United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 

Government Information, Federal Services, and 

International Security, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

Further Improvements 

Needed to Identify and 

Oversee Poorly Planned and 

Performing Projects 

Statement of David A. Powner 

Director, Information Technology Management Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT

Thursday, September 20, 2007 

 

GAO-07-1211T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 20, 2007

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Further Improvements Needed to Identify and 

Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects

Highlights of GAO-07-1211T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Federal 

Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services, and 

International Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate 

The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) plays a key role in 

overseeing federal information 

technology (IT) investments. The 

Clinger-Cohen Act, among other 

things, requires OMB to establish 

processes to analyze, track, and 

evaluate the risks and results of 

major capital investments in

information systems made by 

agencies and to report to Congress

on the net program performance 

benefits achieved as a result of

these investments. OMB has 

developed several processes to 

help carry out its role. For 

example, OMB began using a 

Management Watch List several

years ago as a means of identifying 

poorly planned projects based on 

its evaluation of agencies’ funding

justifications for major projects, 

known as exhibit 300s. In addition, 

in August 2005, OMB established a

process for agencies to identify

high risk projects and to report on

those that are performing poorly. 

GAO testified last year on the

Management Watch List and high 

risk projects, and on GAO‘s

recommendations to improve these 

processes. GAO was asked to (1) 

provide an update on the

Management Watch List and high 

risk projects and (2) identify OMB’s

efforts to improve the identification 

and oversight of these projects. In

preparing this testimony, GAO

summarized its previous reports on

initiatives for improving the 

management of federal IT 

investments. GAO also analyzed

current Management Watch List

and high risk project information. 

OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 227 IT projects—

totaling at least $10.4 billion in expenditures for fiscal year 2008—as being 

poorly planned (on the Management Watch List), poorly performing (on the 

High Risk List with performance shortfalls), or both. The figure below shows 

the distribution of these projects as well as their associated dollar values. 

Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing IT Projects (as of June 2007) 

OMB has taken steps to improve the identification and oversight of the 

Management Watch List and High Risk projects by addressing

recommendations previously made by GAO, however, additional efforts are 

needed to more effectively perform these activities. Specifically, GAO 

previously recommended that OMB take action to improve the accuracy and 

reliability of exhibit 300s and consistent application of the high risk projects

criteria, and perform governmentwide tracking and analysis of Management 

Watch List and high risk project information. In response to these 

recommendations, OMB, for example, started publicly releasing aggregate 

lists of Management Watch List and high risk projects by agency in September 

2006 and has been updating them since then on a quarterly basis. However, 

OMB does not publish the reasons for placing projects on the Management 

Watch List, nor does it specifically identify why high risk projects are poorly 

performing. Providing this information would allow OMB and others to better 

analyze the reasons projects are poorly planned and performing, take 

corrective actions, and track these projects on a governmentwide basis. Such 

information would also help to highlight progress made by agencies or 

projects, identify management issues that transcend individual agencies, and 

highlight the root causes of governmentwide issues and trends. Until OMB 

makes further improvements in the identification and oversight of poorly 

planned and poorly performing IT projects, potentially billions in taxpayer 

dollars are at risk of being wasted. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-07-1211T. 

For more information, contact David A. 

Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government’s key 

processes for improving the management of information technology (IT) 

investments totaling $65 billion for fiscal year 2008. Effective management 

of these investments is essential to the health, economy, and security of 

the nation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a key role 

in overseeing federal IT investments. In particular, as required by the 

Clinger-Cohen Act, OMB must establish processes to analyze, track, and 

evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments in information 

systems made by executive agencies and to report to Congress on the net 

program performance benefits achieved as a result of these investments. 

To help carry out its oversight role, OMB has developed several processes, 

including its Management Watch List and high risk projects.1

 The 

Management Watch List identifies projects that are poorly planned 

(projects with weaknesses in their funding justifications, known as exhibit 

300s). High risk projects require special attention from oversight 

authorities and the highest level of agency management, and include 

projects that are poorly performing (projects experiencing performance 

shortfalls, meaning that they do not meet one or more of four performance 

evaluation criteria).2

 The Management Watch List and high risk processes 

are instrumental in helping to identify and improve oversight of poorly 

planned and poorly performing projects. 

Last September, we testified on OMB’s oversight of federal IT projects. We 

highlighted the number and dollar value of the projects identified as poorly

planned and/or poorly performing as a result of the Management Watch 

 1

While not a subject of my testimony, OMB also uses the e-Gov Scorecard as a mechanism 

for managing federal IT projects. Quarterly e-Gov Scorecards are reports that use a 

red/yellow/green scoring system to illustrate the results of OMB’s evaluation of agencies’ 

implementation of e-government criteria in the President’s Management Agenda. The 

scores are determined in quarterly reviews, where OMB evaluates agency progress toward 

agreed-upon goals along several dimensions, and provides input to the quarterly reporting

on the President’s Management Agenda. Key criteria used to score agencies e-government

process include acceptable business cases, cost and schedule performance; and security 

accreditation. As of June 30, 2006, 21 of the 26 departments/major agencies were identified 

as having a yellow (mixed results) or red (unsatisfactory) score. 

2

High risk projects are identified as having performance shortfalls if one or more of the

following performance evaluation criteria are not met: establishing baselines with clear 

cost, schedule, and performance goals; maintaining the project’s cost and schedule 

variances within 10 percent; assigning a qualified project manager; and avoiding 

duplication by leveraging inter-agency and governmentwide investments. 

Page 2 GAO-07-1211T 
List and high risk processes. Given the importance of OMB’s oversight 

processes, you asked us to (1) provide an update on the Management 

Watch List and High Risk projects, and (2) identify OMB’s efforts to 

improve the identification and oversight of these projects. In preparing 

this testimony, we summarized our previous reports on initiatives for 

improving the management of federal IT investments and interviewed 

OMB staff on their efforts to better identify and oversee Management 

Watch List and high risk projects.3

 We also analyzed current Management 

Watch List and high risk project information. We performed our work in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 227 IT projects—

totaling at least $10.4 billion in expenditures for fiscal year 2008—as being 

poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. Specifically, through the 

Management Watch List process, OMB determined that 103 projects 

(totaling about $4.5 billion) are poorly planned. In addition, agencies 

reported that 91 of their high risk projects (totaling about $1.8 billion) 

were poorly performing. Thirty-three projects (totaling about $4.1 billion) 

are both poorly planned and poorly performing. For example, the 

Department of Treasury’s Electronic Fraud Detection System was 

identified as being poorly planned, the Social Security Administration’s 

Disability Service Improvement project was identified as being poorly 

performing, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Border 

Initiative Net Technology Program was identified as being both poorly 

planned and poorly performing. 

