United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Administrator, General

Services Administration

May 1998 RESULTS ACT

Observations on the

General Services

Administration’s

Annual Performance

Plan

GAO/GGD-98-110

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-279768 

May 11, 1998

The Honorable David J. Barrum

Administrator

General Services Administration

Dear Mr. Barrum:

This report provides our observations on the General Services

Administration’s (GSA) fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan, dated

March 5, 1998, that was submitted to Congress as required by the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act). As you

know, we were asked by the leadership in the House of Representatives to

review and evaluate this plan as well as plans developed by other agencies.

These requesters were the Speaker of the House; the House Majority

Leader; and the Chairmen of the House Committees on the Budget,

Appropriations, and Government Reform and Oversight. Although this

work will contribute to an overall evaluation of the performance plans

submitted by the 24 agencies that have Chief Financial Officers, which will

be provided to our congressional requestors, we agreed with key

congressional staff that it would be useful to provide further details about

our observations to you.

To do our review, we used the criteria in the Results Act; the Office of

Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidance on developing the plan

(Circular A-11, part 2); our February 1998 guidance for congressional

review of the plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD 10.1.18); our evaluator’s guidance for

assessing annual performance plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20); and the December 17,

1997, letter to the OMB Director from several congressional leaders. Where

appropriate, we also incorporated findings from our past work and the

work of the GSA Inspector General (IG). Appendix I contains a compilation

of the various types of guidance available for assessing the plan, including

the Results Act, GAO reports, and OMB documents. We did our work in

March and April 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. We sent a draft of this report to you for review and

comment. On April 9, 1998, GSA officials provided oral comments on that

draft, which are discussed at the end of this letter.

Background As one of the federal government’s principal real estate and business

agents, GSA has diverse activities and programs that have governmentwide

implications. Its real estate portfolio, supply procurement and distribution

activities, travel and transportation services, telecommunication and

Page 1 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

computer services, and property management and disposal functions

involve huge sums of money and extensive interaction with both the

federal and private sectors. In many respects, GSA is comparable to a large,

diversified commercial business. If GSA were a private sector company, it

would rank high, in terms of sales, on the Fortune 500 list of the largest

U.S. companies.

GSA spends billions of dollars to provide many of the facilities, goods, and

services that federal agencies need to carry out their missions. Through

various revolving or trust fund-type arrangements, GSA buys most of these

goods and services from private vendors and resells them to agencies.

Additionally, GSA arranges for federal agencies to purchase billions of

dollars’ worth of goods and services directly from private vendors through

its governmentwide supply, travel and transportation, automated data

processing, and telecommunications contracts. Furthermore, when it was

established in 1949, GSA was envisioned, primarily but not exclusively, as a

policymaking body with the option of delegating its authority to other

agencies while maintaining comprehensive accountability to Congress for

economy and efficiency.

In recent years, public sector organizations have faced demands to be

more effective and less costly, coupled with a growing movement toward a

performance-based approach to management. Congress enacted the

Results Act in 1993 in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officers Act

and information technology reform legislation, such as the Clinger-Cohen

Act of 1996, to address these twin demands and to instill

performance-based management in the federal government. The Results

Act seeks to shift the focus of government decisionmaking and

accountability away from a preoccupation with activities—such as grants

and inspections made—to a focus on the results of those activities—such

as real gains in employability, safety, responsiveness, or program quality.

Under the Results Act, agencies like GSA are to develop strategic plans,

annual performance plans, and annual performance reports.1 GSA and other

agencies submitted the first cycle of the strategic plans to Congress in

September 1997. Like other agencies, GSA submitted its first performance

plan to OMB in the fall of 1997. OMB used these draft performance plans to

develop and submit the first federal government performance plan to

Congress in February 1998 with the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget.

Agencies submitted their final performance plans to Congress after the

1

Agencies are required to submit annual program performance reports to the President and Congress

that review, among other things, the agencies’ success in achieving the performance goals established

in their previous year’s performance plans. The reports on fiscal year 1999’s performance are due by

March 31, 2000.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

submission of the President’s budget. Appendix II provides a more

detailed discussion of the Results Act’s planning and reporting

requirements.

