U.S. General Services Administration

2007 A n n ual P E R F O R M AN C E AN D AC C O U NTA B I L I T Y R E P O R T

GSA Means Excellence in the Business of Government
How to use this report

This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for fiscal year (FY) 

2007 provides the General Services Administration’s (GSA) financial 

and performance information, enabling the President, Congress, and 

the American people to assess the Agency’s performance as provided by 

the requirements of the:

Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 and other laws

Government Management Reform Act of 1994

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993

Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-136.

The assessment of GSA’s performance contained in this report compares performance results to the Agency’s strategic 

goals and performance goals. GSA’s Strategic Plan, Performance Plan, and annual PARs are available on GSA’s Web site at 

www.gsa.gov/annualreport. GSA welcomes feedback on the form and content of this report. If you wish to provide feedback, 

please choose a contact from the annual report Web page.

This report is organized into the following major components:

1 Letter from the Administrator of GSA

The Administrator’s letter includes an assessment on the reliability and completeness of the financial and performance information 

presented in the report and a statement of assurance on the Agency’s management controls as required by the FMFIA. 

2 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

This section provides an overview of the financial and performance information contained in the Performance, Financial, and 

Other Accompanying Information sections. The Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) includes an overview of the GSA 

organization, highlights of the Agency’s most important performance goals and results, current status of systems and internal 

control weaknesses, and other pertinent information such as the progress being made by GSA in implementing the President’s 

Management Agenda (PMA). 

3 Performance Section

This section provides the annual performance information as required by OMB Circular A-11 and the GPRA. Included in this 

section is a detailed discussion and analysis on the Agency’s performance in FY 2007. Information on key performance measures 

with past results can be found in the Performance Section. 

4 Financial Section

This section contains the details on GSA’s finances in FY 2007, an introduction letter from GSA’s CFO, followed by the Independent 

Auditor’s Report, the Agency’s audited financial statements, and required supplementary financial information. 

5 Other Accompanying Information

This section includes the Inspector General’s (IG) Updated Assessment of GSA’s Major Management Challenges with 

Management’s comments, information on the Agency’s Debt Management and Payments Management, a summary chart of 

performance information, Improper Payments Improvement Act (IPIA) information, and a glossary of acronyms.
Mission Statement

GSA leverages the buying power of the federal government to acquire best value for 

taxpayers and our federal customers. We exercise responsible asset management. 

We deliver superior workplaces, quality acquisition services, and expert 

business solutions. We develop innovative and effective management policies.

Strategic Goals

Stewardship

Lead federal agencies in the economical and efficient management of federal assets 

by spearheading effective policy development and by the exemplary management of the 

buildings/workplaces, motor vehicles, and personal property provided by gsa.

Superior Workplaces

Deliver and maintain productive workplaces consisting of office space, 

furnishings, technology, supplies, and related services.

Best Value

Develop and deliver timely, accurate, and cost-effective acquisition 

services and business solutions.

Innovation

Develop new and better ways of conducting business that result in more 

productive and effective federal policies and administrative operations.
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Table of Contents

Letter from the Administrator 4

How GSA Benefits the Public 9

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Mission, Values, and Goals 15

Organization 16

Performance Summary and Highlights 20

FY 2007 Key Performance Measures within Strategic Goals 23

The President’s Management Agenda 24

Financial Statements Analysis and Summary 34

Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance

Introduction to Management Assurances 39

Statement of Assurance 40

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control 41

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, Section 2 42 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, Section 4 43 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 44

Federal Information Security Management Act 44

Financial Management Systems Framework 45

Improper Payments Information Act 47

Limitations of Financial Statements 47

PERFORMANCE SECTION

Introduction to Performance 51

Performance by Service/Staff Office

Public Buildings Service 53

Federal Acquisition Service 63

Office of Citizen Services and Communications 72

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 76

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 79

Office of Governmentwide Policy 82

Linking Strategic Goals and Performance Measures to Budget 87

Performance Measurement Data Validation and Verification 96

W W W . G S A . G O V / A N N U A L R E P O R T

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

FINANCIAL SECTION

Letter from the Chief Financial Officer 101

Office of the Chief Financial Officer Major Accomplishments 102

Independent Auditor’s Report

Letter of Transmittal from the Inspector General 104

Report of Independent Auditors 107

Inspector General’s Report on Internal Controls over Performance Measures 120

Financial Statements

Principal Financial Statements 122

Notes to the Financial Statements 130

Required Supplementary Information 152

OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Summary Chart of Goals and Measures 155

Performance Goals and Measures No Longer Reported 160

Management Challenges

Office of Inspector General’s Assessment of GSA’s Major Management Challenges 161

Agency Management Comments on the Inspector General’s Assessment of 

 GSA’s Major Management Challenges 184

Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Details 192

Summary of Financial Statement Audit and Management Assurances

Summary of Financial Statement Audit 193

Summary of Management Assurances 193

Other, Agency-specific Statutorily Required Reports

Debt Management 194

Cash and Payments Management 194

Acronyms and Abbreviations 195
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Letter from the Administrator

FY 2007 Performance and 

Accountability Report

I

am pleased to present the Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2007 Annual Performance and 

Accountability Report (PAR) for the 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). 

This report details the Agency’s accomplishments and challenges in upholding our 

mission to leverage the buying power of the 

Federal government to acquire best value for 

taxpayers and our Federal customers. GSA 

exercises responsible asset management; 

delivers superior workplaces, quality acquisition services, and 

expert business solutions; and develops innovative and effective management policies to better serve other agencies and 

the American public. 

Our new Strategic Plan, published in June 2007, provides an 

exciting opportunity to envision the future and implement 

new strategies that will improve partnering with our 

customer agencies. The Strategic Plan guides us in better 

meeting agencies’ multiple workplace needs by integrating 

the offerings of GSA’s two Services—Public Buildings Service 

(PBS) and Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). Cross-Service 

collaboration will produce “workplace solutions” that meet 

the full spectrum of a customer’s space and other office 

needs. GSA is committed to providing products, services, and 

solutions to Federal agencies at best value, thereby allowing 

Federal agencies to focus on their core missions. The costeffective stewardship of Federal assets provided by GSA 

to Federal agencies ensures that our obligation to the U.S. 

taxpayer is met in the most efficient manner possible. 

Our innovation in acquisition services and 

business solutions has led to more effective 

Federal policies and administrative operations which further allows our Federal 

customers to accomplish their missions in 

a successful manner. Our diverse offerings 

of procurement and policy development, 

Federal asset management, and acquisition 

services provide the solutions that achieve 

results for our Federal customers. Our 

vision is that agencies doing business with 

GSA should have one contact that can 

coordinate within GSA to fulfill all their 

workplace requirements. The guiding principle behind this 

effort has been captured as “One GSA—One Voice.” This 

principle promotes the collaboration and integration of our 

many diverse offerings, ultimately enhancing our ability to 

meet the requirements of our Federal agency customers and 

the American people.

Unqualified “Clean” Opinion

GSA again received an unqualified “clean” opinion in FY 2007 

with no material weaknesses from our independent auditors. 

This accomplishment continues to demonstrate to our customers that we are committed to handling their funding with 

care and attention to detail. With the attainment of the unqualified “clean” opinion and no material weaknesses, we are 

moving forward and improving our internal control processes 

and fulfilling the goals of the President’s Management Agenda 

(PMA). GSA has educated Agency personnel in the proper 

closeout of completed projects and is returning unused budgetary authority. These actions have resulted in more efficient 

use and monitoring of customer budget authority as well as 

accurate financial accounting and reporting. In addition, 

these actions also demonstrate our dedication to sound and 

transparent accounting practices.

L e tt e r f r o m t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r

Lurita Doan
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

L e tt e r f r o m t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r

GSA Priorities 

President Bush has a vision for government reform that is 

guided by his desire for an effective Federal government that 

is citizen-centered and results-oriented. Aggressive changes 

we have made in alignment with the PMA include the 

development of a new strategic plan that will better enable 

us to meet our customers’ needs and provide savings to the 

taxpayers. Under my tenure, GSA’s top priorities have been: 

Fiscal Discipline

Transparency, Integrity, and Accountability

Employee Morale

Integrating our offerings to accomplish other GSA 

strategic objectives, including:

Meeting agencies’ multiple workplace needs better, 

by integrating the offerings of Federal Acquisition 

Service (FAS) and Public Buildings Service (PBS). 

Greater cross-Service collaboration will produce 

“workplace solutions” that meet the full spectrum 

of a customer’s space and other office needs.

Reducing duplication of effort in government 

contracting. 

Developing alternative price options and tiers of 

service—from assisted services to fully integrated 

solutions.

Increasing speed and efficiency in the delivery of 

space, services, and products to our customers at 

prices that offer the best value. 

Expanding the acquisition workforce and improving 

training for contracting professionals.

Pioneering lines of business (LoB) that meet the 

needs of a 21st century workplace and workforce.

Presenting “one face to the customer.” Agencies doing 

business with GSA should have one GSA contact that 

can coordinate within GSA to fulfill all their workplace 

requirements; One GSA—One Voice. 

Helping Federal agencies meet the goal of President 

Bush’s Executive Order 13423, Strengthening 

Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management; and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 

providing green products and services to its customers. 

GSA offers alternative fuel vehicles (AFV); uses wind, solar, 

and other innovative renewable energy sources in its 

buildings; develops alternative workplace arrangements; 

and offers a wide range of environmentally preferable 

office products.

Federal Acquisition Service 

FAS was officially established in FY 2007. The new organization 

combines the Federal Technology Service (FTS) and the 

Federal Supply Service (FSS) and represents a historic 

milestone for GSA. The new Service is providing greater 

standardization and innovative techniques, offering developing 

technology, and leveraging government buying power to 

remain competitive in selling goods and services to agencies. 

In merging our supply and technology offerings, we 

have already seen results in superior, faster service to our 

customers. The process of rethinking previously separate 

functions and searching for new solutions has energized 

FAS and is benefiting our customers. One example of this 

new entrepreneurial energy from GSA employees was the 

launch of the new Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Express 

Program. The program was launched this year to speed the 

processing period between application and award for Federal 

MAS contracts. GSA now awards MAS contracts to eligible 

vendors within 30 days, instead of the previous average of 
 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

157 days. This program improves customer service and 

increases efficiencies by reducing time to award contracts, 

which benefits small businesses and the American taxpayer. 

This year, FAS also awarded the highly anticipated 

Networx Universal and Networx Enterprises contracts 

to telecommunication vendors for implementation. 

These two contracts will transform the current Federal 

telecommunications system to a modern network. It will offer 

customers an expanded portfolio of quality voice, data, video 

communication solutions, and emerging network services. 

By awarding these two contracts, FAS is on the right path to 

improve our business and help GSA remain the government’s 

premier acquisition agency. 

In December 2006, the Department of Defense (DoD) and 

GSA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to better 

define the relationship between the two agencies. GSA 

worked intensively to implement all 24 objectives in the 

MOA; 13 action items have already been completed. GSA 

accomplishments include specifying key roles to increase 

oversight, providing online and video training for all GSA 

contract specialists to enhance training in interagency 

acquisition, standardizing policy guidance and collaboration, 

increasing communication, and improving financial data 

reporting. The 11 remaining action items are ongoing and do 

not have scheduled completion dates. Agency officials will 

continue to review progress weekly to ensure GSA addresses 

and prevents potential problems. These accomplishments will 

restore the confidence of our largest customer and improve 

business. 

DoD has also committed to using the GSA Veterans Technology Services (VETS) Government Wide Acquisition 

Contract (GWAC), for service-disabled veteran owned businesses, wherever possible for information technology (IT) 

services. This commitment from DoD also signals a new level 

of collaboration between GSA and DoD on IT procurements.

In keeping with GSA’s focus on fiscal responsibility and 

results, I announced in September that GSA was putting in 

place the structure to ensure that the FAS Assisted Acquisition 

Services (AAS) Program is on a sustainable path of progress, 

including the reorganization of certain divisions to build a 

more economically viable business line that will break even 

by 2008. GSA’s decision to move AAS into a break even status 

will not mean job losses. The Agency is placing AAS personnel 

within other parts of GSA where there is greater need for 

their skills.

I see a bright future for GSA’s AAS. Information technology 

is becoming more complex, creating a greater need in the 

government for assistance in writing statements of work, 

managing projects, and guiding customers.

Public Buildings Service 

PBS is setting the example for the government and the private 

sector in incorporating principles of sustainable design and 

energy efficiency into all of its building projects. In FY 2007, 

PBS celebrated the official opening of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Satellite Operations 

Facility in Suitland, MD. The new workplace was designed 

under guidelines of GSA’s Design Excellence Program and the 

U.S. Green Building Council. PBS is dedicated and committed 

to helping client agencies meet their environmental 

obligations by providing responsible choices and innovative 

construction. 

As a means of evaluating and measuring green building 

achievements, PBS requires all new construction projects 

and major renovations to be certified through the U.S. Green 

Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) rating system. We recognize that buildings 

consume about 40 percent of the total energy used in the 

United States and as much as 70 percent of the electricity. 

GSA has always made significant investments in energy saving 

solutions. In fact, between 1985 and 2005, GSA achieved a 

30 percent reduction in energy consumption. The President 

L e tt e r f r o m t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 

has challenged all Federal agencies to reduce their energy 

consumption, to increase the use of renewable energy, and 

continue to find new technologies. We continue to take 

energy reduction measures, but we are also researching new 

technologies that can help us reduce energy consumption 

even more and reduce overall costs to the government.

PBS continues to improve customer service and to achieve 

savings for Federal agencies in our real estate leasing program. 

Our most significant effort involves the National Broker 

Contract. This contract has been in place for about two years 

and we are seeing results. Last year, projects with our brokers 

were more than 13 percent below the market midpoint and 

that far exceeds our overall goal of 8.75 percent. In addition, 

because of increased efficiency, beginning October 2007, our 

leasing fee to customer agencies will decline from eight to 

seven percent. 

PBS is achieving significant milestones towards strengthening 

credibility with customers and meeting their expectations. 

On June 18, 2007, GSA went live with a nationally standardized 

process for rent billing. This process helps us meet our goals 

of accurate billing supported by source documentation, 

notifying customers prior to bill change, and reflecting 

changes to the bill within one billing cycle.

President’s Management Agenda 

The PMA Scorecard for the fourth quarter of FY 2007 shows 

steady progress, with four GSA initiatives achieving a GreenGreen rating for status and progress. The four areas that 

achieved this high rating were Human Capital, Performance 

Improvement, Real Property, and Financial Performance. This 

is the second consecutive year GSA earned a Green rating in 

both categories on the Performance Improvement and Real 

Property Scorecards. A successful audit kept the Financial 

Performance rating as Green-Green. Human Capital improved 

from last year by moving into a Green-Green rating. GSA is 

rated Yellow for status and progress for Competitive Sourcing 

and Yellow and Red for E-Gov. Transportation Management, 

Environmental Stewardship, and Energy Management are 

three new initiatives for this year. Transportation Management 

scored Red for status and Green for progress. Environmental 

Stewardship has a rating of Yellow for both status and 

progress and Energy Management scored Green for status and 

Yellow for progress. The results indicate solid commitment 

by GSA’s employees to improving government performance 

and providing better service to our customers. 

Financial Performance and Program Data

As outlined in the Management Assurance section of this 

report, GSA conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of 

internal control over financial reporting. GSA can provide 

reasonable assurance that its internal control over financial 

reporting is operating effectively and no material weaknesses 

were found. We are extremely proud of this accomplishment, 

but more work needs to be done. GSA is aggressively 

making continued improvements to its financial systems and 

operations. Throughout the year, our senior managers assessed 

the efficiency and effectiveness of their organizations by 

analyzing financial and performance data. Management relies 

on this data to identify material inadequacies in financial and 

program performance areas and to identify corrective actions 

needed to resolve them. 

As required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, I have 

assessed the financial and performance data used in this 

report, and believe it to be complete and reliable.

Management Challenges

To uphold our mission of leveraging the buying power of the 

Federal government to acquire best value for taxpayers and 

our Federal customers, GSA faces the following challenges:

Assisting other Federal agencies in complying with 

the President’s Environmental Executive Order 13423, 

Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management. GSA is helping its 

L e tt e r f r o m t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r
 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

client agencies meet their environmental obligations 

by providing responsible choices in our services and 

offerings. 

Continuing to improve GSA’s real property capital project 

planning, and delivery. Costs for materials and labor 

continue to increase and fluctuations in commodities 

like petroleum and petroleum-based products are adding 

volatility in pricing. GSA must ramp up oversight and 

consistency in project delivery with new tools and 

procedures in place so that we know when a project 

schedule or budget has slipped before it becomes a 

crisis. 

Developing a new strategy to change the way customer 

agencies do business. Launching new programs is always 

a challenge; however, we must have the courage and 

willingness to modify programs that are not performing 

successfully or not meeting expectations. 

Increasing the percentage of employees who can 

telework in accordance with Public Law 106-346, 

§ 359. I have challenged GSA managers to develop plans 

to enable 50 percent of eligible employees to telework 

one or more days per week by 2010. Telework benefits 

include reduced energy use, such as fewer greenhouse gas 

emissions, less traffic, less U.S. dependence on foreign oil, 

increased worker productivity, and savings for American 

taxpayers. Telework is an important component in every 

successful Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). It is also 

an important recruiting and retention tool that will help 

attract and keep talented individuals in public service.

GSA is a dynamic organization that is energized and delivering 

tangible benefits for our country. All of us who work at 

GSA care deeply about this organization and are committed 

to its goals and principles. Teamwork is critical to achieving 

our strategic goals, meeting the requirements of our customer 

agencies, and fully realizing our vision of One GSA—

One Voice. 

Cordially, 

Lurita Doan

Administrator

November 9, 2007

L e tt e r f r o m t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 

GSA’s mission includes supporting government 

agencies with superior workplaces, equipment, 

and products and services that they need to 

operate successfully. The benefit of the bundled buying 

power of the Federal government to reduce wasteful spending 

and save the taxpayers money is sometimes unclear to the 

U.S. public. The following examples demonstrate how GSA 

directly benefits the public.

Reducing Costs for the American Taxpayer 

An overarching theme in all of GSA’s activities is that they are 

designed to consolidate activities across the Federal 

government and reduce costs for the American taxpayer. As 

the premier Federal acquisition agency, GSA offers discount 

commercial airfares to Federal travelers on official business at 

an average savings of 67 percent below full commercial fares. 

GSA’s airfare contracts are estimated to have saved the Federal 

government $4 billion on 4,961 domestic and international 

routes. 

Public Law 109-364 amended 40 U.S.C. 502 to provide for the 

use of GSA’s Federal Supply Schedules by state and local 

governments, allowing them to order products and services 

to support recovery from major disasters and acts of terrorism. 

The law not only applies during emergencies, it also allows 

state and local governments to purchase goods in advance of 

a disaster to allow for rapid response and recovery. As of the 

end of FY 2007, 65 percent of the schedule contracts had 

been modified in support of this effort.

Commitment to Small Businesses

The strength and viability of small businesses is important to 

the nation’s economy and the public, as small businesses 

account for over 45 percent of total retail sales and 40 percent 

of Federal tax revenues. During FY 2007, GSA opened its 

Veterans Technology Services (VETS) Government Wide 

Acquisition Contract (GWAC). VETS is a GWAC set aside for 

service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses. The VETS 

GWAC has a potential value of $5 billion. VETS is the third 

GWAC within GSA’s offerings which is dedicated exclusively 

to small businesses. 