Results in Brief 

OMB has taken steps to improve the identification and oversight of the 

Management Watch List and High Risk projects by addressing some of the 

recommendations that we had made previously. However, additional 

efforts are needed to more effectively perform these activities. 

Specifically, we previously recommended that OMB take action to 

improve the accuracy and reliability of exhibit 300s, of application of the 

high risk projects criteria, and perform governmentwide tracking and 

analysis of Management Watch List and high risk project information. In 

 3

GAO, Information Technology: OMB Can Make More Effective Use of Its Investment

Reviews, GAO-05-276 (Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2005); Information Technology: 

Agencies Need to Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of Investment Information, GAO06-250 (Washington, D.C.: Jan.12, 2006); Information Technology: Agencies and OMB 

Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects,

GAO-06-647 (Washington, DC, June 15, 2006). 

Page 3 GAO-07-1211T 
response to our recommendations, OMB, for example, started publicly 

releasing aggregate lists of Management Watch List and high risk projects 

by agency in September 2006 and has been updating them since then on a 

quarterly basis by posting them on their website. However, OMB does not 

publish the reasons for placing projects on the Management Watch List, 

nor does it specifically identify why high risk projects are poorly 

performing. Providing this information would allow OMB and others to 

better analyze the reasons projects are poorly planned and performing, 

take corrective actions, and track these projects on a governmentwide 

basis. Such information would also help to highlight progress made by 

agencies or projects, identify management issues that transcend individual 

agencies, and highlight the root causes of governmentwide issues and 

trends. Until OMB makes further improvements in the identification and

oversight of poorly planned and poorly performing IT projects, potentially

billions in taxpayer dollars are at risk of being wasted. 

Each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how 

much the government plans to spend for IT and how these funds are to be

allocated. Federal IT spending has risen to an estimated $65 billion in 

fiscal year 2008. 

Background 

OMB plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and management 

of federal IT investments. To improve this oversight, Congress enacted the

Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, expanding the responsibilities delegated to 

OMB and agencies under the Paperwork Reduction Act.4

 Among other 

things, Clinger-Cohen requires agency heads, acting through agency chief 

information officers, to better link their IT planning and investment 

decisions to program missions and goals and to implement and enforce IT

management policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines. The act also

requires that agencies engage in capital planning and performance and

results-based management.5

 OMB’s responsibilities under the act include 

establishing processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results 

of major capital investments in information systems made by executive

agencies. OMB must also report to Congress on the net program 

 4

44 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1)(B)(vi)(OMB); 44 U.S.C. § 3506(h)(5) (agencies). 

5

40 U.S.C. § 11312; 40 U.S.C. § 11313. 

Page 4 GAO-07-1211T 
performance benefits achieved as a result of major capital investments in 

information systems that are made by executive agencies.6

In response to the Clinger-Cohen Act and other statutes, OMB developed 

policy for planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of federal 

capital assets. This policy is set forth in OMB Circular A-11 (section 300) 

and in OMB’s Capital Programming Guide (supplement to Part 7 of 

Circular A-11), which directs agencies to develop, implement, and use a 

capital programming process to build their capital asset portfolios. Among 

other things, OMB’s Capital Programming Guide directs agencies to 

• evaluate and select capital asset investments that will support core 

mission functions that must be performed by the federal government and 

demonstrate projected returns on investment that are clearly equal to or 

better than alternative uses of available public resources; 

• institute performance measures and management processes that monitor 

actual performance and compare to planned results; and 

• establish oversight mechanisms that require periodic review of operational 

capital assets to determine how mission requirements might have changed 

and whether the asset continues to fulfill mission requirements and deliver 

intended benefits to the agency and customers. 

To further support the implementation of IT capital planning practices as 

required by statute and directed in OMB’s Capital Programming Guide, we 

have developed an IT investment management framework7

 that agencies 

can use in developing a stable and effective capital planning process. 

Consistent with the statutory focus on selecting,8

 controlling,9 and 

 6

These requirements are specifically described in the Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C. § 11302

(c). 

7

GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and

Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004). 

8

During the selection phase, the organization (1) identifies and analyzes each project’s risks 

and returns before committing significant funds to any project and (2) selects those IT

projects that will best support its mission needs. 

9

During the control phase, the organization ensures that, as projects develop and 

investment expenditures continue, the project is continuing to meet mission needs at the

expected levels of cost and risk. If the project is not meeting expectations or if problems 

have arisen, steps are quickly taken to address the deficiencies. 

Page 5 GAO-07-1211T 
evaluating10 investments, this framework focuses on these processes in 

relation to IT investments specifically. It is a tool that can be used to 

determine both the status of an agency’s current IT investment 

management capabilities and the additional steps that are needed to 

establish more effective processes. Mature and effective management of IT 

investments can vastly improve government performance and 

accountability. Without good management, such investments can result in

wasteful spending and lost opportunities for improving delivery of services 

to the public. 

Only by effectively and efficiently managing their IT resources through a 

robust investment management process can agencies gain opportunities to 

make better allocation decisions among many investment alternatives and 

further leverage their investments. However, the federal government faces 

enduring IT challenges in this area. For example, in January 2004 we 

reported on mixed results of federal agencies’ use of IT investment 

management practices.11 Specifically, we reported that although most of 

the agencies had IT investment boards responsible for defining and 

implementing the agencies’ investment management processes, agencies 

did not always have important mechanisms in place for these boards to 

effectively control investments, including decision-making rules for 

project oversight, early warning mechanisms, and/or requirements that 

corrective actions for underperforming projects be agreed upon and 

tracked. Executive-level oversight of project-level management activities 

provides organizations with increased assurance that each investment will 

achieve the desired cost, benefit, and schedule results. Accordingly, we 

made several recommendations to agencies to improve their practices. 

In previous work using our investment management framework, we 

reported that the use of IT investment management practices by agencies 

was mixed. For example, a few agencies that have followed the framework 

in implementing capital planning processes have made significant 

Prior Reviews on Federal 

IT Investment 

Management Have 

Identified Weaknesses 

 10During the evaluation phase, actual versus expected results are compared once projects 

have been fully implemented. This is done to (1) assess the project’s impact on mission 

performance, (2) identify any changes or modifications to the project that may be needed, 

and (3) revise the investment management process based on lessons learned. 

