INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Further Implementation of 

Recommendations Is 

Needed to Better Manage 

Acquisitions and 

Operations

Statement of David A. Powner, Director 

Information Technology Management Issues

Testimony before the Subcommittees on 

Government Operations and Information 

Technology, Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. ET

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

GAO-18-460T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-460T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittees on Government 

Operations and Information Technology, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

March 14, 2018

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Further Implementation of Recommendations Is 

Needed to Better Manage Acquisitions and 

Operations

What GAO Found

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies have taken 

steps to improve the management of information technology (IT) acquisitions and 

operations through a series of initiatives, to include (1) data center consolidation, 

(2) implementation of incremental development practices, (3) approval of IT 

acquisitions, (4) implementation of key IT workforce practices, and (5) 

addressing aging legacy IT systems. As of March 2018, the agencies had fully 

implemented about 59 percent of the approximately 800 related 

recommendations that GAO made during fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

However, important additional actions are needed.

• Consolidating data centers. OMB launched an initiative in 2010 to reduce 

data centers, which was codified and expanded by a law commonly referred 

to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA).

GAO has since noted that, while this initiative could potentially save the 

government billions of dollars, weaknesses exist in areas such as 

optimization and OMB’s reporting on related cost savings. Accordingly, GAO 

has made 160 recommendations to OMB and agencies to improve the 

initiative; however, about half of GAO’s recommendations have not yet been 

implemented.

• Implementing incremental development. OMB has emphasized the need 

for agencies to deliver investments in smaller increments to reduce risk and 

deliver capabilities more quickly. Further, GAO has issued reports 

highlighting actions needed by OMB and agencies to improve their 

implementation of incremental development. In these reports, GAO made 42

related recommendations, but the majority of GAO’s recommendations have 

not yet been addressed.

• Approval of IT acquisitions. OMB’s FITARA implementation guidance 

required covered agencies’ chief information officers (CIO) to review and 

approve IT acquisition plans. In January 2018, GAO reported that many 

agencies’ CIOs were not reviewing and approving acquisition plans, as 

required by OMB. GAO made 39 recommendations to improve the review 

and approval of IT acquisitions, but they have not yet been implemented by 

the agencies. 

• Implementation of key IT workforce practices. Effective IT workforce 

planning can help agencies improve their ability to acquire IT. In November 

2016, GAO reported on agencies’ IT workforce planning activities. GAO

noted that five selected agencies had not fully implemented key workforce 

planning activities and recommended that they do so, but the agencies have 

not yet addressed the recommendations.

• Addressing aging legacy IT systems. Legacy IT investments across the 

federal government are becoming increasingly obsolete and consuming an 

increasing amount of IT dollars. In May 2016, GAO reported that many 

agencies were using systems which had components that were, in some 

cases, at least 50 years old. GAO noted, however, that several agencies did 

not have specific plans with time frames to modernize or replace these 

investments. GAO recommended that 12 agencies plan to modernize or 

replace legacy systems; all of which have not yet been implemented.

View GAO-18-460T. For more information, 

contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government plans to invest 

almost $96 billion in IT in fiscal year 

2018. Historically, these investments 

have too often failed, incurred cost 

overruns and schedule slippages, or 

contributed little to mission-related 

outcomes. In December 2014, 

Congress and the President enacted 

FITARA, aimed at improving covered 

agencies’ acquisitions of IT. Further, in 

February 2015, GAO added improving 

the management of IT acquisitions and 

operations across government to its 

high-risk list. 

This statement summarizes agencies’ 

progress in improving the management 

of IT acquisitions and operations. 

Among others, GAO summarized its 

published reports on (1) data center 

consolidation, (2) incremental software 

development practices, (3) IT 

acquisitions, (4) IT workforce, and (5) 

legacy IT.

What GAO Recommends

From fiscal years 2010 through 2015, 

GAO made about 800 

recommendations to OMB and federal 

agencies to address shortcomings in IT 

acquisitions and operations. Among 

other recommendations, GAO made

recommendations to improve the 

oversight and execution of the data 

center consolidation initiative, 

incremental development policies, the 

review and approval of IT acquisitions, 

implementation of key workforce 

planning activities, and aging federal IT 

systems. Most agencies agreed with 

GAO’s recommendations. In addition, 

from fiscal year 2016 to present, GAO

has made more than 200 new 

recommendations in this area. GAO 

will continue to monitor agencies’ 

implementation of these 

recommendations.
Page 1 GAO-18-460T 

Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, 

and Members of the Subcommittees:

I am pleased to be here today to provide an update on federal agencies’ 

efforts to improve the acquisition of information technology (IT). As I have

previously testified, the effective and efficient acquisition of IT has been a 

long-standing challenge in the federal government.1 In particular, the 

federal government has spent billions of dollars on failed and poorly 

performing IT investments, which often suffered from ineffective 

management. Recognizing the severity of issues related to the

government-wide acquisition of IT, in December 2014, Congress and the 

President enacted federal IT acquisition reform legislation (commonly 

referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, 

or FITARA).2

In addition, in February 2015, we added improving the management of IT 

acquisitions and operations to our list of high-risk areas for the federal 

government.3 We recently issued an update to our high-risk report and 

noted that, while progress has been made in addressing the high-risk 

area of IT acquisitions and operations, significant work remains to be 

completed.4

My statement today provides an update on agencies’ progress in 

improving the management of IT acquisitions and operations. The 

statement is based on our prior and recently published reports that 

discuss federal agencies’ (1) data center consolidation efforts, (2) risk 

levels of major investments as reported on the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB) IT Dashboard, (3) implementation of incremental 

 1

GAO, Information Technology: Further Implementation of FITARA Related 

Recommendations Is Needed to Better Manage Acquisitions and Operations, GAO-18-

234T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2017).

2

Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, div. A, title VIII, subtitle D, 128 Stat. 3292, 3438-3450 

(Dec. 19, 2014).

3

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015). 

GAO maintains a high-risk program to focus attention on government operations that it 

identifies as high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement or the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or 

effectiveness challenges. 

4

GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts 

Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017).
Page 2 GAO-18-460T 

development practices, (4) management of software licenses, (5) 

approval of IT acquisitions, (6) implementation of key IT workforce 

practices, and (7) efforts to address aging legacy IT. A more detailed 

discussion of the objectives, scope, and methodology for this work is 

included in each of the reports that are cited throughout this statement.

We conducted the work upon which this statement is based in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

According to the President’s budget, the federal government plans to 

invest more than $96 billion for IT in fiscal year 2018—the largest amount 

ever budgeted. However, as we have previously reported, investments in 

federal IT too often result in failed projects that incur cost overruns and 

schedule slippages, while contributing little to the desired mission-related 

outcomes. For example:

• The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Scheduling Replacement Project 

was terminated in September 2009 after spending an estimated $127 

million over 9 years.5

• The tri-agency6 National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System was disbanded in February 2010 by the White 

House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy after the program 

spent 16 years and almost $5 billion.7

 5

GAO, Information Technology: Management Improvements Are Essential to VA’s Second 

Effort to Replace Its Outpatient Scheduling System, GAO-10-579 (Washington, D.C.: May 

27, 2010). 

6

The weather satellite program was managed jointly by the Department of Commerce’s

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Defense, and National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

7

See, for example, GAO, Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites: With Costs Increasing 

and Data Continuity at Risk, Improvements Needed in Tri-agency Decision Making, 

GAO-09-564 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2009) and Environmental Satellites: PolarOrbiting Satellite Acquisition Faces Delays; Decisions Needed on Whether and How to 

Ensure Climate Data Continuity, GAO-08-518 (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2008). 

Background
Page 3 GAO-18-460T 

• The Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative 

Network program was ended in January 2011, after the department 

obligated more than $1 billion for the program.8

• The Office of Personnel Management’s Retirement Systems 

Modernization program was canceled in February 2011, after the 

agency had spent approximately $231 million on its third attempt to 

automate the processing of federal employee retirement claims.9

• The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Financial and Logistics 

Integrated Technology Enterprise program was intended to be 

delivered by 2014 at a total estimated cost of $609 million, but was 

terminated in October 2011.10

• The Department of Defense’s Expeditionary Combat Support System 

was canceled in December 2012 after spending more than a billion 

dollars and failing to deploy within 5 years of initially obligating 

funds.11

Our past work found that these and other failed IT projects often suffered 

from a lack of disciplined and effective management, such as project 

planning, requirements definition, and program oversight and 

governance. In many instances, agencies had not consistently applied 

best practices that are critical to successfully acquiring IT.

