GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-277424 

July 11, 1997

The Honorable Richard K. Armey

Majority Leader

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman, Committee on Government

 Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Subject: Results Act: Observations on the National Science Foundation’s

Draft Strategic Plan

On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans

submitted by the Cabinet departments and selected major agencies for

consultation with the Congress as required by the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). This report is our

response to that request concerning the draft strategic plan for the

National Science Foundation (NSF).

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

We agreed to review NSF’s draft plan and assess (1) whether it fulfills the

requirements of the Results Act and to provide our views on its overall

quality; (2) whether it reflects NSF’s key statutory authorities; (3) whether

it reflects interagency coordination for crosscutting programs, activities,

or functions that are similar or complementary to other federal agencies’;

and (4) whether NSF’s data and information systems are providing

adequate information for measuring results. You also asked us to assess

whether the draft plan addresses the management problems we have

previously identified. Because we have not reported on NSF’s management

problems in the past, this report will not address that issue.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

We reviewed the most recent draft strategic plan—dated June 9,

1997—provided to congressional committees. Our overall assessment of

NSF’s draft strategic plan was generally based on our knowledge of NSF’s

programs and operations, our discussions with NSF’s Assistant to the

Director for Science Policy and Planning and the Deputy Director, Office

of Legislative and Public Affairs, and other existing information available

at the time of our assessment.

Specifically, the criteria we used to determine whether NSF’s draft strategic

plan complies with the requirements of the Results Act were the Results

Act itself and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidance on

developing the plans (Circular A-11, Part 2). To make judgments about the

overall quality of the plan and its components, we used our May 1997

guidance for congressional review of the plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.16) as a tool.

To determine whether the plan contains information on interagency

coordination, we relied on our general knowledge of federal science

agencies’ operations and programs and the results of our previous reports.

In determining whether NSF’s draft strategic plan reflects its major

statutory responsibilities, as you requested, we coordinated our review

with the Congressional Research Service. To determine whether NSF has

adequate systems in place to provide reliable information on performance,

we relied on information provided by the Foundation’s Office of Inspector

General (OIG).

It is also important to recognize that NSF’s final plan is not due to the

Congress and OMB until September 1997. Furthermore, the Results Act

anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to perfect the process

and that the final plan will continue to be refined as future planning cycles

occur. Thus, our comments are a snapshot of the plan at this time. We

recognize that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process and that

NSF is continuing to work to revise the draft with input from OMB,

congressional staff, and other stakeholders.

Our work was performed in June and July 1997. We obtained comments on

a draft of this report from NSF. Its comments are in enclosure I.

Background NSF is an independent federal agency created by the National Science

Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507). Its aim is to promote and advance

scientific and engineering progress in the United States. The idea of such a

foundation was an outgrowth of the important contributions made by

science and technology during World War II. Since that time, NSF has been

Page 2 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

responsible for the overall well-being of science and engineering across all

disciplines. In contrast, other federal agencies support research focused

on specific missions, such as health or defense. NSF is also committed to

help ensure the nation’s supply of scientists, engineers, and science

educators through the financial support of education and research.

NSF funds research and education in the areas of science and engineering

through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000

colleges, universities, and other research institutions. NSF receives about

53,000 requests for funding (both new and renewal projects) each year and

makes about 20,000 awards. The agency operates no laboratories itself but

does support National Research Centers, certain oceanographic vessels,

and Antarctic research stations. It also supports cooperative research

between universities and industry and U.S. participation in international

scientific efforts.

NSF has been involved in strategic planning efforts since 1992, when the

National Science Board Commission on the Future of the NSF was

established. The board established national science and technology goals

that later became the basis for NSF’s 1994 strategic plan. The plan was

developed with input and support from in-house staff and advisory bodies.

NSF views the Results Act plan as its implementation strategy for the goals

set forth in its 1995 strategic plan.

The Results Act requires that an agency’s strategic plan contain the

following six critical elements: (1) a comprehensive mission statement;

(2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all major functions and

operations; (3) approaches (or strategies) and the various resources

needed to achieve the goals and objectives; (4) the relationship between

the long-term goals and objectives and the annual performance goals;

(5) an identification of key factors, external to the agency and beyond its

control, that could significantly affect the achievement of the strategic

goals; and (6) a description of how program evaluations were used to

establish or revise strategic goals and a schedule for future program

evaluations.