11GAO, Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning, 

Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further Improved, 

GAO-04-49 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2004).

Page 6 GAO-07-1211T 
improvements.12 In contrast, however, we and others have continued to 

identify weaknesses at agencies in many areas, including immature 

management processes to support both the selection and oversight of 

major IT investments and the measurement of actual versus expected 

performance in meeting established performance measures.13 For example, 

we recently reported that the Department of Homeland Security and the

Department of Treasury did not have the processes in place to effectively

select and oversee their major investments.14

To help ensure that investments of public resources are justified and that 

public resources are wisely invested, OMB began using its Management 

Watch List in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, as a means to 

oversee the justification for and planning of agencies’ IT investments. This 

list was derived based on a detailed review of the investments’ Capital 

Asset Plan and Business Case, also known as the exhibit 300.

The exhibit 300 is a reporting mechanism intended to enable an agency to

demonstrate to its own management, as well as OMB, that a major project 

is well planned in that it has employed the disciplines of good project 

management; developed a strong business case for the investment; and 

met other Administration priorities in defining the cost, schedule, and

performance goals proposed for the investment. 

We reported in 2005 that OMB analysts evaluate agency exhibit 300s by 

assigning scores to each exhibit 300 based on guidance presented in OMB 

Circular A-11.15 As described in this circular, the scoring of a business case 

OMB’s Management Watch 

List Is Intended to Correct 

Project Weaknesses and 

Business Case Deficiencies 

 12These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior. 

13For example, GAO, Information Technology; Treasury Needs to Strengthen Its 

Investment Board Operations and Oversight, GAO-07-865 (Washington, D.C.; Jul. 23, 

2007); Information Technology: DHS Needs to Fully Define and Implement Policies and

Procedures for Effectively Managing Investments, GAO-07-424 (Washington, D.C., Apr. 27, 

2007); Information Technology: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Needs to 

Establish Critical Investment Management Capabilities, GAO-06-12 (Washington, D.C.:

Oct. 28, 2005); Information Technology: Departmental Leadership Crucial to Success of

Investment Reforms at Interior, GAO-03-1028 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2003); and

United States Postal Service: Opportunities to Strengthen IT Investment Management 

Capabilities, GAO-03-3 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 2002). 

14GAO-07-424 and GAO-07-865. 

15GAO-05-276. 

Page 7 GAO-07-1211T 
consists of individual scoring for 10 categories, as well as a total 

composite score of all the categories. The 10 categories are 

• acquisition strategy, 

• project (investment) management, 

• enterprise architecture,

• alternatives analysis, 

• risk management, 

• performance goals, 

• security and privacy, 

• performance-based management system (including the earned value

management system),16

• life-cycle costs formulation, and 

• support of the President’s Management Agenda.

Projects are placed on the Management Watch List if they receive low 

scores (3 or less on a scale from 1 to 5) in the areas of performance goals,

performance-based management systems, security and privacy or a low 

composite score. 

According to OMB, agencies with weaknesses in these three areas are to 

submit remediation plans addressing the weaknesses. OMB officials also 

stated that decisions on follow-up and monitoring the progress are 

typically made by staff with responsibility for reviewing individual agency 

budget submissions, depending on the staff’s insights into agency 

operations and objectives. According to OMB officials, those Management 

Watch List projects that receive specific follow-up attention receive

feedback through the passback process, targeted evaluation of

 16Earned value management is a project management tool that integrates the investment 

scope of work with schedule and cost elements for investment planning and control. This

method compares the value of work accomplished during a given period with that of the 

work expected in the period. Differences in expectations are measured in both cost and

schedule variances. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1211T 
remediation plans designed to address weaknesses, the apportioning of 

funds so that the use of budgeted dollars was conditional on appropriate 

remediation plans being in place, and the quarterly e-Gov Scorecards. 

OMB removes projects from the Management Watch List as agencies 

remediate the weaknesses identified with these projects’ business cases. 

As originally defined in OMB Circular A-11 and subsequently reiterated in

an August 2005 memorandum, high risk projects are those that require 

special attention from oversight authorities and the highest levels of 

agency management. These projects are not necessarily “at risk” of failure, 

but may be on the list because of one or more of the following four 

reasons: 

OMB’s High Risk Projects 

Process Intended to 

Correct and Improve 

Project Performance 

• The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage 

complex projects. 

• The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or

maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the

agency’s total IT portfolio. 

• The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in the 

adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of the 

agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.

• Delay or failure of the project would introduce for the first time 

unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential mission 

function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another 

organization.

Most agencies reported that to identify high risk projects, staff from the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer compare the criteria against their 

current portfolio to determine which projects met OMB’s definition. They 

then submit the list to OMB for review. According to OMB and agency 

officials, after the submission of the initial list, examiners at OMB work 

with individual agencies to identify or remove projects as appropriate. 

According to most agencies, the final list is then approved by their Chief 

Information Officer. 

For the identified high risk projects, beginning September 15, 2005, and 

quarterly thereafter, Chief Information Officers are to assess, confirm, and 

document projects’ performance. Specifically, agencies are required to 

Page 9 GAO-07-1211T 
determine, for each of their high risk projects, whether the project was 

meeting one or more of four performance evaluation criteria:

• establishing baselines with clear cost, schedule, and performance goals; 

• maintaining the project’s cost and schedule variances within 10 percent;

• assigning a qualified project manager; and 

• avoiding duplication by leveraging inter-agency and governmentwide 

investments. 

If a high risk project meets any of these four performance evaluation 

criteria, agencies are instructed to document this using a standard 

template provided by OMB and provide this template to oversight 

authorities (e.g., OMB, agency inspectors general, agency management, 

and GAO) on request. Upon submission, according to OMB staff, 

individual analysts review the quarterly performance reports of projects 

with shortfalls to determine how well the projects are progressing and 

whether the actions described in the planned improvement efforts are 

adequate using other performance data already received on IT projects 

such as the e-Gov Scorecards, earned value management data, and the 

exhibit 300.

OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 227 IT projects—

totaling at least $10.4 billion in expenditures for fiscal year 2008—as being 

poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. Figure 1 shows the 

distribution of these projects and their associated dollar values. 

