AUDIT REPORT IG-03-015

Report Recipients: 

A/Program Executive 

 Officer for the Integrated 

 Financial Management 

 Program 

B/Deputy Chief Financial 

 Officer for Financial 

 Management 

B/Director, Integrated 

 Financial Management 

 Program 

B/Deputy Director, 

 Integrated Financial 

 Management Program 

MSFC/RS02/Core Financial 

 Project Manager 

INTEGRATED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM CORE FINANCIAL MODULE 

CONVERSION TO FULL COST ACCOUNTING

May 30, 2003 

cc: 

B/Audit Liaison 

 Representative 

JM/Director, Management 

 Assessments Division 

JM/Team Lead 

MSFC/RS40/Audit 

 Liaison Representative 

 National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Released by: __[original signed by]_____________

David M. Cushing, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 
IG-03-015 May 30, 2003 

 A-01-061-00 

Integrated Financial Management Program 

Core Financial Module Conversion 

to Full Cost Accounting 

In conducting this audit, we found that the Core Financial Module software, which has 

been implemented at six NASA Centers, has the capability to implement full cost 

accounting. Before implementation can take place, NASA must resolve several 

extraordinarily complex accounting and costing issues. These involve how to allocate 

service and general and administrative (G&A) costs, civil service costs, and unassigned 

costs. These issues incorporate NASA’s conspicuous inability to provide full cost 

accounting data for the International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle. Once the 

accounting and costing issues are resolved, NASA has to configure the Integrated 

Financial Management Program (IFMP) software to reflect the changes. 

According to NASA’s plans for full cost accounting, IFMP, and the Core Financial 

Module, the Agency will begin configuring the IFMP software after the last NASA 

Center has implemented the Core Financial Module (currently scheduled for June 23, 

2003). NASA will have to resolve the cost accounting issues in slightly over 3 months 

following June 23, 2003, and then configure the Core Financial Module software in order 

for NASA to meet its targeted implementation date of October 1, 2003. As noted in 

NASA’s Core Financial Project Full Cost Configuration Strategy, if full cost procedures 

are not implemented by October 1, 2003, the Agency faces a high risk that it will be 

unable to use IFMP to report full cost accounting data until fiscal year (FY) 2005. A 

substantial delay in the availability of full cost accounting data could extend the 

implementation date of the Agency’s overall Full Cost Initiative. 

Converting Core Financial Module Software To Accommodate Full Cost Accounting 

Although NASA’s Full Cost Initiative Agencywide Implementation Guide (Full Cost 

Guide) establishes Agencywide service and G&A cost pools, it does not establish Centerunique cost pools and does not address how the Core Financial Module will allocate 

service and G&A costs, civil service personnel costs, and unassigned costs required to 

implement full cost accounting. Pools are used to accumulate similar costs and are 

distributed to projects based on an allocation methodology that best represent the types of 

costs that are in the pools. For example, wind tunnel costs can be accumulated in a wind 

tunnel service pool and allocated to programs based on hours of usage. NASA will need 

to (1) establish the appropriate cost pools, (2) configure the Core Financial Module 

software to accommodate the cost pool structure, and (3) properly test the new 

configuration. 
2

Accounting and Costing Issues 

G&A Cost Allocation. NASA’s Full Cost Guide states that each Center will be 

responsible for managing its respective G&A costs and requires the Centers to allocate 

these costs to specific projects. Currently, NASA does not tie G&A costs to specific 

projects. Examples of G&A costs are costs associated with financial management, 

procurement, security, and legal activities. To successfully allocate these costs to 

projects, Agency and Center management should (1) determine the content of the G&A 

cost pool, (2) determine the G&A levels required to support operations, (3) determine the 

rate at which G&A costs will be allocated, and (4) establish the appropriate structure 

within the Core Financial Module to ensure accurate allocations of G&A costs to all 

projects. 

Space Shuttle Program. Determining which costs should be allocated to programs 

(such as the ISS) that benefit from Space Shuttle services is a vital component of 

NASA’s efforts to establish the full cost of its programs. NASA has recently addressed 

the issue of allocating Space Shuttle costs to the ISS. However, the Agency needs to 

decide whether and how Space Shuttle Program costs will be allocated to other benefiting 

NASA programs and projects and must then determine how the Core Financial Module 

will accommodate that decision. 

