (54 U S C  §100505(c))  The Secretary of Agriculture has various authorities to acquire lands for the National Forest System (NFS)  The NFS consists of 284 units covering 232 4 million acres of federal and nonfederal land, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization projects, and other areas  Today, only an act of Congress can create new NFS units, but the Secretary may acquire lands within or contiguous to the proclaimed exterior boundaries of an NFS unit  The NFS contains substantial acreage of nonfederal lands within the proclaimed boundaries of the system, particularly in the east, where national forests were established after extensive settlement  NFS units in the Eastern and Southern Regions average about 46% nonfederal land within their boundaries, while Western Region NFS units average about 10%  The FS has very limited regulatory authority over the uses of the 39 5 million acres of nonfederal land within the NFS  The FS's primary land acquisition authority is the Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U S C  §515), which was used to acquire many of the lands that became the eastern national forests  The Weeks Act authority continues to be the agency's primary authority to acquire lands; however, acquisitions are now limited to lands within (or adjacent to) established NFS unit boundaries  The Weeks Act also authorizes the Secretary to modify the NFS unit boundary as needed to encompass new acquisitions  Other laws authorize the FS to acquire lands for the national forests, typically in specific areas or for specific purposes  For example, Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; P L  94-579 ) authorizes the acquisition of access corridors—including easements—to national forests across nonfederal lands (43 U S C  §1715(a))  Another example is the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U S C  §428(a)), which authorizes the FS to acquire lands without any geographical limitations but does require a provision be made in a specific appropriation or other law  Another law authorizes proceeds from certain land sales or exchanges to be used for acquisitions, including for administrative sites and enhancement of recreational access  However, the acquisitions are limited to the state in which FS previously conveyed NFS land under specific disposal authorities, as discussed later in this report  Several other acquisition authorities apply to specific national forests, such as the Act of June 11, 1940, which authorizes the purchase of lands within the Angeles National Forest in California  In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture and the secretary of a military department that has lands within or adjacent to proclaimed NFS land may interchange lands, without reimbursement or transfer of funds  Many of the acquisition authorities also allow the FS to accept donations of land as specified  Within the NFS, the Secretary of Agriculture also is authorized to acquire privately owned lands within or adjacent to designated wilderness areas (16 U S C  §1134(c)), Wild and Scenic River corridors (16 U S C  §1277), and certain segments of designated National Trails (16 U S C  §1244), as specified by the law creating the trail  Lands may be added to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) in a number of ways, including through congressional and administrative actions and donations  A principal FWS land acquisition authority is the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (MBCA; 16 U S C  §§715 et seq )  This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to recommend areas "necessary for the conservation of migratory birds" to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, after consulting with the relevant governor (or state agency) and appropriate local government officials (16 U S C  §715a and §715c)  In addition, the state in which the purchase is located must have consented to the acquisition by law (16 U S C  §715f and §715k-5)  The Secretary may then purchase or rent areas or interests therein approved by the commission and acquire by gift or devise any area or interest therein (16 U S C  §715d)  The MBCA authority is used frequently because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF, 16 U S C  §718d)  The MBCF is supported by multiple sources of funding, including three major sources: the sale of hunting and conservation stamps (commonly known as duck stamps); import duties on arms and ammunition; and a portion of certain refuge entrance fees  MBCF funds are permanently appropriated to the extent of receipts and, after paying certain administrative costs, may be used for the "location, ascertainment, and acquisition of suitable areas for migratory bird refuges    " (16 U S C  §718d(b))  The predictability of funding and permanent authority for use makes the MBCF, and thus the MBCA, particularly important for FWS land acquisition and unique among the four agencies  Other laws provide general authority to expand the NWRS, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U S C  §§661-667a), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U S C  §§742a et seq ), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U S C  §§1531-1544)  The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U S C  §§668dd-668ee) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land or interests therein through donated funds or exchange (16 U S C  §668dd(b))  Further, FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw lands from the public domain for creating or adding to refuges (which would be an interagency transfer), although withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres are subject to congressional approval (43 U S C  §1714(c))  In contrast to NPS and FS land acquisition, where the lands generally must be within the boundaries of established units, the FWS can acquire new lands to create a new refuge or to expand an existing one under the general FWS authorities cited above, as well as under certain other laws  Some national wildlife refuge (NWR) units have been created by specific acts of Congress, such as Protection Island NWR (WA) and Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR (LA) (16 U S C  §668dd note)  Units also can be created by executive order; for example, the Midway Atoll NWR was created by President Clinton in Executive Order 13022  The BLM has broad, general authority to acquire lands, principally under Section 205 of FLPMA  Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire, by purchase, exchange, donation, or use of eminent domain, lands or interests therein (43 U S C  §1715(a))  The BLM acquires land or interests in land, including inholdings, for a variety of reasons  These include to protect natural and cultural resources, to increase opportunities for public access and recreation, and to improve management of lands  As noted above, various laws directing the disposal of particular lands sometimes have been enacted  In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for disposing of lands  The specific disposal authorities are discussed below for each of the four agencies in the order of their apparent breadth, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last  The NPS does not have general authority to dispose of National Park System lands  Units and lands of the Park System that were established by acts of Congress can be disposed of only by acts of Congress  Preservation of park units is a management goal and provisions of law limit the power of the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of land in changing park boundaries  Although the Secretary can, under specified conditions, make boundary changes that concurrently add and remove land within the boundary, minor boundary revisions solely to remove NPS acreage can be made only by Congress  Also, the Secretary can acquire by exchange lands that are adjacent to a boundary revision, but the Secretary cannot dispose of NPS land to do so (54 U S C  §100506(c))  Presidents have modified the boundaries of national monuments established by previous presidential proclamations, in some cases reducing the size of the monument  However, no president has terminated a monument established by proclamation  The FWS does not have general authority to dispose of its lands  With certain exceptions, wildlife refuge lands administered by the FWS can be disposed only by an act of Congress (16 U S C  §§668dd(a)(5) and (6))  For refuge lands reserved from the public domain, FLPMA prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from modifying or revoking any withdrawal which added lands to the NWRS (43 U S C  §1714(j))  For acquired lands, disposal is allowed only if: (1) the disposal is part of an authorized land exchange (16 U S C  §§668dd(a)(6) and (b)(3)); or (2) the Secretary determines the lands are no longer needed and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approves the disposal (16 U S C  §668dd(a)(5))  In the latter case, the disposal must recover the acquisition cost or be at the fair market value (whichever is higher), and the receipts must be deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund  The Secretary of Agriculture has numerous authorities to convey lands within proclaimed NFS boundaries out of federal ownership—through sale or exchange—although previous, broader authorities have been modified or revoked  Many of the authorities put constraints on land disposal, such as applying only to a specific geographical area or to the disposal of particular administrative properties or facilities  Many of the authorities are used in conjunction with FLPMA and other federal law and as such may place requirements on the sale or exchange of land  This includes obtaining at least fair market value for the sale of federal lands; requiring that nonfederal land exchanged for federal land be in the same state; and requiring exchanged lands to be of equal value, although value may be partially equalized with a cash payment (43 U S C  §1716)  The General Exchange Act of 1922 (16 U S C  §485) authorizes the exchange of NFS land or timber that was reserved from the public domain if the Secretary determines it will be in the public interest  The nonfederal land must be within the same state and within the exterior boundary of a national forest, and it must be chiefly valuable for national forest purposes, among other provisions  The Weeks Act of 1911 allows for similar exchanges for acquired NFS lands (16 U S C  §516)  The 1983 Small Tracts Act authorizes the Secretary to dispose of NFS land by sale or exchange, generally up to certain specified acreage limits  The disposal may be To improve management efficiencies where NFS lands are interspersed with nonfederal mineral rights owners, or if the Secretary determines the parcels to be inaccessible, physically isolated from other federal land, or to have lost national forest character (40 acres maximum); To relieve encroachments including due to erroneous surveys, or encroachments by a permanent habitable improvement if there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or due to negligence (10 acres maximum); To dispose of unneeded federal rights-of-way substantially surrounded by nonfederal lands (no specified acreage limitation); and If the parcel is used as a cemetery, landfill, or sewage plant pursuant to a special use authorization for the use and occupancy of NFS land (no specified acreage limitation) (16 U S C  §521e)  The conveyance must be determined to be in the public interest and the tracts may not be valued at more than $500,000  The land can be disposed of for cash, lands, interests in land (such as an easement), or any combination thereof for at least the value of the land being sold or exchanged (16 U S C  §521d) plus "all reasonable costs of administration, survey, and appraisal incidental to such conveyance" (16 U S C  §521f)  In some cases, the proceeds may be used for specified land acquisition purposes  The 1958 Townsites Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 640 acres of NFS land adjacent to communities in Alaska or the 11 western states for townsites, if the "indigenous community objectives     outweigh the public objectives and values which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership" (16 U S C  §478a)  Public notice of the application for such transfer is required, and upon a "satisfactory showing of need," the Secretary may offer the land to a local governmental entity at "not less than the fair market value " The Education Land Grant Act, also known as the Sisk Act (16 U S C  §479a), authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 80 acres of NFS land for a nominal cost upon written application of a public school district  It provides for reversion of the title to the federal government if the lands are not used for the educational purposes for which they were acquired  There are a few other specific authorities that allow for the disposal of NFS lands  For example, the 1911 Weeks Act authorizes the disposal of NFS lands that are "chiefly valuable for agriculture" but were acquired inadvertently or otherwise, if agricultural use will not injure the forests or streamflows and the lands are not needed for public purposes  The lands can be sold as homesteads in parcels of up to 80 acres (16 U S C  §519)  The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7 U S C  §§1010-1012) also authorizes the disposal of lands acquired under its authority, although the FS has adopted regulations stating that the Bankhead-Jones lands comprising the national grasslands will be held permanently (36 C F R  §213 1(b))  The BLM can dispose of land under several authorities  They include (1) exchanges and sales under FLPMA, (2) sales or exchanges under the FLTFA, (3) transfers to other governmental units or nonprofit entities for public purposes, (4) patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, and (5) geographically limited sale authorities  With regard to exchanges under FLPMA, the exchanges must serve the public interest, and the federal and nonfederal lands in the exchange must be located in the same state and be of equal value (with cash equalization payments possible), among other requirements (43 U S C  §1716)  With regard to sales under FLPMA, the BLM is authorized to sell certain tracts of public land that are identified through the land-use planning process  Such tracts must meet specific criteria (43 U S C  §1713(a)): (1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or (2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or (3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership  The size of the tracts for sale is determined by "the land use capabilities and development requirements " Proposals to sell tracts of more than 2,500 acres first must be submitted to Congress and can be disapproved by Congress  Lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value  They generally must be sold through competitive bidding, although modified competition and noncompetitive sales are allowed  FLTFA provides for the sale or exchange of BLM lands identified for disposal under BLM land- use plans  The law create s a separate Treasury account for most of the proceeds (96%) from the sale or exchange, and it provide s for the use of those funds by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture  The Secretaries may acquire nonfederal lands, specifically inholdings , lands adjacent to federal lands that contain exceptional resources , and areas adjacent to inaccessible lands that are open to recreation  Up to 20% of the funds in the account may be used for administrative costs, and at least 80% of the funds for acquisition are to be in the state in which the funds are generated   The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U S C  §869) authorizes the Secretary, upon application by a qualified applicant, to dispose of any public lands to a State, Territory, county, municipality, or other State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit association for any recreational or any public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation or other creating authority  The lands can be sold or leased, and the act specifies conditions, qualifications, and acreage limitations for transfer  The price of the land depends on the type of entity that will receive it, for instance, whether a state government or a nonprofit organization  The price also depends on the intended use of the land, with some sales and leases made at no cost  Although the BLM can dispose of lands through patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, since FY1995 a series of annual moratoria on issuing mineral patents has been enacted into law  These moratoria, contained in the annual Interior appropriations laws, have effectively prevented this means of federal land disposal  Specifically, the Mining Law allows access to and development of hardrock minerals on federal lands that have not been withdrawn from entry  With evidence of valuable minerals and sufficient developmental effort, the Mining Law allows mining claims to be patented, with full title (of surface and mineral rights) transferred to the claimant upon payment of the appropriate fee  Nonmineral lands used for associated milling or other processing operations can also be patented (30 U S C  §42)  Patented lands may be used for purposes other than mineral development  The BLM also has geographically limited land sale authorities  The program with the largest revenue stream has been the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, which allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange certain lands around Las Vegas  The BLM and the local government unit jointly decide on the lands to be offered for sale or exchange  In general, 85% of the proceeds are deposited into a special account, and are available to the Secretary of the Interior for land acquisition in Nevada and other purposes in the state, such as certain capital improvements and development of parks, trails, and natural areas  The other 15% of the proceeds are for state or local purposes, specifically the State of Nevada General Education Fund (5%) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%)  Other provisions of law similarly provide for BLM land sales in particular areas (mostly in Nevada), with specific allocations of the proceeds  Further, the BLM continues to dispose of land in Alaska as required by law, such as through transfers to the state of Alaska and to Alaska native corporations  A total of about 150 million acres in Alaska will be transferred from federal to state and private ownership  
Report 2:  According to an Air Force analysis, doing so would achieve savings of over $67 million as it replaces or retires devices  As of July 2018, the Air Force had not fully implemented this guidance  Efforts by the military services to demonstrate that they have achieved print device reduction goals have been limited because they have not monitored the actions they have taken to reduce the number of print devices  Military service officials we interviewed said they were unaware of any efforts by the DOD CIO to ensure that device reductions occurred and that DOD components achieved their planned savings, such as providing information to the CIO on the status of their efforts to implement the guidance in the memorandum or data on reductions in the number of devices  Standards for internal control state that management should implement control activities through policies that use quality information to achieve an entity’s objectives, monitor the internal control system, and evaluate the results of the system  Efforts to implement the memorandum to achieve print device reduction goals have also been limited because responsibility for implementation was not clearly assigned  According to a DOD CIO official, the responsibility for the memorandum is not clearly assigned to a member of the CIO staff  This official also stated that because of the consolidation of information technology services in the Pentagon and the national capital region, the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Joint Service Provider assumed responsibility for implementing the memorandum  According to Joint Service Provider officials, however, they were only responsible for implementing the memorandum for the customers they serve in the Pentagon and the national capital region, and not for other DOD components outside those areas, such as military services  Standards for internal control state that management should ensure that key roles in operating the internal control system are clearly assigned  In the absence of these controls, such as reporting procedures to monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices and establishing clear responsibility for implementing the CIO memorandum, DOD has been unable to ensure that it is achieving any estimated savings, which could represent tens of millions of dollars annually  DLA Document Services may be able to realize additional savings from further consolidating facilities beyond those already identified, but it does not currently plan to do so, and it does not have the complete data it would need to make those determinations  As a part of its transformation plan, DLA Document Services identified 38 of its 112 facilities in the continental United States that it would retain  DLA Document Services officials stated that they considered a number of factors in determining whether to consolidate or retain facilities, including the number of staff and customers and the facilities’ workloads, but that they generally consolidated or retained facilities based on whether the facility provided “mission specialty” services  These mission specialties are services that DLA Document Services officials believe cannot be easily outsourced, such as printing and reproduction of classified and sensitive documents and on-demand printing and distribution of certain technical materials  However, our analysis of DLA Document Services data found that some facilities retained for certain mission specialties were responsible for a relatively small share of business for those specialties in fiscal year 2016 (the last full year for which data were provided), which suggests that further consolidations are possible  For example, for each of the four mission specialties for which DLA Document Services provided us with revenue data, the bottom quartile (25 percent) of the facilities retained for each specialty were responsible for less than 5 percent of the total revenue for that specialty, as shown in figure 6  We also found some cases in which DLA Document Services retained facilities that reported less revenue for a given specialty than facilities that it did not retain  According to officials, DLA Document Services took a number of factors into consideration in deciding on consolidations, including the complexity of the work at a facility and whether nearby sites could fulfill the orders  According to these officials, this allowed them to consolidate some facilities even if those facilities had greater revenue from a given mission specialty than other facilities  DOD Instruction 5330 03 requires DLA Document Services to provide effective and efficient document services support to DOD components  Our key practices for efficiency initiatives also note the importance of targeting both short-term and long-term efficiency initiatives  DLA Document Services officials stated that they would consider additional consolidations of facilities, but they have not conducted any analysis or planning to gain further efficiencies and do not currently have plans to do so  These officials stated they are committed to implementing the current transformation plan as announced  Officials also stated that they want to have a better sense of the results from the current transformation, including how workloads may change among facilities as consolidations occur, before considering additional consolidations  DLA Document Services’ current transformation plan includes the possible consolidation of facilities outside the continental United States following the implementation of its current plan (which only addressed facilities inside the continental United States); it does not have any plans for further consolidations within the continental United States  We also found that DLA Document Services did not have revenue data on all of its mission specialties to inform any future decisions on facility consolidations  Standards for internal control state that entities’ management should use quality information to achieve the entities’ objectives  However, DLA Document Services could not provide revenue data on three specific mission specialties—sensitive, classified, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information—for which it retained 30 of its facilities, including some that it retained exclusively for those specialties  According to DLA Document Services officials, they did not collect revenue data for these mission specialties because the facilities responsible for processing this type of information were generally retained, regardless of the revenue they produced, due to the sensitive nature of this work  As noted above, our analysis of available mission specialty data found that some facilities that DLA retained for certain mission specialties did a relatively small share of business for those specialties, indicating that there may be opportunities for additional facility consolidations  DLA Document Services officials told us that they had consulted with managers at the facilities about the amount of sensitive and classified they conducted  Because of these consultations, DLA Document Services is closing some facilities that handled sensitive and classified information  However, DLA Document Services does not routinely collect these data as it does for other mission specialties  By collecting and analyzing more complete revenue data on its mission specialties and using those data to evaluate opportunities for further consolidations, DLA Document Services would be better positioned to determine if opportunities exist to achieve additional cost savings  DOD reports some financial information regarding its document services, but this information does not accurately capture the scope of its document services mission  We reviewed the O&M obligations for printing and reproduction in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 that were reported to Congress by the military services  The total obligations ranged from about $534 million to about $736 million annually for the 5-year period (see fig  7)  Our analysis found that DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction are inaccurate in two ways  First, the budget materials include obligations that are primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  DOD and military service financial management officials prepare budget justification materials for their O&M funding requests on an annual basis  DOD and the services report printing and reproduction costs in the Summary of Price and Program Changes budget exhibit (the “OP-32”)  It contains information by line item, detailing, among other items, printing and reproduction and related operations performed by the military services, DLA, or GPO  It also contains elements of expenses for purchases related to document services that are provided by DLA  The OP-32 exhibits are provided to Congress with the budget justification materials accompanying the President’s annual budget request  Officials from AMRG told us that, in accordance with Army guidance, printing and reproduction obligations are coupled with other obligations, including the purchase of advertising space and radio and television time for recruiting activities  Data provided by these officials show that in fiscal year 2016, AMRG’s obligations for printing and reproduction accounted for only about $2 million, or 2 percent, of the Army’s total fiscal year 2016 obligations included in the printing and reproduction line of the OP-32  Obligations for the publication of notices, advertising, and radio and television time accounted for about $78 million, or 63 percent, of the obligations reported for printing and reproduction  According to officials, the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also follow their respective guidance on reporting printing and reproduction obligations together with these other obligations  Second, the budget justification information does not represent the full scope of the military services’ document services mission  Specifically, we found that the military services’ annual budget requests do not provide distinct information on two areas of their document services mission— print device procurement and electronic content management  Data we reviewed indicate that the military services obligate a considerable amount of resources in these areas  For example, according to DLA Document Services, sales to DOD and the military services for its print device services are comparable to sales for its printing and reproduction services  According to DLA data, in fiscal year 2017, it received in revenue about $108 million for print device and about $105 million for printing and reproduction services  Officials from the military services told us that obligations for these activities are included within the budget requests for various IT procurement categories  For example, Army Budget Office officials noted that the budget request for IT procurement and office supplies would include estimates associated with the purchase and sustainment of devices, but those line items would include other, non-printing obligations as well  According to these officials, the Army has made efforts to standardize the procurement of information technology, including collecting better data on spending for these types of devices  They told us that these efforts will result in shifts in how those obligations are reported in budget justification materials  The accuracy and completeness of DOD’s financial information about its document services can affect the allocation of budgetary resources, and inaccurate or incomplete information can hamper initiatives to gain further efficiencies  The Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards states that its managerial cost accounting concepts and standards are aimed at agencies providing reliable and timely information on the full costs of their federal programs that congressional and executive decision makers can use in making decisions about allocating federal resources and program managers can use in making decisions to improve operating economy and efficiency  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation lays out the structure of the budget exhibits that the military services develop during the department’s budget process  According to a DOD Comptroller official, DOD has historically reported its budget requests following the format prescribed by the Financial Management Regulation, and it follows this format in its reporting of printing and reproduction costs that are coupled with non-printing costs  Although the department has followed this format, the House Armed Services Committee has expressed concern about the military services’ printing budgets, noting that they were excessive and that portions of the budgets should be realigned to address unfunded readiness priorities  Further, as we discussed earlier in this report, DOD has outlined specific steps it intends to take to achieve a recommended goal of 34 percent reduction in spending on its printing and related activities  Without quality information on the scope of its document services mission, DOD will lack the information it needs to assess whether it is achieving this goal  To assess its progress toward achieving this goal, it will be critical for decision makers to have accurate financial information  According to a DOD Comptroller official, the Financial Management Regulation provides flexibility in how obligations are categorized and reported internally and to Congress, but DOD has not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  Unless DOD evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting, DOD and Congress will not have the full visibility over these costs that they need to make informed decisions  DOD is taking important steps to address congressional concerns about its spending on document service activities  Most notably, DOD is implementing its plan to transform its DLA Document Services mission and has taken certain steps to reduce the number and cost of print devices  These efforts have begun to produce results, but DOD can do more to build on these gains  By better managing fragmentation in printing and reproduction services, DOD could ensure that DLA Document Services is providing the best value in obtaining document services  DOD could further reduce overlap in print device procurement by assessing the various approaches employed by DLA and the military services to determine what constitutes the most cost-effective approach for the department  DOD has set goals intended to reduce the number of print devices and realize tens of millions of dollars in savings each year, but it has not demonstrated that it has achieved these savings, because of limitations in internal controls  Additional efforts aimed at collecting and analyzing information to examine areas for further consolidation of DLA Document Services’ mission specialty locations might provide DOD with additional cost savings  DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction activities include information on non-printing activities that make up a much larger portion of its reported spending than printing does  In addition, these O&M budget materials omit information that would capture the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, such as device procurement and electronic content management, which are included with information technology budget materials  By providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make informed decisions  We are making a total of six recommendations to DOD  The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DLA Document Services’ single manager role for printing and reproduction provides the best value to the government—as determined by quality, price, and delivery time and in light of DLA Document Services’ transformation plan—and whether any additional efficiencies are possible, and use the results of that assessment to inform the revision of DOD Instruction 5330 03  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DOD’s current approach to obtaining print devices represents the best value to the government or whether other approaches, such as further consolidations under DLA Document Services as a proposed single manager for print device procurement, would be more cost effective  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO implements controls, such as reporting procedures, to routinely monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices, consistent with department-wide goals for reducing the number of print devices that are included in the CIO’s 2012 memorandum  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO assigns responsibility for implementing the CIO’s 2012 memorandum on optimizing the use of employee information technology devices  (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, DLA, in coordination with the Director, DLA Document Services and following implementation of the current transformation plan, gathers data on workload revenue at retained facilities and all mission specialties and evaluate whether additional opportunities for consolidation exist based on those data  (Recommendation 5) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non-printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  This information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  (Recommendation 6) We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  In its written comments, DOD concurred with five recommendations and identified specific actions and time frames for addressing them, and it partially concurred with the remaining recommendation  DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, where appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluate options to report more accurate funding information and take steps to improve the accuracy of budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non- printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  Our recommendation noted that this information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  DOD stated that the budget materials it submits to Congress are in compliance with OMB Circular A-11’s definitions of printing and reproduction and equipment  It further noted that Working Capital Fund exhibits provided with each annual budget include a breakout, by service, of the appropriated and Working Capital Fund activities