Poorly Planned and 

Performing Projects 

Total at Least $10 

Billion in Estimated 

Expenditures for 

Fiscal Year 2008 

Page 10 GAO-07-1211T 
Figure 1: Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing IT Projects (as of June 2007) 

Each year, OMB places hundreds of projects totaling billions of dollars on 

the Management Watch List. Table 1 provides a historical perspective of 

the number of these projects and their associated budget since OMB 

started reporting on the Management Watch List in the President’s budget 

request for 2004. The table shows that while the number of projects and 

their associated budget have generally decreased since then, they 

increased by 83 projects this year, and represent a significant percentage

of the total budget. 

Table 1: Management Watch List Budget for Fiscal Years 2004-2008 (in billions) 

Hundreds of Projects 

Totaling Billions of Dollars 

Are Placed on the 

Management Watch List 

Annually 

Fiscal years 

Total federal IT

projects (associated

budget)

Management 

Watch List projects

(associated

budget) 

Percentage of federal 

IT projects on

Management Watch 

List (percentage of

budget)

2004 1400 ($59.0) 771 ($20.9) 55% (35%)

2005 1200 ($60.0) 621 ($22.0) 52% (37%)

2006 1087 ($65.0) 342 ($15.0) 31% (23%)

2007 857 ($64.0) 263 ($9.9) 31% (15%)

2008 840 ($65.0) 346 ($14.0) 41% (22%)

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

As of July 2007,17 136 projects, representing $8.6 billion, still remained on 

the Management Watch List (see appendix 1 for complete list). We 

determined that 29 of these projects were on the Management Watch List 

as of September 2006. 

 17 This is the date of OMB’s most recent Management Watch List update. 

Page 11 GAO-07-1211T 
Poorly Performing 

Projects Total About $6 

Billion in Estimated 

Expenditures for Fiscal 

Year 2008 

As of June 2007, when agencies last reported on their high risk projects to

OMB, the 24 major agencies identified 438 IT projects as high risk, of 

which 124 had performance shortfalls collectively totaling about $6.0

billion in funding requested for fiscal year 2008. Table 2 shows that the 

number of projects, as well as the number of projects with shortfalls 

increased this year. OMB attributes this rise to increased management 

oversight by agencies. 

Table 2: High Risk Projects with Performance Shortfalls for Fiscal Years 2007 and

2008 (associated budget in billions) 

Fiscal 

years 

Total federal IT

projects 

High risk 

projects 

(associated

budget)

High risk projects 

with shortfalls 

(associated

budget)

Percentage of

high risk 

projects 

shortfalls

(percentage of

budget)

2007 857 ($64.0) 226 ($6.4)a 79 ($2.2)a 9% (3.4% of total 

IT budget)

2008 840 ($65.0) 438 ($14.0)b 124 ($6.0)b 15% (9% of total 

IT budget) 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

a

These number and dollar figures are from September 2006. 

b

These number and dollar figures are from June 2007. 

The majority of projects were not reported to have had performance 

shortfalls. In addition, five agencies—the departments of Energy, Housing 

and Urban Development, Labor, and State, and the National Science

Foundation—reported that none of their high risk projects experienced

any performance shortfalls. Figure 2 illustrates the number of high risk 

projects by agency as of June 2007, with and without shortfalls. 

Page 12 GAO-07-1211T 
Figure 2: Number of Agencies High Risk Projects with and without Performance Shortfalls (as of June 2007) 

Notes: One project can have multiple shortfalls. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); Department of 

Transportation (DOT); U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Social Security

Administration (SSA); General Services Administration (GSA); Department of Agriculture (USDA); 

Small Business Administration (SBA); Department of Defense (DOD); Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA); Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); Office of Personnel Management (OPM); 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Department of Justice (DOJ); National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); National Science Foundation (NSF); Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Department of Energy (DOE); Department of Labor (DOL); 

Department of Interior (DOI). 

a

The Department of Interior did not provide their June 2007 high risk report to GAO.

Agencies reported cost and schedule variances that exceeded 10 percent

as the greatest shortfall. This is consistent with what they reported about a 

year ago, and the distribution of shortfalls types is similar to last year. 

Figure 3 illustrates the reported number and type of performance 

shortfalls associated with high risk projects. 

Page 13 GAO-07-1211T 
Figure 3: Reported Performance Shortfalls of 126 Projects (as of June 2007) 

Appendix II identifies the shortfalls associated with each of the poorly 

performing projects. 

Twenty-two high risk projects have experienced performance shortfalls 

for the past four quarters (see figure 4). 

Page 14 GAO-07-1211T 
Figure 4: High Risk Projects with Shortfalls in the Last 4 Quarters Sorted by Funding

Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Agriculture (USDA); Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA); Department of Justice (DOJ); U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID); Small Business Administration (SBA) 

Of these projects, the following six have had shortfalls since the High Risk 

List was established in September 2005. 

• Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secure Border Initiative Net 

Technology Program, which is expected to provide on-scene agents near 

real-time information on attempted border crossings by illegal aliens, 

terrorists, or smugglers; 

Page 15 GAO-07-1211T 
• Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Modernize and Innovate the Delivery 

of Agricultural Systems, which is intended to modernize the delivery of 

farm program benefits by deploying an internet-based self-service 

capabilities for customers, and eliminating the department’s reliance on 

aging technology and service centers as the sole means of delivering 

program benefits; 

• Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) VistA Imaging, which should provide 

complete online patient data to health care providers, increase clinician 

productivity, facilitate medical decision-making, and improve quality of 

care; 

• DHS’s Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing, which is to 

establish a system-wide common secure biometric credential, used by all

transportation modes, for personnel requiring unescorted physical and/or

logical access to secure areas of the transportation system; 

• Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Regional Data Exchange, which is expected 

to combine and share regional investigative information and provide 

powerful tools for analyzing the integrated data sets; and 

• VA’s Patient Financial Services System, which is expected create a

comprehensive business solution for revenue improvement utilizing 

improved business practices, commercial software, and enhanced VA 

clinical applications. 

Thirty-three projects are on both the Management Watch List and list of 

high risk projects with shortfalls, meaning that they are both poorly 

planned and poorly performing. They total about $4.1 billion in estimated 

expenditures for fiscal year 2008. These projects are listed in table 3 

below. 

Several Projects are Both 

Poorly Planned and Poorly 

Performing 

Page 16 GAO-07-1211T 
Table 3: Projects on both the Management Watch List and the High Risk List with Shortfalls. 