Results in Brief NSF’s draft strategic plan is incomplete and not specific enough to allow

the Congress to evaluate whether the agency’s goals are achievable. The

draft strategic plan addresses aspects of five of six required elements.

However, three of the five elements are not yet complete—goals and

objectives, strategies for achieving goals, and how program evaluation was

Page 3 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

used. Furthermore, NSF did not include one key element—external factors

that could affect the achievement of the plan’s goals. Because the plan is

incomplete, the Congress is missing critical information for its

consultations with NSF.

NSF’s draft strategic plan appears to reflect the consideration of its key

statutory authority, the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as

amended. We note, however, that NSF is subject to other statutes related to

its core functions; these other statutes broaden the scope of its

responsibilities. NSF could provide useful information by describing its

responsibilities under these other statutes when its plan includes goals

and objectives based on them.

NSF’s draft strategic plan acknowledges the crosscutting nature of its work.

However, the draft plan does not show evidence of interagency

coordination. While the strategic plan emphasizes the importance of NSF’s

many partners in the research and education enterprise, it does not

identify who these partners are or provide sufficient information to

determine the extent to which NSF’s and its partners’ functions are

duplicative or overlapping.

While we have not analyzed NSF’s data and information systems,

inadequacies in both financial information and information technology at

NSF have been identified by NSF’s Office of Inspector General. NSF’s OIG and

an independent public accounting firm completed the first audit of NSF’s

consolidated, agencywide fiscal year 1996 Statement of Financial Position

(balance sheet). Except for inadequate documentation to support the

reported amounts for property, plant, and equipment, the auditors

concluded that NSF’s assets, liabilities, and net position are reliable. (No

audit was performed on the 1996 Statement of Operations and Changes in

Net Position. Therefore, the reliability of NSF’s revenue and expense

information is uncertain. It is our understanding that this information will

be audited for fiscal year 1997.) In addition, the auditors found that NSF

had not yet met the requirements in the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act

to develop an integrated agency accounting and financial management

system that provides for reporting cost information and the systematic

measurement of performance. Furthermore, linkages between NSF’s

technology and its programs’ missions and goals were not included in its

strategic plan.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

NSF’s Strategic Plan

Partly Fulfills the

Requirements of the

Results Act

While five of the six required elements are addressed, at least four of them

need further development, and the sixth element—key external factors—is

not included in the current draft. NSF’s draft plan is not specific enough to

allow the Congress to evaluate whether NSF’s goals and objectives are

achievable. In its plan, the Foundation describes itself as an investment

agent, setting its mission, goals, and supporting strategies toward the

performance of its investment portfolios through grants, contracts, and

cooperative agreements. The draft plan indicates that NSF’s annual

performance goals for results will appear as descriptive standards, as

allowed by the Results Act’s option to set performance goals in an

alternative format. The draft plan also indicates that the performance

goals for process will be largely quantitative. A brief section on the use of

program evaluation in establishing strategic goals is included. NSF also

included a section in its plan that discusses the processes and essential

coordination functions managed by NSF staff that must operate effectively

if NSF’s outcome goals are to be met. In this section, the Foundation

addresses other factors critical to the successful management of the

agency.

NSF Addresses

Requirements for Its

Mission Statement

NSF’s mission statement focuses on strengthening the nation’s potential for

research and education in science and engineering. Included with its

mission statement are those areas initiated and supported by NSF pursuant

to its core statutory responsibilities. These are: basic scientific and

engineering research; programs strengthening scientific and engineering

research potential; science and engineering education; and an information

and policy base for science and engineering. The section on NSF’s mission

statement and the supporting text is comprehensive and results-oriented

and fulfills public needs and statutory responsibilities. Although brief, it

defines the basic purpose of the agency, focusing particularly on its core

programs and activities.

Goals and Objectives Are

Defined in the Draft Plan

The draft plan sets out three overarching goals intended to guide NSF’s

strategic direction, as well as four broadly worded outcome goals. The

overarching goals do not represent the unique functions and operations of

NSF. The draft plan states that these goals cannot be achieved unilaterally.