 8

See, for example, GAO, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Strengthen Management 

and Oversight of Its Prime Contractor, GAO-11-6 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2010); 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its Proposed Investment in Key 

Technology Program, GAO-10-340 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010); and Secure Border 

Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Testing and Performance Limitations That Place Key 

Technology Program at Risk, GAO-10-158 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2010). 

9

See, for example, GAO, Office of Personnel Management: Retirement Modernization 

Planning and Management Shortcomings Need to Be Addressed, GAO-09-529 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2009) and Office of Personnel Management: Improvements 

Needed to Ensure Successful Retirement Systems Modernization, GAO-08-345 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2008). 

10GAO, Information Technology: Actions Needed to Fully Establish Program Management 

Capability for VA’s Financial and Logistics Initiative, GAO-10-40 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

26, 2009). 

11GAO, DOD Financial Management: Implementation Weaknesses in Army and Air Force 

Business Systems Could Jeopardize DOD’s Auditability Goals, GAO-12-134 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012) and DOD Business Transformation: Improved Management 

Oversight of Business System Modernization Efforts Needed, GAO-11-53 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010). 
Page 4 GAO-18-460T 

Such projects have also failed due to a lack of oversight and governance. 

Executive-level governance and oversight across the government has 

often been ineffective, specifically from chief information officers (CIO). 

For example, we have reported that some CIOs’ roles were limited 

because they did not have the authority to review and approve the entire 

agency IT portfolio.12

FITARA was intended to improve covered agencies’ acquisitions of IT 

and enable Congress to monitor agencies’ progress and hold them 

accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings. The law 

includes specific requirements related to seven areas.13

• Federal data center consolidation initiative (FDCCI). Agencies

covered by FITARA are required to provide OMB with a data center 

inventory, a strategy for consolidating and optimizing their data 

centers (to include planned cost savings), and quarterly updates on 

progress made. The law also requires OMB to develop a goal for how 

much is to be saved through this initiative, and provide annual reports 

on cost savings achieved.

• Enhanced transparency and improved risk management. OMB 

and covered agencies are to make detailed information on federal IT 

investments publicly available, and agency CIOs are to categorize 

their investments by level of risk. Additionally, in the case of major IT 

investments14 rated as high risk for 4 consecutive quarters, the law 

requires that the agency CIO and the investment’s program manager 

 12GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Role in 

Information Technology Management, GAO-11-634 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2011). 

13The provisions apply to the agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 

1990, 31 U.S.C. § 901(b). These agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, the Interior, the 

Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, 

General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National 

Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, 

Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Agency for 

International Development. However, FITARA has generally limited application to the 

Department of Defense.

14Major IT investment means a system or an acquisition requiring special management 

attention because it has significant program or policy implications; high executive visibility; 

high development, operating, or maintenance costs; an unusual funding mechanism; or is 

defined as major by the agency’s capital planning and investment control process.

Implementing FITARA Can 

Improve Agencies’ 

Management of IT
Page 5 GAO-18-460T 

conduct a review aimed at identifying and addressing the causes of 

the risk.

• Agency CIO authority enhancements. Agency heads at covered 

agencies are required to ensure that CIOs have authority to (1) 

approve the IT budget requests of their respective agencies, (2) certify 

that OMB’s incremental development guidance is being adequately 

implemented for IT investments, (3) review and approve contracts for 

IT, and (4) approve the appointment of other agency employees with 

the title of CIO. 

• Portfolio review. Covered agencies are to annually review IT 

investment portfolios in order to, among other things, increase 

efficiency and effectiveness and identify potential waste and 

duplication. In establishing the process associated with such portfolio 

reviews, the law requires OMB to develop standardized performance 

metrics, to include cost savings, and to submit quarterly reports to 

Congress on cost savings.

• Expansion of training and use of IT acquisition cadres. Covered 

agencies are to update their acquisition human capital plans to 

address supporting the timely and effective acquisition of IT. In doing 

so, the law calls for agencies to consider, among other things, 

establishing IT acquisition cadres or developing agreements with 

other agencies that have such cadres.

• Government-wide software purchasing program. The General 

Services Administration is to develop a strategic sourcing initiative to 

enhance government-wide acquisition and management of software. 

In doing so, the law requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, 

the General Services Administration should allow for the purchase of 

a software license agreement that is available for use by all executive 

branch agencies as a single user.15

• Maximizing the benefit of the Federal Strategic Sourcing 

Initiative.16 Federal agencies are required to compare their 

 15The Making Electronic Government Accountable by Yielding Tangible Efficiencies Act of 

2016, or the “MEGABYTE Act” further enhances CIOs’ management of software licenses 

by requiring agency CIOs to establish an agency software licensing policy and a 

comprehensive software license inventory to track and maintain licenses, among other 

requirements. Pub. L. No. 114-210 (July 29, 2016); 130 Stat. 824.

16The Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative is a program established by the General 

Services Administration and the Department of the Treasury to address government-wide 

opportunities to strategically source commonly purchased goods and services and 

eliminate duplication of efforts across agencies. 
Page 6 GAO-18-460T 

purchases of services and supplies to what is offered under the 

Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative. The Administrator for Federal 

Procurement Policy was also required to issue regulations related to 

the initiative.

In June 2015, OMB released guidance describing how agencies are to 

implement FITARA.17 This guidance is intended to, among other things:

• assist agencies in aligning their IT resources with statutory 

requirements;

• establish government-wide IT management controls that will meet the 

law’s requirements, while providing agencies with flexibility to adapt to 

unique agency processes and requirements;

• strengthen the relationship between agency CIOs and bureau CIOs; 

and

• strengthen CIO accountability for IT costs, schedules, performance, 

and security.

The guidance identified several actions that agencies were to take to 

establish a basic set of roles and responsibilities (referred to as the 

common baseline) for CIOs and other senior agency officials, which were 

needed to implement the authorities described in the law. For example, 

agencies were required to conduct a self-assessment and submit a plan 

describing the changes they intended to make to ensure that common 

baseline responsibilities were implemented. Agencies were to submit their 

plans to OMB’s Office of E-Government and Information Technology by 

August 15, 2015, and make portions of the plans publicly available on 

agency websites no later than 30 days after OMB approval. As of 

November 2016, all agencies had made their plans publicly available.

In addition, in August 2016, OMB released guidance intended to, among 

other things, define a framework for achieving the data center 

consolidation and optimization requirements of FITARA.18 The guidance 

requires each agency on a quarterly basis to:

 17OMB, Management and Oversight of Federal Information Technology, Memorandum M15-14 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015). 

18OMB, Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI), Memorandum M-16-19 (Washington 

D.C.: Aug. 1, 2016).
Page 7 GAO-18-460T 

• maintain complete inventories of all data center facilities owned, 

operated, or maintained by or on behalf of the agency;

• develop cost savings targets for fiscal years 2016 through 2018 and 

report any actual realized cost savings; and

• measure progress toward meeting optimization metrics.

The guidance also directs agencies to develop a data center 

consolidation and optimization strategic plan that defines the agency’s 

data center strategy for fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018. This strategy 

is to include, among other things, a statement from the agency CIO 

indicating whether the agency has complied with all data center reporting 

requirements in FITARA. Further, the guidance indicates that OMB is to 

maintain a public dashboard that will display consolidation-related costs 

savings and optimization performance information for the agencies.

In February 2015, we introduced a new government-wide high-risk area, 

Improving the Management of IT Acquisitions and Operations.