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 2008 request

 (in millions)

DHS CBP Secure Border Initiative net Technology Program 1,000

DHS DHS Financial Management Transformation; E-Gov: E-Travel Migr.; FM LoB Migr.; FM

LoB Legacy Sys. 6

DHS DHS HR IT; E-Gov: HR LoB Migr.; E-Training Migr.; EHRI Migr.; E-Training Legacy Sys.; 

HR LoB Legacy Sys. 17

DHS DHS Infrastructure 1,071

DHS FEMA eNEMIS 17

DHS Consolidated Enforcement Environment 11

DHS Rescue 21 0

Education Budget Formulation and Execution LoB 0

Education Common Origination and Disbursement 8

Education Common Services for Borrowers 15

Education Data Warehouse 1

Education Education Resources Information Center 9

NASA Integrated Enterprise Management – Core Financial 22

NRC Electronic Information Exchange/E-Authentication Migration 1

OPM E-Training 0

Treasury Chief Counsel 1

Treasury Enterprise IT Infrastructure Optimization Initiative 1,638

Treasury Financial Analysis & Reporting System Applications 3

Treasury Fiscal Management 0

Treasury Integrated Collection System 9

Treasury Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial System 17

Treasury Enterprise Systems 1

Treasury Examinations 4

Treasury Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management Services 6

USDA Food and Agriculture Bio-Surveillance Integration System 0

USDA –ConnectHR 10

USDA Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems 144

VA Financial & Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise 48

VA Medical and Prosthetic Research Operations 24

VA My HealtheVet 17

VA Patient Financial Services System 0

VA Learning Management System 6

VA VistA Imaging 41

Page 17 GAO-07-1211T 
Source: GAO Analysis of OMB data. 

Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA); Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); Office of Personnel Management (OPM); 

Department of Agriculture (USDA); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

OMB has taken steps to improve the identification and oversight of the 

Management Watch List and high risk projects by addressing some of the 

recommendations we previously made, but additional efforts are needed 

to more effectively perform these activities and ultimately ensure that 

potentially billions of taxpayer dollars are not wasted. Specifically, we 

previously recommended that OMB take action to improve the accuracy 

and reliability of exhibit 300s and application of the high risk projects 

criteria, and perform governmentwide tracking and analysis of 

Management Watch List and high risk project information. While OMB 

took steps to address our concerns, more can be done. 

OMB Has Taken Steps 

to Improve the 

Identification and 

Oversight of 

Management Watch 

List and High Risk 

Projects, but 

Additional Efforts Are 

Needed 

Exhibit 300s Are Now 

Reported Publicly but 

Their Accuracy and 

Reliability Issues Remain 

In January 2006, we noted that the underlying support for information 

provided in the exhibit 300s was often inadequate and that, as a result, the 

Management Watch List may be undermined by inaccurate and unreliable 

data.18 Specifically, we noted that 

• documentation either did not exist or did not fully agree with specific 

areas of all exhibit 300s;

• agencies did not always demonstrate that they complied with federal or 

departmental requirements or policies with regard to management and 

reporting processes; for example, no exhibit 300 had cost analyses that 

fully complied with OMB requirements for cost-benefit and costeffectiveness analyses; and 

• data for actual costs were unreliable because they were not derived from 

cost-accounting systems with adequate controls; in the absence of such 

systems, agencies generally derived cost information from ad hoc 

processes. 

 18GAO-06-250. 

Page 18 GAO-07-1211T 
We recommended, among other things, that OMB direct agencies to 

improve the accuracy and reliability of exhibit 300 information. 

To address our recommendation, in June 2006, OMB directed agencies to 

post their exhibit 300s on their website within two weeks of the release of

the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008. While this is a step in 

the right direction, the accuracy and reliability of exhibit 300 information 

is still a significant weakness among the 24 major agencies,19 as evidenced 

by a March 2007 President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and 

Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency study commissioned by 

OMB to ascertain the validity of exhibit 300s.20 Specifically, according to 

individual agency reports contained within the study, Inspectors General 

found that the documents supporting agencies’ exhibit 300s continue to 

have accuracy and reliability issues. For example, according to these 

reports, the Agency for International Development did not maintain the

documentation supporting exhibit 300s cost figures. In addition, at the 

Internal Revenue Service, the exhibit 300s were unreliable because, among 

other things, project costs were being reported inaccurately and progress 

on projects in development was measured inaccurately. 

In June 2006, we noted that OMB did not always consistently apply the 

criteria for identifying high risk projects. For example, we identified 

projects that appeared to meet the criteria but that were not designated as 

high risk.21 Accordingly, we recommended that OMB apply their high risk 

criteria consistently. OMB has since designated as high risk the projects 

that we identified. Further, OMB officials stated that they have worked 

with agencies to ensure a more consistent application of the high risk 

criteria. These are positive steps, as they result in more projects receiving 

the management attention they deserve. 

However, questions remain as to whether all high risk projects with 

shortfalls are being reported by agencies. For example, we have reported

High Risk Criteria Are 

Being Applied More 

Consistently, but 

Questions Remain as to 

Whether All Projects Are 

Identified, Including 

Projects with Shortfalls 

 19President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 Assessments Of Federal Agencies’ Exhibit 300s , 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2007).

20President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 Assessments Of Federal Agencies’ Exhibit 300s , 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2007).

21GAO-06-647. 

Page 19 GAO-07-1211T 
in our high risk series22 that the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

modernize its business systems have been hampered because of 

weaknesses in practices for (1) developing and using an enterprise 

architecture, (2) instituting effective investment management processes, 

and (3) establishing and implementing effective systems acquisition 

processes. We concluded that the department remains far from where it 

needs to be to effectively and efficiently manage an undertaking of such 

size, complexity, and significance. Despite these problems, Department of 

Defense (DOD), which accounts for $31 billion of the government’s $65 

billion in IT expenditures, only reported three projects as being high risk 

with shortfalls representing a total of about $1 million. The dollar value of 

DOD’s three projects represents less than one tenth of one percent of high 

risk projects with shortfalls. In light of the problems we and others have 

identified with many of DOD’s projects, this appears to be an 

underestimation. Given the critical nature of high risk projects, it is 

particularly important to identify early on those that are performing 

poorly, before their shortfalls become overly costly to address. 