According to NSF’s Deputy Director, Office of Legislative and Public

Affairs, the overarching goals were developed by the National Science

Board 3 years ago in the context of a broader effort to establish goals for

all science agencies.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

The outcome goals set out the long-term programmatic, policy, and

management goals to be accomplished through NSF’s program office

investments. Because many of these goals are not expressed in a

measurable form, it is unclear whether the Foundation and the Congress

will be able to assess whether the goals are achieved. While in some cases

these goals provide the immediate context for NSF’s investment decisions,

in other cases they do not. For example, one goal is to encourage

“improved achievement in the essential mathematics and science skills

needed by all Americans.” The achievement of this goal is targeted at

results over which NSF has a reasonable degree of influence—instructional

materials developed through NSF awards, for example. However, another

stated goal seeks “discoveries at and across the frontier of science and

engineering.” It is unclear how NSF will be able to assess whether this goal

is achieved. When goals are defined in a way that precludes a direct, future

determination of achievement, the performance goals and indicators in the

annual performance plan should be used to provide the basis for the

assessment, according to OMB Circular A-11. Therefore, NSF may want to

elaborate on how it is achieving certain goals in its performance plan.

Strategies to Achieve NSF’s

Goals Lack Precision

NSF’s plan provides some general dates for achieving its goals but does not

provide the underlying assumptions, projections, or a schedule for

initiating or completing significant actions. Also lacking is the process for

communicating goals and objectives throughout the agency and for

assigning accountability to managers and staff for the achievement of

goals.

Each of NSF’s four outcome goals is supported by three to four investment

strategies. For example, the first goal is to encourage “discoveries at and

across the frontier of science and engineering.” The draft plan identifies

four key investment strategies to meet this goal. The first strategy is to

“seek out the most innovative ideas, actively shaping the portfolio in ways

that influence capabilities for the future.” NSF officials agree that it would

be helpful if the language were more specific. One way to achieve

specificity may be to link the stated outcome goals to the relevant

statutory objective. Although the Results Act does not require such a

linkage, including such information may help NSF management to better

formulate its goals. It could also facilitate constructive consultation

between the agency and the congressional oversight committees about the

agency’s goals and its priorities for achieving them.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

Although not discussed in detail in NSF’s plan, a single investment can

work toward many of the outcome goals articulated. For example, goal

three is to achieve “a diverse, productive globally-oriented workforce of

scientists and engineers.” NSF’s Faculty Early Career Development

(Career) program for junior-level faculty members at colleges and

universities encourages them to contribute to research and education

early in their careers. The Career program supports research that leads to

linking discovery and learning, one of the supporting strategies for NSF’s

first goal. Moreover, according to NSF, frequently the most original and

innovative ideas come from young scientists whose ideas are often of

interest to industry and to other agencies. Thus, investments made through

this program may also support the outcome goals for discoveries and

connections.

The Plan Addresses the

Relationship Between

NSF’s Long-Term Goals

and Annual Performance

Goals

As required by OMB’s guidance, NSF’s draft plan outlines the type of

performance goals to be included in its performance plan. Performance

goals for NSF will include (1) quantitative goals measuring the process of

investing in or facilitating research and education projects, as well as

performance goals for facilities operations, and (2) descriptive standards

for assessing the results of NSF’s investments at an aggregate level. The

relationship between the performance goals and NSF’s outcome goals is

described briefly as is the relevance and use of performance goals in

helping to determine the achievement of general goals and objectives. In

addition, the plan addresses the linkage between NSF’s budget and its

annual performance plan. Performance plans for an upcoming year are to

be developed in the light of the analysis of past performance, an

assessment of how recent or projected changes in the investment portfolio

will influence future performance, and how the portfolio fits with the

outcome goals identified in the strategic plan.

As we have reported in the past, the very nature of the innovative process

makes measuring the performance of science-related activities difficult,

since outcomes may not be seen for many years.1

 An NSF official told us

that the alternative form of performance assessment for the agency’s

annual performance plan should provide some basis for assessing whether

NSF’s goals have been met. According to information on a 1995 NSF

discussion paper,2 the ultimate outcomes of NSF’s programs, such as new

1

Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges in Implementing GPRA in Science Agencies

(GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).

2

National Science Foundation Case Study: Development and Use of Outcome Information by the

National Science Foundation (Oct. 25, 1996).