19 This area 

highlighted several critical IT initiatives in need of additional congressional 

oversight, including (1) reviews of troubled projects; (2) efforts to increase

the use of incremental development; (3) efforts to provide transparency 

relative to the cost, schedule, and risk levels for major IT investments; (4) 

reviews of agencies’ operational investments; (5) data center 

consolidation; and (6) efforts to streamline agencies’ portfolios of IT 

investments. We noted that implementation of these initiatives was 

inconsistent and more work remained to demonstrate progress in 

achieving IT acquisition and operation outcomes.

Further, our February 2015 high-risk report stated that, beyond 

implementing FITARA, OMB and agencies needed to continue to 

implement our prior recommendations in order to improve their ability to 

effectively and efficiently invest in IT. Specifically, from fiscal years 2010 

through 2015, we made 803 recommendations to OMB and federal 

agencies to address shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations. 

These recommendations included many to improve the implementation of 

the aforementioned six critical IT initiatives and other government-wide, 

cross-cutting efforts. We stressed that OMB and agencies should 

demonstrate government-wide progress in the management of IT 

investments by, among other things, implementing at least 80 percent of 

 19GAO-15-290. 

IT Acquisitions and 

Operations Identified by 

GAO as a High-Risk Area
Page 8 GAO-18-460T 

our recommendations related to managing IT acquisitions and operations 

within 4 years.

In February 2017, we issued an update to our high-risk series and 

reported that, while progress had been made in improving the 

management of IT acquisitions and operations, significant work still 

remained to be completed.20 For example, as of March 2018, OMB and 

agencies had fully implemented 476 (or about 59 percent) of the 803 

recommendations. Figure 1 summarizes the progress that OMB and 

agencies have made in addressing our recommendations as compared to 

the 80 percent target, as of March 2018.

Figure 1: Summary of the Office of Management and Budget’s and Federal 

Agencies’ Progress in Addressing GAO’s Recommendations, as of March 2018

In addition, in fiscal year 2016, we made 202 new recommendations, thus 

further reinforcing the need for OMB and agencies to address the 

shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations. Also, beyond addressing 

our prior recommendations, our 2017 high-risk update noted the 

importance of OMB and covered federal agencies continuing to 

expeditiously implement the requirements of FITARA.

To further explore the challenges and opportunities to improve federal IT 

acquisitions and operations, we convened a forum on September 14, 

2016, to explore challenges and opportunities for CIOs to improve federal 

IT acquisitions and operations—with the goal of better informing 

policymakers and government leadership.21 Forum participants, which 

included 13 current and former federal agency CIOs, members of 

Congress, and private sector IT executives, identified key actions related 

to seven topics: (1) strengthening FITARA, (2) improving CIO authorities, 

 20GAO-17-317.

21GAO, Information Technology: Opportunities for Improving Acquisitions and Operations, 

GAO-17-251SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2017).
Page 9 GAO-18-460T 

(3) budget formulation, (4) governance, (5) workforce, (6) operations, and 

(7) transition planning. A summary of the key actions, by topic area, 

identified during the forum is provided in figure 2.
Page 10 GAO-18-460T 

Figure 2: Key Actions, by Topic Area, Identified by Forum Participants to Improve Information Technology Acquisitions and 

Operations

In addition, in January 2017, the Federal CIO Council concluded that 

differing levels of authority over IT-related investments and spending 
Page 11 GAO-18-460T 

have led to inconsistencies in how IT is executed from agency to agency. 

According to the Council, for those agencies where the CIO has broad 

authority to manage all IT investments, great progress has been made to 

streamline and modernize the federal agency’s footprint. For the others, 

where agency CIOs are only able to control pieces of the total IT footprint, 

it has been harder to achieve improvements.22

Congress has recognized the importance of covered agencies’ continued 

implementation of FITARA provisions, and has taken legislative action to 

extend selected provisions beyond their original dates of expiration. 

Specifically, Congress and the President enacted laws to:

23

• remove the expiration date for enhanced transparency and improved 

risk management provisions, which were set to expire in 2019;

• remove the expiration date for portfolio review, which was set to 

expire in 2019; 

• extend the expiration date for FDCCI from 2018 to 2020; and

• authorize the availability of funding mechanisms to help further 

agencies’ efforts to modernize IT.24

In particular, a law was enacted to authorize the availability of funding to 

help further agencies’ efforts to modernize IT. The law, known as the 

Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act, authorizes agencies to 

establish working capital funds for use in transitioning from legacy IT

systems, as well as for addressing evolving threats to information 

security. The law creates a technology modernization fund within the 

Department of the Treasury, from which agencies can “borrow” money to 

retire and replace legacy systems as well as acquire or develop systems.

The current administration has initiated additional efforts aimed at 

improving federal IT, including digital services. Specifically, in March 

2017, the administration established the Office of American Innovation, 

which has a mission to, among other things, make recommendations to 

the President on policies and plans aimed at improving federal 

 22CIO Council, State of Federal Information Technology (Washington, D.C.: January 

2017).

23FITARA Enhancement Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-88, 131 Stat. 1278 (2017).

24National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-91,Div. A, Title 

X, Subtitle G (2017).

Congress Has Taken 

Action to Continue 

Selected FITARA 

Provisions and Modernize 

Federal IT

The Current Administration

Has Undertaken Efforts to 

Improve Federal IT
Page 12 GAO-18-460T 

government operations and services. In doing so, the office is to consult 

with both OMB and the Office of Science and Technology Policy on 

policies and plans intended to improve government operations and 

services, improve the quality of life for Americans, and spur job creation.

25

In May 2017, the administration also established the American 

Technology Council, which has a goal of helping to transform and 

modernize federal agency IT and how the federal government uses and 

delivers digital services.

26 The President is the chairman of this council, 

and the Federal CIO and the United States Digital Service27 Administrator 

are among the members.

In addition, on May 11, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 

13800, Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical 

Infrastructure.

28 This Executive Order tasked the Director of American 

Technology Council29 to coordinate a report to the President from the 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of OMB, 

and the Administrator of the General Services Administration, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, regarding the 

modernization of federal IT. As a result, the Report to the President on

Federal IT Modernization was issued on December 13, 2017, and 

outlined the current and envisioned state of federal IT. The report 

recognized that agencies have attempted to modernize systems but have 

been stymied by a variety of factors, including resource prioritization, 

ability to procure services quickly, and technical issues. The report 

provided multiple recommendations intended to address these issues 

through the modernization and consolidation of networks and the use of 

shared services to enable future network architectures.

 25The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy provides the President and 

others within the Executive Office of the President with advice on the scientific, 

engineering, and technological aspects of the economy, national security, homeland 

security, health, foreign relations, the environment, and the technological recovery and 

use of resources, among other topics.

26Exec. Order No. 13794, Establishment of the American Technology Council, 82 Fed. 

Reg. 20811 (May 3, 2017).

27The United States Digital Service is an office within OMB which aims to improve the 

most important public-facing federal digital services.

28Exec. Order No. 13800, 82 Fed Reg. 22391 (May 16, 2017).

29An employee of the Executive Office of the President designated by the President.
Page 13 GAO-18-460T 

In February 2018, OMB issued guidance30 for agencies to implement the 

MGT Act. The guidance was intended to provide agencies additional 

information regarding the Technology Management Fund, and the 

administration and funding of the related IT Working Capital Funds. 

Specifically, the guidance allowed agencies to begin submitting initial 

project proposals for modernization on February 27, 2018. In addition, in 

accord with the MGT Act, the guidance provides details of the Technology 

Modernization Board, which is to consist of (1) the Federal CIO; (2) a 

senior official from the General Services Administration; (3) a member of 

the Department of Homeland Security’s National Protection and Program 

Directorate; and (4) four federal employees with technical expertise in IT 

development, financial management, cyber security and privacy, and 

acquisition, appointed by the Director of OMB.

Agencies have taken steps to improve the management of IT acquisitions 

and operations. However, agencies would be better positioned to realize

billions in cost savings and additional management improvements, if they 

addressed the numerous recommendations we have made aimed at 

improving data center consolidation, increasing transparency via OMB’s 

IT Dashboard, implementing incremental development, managing 

software licenses, reviewing IT acquisitions, implementing key IT 

workforce activities, and addressing aging legacy systems.