Finally, to improve the oversight of the Management Watch List projects, 

we recommended in our April 2005 report23 that the Director of OMB 

report to Congress on projects’ deficiencies, agencies’ progress in 

addressing risks of major IT investments, and management areas needing 

attention. In addition, to fully realize the potential benefits of using the 

Management Watch List, we recommended that OMB use the list as the 

basis for selecting projects for follow-up, tracking follow-up activities and 

analyze the prioritized list to develop governmentwide and agency

assessments of the progress and risks of IT investments, identifying 

opportunities for continued improvement. We also made similar 

recommendations to the Director of OMB regarding high risk projects. 

Specifically, we recommended that OMB develop a single aggregate list of 

high risk projects and their deficiencies and use that list to report to 

Congress progress made in correcting high risk problems, actions under 

way, and further actions that may be needed. 

Management Watch List 

and High Risk Projects 

Made Public, but 

Governmentwide Analyses 

Still Not Performed 

 22GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005): HighRisk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: January 2007). 

23GAO, Information Technology: Improvements Needed to More Accurately Identify and

Better Oversee Risky Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars, GAO-06-1099T (Washington,

D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006). 

Page 20 GAO-07-1211T 
To its credit, OMB started publicly releasing aggregate lists of the 

Management Watch List and high risk projects in September 2006, and has 

been releasing updated versions on a quarterly basis by posting them on 

their website. While this is a positive step, OMB does not publish the 

specific reasons that each project is placed on the Management Watch 

List, nor does it specifically identify why high risk projects are poorly 

performing, as we have done in appendix II. Providing this information 

would allow OMB and others to better analyze the reasons projects are 

poorly planned and performing and take corrective actions and track these 

projects on a governmentwide basis. Such information would also help to

highlight progress made by agencies or projects, identify management 

issues that transcend individual agencies, and highlight the root causes of

governmentwide issues and trends. Such analysis would be valuable to

agencies in planning future IT projects, and could enable OMB to prioritize 

follow-up actions and ensure that high-priority deficiencies are addressed.

In summary, the Management Watch List and high risk projects processes 

play important roles in improving the management of federal IT 

investments by helping to identify poorly planned and poorly performing 

projects that require management attention. As of June 2007, the 24 major 

agencies had 227 such projects totaling at least $10 billion. OMB has taken 

steps to improve the identification of these projects, including

implementing recommendations related to improving the accuracy of 

exhibit 300s and the application of the high risk projects criteria. However, 

the number of projects may be understated because issues concerning the 

accuracy and reliability of the budgetary documents the Management 

Watch List is derived from still remain and high risk projects with 

shortfalls may not be consistently identified. 

While OMB can act to further improve the identification and oversight of 

poorly planned and poorly performing projects, we recognize that 

agencies must also take action to fulfill their responsibilities in these 

areas. We have addressed this in previous reports and made related 

recommendations. Until further improvements in the identification and

oversight of poorly planned and poorly performing IT projects, potentially

billions in taxpayer dollars are at risk of being wasted. 

Page 21 GAO-07-1211T 
If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me 

at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who made 

key contributions to this testimony are Sabine Paul, Assistant Director; 

Neil Doherty; Amos Tevelow; Kevin Walsh and Eric Winter. 

GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 22 GAO-07-1211T 
Page 23 GAO-07-1211T 

The following provides additional detail on the investments comprising 

OMB’s Management Watch List as of July 2007. Under the Clinger-Cohen 

Act of 1996, agencies are required to submit business plans for IT 

investments to OMB. If the agency’s investment plan contains one or more 

planning weaknesses, it is placed on OMB’s Management Watch List and 

targeted for follow-up action to correct potential problems prior to 

execution. 

We estimated the fiscal year 2008 request based on the data in the Report 

on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 (generally 

referred to as exhibit 53), and data provided by agencies. 

Table 4: Management Watch List Projects by Agency

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 2008 request 

(in millions)

The Corps Project Management Information System II 15

The Corps Resident Management System 3

DHS Non Intrusive Inspection System Program (Large Scale) 0*

DHS Non Intrusive Inspection System Program (Small Scale) 0*

DHS Secure Border Initiative net Technology Program 1,000

DHS Unmanned Aircraft Systems 0*

DHS Financial Management Transformation 6

DHS HR IT 17

DHS Infrastructure 1,071

DHS Technical Operations Support 0

DHS National Emergency Management Information System 17

DHS Flood Map Modernization 6

DHS Risk Assessment Systems 6

DHS Integrated Financial Management Information System 2

DHS Consolidated Enforcement Environment 11

DHS Computer Network Service Defense Provider 0

DHS Computer Forensics Laboratory 0

DHS Integrated Deepwater System 7

DHS Rescue 21 0

DHS Central Index System 3

DHS Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0 10

DHS Naturalization - CLAIMS 4.0 16

DOD Defense Information System for Security 64

DOL Labor Executive Accountability Program 12

Appendix I: Management Watch List Projects 
Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 2008 request 

(in millions)

DOT IT Combined Infrastructure 233

Education Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business 0

Education Common Origination and Disbursement 8

Education Common Services for Borrowers 15

Education Data Warehouse 1

Education Education Resources Information Center 9

Education Integrated Technical Architecture/ Enterprise Application Integration 8

Education Migrant Student Information Exchange 4

Education National Student Loan Data System 10

Education Student Aid Internet Gateway 1

HHS IT Infrastructure 126

HHS Consolidated Infrastructure 102

HHS Commissioned Corps Force Management System 2

HHS Prototype Nationwide Health Information Network Architectures 56

NASA Shared Capability Asset Program 41

NASA Payload Operations and Integration Center 20

NASA Integrated Collaborative Environment 21

NASA Earth Observing Sys Data Info Sys 131

NASA Center for Computational Sciences 15

NASA Space and Ground Network IT Support 5

NASA Flight Operations 79

NASA Integrated Planning System 14

NASA Mission Control Center 50

NASA Software Development/Integration Laboratory 132

NASA Space Shuttle Program Flight Software 86

NASA Space Shuttle Program Integration 13

NASA Space Station Production Facility 7

NASA Shuttle Ground Camera 2

NASA Shuttle Ground Operations 51

NASA Shuttle Integrated Logistics 11

NASA Shuttle Launch Control System 51

NASA Shuttle Processing Support 13

NASA Integrated Enterprise Management - Aircraft Management Module 5

NASA Integrated Enterprise Management - Core Financial 22

NASA Integrated Enterprise Management - Integrated Asset Management - Plant Property & 