Results in Brief GSA’s performance plan has several performance goals for each of its

strategic goals. Some of its performance goals and measures are objective

and quantified and provide a way to compare actual to planned

performance. In addition, the plan contains some goals and measures that

involve comparisons of GSA and the private sector. However, for the most

part, the plan falls short of meeting the criteria set forth in the Results Act

and related guidance. It does not adequately provide a clear picture of

expected performance across the agency because (1) like the goals in its

strategic plan, many performance goals, and related measures, are not

quantifiable or results oriented; (2) performance plan goals are not always

linked to the specific program activities and funding in its budget; and

(3) also like the strategic plan, the performance plan does not discuss GSA’s

coordination efforts for many crosscutting activities. We also found that

the performance plan generally does not have an explicit discussion of the

strategies and resources that will be needed to achieve goals or the

external factors that will affect accomplishment of the goals. Although the

plan includes a discussion of how GSA plans to verify performance data

that provides partial confidence that performance information will be

credible, it does not discuss the actions GSA has taken or will take to

address known data limitations.

GSA’s Plan Does Not

Provide a Clear

Picture of Intended

Performance Across

the Agency

We found that overall, GSA’s performance plan does not provide a clear

picture of expected performance across the agency. First, most of the

performance goals and related measures are not quantifiable or results

oriented. Second, GSA’s performance plan goals are not always linked to

the specific program activities and funding in its budget. Finally, the

performance plan does not adequately discuss its coordination with other

agencies on GSA’s many crosscutting activities.

Defining Expected

Performance

GSA’s performance plan does not provide a succinct and concrete

statement of expected performance for subsequent comparison with

actual performance. Despite the expectations of the Results Act and

related OMB guidance that annual performance goals be quantifiable, in our

view, only 9 of the 31 performance goals in the plan have measures and

targets that decisionmakers can use to gauge progress. For example, the

performance goal of improving energy systems is expressed in quantifiable

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

and time-bound terms and has a specific unit of measurement, a baseline,

and numerical targets. Likewise, the performance goal on keeping GSA’s

prices competitive has measures that are expressed in percentages or

costs with baselines and accompanying targets. However, for the

remaining 22 performance goals, 16 lack measures and targets needed to

gauge performance; and 6 had a mix of some quantifiable measures and

some still under development or had measures that are not specific

enough to gauge performance.

Furthermore, some of the performance measures do not appear to provide

meaningful information as they relate to their stated goal. For example,

the measure tracking the percentage of repair and alteration or new

construction projects that are completed on or ahead of schedule seems

unrelated to its goal of ensuring that its prices for primary products and

services are competitive with those in the private sector. In addition, the

plan has some goals that relate to space management but has no measures

that relate to cost effectively managing its space—one of GSA’s primary

functions.

Finally, the goals as written in the performance plan are typically more

activity or output oriented rather than results oriented as envisioned by

the Results Act. For example, for the performance goal to “continue

enhancement of financial, administrative and expert services contracts for

Governmentwide asset management,” GSA set forth the following

“measures”: awarding master contracts for payment systems; developing

contracts for temporary services; completing the Management,

Organization, Business Improvement Schedule; and developing a program

for sale of receivables. These activities may be initially important to GSA in

achieving its strategic goals and accomplishing its mission. However, these

measures appear to us to be activities rather than measures, and the

accompanying narrative provides no information that describes what

these activities are or what outcomes they aim to achieve so that

decisionmakers can understand their importance and gauge progress over

time.

Connecting Mission, Goals,

and Activities

Contrary to the Results Act and OMB guidance, GSA’s performance plan

does not always show clear connections between the performance goals

and the specific program activities and funding in its budget. Without such

a linkage, decisionmakers cannot relate the performance goals in the plan

to the program activities in the budget. Furthermore, they cannot readily

assess how GSA intends to allocate its anticipated budgetary resources

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

among its performance goals. Although the plan identifies a specific

“funding” and “activity” category for most performance goals, the activity

does not generally correspond to the specific program activities used in

the agency’s budget request. For example, the performance goal to

improve energy systems in federal buildings to meet or exceed the federal

energy consumption standards for 2005 identifies the “Federal Buildings

Fund” as the funding and “energy” as the activity, but the President’s

budget for the Federal Buildings Fund does not have an energy program

activity. Also, for some performance goals, the plan shows that “multiple”

activities are involved but does not specifically identify the activities.

Furthermore, because the plan does not identify the funding level for most

of the activities named in the plan or the program activities in the budget

request, the reader cannot determine how much funding GSA proposes to

use to meet its performance goals. In addition, contrary to the criteria in

the Results Act, some program activities assigned large levels of funding in

the budget, such as construction and acquisition of facilities and

construction of lease purchase facilities, are not linked to specific

performance goals. We believe the plan would be more useful if the

activity and funding identified with each performance goal could be easily

linked to GSA’s budget request.

The plan includes GSA’s mission statement and gives abbreviated versions

of its strategic goals presented in its strategic plan, but they are not

identified as such. Further, although none of the strategic goals were

revised for the performance plan, we noted that GSA appears to have

dropped two of the five objectives related to the fourth strategic goal but

provides no rationale for this revision. Consequently, it may be difficult for

the reader to judge whether the performance goals in the annual

performance plan are related to and consistent with GSA’s strategic plan, as

envisioned by the Results Act and OMB guidance.

In addition, we noted that like the strategic plan, the performance plan

does not address major management problems we and the GSA’s IG have

identified in recent years. These include data reliability, which will be

discussed in more detail later; insufficient management controls; and

impediments to businesslike asset management in the real property area.

In a January 29, 1998, memorandum to agencies, the Director of OMB said

that “performance goals for corrective steps for major management

problems should be included for problems whose resolution is

mission-critical, or which could materially impede the achievement of

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

program goals.” As we reported in January 1998,2 our work has shown

over the years that major management problems at GSA have significantly

hampered GSA’s and its stakeholder agencies’ abilities to accomplish their

missions.

Recognizing Crosscutting

Efforts

Although GSA’s performance plan recognizes the crosscutting nature of its

activities, it does not adequately explain how it will coordinate its

crosscutting functions with the federal community. OMB Circular A-11, Sec.

220.8, states that the annual performance plan should identify

performance goals that reflect activities being mutually undertaken to

support programs of an interagency, crosscutting nature. Because GSA is

an agency with governmentwide policysetting, oversight, and operational

functions, its major activities collectively affect the whole federal

community.

Some of GSA’s specific performance goals are crosscutting in nature. For

example, according to the plan, three of the performance goals under the

goal to “promote responsible asset management” involve “collaboration

among many federal agencies brought together by GSA” and “measurement

of the results of policy initiatives will require collection of other agencies’

costs.” However, although the discussion of some of the efforts contain

references to coordination with other federal agencies, the plan does not

discuss how GSA will coordinate these efforts. In another example, GSA’s

performance goal to improve access to quality child care for all federal

employees does not explain exactly how GSA is coordinating with the

federal community for this wide-reaching goal. In the

excel-at-customer-service section, GSA generally describes what it is doing

to better understand its customers’ needs. These actions include

face-to-face meetings with customers or their agency representatives and

working with interagency groups and councils. However, it is difficult to

relate these actions to the specific crosscutting aspects of the goals in this

section of the plan.

2

Managing for Results: Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Can Help Address Strategic Planning

Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan. 30, 1998).

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

GSA’s Plan Does Not

Adequately Discuss

How Strategies and

Resources Will Help

GSA Achieve Its Goals

GSA’s performance plan does not explicitly discuss the strategies—how it

will use its operational processes, skills, and technologies—and resources

(human, capital, information, or other resources) that will be needed to

achieve its goals. Without this discussion, decisionmakers cannot

determine if GSA has a sound approach for achieving its goals and using its

resources wisely.

Connecting Strategies to

Performance Goals

GSA’s performance plan for the most part does not present clear and

reasonable strategies for achieving its intended performance goals. The

Results Act and OMB Circular A-11 state that the performance plan should

briefly describe the agency’s strategies to accomplish its performance

goals. Specifically, we found that the narrative accompanying each

objective and specific performance goal provides descriptive information

on GSA activities. However, the narrative does not describe how GSA

intends to meet the performance goals in the plan.

For example, two of the three measures under the performance goal to

increase market share for primary services are (1) the combined market

share for information technology solutions and network services and

(2) market share for fleet. Target percentages for fiscal years 1998 and

1999 are listed. The accompanying narrative, however, gives little

indication of how GSA intends to increase its market share in these areas.

GSA makes general statements about leveraging its competitive pricing

with broad market penetration and government downsizing—“as the

government downsizes agencies are looking to GSA to provide cost

effective solutions to the workload needs and requirements.” However, it

offers no information on its specific approach or strategy for how it plans

to leverage prices or take advantage of downsizing to increase its market

share for its vehicle fleet.

Although the Results Act does not require that the performance plan

specifically discuss the impact of external factors on achieving

performance goals, we believe that a discussion of such factors would

provide additional context regarding anticipated performance. In its

September 1997 strategic plan, GSA identified four external

factors—economic conditions, social policy, changes in technology and

the marketplace, and legislative framework—that could likely affect its

overall performance. GSA’s performance plan does not explicitly discuss

these factors or their impact on achieving the performance goals. In

addition, other external factors that we have reported on over the

years—such as the lengthy prospectus authorization process and budget

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

scorekeeping rules that favor operating leases over ownership—are not

mentioned in the performance plan.

Connecting Resources to

Performance Goals

GSA’s performance plan does not adequately discuss the resources it will

use to achieve the performance goals. The Results Act and OMB Circular

A-11 specify that the performance plan should briefly describe the human,

capital, information, or other resources it will use to achieve its

performance goals. Most of the performance goals in GSA’s performance

plan contain a subheading entitled “Human, Capital, Information, or Other

Resources”; however, the information under these subheadings, which

typically said “no additional resources required,” falls short of the Results

Act criterion that the plan briefly describe the resources needed to achieve

performance goals.

We found that only 3 of the 31 performance goals specified any amount of

budgetary resources associated with the achievement of the performance

goal. Even in these three cases, there is no explanation of specifically how

the funds will be used. We also noted that two goals made a limited

reference to staffing issues. For example, for the performance goal to

implement capital planning for information technology to comply with the

Clinger-Cohen Act, the plan identifies the type of staff (project managers,

planners, budget analysts, and executives) that will be involved. However,

the plan does not contain any information on how GSA intends to use its

resources to achieve its performance goals.

GSA’s Plan Provides

Partial Confidence

That Performance

Information Will Be

Credible

We found that GSA’s performance plan partially meets the Results Act

criteria related to including information on verifying and validating

performance data. Although GSA included information on the general

approaches it will use to ensure that performance information is reliable,

the plan makes no reference to ongoing controls and procedures that are

in place to ensure data integrity. A succinct discussion of some of these

procedures and controls would provide decisionmakers with better

insights into, and confidence in, what is being done to prevent the use of

unreliable data. Also, we found that the plan does not contain a discussion

of actions GSA will take or has taken to address known data limitations.

The Results Act does not require a discussion of data limitations in the

performance plan; however, an explanation of such limitations can

provide decisionmakers with a context for understanding and assessing

agencies’ performance and the costs and challenges agencies face in

gathering, processing, and analyzing needed data. This discussion on data

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

limitations can help identify the actions needed to improve the agency’s

ability to measure its performance.

Verifying and Validating

Performance

GSA’s performance plan partially discusses how the agency will ensure that

its performance information is sufficiently verified and validated.

Specifically, we found that the plan highlights the importance of having

credible data. It also meets the intent of the Results Act by identifying

actions that GSA believes will identify data problems. These include audits

of its financial records and systems by an independent accounting firm

and top level quarterly meetings to review the financial and programmatic

results of its various business lines. However, we believe that the

performance plan would be greatly improved if GSA were to also highlight

some of the specific controls it may use for its major systems to verify and

validate performance information on an ongoing basis. Such controls

could include periodic data reliability tests, computer edit controls, and

supervisory reviews of data used to develop performance measures.

Various financial audits and management reviews are certainly useful

steps to identifying data problems that require management attention; but

they are no substitute for effective front-end procedures, practices, and

controls to ensure data reliability—a critical component of performance

measurement. GSA has had financial and program audits on an ongoing

basis for many years. However, despite these efforts, the agency has a

history of data problems as shown by our work and that of the IG (this

work is discussed later in more detail). A succinct discussion of the major

procedures and controls that are in place to ensure credible data, at least

for the more important systems, would be more helpful to decisionmakers

in assessing the reliability of the data being used to gauge performance.

Recognizing Data

Limitations

GSA’s performance plan does not discuss known data limitations that could

raise questions about the validity of the performance measures GSA plans

to use. For several years, our work and that of the IG have identified

several data reliability problems at GSA. Our work showed that GSA lacked

the timely, accurate, and reliable program data needed to effectively

manage and oversee its various activities and programs. Between 1994 and

1997, IG audits of the internal controls over the production of reliable data

to support various GSA performance measures found problems.

Specifically, of the eight audits conducted, controls designed to produce

reliable data to support various GSA performance measures were found to

be at moderate risk in three, high risk in one, and low risk in the other

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

four. In February 1998, the IG reported on reviews of two additional

performance measures; one was low risk, and the other was removed from

the Fiscal Year 1997 Annual Report as a result of issues raised during the

IG review.

In addition, the IG reported in its October 31, 1997, Semiannual Report to

Congress that many of the 87 major systems GSA uses to support its

functions are old and incorporate inefficient technologies compared with

today’s advanced systems. Modification and maintenance of these old

systems have become complex and costly. Finally, the independent audit

of GSA’s 1996 and 1997 financial statements noted data problems related to

property account classifications for construction projects and access

controls over the Federal Supply Service’s information systems. Also, the

independent auditors reported that although the Public Buildings Service

has addressed certain deficiencies in its internal control structure,

attention to improving internal controls in its business and financial

processes is required to assess, improve, and report the results of program

performance. Despite such evidence that suggests data reliability is still a

major problem, the performance plan is silent on this critical issue. At a

minimum, it would have been helpful if the plan had an explicit discussion

of current data reliability problems and how GSA plans to address them.

Conclusions GSA’s performance plan falls short of meeting the criteria set forth in the

Results Act and related OMB guidance. It is not a stand-alone document

that provides a clear road map of what GSA wants to accomplish, how it

plans to get there, and what results it expects to achieve. The plan does

not fully meet the Results Act criteria for objective, measurable, and

quantifiable goals and measures and lacks clear connections between the

performance goals and the specific program activities in GSA’s budget. The

performance plan also lacks an adequate explanation of how it will

coordinate its crosscutting functions with the federal community. In

addition, it often does not contain meaningful discussions on the strategies

and resources GSA plans to use to meet its goals and achieve intended

results and on the questions surrounding data reliability. We recognize that

this is the first performance plan developed under the Results Act, and, as

such, there is a large learning process in understanding what constitutes a

good plan. However, this and future plans can be significantly improved if

they follow the criteria set forth in the Results Act and related guidance

more closely.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

Recommendations We recommend that the GSA Administrator take steps to ensure that GSA’s

fiscal year 2000 performance plan (1) conforms with the criteria in the

Results Act and related OMB guidance and (2) gives decisionmakers a

better framework for gauging GSA’s performance. Specifically, in

developing the next plan, we recommend that the Administrator take steps

to

• refine GSA’s performance goals to make them more quantifiable and results

oriented;

• clarify how GSA’s performance goals link to specific program activities in

GSA’s budget;

• explain how GSA has coordinated its crosscutting functions with the

federal community;

• discuss GSA strategies to be used and resources needed to achieve its

performance goals and their intended results, as well as external factors

that could affect its overall performance; and

• discuss specific controls for verifying and validating data used to measure

performance, recognize existing data limitations, and explain GSA efforts to

overcome those limitations.

Agency Comments On April 9, 1998, we obtained oral comments from GSA’s Chief Financial

Officer, Director of the Office of Performance Management, and Managing

Director for Planning on a draft of this report. They said that GSA generally

agreed with our analysis and will implement our recommendations when it

prepares the fiscal year 2000 performance plan.

As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires that the head of a federal agency

submit a written statement of actions taken on our recommendations to

the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight not later than 60 days after the date

of this report. A written statement must be sent to the Senate and House

Committees on Appropriations with the agency’s first request for

appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this report. We

would appreciate receiving a copy of the statement.

We are sending copies of this report to each of the individual requesters of

our work in this area; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of

other Committees that have jurisdiction over GSA activities; and the

Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available

to others on request.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
B-279768 

Major contributors to this report are listed in attachment III. If you or your

staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at

(202) 512-8387.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

 Operations Issues

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Annual Performance

Plan Guidance

16

Appendix II 

The Results Act’s

Planning and

Reporting

Requirements

22

Multiyear Strategic Plans 22

Annual Performance Plans 22

Annual Performance Reports 23

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

25

Abbreviations

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

GSA General Services Administration

IG Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix I 

Annual Performance Plan Guidance

This appendix contains a compilation of guidance on annual performance

plans, including the Results Act, GAO reports, and OMB documents, and is

arranged by the major issues discussed in this report.

Defining Expected

Performance

The Government Performance and Results Act (Results Act), 31 U.S.C.

1115(a)(1), 1115(a)(2), 1115(a)(4), 1115(a)(5), 1115(b), and 1115(c).

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying the

Results Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance

Plans”; p. 29, “Performance Goals”; pp. 29-30, “Performance Indicators”;

and p. 30, “Alternative Forms of Measurement.”

OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.1, 220.4, 220.10(a), 220.10(b), 220.10(c), 220.14,

220.16, 220.17, 221.4(a), 221.4(b), and 221.4(d).

OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), pp.

1-2, “Coverage of Program Activities”; pp. 3-4, “Annual Performance

Goals”; p. 4, “Performance Indicators”; and p. 5, “Alternative Form of

Measurement.”

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 55-57,

61-63, and 71-72.

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 24-26.

Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),

A Report on the Chief Financial Officer’s Role and Other Issues Critical to

the Governmentwide Success of GPRA, Chief Financial Officers Council,

GPRA Implementation Committee, May 1995.

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 10-11.

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 14-19.

Connecting Mission, Goals,

and Activities

Results Act, 5 U.S.C. 306(c), 31 U.S.C. 1115(a), and 31 U.S.C. 1115(c).

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix I 

Annual Performance Plan Guidance

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying the

Results Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance

Plans”; p. 29, “Performance Goals”; and p. 31, “Coverage of Program

Activities.”

OMB Circular A-11, secs. 210.2(c), 210.4, 220.3, 220.4, 220.5, 220.6, 220.7,

220.8, 220.9(a), 220.9(b), 220.9(d), 220.9(e), 220.10(c), 221.3, 221.4(b).

OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), pp.

1-2, “Coverage of Program Activities”; pp. 3-4, “Annual Performance

Goals”; p. 7, “Mission Statement and General Goals and Objectives”; and p.

8, “Budget Account Restructuring.”

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 90-93.

Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA

Implementation (GAO/AIMD-97-46, Mar. 27, 1997).

Integrating Performance Measurement into the Budget Process, Chief

Financial Officers Council, GPRA Implementation Committee

Subcommittee Project, September 22, 1997.

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 12-14.

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 19-29.

Recognizing Crosscutting

Efforts

OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.8, 220.10(b), and 221.4(c).

OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 8,

“Cross-cutting Programs.”

Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission

Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29, 1997).

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 53-55.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix I 

Annual Performance Plan Guidance

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), p. 15.

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), p 29-30.

Connecting Strategies to

Results

Results Act, 31 U.S.C. 1115(a)(3) and 31 U.S.C. 9703.

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying Results

Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance Plans”;

pp. 17-18, “Managerial Flexibility Waivers”; and pp. 34-36, “Section 5.

Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.”

OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.10(b), 220.12(a), 220.12(b), 220.12(c), and

221.4(b).

OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 6,

“Means and Strategies”; p. 8, “Tax Expenditures and Regulation”; and p. 8,

“External Factors.”

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 63-66.

Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide, Version 3

(GAO/AIMD-10.1.15, Apr. 1997).

Privatization: Lessons Learned by State and Local Governments

(GAO/GGD-97-48, Mar. 14, 1997).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 18-21 and 24-26.

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 17-18.

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 32-36.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix I 

Annual Performance Plan Guidance

Connecting Resources to

Strategies

Results Act, 31 U.S.C. 1115(a)(3).

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying Results

Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance Plans”;

and pp. 29-30, “Performance Indicators.”

OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.1, 220.9(a), 220.9(e), 220.10(c), 220.11(a),

220.11(b), 220.11(c), 220.12(a), 220.12(d), and Part 3.

OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 5,

“Future Year Performance”; p. 5, “Performance Goals Funded By Prior

Year Appropriations”; and p. 6, “Means and Strategies.”

OMB Capital Programming Guide, v. 1.0 (July 1997).

Executive Guide: Measuring Performance and Demonstrating Results of

Information Technology Investments (GAO/AIMD-97-163, Sept. 1997).

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 90-97.

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, Sept.

1997).

Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ IT

Investment Decision-making, Version 1 (GAO/AIMD-10.1.13, Feb. 1997).

Information Technology Investment: Agencies Can Improve Performance,

Reduce Costs, and Minimize Risks (GAO/AIMD-96-64, Sept. 30, 1996).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 18-21 and 39-46.

Transforming the Civil Service: Building the Workforce of the

Future—Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 26,

1995).

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Volume 1 Original

Statements: Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts and

Standards, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 1,

Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting (GAO/AIMD-21.1.1, Mar. 1997), pp.

11-62.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix I 

Annual Performance Plan Guidance

FASAB Volume 1 Original Statements: Statements of Federal Financial

Accounting Concepts and Standards, Statement of Federal Financial

Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards

(GAO/AIMD-21.1.1, Mar. 1997), pp. 331-394.

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 19-20.

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 36-38.

Verifying and Validating

Performance

Results Act, 31 U.S.C. 1115 (a)(6).

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying Results

Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), p. 30, “Verification and

Validation.”

OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.7, 220.13, and 221.5.

OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 7,

“Verification and Validation.”

Executive Guide: Information Security Management (GAO/AIMD-98-21,

Nov. 1997).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 27-29.

GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996) pp. 6-8 and 11.

FASAB Volume 1 Original Statements: Statements of Federal Financial

Accounting Concepts and Standards (GAO/AIMD-21.1.1, Mar. 1997).

Budget and Financial Management: Progress and Agenda for the Future

(GAO/T-AIMD-96-80, Apr. 23, 1996).

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), p. 22.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix I 

Annual Performance Plan Guidance

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 41-43.

Recognizing Data

Limitations

OMB Circular A-11, sec. 221.5.

OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 7,

“Verification and Validation.”

Managing for Results: Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant Barriers

to Focusing on Results (GAO/GGD-97-83, June 24, 1997).

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 61-75.

Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance

(GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997).

Measuring Performance: Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators

(GAO/RCED-97-91, Mar. 21, 1997).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 27-29.

GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).

Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions

(GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept. 1, 1995).

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), p. 23.

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 43-47.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix II 

The Results Act’s Planning and Reporting

Requirements

The Results Act is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of

federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program

performance and to measure results. Specifically, the Act requires

executive agencies to prepare multiyear strategic plans, annual

performance plans, and annual performance reports.

Multiyear Strategic

Plans

The Results Act requires virtually every executive agency to develop

strategic plans covering a period of at least 5 years forward from the fiscal

year in which it is submitted and to update those plans at least every 3

years. Agencies’ first strategic plans were to be submitted to Congress and

the Director of OMB by September 30, 1997. The strategic plans are to

(1) include the agencies’ mission statements; (2) identify long-term general

goals and objectives; (3) describe how the agencies intend to achieve

those goals through their activities and through their human, capital,

information, and other resources; and (4) explain the key external factors

that could significantly affect the achievement of those goals. Under the

Act, strategic plans are the starting point for agencies to set annual

performance goals and to measure program performance in achieving

those goals. Consequently, strategic plans are also to include a description

of how long-term general goals will be related to annual performance goals

as well as a description of the program evaluations that agencies used to

establish their long-term general goals and a schedule for subsequent

evaluations. As part of the strategic planning process, agencies are

required to consult with Congress and solicit the views of other

stakeholders—those governmental and nongovernmental entities

potentially affected by, or interested in, the agencies’ activities.

Annual Performance

Plans

Building on the decisions made as part of the strategic planning process,

the Results Act requires executive agencies to develop annual

performance plans covering each program activity set forth in the

agencies’ budgets. The first annual performance plans, covering fiscal year

1999, were to be submitted to OMB in the fall of 1997 and to Congress after

the President’s budget in 1998. The Results Act requires that each agency

prepare an annual performance plan that shall:

“(1) establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be

achieved by a program activity;

“(2) express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form

unless authorized to be in an alternative form . . . ;

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix II 

The Results Act’s Planning and Reporting

Requirements

“(3) briefly describe the operational processes, skills and technology, and

the human, capital, information, or other resources required to meet the

performance goals;

“(4) establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing

the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program

activity;

“(5) provide a basis for comparing actual program results with the

established performance goals; and

“(6) describe the means to be used to verify and validate measured

values.”3

The Act authorizes agencies to apply for managerial flexibility waivers in

their annual performance plans. Agencies’ authority to request waivers of

nonstatutory administrative procedural requirements and controls is

intended to provide federal managers with more flexibility to structure

agency systems to better support performance goals. An example of

increased flexibility would be to allow an organization to recapture

unspent operating funds because of increased efficiencies and then to use

these funds to purchase new equipment or expand employee training.

Another example might involve delegating more authority to line managers

to make procurement decisions.

OMB is to use the performance plans that agencies submit to develop an

overall federal government performance plan. OMB is to submit this

governmentwide plan each year to Congress with the President’s budget.

According to the Senate Committee report accompanying the Act, the

overall federal government performance plan is to present to Congress a

single, cohesive picture of the federal government’s annual performance

goals for the fiscal year.4

 The first overall plan was due with the

President’s fiscal year 1999 budget.

Annual Performance

Reports

Finally, the Results Act requires each executive agency to prepare annual

reports on program performance for the previous fiscal year. The first

performance reports for fiscal year 1999 are due to Congress and the

President no later than March 31, 2000; subsequent reports are due by

March 31 for the years that follow. In each report, an agency is to review

3

31 U.S.C. 1115.

4

S. Rep. No. 58, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (1993).

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix II 

The Results Act’s Planning and Reporting

Requirements

and discuss its performance compared with the performance goals it

established in its annual performance plan. When a goal is not met, the

agency is to explain in the report the reasons the goal was not met; plans

and schedules for meeting the goal; and, if the goal was impractical or not

feasible, the reasons for that and the actions recommended. According to

the Senate committee report on the Act, actions needed to accomplish a

goal could include legislative, regulatory, or other actions. If an agency

finds a goal to be impractical or not feasible, it is to include a discussion of

whether the goal should be modified.

In addition to evaluating the progress made toward achieving its annual

goals, an agency’s program performance report is to evaluate the agency’s

performance plan for the fiscal year in which the performance report was

submitted. Thus, in their fiscal year 1999 performance reports that are due

by March 31, 2000, agencies are required to evaluate their performance

plans for fiscal year 2000 on the basis of their reported performance in

fiscal year 1999. This evaluation is to help show how an agency’s actual

performance is influencing its performance plan. The report also is to

include (1) the summary findings of program evaluations completed

during the fiscal year covered by the report and (2) the use and

effectiveness of any of the Results Act managerial flexibility waivers that

an agency received.

Agencies also are to include baseline and trend data in annual

performance reports to help ensure that their reports are complete and

that performance is viewed in context. Such data can show whether

performance goals are realistic given the past performance of an agency.

Such data can also assist users of reports to draw more informed

conclusions than they would if they compared only a single year’s

performance against an annual goal, because users of reports can see

improvements or declines in an agency’s performance over prior years.5

For fiscal years 2000 and 2001, agencies’ reports are to include data on the

extent to which their performance achieved their goals, beginning with

fiscal year 1999. For each subsequent year, agencies are to include

performance data for the year covered by the report and 3 prior years.

Congress recognized that in some cases not all the performance data will

be available in time for the required reporting date. In such cases, agencies

are to provide whatever data are available with a notation as to their

incomplete status. Subsequent annual performance reports are to include

the complete data as part of the trend information.

5

GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance Plan
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Gerald Stankosky, Assistant Director

John Mortin, Assistant Director

Bill Dowdal, Evaluator-in-Charge

David Sausville, Senior Evaluator

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Joan Hawkins, Assistant Director

Franklin Deffer, Assistant Director

Laura Castro, Senior Evaluator

(240298) Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-110 Observations on GSA’s Performance 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