One of the key initiatives to implement FITARA is data center 

consolidation. OMB established FDCCI in February 2010 to improve the 

efficiency, performance, and environmental footprint of federal data 

center activities, and the enactment of FITARA codified and expanded the 

initiative. However, in a series of reports that we issued from July 2011 

through August 2017, we noted that, while data center consolidation 

could potentially save the federal government billions of dollars, 

weaknesses existed in several areas, including agencies’ data center 

consolidation plans, data center optimization, and OMB’s tracking and 

 30Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of the Modernizing Government 

Technology Act, M-18-12 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2018).

Agencies Can 

Improve IT 

Acquisitions and 

Operations

Agencies Have Made 

Progress in Consolidating 

Data Centers, but Need to 

Take Action to Achieve 

Planned Cost Savings
Page 14 GAO-18-460T 

reporting on related cost savings.31 In these reports, we made a matter for 

Congressional consideration, and a total of 160 recommendations to 

OMB and 24 agencies to improve the execution and oversight of the 

initiative. Most agencies and OMB agreed with our recommendations or 

had no comments. As of March 2018, 83 of these recommendations 

remained open.

For example, in May 2017, we reported32 that the 24 agencies33

participating in FDCCI collectively had made progress on their data center 

closure efforts. Specifically, as of August 2016, these agencies had 

identified a total of 9,995 data centers, of which they reported having 

closed 4,388, and having plans to close a total of 5,597 data centers 

through fiscal year 2019. Notably, the Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, the Interior, and the Treasury accounted for 84 percent of the 

completed closures.

In addition, that report noted that 18 of the 24 agencies had reported 

achieving about $2.3 billion collectively in cost savings and avoidances 

from their data center consolidation and optimization efforts from fiscal 

year 2012 through August 2016. The Departments of Commerce, 

 31GAO, Data Center Optimization: Agencies Need to Address Challenges and Improve 

Progress to Achieve Cost Savings Goal, GAO-17-448 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2017); 

Data Center Optimization: Agencies Need to Complete Plans to Address Inconsistencies 

in Reported Savings, GAO-17-388 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2017); Data Center 

Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress, but Planned Savings Goals Need to Be 

Established [Reissued on March 4, 2016], GAO-16-323 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 2016); 

Data Center Consolidation: Reporting Can Be Improved to Reflect Substantial Planned 

Savings, GAO-14-713 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2014); Data Center Consolidation: 

Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Cost Savings Goal, GAO-13-378 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2013); Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress 

on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed, GAO-12-742 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 19, 2012); and Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 

Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings, GAO-11-565 (Washington, D.C.: July 

19, 2011).

32GAO-17-388.

33The 24 agencies that FITARA requires to participate in FDCCI are the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency;

General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National 

Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management;

Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and U.S. Agency for 

International Development.
Page 15 GAO-18-460T 

Defense, Homeland Security, and the Treasury accounted for 

approximately $2.0 billion (or 87 percent) of the total.

Further, 23 agencies reported about $656 million collectively in planned 

savings for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. This is about $3.3 billion less 

than the estimated $4.0 billion in planned savings for fiscal years 2016 

through 2018 that agencies reported to us in November 2015. Figure 3 

presents a comparison of the amounts of cost savings and avoidances 

reported by agencies to OMB and the amounts the agencies reported to 

us.

Figure 3: Comparison of Fiscal Years 2016-2018 Planned Cost Savings and 

Avoidances Reported to GAO in November 2015 versus Those Reported to the 

Office of Management and Budget in April 2017

As mentioned previously, FITARA required agencies to submit no later 

than the end of fiscal year 2016 and annually thereafter multi-year 

strategies to achieve the consolidation and optimization of their data 

centers. Among other things, this strategy is required to include such 

information as data center consolidation and optimization metrics, and 

year-by-year calculations of investments and cost savings through 

October 1, 2020.

Further, OMB’s August 2016 guidance on data center optimization 

contained additional information for how agencies are to implement the 

strategic plan requirements of FITARA, and stated that agencies were 
Page 16 GAO-18-460T 

required to publicly post their strategic plans to their agency-owned digital 

strategy websites by September 30, 2016.34

As of April 2017, only 7 of the 23 agencies that submitted their strategic 

plans—the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, 

and Housing and Urban Development; the General Services 

Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of 

Personnel Management—had addressed all five elements required by the 

OMB memorandum implementing FITARA. The remaining 16 agencies 

either partially met or did not meet the requirements. For example, most 

agencies partially met or did not meet the requirements to provide

information related to data center closures and cost savings metrics. The 

Department of Defense did not submit a plan and was rated as not 

meeting any of the requirements.

To better ensure that federal data center consolidation and optimization 

efforts improve governmental efficiency and achieve cost savings, in our 

May 2017 report, we recommended that 11 of the 24 agencies take 

actions to ensure that the amounts of achieved data center cost savings 

and avoidances are consistent across all reporting mechanisms. We also 

recommended that 17 of the 24 agencies each take action to complete 

missing elements in their strategic plans and submit their plans to OMB in 

order to optimize their data centers and achieve cost savings. Twelve 

agencies agreed with our recommendations, 2 did not agree, and 10 

agencies and OMB did not state whether they agreed or disagreed.

More recently, in August 2017, we reported that agencies needed to 

address challenges in optimizing their data centers in order to achieve 

cost savings.35 Specifically, we noted that, according to the 24 agencies’ 

data center consolidation initiative strategic plans as of April 2017, most

agencies were not planning to meet OMB’s optimization targets by the 

end of fiscal year 2018. Further, of the 24 agencies, 5—the Department of 

Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science 

Foundation, Small Business Administration, and U.S. Agency for 

International Development—reported plans to fully meet their applicable 

 34OMB, Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI), Memorandum M-16-19 (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 1, 2016).

35GAO-17-448.
Page 17 GAO-18-460T 

targets by the end of fiscal year 2018;36 13 reported plans to meet some, 

but not all, of the targets; 4 reported that they did not plan to meet any 

targets; and 2 did not have a basis to report planned optimization 

milestones because they do not report having any agency-owned data 

centers. Figure 4 summarizes agencies’ progress in meeting OMB’s 

optimization targets as of February 2017, and planned progress to be 

achieved by September 2017 and September 2018, as of April 2017.

 36U.S. Agency for International Development did not have any tiered data centers in its 

data center inventory. Therefore, the agency only had a basis to report on its plans to 

meet the one OMB optimization metric applicable to its non-tiered data centers (i.e., 

server utilization and automated monitoring).
Page 18 GAO-18-460T 

Figure 4: Agency-Reported Plans to Meet or Exceed the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Data Center Optimization 

Targets

Note: The five boxes in each column represent OMB’s five optimization targets relative to (1) server 

utilization and automated monitoring; (2) energy metering; (3) power usage effectiveness; (4) facility 

utilization; and (5) virtualization. The shaded areas identify agencies’ current and planned progress in

meeting or exceeding OMB’s fiscal year 2018 target for each metric.
Page 19 GAO-18-460T 

a

Agency did not have any reported agency-owned data centers in its inventory and, therefore, did not 

have a basis to measure and report on optimization progress.

b

The National Science Foundation did not have any reported agency-owned tiered data centers in its 

inventory as of February 2017 and, therefore, did not have a basis to report on progress for four of 

the five metrics. However, according to the agency’s April 2017 data center optimization strategic 

plan, it will have a basis to report on all five metrics in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

c

The U.S. Agency for International Development did not have any reported agency-owned tiered data 

centers in its inventory and, therefore, did not have a basis to measure and report on four of the five 

metrics.

FITARA required OMB to establish a data center optimization metric 

specific to measuring server efficiency, and required agencies to report 

on progress in meeting this metric. To effectively measure progress 

against this metric, OMB directed agencies to replace the manual 

collection and reporting of systems, software, and hardware inventory 

housed within agency-owned data centers with automated monitoring 

tools and to complete this effort no later than the end of fiscal year 2018. 

Agencies are required to report progress in implementing automated 

monitoring tools and server utilization averages at each data center as 

part of their quarterly data center inventory reporting to OMB. 

As of February 2017, 4 of the 22 agencies reporting agency-owned data 

centers in their inventory37—the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Science Foundation, Social Security 

Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development—reported 

that they had implemented automated monitoring tools at all of their data 

centers. Further, 10 reported that they had implemented automated 

monitoring tools at between 1 and 57 percent of their centers, and 8 had 

not yet begun to report the implementation of these tools. In total, the 22 

agencies reported that automated tools were implemented at 123 (or 

about 3 percent) of the 4,528 total agency-owned data centers, while the 

remaining 4,405 (or about 97 percent) of these data centers were not 

reported as having these tools implemented. Figure 5 summarizes the 

number of agency-reported data centers with automated monitoring tools 

implemented, including the number of tiered and non-tiered centers. 

 37Two agencies—the Department of Education and Housing and Urban Development—do 

not have any agency-owned data centers; therefore, they do not have a basis for 

implementing automated monitoring tools.
Page 20 GAO-18-460T 

Figure 5: Number of Agency-Reported Data Centers with Automated Monitoring Tools Implemented, as of February 2017

To address challenges in optimizing federal data centers, in our August 

2017 report, we made recommendations to 18 agencies and OMB. Ten 

agencies agreed with our recommendations, three agencies partially 

agreed, and six (including OMB) did not state whether they agreed or 

disagreed.

To facilitate transparency across the government in acquiring and

managing IT investments, OMB established a public website—the IT 

Dashboard—to provide detailed information on major investments at 26 

agencies, including ratings of their performance against cost and 

schedule targets. Among other things, agencies are to submit ratings 

from their CIOs, which, according to OMB’s instructions, should reflect the 

level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment’s ability to 

accomplish its goals. In this regard, FITARA includes a requirement for 

covered agency CIOs to categorize their major IT investment risks in 

accordance with OMB guidance.38

 3840 U.S.C. § 11302(c)(3)(C). 

Risks Need to Be Fully 

Considered When 

Agencies Rate Their Major 

Investments on OMB’s IT 

Dashboard
Page 21 GAO-18-460T 

Over the past 6 years, we have issued a series of reports about the 

Dashboard that noted both significant steps OMB has taken to enhance 

the oversight, transparency, and accountability of federal IT investments 

by creating its Dashboard, as well as concerns about the accuracy and 

reliability of the data.39 In total, we have made 47 recommendations to 

OMB and federal agencies to help improve the accuracy and reliability of 

the information on the Dashboard and to increase its availability. Most 

agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no comments. As of 

March 2018, 19 recommendations remained open.

In June 2016, we determined that 13 of the 15 agencies selected for indepth review had not fully considered risks when rating their major 

investments on the Dashboard. Specifically, our assessments of risk for 

95 investments at the 15 selected agencies40 matched the CIO ratings 

posted on the Dashboard 22 times, showed more risk 60 times, and 

showed less risk 13 times. Figure 6 summarizes how our assessments 

compared to the selected investments’ CIO ratings.

 39GAO, IT Dashboard: Agencies Need to Fully Consider Risks When Rating Their Major 

Investments, GAO-16-494 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2016); IT Dashboard: Agencies Are 

Managing Investment Risk, but Related Ratings Need to Be More Accurate and Available,

GAO-14-64 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2013); IT Dashboard: Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Transparency and Oversight of Investment Risk at Select Agencies, GAO-13-98 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2012); IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and Additional 

Efforts Are Under Way to Better Inform Decision Making, GAO-12-210 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 7, 2011); Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, 

but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, 

GAO-11-262 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); and Information Technology: OMB’s 

Dashboard Has Increased Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, 

GAO-10-701 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2010).

40The 15 selected agencies were the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; 

General Services Administration; and Social Security Administration.
Page 22 GAO-18-460T 

Figure 6: Comparison of Selected Investments’ April 2015 Chief Information Officer Ratings to GAO’s Assessments

Aside from the inherently judgmental nature of risk ratings, we identified 

three factors which contributed to differences between our assessments 

and the CIO ratings:

• Forty of the 95 CIO ratings were not updated during April 2015 (the 

month we conducted our review), which led to differences between 

our assessments and the CIOs’ ratings. This underscores the 

importance of frequent rating updates, which help to ensure that the 

information on the Dashboard is timely and accurately reflects recent 

changes to investment status.

• Three agencies’ rating processes spanned longer than 1 month. 

Longer processes mean that CIO ratings are based on older data, and 

may not reflect the current level of investment risk.

• Seven agencies’ rating processes did not focus on active risks. 

According to OMB’s guidance, CIO ratings should reflect the CIO’s 

assessment of the risk and the investment’s ability to accomplish its 

goals. CIO ratings that do no incorporate active risks increase the 

chance that ratings overstate the likelihood of investment success.

As a result, we concluded that the associated risk rating processes used 

by the 15 agencies were generally understating the level of an 

investment’s risk, raising the likelihood that critical federal investments in 

IT are not receiving the appropriate levels of oversight.

To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, 

we made 25 recommendations to 15 agencies to improve the quality and 
Page 23 GAO-18-460T 

frequency of their CIO ratings. Twelve agencies generally agreed with or 

did not comment on the recommendations and three agencies disagreed, 

stating that their CIO ratings were adequate. However, we noted that 

weaknesses in these three agencies’ processes still existed and that we 

continued to believe our recommendations were appropriate. 

OMB has emphasized the need to deliver investments in smaller parts, or 

increments, in order to reduce risk, deliver capabilities more quickly, and 

facilitate the adoption of emerging technologies. In 2010, it called for 

agencies’ major investments to deliver functionality every 12 months and, 

since 2012, every 6 months. Subsequently, FITARA codified a 

requirement that covered agency CIOs certify that IT investments are 

adequately implementing incremental development, as defined in the 

capital planning guidance issued by OMB.

41 Further, subsequent OMB 

guidance on the law’s implementation, issued in June 2015, directed 

agency CIOs to define processes and policies for their agencies which 

ensure that they certify that IT resources are adequately implementing 

incremental development.42

However, in May 2014, we reported43 that 66 of 89 selected investments 

at five major agencies44 did not plan to deliver capabilities in 6-month 

cycles, and less than half of these investments planned to deliver 

functionality in 12-month cycles. We also reported that only one of the five 

agencies had complete incremental development policies. Accordingly, 

we recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on incremental 

development and that the selected agencies update their associated 

policies to comply with OMB’s revised guidance (once made available), 

and consider the factors identified in our report when doing so.

Four of the six agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no 

comments, one agency partially agreed, and the remaining agency 

disagreed with the recommendations. The agency that disagreed did not 

believe that its recommendations should be dependent upon OMB taking 

 4140 U.S.C. § 11319(b)(1)(B)(ii).

42OMB, Memorandum M-15-14.

43GAO, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish and Implement Incremental 

Development Policies, GAO-14-361 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2014). 

44These five agencies are the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.

Agencies Need to 

Increase Their Use of 

Incremental Development 

Practices
Page 24 GAO-18-460T 

action to update guidance. In response, we noted that only one of the 

recommendations to that agency depended upon OMB action, and we 

maintained that the action was warranted and could be implemented.

Subsequently, in August 2016, we reported45 that agencies had not fully 

implemented incremental development practices for their software 

development projects. Specifically, we noted that, as of August 31, 2015, 

22 federal agencies46 had reported on the Dashboard that 300 of 469 

active software development projects (64 percent) were planning to 

deliver usable functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 2016, as 

required by OMB guidance. The remaining 169 projects (or 36 percent) 

that were reported as not planning to deliver functionality every 6 months, 

agencies provided a variety of explanations for not achieving that goal. 

These included project complexity, the lack of an established project 

release schedule, or that the project was not a software development 

project.

Further, in conducting an in-depth review of seven selected agencies’ 

software development projects,47 we determined that 129 out of 287 

software development projects delivered functionality every 6 months for 

fiscal year 2015 (45 percent) and 113 out of 206 software projects (55 

percent) planned to do so in fiscal year 2016. However, significant 

differences existed between the delivery rates that the agencies reported 

to us and what they reported on the Dashboard. For example, for four 

agencies (the Departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human 

Services, and the Treasury), the percentage of delivery reported to us 

was at least 10 percentage points lower than what was reported on the 

Dashboard. These differences were due to (1) our identification of fewer 

software development projects than agencies reported on the Dashboard 

 45GAO, Information Technology Reform: Agencies Need to Increase Their Use of 

Incremental Development Practices, GAO-16-469 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 2016).

46These 22 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, 

National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Small 

Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Agency for International 

Development.

47These seven agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Health 

and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, and the Treasury. These 

agencies were chosen because they reported a minimum of 12 investments that were at 

least 50 percent or more in development on the Dashboard for fiscal year 2015.
Page 25 GAO-18-460T 

and (2) the fact that information reported to us was generally more current 

than the information reported on the Dashboard.

We concluded that, by not having up-to-date information on the 

Dashboard about whether the project is a software development project 

and about the extent to which projects are delivering functionality, these 

seven agencies were at risk that OMB and key stakeholders may make 

decisions regarding the agencies’ investments without the most current 

and accurate information. As such, we recommended that the seven 

selected agencies review major IT investment project data reported on 

the Dashboard and update the information as appropriate, ensuring that 

these data are consistent across all reporting channels.

Finally, while OMB has issued guidance requiring agency CIOs to certify 

that each major IT investment’s plan for the current year adequately 

implements incremental development, only three agencies (the 

Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation) had 

defined processes and policies intended to ensure that the CIOs certify 

that major IT investments are adequately implementing incremental 

development.48 Accordingly, we recommended that the remaining four 

agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human 

Services, and the Treasury—establish policies and processes for 

certifying that major IT investments adequately use incremental 

development.

The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services agreed 

with our recommendation, while the Department of Defense disagreed 

and stated that its existing policies address the use of incremental 

development. However, we noted that the department’s policies did not 

comply with OMB’s guidance and that we continued to believe our 

recommendation was appropriate. The Department of the Treasury did 

not comment on its recommendation.

More recently, in November 2017, we reported that agencies needed to 

improve their certification of incremental development.49 Specifically, 

agencies reported that 103 of 166 major IT software development 

investments (62 percent) were certified by the agency CIO for 

 48Office of Management and Budget, FY2017 IT Budget – Capital Planning Guidance.

49GAO, Information Technology Reform: Agencies Need to Improve Certification of 

Incremental Development, GAO-18-148 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2017).
Page 26 GAO-18-460T 

implementing adequate incremental development in fiscal year 2017, as 

required by FITARA as of August 2016. Table 1 identifies the number of 

federal agency major IT software development investments certified for 

adequate incremental development, as reported on the IT Dashboard for 

fiscal year 2017. 

Table 1: Federal Agency Major Information Technology (IT) Software Development 

Investments Certified for Adequate Incremental Development, as Reported on the IT 

Dashboard for Fiscal Year 2017

Agency

Number of 

major 

investments 

Number of 

investments 

certified for 

adequate 

incremental 

development

Percent of 

investments 

certified for 

adequate 

incremental 

development

U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 4 57%

Department of Commerce 11 10 91%

Department of Defense 33 10 30%

Department of Education 7 6 86%

Department of Energy 3 1 33%

Department of Health and Human 

Services 24 20 83%

Department of Homeland Security 10 6 60%

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 1 1 100%

Department of the Interior 6 4 67%

Department of Justice 2 2 100%

Department of Labor 1 1 100%

Department of State 5 5 100%

Department of Transportation 12 3 25%

Department of the Treasury 10 3 30%

Department of Veterans Affairs 10 10 100%

Environmental Protection Agency 1 1 100%

General Services Administration 7 7 100%

Office of Personnel Management 3 3 100%

Small Business Administration 2 2 100%

Social Security Administration 10 3 30%

U.S. Agency for International 

Development 1 1 100%

Total 166 103 62%

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data as of August 31, 2016. | GAO-18-460T
Page 27 GAO-18-460T 

Officials from 21 of the 24 agencies in our review reported that challenges 

hindered their ability to implement incremental development, which 

included: (1) inefficient governance processes; (2) procurement delays; 

and (3) organizational changes associated with transitioning from a 

traditional software methodology that takes years to deliver a product, to 

incremental development, which delivers products in shorter time frames. 

Nevertheless, 21 agencies reported that the certification process was 

beneficial because they used the information from the process to assist 

with identifying investments that could more effectively use an 

incremental approach, and used lessons learned to improve the agencies’ 

incremental processes.

In addition, as of August 2017, only 4 of the 24 agencies had clearly 

defined CIO incremental development certification policies and processes 

that contained descriptions of the role of the CIO in the process and how 

the CIO’s certification will be documented; and included definitions of 

incremental development and time frames for delivering functionality 

consistent with OMB guidance. Figure 7 summarizes our analysis of 

agencies’ policies for CIO certification of the adequate use of incremental 

development in IT investments.
Page 28 GAO-18-460T 

Figure 7: Analysis of Agencies’ Policies for Chief Information Officer Certification of the Adequate Use of Incremental 

Development in Information Technology Investments

Lastly, we reported that OMB’s capital planning guidance for fiscal year 

201850 (issued in June 2016) lacked clarity regarding how agencies were 

to address the requirement for certifying adequate incremental 

development. While the 2018 guidance stated that agency CIOs are to 

provide the certifications needed to demonstrate compliance with 

FITARA, the guidance did not include a specific reference to the provision 

requiring CIO certification of adequate incremental development. We 

noted that, as a result of this change, OMB placed the burden on 

agencies to know and understand how to demonstrate compliance with 

FITARA’s incremental development provision. Further, because of the 

 50OMB, FY 2017 IT Budget–Capital Planning Guidance.
Page 29 GAO-18-460T 

lack of clarity in the guidance as to what agencies were to provide, OMB 

could not demonstrate how the fiscal year 2018 guidance ensured that 

agencies provided the certifications specifically called for in the law.

In August 2017, OMB issued its fiscal year 2019 guidance,51 which 

addressed the weaknesses we identified in the previous fiscal year’s 

guidance. Specifically, the revised guidance requires agency CIOs to 

make an explicit statement regarding the extent to which the CIO is able 

to certify the use of incremental development, and to include a copy of 

that statement in the agency’s public congressional budget justification 

materials. As part of the statement, an agency CIO must also identify 

which specific bureaus or offices are using incremental development on 

all of their investments.

In our November 2017 report, we made 19 recommendations to 17 

agencies to improve reporting and certification of incremental 

development. Eleven agencies agreed with our recommendations, 1 

partially agreed, and 5 did not state whether they agreed or disagreed. 

OMB disagreed with several of our conclusions, which we continued to 

believe were valid. 

In total, from May 2014 through November 2017, we made 42

recommendations to OMB and agencies to improve their implementation 

of incremental development. As of March 2018, 34 of our 

recommendations remained open.

Federal agencies engage in thousands of software licensing agreements 

annually. The objective of software license management is to manage, 

control, and protect an organization’s software assets. Effective 

management of these licenses can help avoid purchasing too many 

licenses, which can result in unused software, as well as too few licenses, 

which can result in noncompliance with license terms and cause the 

imposition of additional fees.

As part of its PortfolioStat initiative, OMB has developed policy that 

addresses software licenses. This policy requires agencies to conduct an 

annual, agency-wide IT portfolio review to, among other things, reduce 

commodity IT spending. Such areas of spending could include software 

licenses.

 51OMB, FY 2019 IT Budget–Capital Planning Guidance.

Agencies Need to Better 

Manage Software 

Licenses to Achieve 

Savings
Page 30 GAO-18-460T 

In May 2014, we reported on federal agencies’ management of software 

licenses and determined that better management was needed to achieve 

significant savings government-wide.52 In particular, 22 of the 24 major 

agencies did not have comprehensive license policies and only 2 had 

comprehensive license inventories. In addition, we identified five leading 

software license management practices, and the agencies’ 

implementation of these practices varied.

As a result of agencies’ mixed management of software licensing, 

agencies’ oversight of software license spending was limited or lacking, 

thus potentially leading to missed savings. However, the potential savings 

could be significant considering that, in fiscal year 2012, 1 major federal 

agency reported saving approximately $181 million by consolidating its 

enterprise license agreements, even when its oversight process was ad 

hoc. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB issue needed guidance to 

agencies; we also made 135 recommendations to the 24 agencies to 

improve their policies and practices for managing licenses. Among other 

things, we recommended that the agencies regularly track and maintain a 

comprehensive inventory of software licenses and analyze the inventory 

to identify opportunities to reduce costs and better inform investment 

decision making.

Most agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no 

comments. As of March 2018, 95 of the recommendations had not been 

implemented. Table 2 reflects the extent to which agencies implemented 

recommendations in these areas.

Table 2: Agencies’ Implementation of Software License Management 

Recommendations

Agency

Tracks and 

maintains a 

comprehensive 

inventory

Uses inventory to 

make decisions 

and reduce costs

Department of Agriculture 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

Department of Commerce 🌓🌓 🌑🌑

Department of Defense 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Education 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

Department of Energy 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

 52GAO, Federal Software Licenses: Better Management Needed to Achieve Significant 

Savings Government-Wide, GAO-14-413 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2014).
Page 31 GAO-18-460T 

Agency

Tracks and 

maintains a 

comprehensive 

inventory

Uses inventory to 

make decisions 

and reduce costs

Department of Health and Human Services 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Homeland Security 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Justice 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Labor 🌑🌑 🌓🌓

Department of State 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of the Interior 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of the Treasury 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Transportation 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Veterans Affairs 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

Environmental Protection Agency 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

General Services Administration 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

National Science Foundation 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Office of Personnel Management 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Small Business Administration 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Social Security Administration 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

U.S. Agency for International Development 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

Key:

🌑🌑 Fully—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed this recommendation

🌓🌓 Partially—the agency had plans to address this recommendation

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-18-460T
Page 32 GAO-18-460T 

FITARA includes a provision to enhance covered agency CIOs’ authority 

through, among other things, requiring agency heads to ensure that CIOs 

review and approve IT contracts. OMB’s FITARA implementation 

guidance expanded upon this section of FITARA in a number of ways.53

Specifically, according to the guidance:

• CIOs may review and approve IT acquisition strategies and plans, 

rather than individual IT contracts;54

• CIOs can designate other agency officials to act as their 

representatives, but the CIOs must retain accountability;55

• Chief Acquisition Officers (CAO) are responsible for ensuring that all 

IT contract actions are consistent with CIO-approved acquisition 

strategies and plans; and

• CAOs are to indicate to the CIOs when planned acquisition strategies 

and acquisition plans include IT.

In January 2018, we reported56 that most of the CIOs at the 22 selected 

agencies57 were not adequately involved in reviewing billions of dollars of 

IT acquisitions. For instance, most of the 22 selected agencies did not 

identify all of their IT contracts. The selected agencies identified 78,249 

IT-related contracts, to which they obligated $14.7 billion in fiscal year 

2016. However, we identified 31,493 additional contracts with $4.5 billion 

obligated, raising the total amount obligated to IT contracts in fiscal year 

 53OMB, Management and Oversight of Federal Information Technology, M-15-14 

(Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015).

54OMB’s guidance states that CIOs should only review and approve individual IT contract 

actions if they are not part of an approved acquisition strategy or plan. 

55OMB has interpreted FITARA’s “governance process” provision to permit such 

delegation. That provision allows covered agencies to use the governance processes of 

the agency to approve a contract or other agreement for IT if the CIO of the agency is 

included as a full participant in the governance process.

56GAO, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Involve Chief Information Officers in 

Reviewing Billions of Dollars in Acquisitions, GAO-18-42 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 

2018). 

57The 22 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy,

Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, the

Interior, the Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection

Agency; General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel

Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and U.S.

Agency for International Development.

Agencies Need to Ensure 

That IT Acquisitions Are 

Reviewed and Approved 

by Chief Information 

Officers
Page 33 GAO-18-460T 

2016 to at least $19.2 billion. Figure 8 reflects the obligations agencies 

reported to us relative to the obligations we identified.

Figure 8: Agency- and GAO-Identified Approximate Dollars Obligated to Fiscal Year 2016 IT Contracts at the 22 Selected 

Agencies

The percentage of additional IT contract obligations we identified varied 

among the selected agencies. For example, the Department of State did 

not identify 1 percent of its IT contract obligation dollars. Conversely, 8 

agencies did not identify over 40 percent of their IT-related contract 

obligation dollars. Many of the selected agencies that did not identify 

these IT acquisitions did not follow OMB guidance. Specifically, 14 of the 

22 agencies did not involve the acquisition office in their process to

identify IT acquisitions for CIO review, as required by OMB. In addition, 7 

agencies did not establish guidance to aid officials in recognizing IT. Until 

agencies involve the acquisitions office in their IT identification processes 

and establish supporting guidance, they cannot ensure that they will 

identify all IT acquisitions. Without proper identification of IT acquisitions, 
Page 34 GAO-18-460T 

agencies and CIOs cannot effectively provide oversight of these 

acquisitions.

In addition to not identifying all IT contracts, 14 of the 22 selected 

agencies did not fully satisfy OMB’s requirement that the CIO review and 

approve IT acquisition plans or strategies. Further, only 11 of 96 randomly 

selected IT contracts at 10 agencies that we evaluated were CIOreviewed and approved as required by OMB’s guidance. The 85 IT 

contracts not reviewed had a total possible value of approximately $23.8 

billion. 

Until agencies ensure that CIOs are able to review and approve all IT 

acquisitions, CIOs will continue to have limited visibility and input into 

their agencies’ planned IT expenditures and will not be able to use the 

increased authority that FITARA’s contract approval provision is intended 

to provide. Further, agencies will likely miss an opportunity to strengthen 

CIOs’ authority and the oversight of IT acquisitions. As a result, agencies 

may award IT contracts that are duplicative, wasteful, or poorly 

conceived. 

As a result of this report, we made 39 recommendations, including that 

agencies ensure that acquisition offices are involved in identifying IT and 

issue related guidance and ensure that IT acquisitions are reviewed 

according to OMB guidance. OMB and 20 agencies generally agreed with 

or did not comment on the recommendations. One agency agreed with 

one recommendation, but disagreed with another. The remaining agency 

disagreed with two recommendations. We subsequently removed one of 

these recommendations from the final report, but not the other. As of 

March 2018, all 39 recommendations remain open.

An area where agencies can improve their ability to acquire IT is 

workforce planning. In November 2016, we reported58 that IT workforce 

planning activities, when effectively implemented, can facilitate the 

success of major acquisitions. Ensuring program staff have the necessary 

knowledge and skills is a factor commonly identified as critical to the 

success of major investments. If agencies are to ensure that this critical 

success factor has been met, then IT skill gaps need to be adequately 

assessed and addressed through a workforce planning process.

 58GAO, IT Workforce: Key Practices Help Ensure Strong Integrated Program Teams; 

Selected Departments Need to Assess Skill Gaps, GAO-17-8 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 

2016).

Implementing Key IT 

Workforce Planning 

Activities Can Help Ensure 

Acquisition Skill Gaps Are 

Addressed
Page 35 GAO-18-460T 

In this regard, we reported that four workforce planning steps and eight 

key activities can assist agencies in assessing and addressing IT 

knowledge and skill gaps. Specifically, these four steps are: (1) setting 

the strategic direction for IT workforce planning, (2) analyzing the 

workforce to identify skill gaps, (3) developing and implementing 

strategies to address IT skill gaps, and (4) monitoring and reporting 

progress in addressing skill gaps. Each of the four steps is supported by 

key activities (as summarized in table 3).