Equipment Module 

4

NASA Office Automation, IT Infrastructure, and Telecommunications 547

Page 24 GAO-07-1211T 
Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 2008 request 

(in millions)

NASA Deep Space Network 33

NASA Integrated Services Network 88

NRC Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System 12

NRC Budget Formulation Application 0

NRC Cost Accounting System 1

NRC Digital Data Management System 0

NRC Human Resources Management System 1

NRC Incident Response System 4

NRC Infrastructure Services and Support 52

NRC License Fee Billing System 1

NRC License Fee Billing System Replacement 1

NRC Licensing Support Network 2

NRC Licensing Tracking System/Web Based Licensing 0

NRC National Source Tracking System 4

NRC Reactor Program System 1

NRC Secure LAN and Electronic Safe 5

OPM E-Training 0

SBA Business Development Management Information System 0

Treasury Business Master File 13

Treasury Chief Counsel 1

Treasury Cross Border Funds Transmittal 3

Treasury Electronic Fraud Detection System 12

Treasury Financial Analysis & Reporting System Applications 3

Treasury Fiscal Management 0

Treasury Individual Master File 13

Treasury Integrated Collection System 9

Treasury Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial System 17

Treasury Enterprise Systems 1

Treasury Examinations 4

Treasury Oracle e-Business Suite 5

Treasury Tax Return Database 5

Treasury TreasuryDirect 5

Treasury Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management Solution 6

Treasury Treasury-wide Integrated IT Infrastructure 1,638

USDA ConnectHR 8

USDA Consolidated Infrastructure, Office Automation and Telecommunications 843

Page 25 GAO-07-1211T 
Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 2008 request 

(in millions)

USDA Farm Program Modernization 151

USDA Food & Agriculture Bio-Surveillance Integration System 0

USDA Human Resources Line of Business: Service Center 25

VA Allocation Resource Center 2

VA Automated Monument Application System 1

VA Benefits Delivery Network Maintenance and Operations 22

VA BIRLS/VADS 3

VA Burial Operations Support System 1

VA C&P Maintenance and Operations 43

VA Capital Asset Management System 2

VA Data Centric Transition for VR&E and Education 0

VA Decision Support System 20

VA Document and Correspondence Management System 1

VA Education Maintenance and Ops 3

VA Enrollment Operations and Maintenance 5

VA e-Payroll 9

VA Federal Health Information Exchange 4

VA Financial & Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise 48

VA Financial Management System 16

VA Health Admin Center IT Operations 11

VA Health Data Repository 27

VA Insurance System Maintenance and Operations 7

VA IT Infrastructure 645

VA Loan Guaranty Maintenance and Operations 2

VA Medical and Prosthetic Research Operations 24

VA My HealtheVet 17

VA Patient Financial Services System 0

VA Payroll/HR Systems 27

VA Pharmacy Re-Engineering and IT Support 13

VA Program Integrity/Data Management 13

VA Rules-Based Claims Processing 0

VA Scheduling Replacement Project 15

VA The Education Expert System 5

VA VA-Learning Management System 6

VA VA-Wide e-Travel Solution 1

VA VBA Application Migration Project 5

Page 26 GAO-07-1211T 
Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 2008 request 

(in millions)

VA VistA Imaging 41

VA VistA-Application Development 130

VA VistA-Legacy 352

VA VR&E Maintenance and Operations 4

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB data. 

Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Defense (DOD); Department of 

Energy (DOE); Department of Interior (DOI); Department of Justice (DOJ); Department of Labor 

(DOL); Department of Transportation (DOT); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); General 

Services Administration (GSA); Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); National Science Foundation (NSF); Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB); Office of Personnel Management (OPM); Small Business Administration (SBA); 

Social Security Administration (SSA), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); 

Department of Agriculture (USDA); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

Our research could not identify dollar amounts for these projects. 

Page 27 GAO-07-1211T 
Page 28 GAO-07-1211T 

The following provides additional detail on the high risk projects that have 

performance shortfalls as of June 2007. 

We estimated the fiscal year 2008 request based on the data in the Report 

on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 (generally 

referred to as exhibit 53), and data provided by agencies. 

Table 5: High Risk Projects with Shortfalls by Agency 

Performance shortfalls

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

(in millions)

Unclear 

baseline

Cost and

schedule 

variance not

within 10% 

Project 

manager not 

qualified

Project 

duplicative of 

another

DHS A&O Homeland Security 

Information Network 21 X X

DHS CBP Secure Border Initiative net 

Technology Program 1,000 X X

DHS Financial Management

Transformation; E-Gov: E-Travel 

Migr.; FM LoB Migr.; FM LoB 

Legacy Sys. 6 X X X

DHS HR IT; E-Gov: HR LoB Migr.; ETraining Migr.; EHRI Migr.; ETraining Legacy Sys.; HR LoB 

Legacy Sys. 17 X X X

DHS Infrastructure 1,071 X X

DHS E-Gov E-Authentication; E-Auth. 

Migr.; E-Auth. Shared Serv. Prov. 0 X X X X

DHS E-Gov E-Rulemaking Migr.; ERulemaking Legacy Sys. 1 X X X X

DHS E-Gov FAS Migr.; FAS Sales Ctr.; 

FAS Legacy Sys. 0 X X X X

DHS E-Gov IAE Migr. 2 X X X X

DHS National Emergency Management 

Information System 17 X X

DHS Consolidated Enforcement

Environment 11 X X

DHS NPPD Information Systems 

Security Line of Business 2 X X X

DHS NPPD NS/EP Priority 

Telecommuni-cations Service 130 X

DHS Disaster Management E-Gov 13 X X

DHS SAFECOM 0 X X X

DHS US-VISIT 462 X

Appendix II: High Risk Projects with 

Shortfalls 
Performance shortfalls

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

(in millions)