One of GSA’s top priorities during FY 2007 was removing 

bureaucratic barriers for small businesses. GSA accomplished 

this by introducing the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) 

Express program. The goal of this program is to award MAS 

contracts to eligible firms in 30 days or less. To meet GSA’s 

target, significant changes to existing processes were designed 

to improve the quality of contract offers, productivity, and 

the alignment of GSA services to meet customer needs. GSA 

is committed to increasing contracting opportunities for small 

businesses. 

E-Government

During FY 2007, GSA renamed the official Web portal of the 

U.S. government from FirstGov.gov to USA.gov, and renamed 

the Spanish-language portal from Espanol.gov to GobiernoUSA.

gov. USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov are the only Web sites that 

provide information and services from Federal, state, and local 

governments in one location. The site helps citizens find and 

do business with government organizations. The sites are clear, 

simple, user friendly, and connect citizens to a wide array of 

topics, such as education, health, taxes, housing, driver 

licensing, Federal benefits, and many other online government 

resources. They are easy to navigate and use a clustering 

technology that organizes thousands of search results into 

categories that allow citizens to zero in on topics of interest. 

From finding out what services and assistance the government 

has to offer to getting news updates, these Web sites are the 

U.S. public’s gateway to government services. During FY 2007, 

USA.gov won the international Government Standard of 

Excellence from the Web Marketing Association’s 2007 

WebAward. Additionally, USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov were 

listed as one of Time magazine’s “25 Sites We Can’t Live 

Without.” 

How GSA Benefits the Public

H o w G SA B e n e f i t s t h e P u b l i c
10 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

E-Government Benefits

GSA is managing partner on seven and a participating partner 

on eight E-Gov initiatives. The initiatives are designed to make 

the Federal government more citizen-centric and results 

oriented. The benefits to GSA, other Federal agencies, and 

ultimately the general public include:

Improved agency performance by increasing the focus 

on performance metrics and establishing enterprise 

standards for performance.

Enhanced productivity as a result of improved information 

technology (IT) infrastructure, shared services, and 

automated processes, which leads to efficiency in 

delivering goods and services to citizens.

Improved mission delivery by the Federal government 

that will result from the improved productivity of Federal 

employees and result in higher performance levels for 

services to the general public.

Community Good Neighbors

With a Federal presence in 2,000 U.S. communities, GSA 

continues to design, renovate, and manage facilities to enhance 

the workplace and revitalize U.S. towns and cities. GSA 

considers local needs that can bring benefits to the entire 

community, including high-quality public spaces that: serve 

both Federal workers and the public; create opportunities for 

collaborative planning efforts promoting both customer 

agency and community goals; and promote public events at 

Federally-owned buildings, including concerts, farmers 

markets, and festivals. One example of this was at the Sandra 

Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse in Phoenix where the 

building’s gleaming glass atrium held court of a different 

type—prom court. A high school hosted the event for more 

than 600 students.

Partner in Wildfire Protection

GSA furnishes wildfire protection equipment and supplies to 

Federal agencies through formal agreements with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Forest Service, and 

the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). During an active fire season, orders in 

excess of 1,600 tons of equipment and supplies are received, 

processed, and shipped to support ongoing firefighting and 

replenishment efforts. GSA, through the Federal Acquisition 

Service (FAS), manages and coordinates the various functions 

necessary for support of wildland firefighting operations, 

including fire item specifications, purchasing, order processing, 

stocking, inventory management, and transportation. 

During FY 2007, fire gear purchased from GSA’s Global Supply 

helped save the lives of two firefighters in the Lake Tahoe area. 

The firefighters were extinguishing spot fires when they 

found themselves surrounded by flames. They backed into a 

meadow, climbed under their GSA purchased fire shelters, and 

were protected for nearly 30 minutes while the fire burned 

around them.

Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management 

During FY 2007, GSA’s Administrator tasked GSA management with helping agencies comply with the President’s 

Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. GSA has 

maintained a strong focus on the environment for many years; 

this experience will enable GSA to better serve Federal 

agencies in their compliance efforts in the future. 

Since 1985, GSA has achieved an overall energy reduction of 

35 percent in its facilities. GSA won the Energy Star Building 

Award for Superior Performance. Energy Star is a symbol of 

energy efficiency established by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). GSA 

operates its buildings at five percent below comparable 

commercial buildings and pays 12 percent less for utilities. 

During FY 2006, GSA reduced its energy consumption by 

4.7 percent, supporting Executive Order 13423 requiring a 

H o w G SA B e n e f i t s t h e P u b l i c
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 11

30 percent reduction by FY 2015. Additionally, through the 

Public Buildings Service (PBS) and the Energy Center of 

Expertise, GSA conducts Energy Awareness programs for its 

tenants in an effort to build awareness of conservation 

methods.

GSA’s MAS offers a list of businesses approved to sell Federal 

agencies everything from environmental assessments and 

energy management programs to recycled paper, fluorescent 

lighting, paints, chemicals, and pollution prevention systems. 

GSA Fleet has been involved in the Federal government’s 

alternative fuel program since the enactment of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 (AMFA). GSA purchased over 

24,000 alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) this year, bringing GSA’s 

total AFVs purchased since 1991 to more than 140,000 (more 

than any single organization in the United States). GSA’s cost 

per mile of 43 cents is 39 percent below the governmentwide average of 71 cents. Currently GSA’s inventory consists 

of 70,415 AFVs and 497 Hybrid Energy Vehicles, approximately 

34 percent of the total GSA Fleet. 

GSA also is working with other Federal agencies on several 

initiatives for further improvements in environmental 

management, including the following: 

Working with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

to lead improvement in the Federal Telework Program.

Partnering with USDA to identify opportunities for 

increased use of bio-based products.

Partnering with Customs and Border Protection and the 

Federal Highway Administration to develop “survivability” 

strategies for land ports of entry, potentially taking 

remote ports of entry “off the power grid.”

Integrating power controls into IT operations to reduce 

systems energy consumption.

Donations of Usable Surplus

GSA serves the public by providing a channel for Federal 

agencies to donate usable surplus property to state and local 

governments or selected nonprofit organizations. Once a 

Federal agency determines it has unneeded property, the 

property is declared excess and is available for transfer to any 

other Federal agency. If no agency wants the excess property, 

it is eligible to be donated to state and local governments. 

If the property is not claimed through these channels, it is 

declared surplus for Federal needs and may be sold through 

public auctions.

In an effort to make modern computer technology an integral 

part in classrooms across the nation, the Computers for 

Learning (CFL) Program provides schools and educational 

nonprofit organizations a place to request excess computer 

equipment. It also provides a quick and easy way for 

government agencies and the private sector to donate that 

equipment to schools and educational nonprofit organizations. This results in a benefit to schools that receive muchneeded computers, organizations that no longer waste space 

storing surplus computers, and a public that is better served 

through the deployment of surplus computers as valuable 

learning tools.

Historical Preservation

GSA is responsible for the stewardship of over 425 historic 

properties, including 63 National Historic Landmarks and 

two National Historic Sites. These properties represent the 

work of prominent architects and are valued for their 

significance in U.S. history, architecture, art, archaeology, 

engineering, and culture. GSA takes great pride in its 

inventory and strives to preserve, protect, and utilize historic 

properties as established in the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966. GSA continues to preserve historic properties 

by providing redevelopment in urban areas. For example, 

GSA’s lease of the underutilized U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in Albuquerque, NM to the Amy Biel High School won 

a National Preservation Award in 2006 for reintroducing a 

young population to the downtown area, and expanding 

H o w G SA B e n e f i t s t h e P u b l i c
12 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

educational opportunities from the classroom to the 

community. The charter school (Albuquerque’s first urban 

high school in 40 years) supports the local economy while 

offering students the unique opportunity to meet their 

educational requirements in a historic Federal building, 

attend art classes at the South Broadway Cultural Center, and 

meet physical education standards at the Barelas Community 

Center. More than 93 percent of the school’s students and 

staff use public transportation. 

GSA’s legacy buildings include customhouses, courthouses, 

post offices, land border ports of entry, and Federal agency 

offices across the United States and its territories. Many are 

grand structures designed to serve a symbolic, ceremonial, 

and functional purpose. As steward of its historic legacy 

buildings, GSA’s goal is to shape this legacy through its 

preservation efforts so that the U.S. public can continue to 

enjoy and appreciate its cultural and architectural heritage.

Acquisition Workforce

The Acquisition Workforce Training Fund (AWTF) provided 

over 15,000 acquisition professionals more than 100 

acquisition learning opportunities, and both these numbers 

are increasing annually. The Federal Acquisition Institute 

through its management of the AWTF, saves taxpayers 

approximately 40 percent off commercial training prices by 

strategically sourcing training, allowing agencies to direct 

limited resources to other needs. 

H o w G SA B e n e f i t s t h e P u b l i c

Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S. Courthouse, Cleveland, OH
Management’s Discussion 

and Analysis

GSA has incorporated green (planted) roofs in some of our projects. At 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Satellite 

Operations Facility in Suitland, MD, we have built one of the largest green 

roofs in the country, covering over 170,000 square feet—nearly four acres. 
GSA provides workspaces for 

over 100 Federal agencies. 

Environmental sustainability in 

building design, construction, and 

operation is fundamental to the 

mission of GSA’s Public Buildings 

Service (PBS); to provide a worldclass workplace to the Federal 

worker and superior value to 

the American taxpayer.

www.GSA.gov/green
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 15

The Agency’s mission is derived from GSA’s original 

authorizing legislation, the Property and Administrative 

Services Act of 1949. This law consolidated the Federal 

government’s real estate, supply, and other management 

support functions so that agencies would run more efficiently. 

GSA seeks efficiencies through joint management policymaking with departments and other agencies. Today, for the 

great majority of functions, agencies are able to determine for 

themselves whether GSA’s centralized services serve their 

needs, as agencies are no longer required to use GSA.

A major change to the delivery of GSA’s mission has been 

accomplished in the consolidation of the former Federal 

Supply Service (FSS) and the Federal Technology Service (FTS) 

into the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). The evolution of 

technology and the marketplace has blurred the distinctions 

between information technology (IT) and other products and 

services. Thus, the separation between FSS and FTS that served 

the government well for decades no longer makes sense. GSA 

customers require a blended delivery model that integrates 

products and services in a manner that is transparent to the 

customer with GSA providing end-to-end customer service. 

A crucial aspect of GSA’s mission is to promote unified planning and coordination of disaster mitigation, preparedness, 

response, and recovery. These responsibilities relate to both 

natural and manmade incidents that threaten lives and 

property before, during, and after a major emergency or 

disaster. In addition to making certain that GSA’s operations 

respond to these crises, GSA provides other agencies with the 

space, supplies, telecommunications, and policies they need 

to do their jobs. This means, for example, going to the site 

of disasters and finding suitable space for the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to set up operations 

or providing equipment and vehicles to the U.S. Forest Service 

to fight wildfires. 

Mission, Values, and Goals

As the government’s premier acquisition agency, GSA continues to assist its customers with procuring various goods and services cheaper, faster, and in compliance with laws and regulations, which in turn saves 

money for the taxpayers. GSA brings best practices to procurements and harnesses the full purchasing power of 

the Federal government. At the same time, GSA is helping other Federal agencies to concentrate their efforts and 

limited contracting resources onto agency-specific procurements. 

GSA Mission Statement

GSA leverages the buying power of the Federal government to acquire best value for taxpayers 

and our Federal customers. We exercise responsible asset management. We deliver superior 

workplaces, quality acquisition services, and expert business solutions. We develop innovative 

and effective management policies.

GSA Values

Integrity

Accountability and Transparency 

in Operations

Effective Leadership and 

Responsible Decision-Making
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

16 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

FEDERAL ACQUISITION SERVICE (FAS): FAS is the consolidation 

of the former FSS and the FTS. The new FAS organization 

allows GSA to better position itself in the market for acquiring 

products and services for Federal agencies. FAS business 

operations are organized into four business portfolios based 

on the product or service provided to customer agencies: 

Integrated Technology Services (ITS) portfolio; Assisted 

Acquisition Services (AAS) portfolio; General Supplies and 

Services (GSS) portfolio; and the Travel, Motor Vehicle and 

Card Services (TMVCS) portfolio.

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTWIDE POLICY (OGP): OGP improves 

government-wide management. OGP’s responsibilities span 

personal and real property, travel and transportation, IT, 

regulatory information, and the use of Federal advisory 

The use of the Internet and other new electronic tools touches 

every aspect of GSA’s mission. GSA’s primary Web site, GSA.

gov (www.GSA.gov), is the electronic gateway to the Agency. 

GSA also maintains USA.gov (www.USA.gov), which provides 

citizens with a single point of access to the vast index of 

official government information, including more than 50 

million Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial documents. 

Through this initiative, GSA successfully meets the President’s 

Electronic Government (E-Gov) initiative, which is to provide 

citizens with accurate, timely, and consistent information 

about government programs and services. USA.gov has been 

rated the number one Web site in the Federal government for 

quality and e-government readiness by Brown University in its 

annual e-Government report in 2007. 

Organization

GSA delivers services directly to its Federal customers 

through its Central Office in Washington, D.C., a 

network of 11 regional offices, and other sites around the 

world. GSA is composed of the Public Buildings Service (PBS), 

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), 12 staff offices that support 

the Agency, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the 

Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA).

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE (PBS): PBS is the largest public 

real estate organization in the United States, providing 

facilities and workspace solutions to more than 100 Federal 

agencies. PBS aims to provide a superior workplace for the 

Federal worker and superior value for the U.S. taxpayer. 

Balancing these two objectives is PBS’s greatest management 

challenge.

PBS’s activities fall into two broad areas. The first is space 

acquisition through both lease and construction. 

PBS translates general needs into discrete requirements, 

marshals the necessary resources, and delivers the space 

necessary to meet the respective missions of its Federal 

clients. The second area is management of space. This 

involves making decisions on maintenance, servicing tenants, 

and ultimately, deciding when and how to dispose of a 

property at the end of its useful life.

GSA Strategic Goals

Stewardship

Lead federal agencies in the economical 

and efficient management of federal 

assets by spearheading effective policy 

development and by the exemplary 

management of the buildings/

workplaces, motor vehicles, and 

personal property provided by gsa.

Superior Workplaces

Deliver and maintain productive 

workplaces consisting of office space, 

furnishings, technology, supplies, and 

related services.

Best Value

Develop and deliver timely, accurate, 

and cost-effective acquisition services 

and business solutions.

Innovation

Develop new and better ways of 

conducting business that result in 

more productive and effective federal 

policies and administrative operations.
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 17

committees. OGP accomplishes its mission through 

collaboration with Federal agencies and other stakeholders.

OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES AND COMMUNICATIONS (OCSC):

OCSC creates a more citizen-centric, results-oriented Federal 

government. OCSC helps citizens to interact with government 

by creating a single electronic front door to the services and 

information they require in the medium they prefer: the Web, 

e-mail, telephone, fax, or print. OCSC also provides in-house 

communications support to the rest of GSA.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER (OCHCO):

The OCHCO develops and delivers programs, policies, and 

services that promote GSA’s strategic management of human 

capital. A capable and well-managed workforce is essential to 

GSA’s success. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (OCIO): The OCIO 

provides high quality, enterprise IT services and solutions at 

best value by leveraging IT resources that support GSA 

business needs and e-government.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER (OCAO): The OCAO 

manages a broad range of acquisition activities for both GSA 

internal operations and the government as a whole. These 

include: ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulations, 

CHIEF OF STAFF DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR

 ADMINISTRATOR

FEDERAL

ACQUISITION

SERVICE

PUBLIC

BUILDINGS

SERVICE

GSA BOARD

OF CONTRACT

APPEALS

 OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR

GENERAL

NATIONAL

SERVICES

REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL OFFICE

NEW ENGLAND

REGION 1

BOSTON, MA

NORTHEAST AND

CARIBBEAN REGION 2

NEW YORK, NY

MID-ATLANTIC

REGION 3

PHILADELPHIA, PA

SOUTHEAST

SUNBELT REGION 4

ATLANTA, GA

GREAT LAKES

REGION 5

CHICAGO, IL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

REGION 

DENVER, CO

GREATER

SOUTHWEST

REGION 

FT. WORTH, TX

THE HEARTLAND

REGION 

KANSAS CITY, MO

NORTHWEST/

ARCTIC REGION 10

AUBURN, WA

PACIFIC RIM

REGION 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

NATIONAL

CAPITAL REGION 11

WASHINGTON, DC

OFFICE OF THE

CHIEF ACQUISITION

OFFICER

OFFICE OF THE

CHIEF FINANCIAL

 OFFICER

OFFICE OF THE

CHIEF INFORMATION

OFFICER

OFFICE OF THE

CHIEF HUMAN

CAPITAL OFFICER

OFFICE OF CITIZEN

SERVICES AND

COMMUNICATIONS

OFFICE OF

GENERAL

COUNSEL

OFFICE OF

EMERGENCY

RESPONSE

& RECOVERY

OFFICE OF

CONGRESSIONAL

& INTERGOV

AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF

PERFORMANCE

IMPROVEMENT

OFFICE OF

GOVERNMENTWIDE

POLICY

OFFICE OF

SMALL BUSINESS

UTILIZATION

OFFICE OF

CIVIL RIGHTS
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

18 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

and policies; fostering full and open competition for contract 

awards; developing the acquisition workforce; and maintaining 

accountability for acquisition decision-making.

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND RECOVERY (OERR):

OERR is responsible for ensuring that GSA maintains a constant 

state of readiness to provide emergency acquisition support 

and emergency real property to Federal agencies in the event 

of a disaster or catastrophic event. OERR coordinates GSA’s 

national continuity responsibilities by: developing Agency 

policies, plans, and procedures; developing and implementing 

GSA disaster readiness programs; and providing emergency 

acquisition support and serving as the on-the-ground liaison 

between GSA field organizations and Federal emergency 

response efforts during national disasters. OERR coordinates 

emergency management services throughout GSA, develops 

emergency preparedness procedures, shelter-in-place 

guidelines, and training to assist employees in the event of an 

emergency. 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC): The OGC provides legal 

advice and representation to GSA clients to enhance their 

ability to help Federal agencies. The OGC carries out all legal 

activities of GSA, ensures full and proper execution of GSA’s 

statutory responsibilities, and provides legal counsel to GSA 

officials except for the OIG and CBCA. 

OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT (OPI): OPI provides 

advice to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator on major 

policies and procedures related to GSA performance. OPI is 

also responsible for coordinating GSA’s efforts to accomplish 

the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) and competitive 

sourcing activities. 

OFFICE OF SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION (OSBU): OSBU 

advocates for small, minority, veteran, HUBZone, and women 

business owners. OSBU promotes increased access to GSA’s 

nationwide procurement opportunities by nurturing 

entrepreneurial opportunities, outreach, and training.

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

AFFAIRS (OCIA): OCIA maintains Agency liaison with Congress. 

OCIA prepares and coordinates GSA’s annual legislative 

program; communicates this program to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Congress, and other interested 

parties; and works closely with OMB in the coordination and 

clearance of all proposed legislation impacting GSA.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (OCFO): The OCFO 

provides financial management services for all of GSA and 

more than 40 external customers. The OCFO manages strategic 

planning, budgeting, and the performance management cycle 

within GSA; manages GSA’s core accounting system; and 

prepares financial statements and reports.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR): OCR ensures equal 

employment opportunity (EEO) for all GSA associates and 

applicants for employment on the basis of sex, race, color, 

national origin, religion, disability, and age, and protects 

associates from retaliation for protected EEO activity. 

OCR protects recipients of GSA’s Federal Financial Assistance 

and participants in federally conducted programs from 

discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, age, national 

origin, and disability.

CIVILIAN BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS (CBCA): CBCA 

serves as an independent and objective tribunal in contract 

disputes between government contractors and GSA, and 

contractors and other Executive agencies. CBCA provides 

alternative dispute resolution services to all Federal agencies 

and contractors. CBCA also hears claims involving 

transportation rate determinations, Federal employee travel 

and relocation and expense claims, and a small number of 

other types of claims.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG): The OIG conducts an 

independent nationwide audit and investigative program of 

GSA’s internal operations, programs, and external contractors. 

The OIG promotes economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and 

prevents and detects fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the 

Agency’s programs and operations.
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 19

In FY 2007, GSA had 11,931 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees. Staffing levels have steadily declined since 2003; 

this trend is largely driven by efficiency savings. GSA has a 

continuing commitment to its Federal customers and the U.S. 

taxpayers to provide services in the most cost-effective manner 

possible. GSA delivers on this promise by steadily improving 

organizational performance while staffing levels decline. 

FTE BREAKdOWN BY ORGANiZATiON

TOTAL 11,931

PBS

5,996

STAFF OFFicES

1,428

OcSc

134

FAS

3,951

OiG

OGP 297

125

Ribbon cutting ceremony at the opening of the San Francisco Federal Building. 
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

20 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Performance Summary and Highlights

GSA’s activities during FY 2007 advanced the Agency toward achievement of its four strategic goals. Specific 

long-term outcome and performance goals were set in the 

FY 2007 Performance Plan, which also serves as the Agency’s 

Congressional Budget Justification. GSA uses performance 

measures extensively to chart its progress and establish 

accountability.

As part of its new strategic plan, GSA has adopted the phrase 

“One GSA–One Voice” to capture its strategic vision as 

the Federal government’s premier acquisition agency. One 

GSA–One Voice is a state of mind. It translates into an 

approach to everything GSA does and means that whenever 

GSA undertakes a project, it automatically thinks about 

whether there are opportunities to partner with other parts 

of GSA. When such an opportunity becomes a reality, GSA 

works closely together so that the customer sees and hears 

only One GSA–One Voice.

This section highlights the most significant GSA FY 2007 

performance measures and the related performance results. A 

chart of Key Performance Measures follows this discussion 

and detailed performance information is contained in the 

Performance Section.

Here are a few examples of performance strategies for each 

strategic goal that illustrate GSA’s commitment to excellence 

in FY 2007.

Stewardship

Lead Federal agencies in the economical and efficient 

management of Federal assets by spearheading effective 

policy development and by exemplary management of the 

buildings/workplaces, motor vehicles, and personal 

property provided by GSA.

GSA is the steward of most civilian Federal government real 

estate holdings, an extensive fleet of owned and leased motor 

vehicles, and a broad spectrum of personal property. GSA 

manages, maintains, and secures these extensive holdings in 

trust for the Federal government and the U.S. taxpayer.

GSA helps agencies develop plans to continually review and 

drive well-managed inventories. The inventory system GSA is 

currently implementing lists all real property under the 

control and custody of all executive branch agencies. This 

database is the only centralized system of government-wide 

real property inventory information. Government agencies 

will be able to use the information in the database to measure 

the performance of assets, including comparing and 

benchmarking across various types of real property assets and 

identifying property for disposal.

The GSA Fleet currently provides 51 percent of Federal motor 

vehicles, excluding the U.S. Postal Service. Annual growth 

continues through customer consolidations and wide-ranging 

management support. Savings are generated through realignment of customer agency staff and economies of scale.

GSA regularly buys alternative fuel vehicles (AFV). These 

vehicles are concentrated in six major markets to encourage 

the development of infrastructure in the private sector—

service stations, service, and resale markets.

Superior Workplaces

Deliver and maintain productive workplaces consisting of 

office space, furnishings, technology, supplies, and related 

services.

GSA provides owned or leased space for government facilities 

ranging from office headquarters to warehouses to laboratories. GSA constructs new special-purpose space, primarily 

courthouses for the Federal judiciary, and a growing number 

of land ports of entry. GSA preserves and restores historic 

buildings in its inventory. GSA explores the workplace of the 

future and puts its findings into practice.
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 21

A One GSA–One Voice approach means a more collaborative 

process between the customer agency and GSA’s various 

program offices, and allows GSA to standardize and 

institutionalize these improved methods. This partnership 

between the customer and GSA’s two Services promotes 

more integrated procedures and solutions, simplifies the 

customer experience, and leverages agency expertise in 

service delivery.

GSA is currently establishing a new process called Program 

of Requirements Plus (POR+), as a set of tools to deliver 

the requirements identified for its customers’ workspaces. 

The goal is to develop a set of requirements that promote 

national consistency and quality across transactions, are 

professional in appearance, and have the ability to deliver 

innovative workplace solutions as appropriate. The spectrum 

of deliverables include a current assessment of the workplace, 

a determination of future workplace needs, space program 

scenarios, and space program and design briefs.

Through its National Broker Contract, GSA is increasingly 

using contract real estate brokers to perform lease acquisition 

services. The contract allows GSA to focus more on project 

management and the needs of the client agency. This new 

business model will reduce GSA’s fixed costs and increase 

its ability to support a variable business volume. To date, 

customers have benefited from nearly $23.6 million in rent 

savings as a result of commission credits.

Best Value

Develop and deliver timely, accurate, and cost-effective 

acquisition services and business solutions.

GSA is the Federal government’s primary acquisition 

organization. From paperclips to integrated IT solutions, 

GSA meets the changing procurement needs of the Federal 

workforce. GSA has a responsibility to provide the greatest 

value to Federal customer agencies and cost-savings for the 

U.S. taxpayer.

From products, services, and technology to vehicles, travel, 

transportation, and property management solutions, GSA 

manages widely diverse offerings and many different methods 

for acquiring these offerings. GSA will need to provide 

efficient service delivery of overlapping product offerings 

and solutions, while continuing to promote competition, 

procurement integrity, and consistent pricing structures. 

GSA will assess the various financial models to determine 

which can best achieve full cost recovery and ensure rigorous 

fiscal discipline.

GSA is a leader in technology-related acquisition. One 

outstanding example is Alliant—GSA’s new Multiple Award/

Indefinite Quantity contract vehicle for providing worldwide 

IT solutions to Federal agencies. Alliant represents the next 

generation of Government Wide Acquisition Contracts 

(GWAC) for GSA. Alliant offers the greatest flexibility possible 

FY 2007 GSA KEY PERFORMANcE MEASURES SUMMARY

N U M B E R O F M E A S U R E S

NUMBER OF PERFORMANcE MEASURES

MET NOT MET

PBS FAS

0

2

6

12

14

16

B U S I N E S S L I N E

PBS

FAS

OcSc

OcFO

OcHcO

OGP

TOTAL

5

3

1

1

2

12

3

1

1

5

TOTAl

4

8

10

OGP

TOTAL

8

4

1

1

1

2

17

OCSC OCFO OCHCO

18

20
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

22 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

for efficiently and effectively supporting Federal government 

daily operations.

GSA’s Networx program is another future-looking technology 

that provides comprehensive, best-value telecommunications 

and networking services and technical solutions to all 

Federal agencies. More specifically, it supports governmentwide enterprise architecture and provides cross agency 

collaboration, transformation, and government-wide 

technology improvement. Networx will maximize the use of 

government resources by providing a common procurement 

infrastructure and a performance-based approach to 

encompass commercial, technical, and interface standards.

Innovation

Develop new and better ways of conducting business that 

result in more productive and effective Federal policies and 

administrative operations.

GSA is the Federal government’s policy management leader 

for property and logistical support. As such, the Agency 

continually evaluates and develops innovative approaches to 

address emerging challenges and opportunities in Federal 

services and activities.

GSA facilitates government-wide reform by providing Federal 

managers with business-like tools. Examples of these tools 

are the Federal Automotive Statistics Tool and the Federal 

Aviation Interactive Reporting System. These two tools allow 

agencies to capture, analyze, and report operating costs for 

motor vehicles and aircraft.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a virtual design and 

construction technology that provides three dimensional 

(3D) visualization and 4D construction sequencing. These 

capabilities allow users to breakdown a project on computers 

in the actual sequence in which it will be built. GSA is 

currently using BIM for several active projects and is 

committed to adopting it more widely in its capital 

construction program.

GSA is a leader in sustainable design and has achieved 

certification for four government-owned buildings and six 

build-to-suit leased buildings. The certification represents 

external review and approval of the application of energy 

management techniques used in a building. GSA has 

also registered 50 buildings under the U.S. Green Building 

Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) building rating system. GSA will continue to lead in 

sustainable design by advocating for siting of Federal facilities 

with consideration for local transportation and enhancing 

sustainability in communities. The result will be a facility with 

an optimal balance of cost, environmental, societal, and 

human benefits, while meeting the mission and functional 

needs of the customer agency. GSA intends that sustainable 

design will be integrated as seamlessly as possible into the 

existing design and construction process.

GSA’s Environmental Services (899) Multiple Award Schedule 

(MAS) offers a list of businesses approved to sell Federal 

agencies everything from environmental assessments and 

energy management programs to recycled paper, fluorescent 

lighting, paints, chemicals, and pollution-prevention systems 

to assist customer agencies in meeting their environmental 

requirements. GSA also helps agencies reduce petroleum 

consumption by offering AFVs and hybrid electric vehicles 

(HEV) for lease and purchase, reducing the Federal 

government’s reliance on fossil fuels. One other way that GSA 

customers are able to buy green is through GSA Advantage’s 

Environmental Aisle. Through the use of this tool, customers 

are able to search for products and services based on their 

environmental classification (i.e. recycled content, 

environmentally friendly, etc.). This tool provides direct 

access to the thousands of environmental products and 

services featured in GSA Advantage and enables customers to 

easily find environmentally friendly products and services 

offered by GSA.
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 23

FY 2007 Key Performance Measures 

within Strategic Goals

Strategic Goal/

Service or Office Measures FY 2007

Target

FY 2007

Actual Result

STEWARDSHIP

PBS-Asset Management Percentage of available and committed space in 

government-owned inventory

7% 7.70% Not Met

PBS-Asset Management Customer Satisfaction - tenants in owned space 75% 78% Met

PBS-Real Property Percent of public sales awarded within 170 days 100% 100% Met

FAS-Fleet Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates below 

commercial rates on the GSA Vehicle Leasing 

Schedule

>29.25% 42.38% Met

OCFO Percent of invoices received electronically 80% 73% Not Met

OCHCO Number of days to fill a vacancy 45 26.25 Met

SUPERIOR WORKPLACES

PBS-Asset Management Repairs and alterations (R&A) projects on 

schedule

88% 94.20% Met

PBS-New Construction Construction projects on schedule 87% 79.80% Not Met

FAS-Fleet External customer satisfaction survey score 83.10% 84.90% Met

BEST VALUE

PBS-Asset Management Percent below private sector benchmarks for 

cleaning, maintenance and utility costs in office 

and similarly serviced space

-3% -1.60% Not Met

PBS-Leasing Cost of leased space relative to industry market 

rates

-8.80% -10.60% Met

FAS-AAS-National IT Solutions Percentage of negotiated award dates for services 

and commodities that are met or bettered

>95% 72% Not Met

FAS-TMVCS-Vehicle 

Acquisition

Percentage discount from invoice price >28.50% 31.90% Met

INNOVATION

PBS-Asset Management Percent reduction in energy consumption over 

the FY 2003 baseline

-4% -8.30% Met

OCSC Citizen touchpoints 168.8M 222M Met

OGP Extent to which OGP policy initiatives achieve 

improvement targets

84% 98% Met

OGP Percentage of key policy stakeholders and agency 

users who rate OGP policy initiatives effective

57% 70% Met
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

24 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

The President’s Management Agenda

GSA’s Status and Progress

INITIATIVE CURRENT STATUS PROGRESS

Human Capital

Competitive Sourcing

Financial Performance

E-Government

Performance Improvement

Real Property

Transportation

Environmental Stewardship

Energy Management

What Progress Indicates 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

assesses agency progress on a case-by-case basis 

against the deliverables and timelines established 

for the nine initiatives that are agreed upon with 

each agency as follows:

Green

Implementation is proceeding according 

to plans agreed upon with the agencies.

YELLOW

Some slippage or other issues requiring 

adjustment by the agency in order to achieve 

the initiative objectives on a timely basis.

RED

Initiative in serious jeopardy. Unlikely to 

realize objectives absent significant 

management intervention.

The President’s Management Agenda (PMA) has helped 

GSA focus on achieving results based upon clear goals 

and challenging expectations. GSA is pleased with its progress 

in each of the initiatives under the PMA. The following pages 

provide a brief description of each initiative, provide the 

current status of the management program, and describe 

GSA’s progress to “get to green” as GSA implements the PMA 

with the ultimate goal of improving government performance 

and providing better service to citizens.
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 25

Background: The Human Capital Initiative requires Federal 

agencies to develop both a vision and a roadmap for 

strategically managing their workforces so they can better 

accomplish their missions on behalf of the American people. 

Agencies are required to build, sustain, and effectively deploy a 

skilled, knowledgeable, diverse workforce to meet the current 

and emerging needs of the Federal government. 

Status: GSA achieved “green” status in FY 2007, completing 

all critical success factors. GSA demonstrated significant 

workforce planning and analysis in its efforts to support 

GSA’s strategic assessment and budget process, organizational 

structure and workforce restructuring efforts, requests for 

personnel flexibilities, and documenting progress with human 

capital initiatives. GSA continued the restructuring of the 

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), which resulted in realigning 

one-third of GSA’s workforce. GSA’s senior leaders worked 

closely with union officials to ensure an effective transition. 

GSA continued to focus on efforts to address mission 

critical workforce needs. Talent management strategies were 

implemented to improve hiring process results, expand the 

use of diverse recruitment sources and hiring flexibilities, 

address employee development and training needs, and 

address retention issues. The Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) ranked GSA’s Associate Performance Plan and Appraisal 

System (APPAS) as an “effective strategy” which is the highest 

performing category. OPM approved GSA’s human capital 

accountability system. Based on employee survey results, OPM 

ranked GSA in the top 10 of 36 agencies in talent management, 

leadership and knowledge management, and job satisfaction.

Progress: GSA continued to be “green” in progress for 

Strategic Management of Human Capital, completing all 

deliverables effectively and efficiently. GSA verified its current 

human capital strategic goals and updated its Human Capital 

Strategic Plan (HCSP) to align with GSA’s new Strategic Plan. 

Strategic workforce planning efforts supported GSA’s 

Performance Management Process (PMP) in the Strategic 

Assessment and Budget assessment and analysis phases. 

Workforce planning and analysis also supported effective 

talent management strategies for GSA’s mission critical 

workforce. GSA used personnel flexibilities to drive 

organizational alignment and performance improvement. The 

Agency implemented effective actions to improve mission 

critical workforce competency levels through targeted hiring, 

training, development, and retention strategies. Recruitment, 

Workforce Development, and Retention Tools displaying 

historical workforce data, trends, and available flexibilities 

were established in an effort to centralize information for 

mission critical workforce hiring managers. GSA continued to 

improve its hiring process and outcomes by implementing 

recommendations from the Staff Acquisition Business Process 

Re-engineering (BPR) effort. Extensive workforce planning, 

standardized processes, and increased employee expertise 

have reduced processing time and improved hiring manager 

satisfaction to above 80 percent. GSA’s hiring process 

averaged 30 and 75 days for General Schedule and Senior 

Executive Service (SES) hires, respectively. To support its 

existing leadership programs, GSA implemented a national 

mentoring program as a means of providing additional 

leadership development to employees. GSA piloted the use of 

OPM Federal Competency Assessment Tool for Managers 

(FCAT-M) to assess leadership competencies. Under the 

Learning/Knowledge Management category, GSA was ranked 

third of 36 agencies for employees having electronic access to 

learning and training programs readily available at their desk. 

GSA ranked sixth of 36 agencies for employee satisfaction 

with the training received for their present job. In addition to 

the availability of training, GSA posts policy and guidance on 

the Web, uses online job tools and desk guides, and has a work 

environment that supports knowledge sharing. 

PMA

Status Strategic Management of Human Capital Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

26 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

BACKGROUND: The goal of competitive sourcing is to 

improve agency performance by using the A-76 process 

to create processes that are more efficient. Public/private 

competitions, as described in OMB Circular A-76, are used to 

evaluate the efficiency of performing commercial activities 

with government personnel versus contract employees. 

Status: GSA received a status score of “yellow” on OMB’s 

Quarterly Scorecard for the fourth quarter of FY 2007. This 

was the first time GSA scored less than green since the fourth 

quarter of FY 2004. During the last half of FY 2007, GSA 

revised its long-term competitive sourcing plan to reschedule 

some of its competitive sourcing initiatives from FY 2007 

to FY 2008. This revision required that some competitive 

sourcing initiatives be rescheduled later in FY 2008. The delay 

of these initiatives resulted in the downgrade on the OMB 

fourth quarter scorecard.

GSA has completed more than 80 competitions through 

FY 2006. Although there were no additional competitions 

completed in FY 2007, GSA spent FY 2007 implementing 

the competitions completed in the fourth quarter of 

FY 2006 and improving internally developed tools designed 

to facilitate the reporting requirements of OMB Circular A-76. 

GSA’s Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Inventory 

Tool (FIT) consolidated all GSA service and staff offices into 

one database. The improved FIT, a Web-based tool, allows 

for greater analysis and review at all levels within GSA and 

provided the first FAIR Act Inventory “upload” in FY 2007 as 

required by OMB. GSA also made progress in developing an 

automated post-competition accountability process utilizing 

the Activity Cost Tracking Tool (ACTT) System developed by 

the U.S. Air Force. Although still in the development stages, 

GSA has developed a process to provide the necessary data 

to OMB during the first quarter of FY 2008 as required. As 

discussed above, an update to GSA’s Competitive Sourcing 

Green Plan for FY 2008 - FY 2012 was sent to OMB as well 

as the FY 2007 FAIR Act Inventory, the GSA “Proud to Be as 

of July 1, 2009 Report” and the GSA “Report to Congress on 

Competitive Sourcing for FY 2006” in accordance with OMB 

requirements.

Progress: Although GSA did not complete any competitions 

in FY 2007, feasibility studies were conducted on the FAS 

maintenance control center function and the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) financial operations function. 

Results of these studies were not available in time for this 

report. As GSA moves forward in the evaluation of functions 

to be subject to an A-76 competition, more and more attention 

must be paid to the residual impact a competition has on GSA. 

Line of Business (LoB) initiatives, Shared Service Provider 

(SSP) status, and internal restructuring of various organizations have placed a strain on the resources available for 

competitive sourcing activities. GSA continues to constantly 

reevaluate its priorities to insure it is focusing on its core 

mission, as well as striving towards the development of more 

efficient processes. Recognizing this dilemma, GSA revised 

future deliverables on its fourth quarter scorecard resulting in 

a downgrade from “green” to “yellow” in progress.

PMA

Status Competitive Sourcing Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 27

Background: This initiative is intended to improve the 

quality of the Federal government’s financial information so 

agencies can improve the integrity and efficiency of their 

operations as well as improve financial performance by 

ensuring that Federal financial systems produce accurate and 

timely information critical to Federal managers for managing 

cost and making decisions.

Status: GSA successfully met the criteria for “green” status 

and is continuing to strengthen its internal control structure 

wherever it is cost beneficial to do so. GSA views strong 

internal control as another form of customer service. Given 

the facts that GSA has again received an unqualified audit 

opinion, has no repeat material weaknesses, is “green” in all 

but one Metric Tracking System performance measure, and, 

fully implemented OMB Circular A-123, GSA is confident 

that it is heading in the right direction. In addition, GSA 

submitted its Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR) 

in record time, once again received the CEAR award and has 

no material intragovernmental differences. These noteworthy 

accomplishments were successfully achieved while reducing 

overhead. 

Progress: GSA’s progress rating is “green.” GSA has a number 

of initiatives underway to further strengthen its internal 

control environment and structure. GSA looks forward to 

realizing the benefits of these efforts through increased 

efficiency and timelier availability of financial information 

for decision-making and customer support. GSA’s goal is to 

ensure accurate data for reporting and greater flexibility to 

respond to information requests.

PMA

Status Improved Financial Performance Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

28 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Background: The E-Gov initiatives and LoBs support specific 

goals to reduce redundancy of information technology (IT) 

investments, increase the effectiveness of outreach to citizens, 

and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of IT investment 

management. As the E-Gov initiatives and LoBs continue to 

be integrated into the normal day-to-day operations of the 

Federal government, more opportunities for consolidation, 

increased maturity, and customer utilization will come.

GSA’s goals include helping the government become more 

citizen-centric, assisting individuals and businesses to 

complete government transactions online, and working with 

other agencies on government-wide initiatives. GSA is also 

focused on its internal IT management to ensure the projects 

are well managed and that IT spending is not duplicative of 

the initiatives. 

GSA’s IT team will continue to identify and retire redundant 

IT systems and ensure GSA associates have the technology 

needed to do their jobs and that GSA systems are secure. 

Status: GSA’s status rating is “yellow.” Major accomplishments 

include GSA’s enterprise architecture receiving an OMB 

assessment rating of “4”; GSA’s 28 major IT programs have 

acceptable business cases; and an overall IT portfolio 

performance within 10 percent of planned cost, schedule, and 

performance. GSA continues to make progress toward 

improving its status rating to “green” through strengthening 

its earned value management practices along with ensuring 

that all major E-Gov milestones are completed and delivered 

on time.

Progress: GSA’s progress rating is “red.” GSA continues to 

deliver on the vast majority of the PMA goals and quarterly 

E-Gov planned actions. For FY 2007, GSA completed 31 out of 

34 major E-Gov implementation milestones, a 91 percent 

overall performance rating, but missed a few of the major 

milestones, resulting in a “red” progress rating. GSA remains 

committed to ensure that all major milestones are completed 

in the future.

Key GSA E-Gov accomplishments include:

Federal Asset Sales – Posting 100 percent of all GSA assets 

to the govsales.gov portal, the official site to buy US 

property. In addition, agencies such as the Departments 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture (USDA) have 100 percent of their assets posted to the 

portal. 

E-Travel – All major agencies have issued task orders 

through the e-Travel program helping the Federal 

government get closer to the promise of fully optimizing 

agency travel budgets while saving taxpayer dollars.

USA Services – Partnered with the Departments of State 

to provide information to citizens regarding new passport 

regulations (Western Hemisphere Initiative). USA Services 

also completed a customer satisfaction survey with the 

overall rating result of 94 percent. 

USA.GOV – Time magazine honored usa.gov as one of the 

“25 Sites We Can’t Live Without.”

PMA

Status Expanded Electronic Government Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 29

BACKGROUND: This initiative is aimed at providing greater 

focus on performance. It is enhancing the quality of 

information on program results so that the government can 

make better-informed resource allocation decisions. The 

outcome will be better control over resources and 

accountability for results by program managers. 

Status: GSA has remained “green” on the President’s quarterly 

scorecard for “current status.” The Agency has continued to 

work hard at completing all outstanding criteria for “green,” 

specifically by developing a new Strategic Plan, successfully 

removing the final program from the Results Not Demonstrated list, having Long-Term Outcome Goals and efficiency 

measures for all Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 

participating programs, reporting marginal costs that are 

satisfactory to OMB, and reporting success stories in the 

Results.gov Web site.

The new five-year Strategic Plan outlines the actions to be 

taken to improve customer service delivery and to better 

integrate the offerings of the Public Buildings Service (PBS) 

and the Federal Acquisition Services (FAS). It reflects the 

vision of One GSA—One Voice. The plan serves as a roadmap 

to acquisition excellence and provides direction for creatively 

moving forward. It serves as a guide for integrating 

performance and budget according to GSA’s Mission, Vision, 

and Strategic Goals.

In this year’s PART process, GSA rescored the Assisted 

Acquisition Services (AAS) Portfolio (previously scored as 

Regional IT and National IT). The program area developed 

long-term goals with attainable targets and efficiency measures 

and received an “adequate” rating. The Agency reassessed two 

programs: General Supplies and Services (GSS) portfolio, rated 

“adequate”; and Asset Management of Owned Real Property, 

rated “effective.” GSA completed the last remaining program 

to be included in the PART process, the Integrated Technology 

Services (ITS) Portfolio, and received a “moderately effective” 

rating. GSA now maintains a “green” status by having all of its 

programs successfully rated by the PART process.

Progress: The Agency continues to be “green” in progress. 

GSA successfully completed all of its fourth quarter 

deliverables. Through the Agency’s internal Performance 

Management Process (PMP), GSA has made great strides in 

identifying long-term outcome goals and efficiency measures 

for its programs. The Administrator continues to conduct 

quarterly reviews of each organization’s financial and 

performance results. GSA has also developed a Green Plan 

that includes specific actions the Agency will complete to 

maintain its “green” rating.

PMA

Status Performance Improvement Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

30 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

BACKGROUND: On February 4, 2004, the President signed 

Executive Order 13227 addressing Federal Real Property Asset 

Management. Real Property was added to the PMA in August 

2004. The goal of the Executive Order and this initiative is 

to promote the efficient and economical use of U.S. real 

property assets and to assure management accountability for 

implementing Federal real property management reforms.

Status: In the last quarter of FY 2006, GSA was the first agency 

to achieve “green” on the President’s quarterly Executive 

scorecard for “current status.” Through its continued progress 

in rightsizing its portfolio, GSA has continued to maintain its 

“green” status throughout FY 2007.

In FY 2007, GSA continued to demonstrate to OMB results 

in implementing the right-sizing goals of utilization, disposal, 

operation and maintenance, and physical condition. GSA has 

maintained a utilization rate in government-owned assets 

of over 90 percent for the past six years, disposed of 281 

underutilized assets since FY 2002, and maintained operating 

costs below the private sector.

Progress: GSA maintained “green” in progress for real 

property throughout the entirety of FY 2007 by completing 

all deliverables and all milestones identified in the three-year 

timeline and the “Proud to Be” document. 

Specifically in FY 2007, GSA reviewed and updated its asset 

level strategies to identify opportunities for improvement, 

reported excess over 250,000 rentable square feet (RSF) 

reducing GSA’s reinvestment liability by over $24 million, 

received proceeds from the sale of vacant and underutilized 

property in excess of $69 million, and targeted seven percent 

of capital investment dollars on energy projects. 

GSA will continue to play a leadership role in advancing real 

property asset management through both its example and its 

leadership on the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC). 

PMA

Status Real Property Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 31

BACKGROUND: The Transportation Management Initiative 

requires Federal agencies to develop a strategy and longterm plan to improve the efficiency and performance of their 

motor vehicle fleets. Executive Order 13423, dated January 

24, 2007, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and 

Transportation Management,” provides that agencies with 20 

or more motor vehicles, relative to their FY 2005 baseline, 

reduce the total consumption of petroleum products by two 

percent annually through the end of FY 2015; increase the total 

fuel consumption that is non-petroleum based by 10 percent 

annually; and use plug-in hybrid (PIH) vehicles when they are 

commercially available at a cost reasonably comparable, on 

the basis of life-cycle cost, to non-PIH vehicles.

Status: GSA continued to achieve an overall “red” status 

through the end of FY 2007, but moved from “red” to “green” 

in progress for the management of its internal nationwide 

motor vehicle fleet on the President’s Executive scorecard for 

“current status.”

This dramatic improvement is due to the development 

of internal and government-wide partnerships to address 

obstacles impeding the collection and analysis of information 

underpinning performance data on GSA’s internal nationwide 

vehicle fleet.

Progress: Continuing actions since January 1, 2007 by GSA 

to improve transportation management include:

Development of an Automated Fuel Reporting System. 

GSA developed an internal Agency-wide Fuel Information 

System (FIS) to track the use of petroleum and nonpetroleum fuels. Beginning in FY 2008, all motor vehicle 

operators will be required to report fuel usage data 

contemporaneously using either a telephone/cell phone, 

or Internet-based application. The deployment of the 

FIS addresses the most significant obstacle facing GSA in 

the collection of credible data to document its progress 

in achieving the goals established by Executive Order 

13423.

Identification of Opportunities for Increased Use of NonPetroleum Fuels. GSA has consistently scored “green” 

in its efforts to acquire alternative fuel vehicles (AFV). 

During FY 2007, GSA analyzed its internal fleet to identify 

the proximity of AFVs to fueling stations offering E-85 

(mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) 

products. The results of this analysis were submitted to 

the Department of Energy (DOE).

Development of a vehicle allocation methodology. GSA’s 

Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP), in partnership 

with the Agency’s internal fleet manager, issued a contract 

to develop a vehicle allocation methodology. The new 

vehicle allocation methodology tool will be deployed 

in FY 2008 to match future vehicle acquisitions with 

the long-term goals established by Executive Order 

13423. Supported by data generated by the new FIS, 

the vehicle allocation methodology will help match 

vehicle requirements with environmentally preferable 

transportation management options.

PMA

Status Transportation Management Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

32 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

BACKGROUND: On January 25, 2006, OMB introduced the 

Executive Management Scorecard (EMS) for Environmental 

Stewardship. This scorecard covers five areas: Environmental 

Management System implementation, green purchasing, 

sustainable design, electronic product stewardship, and 

compliance management. The scorecard tracks the progress 

and status of departments and major agencies in implementing 

statutory and Executive Order requirements in each area.

Status: GSA maintained its “yellow” status for FY 2007. 

Fewer than 20 percent of the EMS facility metrics were 

rated “red” on the EMS (incorporated into the Environmental 

Stewardship Scorecard in FY 2007). PBS’s EMS continues 

to improve and is being expanded to two regions with 

a third planned for FY 2008. A draft Green Purchasing 

Policy is undergoing review and will replace the existing 

Affirmative Procurement Policy. GSA continues its longstanding commitment to designing green buildings. It has 

completed new green language to strengthen GSA leases, 

and new build-to-suit leases will require Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) “silver” certification. GSA 

has also developed optional language for tenants wishing to 

pursue LEED for commercial interiors. As signatories of the 

Memorandum of Understanding on Electronics Stewardship, 

GSA is committed to reducing the environmental impact of its 

electronic product management practices. A draft Electronics 

Stewardship Action Plan is under review. The Office of the 

Chief Information Officer (OCIO) also issued a new hardware 

shutdown policy that will help reduce energy usage of GSA 

computers. The GSA Compliance Management Plan and 

implementation strategy has been developed, and is actively 

managed by PBS. As part of this strategy, 21 federally owned 

buildings have completed environmental compliance audits. 

Progress: GSA’s progress fell from “green” to “yellow.” 

According to the Office of the Federal Environmental 

Executive, this is primarily due to insufficient progress in 

finalizing the Green Procurement Policy and Electronics 

Stewardship Action Plan. It is expected that this review will 

be complete by November 2007. Strong progress continues 

in all other areas. EMS implementation in GSA’s Region 11 

and Region 9 is nearly complete, hazardous waste compliance 

training was provided to over 1,000 building managers, GSA 

has developed a dashboard for reporting LEED certification 

progress, 40 additional compliance audits are scheduled 

for FY 2008, and “green language” has been fully integrated 

into the national operations and maintenance and janitorial 

services contracts.

PMA

Status Environmental Stewardship Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 33

BACKGROUND: This initiative supports specific goals to 

reduce energy consumption in Federal buildings mandated 

by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Executive Order 13423. 

The goal is to ensure GSA utilizes cost effective energy 

management strategies that will result in a reduction of energy 

and water consumption, increase use of renewable energy, 

and utilize advanced metering technology in the buildings 

GSA operates. 

Status: GSA maintained its “green” status by successfully 

meeting all criteria for the energy management scorecard in 

FY 2007. Specifically, GSA was successful in reducing energy 

intensity by 3.76 percent over the FY 2003 baseline without 

incorporating any renewable purchase Btu reduction credits. 

This reduction increases to 8.3 percent with the application 

of the purchased renewable energy credit. GSA increased 

its use of renewable energy equivalent to 7.49 percent 

of its purchased electricity used in FY 2007, so GSA is on 

track to meet renewable purchase goals. Additionally, GSA 

is implementing its approved metering plan in appropriate 

facilities and met 100 percent of current milestones in its 

approved plan. GSA distributed advanced metering funding to 

the regional level to move the Agency metering plan forward. 

GSA upgraded an advanced metering analytical software 

program to a newer version with better reporting tools to 

enable users to share template analysis giving GSA enhanced 

ability to monitor all advanced meters in its inventory from an 

enterprise-wide Web-based tool.

Progress: GSA previously received a “green” score on 

progress but dropped to “yellow” because it did not submit 

required information identifying new design starts for 

FY 2007, and is striving to demonstrate that 100 percent of 

new building designs started after October 1, 2006, are 30 

percent more efficient than the 2004 International Energy 

Conservation Code (residential buildings) or the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004 (non-residential 

buildings).

PMA

Status Energy Management Progress
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

34 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

For FY 2007, the independent accounting firm of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PwC) expressed an 

unqualified (clean) opinion on GSA’s comparative FYs 2007 

and 2006, proprietary financial statements, the Consolidating 

Statements of Net Cost, Balance Sheets, and Statements of 

Changes in Net Position, as well as the budgetary Combining 

Statements of Budgetary Resources. Throughout FY 2007 

GSA’s management significantly increased attention and 

internal controls over budgetary reporting as part of its duties 

to ensure accountability over resources that are entrusted 

to it, as well as to provide accurate and reliable information. 

Agency management is accountable for the integrity of the 

financial information presented in the financial statements.

The financial statements and financial data presented in this 

report have been prepared from GSA’s accounting records in 

conformity with generally accepted accounting principles 

(GAAP) in the United States. GAAP for Federal entities are the 

standards prescribed by the Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board (FASAB). 

Overview of Financial Position

ASSETS: Total assets were $29,162 million at the end 

of FY 2007. This represents an increase of $692 million 

(2.4 percent) over the previous year’s total assets of 

$28,470 million. This increase is largely attributable to 

continued growth in GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) 

primary business operations, which is reflected in capital 

asset purchases and alterations and increases in earnings that 

provided cash (Fund Balance with Treasury) from operations. 

Taken together, Property and Equipment combined with Fund 

Balance with Treasury comprise 94.1 percent of the total assets 

for FY 2007. The $132 million increase in Fund Balance with 

Treasury was primarily due to overall profits in the Acquisition 

Services Fund (ASF) that are used to maintain sufficient 

working capital, as well as to provide sufficient resources for 

capital investments in fleet vehicles and unique program 

requirements, such as conversion costs associated with the 

government-wide Networx telecommunications contract. 

The $7,011 million of Fund Balance with Treasury is generally

available to GSA to liquidate outstanding commitments 

($884 million of net obligations), to provide working capital to 

the revolving fund programs, and contains balances that will 

fund future needs. While the majority of these balances

($5,670 million) are available for such future needs, $2,262 

million of the available balance is committed to the funding of 

building construction and alteration projects provided for in 

legislation. Amounts totaling $474 million were unavailable 

for spending as of September 30, 2007 and would require 

future authorization or legislation to be used.

GSA’s assets reflected in the Consolidating Balance Sheets are 

summarized in the table below:

assets (Dollars in Millions) FY 2007 FY 2006

Property and Equipment, Net $ 20,419 $ 19,699

Fund Balance with Treasury 7,011 6,879

Accounts Receivable, Net 1,480 1,609

Other Assets 252 283

Total Assets $ 29,162 $ 28,470

Financial Statements Analysis 

and Summary
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 35

ASSETS BY TYPE (Dollars in Millions)

TOTAL ASSETS $29,162

PROPERTY ANd

EQUiPMENT, NET

70.02%

$20,419

OTHER ASSETS

0.86%

$252

AccOUNTS

REcEiVABLE, NET

5.08%

$1,480

FUNd BALANcE

WiTH TREASURY

24.04%

$7,011

Property and Equipment increased by $720 million (3.7 percent) from FY 2006. Property acquisitions of $2,493 million during 

the year, net of the recorded depreciation expense of $1,455 million and $307 million in property disposals and write-offs, 

account for most of this increase. For the total amount of property acquisitions in FY 2007, $1,640 million were comprised of 

construction, modernization, and alterations to buildings.

LIABILITIES: In FY 2007, total Agency liabilities decreased by $324 million (5.4 percent) to $5,635 million from $5,959 million 

in FY 2006. Liabilities reported on the Consolidating Balance Sheet are summarized in the table below.

For FY 2007 GSA’s largest liability balance is Intragovernmental Debt. The $2,151 million of Intragovernmental Debt is 38.2 percent 

of total liabilities, of which $31 million is unfunded. Periodically, in lieu of direct appropriations, GSA receives authority in its FBF to 

finance construction of buildings. Borrowings have been obtained from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (U.S. Treasury) Federal 

Financing Bank (FFB), with the expenditure of the funds amortized over a 30-year period. GSA has almost depleted its authority to 

borrow and is currently paying off more debt than it is currently borrowing. 

LIABILITIES (Dollars in Millions) FY 2007 FY 2006

Accounts Payable $ 1,955 $ 2,134

Intragovernmental Debt 2,151 2,192

Other Unfunded Liabilities 226 176

Workers’ Compensation 198 197

Capital Leases/Installment Purchases 427 451

U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund 269 238

Contingencies/Environmental Disposals 157 156

Deferred Revenues/Advances 97 145

Miscellaneous Liabilities 155 270

Total Liabilities $ 5,635 $ 5,959
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

36 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

(results of $655 million) which mostly funds the capital needs 

for building construction and alterations. The Acquisition 

Services Fund (ASF) Net Results of Operations also increased 

significantly with solid earnings and other changes totaling 

$330 million.

Results of Operations

The results of operations are reported in the Consolidated 

Statements of Net Cost and the Consolidated Statements of 

Changes in Net Position.

The Consolidated Statements of Net Cost presents the cost 

(net of any earned revenue) of operating the FBF, ASF, the 

GSA Working Capital Fund (WCF) and other operating funds 

in reporting the Agency’s Net Cost. 

GSA’s total Net Revenue from Operations at the end of 

FY 2007, after intra-agency eliminations, was $488 million, 

a $79 million (19.3 percent) increase from the prior fiscal 

year. The Net Revenue from Operations is presented as Total 

Revenues less Total Expenses at the end of FY 2007. The most 

significant reason for this increase in GSA’s Net Operating 

Results is attributable to ASF net revenue of $122 million at 

the end of FY 2007, compared to $12 million in FY 2006. 

This significant change reflects a return to results closer to 

expectations. Results from FY 2006 were significantly lower 

LiABiLiTiES BY TYPE (Dollars in Millions)

2.75%

$155

1.72%

$97

2.79%

$157

7.58%

$427 4.77%

$269

LiABiLiTiES

Accounts Payable

Intragovernmental Debt

Other Unfunded Liabilities

Worker’s Compensation

Capital Leases/Installment Purchases

U.S.Treasury Judgment Fund

Contingencies/Environmental Disposals

Deferred Revenues/Advances

Miscellaneous Liabilitie

TOTAL LiABiLiTiES $5,635

3.51%

$198

38.17%

$2,151

34.70%

$1,955

4.01%

$226

Accounts payable makes up 34.7 percent of total liabilities. 

These balances decreased $179 million (3.0 percent) in FY 2007 

primarily due to continued decline in the ASF in the business 

activity of IT Solutions. The decrease in business activity for the 

ASF is further explained in the section on Results of Operations.

Liabilities totaling $1,345 million, or 23.9 percent of total liabilities, were unfunded, (i.e., budgetary resources are not yet 

available). For most unfunded liabilities, budgetary resources 

will be made available in the years balances are due, in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) funding 

guidelines. The major elements of unfunded liabilities are 

$198 million for Workers’ Compensation, $427 million for capital 

leases and installment purchases, $269 million for reimbursements due the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund for costs from past 

litigation, and $157 million for contingencies and environmental/

disposal liabilities.

ENDING NET POSITION: GSA’s Net Position at the end of FY 2007 

on the Consolidating Balance Sheet and the Consolidating 

Statement of Changes in Net Position was $23,527 million, 

a $1,016 million (4.5 percent) increase from the prior fiscal 

year. Net Position is the sum of the Unexpended Appropriations and Cumulative Results of Operations. 

The increase in Cumulative Results of Operations resulted 

primarily from the Net Results of Operations in GSA’s FBF 
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 37

than normal following the write-off of a major IT development project, which reduced earnings by approximately 

$80 million. In addition, losses from normal operations in the 

IT Solutions program in FY 2006 totaled $75 million. Despite 

reductions in business demand that continued into FY 2007, 

cost containment actions reduced losses from IT Solutions 

operations to $57 million in FY 2007. Management has taken 

significant actions to restructure business processes and 

further reduce operating costs to stop the recurring losses 

in FY 2008.

The charts below summarize the activity on GSA’s 

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost (before intra-GSA 

eliminations) and the Consolidated Statements of Changes 

in Net Position by showing the funds available to GSA in 

FY 2007 and how these funds were used.

HOW FUNdS WERE USEd (Dollars in Millions)

FEdERAL

BUiLdiNGS FUNd

$8,315

48.23%

AcQUiSiTiON

SERVicES FUNd

$8,020

46.51%

APPROPRiATiONS

USEd

$290

1.68%

OTHER FUNdS

$617

3.58%

REVENUE SOURcES (Dollars in Millions)

FEdERAL

BUiLdiNGS FUNd

$8,873

50.10%

AcQUiSiTiON

SERVicES FUNd

$8,142

45.96%

APPROPRiATiONS

REcEiVEd

$307

1.73%

OTHER FUNdS

$392

2.21%
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

38 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Budgetary Issues

The decline in certain ASF business volume discussed in the 

sections above also had a significant effect on the budgetary 

statements, as Unfilled Customer Orders decreased by $786 

million and Obligations incurred decreased by $308 million. 

In addition, Accounts Receivable from Federal customers 

decreased by $179 million and Collections decreased by a 

total of $460 million. Total Budgetary Resources in the ASF 

declined $959 million (8.4 percent).

Funding for capital investment in real property remains a 

significant challenge. The current funding level of the FBF 

is inadequate to meet the demand for new construction, 

particularly new courthouses and facilities with stringent 

security requirements, and the need to reinvest in the existing 

inventory of government-owned buildings. Public Buildings 

Service’s (PBS) Strategy for Restructuring and Reinvesting 

in the Owned Inventory has brought new emphasis to 

addressing the non-performing assets in the PBS inventory. 

This effort, along with asset management reform legislation 

and continued support for repairs and alterations (R&A) 

funding, is essential to reducing the $6.3 billion backlog of 

building R&A work and providing quality space for GSA’s 

Federal customers and the visiting public.
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 39

GSA is pleased to provide the following assurances as to the status and effectiveness of the internal control and 

management systems in place at GSA. For FY 2007, GSA’s 

Administrator provides her unqualified Statement of Assurance 

on overall internal controls, as well as internal control over 

financial reporting. GSA continues to make progress in 

strengthening its management practices and internal control 

to assure the integrity of its programs, operations, and business 

and financial management systems. GSA has fully embraced 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, 

Management’s Responsibilities for Internal Control; the 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA); OMB 

Circular A-127, Financial Management Systems; and the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) as 

the foundation of effective internal control essential to timely 

and reliable financial management operations. The FMFIA 

requires agencies to establish management controls over their 

programs and financial systems. GSA’s internal control and 

audit follow-up programs ensure all internal control reviews 

are conducted for program components and audit findings 

are responded to in a timely and accurate manner. 

Internal Control

Throughout the fiscal year, GSA managers monitor and 

improve the effectiveness of internal management control 

associated with their programs and systems. Effective internal 

control and management systems go hand in hand with GSA’s 

well-trained program experts, customer satisfaction, and 

innovative solutions to ensure GSA meets the ever-changing 

needs and challenges within the Federal community. 

Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance

 Audit Follow-up

During the fiscal year, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit 

specific GSA programs, systems, and operations. As an 

agreement is reached between GSA and the auditors through 

a management decision process, a written plan for corrective 

action is developed. GSA then submits this plan to the auditors 

for their concurrence. When the auditors and GSA reach 

concurrence and the recommendations are met through 

corrective action, the audit is considered resolved. The audit 

follow-up program ensures that prompt and responsive 

action is taken. GSA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

(OCFO) oversees audit follow-up for the Agency, ensuring all 

corrective actions are completed and submitted for closure, 

determining if final action has been completed sufficiently to 

close the audit. 

GSA’s management is confident that the Agency’s systems, 

controls, and legal compliance will ensure that it meets its 

responsibility of providing outstanding services at the best 

value for the U.S. taxpayer.

Introduction to Management Assurances
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

40 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Statement of Assurance

GSA management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control and financial management systems that meet the objectives of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). In 

accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, GSA conducted its annual assessment 

of internal controls over program operations, which includes compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and 

conformance with financial management systems requirements. Based on the results of the assessment for the fiscal 

year ended September 30, 2007, GSA provides an unqualified statement of assurance. The internal controls over 

program operations and financial management systems meet the objectives of FMFIA. The controls were operating 

effectively, and no material weaknesses or non-conformances were found in the design or operation of the controls.

In accordance with Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123, GSA conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal 

control over financial reporting, which includes safeguarding of assets and compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations. Based on the results of the assessment, GSA can provide reasonable assurance that internal control over 

financial reporting as of June 30, 2007, was operating effectively and no material weaknesses were found in the design 

or operation of the internal control over financial reporting. 

To identify management issues and monitor progress in addressing them, GSA’s senior leaders use a system of internal 

program evaluations and independent audit reviews conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and 

GSA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), to assess program effectiveness. In FY 2007, GSA has no material weaknesses 

or systems non-conformances to report under FMFIA. In addition, GSA is continuing to enhance our controls in areas 

involving budgetary accounting and system access and monitoring.

GSA is strongly committed to the high performance and continuous improvement necessary to achieve its mission. In 

addition, we are dedicated to improving internal control and look forward to further progress in this important area.

Lurita Doan

Administrator

November 9, 2007
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 41

GSA fulfilled the requirements of the OMB Circular A-123, 

Appendix A, during FY 2007. The Circular serves to emphasize 

management’s focus on ensuring that effective internal 

control over financial reporting is established and maintained 

throughout the Agency. Under the leadership of the Chief 

Financial Officer (CFO), GSA’s management plan includes a 

comprehensive program to complete the assessment of 

internal control over financial reporting. The CFO established 

the Senior Assessment Team (SAT) comprised of senior 

executives who provide leadership, oversight, and 

accountability for GSA’s internal control over financial 

reporting. The SAT conducted its assessment based on the 

five-step process used in the Implementation Guide developed 

by the CFO’s Council. The five steps are: Planning; Evaluate 

Internal Control at the Entity Level; Evaluate Internal Control 

at the Process Level; Testing at the Transaction Level; and 

Concluding, Reporting, and Correcting Deficiencies and 

Weaknesses. 

GSA determined the scope of financial reports to be included 

in the assessment and established materiality. The scope 

included all material line items on the Balance Sheet, 

Statement of Net Cost, Statement of Changes in Net Position, 

Statement of Budgetary Resources, Notes to the Financial 

Statements and the SF 133, Report on Budget Execution, and 

Budgetary Resources. 

GSA management identified the key processes feeding into 

material line items by reviewing financial statements and 

related disclosures, cycle memoranda, flowcharts, and other 

information for the two major revolving funds and other 

combined funds. Key processes feeding into the financial 

statement line items include Unfilled Customer Orders, 

Obligations, Fund Balance with Treasury, Cash Receipts, Cash 

Disbursements, Financial Reporting, Budget (Administrative 

Control of Funds), Revenue Accruals, and Estimates. 

Using a risk-based approach, a rotational plan was developed 

for financial and information technology (IT) controls to 

ensure that controls are assessed in each location throughout 

GSA within a three-year period. As part of the rotation plan, 

some systems will undergo full general and application 

controls testing in a given year and the others will undergo 

limited general and application controls testing for the year. 

FY 2007 was the second year of the three-year period, and IT 

and financial controls were tested in accordance with the 

plan. 

The SAT conducted a comprehensive review of test results 

considering the likelihood and degree of the potential for 

misstatements and determined whether the consolidations of 

deficiencies are incidental, create a significant deficiency, or 

rise to the level of material weakness for reporting in the 

assurance statement. Based on the exceptions noted and the 

impact on the financial statements, the SAT concluded no 

material weakness existed as of June 30, 2007. 

GSA has made significant progress in validating balances in its 

budgetary accounts. Although vast improvement has been 

made in resolving unfilled customer orders and un-liquidated 

obligations, incidences of invalid amounts still remain. 

Improvement of these processes continue, and management 

is monitoring corrective actions. 

Despite the above deficiencies, GSA can provide reasonable 

assurance that its internal control over financial reporting as 

of September 30, 2007, was operating effectively and no 

material weakness existed in the design or operation of 

internal control over financial reporting.

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control (A-123)
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

42 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

The FMFIA provides the statutory basis for management’s 

responsibility for internal control. The FMFIA requires Federal 

agencies to establish controls that reasonably ensure that 

obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable laws; 

funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against 

waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; and 

revenues and expenditures are properly recorded and 

accounted for to maintain accountability over assets. 

Guidance for implementing the FMFIA is provided through 

OMB Circulars A-123 and A-127. The FMFIA also requires the 

Agency head to annually assess and report on the effectiveness 

of internal controls that protect the integrity of Federal 

programs (FMFIA Section 2) and financial management 

systems (Section 4), providing assurance on programmatic 

internal controls and financial management systems, and 

effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.

GSA has met all of the requirements of FMFIA and OMB 

Circulars A-123 and A-127. In FY 2007, GSA improved its 

Agency-wide internal control program, which holds managers 

accountable for the performance, productivity, operations, 

and integrity of their programs. Annually, senior managers at 

GSA are responsible for evaluating the adequacy of the 

internal controls surrounding their activities and determining 

whether they conform to these requirements. In support of 

these efforts, GSA introduced a new Agency-wide Web-based 

internal control database system to perform assurance 

statements and internal control reviews. 

During the year, extensive internal control training was 

provided to employees and managers throughout GSA. 

Training sessions were held for all Regional and Central Office 

internal control liaisons focusing on internal control at GSA, 

implementation of OMB Circular A-123, and procedures to 

complete internal control reviews. Following the liaison 

training, additional training was provided to employees and 

managers. For example, over 30 managers and employees in 

the Northwest/Artic Region were provided on-site training 

and assistance on internal controls and reviews. In addition, 

training was provided to Public Buildings Service (PBS) 

Regional and Central Office managers and employees to 

ensure PBS properly completed the numerous reviews 

scheduled throughout the year.

During FY 2007, PBS hosted the first annual internal controls 

conference at which PBS discussed improving internal 

controls in its organization. At the conference, training was 

provided by the OCFO concerning internal control policies 

and procedures. 

Finally, in an effort to reach managers and employees who did 

not attend training sessions, GSA updated and re-distributed 

the Executive Guide and Desk Guide on Internal Controls that 

were developed last year. Moving forward in 2008, GSA will 

develop training modules that will provide managers the 

ability to take internal control training at the GSA Online 

University. GSA Online University houses several learning 

functions, such as online courses, e-books, and links to other 

reference sources, testing, and performance planning. GSA 

Online University also offers a variety of communication tools 

to foster the exchange of knowledge and information for 

GSA employees. 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) — Section 2
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 43

As required by law, GSA evaluates its financial management 

systems annually for compliance with Federal financial 

management systems requirements, applicable Federal 

accounting standards, and U.S. Standard General Ledger 

(USSGL) recording and reporting requirements. GSA evaluated 

its financial management system controls and compliance 

using a consolidated A-123 and A-127 questionnaire and by 

completing independent systems certification and 

accreditation (C&A) reviews, Statement on Auditing Standards 

(SAS) 70 reviews, A-123 reviews, and other systems assessments. As in prior years, additional compliance review steps 

included a review of pertinent audit reports issued during 

FY 2007, a review of the current status of prior year systemsrelated issues, and discussions with senior managers and 

auditors regarding the details of pertinent systems-related 

control issues. Taken as a whole, GSA is confident that these 

systems-related review activities provide a sufficient basis for 

assessing Agency compliance with Section 4, FMFIA, and 

FFMIA requirements for FY 2007.

Based on all review work performed during FY 2007, Agency 

management believes that GSA substantially conforms to the 

requirements referred to in Section 4 of FMFIA. This conclusion 

is supported by actions completed during the past year to 

enhance financial reporting controls for budgetary accounting and to resolve prior year audit findings relating to system 

access and monitoring controls. For example, during FY 2007 

more than 70 action steps were completed to fully or partially 

resolve financial systems-related issues and findings. These 

conditions related primarily to financial system general and 

applications-related internal control.

No Entity-wide System Non-Conformances Noted 

No entity-wide system non-conformances are reported for 

GSA systems in FY 2007. GSA management is proud of this 

accomplishment and attributes it to a renewed emphasis on 

the importance of systems-related internal controls and the 

collective set of actions successfully completed by managers 

and associates to improve the systems control environment at 

GSA. These completed actions served to significantly enhance 

managerial, operational, and technical systems controls for 

many of GSA’s critical program and financial management 

systems.

Significant Systems Deficiency

During FY 2007, substantial progress was achieved in 

addressing the prior year reportable condition relating to the 

need for improved system access, separation of duties, and 

system monitoring controls involving certain GSA systems. 

However, in FY 2007, the independent auditors have 

determined that a significant deficiency exists over certain 

GSA applications that require strengthened system access, 

separation of duties, and monitoring controls. Appropriate 

actions will be taken by GSA management officials to 

effectively address these new findings in FY 2008. 

In addition, an OIG audit found that access to sensitive 

information and certain processing capabilities on OCFOmanaged applications should be more fully restricted. In light 

of these findings, the OCFO took two immediate actions. 

These actions involved further restricting access to sensitive 

information, and conducting a comprehensive systems review 

of all OCFO-managed systems to identify any additional 

information and/or systems access vulnerabilities. Also, 

longer-term actions were initiated to redesign and strengthen 

system access controls for the affected applications. These 

actions will include improving authorization, authentication, 

and access controls to further restrict the ability of authorized 

users to access sensitive information on a least-privileged 

basis, thereby improving GSA’s IT security controls.

Additional Improvements Planned for FY 2008

To ensure that GSA remains properly focused on being 

proactive in improving the effectiveness of its financial 

reporting and systems controls, several initiatives are planned 

for FY 2008. Major initiatives will involve taking various 

actions to improve financial reporting and strengthening 

systems-related life-cycle management controls for program 

and financial systems.

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) — Section 4
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

44 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

During FY 2007, significant progress was achieved in 

integrating GSA’s internal processes for assessing the 

sufficiency of management and systems-related internal 

control via one survey instrument. During FY 2008, the 

challenge will be to devise and implement an improved and 

more fully integrated process to streamline and document the 

conduct of various reviews relating to internal controls and 

compliance with OMB Circular A-123 and National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements pertaining 

to system-related internal controls. Currently, these activities 

require considerable effort on the part of several different 

groups within GSA. By more effectively coordinating and 

consolidating these review activities, more meaningful 

reviews and assessments will be able to be completed in 

a more timely and cost-effective manner. All planned 

improvement actions should serve to significantly improve 

systems controls and thereby improve the extent of GSA’s 

overall compliance with pertinent laws and regulations.

Federal Financial Management

Improvement Act (FFMIA) 

The FFMIA of 1996 requires Federal agencies to implement 

and maintain financial management systems that comply 

substantially with Federal financial management systems 

requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and 

the USSGL at the transaction level. Under law, agency heads 

are required to assess and report on whether these systems 

comply with FFMIA on an annual basis.

In assessing compliance with FFMIA, GSA adheres to the 

revised FFMIA implementation guidance provided by OMB 

and considers the results of the GSA OIG and GAO audit 

reports, annual financial statement audits, Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)-related and other 

questionnaire results, FISMA compliance reviews, and other 

systems-related review and monitoring activities.

Based on all information assessed, GSA’s Administrator has 

determined that GSA’s financial management systems are in 

substantial compliance with FFMIA for FY 2007. 

Federal Information Security

Management Act (FISMA) 

The FISMA of 2002 requires Federal agencies to implement a 

mandatory set of processes and system controls in order to 

ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of systemrelated information and information resources. Processes 

implemented within each Federal agency must follow a set of 

established Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS), 

NIST and other legislative requirements pertaining to Federal 

information systems, such as the Privacy Act of 1974.

To ensure compliance with FISMA requirements, GSA 

maintains a formalized program for information security 

management that is focused on meeting FISMA requirements, 

protecting GSA’s information resources, and supporting GSA’s 

mission.

This program is supported by a set of established policies, 

procedures, and processes to mitigate new threats and 

anticipate risks posed by new technologies. Designated GSA 

information security managers and system security officers 

ensure that information security requirements are being 

implemented in accordance with FISMA requirements and 

GSA’s policies.

During FY 2007, GSA continued to strengthen its security 

posture by addressing weakness identified in its Plan of Action 

and Milestones (POA&M) and completing all FISMA-related 

system control initiatives. For example, GSA reported that 

C&A, Annual Testing, and Contingency Plan Testing were 

completed for all of its 78 information systems. In addition, 

more than 14,800 Agency employees and contractors 

completed IT security awareness training and 99.6 percent of 

Agency employees with significant security responsibilities 

completed specialized role based training. Also, Privacy 

Impact Assessments (PIA) were completed on all applicable 

systems and the Agency continues to implement the provisions 

in OMB M-06-15, Safeguarding Personally Identifiable 

Information.
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 45

No major system control findings were identified as a result of 

all FISMA compliance efforts. Accordingly, management 

believes that GSA remains compliant with FISMA requirements 

and will earn another high OMB scorecard grade for FISMA 

compliance and IT security for FY 2007.

Financial Management Systems Framework

Financial Management Systems

The CFO Act assigns clear responsibilities for planning, 

developing, maintaining, and integrating all accounting and 

financial management systems within an agency. During 

FY 2007, significant progress was achieved by GSA in 

developing and implementing its planned “to be” financial 

systems framework. This framework is designed to fully 

integrate and streamline all of GSA’s financial system 

applications in accordance with applicable systems 

requirements, Federal accounting standards, and other related 

mandates.

GSA expanded the core accounting system, Pegasys. Pegasys 

is a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) system solution that 

integrates several of GSA’s financial accounting applications, 

processes more than 35 million transactions per year, and 

complies fully with Federal accounting standards and external 

financial reporting requirements. Pegasys also holds the 

most current Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO) 

certification concerning its functional design and performance capabilities. In addition to serving as GSA’s current 

financial accounting system of record, Pegasys currently 

provides GSA with the functionality to meet requirements to 

interface with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 

component of the President’s integrated acquisition 

environment E-Gov initiative, supports the e-Payroll and 

e-Travel system initiatives, and provides a user friendly 

HTML format. 

Substantial progress was also made in FY 2007 to improve 

internal controls of GSA financial systems. For the second 

consecutive year, SAS 70 reviews were completed for both 

GSA’s Payroll and Pegasys systems and for the first time ever, 

the review results for both systems were unqualified, meaning 

that no significant internal control design or implementation 

exceptions were noted. These reviews provide needed 

feedback to the client agencies on GSA’s internal accounting 

and system control in relation to established internal control 

objectives. The conduct of these reviews helps to ensure that 

GSA maintains an effective system of internal control and 

saves GSA’s client agencies and their auditors the additional 

costs of having to periodically test and review GSA’s financial 

systems.

Due in part to the effectiveness and efficiency of GSA’s 

financial management system and its related internal control 

environment, GSA continues to function as one of four Federal 

agencies selected by OMB to cross-service other Federal 

agencies as a Financial Management Line of Business 

(FMLoB). During FY 2008, GSA will continue with its ongoing 

efforts to refine its existing financial management system 

capabilities so that it remains well positioned to service others 

as a leading and cost-effective service provider of choice for 

financial management services. 
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

46 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Pegasys

Core Accounting Functions

NEAR

Accounts Receivable/Billing

Accounts Receivable/

 Billing Solution

Future Financial Information

System

 Data Store (Financial, Labor, 

 Payroll, Travel)

 Business Intelligence 

 Functions

 Modeling

 Analysis Functions

 Query & Reporting Functions

e-Travel (Outsourced

government-wide solution)

Authorizations

 Reservations

 Vouchers

T O D A Y T R A N S I T I O N T A R G E T

Pegasys

Core Accounting Functions

 Cost Allocation

 Asset Accounting

PAR

Payroll Functions

FMIS

Valid Accounting Transactions

 Detail & Summary Query Functions

InfoWizard

Business Modeling & Analysis

FedDesk

 Travel Management &

 Reimbursement

 (Authorizations & Vouchers)

 Labor Data Collection/Distribution

 Miscellaneous Reimbursements

 Electronic Time & Attendance

e-Payroll

Payroll Functions

Labor Data Collection/Distribution

 Miscellaneous Reimbursements

 Electronic Time & Attendance

NEAR

Accounts Receivable/Billing

 Asset Management

 Cost Allocation

Target Achieved

Work in Progress

L E G E N D

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport 47

FY 2007 Annual Risk Assessment

OMB Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for 

Internal Control, Appendix C, updated the requirement for 

an annual risk assessment. According to Part I, Section E, a risk 

assessment is required every three years if agency programs 

are not deemed risk susceptible. GSA does not have any 

programs deemed risk susceptible, therefore, is not required 

to perform a full risk assessment until FY 2008, and will report 

results in the FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

(PAR). In the interim years, GSA will perform simplified risk 

assessments to review whether any significant legislative, 

programmatic, funding, and/or other changes that have 

occurred which would result in substantial program impacts. 

The Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Detail 

section under Other Accompanying Information contains 

detailed information on GSA’s recovery audit program.

Improper Payments Information Act 

Carl B. Stokes Federal Courthouse in Cleveland, OH. Photo by Robert Benson
M a n a g e m e n t ’ s D i s c u s s i o n a n d A n a l y s i s

48 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n ua l P erforma n ce a n d A ccou n tabi l ity R eport

Management prepares the accompanying financial statements 

to report the financial position and results of operations for 

GSA, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 31 of the U.S. 

Code section 3515(b). While these statements have been 

prepared from GSA’s books and records, in compliance with 

the formats prescribed in OMB Circular A-136, Financial 

Reporting Requirements, these statements are in addition to 

the financial reports used to monitor and control the budgetary 

resources that are prepared from the same books and records. 

These statements should be read with the understanding that 

they are for a component of the U.S. government, a sovereign 

entity. One implication of this is that unfunded liabilities 

reported in the statements cannot be liquidated without 

legislation that provides resources to the Agency.

Limitations of Financial Statements
Performance Section

GSA helps Federal agencies reduce petroleum consumption by 

offering alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and hybrid electric 

vehicles for lease and purchase. 
GSA purchased over 

24,000 AFVs this 

year, bringing GSA’s 

total AFVs purchased 

since 1991 to more than 

140,000, more than any 

single organization in 

the United States.

www.GSA.gov/green
F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 51

GSA focused on being a results-oriented organization 

committed to delivering excellence in the business of 

government during FY 2007, through the use of performance 

based tools and techniques.

GSA and the Performance

Management Process

The Performance Management Process (PMP) is GSA’s decision-making process for developing strategic plans, budget 

priorities, and performance results. The PMP integrates strategic planning, budget development, monitoring performance 

management, and targeting financial resources to deliver best 

value to GSA customers and meet performance goals. By 

addressing these issues on an enterprise-wide basis, the PMP 

furthers the vision of One GSA—One Voice.

GSA and the Program

Assessment Rating Tool

Within the PMP, GSA has used the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA) as a guide to establish business practices that 

enabled GSA to achieve quantifiable results and a workplace 

that has been rated one of the best in the Federal government 

by the Partnership for Public Service.

GSA is committed to ongoing improvement and expects to 

continue adapting the PMA initiatives to provide best value to 

its customer agencies and U.S. taxpayers. As part of the PMA, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has established 

the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which is used to 

objectively evaluate program performance.

GSA’s efforts focused on removing the last remaining program 

from the Results Not Demonstrated list. Key to this effort 

was developing acceptable long-term outcome goals and 

efficiency measures capturing the savings GSA provides to its 

customers. 

Through dedication and effort, GSA is pleased to report 

that all of its programs have been successfully rated by the 

PART. The resulting scores of the programs are: four were 

rated “effective,” eight were rated “moderately effective,” and 

four were rated “adequate.” Additional information about 

GSA’s PART scores and results can be found on the OMB Web 

site, www.expectmore.gov. The following programs will be 

rated with the PART in FY 2008 (all are rescores): Real Property Disposal, Real Property Leasing, Vehicle Acquisition, and 

Vehicle Leasing. GSA’s goal is to improve its ratings in the 

FY 2008 process.

GSA realigned the measures reported in the Performance and 

Accountability Report (PAR) to support GSA’s new strategic 

goals. The remainder of this section provides performance 

highlights, key measures, and results for the key measures 

from the Services and Staff Offices. The complete list of 

FY 2007 measures can be found in the Other Accompanying 

Information section of this report, and the full performance 

report will be published on the GSA Web site (www.gsa.gov/

annualreport) in December 2007.

Introduction to Performance

GSA is a performance-driven agency. The use of, and dependence on, good performance 

metrics and data is prevalent and growing in importance throughout the Agency.

P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

52 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

GSA PART RESULTS

GSA PROGRAM RATING

PBS Asset Management of Government-Owned Real Property Effective

FAS Charge Card Services Effective

OCSC USA Services Effective

PBS New Construction Effective

FAS Vehicle Leasing Moderately Effective

PBS Real Property Leasing Moderately Effective

FAS Personal Property Management Moderately Effective

PBS Real Property Disposal Moderately Effective

OGP Office of Governmentwide Policy Moderately Effective

FAS Transportation Management Moderately Effective

FAS National Furniture Center Moderately Effective

FAS Integrated Technology Services Portfolio Moderately Effective

FAS Travel Management Adequate

FAS General Supplies and Services Portfolio Adequate

FAS Vehicle Acquisition Adequate

FAS Assisted Acquisition Services Portfolio Adequate
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 53

PBS

Performance Highlights

PBS completed four PART reviews of its major programs: New 

Construction, Space Acquisition by Lease, Asset Management 

of Real Property, and Real Property Disposal. Leasing 

and Disposal are rated by OMB as “moderately effective,” 

while Asset Management and New Construction are rated 

“effective.”

The asset management program was re-evaluated via an OMB 

PART review in FY 2007. As a result, the program retained 

its “effective” rating and increased its overall score since its 

FY 2004 review. PBS received this outstanding rating by 

continuing to make progress in achieving its two long-term 

outcome goals—achieving a viable self-sustaining inventory 

and reducing energy consumption. 

The following paragraphs summarize FY 2007 PBS major 

performance results by business line activity.

The Public Buildings Service (PBS), as landlord to the 

Federal government, provides a superior workplace 

for the Federal employee and superior value to the 

U.S. taxpayer. By providing its customers with quality work 

environments, PBS enables Federal agencies to better serve 

the public. As the largest public real estate organization in the 

nation, PBS provides workspace and workplace solutions to 

over 100 Federal agencies.

GSA continues to be a leader in asset management and sets 

Federal asset management standards through its leadership 

on the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC). In the first 

quarter of FY 2006, GSA was recognized as the first Federal 

agency to achieve ”green” status on the Federal Real Property 

Asset Management initiative of the PMA. Throughout FY 2007, 

GSA has maintained this green rating in both progress and 

status by continuing to achieve the PMA right-sizing goals of 

utilization, disposal, operation and maintenance, and physical 

condition. In FY 2007, GSA improved asset utilization in 

leased assets by reducing the vacancy rate to 1.1 percent, 

maintained an asset utilization rate in government-owned 

assets of over 90 percent, disposed of 23 vacant or underutilized properties, maintained operating costs in office and 

similarly serviced space below private sector levels, and 

targeted reinvestment dollars toward core assets in the 

portfolio in order to improve the physical condition of the 

portfolio. GSA’s asset management practices and its progress 

towards rightsizing its portfolio of assets were commended 

when the asset management program maintained its 

“effective” rating and improved its score to 96 percent on the 

OMB PART in FY 2007. 

PUBLI C BUILDINGS SERVI CE

PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE/STAFF OFFICE

Photo by Timothy Hursley
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

54 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

PBS

NEW CONSTRUCTION: 

PBS manages an $11 billion, multi-year capital investment 

program to build new Federal buildings, courthouses, and 

land ports of entry; and to renovate and modernize existing 

Federal facilities including courthouses, agency headquarters, 

office buildings, laboratories, and infrastructure. The program 

includes over 337 capital projects in the pre-planning, site 

acquisition, design, and construction phases. In FY 2007, 

PBS delivered four new courthouses, two Federal buildings, 

and one new land ports of entry construction project. PBS 

awarded design contracts for seven new land ports of entry, 

one new courthouse, eight new Federal buildings, and 23 

major repairs and alterations (R&A) projects. In FY 2007, 

PBS awarded construction contracts for five new land ports of 

entry, four new courthouses, two new Federal buildings, and 

29 major R&A projects. 

PBS continues to set the example for the government and 

the private sector in making sustainable design and energy 

efficiency integral in all of its new facilities and major 

renovations. To date, PBS has earned a Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) rating for 20 new buildings: 

nine are government-owned; 11 are build-to-suit leased projects. 

Of these, five achieved “silver” and eight achieved “gold” level 

recognition. PBS has registered another 70 buildings under 

the LEED system.

PBS continued to develop and implement business process 

improvements to enhance the performance of the capital 

construction program, and made significant progress on its 

initiative to develop and implement standard scope of work/

contract template tools, drafting 14 standard scope of work 

templates for use in the delivery of major capital construction 

projects. This effort will lead to improved national consistency 

in Architect/Engineer contracts and construction services, as 

well as construction management services, feasibility studies, 

and prospectus development studies; and to capitalize on 

best practices, lessons learned, institutional knowledge, and 

collective project expertise. PBS also updated the Project 

Managers Handbook and the Facilities Standards for PBS, and 

developed a variance tracking report as a management tool to 

assess capital project performance. 

The PBS Office of the Chief Architect (OCA) provided national 

peer professionals for 16 Architect/Engineer Design Excellence selections, as well as 33 Design Peer Reviews of ongoing 

capital projects—27 Art in Architecture Peer Reviews—and 

arranged nine Design Concept Presentations for capital 

projects to the PBS Commissioner. The OCA developed and 

produced three new videos in FY 2007: San Francisco Federal 

Building: Creating an Extraordinary Place; 2006 Design 

Awards; and a video to open the national forum on Federal 

courthouse design, Function, Form, and Meaning: Design 

Excellence in Federal Courthouses. The OCA also developed 

a National Building Information Guide in support of PBS’s 

mission to improve capital project delivery. 

In May 2007, the American Institute of Architects acknowledged the distinguished work of GSA’s OCA and the Design 

Excellence Program with the 2007 Institute Honors for 

Collaborative Achievement. PBS also recently received an 

Urban Land Institute award for excellence for the Courthouse 

in Erie, PA; and CoreNet Global honored the new San Francisco 

Federal Building.

SPACE ACQUISITION BY LEASE: 

PBS introduced new efficiencies to its leasing program to make 

PBS a more customer-driven organization and to enhance the 

role of the realty specialist to become a project manager and 

strategic partner with the customer. The implementation 

of the National Broker Contract program is having a major 

impact on PBS’s ability to deliver high-quality, reasonablypriced workplace solutions to its customers. Under the newly 

created Office of Real Estate Acquisition, PBS is developing 

consistent enterprise-wide operations and enhancing 

communications with brokers and customers while stressing 

both rents achieved and savings accrued. Today, almost half 

of the portfolio is leased space, and customers find leasing 

an attractive alternative when it is consistent with their 

mission achievements. PBS has lowered the fee that it charges 

customer agencies to acquire and administer their leased 

space from eight to seven percent for cancelable space and 

from six to five percent for non-cancelable space. This change 

will be effective for FY 2008. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 55

PBS

ASSET MANAGEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY:

PBS continues to be a leader in asset management. Through 

its unceasing attention to rightsizing its portfolio, PBS is 

progressing towards its long-term goal of achieving a viable, 

self-sustaining inventory with an average return on equity 

(ROE) of at least six percent for 80 percent of its governmentowned assets. 

PBS is also progressing toward meeting its long-term energy 

goal of reducing energy consumption in GSA Federal buildings 

by two percent per year for a cumulative reduction of 20 

percent by FY 2015. GSA surpassed its FY 2007 goal of a two 

percent reduction, and is working on continuing this trend for 

future years. Currently, there are $19.86 million in efficiency 

investments underway in GSA buildings nationwide. These 

investments are expected to deliver an additional 171,377 

million Btu and $2.82 million in savings each year. These 

achievements underscore PBS’s commitment to energy 

management and the resulting savings of taxpayer dollars.

REAL PROPERTY DISPOSAL:

In FY 2007, the Office of Real Property Disposal was 

instrumental in the disposal of 23 GSA properties valued at 

approximately $105 million. These disposals have already 

provided revenues of $69 million for the Federal Buildings 

Fund (FBF). As the service provider of choice for real property 

disposal, an additional 355 properties valued at approximately 

$146 million were disposed of for other Federal agencies. 

In its mission of assisting other agencies, PBS also provided 

30 targeted asset reviews to help agencies in their compliance 

with Executive Order 13327, Federal Real Property Asset 

Management.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

56 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

PBS

PBS Performance By GSA Strategic Goals 

Stewardship

Lead Federal agencies in the economical and efficient management of Federal assets by 

spearheading effective policy development and by the exemplary management of the buildings/

workplaces, motor vehicles, and personal property provided by GSA.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

PBS (Asset Management) Percentage of available and committed space in 

government-owned inventory.

Not Met

PBS (Asset Management) Customer Satisfaction—tenants in owned space. Met

PBS (Real Property) The percent of public sales awarded within 170 days. Met

PBS (Asset Management)

Performance Goal

Decrease the vacant (available and committed) space to seven percent of the owned inventory by FY 2005 and maintain 

thereafter.

Measure

Percentage of available and committed space in government-owned inventory.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

7.9% 6.8% 7.0% 7.0% 7.7%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: This measure evaluates PBS’s effectiveness at maximizing the use of the government-owned 

buildings in its inventory. Vacant space includes any space for which PBS currently has no tenant, including space that it has 

committed to a customer, but is not yet occupied.

DATA SOURCE: Vacant Space Report—extracted from System for Tracking and Administering Real Property (STAR).

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: In FY 2007, GSA did not meet its target for vacant owned space. GSA uses various 

strategies to reduce the amount of vacant space in its inventory, including decommissioning and disposing of underutilized 

assets, actively backfilling and outleasing vacant space, and completing current renovation projects on schedule to minimize 

the vacancy duration.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 57

PBS

PBS (Asset Management)

Performance Goal

Execute energy conservation goals while increasing GSA’s Customer Satisfaction scores to 75 percent by FY 2007.

Measure

Customer Satisfaction—tenants in owned space.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

72.0% 77.6% 83.0% 75.0% 78.0%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: Assessing customer satisfaction levels is a direct measure of how well PBS is meeting its goal to 

provide best value for customer agencies and taxpayers. The survey assists PBS managers with targeting problem areas within 

individual buildings.

DATA SOURCE: The data source is a customer survey of PBS’s tenants in space owned by the Federal government, which is 

conducted for GSA by the Gallup Organization.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: According to the Gallup Organization, PBS’s survey provides a true gauge of 

customer satisfaction. Major factors contributing to the high customer satisfaction level include the quality of leased space 

and proactive responses by PBS to previous tenant survey issues. PBS continues to make a concentrated, organization-wide 

effort to increase the level of satisfaction for its tenants. Many regions have already published newsletters for tenants and have 

developed cross-functional teams or “ambassadors” in an effort to address customer satisfaction issues.

PBS (Real Property)

Performance Goal

Award 100 percent of public sales within 170 days for FY 2007. 

Measure

The percent of public sales awarded within 170 days.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

73.0% 92.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: This performance measure evaluates the percent of public sales awarded within 170 days. 

The 170 days is based on data obtained from the CoStar Group that shows the commercial sales sector averages about 170 days 

to complete a sale. 

DATA SOURCE: Net Real Estate Activity Locator (NETREAL) database, the system used by PBS to track real property sales.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

58 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

PBS

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: Real Property Disposal met the goal of awarding all public sales within 170 days 

through efficient project management methods established by the Regional offices. Property sales are managed to meet the 

best interests of the government by combining assertive marketing techniques and working closely with potential purchasers. 

The increase in the number of online auctions from 10 percent in FY 2005 to over 15 percent in FY 2007 has also enabled the 

office to complete sales in a more efficient manner.

Superior Workplaces

Deliver and maintain productive workplaces consisting of office space, furnishings, technology, 

supplies, and related services.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

PBS (New Construction) Construction projects on schedule. Not Met

PBS (Asset Management) Repairs and alterations (R&A) projects on schedule. Met

PBS (New Construction)

Performance Goal

New construction projects on schedule 87 percent of the time by FY 2007.

Measure

Construction projects on schedule.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

80.2% 100.0% 84.0% 87.0% 79.8%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: PBS financial projections include rental income from new construction projects as of the 

anticipated date of occupancy. It is, therefore, critical that projects be completed on time so that they can begin to generate 

expected revenue. This measure tracks the actual value of work in place on projects against projected schedule performance 

by comparing the planned schedule of spending for prospectus level New Construction (budget activity 51) projects, with 

the actual value of the work in place (funds paid to the contractor). This measure uses an earned value technique to assess 

construction project performance on all prospectus level New Construction projects. 

DATA SOURCE: PBS Project Information Portal (PIP).

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: There were three new construction projects off schedule at the end of FY 2007: 

Miami, FL Federal Building/Courthouse; Cape Girardeau, MO Phase three tenant improvements; and Washington, DC Department 

of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives headquarters. Of the 24 individual projects in the 

FY 2007 measure, 21 or 87.5 percent of them were on schedule. The total value of new construction work in place on schedule 

in FY 2007 was just over $1 billion, compared to $254 million of work off the schedule pace, which drives the FY 2007 actual 

result of 79.80%. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 59

PBS

The Washington, DC project was delivered late due to many factors, including: the need to redesign a curtain wall system 

for blast resistance, an overly aggressive and optimistic construction schedule, and contractor failure to adhere to submitted 

recovery schedules. The new Miami Courthouse project was delayed due to continuous contractor labor shortages for many 

of the trades, especially electrical; quality control issues on the site causing rework of several major building elements; and 

contractor nonperformance. The Phase III (Tenant Improvements) of the Cape Girardeau Courthouse project was delivered 

late due to the need for redesign of the ceiling structure systems to meet building codes after contract award, and errors in door 

hardware schedules, which required reordering of access hardware to meet facility requirements. 

PBS will continue to undertake construction peer reviews on major capital construction projects at 15 percent, 35 percent, 

and 90-95 percent of construction completion, to monitor construction progress against major milestones and to identify 

correction strategies.

PBS (Asset Management)

Performance Goal

88 percent of repairs and alterations (R&A) projects on schedule by FY 2007.

Measure

Repairs and alterations (R&A) projects on schedule.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

78.0% 95.0% 83.0% 88.0% 94.2%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: PBS financial projections include rental income from new construction projects as of the 

anticipated date of occupancy. It is, therefore, critical that projects be completed on time so that they can begin to generate 

expected revenue. This measure tracks the actual value of work in place on projects against projected schedule performance 

by comparing the planned schedule of spending for prospectus level R&A (budget activity 55) projects, with the actual value of 

the work in place (funds paid to the contractor). This measure uses an earned value technique to assess construction project 

performance on all prospectus level R&A projects. 

DATA SOURCE: PBS PIP

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGETVS. RESULTS: There were two R&A projects off schedule at the end of FY 2007: Atlanta, GA M.L. 

King Federal Building R&A; and Omaha, NE Zorinsky Federal Building R&A. Of the 41 R&A projects in the measure, 39 or 

95 percent of them were on schedule. The value of R&A work in place on schedule in FY 2007 was over $852 million, 

compared to $49 million of work off the schedule pace.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

60 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

PBS

BestValue

Develop and deliver timely, accurate, and cost-effective acquisition services and business 

solutions,supplies, and related services.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

PBS (Asset Management) Percent below private sector benchmarks for cleaning, 

maintenance and utility costs in office and similarly 

serviced space.

Not Met

PBS (Leasing) Cost of leased space relative to industry market rates. Met

PBS (Asset Management)

Performance Goal

Maintain operating service costs in office and similarly serviced space at three percent or more below private sector 

benchmarks by FY 2007.

Measure

Percent below private sector benchmarks for cleaning, maintenance and utility costs in office and similarly serviced space.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

-14.5% -11.0% -4.2% -3.0% -1.6%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: PBS uses several sophisticated benchmarks to monitor operating costs (maintenance, utilities, 

and cleaning) in comparison with those in equivalent private sector buildings. The Building Owners and Managers Association 

(BOMA), an advocacy group for the real estate industry, is PBS’s primary source for private sector operating cost information. 

In FY 2006, OMB approved a restructuring of this measure to reflect the performance of the Agency. The methodology of 

calculating the measure was changed to include only those assets that are located in markets for which BOMA has direct data. 

GSA previously contracted for a regression analysis to proxy data for the markets for which no industry data was available. 

However, this regression did not accurately reflect the market conditions of these locations. The new methodology provides a 

more accurate comparison to private sector performance.

DATA SOURCE: BOMA Experience Exchange Report, Consumer Price Indices (CPI), Energy Information Administration, Pegasys, 

and STAR.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007TARGETVS. RESULTS: GSA employs private sector benchmarks to measure performance in all comparable 

instances to ensure that GSA is operating and maintaining its assets as efficiently as the private sector. However, the unique 

mission and operating environment of GSA makes comparisons difficult. PBS is subject to restrictions and regulations that 

negatively affect operating costs, when compared to the private sector. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12) 

requirements; socio-economic considerations, such as the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH) and small 

businesses; and Department of Labor (DOL) Service Contract Act wage determinations that exceed the minimum wage offered 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 61

PBS

by the private sector all increase operating costs. Despite these considerations, PBS was able to continue to operate at a cost 

below the private sector; however, it did not operate at the level of cost efficiency for which it strived. PBS is committed to 

providing cost savings to the U.S. taxpayer without compromising its service to its client agencies. The Agency will continue to 

leverage the government’s buying power and concentrate on achieving cost-efficient operations. 

PBS (Leasing)

Performance Goal

Award leases at an average rental rate of not less than 8.8 percent below industry averages for comparable office space by 

FY 2007.

Measure

Cost of leased space relative to industry market rates.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

-10.6% -9.2% -9.2% -8.8% -10.6%

DESCRIPTION OFTHE MEASURE: PBS benchmarks its leasing rates in office space to the commercial market. By consistently paying 

lease rates at or below comparable market rates, PBS ensures that it is achieving the best value for the taxpayer. When calculated 

by contract, this measure also provides information as to the effectiveness of PBS’s negotiation of favorable contract rates. 

DATA SOURCE: STAR—primary tool used by PBS to track and manage the government’s real property assets and to store inventory, 

billing, building, and customer data, and lease information. Society of Industrial and Office Realtors (SIOR) publications—to 

determine current trends and market rates from which GSA establishes benchmarks.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: PBS’s success at exceeding the FY 2007 target for lease cost relative to market 

illustrates the understanding of real estate and the market dynamics that PBS associates bring to the customer. GSA has the 

highest credit rating possible, which provides security to lessors that the rent will be paid. During the lease process, PBS 

actively seeks competition, and that drives competitive pricing. Extensive market research prior to going out for a solicitation 

allows PBS to set aggressive negotiation objectives. PBS has been very successful in negotiating below market rates for many of 

its large new leases, as well as negotiating below market rates for new follow-on leases at existing locations, which allows PBS 

to benefit from lower tenant finish costs.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

62 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

PBS

Innovation

Develop new and better ways of conducting business that result in more productive and effective 

Federal policies and administrative operations.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

PBS (Asset Management) Percent reduction in energy consumption over the FY 

2003 baseline.

Met

PBS (Asset Management)

Performance Goal

Reduce energy consumption in GSA Federal building by four percent (as measured by Btu/GSF) over the FY 2003 baseline 

by FY 2007.

Measure

Percent reduction in energy consumption over the FY 2003 baseline.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

-22.4% -35.3% -4.4% -4.0% -8.3%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: PBS is a responsible steward of the environment and is committed to implementing energysaving solutions that improve the energy efficiency of operations and save taxpayer dollars. 

DATA SOURCE: Energy Usage and Analysis System (EUAS) and STAR.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: GSA exceeded the goal for this measure primarily due to the application of the 

renewable energy Btu reduction credit in accordance with guidance issued from the Department of Energy (DOE) Federal 

Energy Management Program. Under Section 102 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (42 U.S.C. 8253(a)(1)), and Executive Order 

13423, on-site, renewable energy generation projects do not incur fuel costs, are generally unmetered, and are located on the 

customer side of a facility’s energy meter. This impacts purchased energy in the same manner as an energy conservation 

project; therefore, energy consumption will not be included in the total Btu /GSF calculations used for energy efficiency goals. 

Without application of this reduction credit, GSA’s performance would be -3.76 percent. The results stated above are based on 

a rolling 12-month report through August 2007. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 63

FAS

I

n response to changes in the 

marketplace and in order to better 

serve GSA’s customers, the Federal 

Acquisition Service (FAS) was established 

through the consolidation of the Federal 

Technology Service (FTS) and the Federal 

Supply Service (FSS). FAS is organized 

around four business portfolios that deliver 

total solutions to customer agencies. 

These portfolios are: Integrated Technology 

Services (ITS); Assisted Acquisition Services 

(AAS); General Supplies and Services 

(GSS); and Travel, Motor Vehicle, and Card 

Services (TMVCS). The new organization 

is aimed to provide the best value at the 

best price through strategic sourcing, 

faster contracting services, greater efficiency and flexibility in 

procurement processes, lower transaction costs, and smarter 

ways of doing business. The result of the restructuring will 

yield significant organizational efficiencies, and increase 

Agency savings. 

FAS is the premier acquisition source in the areas of supplies, 

services, technology, and fleet management. It manages the 

largest, most diverse, and innovative Federal marketplace in 

the world and has nearly 18,000 Multiple Award Schedule 

(MAS) contracts. FAS offers approximately 12 million supplies 

and services to customer agencies, more than any commercial 

enterprise in the world, and is located throughout the United 

States as well as strategically aligned with U.S. military 

customers around the globe. 

FAS’s high priority is its Federal customer. FAS continues to: 

look for ways to streamline its procurement processes 

and tools to increase its value to customers; 

leverage the government’s buying power while enhancing 

its central role in Federal procurement; 

meet unique support requirements of global customers; 

outreach and increase customer education efforts and 

improve market research capabilities; 

participate in multiple interagency groups as well as 

industry forums; 

work within the changing GSA structure (maintain 

flexibility as the reorganization is finalized; balance 

organizational needs against the customer needs).

In FY 2007, ITS demonstrated GSA’s commitment to increasing contracting opportunities for small firms owned by 

service-disabled veterans, while also completing a major 

acquisition of integrated information technology (IT) 

solutions. Specifically, more than $47 million in obligated 

sales accrued for IT services available from service-disabled 

veteran-owned firms on the Veterans Technology Services 

(VETS) Government Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC). 

FEDERAL AC QUI S ITION SERVI CE
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

64 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

FAS

Performance Highlights

FAS completed PART reviews for all of its major program areas. 

The ratings are as follows: GSS, Vehicle Acquisition, Travel 

Management, and AAS are rated “adequate”; Vehicle Leasing 

(Fleet), Personal Property, Transportation Management, 

National Furniture Center, and ITS are rated “moderately 

effective”; and Charge Card Services is rated “effective.” 

Program improvements, as recommended by OMB, were 

implemented for each major area of FAS. For example, GSS 

instituted Procurement Management Reviews (PMR) in each 

Acquisition Center. PMRs ensure compliance with Federal 

acquisition policies, regulations, and procedures. Personal 

Property is currently working on a process improvement 

initiative to develop an electronic approval process for 

utilization and donation (U&D) transfers and plans to 

implement the process in FY 2008. The National Furniture 

Center conducted an extensive review of its business practice 

and began implementation of the first phase of a new business 

model that will streamline operations and achieve greater 

organizational efficiency. Fleet continues to work with U.S. 

Army representatives to pilot a fleet management database for 

Army’s non-GSA vehicles. Travel Management acquired a Travel 

Management Data Reporting Service (TMDRS) contract. The 

TMDRS ensures better government-wide data collection and 

improved travel management. Transportation Management 

developed Transportation Management Services Solution 

(TMSS) to meet customers’ needs for a fully integrated end-toend system that provides all transportation needs, including 

auditing and payment. The Charge Card Services (SmartPay2®) 

program office is updating and refining its training materials, 

and developing guidance for government cardholders on the 

appropriate use of charge cards in emergencies. Four transition 

training sessions were held to include customer agencies such 

as the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of State, 

and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). An acquisition 

is now underway to bring in outside expertise to support 

portfolio management within AAS. 

AAS developed an aggressive improvement strategy to address 

design flaws and increase efficiency and effectiveness. In July 

2007, AAS implemented a nationwide pricing policy that 

ensured a consistent fee for services among all regional AAS 

offices. 

Independent evaluations were conducted for Fleet’s Loss 

Prevention Program. Fleet developed a database to record 

Voyager charges. The result of the audit indicates that the 

database has greatly enhanced Fleet’s ability to monitor 

transactions and track expenditures. No other independent 

evaluations were held this fiscal year. 

The paragraphs below summarize FY 2007 FAS major performance results by portfolio.

GENERAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES: 

The Global Supply product line was expanded to include 

Expanded Direct Delivery (EDD) of IT products in 

several categories: desktops, notebooks, servers, printers, 

accessories, memory, modems, monitors, network 

products, scanners, and storage devices. EDD allows 

agencies to order through a single point of sale. It also 

gives them a real-time capability to see the products 

offered and available inventory, as well as check order 

status and track orders. Orders are then shipped directly 

from the vendor to the customer. Global Supply deployed 

IT EDD in the first quarter of FY 2007. The program 

generated an average of $750,000 in sales per month and 

totaled $6.7 million for the year. 

PERSONAL PROPERTY:

In April 2007, GSA’s Office of Personal Property 

Management implemented a re-engineered Computers 

for Learning (CFL) Web application that allows Federal 

agencies to report excess computers to GSAXcess® —the 

in-place computer system for the disposal processing 

of all excess property, including computers. By placing 

the CFL database on the GSAXcess® platform, GSA has 

reduced internal costs of operations. The new Web site 

is designed to make it easier to increase the number of 

excess computers and peripherals transferred by Federal 

agencies to schools as well as expand the number of 

schools that receive computer equipment through the 

CFL program. Since its implementation, the re-engineered 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 65

FAS

system added 101 new schools and educational nonprofit organizations and transferred computer equipment 

valued at $32 million. Using the re-engineered system, 

schools are now able to view available computers and 

related peripherals and request these items virtually. It 

enables school principles to be closer to fulfilling their 

vision of having a computer in every classroom. Used 

consistently, the CFL program reduces the administrative 

burden of managing a Federal computer donation 

program and is an efficient way for agencies to track 

and report statistics that highlight the value of Federal 

computer donations to eligible schools and educational 

non-profit organizations. In addition, it was awarded 

the Office of Governmentwide Policy’s (OGP) Gold Star 

Award for Excellence. The Gold Star Award recognizes a 

Federal agency’s innovative implementation of Executive 

Order 12999 that, in part, allows Federal agencies to 

transfer excess computer equipment to schools from prekindergarten through grade 12. 

VEHICLE ACQUISITION:

GSA Automotive purchases vehicles for all Federal 

agencies. Over 60 percent of the purchases have been 

made by GSA Fleet. GSA is able to leverage the Federal 

government’s vehicle requirements resulting in discounts 

exceeding 30 percent below dealer invoice on many of 

the top selling models, creating huge savings for customer 

agencies and ultimately the taxpayer. 

In FY 2007, GSA Automotive announced a new sales 

record. As of September 15, 2007, orders for 65,295 

vehicles were processed valued at $1.3 billion. Of the 

orders placed, over 24,000 were for flexfuel vehicles 

that are capable of running on a combination of E-85 and 

gasoline. GSA Automotive has purchased over 140,000 

alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and hybrid electric vehicles 

(HEV) for Federal agencies since 1991, of which 120,000 

have been for GSA Fleet. 

The program area is also working with the Department 

of the Interior’s (DOI) National Park Service to procure 

alternative fueled mass transportation systems in order 

to reduce vehicular congestion and subsequent pollution 

within the parks. GSA Automotive awarded a contract 

for 20 liquid compressed natural gas powered low floor 

shuttle buses for Grand Canyon National Park. The buses 

are scheduled to be delivered to the South Rim in the 

summer of 2008. In addition, GSA Automotive has made 

recent awards covering hybrid electric buses for Yosemite 

National Park and buses for Glacier National Park that will 

be powered by biodiesel.

VEHICLE LEASING:

GSA Fleet grows through transferring vehicle ownership 

and management responsibilities of other Federal 

agencies’ fleets to GSA. Since 1985, Fleet consolidations 

have been a smart solution for the Federal government, 

with FY 2007 savings to taxpayers exceeding $1.2 billion. 

Customer agencies are finding it more difficult to own 

and operate a fleet. GSA is able to provide significant 

savings to customer agencies by offering full service fleet 

operations at competitive prices with superior service. 

GSA consistently delivers fleet services at discounts 

at least 27 percent less than the private sector and, in 

FY 2007, exceeded this standard by achieving a discount 

rate of 42 percent. The majority of vehicles consolidated 

into GSA Fleet save customers and taxpayers over 

$810 per vehicle, per year.

At year-end FY 2007, the GSA fleet stands at 209,051 

vehicles. Almost one-third consists of AFVs and HEVs. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

66 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

FAS

Since 1991, GSA has purchased more than 140,000 of 

these vehicles, including more than 21,000 AFVs and 

HEVs ordered in FY 2007. AFVs make up 57 percent of 

Fleet’s acquisitions versus a government-wide average 

of 29 percent. According to the 2007 Automotive Fleet: 

Alternative-Fuel Supplement, GSA Fleet ranked number 

one out of the Top 100 Alternative-Fueled Fleets in 2007. 

TRAVEL:

To standardize, ensure compliance, and reduce operating 

costs, the E-Gov Travel System’s government-wide 

utilization of end-to-end travel management solutions 

continued to increase. By the end of FY 2007, over 

82 Executive branch agencies entered into agreements 

to acquire E-Gov Travel System services. As of the end of 

FY 2007, 41 agencies processed all of their travel 

transactions through the E-Gov Travel System. In addition, 

online booking exceeded original projections, with 

multiple agencies exceeding 70 percent of all transactions 

being booked online.

This year GSA negotiated City Pairs program contracts 

to more than 4,900 destinations at an average cost of 67 

percent below full commercial airline fares. The City Pairs 

program offers discounted airfares to Federal travelers 

with flexible benefits. A few of the benefits the City Pairs 

program offers include: no advance purchase required, 

no minimum or maximum stay required, tickets fully 

refundable, and stable prices that enable travel budgeting. 

GSA has estimated savings for FY 2007 at $4 billion. The 

number of Federal trips was between five million and 

10 million a year and the use of City Pairs program 

increased from 60 percent to approximately 90 percent.

TRANSPORTATION:

To reduce costs to Federal agencies for shipping services, 

GSA announced the first Federal Strategic Sourcing 

Initiative (FSSI) award for express and ground domestic 

delivery services (ExGDDS), a blanket purchase agreement 

off the Transportation Delivery Relocation Solutions 

Schedule. FSSI ExGDDS was awarded with a procurement 

value of over $100 million and estimated governmentwide savings of $10 million. This award will enable the 

Federal government to realize significant savings and 

incur no fuel surcharges on their domestic shipments. 

The award also provides management information reports 

to enable agencies to manage shipments more efficiently 

and implement commercial best practices for additional 

cost reductions. 

CHARGE CARD SERVICES:

GSA SmartPay2® is the largest government charge card 

program in the world. It makes it easier and faster for GSA 

customers to purchase and pay for goods and services. 

Using the cards also saves significant administrative 

time and money. Studies show that customers avoid 

administrative costs of $54 to $92 per transaction with 

a GSA SmartPay2® purchase card instead of a written 

purchase order. This equates to an estimated savings to 

the government of more than $1.8 billion per year.

INTEGRATEDTECHNOLOGY SERVICES:

The FAS’s ITS organization provides acquisition services that 

deliver timely, quality, best value information technology (IT) 

solutions to customer agencies. The organization integrates 

GSA’s comprehensive IT and telecommunications programs 

into a single FAS business portfolio that unifies planning and 

development of all technology acquisitions. This portfolio 

integrates major elements of the legacy FTS, with the IT MAS 

Schedule 70 segment of the legacy FSS, and GWAC Centers. 