Page 7 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

technologies or improved quality of life, are too far from NSF’s sphere of

influence to be used for setting performance goals. As a result, the

discussion paper argues that NSF would need to manage toward

intermediate outcomes, such as major new conceptual frameworks,

enduring partnerships, and cadres of trained technical talent, all of which

involve qualitative elements not lending themselves to quantitative

indicators. NSF has focused its efforts on developing outcome indicators,

as encouraged by the Results Act.

NSF’s Plan Does Not

Discuss External Factors

That Could Affect Goal

Achievement

NSF’s draft plan neither addresses key external factors nor describes how

achieving particular goals could be affected by external factors. Such

factors as the extent to which schools and universities emphasize

mathematics and science or subsidize faculty research are influences

outside of NSF’s control. These influences could affect NSF’s realization of

its goal aimed at improving the achievement of mathematics and science

skills needed by all Americans, or its goal of making discoveries at and

across the frontier of science and engineering. Therefore, the

identification of these factors and related actions that could reduce or

ameliorate their potential impact could be useful in the Congress’s review

of and NSF’s implementation of the strategic plan.

NSF’s Plan Lacks a

Complete Description of

How Program Evaluations

Will Be Used and a

Schedule for Future

Program Evaluations

NSF’s draft plan does not discuss how the agency used specific program

evaluations to develop its strategic goals or the other components of the

plan. However, beginning in fiscal year 1998, the plan indicates that the

Foundation will structure its internal and external assessment processes

using this strategic plan and the performance plan and that performance

reports will be requested annually from all NSF units. Further details are

needed on a schedule for future evaluations, the scope of and

methodology for future evaluations, and how the findings could be useful

in assessing NSF’s goals and performance plans.

Statutory

Responsibilities Are

Generally Reflected in

NSF’s Strategic Plan

NSF’s draft plan highlights the agency’s core responsibilities under the

National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-507), as amended.

However, the draft plan does not mention additional authorities given to

NSF under the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act, Title I of

the Education for Economic Security Act, or other related legislation, such

as that concerning polar research and conservation. Although these

mandates are not specifically mentioned, the core responsibilities appear

general enough to encompass the additional responsibilities. Nonetheless,

Page 8 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

it might be helpful if NSF provided a list, as a supplement to its plan, of its

statutory authorities and the major responsibilities that flow from such

legislation.

Crosscutting

Functions Are Not

Adequately

Recognized in the

Strategic Plan

NSF’s draft plan does not identify specific programs and activities that are

crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies. The draft plan

does briefly describe the role NSF plays in the federal science and

engineering enterprise. Although NSF captures investment opportunities

across the spectrum of science, mathematics, and engineering to influence

the nation’s capabilities in all aspects of these endeavors, the plan

provides little evidence to suggest that interagency coordination occurred

to address the potential issues of duplication and overlap. Because

overlapping and fragmented programs can waste scarce funds, confuse

and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the

federal effort, it is important for NSF to address crosscutting programs in

its plan.

In the science and technology area, where the federal government spent

$60 billion in fiscal year 1996 and the potential for unnecessary overlap is

particularly high, close coordination is essential. The Foundation’s mission

includes promoting the progress of science, and one of its overarching

goals is to enable the United States to uphold a position of world

leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics, and engineering.

However, our review of other agencies’ draft strategic plans identified the

following examples of agencies with missions that could potentially

overlap NSF’s mission:

• The Department of Energy’s (DOE) science mission is to maintain

leadership in basic research and to advance scientific knowledge.

• The Department of Commerce’s mission includes keeping America

competitive with cutting-edge science and technology.

There are additional examples of potential overlap among federal

agencies. NSF’s authorizing legislation directs it to initiate and support

science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of

science and engineering. Similarly, DOE’s draft strategic plan states that it

will use its laboratories and the nation’s universities to contribute to the

nation’s science and mathematics education.

According to NSF’s Assistant to the Director for Science Policy and

Planning, the Foundation participates in a number of groups such as the

Page 9 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

National Science and Technology Council, the Committee on Fundamental

Science, and the Research Roundtable. While one purpose of the groups is

to coordinate, NSF’s draft plan neither mentions these groups nor the

frequency of their discussions. However, relating NSF’s strategic plan to

other agencies’ crosscutting programs would enhance the Congress’s

ability to assess any concerns about potential overlap and duplication.