Unclear 

baseline

Cost and

schedule 

variance not

within 10% 

Project 

manager not 

qualified

Project 

duplicative of 

another

DHS Alien Flight Student Program 2 X

DHS Crew Vetting 15 X X X

DHS Hazmat Threat Assessment 

Program 28 X X X

DHS Registered Traveler 0 X X 

DHS Secure Flight 53 X

DHS Transportation Worker Identification

Credentialing 38 X 

DHS Nationwide Automatic Identification 

System 22 X

DHS Rescue 21 0 X X

DHS Customer Service Portal 13 X X X X

DOC FM LoB Migration 0 X X X X

DOD Integrated Acquisition Environment 

Legacy System (FedTeDS) 1 X

DOD Integrated Acquisition Environment 

Shared Service Provider (ORCA) 0 X

DOD Integrated Acquisition Environment 

Shared Service Provider (PPIRS) 0 X

DOJ Regional Data Exchange 10 X

DOT EHRI 2 X

DOT E-Rulemaking Migration 1 X

DOT FAA Telecommunications

Infrastructure 222 X 

DOT Terminal Automation Mod. & Rep. 13 X 

DOT SWIM 23 X

DOT Traffic flow Management 121 X 

DOT Regulation and Certification 

Infrastructure for System Safety 55 X

Education ADvance (Aid Delivery) 65 X

Education Advance Development 28 X

Education Budget Formulation and Execution 

LoB 0 X

Education Common Origination and 

Disbursement 8 X

Education Common Services for Borrowers 15 X 

Education Data Strategy 14 X

Page 29 GAO-07-1211T 
Performance shortfalls

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

(in millions)

Unclear 

baseline

Cost and

schedule 

variance not

within 10% 

Project 

manager not 

qualified

Project 

duplicative of 

another

Education Data Warehouse 1 X

Education E-Authentication Migration 3 X X X X

Education Education Resources Information 

Center 9 X

Education E-GOV: E-Rulemaking Migration 0 X

Education EHRI 0 X

Education ID Access Control System 1 X

Education Information Assurance 9 X

Education Integrated Partner Management 8 X

EPA eRulemaking 1 X

EPA E-Travel Migration 0 X

EPA FM LoB - Migration 26 X 

GSA CHRIS-EHRI 7 X X

GSA EHRI Migration 2 X 

GSA FAS Sales Center SSP (PP) 2 X

GSA IAE SSP (EPLS) 1 X

GSA IAE SSP (FPDS-NG) 6 X

HHS Federal Health Architecture 4 X

HHS Consolidated Acquisiton Solution 8 X X 

NASA NASA Integrated Enterprise 

Management - Core Financial 22 X 

NRC Electronic Information Exchange/EAuthentication Migration 1 X

NRC E-Training (Learning Management 

System) 0 X

NRC E-Travel Conversion 1 X

OPM E-Training 0 X

OPM GoLearn 0 X

SBA Business Gateway (Managing 

Partner) 6 X

SBA Disaster Credit Management 

System 13 X 

SBA GCBD: Business Development 

Management Information System 0 X

SBA OCA: Loan Management and 

Accounting System 9 X

Page 30 GAO-07-1211T 
Performance shortfalls

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

(in millions)

Unclear 

baseline

Cost and

schedule 

variance not

within 10% 

Project 

manager not 

qualified

Project 

duplicative of 

another

SSA Disability Service Improvement 54 X 

SSA E-Travel Migration 0 X

SSA GovBenefits Migration 0 X

SSA IT Operations Assurance 30 X 

SSA Telephone Systems Replacement 

Project 26 X 

Treasury Chief Counsel 1 X

Treasury Correspondence Examination

Automated System 8 X

Treasury Debt Management Accounting 

System 6 X

Treasury Enterprise IT Infrastructure 

Optimization Initiative 1,638 X 

Treasury Examination Desktop Support

System 5 X

Treasury Excise Files Information Retrieval 

System 7 X

Treasury Excise Tax e-File & Compliance 2 X

Treasury Filing and Payment Compliance 2 X

Treasury Financial Analysis & Reporting

System 3 X

Treasury Financial Information and Reporting

Standardization 7 X

Treasury Fiscal Management 0 X

Treasury Integrated Collection System 9 X

Treasury Integrated Customer

Communications Environment 18 X 

Treasury Integrated Financial System/CORE 

Financial System 17 X

Treasury Integrated Submission and 

Remittance Processing System 17 X 

Treasury OCC ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 1 X

Treasury OCC EXAMINATIONS 4 X

Treasury Payment Application Modernization 18 X 

Treasury SaBRe 5 X

Treasury Service Center Recognition Image 

Processing System 17 X 

Page 31 GAO-07-1211T 
Performance shortfalls

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

(in millions)

Unclear 

baseline

Cost and

schedule 

variance not

within 10% 

Project 

manager not 

qualified

Project 

duplicative of 

another

Treasury Travel Reimbursement and 

Accounting System 1 X

Treasury Automated Auction Processing

System 32 X

Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network 3 X

Treasury Secure Data Network 4 X

Treasury Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content 

Management Services 6 X X

USAID E-Authentication 2 X X

USAID E-Records 1 X

USAID E-Travel 1 X

USAID GLAS 0 X

USAID HR LoB - Legacy System: Time & 

Attendance (replace AETA) 0 X X

USAID Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive-12 10 X X

USAID Joint Assistance Management 

System 0 X

USDA Corporate Property Automated 

Information System 1 X

USDA Food and Agriculture BioSurveillance Integration System 0 X

USDA ConnectHR 10 X

USDA Modernize and Innovate the 

Delivery of Agricultural Systems 144 X X X

USDA RMA-17, Common Information 

Management System 2 X X

VA E-Gov: E-Authentication 0 X X X

VA E-Gov: Financial Management LOB 0 X X X

VA E-Gov: Human Resources 

Management LoB 0 X X X

VA Enterprise Human Resources 

Integration 2 X X X

VA Financial & Logistics Integrated 

Technology Enterprise 48 X 

VA Medical and Prosthetic Research 

Operations 24 X X X

VA My HealtheVet 17 X

Page 32 GAO-07-1211T 
Performance shortfalls

Agency Investment name

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

(in millions)

Unclear 

baseline

Cost and

schedule 

variance not

within 10% 

Project 

manager not 

qualified

Project 

duplicative of 

another

VA Patient Financial Services System 0 X X 

VA Learning Management System 6 X

VA VistA Imaging 41 X X X

VA VistA-Foundations Modernization 92 X

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB data. 

Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Defense (DOD); Department of Energy (DOE); Department of Interior

(DOI); Department of Justice (DOJ); Department of Labor (DOL); Department of Transportation (DOT); Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA); General Services Administration (GSA); Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); National 

Science Foundation (NSF); Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Office of Personnel Management (OPM); Small Business 

Administration (SBA); Social Security Administration (SSA), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Department of

Agriculture (USDA); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Page 33 GAO-07-1211T (310849) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER