a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2006 INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Agencies Need to 

Improve the Accuracy 

and Reliability of 

Investment 

Information

GAO-06-250
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2006

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Agencies Need to Improve the Accuracy 

Highlights of GAO-06-250, a report to and Reliability of Investment Information 

congressional requesters 

Each year, agencies submit to the 

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a Capital Asset Plan and 

Business Case—the exhibit 300—to 

justify each request for a major 

information technology (IT)

investment. The exhibit’s content 

should reflect controls that 

agencies have established to ensure

good project management, as well

as showing that they have defined 

cost, schedule, and performance

goals. It is thus a tool to help OMB 

and agencies identify and correct

poorly planned or performing 

investments. In its budget and 

oversight role, OMB relies on the

accuracy and completeness of this

information. GAO was asked to

determine the extent to which 

selected agencies have underlying

support for the information in their 

fiscal year 2006 exhibit 300s. From 

five major departments having over 

$1 billion in IT expenditures in that 

year, GAO chose for analysis 29

exhibits for projects that supported 

a cross section of federal activities. 

What GAO Recommends

To improve the accuracy and value

of exhibit 300s, GAO is making 

recommendations aimed at

improving guidance and training in 

exhibit 300 requirements and at 

ensuring limitations on reliability 

are disclosed and mitigated. In

response to a draft of this report,

the agencies agreed with the 

findings or had no comment. OMB 

accepted the findings but stated 

that ultimate responsibility for the 

accuracy and reliability of this 

information lies with the agencies.

Underlying support was often inadequate for information provided in the 

exhibit 300s reviewed. Three general types of weaknesses were evident: 

• All exhibit 300s had documentation weaknesses. Documentation either 

did not exist or did not fully agree with specific areas of the exhibit 300. 

For example, both these problems occurred in relation to calculations of 

financial benefits for most investments. In addition, for 23 of the 29 

investments, information on performance goals and measures was not 

supported by explanations of how agencies had initially measured their 

baseline levels of performance (from which they determine progress) or 

how they determined the actual progress reported in the exhibit 300. 

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

departmental requirements or policies with regard to management and 

reporting processes. For example, 21 investments were required to use a 

specific management system as the basis for the cost, schedule, and 

performance information in the exhibit 300, but only 6 did so following 

OMB-required standards. Also, none had cost analyses that fully 

complied with OMB requirements for cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness 

analyses. In contrast, most investments did demonstrate compliance 

with information security planning and training requirements. 

• In sections that required actual cost data, these data were unreliable 

because they were not derived from cost-accounting systems with 

adequate controls. In the absence of such systems, agencies generally 

derived cost information from ad hoc processes. 

Officials from the five agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,

Energy, Transportation, and the Treasury) attributed these shortcomings in 

support to lack of understanding of a requirement or how to respond to it. 

Agency officials mentioned in particular insufficient guidance or training, as

well as lack of familiarity with particular requirements. 

The weaknesses in the 29 exhibit 300s raise questions regarding the 

sufficiency of the business cases for these major investments and the quality 

of the projects’ management. Without adequate support in key areas, OMB 

and agency executives may be depending on unreliable information to make 

critical decisions on IT projects, thus putting at risk millions of dollars. 

Further, although the 29 examples cannot be directly projected to the over 

one thousand business cases developed each year across the federal 

government, the results suggest that the underlying causes for the 

weaknesses identified need attention. These weaknesses and their causes

are also consistent with problems in project and investment management 

that are pervasive governmentwide, including at such agencies as the 

Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Homeland 

Security, as documented in reports by GAO and others. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-250.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Dave Powner 

at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Exhibit 300s Were Generally Not Based on Adequate Support 13

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology 28

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget 31

Appendix III: Descriptions of Investments Reviewed 33

Department of Agriculture 34

Department of Commerce 38

Department of Energy 41

Department of Transportation 44

Department of the Treasury 47

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 52

Tables Table 1: Description of Key Sections in the Exhibit 300 and General 

Documentation Typically Used as Support 12

Table 2: Financial Funding Data for ePermits 34

Table 3: Financial Funding Data for CFMS 35

Table 4: Financial Funding Data for IAS 35

Table 5: Financial Funding Data for PCIT 36

Table 6: Financial Funding Data for PCIMS 37

Table 7: Financial Funding Data for STARS II 37

Table 8: Financial Funding Data for AWIPS 38

Table 9: Financial Funding Data for CLASS 39

Table 10: Financial Funding Data for ECON 39

Table 11: Financial Funding Data for AES 40

Table 12: Financial Funding Data for NWSTG 40

Table 13: Financial Funding Data for SOCC/CDA 41

Table 14: Financial Funding Data for ESnet 42

Table 15: Financial Funding Data for eCMS 42

Table 16: Financial Funding Data for IPABS-IS 43

Table 17: Financial Funding Data for LSN 43

Table 18: Financial Funding Data for LANL ERP 44
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 19: Financial Funding Data for ASCM 45

Table 20: Financial Funding Data for DOT Financial System 

Consolidation 45

Table 21: Financial Funding Data for NTD 46

Table 22: Financial Funding Data for NEXCOM 46

Table 23: Financial Funding Data for SASO 47

Table 24: Financial Funding Data for WAAS 47

Table 25: Financial Funding Data for CADE 48

Table 26: Financial Funding Data for DMAS 49

Table 27: Financial Funding Data for EMS 49

Table 28: Financial Funding Data for GWA 50

Table 29: Financial Funding Data for SCRIPS 50

Table 30: Financial Funding Data for SPS 51

Figure Figure 1: Breakdown by Civilian Agencies of Planned $35 Billion in 

Fiscal Year 2006 IT Investments 5

Abbreviations

CIO Chief Information Officer

BRM Business Reference Model

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

EVM earned value management

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IT information technology 

ITIM information technology investment management

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

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

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

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

January 12, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Adam H. Putnam

House of Representatives

Each year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a central 

role in determining how much the government plans to spend for 

information technology (IT) and how these funds are allocated. The IT 

budget is not insignificant: federal agencies requested over $65 billion in 

fiscal year 2006. While these investments are critical to achieving the goals 

of the federal government, for the past 3 years OMB has highlighted in the 

President’s Budget tens of billions of dollars of IT investments that are at 

risk. In the most recent budget, for fiscal year 2006, nearly 25 percent of the 

funds requested, totaling about $15 billion, were considered by OMB to be 

at risk. 

A key component of OMB’s management and oversight of the IT budget 

process is the exhibit 300, also known as the Capital Asset Plan and 

Business Case, which is developed by agencies and reviewed by both 

agencies and OMB. OMB sets forth requirements for the exhibit 300 in its 

circular A-11.1

 According to this guidance, agencies are required to perform

analyses and provide documentation to support decisions on proposed 

major IT investments. The exhibit 300 is the means to accomplish this task: 

it is a reporting mechanism intended to enable an agency to demonstrate to 

its own management, as well as OMB, that it has employed the disciplines 

of good project management; developed a strong business case for the 

investment; and met other Administration priorities in defining the cost, 

schedule, and performance goals proposed for the investment. The exhibit 

300 comprises eight key sections, which cover spending, performance 

goals and measures, analysis of alternatives,2

 risk inventory and 

assessment, acquisition strategy, project (investment) and funding plan, 

1

 OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Part 7 

(July 2004).

2

 An analysis of alternatives compares viable alternative solutions and includes a general 

analysis of the benefits for each alternative presented.
Page 2 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

enterprise architecture, and security and privacy. When considering IT 

investments to recommend for funding, OMB relies on the accuracy and 

completeness of the information reported in the exhibit 300s.

This report responds to your request that we determine the extent to which 

selected agencies have underlying support for the information in their 

fiscal year 2006 exhibit 300s. To accomplish this objective, we reviewed 

exhibit 300s from the fiscal year 2006 budget submission, as well as 

supporting documentation, for 29 major IT investments at five 

departments.3

 We compared information in each exhibit 300 with the 

supporting documentation on the corresponding investment. Further 

details on our objective, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix 

I. Our work was conducted between March and November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief Underlying support for the information provided in the exhibit 300 was 

often inadequate. Examination of the exhibit 300s and the supporting 

materials revealed three types of weaknesses.

• All exhibit 300s had documentation weaknesses. Either documentation 

did not exist for specific areas of the exhibit 300, or it did not fully agree 

with the exhibit 300. For 23 of the 29 investments, for example, 

information in the performance goals and measures section was not 

supported by explanations of how agencies had initially measured their 

baseline levels of performance (from which they determine progress) or 

how they determined the actual progress that was reported in the 

exhibit 300. In the case of risk assessment, supporting documentation 

for about 75 percent of the investments did not address OMB’s required 

risk categories. Additionally, the analysis of alternatives for most 

investments either lacked supporting documentation to justify the 

calculations of financial benefits in the exhibit 300, or the 

documentation did not agree with what was reported. 

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

departmental requirements or policies with regard to management and 

reporting processes. For example, 21 investments were required to use

3

 The five departments were the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Transportation, and the Treasury. 
Page 3 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

an earned value management (EVM) system4 as the basis for the cost, 

schedule, and performance information provided in the exhibit 300, but 

only 6 investments used an EVM process that followed OMB-required 

standards. In addition, none of the investments under review had cost 

analyses that fully complied with OMB requirements for completing 

cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. An exception was the 

information security section, for which most investments had security 

plans and indications that security awareness training had been 

conducted. 