and a detailed accounting of unit cost and pricing for all sub- activities of DLA Document Services  As we noted in our report, a DOD Comptroller official told us that the Financial Management Regulation provides DOD with flexibility in categorizing and reporting obligations internally and to Congress  However, we found that, based on this flexibility, DOD’s O&M budget materials reported obligations for printing and reproduction that were primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  This budget information did not represent the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, since it omitted obligations for print device procurement and electronic content management  We also reported that DOD had not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  DOD’s comments did not include plans to address this recommendation  We continue to believe that by providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make more informed decisions  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the DOD Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@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 III  Our objectives were to evaluate (1) the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in achieving efficiencies in its document services and opportunities, if any, for further efficiencies, and (2) the extent to which DOD reports accurate financial information about its document services to key stakeholders  For our first objective, we reviewed DOD documents and interviewed DOD officials in order to understand how each military service obtains document services and identify department-wide and military service efficiency initiatives for these services  We also reviewed the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) and the military services’ document services activities and compared them with a DOD statutory periodic review; DOD Instructions and other guidance; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance; internal control standards; and best practices for consolidation initiatives, efficiency initiatives, and strategic sourcing to identify any potentially unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation and any opportunities for greater efficiencies  For specific efficiency initiatives identified by DOD officials or in DOD documents, we interviewed DOD officials regarding their progress in implementing and meeting the goals of these initiatives  To evaluate DLA Document Services’ transformation plan, we interviewed DLA Document Services officials, reviewed DLA Document Services documents regarding the plan, and assessed that plan based on leading practices for consolidation and efficiency initiatives  To assess the plan against these practices, one analyst reviewed the testimony and documents provided and compared it to our key questions to consider when evaluating proposals to consolidate physical infrastructure and management functions  A second analyst reviewed and concurred with the first analyst’s assessments  In any cases where there was a disagreement, the analysts discussed any discrepancies  If they were not resolved, a third analyst reviewed the assessments  To assess the extent to which there may be additional opportunities for facility consolidations, we obtained DLA Document Services data on revenue reported by each facility, which DOD Document Services officials told us they used in determining which facilities to consolidate as a part of their transformation plan  We analyzed the share of mission specialty revenue reported by facilities that (1) were retained by DLA Document Services for a given mission specialty, (2) were retained but not for a given specialty, and (3) were not retained  We further divided those facilities retained for a given specialty into quartiles to better understand the concentration of revenue in those facilities  To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed DLA Documents Services officials regarding how the data were gathered, analyzed, reported, and used  We found that these data were reliable for the purpose of analyzing the shares of mission specialty revenue represented by each facility or group of facilities  To compare the cost of print devices offered by DLA Document Services, the Army, and the Air Force, we gathered and analyzed data on the monthly cost of multifunction devices with comparable specifications  We compared costs for similar devices based on device specifications including print speeds, monthly volumes, and paper capacities  Because Army and Air Force costs are estimated and there might be other differences in device specifications, approaches to obtaining devices, and which associated services were included, this analysis does not allow us to conclude which sources provide the greatest value  However, it illustrates differences in the cost of print devices across sources  For DLA Document Services, we used DLA Document Services’ standard monthly pricing for 2018 for various categories of multifunction devices  For the Army, Army officials were unable to provide data on the cost of multifunction devices purchased by Army customers  Instead, they provided us with documentation of vendor responses to requests for quotes from the Army’s mandatory source for print devices from April 2017 through January 2018  We reviewed those documents and assigned each device to a DLA Document Services category, based on the device’s specifications as identified in the documentation  We then estimated the monthly cost for each device  For leased devices, we used the monthly cost of the lease  For purchased devices, we used the total cost of the device divided by an estimated service life for the device  We estimated this service life using some indication available in the documentation, such as the length of time a maintenance agreement or extended warranty was provided for the device  Army officials provided 183 quotes for devices  Of those, we were able to include 24 in our analysis  We excluded the other 159 because either we could not determine the cost for individual devices in a quote, there was not enough information on a device’s specifications, there was no DLA