NSF’s Plan DOEs Not

Fully Address Its

Capacity to Provide

Reliable Information

on the Achievement of

Strategic Goals

While NSF’s draft plan recognizes the importance of information

technology, the draft plan could benefit from a clearer and more detailed

discussion of how it specifically intends to use information technology to

improve performance, to reduce costs, and ultimately to achieve its

missions, goals, and objectives. Furthermore, NSF’s draft plan does not

address the “year 2000 problem” (which requires that computer systems be

changed to accommodate dates beyond the year 1999) or significant

weaknesses in information security—two issues that we have identified as

high risk across government.

Recent information technology reform legislation, including the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, set

forth requirements that promote more efficient and effective use of

information technology in support of agencies’ missions and of improved

program performance. Under these acts, agencies are to better link their

technology plans and information technology use to their programs’

missions and goals.

According to officials in NSF’s OIG, one of NSF’s primary financial

management challenges is to prepare and audit consolidated, agencywide

financial statements, as required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act

and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. Financial

statements are required to be prepared and audited to instill greater

accountability and to provide reliable financial information for formulating

budgets, managing government and program operations, and making

difficult policy decisions. NSF received a qualified opinion on its fiscal year

1996 statement of financial position because of inadequate documentation

for property, plant, and equipment in the possession of its contractors and

grantees. (No audit was performed on the 1996 Statement of Operations

and Changes in Net Position. Therefore, the reliability of NSF’s revenue and

expense information is uncertain. It is our understanding that this

information will be audited for fiscal year 1997.) Reliable information on

investments in the property assets used to carry out agency’s mission is an

essential part of performance measurement.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

In addition, to support the Results Act’s implementation and to ensure that

NSF is complying with federal cost-accounting system standards, the

Foundation will need to relate costs to financial and program performance

data. Key requirements of the CFO Act are the development of cost

information to enable the systematic measurement of performance and the

integrations of systems (i.e., program, accounting, and budget systems).

NSF plans to modify its cost-accounting system to support reporting on the

Results Act once its strategic plan is approved.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the National Science Foundation for

its review and comment. (NSF’s comments appear in enc. I.) In general, NSF

agreed that additional information on two of the required elements would

be useful and provided additional context to explain NSF’s approach to

meeting the remaining requirements of the Results Act. NSF stated its

intention to update its draft plan by providing additional detail on the

external factors that could influence its ability to meet its goals; current

and future program evaluation efforts and their contributions to the

formulation of investment strategies; and how NSF addresses issues of

potential duplication and overlap and its appropriate role in interagency

activities. In regard to information technology, we believe that the

implementation of the tenets of the Clinger-Cohen and Paperwork

Reduction Acts is essential to effectively using information technology to

improve performance and carry out an agency’s mission, goals, and

objectives. Successfully addressing “year 2000” problems is also critical. It

is therefore important for NSF, in its strategic plan, to articulate how it

plans to use information technology in meeting these key challenges.

While we questioned the measurability of NSF’s outcome goals, NSF believes

that by using expert judgment (peer review) to assess a range of factors

about a project’s results, it can appraise whether the observed outcomes

meet the stated goals. We agree that quantitative and qualitative indicators

are widely used as proxies to assess research and development (R&D)

results because of the difficulties in identifying the impacts of research.

Yet, while implying a degree of precision, these indicators were not

originally intended to measure long-term R&D results. Furthermore, while

peer review provides detailed information, it relies on the subjective

decisions of individuals and can be expensive.3

3

Measuring Performance: Challenges in Evaluating Research and Development (GAO/T-RCED-97-130,

Apr. 10, 1997).

Page 11 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277424 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the

Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; the Ranking Minority

Members of your Committees and the Chairmen and Ranking Minority

Members of the other Committees that have jurisdiction over NSF; the

Director of NSF; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We

will send copies to others on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this letter.

Victor S. Rezendes

Director, Energy, Resources,

 and Science Issues

Enclosure

Page 12 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
Page 13 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the National Science

Foundation

Page 14 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the National Science

Foundation

Now on

pp. 5 & 6.

See p. 8.

See p. 8.

See p. 8.

Page 15 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the National Science

Foundation

See pp. 9 & 10.

See pp. 10 & 11.

(141077) Page 16 GAO/RCED-97-203R NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100