• For those sections that required actual cost data, including the summary 

of spending and project and funding plan sections, the data were 

unreliable because they were not derived from cost-accounting systems 

with adequate controls. In the absence of adequate cost-accounting 

systems, agencies generally derived cost information from ad hoc 

processes used by project managers. 

Agency officials attributed the shortcomings in support to lack of 

understanding of a requirement or how to respond to it. Agency officials 

mentioned in particular insufficient guidance or training, as well as lack of 

familiarity with particular requirements, such as the EVM process. If 

underlying support is inadequate in key areas, OMB and agency executives 

are depending on unreliable information to monitor the management of 

major IT projects and to make critical decisions on their funding, thus 

putting at risk millions of dollars in investments. These weaknesses and 

their causes are also consistent with problems in project and investment 

management that are pervasive governmentwide, including at such 

agencies as the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human 

Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS), as documented in reports 

by GAO and others.

We are making recommendations to OMB aimed at improving guidance and 

training in exhibit 300 requirements and at ensuring that limitations on the 

reliability of information in exhibit 300s are disclosed and mitigated.

4

 EVM is a project management tool that integrates the investment scope of work with 

schedule and cost elements for investment planning and control. This method compares the 

value of work accomplished during a given period with that of the work expected in the 

period. Differences in expectations are measured in both cost and schedule variances. OMB 

requires agencies to use EVM as part of their performance-based management system for 

any investment under development or with system improvements under way.
Page 4 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

In written comments, OMB accepted the findings of the draft report, while 

expressing concern that, by directing our recommendations to OMB rather 

than to the agencies, we were suggesting that OMB rather than the agencies 

is responsible for data accuracy and employee training. We do not intend to 

make this suggestion; we place significant responsibility on agencies, as 

reflected in our recommendation that OMB instruct agencies to determine 

the extent to which the information contained in each exhibit 300 is 

accurate and reliable, to disclose weaknesses, and to describe their 

approach to mitigating these weaknesses. This recommendation clearly 

places responsibility on the agencies for assessing the quality of their 

budget information and the processes that produced this information. Our 

recommendations are directed to OMB because of its responsibility for 

providing governmentwide leadership in information resources 

management, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act, and because they address 

findings relating to OMB-required budget documents. 

In addition, OMB expressed concern that the recommendations do not 

focus on how well agencies fulfill their underlying information resources 

management responsibilities. Our view is that our recommendation on 

disclosing and mitigating weaknesses does address these underlying 

responsibilities. The report specifically addresses the reliability of exhibit 

300s as support for agency and OMB decision making and clearly states 

that the lack of documentation and inadequate support may indicate 

underlying management weaknesses. Requiring agencies to disclose and 

mitigate associated weaknesses will necessitate that agencies examine and 

address their approach to fulfilling information resources management 

responsibilities.

Technical comments from the Departments of Energy and Transportation 

were incorporated as appropriate. The Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, and the Treasury provided no comments on a draft of this 

report. 

We address these comments more fully in the Agency Comments and Our 

Evaluation section of this report. We have reproduced the written 

comments in appendix II.

Background The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 included 1,087 IT projects, 

totaling about $65 billion. The planned expenditures at the civilian agencies 

comprised about $35 billion of that total cost. In particular, the five 
Page 5 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

departments in our review made up about one-third of the civilian planned 

expenditures (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Breakdown by Civilian Agencies of Planned $35 Billion in Fiscal Year 2006 

IT Investments 

OMB plays a key role in overseeing these IT investments and how they are 

managed, stemming from its predominant mission: to assist the President 

in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to supervise budget 

administration in executive branch agencies. In helping to formulate the 

President’s spending plans, OMB is responsible for evaluating the 

effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures; assessing 

competing funding demands among agencies; and setting funding 

priorities. To carry out these responsibilities, OMB depends on agencies to 

collect and report accurate and complete information; these activities 

depend in turn on agencies having effective IT management practices. 

Improvements in IT 

Management Are Goals of 

Laws and Guidance

To drive improvement in the implementation and management of IT 

projects, the Congress enacted the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, which 

expanded the responsibilities of OMB and the agencies that had been set
Page 6 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

under the Paperwork Reduction Act.5 The Clinger-Cohen Act requires that 

agencies engage in capital planning and performance- and results-based 

management.6

 The act also requires OMB to establish processes to analyze, 

track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments in 

information systems made by executive agencies. OMB is also required to 

report to the Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved 

as a result of major capital investments in information systems that are 

made by executive agencies.7

With regard to OMB’s responsibilities in this area, we recently issued a 

report8

 that provided recommendations to improve OMB’s processes for 

monitoring high-risk IT investments. Since that report was released, OMB 

has issued additional guidance outlining steps that agencies must take for 

all high-risk projects to better ensure improved execution and performance 

as well as promote more effective oversight.9

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

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

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

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

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

capital programming process to build their capital asset portfolios. Among 

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

• evaluate and select capital asset investments that will support core 

mission functions that must be performed by the federal government 

and demonstrate projected returns on investment that are clearly equal 

to or better than alternative uses of available public resources;

• institute performance measures and management processes that 

monitor actual performance and compare to planned results; and

5

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

6

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

7

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

11302(c).

8

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

Reviews, GAO-05-276 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2005).

9

 OMB Memorandum, M-05-23 (Aug. 4, 2005).
Page 7 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

• establish oversight mechanisms that require periodic review of 

operational capital assets to determine how mission requirements might 

have changed and whether the asset continues to fulfill mission 

requirements and deliver intended benefits to the agency and 

customers.

Among OMB’s goals in requiring the use of a capital programming process 

is to assist agencies in complying with a number of results-oriented 

requirements. Key requirements include those set by 

• the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994,10 which (1) requires 

agencies to establish cost, schedule, and measurable performance goals 

for all major acquisition programs and (2) establishes that agencies 

should achieve on average 90 percent of those goals;

• the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,11 which 

establishes the foundation for budget decision making to achieve 

strategic goals in order to meet agency mission objectives; and 

• the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002,12 which 

requires agencies to integrate IT security into their strategic and 

operational planning processes, such as the capital planning and 

enterprise architecture processes at the agency.

OMB is aided in its responsibilities by the Chief Information Officers (CIO) 

Council as described by the E-Government Act of 2002.13 The council is 

designated the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices 

related to the design, acquisition, development, modernization, use, 

operation, sharing, and performance of federal government information 

resources. Among the specific functions of the CIO Council are the 

development of recommendations for the Director of OMB on government 

information resources management policies and requirements and the 

sharing of experiences, ideas, best practices, and innovative approaches 

related to information resources management. The CIO Council has issued 

10 41 U.S.C. § 263.

11 5 U.S.C. § 306; 31 U.S.C. § 1115.

12 44 U.S.C. § 3544 (a)(1)(C).

13 44 U.S.C. § 3603.
Page 8 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

several guides on capital planning and investment management over the 

past several years.14

To further support the implementation of IT capital planning practices, we 

have developed an IT investment management (ITIM) framework15 that 

agencies can use in developing a stable and effective capital planning 

process, as required by statute and directed in OMB’s Capital 

Programming Guide. Consistent with the statutory focus on selecting,16

controlling,17 and evaluating18 investments, this framework focuses on 

these processes in relation to IT investments specifically. It is a tool that 

can be used to determine both the status of an agency’s current IT 

investment management capabilities and the additional steps that are 

needed to establish more effective processes. Mature and effective 

management of IT investments can vastly improve government 

performance and accountability. Without good management, such 

investments can result in wasteful spending and lost opportunities for 

improving delivery of services to the public.

The ITIM framework lays out a coherent collection of key practices that, 

when implemented in a coordinated manner, can lead an agency through a 

robust set of analyses and decision points that support effective IT 

investment management. The framework explicitly calls for consideration 

of cost, schedule, benefit, and risk objectives, including the development of 

14 Chief Information Officers Council, Smart Practices in Capital Planning (October 2000); 

A Summary of First Practices and Lessons Learned in Information Technology Portfolio 

Management (Washington, D.C.: March 2002); and Value Measuring Methodology

(Washington, D.C.: October 2002).

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

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

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

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

projects that will best support its mission needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and (3) revise the investment management process based on lessons learned.
Page 9 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

analyses such as return on investment and a risk management plan. The 

framework also describes the criticality of tracking progress using valid 

and complete data. The guidance laid out in the ITIM framework is 

consistent with the requirements of OMB’s Circular A-11 and matches it in 

many instances. For example, among the requirements on the exhibit 300 is 

that agencies indicate that the investment has been reviewed and approved 

by the responsible oversight entity. The agency investment review board is 

a critical element of the ITIM framework, and the expectation for the board 

to select and oversee IT investments is explicit.