Civil Service Personnel Costs. Civil service personnel costs must be directly associated 

with the project to which they relate. Currently, NASA does not have a standardized 

Agencywide methodology for associating civil service personnel costs to projects. 

Establishing this methodology could be challenging in identifying personnel who work in 

more than one project, G&A cost area, or service cost area. 

Unassigned Costs. NASA has five Strategic Enterprises that cover the major areas of 

the Agency's research and development efforts. In NASA’s FY 2001 Consolidated 

Statement of Net Cost, the Agency reported costs of more than $1 billion that were not 

assigned to specific Enterprises. To achieve full cost accounting, NASA should 

determine a methodology for allocating those costs to benefiting programs. 

Recommendation 

We recommended that the Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Financial Management 

revise the IFMP plans to include: 

• Timeframes and milestones for completing steps implementing full cost 

accounting, including addressing and resolving the cost issues identified above. 

• Identification of the personnel and other resources necessary to perform the steps 

within the established timeframes. 

• Senior management approval and support of these additional procedures. 
3

Management’s Response 

Management concurs with the recommendation. NASA has formed the Full Cost Policy 

and Operations Team, comprised of members from the Centers, the IFMP Core Financial 

Team, and Headquarters enterprise/functional offices. The Team has identified 

timeframes, milestones, and resources for completing the steps necessary to implement 

full cost accounting and to address those cost issues identified in the report. The Team 

will brief and make recommendations to the NASA Full Cost Committee and update the 

Full Cost Initiative Agencywide Implementation Guide. In addition, NASA has 

appointed a full-time Director of Full Cost to manage the full cost implementation 

process. The Agency plans to have all phases of full cost accounting implemented by 

October 1, 2003. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response 

Based on management’s response; further discussion with the NASA Program Executive 

for IFMP, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, and Director of Full Cost; and review of 

NASA’s full cost planning documentation, we consider management’s action responsive 

to the recommendation, which is now closed. 

Appendices 

Among the appendices, note Appendix D, in particular, which discusses NASA’s history 

of implementing a financial management system, and Appendix E on full cost 

management. 
4

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Recommendation Status 

Appendix B – Background 

Appendix C – Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Appendix D – NASA’s History of Implementing a Financial Management 

System 

Appendix E – Full Cost Management and IFMP 

Appendix F – Key IFMP Officials and Responsibilities 

Appendix G – Prior Audit Reports 

Appendix H – Management’s Comments Dated February 26, 2003 

Appendix I – Management’s Comments Dated April 4, 2003 

Appendix J – Report Distribution 

Acronyms Used in the Report 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

FY Fiscal Year 

G&A General and Administrative 

IFMP Integrated Financial Management Program 

ISS International Space Station 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
5

Appendix A. Recommendation Status 

Recommendation No. Resolved Unresolved Open/ECD* Closed

1 X X 

*ECD – Estimated Completion Date. 
6

Appendix B. Background 

The IFMP is the Agency’s third attempt in more than 12 years to establish a fully 

integrated, federally compliant1

 financial management system.2 NASA spent about $130 

million on its prior efforts and expects to spend more than $800 million for its current 

efforts. 

NASA established the Core Financial Project3

 to provide management and technical 

leadership for implementing the Core Financial Module, one of eight IFMP modules. 

The Core Financial Module is the backbone of the IFMP and will consist of the NASAwide fully integrated and auditable accounting system that the Agency now lacks. The 

other seven IFMP modules will be integrated/interfaced with the Core Financial Module.4

 

NASA plans to complete full deployment of the Core Financial Module at its Centers by 

June 23, 2003. 

One of the primary objectives of the IFMP is to support the Agency’s Full Cost Initiative, 

which began in response to NASA requirements and Federal law (see Appendix E). In 

February 1999, NASA published its “Full Cost Initiative Agencywide Implementation 

Guide” (Full Cost Guide). The guide describes three elements of the Full Cost Initiative 

as follows: 

Full Cost Accounting. In full cost accounting, all costs are tied to a particular 

NASA project and consist of direct costs,5 service costs,6 and G&A costs.7

Cost-based Budgeting. All costs are budgeted against NASA projects and 

NASA plans, manages, and controls funds based on a project perspective. 

 

1

Office of Management and Budget's Financial Management Initiative was developed in response to the 

President’s Management Agenda and requires Federal agencies to have a standardized, centralized 

financial accounting system to support day-to-day operations and to track task completion.

2

 The NASA Office of Inspector General has performed prior audits related to the Agency’s attempts to 

implement the IFMP. Those audit results are summarized in Appendix G. 3

The Core Financial Project Manager in Huntsville, Alabama, is responsible for the successful 

implementation of the Core Financial Module and has the authority to manage the implementation of the 

module within the policies and guidelines established by the IFM Program Office. The Core Financial 

Project team supports the Core Financial Project Manager. Appendix F describes key IFMP officials and 

their responsibilities.

4

SAP Public Sector and Education, Inc., of Washington, D.C., supplies the commercial off-the-shelf 

software for the Core Financial Module. 

5

Direct costs are costs that can be readily related to a specific project. Examples of direct costs are 

materials and labor. 

6

Service costs are costs that cannot be immediately related to a project. Examples of service costs are 

information technology and publishing services. These costs are later related to a project and are 

distributed to a project based on usage or consumption. 

7

G&A costs are costs that cannot be related to a specific project, but benefit all activities. Examples of 

G&A costs are financial management and procurement. 
7

Appendix B 

Full Cost Management. The project manager should use cost information to 

make informed decisions regarding resources management in order to optimize 

the cost-effective performance of a particular project. Full cost management 

cannot be achieved until full cost accounting and cost-based budgeting is 

successfully implemented. 

NASA also developed an IFMP Program Plan and a Core Financial Project Plan in 

accordance with NASA Procedures and Guidelines 7120.5A, “Program and Project 

Management Processes and Requirements,” dated April 3, 1998. These plans establish a 

structure for managing the IFMP Core Financial Module. 

The Core Financial Module will become NASA’s system of record for Federal fiscal year 

(FY) 2004. Beginning October 1, 2003, all NASA Centers will use the Core Financial 

Module to implement full cost accounting and to produce NASA’s financial statements. 

Additionally, the Core Financial Module will contain the data that NASA’s independent 

auditors will rely on to accomplish their annual financial statement audits. As a first step 

in successfully implementing its Full Cost Initiative, NASA must successfully implement 

full cost accounting within the Core Financial Module. However, the Core Financial 

Module alone will not implement NASA’s Full Cost Initiative. NASA will achieve its 

Full Cost Initiative only by also successfully implementing the Budget Formulation 

Module.8

 Implementation of the Budget Formulation module will begin in October 2003 

and will be completed in February 2004. 

 

8

The Budget Formulation Module will implement budget development, reporting, cost-based budgeting, 

and management and will interface with the Core Financial Module.
8

Appendix C. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Objectives

The original audit objectives were to determine whether the Core Financial Module 

would: 

• properly implement NASA’s Full Cost Initiative Implementation Guide and 

• adequately support NASA’s preparation and audit of its financial statements. 

After we started our audit work, we learned that the Core Financial Module alone would 

not implement NASA’s Full Cost Initiative (see Appendix E). Only through successful 

implementation of the Core Financial Module, in conjunction with the successful 

implementation of the Integrated Financial Management Program (IFMP) Budget 

Formulation Module, will NASA achieve its Full Cost Initiative. Currently, the IFMP 

Budget Formulation Module is not scheduled for completion until February 2004. Since 

realizing that the Core Financial Module would not implement NASA’s Full Cost 

Initiative, we modified our first objective to determine whether the Core Financial 

Module would implement full cost accounting – a primary component of the Agency’s 

Full Cost Initiative, by the target date of October 1, 2003. 

During our review, we learned that NASA contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Consulting (now International Business Machines) to perform an independent system 

compliance review of the Core Financial Module software, including testing transactions, 

to help determine whether the Core Financial Module would adequately support NASA’s 

preparation and audit of its financial statements. Through coordination with NASA 

officials and International Business Machines and to avoid duplication of audit work, we 

agreed to rely on the work performed by International Business Machines to address our 

second objective. 

Scope and Methodology 

Our audit focused on the Core Financial Module because it (1) is the backbone of the 

IFMP, consisting of the NASA-wide fully integrated auditable accounting system and (2) 

is slated for implementation at all NASA Centers by June 2003. We did not perform 

work related to the Budget Formulation Module (to be implemented at all Centers by 

February 2004). 
9

Appendix C 

Marshall Space Flight Center (Marshall) was tasked to be the Lead Center for the Core 

Financial Module. The Integrated Financial Management Program (IFMP) facility is in 

Huntsville, Alabama. We performed audit work at the Marshall IFMP facility and NASA 

Headquarters. Personnel working at the IFMP facility include the Core Financial Module 

implementation team, integration team, program office representatives, and NASA-hired 

consultants. 

To accomplish our objectives, we held regular meetings with IFMP and Core Financial 

Module officials,9

 attended training sessions10 with Core Financial Module and NASA 

program office officials, and reviewed the following IFMP and Core Financial Module 

documentation: 

• the IFM Program Commitment Agreement, 

• IFM Program and Core Financial Module Project plans, and 

• results reported by the independent validation and verification team.11

In addition, we researched the following in order to gain an understanding of full cost 

accounting, financial statement requirements, and NASA program requirements: 

• Chief Financial Officer’s Act of 1990; 

• Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996; 

• Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Standard Number 4; 

• NASA’s Full Cost Initiative Agencywide Implementation Guide, February 1999; 

• Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 97-01, “Form and Content of Agency 

Financial Statements”; 

• NASA Procedures and Guidelines 7120.5A, “Program and Project Management 

Processes and Requirements”; 

• NASA Policy Directive 7120.4B, “Program/Project Management”; and 

• Joint Financial Management Improvement Program cost-related requirements. 

 

9

Each month, the IFM Program Office conducts a meeting by video-teleconference as a means to keep all 

personnel working on the IFMP abreast of current issues related to all IFMP projects. 

10In June 2002, we attended “pre-training” sessions for the MSFC finance personnel. The sessions covered 

changes to the financial management system as a result of the upcoming Core Financial Module 

implementation.

11The independent validation and verification team’s mission is to increase software safety and quality, 

reduce software costs, and improve delivery time through the early detection and resolution of errors by 

utilizing and applying empirically based software engineering best practices. 
10

Appendix C 

During IFMP facility visits, we obtained access to the software NASA purchased to 

operate the Core Financial Module to learn some of its capabilities. We also met 

frequently with the independent verification and validation team NASA hired in order to 

understand their objectives and the work performed to help ensure that NASA would be 

successful in implementing the Core Financial Module. We also spoke with contractor 

(SAP Public Sector and Education, Inc., of Washington, D.C.) employees and attended a 

demonstration of software for the Core Financial Module at SAP’s Washington, D.C., 

office to learn about some of the software’s features relating to audit capabilities. 

We have performed prior audits of the IFMP, which are summarized in Appendix G. 

Audit Field Work 

We performed audit field work from October 2001 through November 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted accounting government auditing standards. We did 

not use computer-processed data in the audit. 
11

Appendix D. NASA’s History of Implementing a 

Financial Management System 

In 1989, the Office of Management and Budget reported that NASA did not have a 

standardized, centralized financial accounting system, which constituted a material 

internal control weakness. To resolve the problem, the Agency began work on two major 

system development projects: the NASA Accounting and Financial Information System 

and the Time and Attendance/Labor Distribution Module. NASA designed both of these 

systems to incorporate and link the numerous systems at the NASA field Centers and 

Headquarters using specially designed software. 

In February 1995, the NASA Chief Financial Officer terminated all work on both 

systems and redirected efforts toward a new approach for an integrated financial 

management information system through the purchase of commercial-off-the-shelf 

software. NASA referred to the new project as the Integrated Financial Management 

Project, which was also called the IFMP. 

The scope of the IFMP was planned to be much larger than that of the NASA Accounting 

and Financial Information System and the Time and Attendance/Labor Distribution 

Module and was to consist of many subsystems to be implemented in two phases. Phase 

I included the processes of core accounting, budget formulation and execution, 

procurement, time attendance and labor distribution, travel, and an executive information 

system. Phase II would include the processes of payroll, personnel, receivables, and 

grant management. One of the initial steps in the IFMP was to reengineer each of those 

processes to streamline and improve them. Once the process reengineering was 

complete, the plan was to identify, evaluate, and acquire software that best fit those 

processes. 

A full-time Project Manager and 12 employees were appointed to manage the project at 

Headquarters (see Appendix F for descriptions of key officials and their responsibilities). 

The reengineering tasks and software selection process were carried out by 168 NASA 

employees in various teams at each Center. As of August 1995, NASA scheduled system 

implementation by October 1, 1997. However, due to project delays, implementation 

was postponed until July 1, 1999. NASA awarded a fixed-price contract to KPMG Peat 

Marwick of Washington, D.C., on September 18, 1997, to provide and implement the 

IFMP software. 

On February 26, 1998, KMPG notified NASA that it would not meet key elements of the 

contract delivery schedule. NASA issued a contract modification that extended delivery 

to June 1, 2000, and allowed additional costs. 
12

Appendix D 

On December 1, 1998, KPMG made an incomplete delivery of the IFMP system to the 

IFMP Integrated Test Facility – the first major milestone under the revised delivery 

schedule. The incomplete delivery required further contract modification, and NASA 

was unable to determine the extent to which the incomplete delivery would affect the 

revised delivery schedule. As a result, NASA issued a stop work order to KPMG in 

March 2000. 

In March 2000, NASA established a new management team and a new strategy for 

implementing an integrated financial management system. The new effort would consist 

of eight modules, with the Core Financial Module as the backbone of the system. The 

eight modules and their completion dates are Resume Management (December 2001), 

Position Description Management (September 2002), Travel Management (February 

2003), Core Financial (planned for June 2003), Budget Formulation (planned for 

February 2004), Human Resources (to be determined), Asset Management (to be 

determined), and Procurement Management (to be determined). 

On September 20, 2000, NASA selected a contractor, SAP Public Sector and Education, 

Inc., of Washington, D.C., to deliver a commercial-off-the-shelf software core accounting 

system to replace the 10 accounting systems used by the NASA Centers. A team 

comprised of some of NASA’s most highly motivated employees representing a broad 

range of skill levels was organized at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center to 

implement the pilot program there and to support implementation at the other NASA 

Centers. The Agency’s plan is that the Core Financial Module accounting software will 

run at the Marshall Space Flight Center and the remainder of the Agency will use a single 

instance of the application from all NASA Centers that will feed into the database 

running at the Marshall Space Flight Center. NASA’s planned IFMP Core Financial 

system deployment sequence is: Pilot Center (George C. Marshall Space Flight Center) 

and Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field – deployed in October 2002; Headquarters, 

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, and John F. Kennedy Space Center – deployed in 

March 2003; Ames Research Center – April 2003; and Dryden Flight Research Center, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, Langley Research Center, and John C. Stennis Space 

Center – June 2003. 
13

Appendix E. Full Cost Management and IFMP 

In February 1999, NASA issued the Full Cost Initiative Agencywide Implementation 

Guide. The initiative began in 1995 in response to guidance from several NASA and 

Federal authorities. The initiative also stemmed from the Agency’s inability to obtain 

information regarding NASA overhead costs at each Center. In response to the initiative, 

the NASA Chief Financial Officer (CFO) confirmed that NASA’s nonstandard, 

decentralized accounting systems did not capture overhead costs in a consistent, rigorous, 

reliable, or usable manner, leading NASA to commence the Full Cost Initiative. More 

specifically, NASA based the Full Cost Initiative on the following guidance: 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standards Number 4: Managerial Cost Accounting 

Standards and Concepts. This statement requires that reporting entities report 

the full costs of outputs in general-purpose financial reports. Each entity’s full 

cost should incorporate all the costs of goods and services that it receives from 

other entities. The full cost of resources that directly or indirectly contribute to 

the production of outputs should be assigned to outputs through the costing 

methodologies or cost-finding techniques that are most appropriate to the entity’s 

operating environment, and the methodologies or techniques should be followed 

consistently. The full cost of an output produced by a responsible segment of the 

entity is the sum of (1) the costs of resources consumed by the output and (2) the 

costs of identifiable supporting services provided by other responsibility segments 

within the reporting entity and by other reporting entities. 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. The Act provides 

for consistency of accounting by an agency from one fiscal year to the next and 

for uniform accounting standards throughout the Federal Government. The Act 

also requires Federal financial management systems to support full disclosure of 

Federal financial data, including the full costs of Federal programs and activities, 

to the citizens, the Congress, the President, and agency management so that 

programs and activities can be considered based on their full costs and merits. 

Office of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 97-01, “Form and Content of 

Agency Financial Statements.” This bulletin requires reporting entities to 

define and establish responsible offices for cost accumulation and reporting and 

to report the full cost assigned to each responsible office. Program costs include 

the full costs of the program outputs and consist of the direct costs and all other 

costs that can be directly traced, assigned on a cause and effect basis, or 

reasonably allocated to the program outputs.
14

Appendix E

Program costs also include any nonproduction costs that can be assigned to the 

program but not to its outputs. 

CFO Act of 1990. The CFO Act requires reporting entities to prepare and 

transmit, by not later than 60 days after the submission of the audit report, an 

annual report to the agency head and the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget. The report shall include a description and analysis of the status of 

financial management of the agency and the annual financial statements. 

NASA’s Plan. According to the Full-Cost Initiative, NASA’s programs and projects12

are the primary activities upon which full cost data will be developed and used. NASA 

plans to assign costs to programs and projects by directly tracing costs when 

economically feasible, assigning service costs on a cause-and-effect basis and allocating 

general and administrative costs on a reasonable and consistent basis. 

Service Costs13 will be “charged” or assigned to a project based on projectcontrolled service use (that is, consumption). Because there are many ways to 

measure consumption and, therefore, to assign costs, the key criteria for cost 

assignment selection is the adequacy of the linkage between the cost incurred and 

the benefiting party. NASA assigned service pool distribution bases for cost 

assignment in Appendix 4 of NASA’s Full Cost Initiative Agencywide 

Implementation Guide. 

General and Administrative Costs14 will be allocated to projects in a consistent, 

logical manner based on a metric that indirectly relates such costs to NASA 

projects. For example, a Center’s general and administrative rate, or cost per fulltime equivalent, will be the total general and administrative cost divided by the 

total project direct labor.15

In addition, the Full-Cost Initiative will support full disclosure and full accountability of 

NASA’s resources. 

The software in the Core Financial Module supports NASA’s full cost accounting. The 

project system module, which is within the Core Financial Module, records cost data 

against the applicable projects. The contractor’s (SAP Public Sector and Education, Inc., 

of Washington, D.C.) software uses the cost pools to allocate costs to the benefiting 

 

12Programs are major activities, within a Strategic Enterprise, that have defined goals, objectives, 

requirements, phased funding levels, and consist of one or more projects. Projects are significant activities, 

within a program, that have defined goals, objectives, requirements, and life-cycle requirements, a 

beginning, and an end. Single-project programs are defined as programs. 

13NASA will assign service pool costs to cost objectives. 

14 NASA will allocate general and administrative costs to cost objectives. 

15Total project direct labor consists of civil service, direct labor, and on-site contractor direct labor. 
15

Appendix E

projects. For example, costs will be recorded against primary cost elements based on the 

fund code structure on the source (funding) document. The full cost accounting method 

will help ensure that indirect labor, travel, and general and administrative costs will be 

allocated to the benefiting projects. 
16

Appendix F. Key IFMP Officials and Responsibilities

Program Executive. The Program Executive is responsible for corporate level 

management of program rollout, budget, performance, and schedule requirements for the 

Integrated Financial Management Program (IFMP). The Program Executive has decision 

authority over all IFMP content, implementation schedules, and budget allocations and 

provides leadership and accountability for top-level program requirements, 

implementation success criteria, overall performance definition, and strategic planning in 

the direction and operation of the IFMP. 

Program Director. The Program Director reports to the Program Executive and has lead 

responsibility for management of the IFMP. The Program Office for the IFMP has 

responsibility to implement the IFMP according to the Program Commitment Agreement, 

the IFMP Program Plan, and the individual IFMP Project Plans. The Program Director is 

under the oversight of the Agency’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the IFMP 

Steering Council. 

Chief Financial Officer. The CFO is responsible for ensuring that the IFMP meets 

externally mandated requirements while satisfying internal customer needs in a costeffective manner. 

Steering Council. The Steering Council acts as a forum for reviewing and approving the 

Agencywide crosscutting facets of the program to include Agency Business Drivers, 

program strategy, program budgets, module sequencing and priority, commercial off-theshelf software modifications, change management strategy, and project scope expansion. 

Other responsibilities include resolving functional conflicts, project execution issues, 

change management issues, process team issues, and ensuring functional integration. 

Project Manager. The Project Manager is Center-based and responsible for planning 

and managing each functional module as the IFMP Program office approves. Each 

Project Manager is semiautonomous and has the authority to manage the implementation 

of the assigned function within the policies and guidelines established by the IFMP 

Program Office. The Project Manager coordinates process team activities and supports 

the selection of software products, including updating requirements based on the selected 

software’s capabilities and the developed gap assessments (gap assessments identify 

differences between NASA’s requirements and the software’s capabilities). 

Integration Project Manager. The Integration Project Manager is responsible for 

establishing a viable technical infrastructure and ensuring the coordination of the various 

functional module requirements. Other responsibilities include ensuring that each IFMP 

module is appropriately integrated/interfaced, minimizing redundant data, and ensuring 

that data definitions are consistent across modules. Additional responsibilities include 
17

Appendix F 

establishing life-cycle requirements, configuration management, infrastructure and 

support, and module and system testing. Day-to-day leadership of the Integrated Project 

Teams is a responsibility shared by NASA and the implementation contractor 

(Accenture).
18

Appendix G. Prior Audit Reports 

The NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has performed prior audits related to 

NASA’s first attempt at implementing Integrated Financial Management Program 

(IFMP) as summarized below. 

“Early Phases of NASA's Integrated Financial Management Project 

(IFMP),” Report Number IG-97-001, October 21, 1996. The OIG reported to 

NASA management that additional steps should be taken in IFMP planning to 

ensure that the project was cost-effective and consistent with important 

management objectives and legal requirements. The steps should include 

conducting functional and overall risk analyses as part of the requirements 

definition, performing and documenting a comprehensive analysis of alternatives 

for meeting requirements, modifying project plans to include several key cost 

issues and alternatives, and preparing a more realistic project schedule. 

“Observations Regarding the NASA Employee Attendance Tracking 

System,” Management Letter Number M-IG-97-011, July 15, 1997. The OIG 

reviewed NASA’s planned implementation of the employee attendance-tracking 

module of the IFMP. We recommended that before developing its own system as 

a separate module under the IFMP, NASA consider the feasibility of crossservicing with other Federal agencies that had already implemented successful 

employee time and attendance systems. 

“NASA’s Integrated Financial Management Project – Time and 

Attendance/Labor Distribution Module,” Report Number IG-98-004, 

December 17, 1997. The OIG continued its review of NASA’s planned 

implementation of the employee attendance-tracking module of the IFMP to 

ensure that NASA considered appropriate management controls. We reported to 

NASA management that several key management controls and security 

mechanisms needed to be built into NASA’s planned time and attendance module 

of the IFMP to reduce the risk of errors with critical labor distribution data and to 

protect sensitive personnel data. 

“Implementation of NASA’s Integrated Financial Management Project,” 

Report Number IG-99-026, April 27, 1999. We reported that the IFMP 

contractor, KPMG Peat Marwick of Washington, D.C., would not deliver to 

NASA a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)-based integrated financial 

management system by July 1999 and that KPMG had not developed the COTS 

software and several other technical requirements as agreed to under the contract. 