Document Services equivalent for the device, or we were unable to estimate a service life based on the information provided  Because the information included all vendor quotes provided and not just those that were selected by a customer, the costs may not represent the actual costs of devices to the customer  For the Air Force, we used an estimated average monthly cost based the standard pricing included in the Air Force’s 2018 catalog for print devices  We reviewed the catalog and assigned each multifunction device offered to a DLA Document Services category, based on the devices’ specifications  The Air Force’s catalog contained 32 devices; we were able to determine the equivalent DLA Document Services category for 13 of those devices  All devices in the Air Force’s catalog are available for purchase and include a 4-year maintenance agreement; therefore, we estimated the average monthly cost as the purchase price divided by 48  To evaluate the extent to which DOD reports accurate and complete financial information to key stakeholders to manage its document services, we analyzed DOD’s operation and maintenance (O&M) budget justification materials for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and Defense Logistics Agency data on its document services mission  We focused our review on O&M obligations reported by DLA and the military services, which accounted for an average of about 92 percent of DOD’s total document service costs reported by DLA Document Services in fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials, including officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), DLA Document Services, and the military services to determine how they reported costs for document services  We assessed the information we collected against federal accounting standards on how information should be recorded and communicated to management and others  To determine the reliability of the O&M budget justification data provided to us by DOD, we obtained information on how the data were collected, managed, and used through interviews with relevant officials  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to represent the military services’ total O&M obligations for document services for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials and, where appropriate, obtained documentation, from the following organizations: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Department of Defense Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Document Services Defense Information Systems Agency – Joint Service Provider Army Chief Information Officer Army Publishing Directorate Army Marketing Research Group Army 7th Signal Command Headquarters Air Force – Chief Information Officer Department of the Navy – Chief Information Officer Headquarters Marine Corps Command, Control, Communications, Headquarters Marine Corps Publishing and Logistics Headquarters Marine Corps Budget and Execution Marine Corps Combat Camera Marine Corps Reprographic Equipment Management Program We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to October 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 contact named above, Matthew Ullengren (Assistant Director), Adam Hatton (Analyst in Charge), Adam Brooks, Joanne Landesman, Amie Lesser, Daniel Ramsey, Carter Stevens, and Walter Vance made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, heavily concentrated in 12 western states. Four agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands. The extent to which each of these four federal agencies have authority to acquire and dispose of land varies considerably. The BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The agency also has other authorities for disposing of land, including two laws that allow the agency to retain the proceeds for subsequent land acquisition, among other purposes, and a law that allows transfers to governmental units and other entities for public purposes. By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used. The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands. The agency frequently uses acquisition authority under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The nature of the acquisition and disposal authorities of the four federal agencies also varies. In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow the four agencies to bring into federal ownership lands that many contend could benefit from federal management. Disposal authorities generally are designed to allow agencies to convey land that is no longer needed for a federal purpose or that might be chiefly valuable for another purpose. Some of the authorities specify particular circumstances where they can be used, such as the conveyance of FS land for educational purposes and the disposal of BLM land for recreation and public purposes. Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; and the extent of federal land ownership overall. The current acquisition and disposal authorities form the backdrop for consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate authorities, or to provide for the acquisition or disposal of particular lands. In some cases, Congress enacts bills to provide authority to acquire or dispose of particular parcels where no standing authority exists and, in other cases, to direct or facilitate land transactions. Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of debates on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally, and it has considered broader measures to dispose of lands or to promote acquisition. Other issues for Congress pertain to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary source of funding for land acquisition. Congress has considered diverse measures related to the LWCF, such as legislation to make LWCF funding permanent and bills to direct LWCF monies to additional, nonacquisition purposes. Additionally, the FWS has the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, an account with mandatory spending authority supported by revenue from three sources. The BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the proceeds from land sales to be used for land acquisition, among other purposes.