Table 3: Summary of Key Information Technology (IT) Workforce Planning Steps 

and Activities

Key workforce planning steps and activities

Set the strategic direction for IT workforce planning

Establish and maintain a workforce planning process

Develop competency and staffing requirements

Analyze the IT workforce to identify skill gaps

Assess competency and staffing needs regularly

Assess gaps in competencies and staffing

Develop strategies and implement activities to address IT skill gaps

Develop strategies and plans to address gaps in competencies and staffing

Implement activities that address gaps (including IT acquisition cadres, cross-functional 

training of acquisition and program personnel, career paths for program managers, plans 

to strengthen program management, and use of special hiring authorities)

Monitor and report progress in addressing IT skill gaps

Monitor the agency’s progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps

Report to agency leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps

Source: GAO analysis of strategic human capital planning and IT workforce planning activities from sources including the ClingerCohen Act of 1996, E-Government Act of 2002, Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act of 2015, and FITARA; OMB 

guidance including 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management, Guidance for Specialized 

Information Technology Acquisition Cadres, Management and Oversight of Federal Information Technology (M-15-14), Cybersecurity 

Strategy and Implementation Plan for the Federal Civilian Government (M-16-04), Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Strategy (M-16-15), 

and Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource; OPM guidance including IT Program Management Career Path 

Guide and Workforce Planning Model; and prior GAO reports, including GAO-04-39 and GAO-14-704G. | GAO-18-460T

However, in our November 2016 report, we determined that the five 

agencies that we selected for in-depth analysis had not fully implemented 

key workforce planning steps and activities.59 For example, four of these 

agencies had not demonstrated an established IT workforce planning 

process. In addition, none of these agencies had fully assessed their 

workforce competencies and staffing needs regularly or established 

 59These five agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human 

Services, Transportation, and the Treasury.
Page 36 GAO-18-460T 

strategies and plans to address gaps in these areas. Figure 9 illustrates 

the extent to which the five selected agencies had fully, partially, or not 

implemented key IT workforce planning activities.

Figure 9: Selected Agencies’ Implementation of Eight Key Information Technology 

Workforce Planning Activities

The weaknesses identified were due, in part, to these agencies lacking 

comprehensive policies that required such activities, or failing to apply the 

policies to IT workforce planning. We concluded that, until these 

weaknesses are addressed, the five agencies risk not adequately 

assessing and addressing gaps in knowledge and skills that are critical to 

the success of major acquisitions. Accordingly, we made five 

recommendations to the five selected agencies to address the 

weaknesses in their IT workforce planning practices that we identified. 

Four agencies—the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human 

Services, Transportation, and the Treasury—agreed with our 
Page 37 GAO-18-460T 

recommendations and one, the Department of Defense, partially agreed.

As of March 2018, the agencies had not addressed the five 

recommendations.

IT investments across the federal government are becoming increasingly 

obsolete. Specifically, in May 2016, we reported that many agencies were 

using systems which had components that were, in some cases, at least 

50 years old.60 For example, we determined that the Department of 

Defense was using 8-inch floppy disks in a legacy system that 

coordinates the operational functions of the nation’s nuclear forces. In 

addition, the Department of the Treasury was using assembly language 

code—a computer language initially used in the 1950s and typically tied 

to the hardware for which it was developed. Further, in some cases, the 

vendors were no longer providing support for hardware or software. For 

example, each of the 12 agencies in our review reported using 

unsupported operating systems and components. At the time, five of the 

selected agencies reported using 1980s and 1990s Microsoft operating 

systems that stopped being supported by the vendor more than a decade 

ago. Table 4 provides examples of legacy systems across the federal 

government that agencies report are 30 years old or older and use 

obsolete software or hardware, and identifies those that do not have 

specific plans with time frames to modernize or replace these 

investments.

Table 4: Examples of Legacy Investments and Systems, as of May 2016

Agency

Investment 

or System Description

Agencyreported ageSpecific, defined plans for 

modernization or replacement

Department of 

the Treasury

Individual 

Master File

The authoritative data source for individual 

taxpayers where accounts are updated, 

taxes are assessed, and refunds are 

generated. This investment is written in 

assembly language code—a low-level 

computer code that is difficult to write and 

maintain—and operates on an IBM 

mainframe.

~56 No - The agency has general 

plans to replace this investment, 

but there is no firm date 

associated with the transition.

 60GAO, Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Address Aging Legacy 

Systems, GAO-16-468 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2016).

Agencies Need to Address 

Aging Legacy Systems
Page 38 GAO-18-460T 

Agency

Investment 

or System Description

Agencyreported ageSpecific, defined plans for 

modernization or replacement

Department of 

the Treasury

Business 

Master File

Retains all tax data pertaining to individual 

business income taxpayers and reflects a 

continuously updated and current record of 

each taxpayer’s account. This investment is 

also written in assembly language code and 

operates on an IBM mainframe.

~56 No - The agency has general 

plans to update this system, but 

there is no time frame 

established for this transition.

Department of 

Defense

Strategic 

Automated 

Command 

and Control 

System

Coordinates the operational functions of the 

United States’ nuclear forces, such as 

intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear 

bombers, and tanker support aircraft. This 

system runs on an IBM Series/1 Computer—

a 1970s computing system—and uses 8-

inch floppy disks.

53 Yes - The agency plans to 

update its data storage solutions, 

port expansion processors, 

portable terminals, and desktop 

terminals by the end of fiscal 

year 2017.

Department of 

Veterans Affairs

Personnel 

and 

Accounting 

Integrated 

Data

Automates time and attendance for 

employees, timekeepers, payroll, and 

supervisors. It is written in Common 

Business Oriented Language (COBOL)—a 

programming language developed in the 

1950s and 1960s—and runs on an IBM 

mainframe.

53 Yes - The agency plans to 

replace it with a project called 

Human Resources Information 

System Shared Service Center 

in 2017.

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

Benefits 

Delivery 

Network

Tracks claims filed by veterans for benefits, 

eligibility, and dates of death. This system is 

a suite of COBOL mainframe applications.

51 No - The agency has general

plans to roll capabilities into 

another system, but there is no 

firm time frame associated with 

this transition.

Department of 

Justice

Sentry Provides information regarding security and 

custody levels, inmate program and work 

assignments, and other pertinent information 

about the inmate population. The system 

uses COBOL and Java programming 

languages.

35 Yes - The agency planned to 

update the system through 

September 2016.

Social Security 

Administration

Title II 

Systems

Determines retirement benefits eligibility and 

amounts. The investment is comprised of 

162 subsystems written in COBOL. 

31 Yes - The agency has ongoing 

modernization efforts, including 

one that is experiencing cost and 

schedule challenges due to the 

complexities of the legacy 

software.

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data, agency documentation, and interviews. | GAO-18-460T

Note: Age was reported by agencies. Systems and investments may have individual components 

newer than the reported age.

To address this issue, we recommended that 12 agencies identify and 

plan to modernize or replace legacy systems, including establishing time 

frames, activities to be performed, and functions to be replaced or 
Page 39 GAO-18-460T 

enhanced.61 Most agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no 

comment. As of March 2018, all of the recommendations remained open.

In conclusion, the federal government has an opportunity to save billions 

of dollars; improve the transparency and management of IT acquisitions 

and operations; and to strengthen the authority of CIOs to provide needed 

direction and oversight. The forum we held also recommended that CIOs 

be given more authority, and noted the important role played by the 

Federal CIO.

Most agencies have taken steps to improve the management of IT 

acquisitions and operations by implementing key initiatives, including data 

center consolidation, efforts to increase transparency via OMB’s IT 

Dashboard, incremental development, management of software licenses, 

approval of IT acquisitions, implementation of IT workforce key practices, 

and addressing legacy IT; and they have continued to address 

recommendations we have made over the past several years. However, 

additional improvements are needed, and further efforts by OMB and 

federal agencies to implement our previous recommendations would 

better position them to improve the management of IT acquisitions and 

operations.

To help ensure that these efforts succeed, OMB’s and agencies’ 

continued implementation of recommendations is essential. In addition, 

we will continue to monitor agencies’ implementation of our previous 

recommendations.

Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, 

and Members of the Subcommittees, this completes my prepared 

statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may 

have at this time.

 61These 12 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, 

Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, State, the Treasury, 

Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration.
Page 40 GAO-18-460T 

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact Dave Powner, Director, Information Technology at (202) 512-

9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony 

are Kevin Walsh (Assistant Director), Chris Businsky, Rebecca Eyler, 

Meredith Raymond, and Jessica Waselkow (Analyst in Charge).

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(102667)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

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

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.