These problems required further contract modification, and NASA was unable to 

determine the extent to which the problems would affect the revised delivery 

schedule. 
19

Appendix G 

“Survey Results for the Audit of NASA’s Integrated Financial Management 

Program,” Assignment Number A-01-061-00, March 29, 2002. During our 

survey, we reviewed the procurement actions, as of November 2001, that 

supported the acquisition and implementation of the Core Financial Module for 

the IFMP. We found no discrepancies regarding those actions and reported that 

as of January 2002, the Core Financial Module was within budget and on 

schedule. 
20

Appendix H. Management’s Comments Dated February 26, 2003 
21

Appendix I. Management’s Comments Dated April 4, 2003 
22

Appendix J. Report Distribution 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters 

A/Administrator 

AA/Chief of Staff 

ADI/Assistant Deputy Administrator for Institutions and Asset Management 

ADT/Associate Deputy Administrator for Technical Programs 

B/Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Financial Management 

B/Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Resources (Comptroller) 

BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

G/General Counsel 

H/Assistant Administrator for Procurement 

HK/Director, Contract Management Division 

HS/Director, Program Operations Division 

J/Assistant Administrator for Management Systems 

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division 

L/Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs 

M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight 

NASA Centers 

ARC/D/Director, Ames Research Center 

DFRC/X/Director, Dryden Flight Research Center 

GRC/0100/Director, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

GSFC/100/Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

JPL/1000/Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JSC/AA/Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

KSC/AA/Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

KSC/CC/Chief Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

LaRC/106/Acting Director, Langley Research Center 

MSFC/DA01/Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

SSC/AA00/Director, John C. Stennis Space Center

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy 

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division, Office of Management and 

 Budget 

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch, Energy and Science Division, Office 

 of Management and Budget 
23

Appendix J 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals (Cont.) 

Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, General Accounting 

 Office 

Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 

 Space 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member – Congressional Committees and 

Subcommittees 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations 

House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

House Committee on Government Reform 

House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management 

House Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, 

 and the Census 

House Committee on Science 

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science 

Congressional Member 

Honorable Pete Sessions, U.S. House of Representatives 
NASA Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 

Reader Survey 

The NASA Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the 

usefulness of our reports. We wish to make our reports responsive to our customers’ 

interests, consistent with our statutory responsibility. Could you help us by completing 

our reader survey? For your convenience, the questionnaire can be completed 

electronically through our homepage at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html or 

can be mailed to the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing; NASA Headquarters, 

Code W, Washington, DC 20546-0001. 

Report Title: Integrated Financial Management Program Core Financial Module 

 Conversion to Full Cost Accounting

Report Number: Report Date: 

Circle the appropriate rating for the following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree N/A 

1. The report was clear, readable, and logically 

organized. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

2. The report was concise and to the point. 5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

3. We effectively communicated the audit 

objectives, scope, and methodology. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

4. The report contained sufficient information to 

support the finding(s) in a balanced and 

objective manner. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

Overall, how would you rate the report? 

 Excellent  Fair

 Very Good  Poor

 Good

If you have any additional comments or wish to elaborate on any of the above 

responses, please write them here. Use additional paper if necessary. 
How did you use the report? 

How could we improve our report? 

How would you identify yourself? (Select one) 

 Congressional Staff  Media 

 NASA Employee  Public Interest 

 Private Citizen  Other: 

 Government: Federal: State: Local: 

May we contact you about your comments?

Yes: ______ No: ______ 

Name: _______________________________ 

Telephone: ___________________________ 

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey.
Additional Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Assistant Inspector General for 

Auditing at (202) 358-1232, or visit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/issuedaudits.html.

Suggestions for Future Audits

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General 

for Auditing. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: 

 Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 

 Code W 

 NASA Headquarters 

 Washington, DC 20546-0001

NASA Hotline

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement contact the NASA Hotline at (800) 

424-9183, (800) 535-8134 (TDD), or at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form; 

or write to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant Plaza Station, 

Washington, DC 20026. The identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, 

upon request, to the extent permitted by law. 

Reader Survey 

Please complete the reader survey at the end of this report or at 

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html. 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Chester A. Sipsock, Associate Director, Office of Audits (OA) Quality Control Division 

Karl Allen, Project Manager, OA Financial Management 

Gene Griffith, Auditor 

Daniel Birnbaum, Auditor 

Annette Huffman, Program Assistant