In previous work using our IT investment management framework, we 

reported that the use of IT investment management practices by agencies 

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

framework in implementing capital planning processes have made 

significant improvements.19 In contrast, however, we and others have 

continued to identify weaknesses at agencies in many areas, including 

immature management processes to support both the selection and 

oversight of major IT investments and the measurement of actual versus 

expected performance in meeting established IT performance measures.20

For example: 

• We recently reported that the HHS senior investment board does not 

regularly review component agencies’ IT investments, leaving close to 

90 percent of its discretionary investments without an appropriate level 

of executive oversight.21 To remedy this weakness, we recommended 

that the department (1) establish a process for the investment board to 

regularly review and track the performance of a defined set of 

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

20 For example, GAO, Information Technology: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

Needs to Establish Critical Investment Management Capabilities, GAO-06-12 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005); Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic 

Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further 

Improved, GAO-04-49 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2004); Information Technology: 

Departmental Leadership Crucial to Success of Investment Reforms at Interior, 

GAO-03-1028 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2003); and United States Postal Service: 

Opportunities to Strengthen IT Investment Management Capabilities, GAO-03-3

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 2002). 

21 GAO, Information Technology: HHS Has Several Investment Management Capabilities 

in Place, but Needs to Address Key Weaknesses, GAO-06-11 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 

2005).
Page 10 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

component agency IT systems against expectations and (2) take 

corrective actions when these expectations are not being met.

• At DHS, we determined that the department’s draft information 

resources management strategic plan did not include fully defined goals 

and performance measures.22 To address this weakness, we 

recommended that the department establish IT goals and performance 

measures that, at a minimum, address how information and technology 

management contributes to program productivity, the efficiency and 

effectiveness of agency operations, and service to the public. 

• A recent review by the DOD Inspector General23 determined that over 90 

percent of the business cases submitted to OMB in support of the DOD 

fiscal year 2006 budget request did not completely respond to one or 

more data elements addressing security funding, certification and 

accreditation, training and security plans, and enterprise architecture. 

The DOD Inspector General concluded that, as a result, these 

submissions continued to have limited value and did not demonstrate 

that the department was effectively managing its proposed IT 

investments for fiscal year 2006. 

Exhibit 300 Supports OMB 

and Agency Oversight of IT 

Management

Besides providing policy for planning, budgeting, acquisition, and 

management of federal capital assets, section 300 of OMB’s Circular A-11 

instructs agencies on budget justification and reporting requirements for 

major IT investments.24 Section 300 defines the budget exhibit 300, also 

called the Capital Asset Plan and Business Case, as a document that 

agencies submit to OMB to justify resource requests for major IT 

22 GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Formidable Information and Technology 

Management Challenge Requires Institutional Approach, GAO-04-702 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 27, 2004).

23 Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Information Technology 

Management: Reporting of Department of Defense Capital Investments for Information 

Technology in Support of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Submission, D-2005-083 (Arlington, 

Va.: June 10, 2005).

24 OMB Circular A-11 defines a major IT investment as an investment that requires special 

management attention because of its importance to an agency’s mission or because it is an 

integral part of the agency’s enterprise architecture, has significant program or policy 

implications, has high executive visibility, or is defined as major by the agency’s capital 

planning and investment control process.
Page 11 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

investments. According to OMB, only priority capital asset investments that 

comply with the policies for good capital programming, as described in the 

Capital Programming Guide, will be recommended for funding in the 

President’s Budget.

The exhibit 300 was established as a source of information on which to 

base both quantitative decisions about budgetary resources consistent with 

the Administration’s program priorities and qualitative assessments about 

whether the agency’s planning, acquisition, management, and use of capital 

assets (investments) are consistent with OMB policy and guidance. The 

types of information included in the exhibit 300 are intended, among other 

things, to help OMB and the agencies identify and correct poorly planned 

or performing investments (i.e., investments that are behind schedule, over 

budget, or not delivering expected results) and real or potential systemic 

weaknesses in federal information resource management (such as a 

shortage of sufficiently qualified project managers).

According to Circular A-11, the information in the exhibit 300 allows the 

agency and OMB to review and evaluate each agency’s IT spending and to 

compare IT spending across the federal government. Further, the 

information helps the agency and OMB to provide a full and accurate 

accounting of IT investments for the agency, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act. 

The exhibit 300 is required for all assets, though certain sections apply only 

to information technology. Table 1 provides a description of the key 

sections of the exhibit 300, as well as examples of the types of 

documentation that provide support for the data summarized in the exhibit 

300 (although the supporting documentation may take other forms). This 

support may be derived from a variety of sources, including financial 

management systems and management processes that agencies carry out 

to comply with federal requirements and guidelines (such as the Federal 

Information Security Management Act of 2002 and the Federal Enterprise
Page 12 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Architecture),25 as well as from analyses carried out specifically in support 

of the management of the investment.

Table 1: Description of Key Sections in the Exhibit 300 and General Documentation Typically Used as Support

Source: GAO analysis based on OMB data.

25 The Federal Enterprise Architecture is a comprehensive business-driven blueprint of the 

entire federal government. It consists of a set of interrelated “reference models” designed to 

facilitate cross-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and 

opportunities for collaboration within and across agencies. The Federal Enterprise 

Architecture includes 39 lines of business that describe activities of the government, such as 

education, income security, and supply chain management.

Section name Description

Examples of supporting 

documentation 

Summary of Spending 

table

Provides an overview of the costs for planning, acquisition, 

maintenance, and full-time employees for the previous, current, and 

budget fiscal years; it also includes a summary of these costs for 

earlier years and estimated costs for future years.

Financial reports 

Performance Measures 

and Goals

Describes the link between the agency’s annual goals and mission 

and how the investment will meet those goals. This section illustrates 

the performance measures and results of the investments.

Annual performance plan and/or 

annual performance budget; IT 

strategic plan 

Analysis of Alternatives Provides a summary of the comparison of viable alternative solutions 

that includes a general rationale and analysis of the monetized 

benefits for each alternative presented.

Cost-benefit analysis or 

cost-effectiveness analysis 

Risk Inventory and 

Assessment

Provides a summary of the investment’s risk assessment, showing the 

active management of 19 risk elements that OMB requires to be 

considered. 

Risk management plan, risk reports

Acquisition Strategy Provides a description of the acquisition strategy used and mitigation 

efforts to ensure minimal risk to the government.

Acquisition plan 

Project (Investment) and 

Funding Plan

Provides a summary of the investment’s status in accomplishing 

baseline cost and schedule goals through the use of an earned value 

management (EVM) system or operational analysis, depending on the 

life-cycle stage. 

Cost performance reports, integrated 

baseline review, time-phased 

performance measurement baseline, 

work breakdown structure, and 

operational analysis 

Enterprise Architecture Demonstrates that the investment is included in the agency’s 

enterprise architecture and capital planning investment control 

process. Illustrates the agency’s capability to align the investment to 

the Federal Enterprise Architecture.

Investment-specific artifacts, including 

as-is and to-be architectures, 

migration plan, documented approval 

by an enterprise architecture review 

committee 

Security and Privacy Provides a description of an investment’s security and privacy issues. 

It summarizes the agency’s ability to manage security at the system or 

application level. Additionally, it demonstrates compliance with the 

certification and accreditation process, as well as the mitigation of IT 

security weaknesses.

Certification and accreditation 

packages, security plans, security 

training logs, and system-level incident 

handling procedures 
Page 13 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

According to OMB guidance, the life-cycle stage of the asset affects what is 

reported on the exhibit 300: 

• New investments (i.e., proposed for budget year or later, or in 

development) must be justified based on the need to fill a gap in the 

agency’s ability to meet strategic goals and objectives with the lowest 

life-cycle costs of all possible alternatives and provide risk-adjusted cost 

and schedule goals and measurable performance benefits. 

• Mixed life-cycle investments (i.e., investments that are operational but 

include some developmental effort, such as a technology refresh) must 

demonstrate satisfactory progress toward achieving baseline cost, 

schedule, and performance goals using an EVM system.26

• Operational investments (i.e., steady state) must demonstrate, among 

other things, how close actual annual operating and maintenance costs 

are to the original life-cycle cost estimates; whether the technical merits 

of the investment continue to meet the needs of the agency and 

customers; and that an analysis of alternatives was performed with a 

future focus. 

OMB requires agencies to transmit exhibit 300s electronically, using a 

predefined format. To meet this requirement and facilitate the aggregation 

of elements of the exhibits from various sources throughout the 

organization, many agencies use software applications to compile their 

exhibits 300s. Besides aggregating portions of the exhibit 300, these tools 

are designed to also perform certain calculations, such as return on 

investment and those required for earned value analysis.

Exhibit 300s Were 

Generally Not Based 

on Adequate Support

Although the agencies reported that all 29 exhibit 300s had been approved 

by their investment review boards (as required), in many instances, support 

for the information provided was not adequate. (Details on the 29 

investment projects described in the exhibit 300s that we reviewed are 

provided in app. III.) Three types of problems were evident. 

• First, all exhibit 300s had documentation weaknesses. For example, 

each investment lacked documentary support for one or more of the 

26 Recent OMB guidance directed agencies to implement earned value management on 

major IT investments, in an effort to meet baseline cost, schedule, and performance goals.
Page 14 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

following: Analysis of Alternatives, Risk Inventory and Assessment, and 

Performance Measures and Goals. In other cases, the supporting 

material that was provided to us did not match the information in the 

exhibit 300. 

• Second, agencies did not always demonstrate (for example, in the 

Security and Privacy and the Project and Funding Plan sections) that 

they complied with federal requirements or policies with regard to 

management and reporting processes. 

• Finally, information in some sections (such as the Summary of Spending 

table and the Project and Funding Plan) could not be relied upon 

because the numbers were not derived using repeatable processes or 

reliable systems. 

Agency officials attributed the absence of adequate support for their 

exhibit 300s to lack of understanding of the requirements or of how to 

respond to them. Agency officials mentioned in particular insufficient 

guidance or training, as well as lack of familiarity with particular 

requirements, such as the EVM process. If underlying support is inadequate 

in key areas, OMB and agency executives are depending on unreliable 

information to monitor the management of major IT projects and to make 

critical decisions on their funding, thus putting at risk millions of dollars in 

investments.

Underlying Documentation 

Was Lacking or Did Not 

Support the Exhibit 300

OMB Circular A-11 states that agencies must justify funding requests for 

major acquisitions by demonstrating, among other things, measurable 

performance benefits, comprehensive risk mitigation and management 

planning, and positive return on investment for the planned investment. 

Agencies are instructed to establish performance metrics (including 

baselines from which progress can be measured) to ensure that project 

managers are accountable in meeting expected performance goals and that 

projects are aligned with the agencies’ strategic goals. Agencies are also 

expected to manage investment risk through a robust risk management 

program; according to OMB’s guidance, agencies need to actively manage 

risks from initial concept throughout the life cycle of each investment. To 

demonstrate a positive return on investment for the selected alternative 

and identify a project’s total lifetime cost, OMB requires agencies to 

compare alternatives and report summary cost information for investments 

(including calculations for payback period and net present value). 
Page 15 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Documents produced in the performance of these activities provide 

evidence that they were carried out as required.

• Performance measures. The investments did not usually demonstrate 

the basis for the performance measure information provided in the 

exhibit 300. Only 6 of the 29 investments had documentation to support 

how agencies initially measured their baseline levels of performance, 

from which they measured progress toward the agency’s strategic goals. 

In most cases, the investments lacked documentation describing the 

levels of performance that had been achieved or how these results 

actually helped meet agency strategic needs. The absence of 

documentation in these cases could indicate a systemic weakness in 

agency performance management practices, since well-developed 

practices should provide the expected support. This finding is 

consistent with our prior work where we determined that agencies were 

generally not measuring actual versus expected performance in meeting 

IT performance goals.27 Weak performance management practices 

reduce the ability of agency executives to track investment performance 

in meeting performance objectives and raise the risk that investments 

will not be well aligned with agency strategic objectives.

• Risk management. About 75 percent of the investments were unable to 

demonstrate that they were actively addressing the risk elements that 

OMB specifies in Circular A-11, or how they had determined that any of 

those risks were not applicable. In addition, documentation of risk 

management that was provided had significant weaknesses. In one case, 

a risk management plan was approximately 9 years old and had not been 

updated, and for three investments, the risk documentation addressed 

only the project development phase, even though the systems had exited 

that phase and were in full operation. 

• Analysis of alternatives. All 29 investments reported cost information 

in the analysis of alternatives section of the exhibit 300. However, in 

about 72 percent of the exhibit 300s reviewed, either supporting 

documentation was missing for this cost information, or information in 

the documentation did not agree with that in the exhibit 300. 

In cases where investments lacked documentation to support information 

reported in the performance and risk areas, project officials frequently told 

27 GAO-04-49. 
Page 16 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

us that they had filled out these sections of the exhibit 300 to satisfy the 

reporting requirement, relying on their own knowledge of the investment 

rather than any project documentation. However, such an approach is not 

consistent with the requirement for providing accurate information in 

compliance with OMB capital programming and capital planning and 

investment control policies. In addition, several project officials told us 

that they believed some of the 19 risk management areas required in the 

exhibit 300 were not applicable to their investment, but they reported on 

those categories nonetheless to fulfill the requirement. Although the 

guidance instructs agencies to indicate whether the risk category was not 

applicable, officials stated that their impression is that “not applicable” 

responses might lower the evaluation of their investments and reduce or 

eliminate their funding. 

Further, agency officials generally responded that the training they 

received for preparing the exhibit 300 was not sufficient. For example, one 

agency commented that agencies would benefit from targeted OMB 

training that would address agency-specific questions. Several agencies 

stressed that OMB training should occur earlier in the budget cycle. In 

addition, one agency said that it needed OMB training on preparing each 

section of the exhibit 300.

Overall, the lack of documentation supporting the exhibit 300s raises 

questions regarding the sufficiency of the business case for the investment 

and the quality of the projects’ management. 

Agencies Did Not Always 

Comply or Provide 

Evidence of Compliance 

with Federal Requirements 

and Policies

Compliance with OMB and other federal guidance and related federal laws 

helps ensure that agency investments are managed in a manner consistent 

with the intent of the Congress and that key information is available to 

OMB and agency managers on which they can base informed decisions. 

• The security section of the exhibit 300 requires that agencies 

demonstrate that they have developed information security plans in 

accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 

2002 (FISMA); according to FISMA, these plans must include rules of 

behavior for system use, technical security controls, and procedures for 

incident handling—that is, how to respond to system security breaches. 

In addition, agencies ensure that employees and contractors receive
Page 17 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

security awareness training.28 Guidance from the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) supports FISMA by outlining the 

necessary components of key security documentation, including 

security plans, certification and accreditation packages, and security 

controls testing. 

• For the analysis of alternatives section, OMB’s instructions for the 

exhibit 300 cite the Clinger-Cohen Act, which requires agencies to 

complete a cost-benefit analysis for new IT investments, and OMB 

Circular A-94, which outlines requirements for completing cost-benefit 

and cost-effectiveness analyses, including the comparison of at least 

three alternatives, a discussion of assumptions for each alternative, and 

an analysis of uncertainty (a sensitivity assessment to raise awareness 

of the potential for unforeseen impacts on the investment).

• For the project and funding plan section, OMB Circular A-11 provides 

guidance that requires an agency to have in place a process for 

monitoring the investment’s status in accomplishing baseline cost and 

schedule goals.

For the 29 investments, agency compliance with the FISMA and NIST 

requirements described above was mixed. For example, about 86 percent 

of all investments could demonstrate, based on documentation, that 

security awareness training had been conducted for employees and 

contractors and that a mechanism for tracking completion of security 

awareness training had been established. In addition, 21 of the 22 

operational investments (for which information security plans are 

required) had security plans that addressed areas such as the rules of 

behavior for system use and technical security controls. In contrast, about 

77 percent of these 22 investments did not provide support describing how 

incident handling activities would be performed at a system level, such as 

detecting, reporting, and mitigating risks associated with security 

incidents. 

While the compliance of security documentation with federal requirements 

was mixed, the documented support for the analysis of alternatives and the 

project and funding plan areas of the exhibit 300 provided little assurance 

that investments complied with applicable guidance and laws. None of the 

investments had cost analysis documentation that fully complied with 

28 44 U.S.C. § 3544 (6).
Page 18 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Circulars A-94 and A-11 criteria (lacking, for example, a comparison of at 

least three alternatives, a discussion of assumptions for each alternative, or 

an analysis of uncertainty).

Project officials attributed deficiencies in the analysis of alternatives to, 

among other things, a lack of understanding of what was expected for 

reporting in the exhibit 300. In a few instances, officials noted that they 

believed that their investments were excluded from meeting the federal 

requirements because the investments were near the end of their 

operational or, in some cases, useful life cycles. OMB guidance on analysis 

of alternatives does not differentiate between operational and 

developmental investments; nonetheless, one agency’s internal guidance 

explicitly states that no analysis of alternatives is necessary for 

investments in the steady state (that is, operational). However, a 

forward-looking analysis of alternatives for operational investments can 

help agencies recognize when an alternative solution may be more efficient 

or effective than the current investment, thereby freeing scarce resources 

to be reallocated. 

The agencies’ lack of compliance with OMB guidelines for analysis of 

alternatives, including the cost-benefit analysis, leaves senior executive 

managers at risk of making poor investment management decisions on 

incomplete and sometimes inaccurate information.

For the project and funding plan section of the exhibit 300, OMB Circular 

A-11 provides guidance on the information to be provided, which depends 

upon the state of the investment (i.e., new, mixed life cycle, or steady 

state). According to this guidance, information presented in the project and 

funding plan is to be derived from one of two types of analysis: for steady 

state investments, an operational analysis, and for new and mixed life-cycle 

investments, an analysis based on an EVM process that is compliant with 

ANSI/EIA-748-A.29 Operational analysis is a method for assessing the 

technical merits of an existing investment in meeting user needs, while 

EVM is a method for assessing the value of work performed compared to 

its actual cost during development of an investment. 

29 The ANSI/EIA-748-A standard is composed of 32 criteria that address five basic categories 

of project management practices: organization, planning and budgeting, accounting 

considerations, analysis and management reports, and revisions and data maintenance. 
Page 19 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Of the eight steady state investments we reviewed, only two had conducted 

an operational analysis. Furthermore, only one of those had documented 

procedures that were in accordance with OMB’s Capital Programming 

Guide criteria, such as addressing user needs and technical performance. 

In most cases for which no operational analyses were in place, agency 

officials commented that OMB guidance describing how to perform an 

operational analysis was at such a high level of generality that they found it 

difficult to follow. Instead of attempting to devise and perform an 

operational analysis, therefore, they implemented variations on an EVM 

process. However, these implementations of EVM did not address topics 

required for the operational analysis, such as user needs and technical 

performance. Unless they address these topics, agencies may not have the 

information they need to determine, among other things, whether 

investments are performing as intended and meeting user needs. 

Similarly, of the 21 new and mixed life-cycle investments required to use 

EVM, only 6 used an EVM process that generally followed the ANSI 

standard.30 Since fiscal year 2002, OMB has required the use of EVM as a 

project management tool. The ANSI standard is intended to ensure that 

data produced by an EVM process are reliable so as to allow objective 

reports of project status, produce early warning signs of impending 

schedule delays and cost overruns, and ultimately provide unbiased 

estimates of anticipated costs at completion. If agencies do not implement 

EVM processes that follow the ANSI standard, they have reduced 

assurance that the information used for tracking the cost, schedule, and 

performance of the investment is reliable. 

For the remaining 15 investments that did not have EVM processes 

following the required standard, project officials commented that EVM was 

relatively new to them and that they did not understand how to implement 

an ANSI-compliant process at the time of the fiscal year 2006 submission. 

At the time of our review, all five departments stated that they were 

working toward implementing compliant processes. 

To OMB’s credit, it recognized the need for improvement in the execution 

of agencies’ IT projects and has issued clarifying guidance on the

30 We reviewed the investments to determine whether the ANSI-required EVM processes 

were in place. We did not assess the quality of those processes.
Page 20 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

implementation of EVM.31 This guidance, issued in August 2005, could be 

expected to have an impact on the exhibit 300s prepared for fiscal year 

2008. Under this guidance, agencies are instructed, among other things, to

• develop comprehensive agency policies for using EVM to plan and 

manage development activities for major IT investments no later than 

December 31, 2005;

• include a provision and clause in major acquisition contracts or agency 

in-house project charters directing the use of an EVM system compliant 

with the required standard; and

• provide documentation demonstrating that the contractor’s or agency’s 

in-house EVM system complies with the required standard and conduct 

periodic surveillance reviews.

Additionally, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council published in the Federal Register a 

proposed amendment32 to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Case 

2004-019) to standardize EVM contract policy across the government.

In previous work,33 we have reported that EVM can have a significant 

impact on the success of an IT acquisition because it heightens visibility 

into whether a program is on target with respect to cost, schedule, and 

technical performance. Therefore, it is important that the process is 

implemented properly to maximize its value as a project management tool. 

If it is not implemented effectively, agency executives and OMB risk 

making poor investment decisions based on inaccurate and potentially 

misleading EVM information. 

31 OMB Memorandum, M-05-23 (Aug. 4, 2005).

32 Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 67 (Apr. 8, 2005).

33 GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Improved Management Practices Could Help Minimize 

Cost Growth in Navy Shipbuilding Programs, GAO-05-183 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 

2005); Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites: Information on Program Cost and 

Schedule Changes, GAO-04-1054 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004); and NASA: Lack of 

Disciplined Cost-Estimating Processes Hinders Effective Program Management, 

GAO-04-642 (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004).
Page 21 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Cost Data Supporting 

Business Cases Were 

Unreliable

Accurate and timely cost management information is critical for federal 

managers to understand the progress of major projects and vital in 

developing meaningful links among budget, accounting, and performance. 

The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 emphasizes 

the need for agencies to have systems that are able to generate reliable, 

useful, and timely information for decision-making purposes and to ensure 

accountability on an ongoing basis.34 In previous work, we have reported 

on the lack of adherence to federal accounting standards throughout the 

federal government and have made recommendations that agencies 

improve cost-accounting systems.35

At every agency, cost information reported in the 29 exhibit 300s was 

derived from ad hoc processes rather than from cost-accounting systems 

with adequate controls to ensure accountability. This condition had impact 

in two particular areas of the exhibit 300—the summary of spending table 

and the project and funding plan section:

• Figures for dollars expended for the prior year (in this case, fiscal year 

2004) were not reliable. In all cases, documentation provided to support 

prior year cost figures in the summary of spending table showed that the 

information was derived from ad hoc sources, such as spreadsheet 

estimates, handwritten figures, or e-mails. Therefore, the cost data 

reported in the exhibit 300 are not verifiable.

• Information in the project and funding plans was also unreliable for the 

21 new and mixed life-cycle investments required to use EVM. As 

discussed earlier, 15 of these investments reported cost figures based on 

EVM processes that did not follow the ANSI standard; because the 

standard was not followed, these processes did not have the controls 

necessary to ensure that the data they produced were reliable. The other 

6 investments had ANSI-compliant EVM processes in place for the 

contractor component of the investment costs, but the government 

component of the investment costs was derived from ad hoc systems 

34 31 U.S.C. § 3512 note.

35 GAO, Financial Management: Achieving FFMIA Compliance Continues to Challenge 

Agencies, GAO-05-881 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2005); Managerial Cost Accounting 

Practices: Leadership and Internal Controls Are Key to Successful Implementation, 

GAO-05-1013R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2, 2005); and Financial Management: Sustained 

Efforts Needed to Achieve FFMIA Accountability, GAO-03-1062 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 

2003).
Page 22 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

(such as tracking government costs in spreadsheets based on project 

managers’ own records); thus, that portion of the data was not reliable, 

lending a degree of unreliability to the overall EVM reports. 

The lack of accurate cost figures limits decision makers’ ability to 

determine the actual resources expended on an investment, and therefore 

inhibits their ability to make fully informed decisions on whether to 

proceed. Without reliable systems that meet federal standards, government 

agencies cannot produce reliable cost-based performance information.

Conclusions The usefulness of the exhibit 300 business case as a mechanism to support 

the selection and oversight of federal IT investments is undercut by the 

kinds of weaknesses displayed in the 29 business cases that we reviewed. 

Although we cannot directly project these examples to the more than one 

thousand business cases developed each year across the federal 

government, our results suggest that the issues raised need attention. The 

shortcomings in guidance and training are likely to be widespread, and so 

the weaknesses may extend beyond the specific examples identified here. 

The kinds of weaknesses displayed and the causes behind them are 

consistent with the pervasive problems with project and investment 

management that we have documented in numerous prior reports.

The absence of documentary support in the cases reviewed raises 

questions regarding the sufficiency of the justification provided for the 

investment and undermines the management decisions being made based 

on it. More troubling, it may indicate an underlying weakness in the 

management of the investment, particularly since several sections of the 

exhibit are specifically designed to capture information from systems used 

in project management, such as those that support EVM and financial 

management. In many cases, inadequate support raises questions regarding 

the adequacy of an agency’s management processes and internal controls, 

which strongly affect the reliability of the information presented to 

decision makers. Further, in view of the inaccuracies in the cases reviewed, 

it is evident that agencies are not taking sufficient actions to ensure the 

accuracy of the information in the exhibit 300s. To make reasonable 

decisions, management needs to be aware of limitations in the data on 

which they rely and thus be able to take steps to mitigate the risks involved.

Collectively, our findings raise questions on whether fundamental project 

management processes are in place, whether project managers are 

adequately trained in these processes, and whether they receive sufficient 
Page 23 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

guidance on these processes and on preparing all areas of the exhibit 300. 

At a minimum, this situation undermines the usefulness of the exhibit 300 

as a mechanism to communicate to OMB and agency executives that the 

project team has employed the disciplines of good project management. By 

reporting information that is not supported by documentation, the exhibit 

300 can create the misleading appearance that investments are being 

managed properly, when in fact they are not. In addition, OMB has relied on 

these exhibits to identify and oversee high-risk projects; thus, our finding 

that the data being presented to OMB may not be reliable or accurate 

further complicates its oversight.

While OMB is applying more rigor to its oversight processes through such 

processes as its tracking of high-risk investments, these advances may be 

undermined by inaccurate or unreliable data used in decision making. 

Unless these weaknesses are addressed, OMB, agency executives, and 

Congress will not have assurance that key decisions to pursue and oversee 

the $65 billion in IT investments are being made based on accurate and 

reliable information.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve the accuracy and validity of exhibit 300s for major IT 

investments and to increase the value of using the information they provide 

in selection, oversight, and resource allocation decisions, we are making 

three recommendations.

1. Because decision makers should be aware of any weaknesses in the 

processes used to develop the information in the exhibit 300s, we are 

recommending that the Director of OMB direct agencies to determine 

the extent to which the information contained in each exhibit 300 is 

accurate and reliable. Where weaknesses in accuracy and reliability are 

identified, the agency should be required to disclose them and explain 

the agency’s approach to mitigating them. 

In addition, to help ensure that agency personnel completing exhibit 300s 

better understand their responsibilities, we recommend that the Director of 

OMB take the following additional actions:

2. In advance of OMB’s next issuance of the Circular A-11 update, develop 

and promulgate clearer and more explicit guidance for sections of the 

exhibit 300 business case that cause confusion, including addressing 

weaknesses identified in this report (as indicated below) and 

consulting with agency personnel having responsibility for completing 
Page 24 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

exhibit 300s across government to identify other areas of confusion. At 

a minimum, the guidance should do the following:

• Provide a more detailed description of the requirements for 

completing an operational analysis, as referred to in the supplement 

to Part 7 of Circular A-11, the Capital Programming Guide. 

• Address or clarify possible flexibilities and alternative approaches 

available to agencies in completing their exhibit 300s: for example, 

whether the analysis of alternatives section of the exhibit 300 needs 

to be updated every year for steady state investments and whether all 

risk areas are relevant for all investments.

3. Provide for training of agency personnel responsible for completing 

exhibit 300s. This training should go beyond a description of changes 

from prior years’ guidance and include working through examples for a 

variety of investments. In developing the training, OMB should consult 

with agencies to identify deficiencies that the training should address.

In implementing these recommendations, OMB should work with the CIO 

Council to develop the necessary guidance and implement an effective 

training program to ensure governmentwide acceptance of these changes.

Because we have outstanding recommendations aimed at enhancing OMB’s 

audit guidance related to federal cost-accounting systems,36 we are not 

making any new recommendations in this report regarding federal cost 

accounting. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the five agencies whose 

exhibit 300s we reviewed.

In written comments received on December 23, 2005, the Administrator of 

OMB’s Office for E-Government and Information Technology accepted the 

36 GAO, Financial Management: FFMIA Implementation Critical for Federal 

Accountability, GAO-02-29 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2001); Financial Management: 

FFMIA Implementation Necessary to Achieve Accountability, GAO-03-31 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 1, 2002); Financial Management: Sustained Efforts Needed to Achieve FFMIA 

Accountability, GAO-03-1062 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003); and Financial 

Management: Improved Financial Systems Are Key to FFMIA Compliance, GAO-05-20

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2004). 
Page 25 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

findings of the draft report. OMB described two of our three 

recommendations and expressed three concerns: first, that our report does 

not address the need for agencies to ensure the accuracy of their IT 

investment requests; second, that the report focuses on the way agency 

employees fill out OMB’s exhibit 300s and not on the underlying 

management responsibilities; and third, that by directing our 

recommendations to OMB rather than to the agencies, we could be seen as 

suggesting that OMB and not the agencies are responsible for data 

accuracy and employee training. 

OMB’s concern regarding data accuracy is addressed by our first 

recommendation: that the Director of OMB instruct agencies to determine 

the extent to which the information contained in each exhibit 300 is 

accurate and reliable, to disclose weaknesses, and to describe the agency’s 

approach to mitigating these weaknesses. This recommendation clearly 

places responsibility on the agencies for assessing the quality of their 

budget information and the processes that produced this information.

With respect to OMB’s concern that the recommendations do not focus on 

how well agencies fulfill their underlying information resources 

management responsibilities, our view is that our recommendation on 

disclosing and mitigating weaknesses does address these underlying 

responsibilities. The report specifically addresses the exhibit 300s and the 

reliability of these documents when used as support in the agencies’ and 

OMB’s decision-making processes. As our report clearly states, the lack of 

documentation may indicate an underlying weakness in the management of 

the investment. In many cases inadequate support raises questions about 

the investments’ program management and internal controls. Requiring 

agencies to disclose and mitigate associated weaknesses presupposes that 

agencies examine and address their approach to fulfilling information 

resources management responsibilities.

Regarding OMB’s third concern, we do not intend to suggest that agencies 

are not responsible and accountable for the weaknesses we describe. We 

place significant responsibility on agencies to manage their information 

assets effectively, as reflected in our first recommendation and in the large 

number of evaluations that we have previously conducted at individual 

agencies and the recommendations resulting, some of which are still 

outstanding. In this report, however, our recommendations are directed to 

OMB because they address findings relating to OMB-required budget 

documents, and OMB has statutory responsibility for providing information 

resources management guidance governmentwide. 
Page 26 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Regarding OMB’s comment that agencies be held responsible for employee 

training in information resources management, we agree that agencies are 

responsible for such training. However, as agencies indicated during the 

review, additional training by OMB would be helpful, especially in the 

understanding of OMB’s requirements for the exhibit 300. This is also 

consistent with OMB’s responsibility under the E-Government Act of 200237

to identify where current training does not satisfy the personnel needs 

related to information technology and information resource management.

The Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer for Information 

Technology Reform of the Department of Energy provided largely technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Director of Audit 

Relations of the Department of Transportation also provided technical 

comments that were incorporated as appropriate. The Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, and the Treasury provided no comments. 

The written comments from OMB are reproduced in appendix II. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

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

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

Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Transportation, and the Treasury and the Director of Office of Management 

and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9286. I can also be reached by e-mail at 

pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

37 Pub. L. 107-347, Title II, § (209)(b)(1)(B) (Dec. 17, 2002).
Page 27 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Other contacts and key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology

Management Issues
Page 28 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Our objective was to ascertain the extent to which selected agencies have 

underlying support for the information described in their fiscal year 2006 

exhibit 300s as submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

in September 2004. To address our objective, we reviewed the supporting 

documentation for 29 exhibit 300s from agencies and components from the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and the 

Treasury.1

We selected the five departments for our review on the basis of two 

criteria. First, to ensure that we examined significant investments, we 

selected departments that expected to spend $1 billion or more on 

information technology (IT) investments in fiscal year 2006. Second, of 

those agencies with significant investments, we further narrowed our 

selection of agencies to those with the first and second largest number of 

IT investments in each of three categories of the federal government’s 

Business Reference Model (BRM): Services for Citizens,2

 Support Delivery 

of Services,3 and Management of Government Resources.4 We did this to 

ensure that the agencies under review reflect the primary business 

operations performed by the federal government. We excluded the Mode of 

Delivery Business Area because we found investments in this area to be 

largely from one agency, the Department of Defense (DOD). (In general, 

Mode of Delivery describes the mechanisms the government uses to 

achieve its purposes: Services for Citizens.) (We excluded DOD and the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from our selection, because the 

Defense Inspector General recently performed an extensive review of 

exhibit 300s,5

 and we have both completed and ongoing work on several 

1

 Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 

population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population being 

studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample.

2

 The Services for Citizens Business Area describes the mission and purpose of the U.S. 

government in terms of the services it provides both to and on behalf of the American 

citizen. It includes the delivery of citizen-focused, public, and collective goods and/or 

benefits as a service and/or obligation of the federal government to the benefit and 

protection of the nation’s general population.

3

 Support Delivery of Services provides the critical policy, programmatic, and managerial 

foundation to support federal government operations.

4

 Management of Government Resources refers to the back office support activities that 

enable the government to operate effectively.

5

 DOD OIG, Information Technology: Reporting of DoD Capital Investments for 

Information Technology, D-2004-081 (May 7, 2004).
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

major IT investments at DHS).6 This process resulted in the selection of the 

five departments mentioned above.

To make our selection of IT investments from the five departments, we 

used OMB capital planning and budget documentation to identify a mix of 

investments. Specifically, we chose IT investments that (1) supported 

government operations across each of the three BRM business areas 

identified above and (2) reflected different stages of investment (e.g., new, 

mixed life cycle, and steady state). Initially, we selected a total of 30 

investments (i.e., 6 investments from each department). However, one IT 

investment was dropped from our total of 30 selected investments because 

we determined during our review that OMB and the agency had cancelled 

its funding. 

To determine the extent of each investment’s underlying support, we 

developed a set of questions regarding the types of analysis and 

documentation that were associated with the information provided in each 

of the major sections of OMB’s exhibit 300.7

 Using our set of questions, we 

met with agency officials for each selected investment to collect and 

analyze investment documentation associated with each exhibit 300 area in 

our evaluation. We further compared the documentation against the exhibit 

300 to ascertain whether the documentation agreed with what the 

investment reported in the exhibit 300. Where federal requirements, laws, 

and other guidelines were cited in Circular A-11, we also used these to 

assess the extent to which agencies and components had complied with 

specific documentation requirements as prescribed in these sources 

(including National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidance, 

OMB circulars, and OMB memorandums). 

6

 These investments include the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (a 

program intended to strengthen management of the pre-entry, entry, status, and exit of 

foreign nationals who travel to the United States); the Automated Commercial Environment 

(a new trade processing system planned to support the movement of legitimate imports and 

exports and strengthen border security); Atlas (a program intended to modernize 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s IT infrastructure); and Secure Flight (a new airline 

passenger screening system).

7

 In addition to basic information about the investment, the exhibit 300 has the following 

sections: a Summary of Spending table, Performance Measures and Goals, Analysis of 

Alternatives, Risk Inventory and Assessment, Acquisition Strategy, Project (Investment) and 

Funding Plan, Enterprise Architecture, and Security and Privacy.
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

In areas where federal directives were cited in the exhibit 300, we 

conducted limited reliability testing; these areas included security, analysis 

of alternatives, and the project and funding plan. In our evaluation of 

security documentation, we used criteria set forth in NIST guidance to 

assess whether the major components were present in key documents, 

which included the security plan and system-level incident handling 

procedures. For security awareness training, we identified whether training 

was conducted and tracked but did not assess its content. In our evaluation 

of the analysis of alternatives, we used criteria from OMB Circular A-94 to 

assess whether the major components were present in the cost-benefit or 

cost-effectiveness analysis. In cases where investment managers told us 

that their earned value management (EVM) processes were in conformance 

with ANSI/EIA-748-A (for our evaluation of the project and funding plan 

sections), we used criteria from ANSI/EIA-748-A to assess whether key 

EVM processes were in place. We did not test the quality of the 

documentation in these areas of evaluation. 

Regarding the reliability of cost data, we did not test the adequacy of 

agency or contractor cost-accounting systems. Our evaluation was based 

on what we were told by the agencies and the information they could 

provide (to the extent to which they had information). 

We performed our work at the agencies’ offices in the Washington, D.C., 

metropolitan area. We conducted our review between March and 

November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.
Page 31 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Appendix II

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget

Page 32 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans
Page 33 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed ApendxiI

The following provides additional detail on the agencies and investments 

that we reviewed as part of this audit. We reviewed a total of 29 

investments at five departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Transportation, and the Treasury.1

 The selected departments account for 

the first and second largest number of IT investments in each of three 

categories of the federal government’s Business Reference Model: Services 

for Citizens,2

 Support Delivery of Services,3 and Management of 

Government Resources.4

According to OMB guidance, the life-cycle stage of the asset affects what is 

reported on the exhibit 300: 

• New investments (i.e., proposed for budget year or later, or in 

development) must be justified based on the need to fill a gap in the 

agency’s ability to meet strategic goals and objectives with the lowest 

life-cycle costs of all possible alternatives and must provide riskadjusted cost and schedule goals and measurable performance benefits. 

• Mixed life-cycle investments (i.e., investments that are operational but 

include some developmental effort, such as a technology refresh) must 

demonstrate satisfactory progress toward achieving baseline cost, 

schedule, and performance goals using an EVM system.5

• Operational investments (i.e., steady state) must demonstrate, among 

other things, how close actual annual operating and maintenance costs 

1

 The financial data on each investment was obtained from the FY2006 Exhibit 53 which is 

available on the OMB Web site. System investment descriptions and stage information were 

gathered from the Exhibit 300s provided by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) 

at the respective agencies.

2

 The Services for Citizens Business Area describes the mission and purpose of the U.S. 

government in terms of the services it provides both to and on behalf of the American 

citizen. It includes the delivery of citizen-focused, public, and collective goods and/or 

benefits as a service and/or obligation of the federal government to the benefit and 

protection of the nation’s general population.

3

 Support Delivery of Services provides the critical policy, programmatic, and managerial 

foundation to support federal government operations.

4

 Management of Government Resources refers to the back office support activities that 

enable the government to operate effectively.

5

 Recent OMB guidance directed agencies to implement EVM on major IT investments, in an 

effort to meet baseline cost, schedule, and performance goals.
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 34 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

are to the original life-cycle cost estimates, whether the technical merits 

of the investment continue to meet the needs of the agency and 

customers, and that an analysis of alternatives was performed with a 

future focus. 

Department of 

Agriculture

System: Comprehensive 

Electronic Permit System 

(ePermits)

Brief description: This system is expected to automate processes to 

allow the Department of Agriculture to issue, track, and rapidly verify the 

validity of a federal permit allowing the importation of plants and animals. 

It is also expected to assist the public by allowing applicants to apply for 

permits, check the status of permit applications, and receive permits 

online.

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Table 2: Financial Funding Data for ePermits

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Corporate Financial 

Management Systems 

(CFMS)

Brief description: This investment is designed to represent the entire 

portfolio of current corporate financial management and administrative 

payment systems for the department. It is a corporatewide solution for 

financial management reform and systems integration that provides tools 

for program and financial managers to manage and evaluate federal 

programs.

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $4.8 $4.8 $0.0

FY 05 $3.3 3.3 0.0

FY 06 $2.2 $2.2 $0.0
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 35 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources 

Table 3: Financial Funding Data for CFMS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Integrated 

Acquisition System (IAS)

Brief description: This system is intended to be a single enterprisewide 

acquisition management system to support a strategic and more 

standardized acquisition management process for Agriculture. It is 

expected to provide a real-time interface to the department’s core financial 

system, reliable data, and a shortened time for acquiring goods and 

services. 

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources

Table 4: Financial Funding Data for IAS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $64.6 $0.0 $64.6

FY 05 $62.0 0.0 62.0

FY 06 $61.7 $0.0 $61.7

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $35.9 $20.5 $15.4

FY 05 $27.1 11.6 15.5

FY 06 $30.6 $14.5 $16.1
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 36 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

System: Phytosanitary 

Certificate Issuance and 

Tracking System (PCIT)

Brief description: This system is expected to establish a new process to 

collect and track phytosanitary certificates issued by the department, 

which attest to compliance with import regulations of importing countries. 

It is also intended to provide better service to users by reducing the need 

for repetitive data entry from applicants and enabling certifying officials to 

deliver certificates in a timelier manner.

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Table 5: Financial Funding Data for PCIT

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Processed 

Commodity Inventory 

Management System 

(PCIMS)

Brief description: This system is designed to support the annual 

acquisition, tracking, and distribution of commodities acquired by 

Agriculture for domestic and foreign food assistance programs by 

providing financial and program management, reporting, and control to 

track commodity requests against purchases and distributions from 

inventory.

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $0.9 $0.9 $0.0

FY 05 $3.6 3.6 0.0

FY 06 $2.5 $2.5 $0.0
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 37 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 6: Financial Funding Data for PCIMS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Store Tracking and 

Redemption System 

Redesign (STARS II)

Brief description: This system is intended to support the department’s 

Food-Stamp program mission by tracking and monitoring food 

coupon/electronic benefit redemption activities and regulatory violations 

by businesses and associated administrative actions related to enforcement 

of penalties, among other things. This initiative is expected to replace the 

current legacy system, which has been in place since 1993. 

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 7: Financial Funding Data for STARS II

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $12.9 $4.3 $8.6

FY 05 $12.2 3.7 8.6

FY 06 $12.7 $2.8 $9.9

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $12.7 $12.4 $0.3

FY 05 $7.0 5.2 1.8

FY 06 $6.4 $0.0 $6.4
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 38 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Department of 

Commerce

System: Advanced Weather 

Interactive Processing 

System (AWIPS)

Brief description: This system is designed to be an interactive computer 

system that integrates all meteorological and hydrological data and all 

satellite and radar data to enable the forecaster to prepare and issue more 

accurate and timely forecasts and warnings.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Table 8: Financial Funding Data for AWIPS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Comprehensive 

Large Array-Data 

Stewardship System 

(CLASS)

Brief description: This system is expected to provide an integrated 

solution to weather and water data archive and access, including an access 

portal with search, browse, and geospatial capabilities for users to obtain 

environmental data, contributing to improvements in prediction 

capabilities.

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $49.2 $14.0 $35.2

FY 05 $49.5 12.7 36.8

FY 06 $52.2 $14.1 $38.1
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 39 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 9: Financial Funding Data for CLASS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Economic Census 

and Surveys (ECON)

Brief description: This investment is designed to provide statistical 

programs that count and profile U.S. businesses and government 

organizations through the gathering of surveys and principal economic 

indicators in order to conduct research and technical studies.

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 10: Financial Funding Data for ECON

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Improve the 

Automated Export System 

(AES)

Brief description: The current system is designed to expedite monthly 

statistics on international trade, remedy shortcomings in export statistics, 

and help to control the export of weapons or other hazardous items that 

could be a threat to U.S. national security or public welfare. The proposed 

initiative is designed to improve the current system to handle electronic 

filing of all export transactions, incorporate an electronic manifest system, 

and provide for verification of export information reported on export 

transactions.

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $3.2 $3.2 $0.0

FY 05 $9.6 9.6 0.0

FY 06 $7.6 $7.6 $0.0

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $53.6 $0.0 $53.6

FY 05 $34.0 0.0 34.0

FY 06 $51.4 $0.0 $51.4
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 40 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 11: Financial Funding Data for AES

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: National Weather 

Service Telecommunication 

Gateway (NWSTG) System 

Brief description: The current system is designed to collect and distribute 

raw and processed hydrometeorological data and products, disseminating 

weather observations and guidance to a national and international 

community of customers. Improvements to current system are expected to 

provide sufficient performance, capacity, and catastrophic backup 

capability to meet current and future demands for data.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 12: Financial Funding Data for NWSTG

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

FY 05 $0.0 0.0 0.0

FY 06 $6.6 $6.6 $0.0

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $13.2 $5.5 $7.7

FY 05 $13.0 5.0 8.0

FY 06 $11.1 $0.8 $10.3
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 41 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

System: Satellite Operations 

Control Center Command 

and Data Acquisition 

(SOCC/CDA)

Brief description: This system is designed to command and control 

Commerce’s operational environmental satellites and to acquire and 

manage the weather and water data the satellites collect, in order to 

provide support functions that are not available commercially, such as realtime hurricane support.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Table 13: Financial Funding Data for SOCC/CDA

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

Department of Energy

System: Energy Sciences 

Network (ESnet)

Brief description: This project is designed to support scientific research 

by providing an interoperable, effective, and reliable communications 

infrastructure and network services to the Department of Energy research 

facilities.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $11.7 $11.7 $0.0

FY 05 $10.5 6.1 4.4

FY 06 $12.6 $7.7 $5.0
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 42 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 14: Financial Funding Data for ESnet

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: E-content 

Management System 

(eCMS)

Brief description: This system is expected to be an enterprisewide, 

integrated document and records management system that will include 

portal accessibility and integration with knowledge management tools in 

order to improve decision and service delivery quality and serve as a 

resource for operations management.

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 15: Financial Funding Data for eCMS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Integrated 

Planning, Accountability, 

and Budgeting System 

Information System (IPABSIS)

Brief description: This system is designed to support the routine 

collection and reporting needs of Energy for life-cycle planning, budget 

formulation, and project and budget execution.

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $18.9 $11.3 $7.6

FY 05 $18.3 9.5 8.8

FY 06 $18.3 $9.3 $9.0

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $2.3 $2.3 $0.0

FY 05 $2.7 2.7 0.0

FY 06 $6.4 $4.1 $2.3
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 43 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 16: Financial Funding Data for IPABS-IS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Licensing Support 

Network (LSN)

Brief description: This is a Web-based system that is intended to make 

relevant documentary material supporting the Nuclear Regulatory License 

Application available to users, as part of the requirements of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act.

Investment stage: Steady state 

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Table 17: Financial Funding Data for LSN

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Los Alamos 

National Laboratory 

Enterprise Project (LANL 

ERP)

Brief description: This investment is intended to identify, design, and 

implement the systems, processes, and controls related to financial 

management, human resources, supply chain management, facilities 

maintenance, information management, project management, and 

manufacturing in order to lower costs and provide more efficient 

operations and improved management.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $3.1 $0.0 $3.1

FY 05 $2.9 0.0 2.9

FY 06 $2.8 $0.0 $2.8

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $39.6 $39.6 $0.0

FY 05 $13.6 0.0 13.6

FY 06 $9.6 $0.0 $9.6
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 44 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources

Table 18: Financial Funding Data for LANL ERP

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

Department of 

Transportation

System: Asset Supply Chain 

Management (ASCM)

Brief description: This investment is intended to provide the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) with asset management and supply chain 

management information systems to track and manage over $21 billion in 

federal government assets. Reducing the number of information systems, 

optimizing supply chain operations, and streamlining business operations 

of employees are expected to result in reduced costs to the agency.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $43.2 $39.3 $3.9

FY 05 $45.5 41.3 4.2

FY 06 $43.7 $41.3 $2.4
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 45 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 19: Financial Funding Data for ASCM

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: DOT Financial 

System Consolidation

Brief description: This program is expected to consolidate several major 

and nonmajor DOT financial systems to interface or integrate all related 

systems in order to eliminate redundant data and processes. 

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources

Table 20: Financial Funding Data for DOT Financial System Consolidation

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: National Transit 

Database (NTD)

Brief description: This system is designed to collect performance data 

from over 640 local transit agencies for the purpose of reporting statistical 

data on the U.S. transit industry.

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $5.0 $5.0 $0.0

FY 05 $6.0 6.0 0.0

FY 06 $13.2 $13.2 $0.0

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $51.0 $6.2 $44.8

FY 05 $64.5 11.1 53.3

FY 06 $44.1 $0.2 $44.0
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 46 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 21: Financial Funding Data for NTD

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Next Generation 

Air/Ground 

Communications 

(NEXCOM)

Brief description: This system is intended to provide air pilot/controller 

voice and data communications by utilizing a digital-based air/ground 

communication system. 

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Table 22: Financial Funding Data for NEXCOM

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: System Approach 

for Safety Oversight (SASO)

Brief description: This system is expected to consolidate the agency’s 28 

oversight systems on aviation regulatory compliance into 5 integrated 

aviation safety risk management systems. Its intended purpose is to allow 

applicable government agencies and the aviation industry to use common 

system safety applications and databases for managing and overseeing 

flight safety. 

Investment stage: New

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $2.2 $0.0 $2.2

FY 05 $3.7 0.0 3.7

FY 06 $3.7 $0.0 $3.7

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $28.7 $28.7 $0.0

FY 05 $29.5 29.5 0.1

FY 06 $33.8 $33.5 $0.3
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 47 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 23: Financial Funding Data for SASO

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Wide-Area 

Augmentation System 

(WAAS)

Brief description: This is a navigation system that is designed to provide 

navigation across the entire United States for all classes of aircraft in all 

flight operations, including en-route navigation, airport departures, and 

airport arrivals including precision landing approaches in all weather 

conditions.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Services for Citizens

Table 24: Financial Funding Data for WAAS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

Department of the 

Treasury

System: Customer Account 

Data Engine (CADE)

Brief description: This system is part of a modernization program that is 

expected to provide the Department of the Treasury with the capability to 

manage its tax accounts utilizing new technology, applications, and 

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $7.2 $7.2 $0.0

FY 05 $7.3 7.3 0.0

FY 06 $10.7 $10.7 $0.0

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $105.6 $99.4 $6.2

FY 05 $122.6 99.2 23.4

FY 06 $124.4 $100.0 $24.4
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 48 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

databases. This system is designed to create applications for daily posting, 

settlement, maintenance, refund processing, and issue detection for 

taxpayer tax account and return data to improve customer service and 

compliance.

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 25: Financial Funding Data for CADE

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Debt Management 

Accounting System (DMAS)

Brief description: This system is designed to be a financial accounting 

system for activities associated with Treasury’s debt collection program to 

track funds recovered by the agency, post these funds to the proper 

account in an accurate and timely manner, and transfer moneys due to the 

appropriate government agencies. The system is also designed to record 

the general ledger activity and produce operational, management, and 

standard external reports. 

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $100.6 $100.6 $0.0

FY 05 $109.9 109.9 0.0

FY 06 $109.9 $109.9 $0.0
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 49 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Table 26: Financial Funding Data for DMAS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Electronic 

Management System (EMS)

Brief description: This system is designed to be a front-end processing 

system that receives, validates, stores, forwards to mainframe electronic 

filing systems, and acknowledges electronic files containing tax 

documents. The system is intended to receive returns from third parties, 

acknowledge the receipt of information, format the information for 

mainframe processing, provide acknowledgements to the third parties, and 

send state return data to participating states. 

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources

Table 27: Financial Funding Data for EMS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Governmentwide 

Accounting and Reporting 

Modernization (GWA)

Brief description: This system is designed to produce accurate, 

accessible, and timely governmentwide financial information through the 

streamlining of reports and the reduction of the reconciliation burden on 

government agencies in order to minimize the amount of labor necessary to 

transfer financial information.

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $4.4 $2.3 $2.1

FY 05 $4.1 1.8 2.3

FY 06 $4.2 $1.9 $2.4

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $11.8 $3.1 $8.8

FY 05 $9.1 2.0 7.1

FY 06 $10.3 $2.0 $8.2
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 50 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Investment stage: Mixed life cycle

Business Reference Model category: Management of Government 

Resources

Table 28: Financial Funding Data for GWA

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Service Center 

Recognition/Images 

Processing System 

(SCRIPS)

Brief description: This system is intended to be a data capture, 

management, and storage system used to process tax documents 

automatically in order to meet mandated timelines and processing 

requirements for various tax forms and the Federal Tax Deposits, which 

directly impacts revenue brought into the federal treasury.

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 29: Financial Funding Data for SCRIPS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

System: Secure Payment 

System (SPS)

Brief description: This system is designed to be a browser-based Internet 

version of the current Electronic Certification System, which will allow 

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $7.7 $5.6 $2.1

FY 05 $7.8 5.5 2.3

FY 06 $7.8 $5.3 $2.5

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $13.0 $0.0 $13.0

FY 05 $13.7 0.0 13.7

FY 06 $15.0 $0.0 $15.0
Appendix III

Descriptions of Investments Reviewed

Page 51 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

federal program agencies to submit certified requests for payment 

disbursement online. It is intended to provide a more secure payment 

process, increase the ability to protect sensitive financial and privacy data, 

and improve the financial performance of federal program agencies by 

providing program agencies a method of providing financial data to 

Treasury.

Investment stage: Steady state

Business Reference Model category: Support Delivery of Services

Table 30: Financial Funding Data for SPS

Source: OMB FY2006 Exhibit 53.

Millions of dollars

Fiscal year Total Development Steady state

FY 04 $4.3 $0.0 $4.3

FY 05 $3.1 0.0 3.1

FY 06 $3.1 $0.0 $3.1
Page 52 GAO-06-250 IT Capital Asset Plans

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286, pownerd@gao.gov. 

Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, the following people made key 

contributions to this report: Carol Cha, Barbara Collier, Joseph Cruz, Lester 

Diamond, Valerie Hopkins, Sandra Kerr, Linda Lambert, Tammi Nguyen, 

Chris Owens, Mark Shaw, Kevin Walsh, and Martin Yeung. 

(310479)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

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

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

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

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548