ITS awarded several new contracts for network services to 

support government-wide telecommunications needs well 

into the future. Specifically:

In March 2007, ITS awarded Networx Universal contracts 

to meet the Federal government’s telecommunications 

and networking requirements for the next decade. 

National and regional support will be available to 

customers to help transition to the new flagship GSA 

Networx contracts, while continuing to deliver services 

valued at almost $1.4 billion in FY 2007 to users at 135 

Federal agencies and entities at 15,000 locations in more 

than 190 countries.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 67

FAS

In May 2007, ITS awarded Networx Enterprise contracts 

for its customers with additional flexibility and choice 

for voice, Internet protocol, wireless, satellite, and 

net-centric communications services. In addition, ITS 

awarded SATCOM-II contracts to provide Federal and 

defense agencies with the next generation of high quality, 

worldwide satellite communications solutions. 

In July 2007, ITS awarded a new Federal Relay Service 

support contract to provide intermediary assistance 

between hearing individuals and those who are speech 

and/or hearing-impaired through telephonic and Internetbased support services. These important services 

broaden employment and advancement opportunities 

for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, 

and/or have speech disabilities by providing reasonable 

accommodations to employees with disabilities in the 

workplace, while also making the services of Federal 

departments and agencies fully accessible to those 

Americans who are speech and/or hearing-impaired. 

The IT MASs expanded and now offer many standardscompliant products and supporting services packaged to 

meet agency requirements supporting the HSPD-12. In 

April 2007, ITS awarded a new Shared Services Provider 

contract that delivered a substantial cost savings to its 

Managed Service Office (MSO) customers—reducing 

customer costs to $82 per HSPD-12 compliant card. With 

commitments from 63 Federal departments, agencies, and 

commissions, this new acquisition will generate millions 

of dollars in cost savings for GSA’s customers as they 

implement HSPD-12.

Several new strategic sourcing agreements executed 

through the ITS SmartBUY program office offer tremendous opportunities for agencies to reduce IT security 

threats at reduced costs to users. An agreement reached 

this year, in collaboration with DoD, delivered improved 

desktop and critical “data at rest” security solutions 

at great discounts. The “data at rest” agreements in 

particular have been very well received as a solution to 

a growing information security threat open to all levels 

of government nationwide. Also in FY 2007, collective 

purchases by the Social Services Administration and 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of more than 350 

thousand “data at rest” product licenses are estimated 

to yield aggregate savings across those agencies of more 

than $8.7 million. In addition, agreements completed in 

December were the first awards made within the Federal 

government for antivirus software that meets the Federal 

Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 140-2 standard 

for software encryption. A recent DoD purchase through 

SmartBUY for the entire Department (4 million seats) 

offers discounted pricing at 90 percent off GSA Schedule 

prices. 

ASSISTED ACQUISITION SERVICES:

In FY 2007, the FAS Federal Systems Integration and 

Management Center (FEDSIM) awarded a $90.5 million 

contract to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) with a new Web-based supply chain management 

system. This system involves over $2.4 billion in commodity purchases and will manage food distribution 

programs such as the school lunch program. The different 

programs using this system will take part in serving over 

30 million Americans and 280 million people overseas. 

Replacing an antiquated system, the new system will 

let USDA, its customers, and suppliers electronically bid, 

award, and pay for commodities, and dramatically improve 

the management of their inventory and distribution 

through the Internet. 

The FEDSIM team was a recipient of DOE’s 2007 

Secretarial Small Business Award. An integrated team of 

DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration, and FAS 

FEDSIM team won the Federal Small Business Innovation 

Award. The team awarded a $142 million Blanket 

Purchase Agreement (BPA), of which a significant sum 

was transferred from large businesses to small businesses 

in the first 60 days of the BPA. One of the major initiatives 

for the Federal government is to support small business 

infrastructure in the United States.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

68 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

FAS

FAS Performance By GSA Strategic Goals 

Stewardship

Lead Federal agencies in the economical and efficient management of Federal assets by 

spearheading effective policy development and by the exemplary management of the buildings/

workplaces, motor vehicles, and personal property provided by GSA.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

FAS (Fleet) Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates below commercial 

rates on the GSA Vehicle Leasing Schedule.

Met

FAS (Fleet)

Performance Goal

 Maintain the gap between GSA Fleet rates and commercial rates at 20 percent or more.

Measure

Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates below commercial rates on the GSA Vehicle Leasing Schedule.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

32% 43.13% 39.06% ≥ 29.25% 42.38%

DESCRIPTION OFTHE MEASURE: This measure compares GSA Fleet annual rates to private sector companies on schedule with the 

GSA Automotive Division. Market conditions and business projections indicate that leasing vehicles at a savings of 20 percent or 

better over the private sector rates continue to be a reasonable long-term goal for GSA Fleet. 

DATA SOURCE: GSA Fleet rate.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: GSA Fleet exceeded its target for FY 2007 by limiting rate increases for customer 

agencies and controlled costs through numerous initiatives. Performance towards program goals is tracked through several 

performance indicators. GSA Fleet maintains low rates through vigilant monitoring of capital requirements (vehicle acquisition 

cost) and operational expenses (such as fuel, maintenance, and repair costs) and by the reduction of program overhead through 

the consolidation of selected Fleet Management Center locations. GSA Fleet continues to reduce costs while maintaining 

superior, world-class levels of customer satisfaction and retention, resulting in significant savings and benefits over the private 

sector. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 69

FAS

Superior Workplaces 

Deliver and maintain productive workplaces consisting of office space, furnishings, technology, 

supplies, and related services.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

FAS (Fleet) External customer satisfaction survey score. Met

FAS (Fleet)

Performance Goal

Maintain the Vehicle Leasing program’s current level of world-class customer satisfaction in government.

Measure

External customer satisfaction survey score.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

84.9 85.9 84.5 83.1 84.9

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: Annual survey that is designed, administered, and reported using the American Customer 

Satisfaction Index (ACSI) methodology. Questions and results are reported using the ACSI format. ACSI has demonstrated strong 

relationships to customer spending, corporate earnings, and shareholder value, and thus sets a standard for customer satisfaction 

measurement throughout the world. The score is calculated by the average score of three survey questions regarding overall 

satisfaction, customer expectations, and satisfaction versus ideal. 

DATA SOURCE: ACSI External Customer Satisfaction Survey.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: Fleet continued to maintain a very high customer satisfaction score and exceeded 

its target for FY 2007. Fleet saw customer satisfaction improvements in the areas of ordering, customer service, vehicle quality, 

maintenance control, and the Fleet Services Card. In fact, every aspect of Fleet’s operation enjoys a score above 79.0, the 

standard for World Class Satisfaction according to ACSI.

BestValue

Develop and deliver timely, accurate, and cost-effective acquisition services and business solutions.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

FAS (IT Solutions-National) Percentage of negotiated award dates for services 

and commodities that are met or bettered.

Not Met

FAS (Vehicle Acquisition) Percentage discount from invoice price. Met
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

70 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

FAS

FAS (IT Solutions-National)

Performance Goal

Improve performance against business performance metrics, including timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency to verify 

best value and effective acquisition management are achieved.

Measure

Percentage of negotiated award dates for services and commodities that are met or bettered.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

95.0% 87.0% 89.0% >95.0% 72.0%1

1 Results include National IT Solutions and Professional Services. AAS has merged the Professional Services and IT Solutions business lines to create one entity 

(Regional IT/PS and National IT/PS). The PART measures and reporting for AAS have been aligned to this structure. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: To improve customer communications concerning task order requirements and service 

expectation, Client Support Centers (CSC) will track and report actual task order award dates for services and commodities 

against task order award dates that are negotiated with customers. 

DATA SOURCE: Tracking and Ordering System (TOS) and IT Solutions Shop (ITSS).

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007TARGETVS. RESULTS: The target was not met. FY 2007 was a year of significant organizational change, as 

it was the first year of operations of the new FAS. As a part of this reorganization, the IT Solutions-National program was merged 

with two other business lines that had—to that date—operated independently, and with different policies and procedures. 

Management and staff at all levels put forth considerable effort to complete the organizational re-design, stand-up the new 

organization, and standardize processes and procedures. The legacy organizations that merged into FAS had high standards for 

performance, and FAS will maintain those standards in the future; however, they were not able to meet such aggressive targets 

in the midst of such a major organizational change.

FAS (Vehicle Acquisition)

Performance Goal

Maintain 28 percent or better discount from manufacturer’s invoice price.

Measure

Percentage discount from invoice price.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

33.0% 40.6% 39.0% ≥ 28.5% 31.9%
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 71

FAS

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: The average percent savings is calculated by the weighted average discount from vehicle 

manufacturer’s invoice prices for seven of GSA’s top-selling vehicle types. Business projections show that 28 percent discount 

below invoice continues to be a reasonable long-term outcome goal for this business line. 

DATA SOURCE: The Requisitioning, Ordering, and Documentation System (ROADS) contains contract pricing for vehicles.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007TARGETVS. RESULTS: GSA Automotive exceeded the target. Automotive tracks the discount from invoice 

for seven of the top ten selling vehicles as a measure of internal efficiency to ensure that customers receive the maximum 

discount from the manufacturer’s invoice price. Business projections show that 28 percent continues to be a reasonable annual 

target for this business line. This translates to extremely effective pricing on the vehicles purchased for customer agencies, as 

well as those in the GSA Fleet, which keeps monthly and mileage charges well under commercial lease rates. In FYs 2005 and 

2006, a major automobile manufacturer discontinued one of their models and offered GSA unusually large discounts in order to 

clear their inventory. FY 2007 results are more consistent with historical performance and current market condition. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

72 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

The Office of Citizen Services and Communications 

(OCSC) helps citizens, businesses, and other 

governments to easily obtain information and 

services from the government on the Web, via e-mail, in print, 

and over the telephone. OCSC also provides information 

to the media, Federal agencies, the general public, and GSA 

internal audiences on the activities of GSA and its associates. 

OCSC manages USA Services (one of 24 Presidential E-Gov 

initiatives) and is responsible for one of the 17 key measures 

tracked by GSA. USA Services’ mission is to help make the 

government more citizen-centric by providing citizens with 

easy access to accurate, consistent, and timely government 

information. OCSC provides citizens direct information 

about and from all levels of their government through an 

array of integrated information channels, including USA.gov 

(the U.S. government’s official Web portal) telephone and 

e-mail inquiry response from the National Contact Center 

(NCC), and print materials distributed from Pueblo, CO. USA 

Services is also responsible for helping agencies governmentwide improve their interactions with citizens. Through USA 

Services’ national network of state and local officials, they 

are expanding GSA and USA Services’ outreach to other 

governments. USA Services is also working closely with 

state and local officials to use GSA schedules to acquire IT 

products and services when their jurisdictions have been 

deemed a disaster area. It also provides agencies with easy 

and cost-effective access to contact center services through 

the FirstContact contract and soon the USA Contact contract 

will include Web hosting and professional services through 

the Web Solutions contract. 

The paragraphs below summarize major performance results 

during FY 2007.

Performance Highlights

USA Services achieved the rating of “effective” in the OMB 

PART process. In FY 2007, USA Services completed the first 

quarterly scheduled comprehensive, independent evaluation 

of USA Services. 

The paragraphs below summarize OCSC USA Services’ major 

performance results during FY 2007.

Achieved 222 million citizen touch points, an increase of 

67 percent over the 133 million in FY 2006, by providing 

accurate, consistent, and timely information to citizens 

through a variety of channels in both English and Spanish. 

These include online information via USA.gov (the official 

portal of the U.S. government), telephone response 

via 1-800 FED INFO, email, and print publications from 

Pueblo, CO.

To improve name recognition, OCSC revised the name 

and redesigned the site to USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.

gov. In January 2007, after a great deal of market research 

and analysis on the name recognition of FirstGov.gov and 

FirstGov en Espanol, and testing of alternate names, OCSC 

OFFI CE OF C ITI ZEN SERVI CES AND COMMUNI CATIONS

OCSC
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 73

OCSC

renamed the portals USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov. 

USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov (“gobierno” is Spanish 

for “government”) very clearly speaks to what the sites 

are—the official Web portal of the U.S. government, 

in both English and Spanish. Both USA.gov and 

GobiernoUSA.gov follow the naming conventions of 

most other national portals. The name changes have 

been extremely successful, and traffic to both sites has 

continued to increase since the name changes. In April 

2007, USA Services launched redesigns of USA.gov and 

GobiernoUSA.gov, which resulted from usability testing 

with citizens, analyses of Web metrics and survey data, 

and Web best practices. Making the site more citizencentric, USA Services reduced the clutter on each page, 

made content and image changes requested by the public, 

added new features to change the text size when the site 

is viewed, and strengthened the branding and recognition 

of the site as the official U.S. government Web portal.

Brown University once again designated USA.gov as 

the #1 Web site in the Federal government. The United 

Nations also rated FirstGov.gov as the #1 Web site for 

quality and e-government readiness. In July 2007, Time

magazine named USA.gov among the “25 Sites We Can’t 

Live Without.”

OCSC continued to expand the capabilities of USASearch.

gov. Visitors can now search for government news from 

over 190 agency Web feeds as well as approximately 

60,000 images contained in government image libraries. 

Additional robust search features allow the citizen to 

search for weather at specific locations, search for specific 

automobiles, and get results from many government 

sources on crash test ratings and fuel estimates. In 

addition, search results now include results for frequently 

asked questions from 26 agencies.

USA Services continued to provide telecommunications 

and interactive voice response (IVR) support to the 

Department of State’s National Passport Information 

Center (NPIC). Due to new requirements that passports 

were needed to travel by air outside of the country, call 

volumes at the NPIC increased by more than 340 percent 

in FY 2007 as compared to the same period in FY 2006. 

USA Services worked closely with NPIC to provide 

additional telecommunications capacity and to make the 

IVR call flow more efficient to handle increased volumes 

of callers. Additionally, during the summer of FY 2007, 

NPIC requested that the NCC provide direct telephone 

support in answering the volume of calls. From June 

through its completion in September, USA Services 

handled 240,000 passport calls. 

OCSC provided training for 3,400 Web managers from 

75 Federal agencies and 25 state and local agencies in 37 

courses, workshops, and Webinars on Web best practices 

through Web Manager University

Since FY 1997, USA Services has published the annual 

Consumer Action Handbook, a how-to guide for citizens 

to use to protect themselves in the marketplace, before, 

during, and after a consumer purchase or transaction. 

The Handbook has consistently been the most popular 

publication listed in the Consumer Information Catalog,

and consumer protection officials across the country 

refer to it as the gold standard for Federal publications. 

In response to the needs of the large and growing 

Hispanic population, in FY 2007 USA Services produced 

the first annual edition of the Guia del Consumidor and 

distributed copies to organizations, government agencies, 

and educational institutions serving the Spanish-speaking 

community, as well as to individuals.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

74 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

OCSC

OCSC Performance By GSA Strategic Goals 

Innovation

Develop new and better ways of conducting business that result in more productive and effective 

Federal policies and administrative operations.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

OCSC (USA Services) Citizen touchpoints. Met

OCSC (USA Services)

Performance Goal

Public acceptance and increased usage of all public information channels.

Measure

Citizen touchpoints.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

101.5M 122.7M 133.0M 168.6M 222M

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: USA Services operates a variety of channels to provide citizens with Federal information. These 

channels include the USA.gov Web site, several other Web sites (including pueblo.gsa.gov, kids.gov, consumeraction.gov, etc.), 

the NCC, and a publication distribution facility in Pueblo, CO. Additionally, USA Services provides a variety of agencies with 

reimbursable services, which directly assist them in meeting the information needs of citizens. Citizen touchpoints provides 

an overview of citizen awareness and usage of all of USA Services information channels. It is measured by direct and assisted 

Web site visits, direct and assisted telephone contacts, e-mails and Web chats processed, publications distributed, subscriber 

e-mailings, and telephone, e-mail, and Web activity conducted through task orders awarded under USA Services Indefinite 

Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) support contracts (FirstContact, USA Contact, and Web Solutions). 

DATA SOURCE: Data is gathered on a monthly basis from a wide variety of automated and manual systems used by in-house 

and contractor staffs to produce reports showing activity in the different categories of citizen touchpoints. Reports on Web 

activity come from industry standard WebTrends tracking reports; information on calls and e-mails comes from both the NCC 

and FirstContact Contractor reports along with automated reports produced by Verizon, which supplies telecommunications 

support. Publication distribution information is maintained and reported through the automated inventory system used 

at OCSC’s Pueblo, CO distribution facility. Subscription e-mail data is provided through separate online tracking systems 

maintained by GSA and contractors and some of the smallest numbers are done by individual counts.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 75

OCSC

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGETVS. RESULTS: USA Services met and, with a citizen touchpoint total of 222.3 million, significantly 

exceeded its FY 2007 target goal of 168.6 million. This strong performance was the result of two factors: 

The first was strong growth in many of the previously existing channels. The biggest contribution of touchpoints resulted 

through USA Services telecommunications support to the NPIC. As a direct result of new legal requirements that Americans 

flying to destinations in Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean would have to have a Passport to get back in to the country, calls 

poured into the NPIC. Calls increased by 326 percent from 7.85 million in FY 2006, to 33.45 million in FY 2007. Also, visits 

to USA.gov increased 15.1 percent to 97 million, while visits to USA Services other Web sites increased 13.5 percent to 

21.6 million. Publication distribution also continued to increase in FY 2007 to 21.3 million, a 32.1 percent increase over 

FY 2006 and the highest distribution total since FY 1980. There was also a 126.1 percent increase in subscriber e-mailings 

with the success of the service to notify interested individuals when specific pages of our Web sites are updated. Increases 

in these areas were fueled by an extensive outreach effort coupled with increased public service advertising which netted 

more than $10 million in free broadcast time and advertising space.

The second factor contributing to the increase in touchpoints was that FY 2007 touchpoint counts included four additional 

channels beyond what was counted in FY 2006. These four channels accounted for 40.65 million touchpoints that were 

not in the FY 2006 counts. These channels are Web chat (a new service in FY 2007), Web Solutions Agency Support 

(hosting support provided to other agency Web sites), Affiliate Assisted Web visits (search support provided to other agency 

Web sites), and Consumer Information Catalog distribution (this catalog supports USA Services print distribution efforts). 

However, even without these additional channels, USA Services touchpoints would still have exceeded the target by over 

13 million with a total of 181.6 million.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

76 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

provides professional financial management 

services, guidance, and innovative solutions to its 

customers. The OCFO’s primary purpose is to support and 

enhance GSA’s ability to achieve its objectives and improve 

Agency-wide financial management performance. The 

OCFO’s efforts focus on creating and optimizing value at least 

cost by combining and interpreting financial and program 

data to assist managers in making sound business decisions. 

The OCFO develops overall Agency policies and procedures 

for budget administration, planning and performance 

measurement, financial reporting, management and internal 

controls, and financial management systems.

Performance Highlights

GSA BUDGET DEVELOPMENT:

The OCFO made major improvements to the GSA Performance 

Management Process (PMP) in FY 2007, significantly improving 

its utility in formulating the FY 2009 GSA Budget Submission. 

Most notably, the OCFO required that all proposed FY 2009 

budget initiatives have a positive return on investment and 

deliver a quantifiable performance. Using the improved 

PMP process, the OCFO provided the GSA Administrator 

with comprehensive, data driven financial and performance 

analysis, allowing her to make informed budget decisions. As 

a result, GSA delivered an FY 2009 budget submission to OMB 

that was both within OMB’s guidance and fully consistent 

with the Administrator’s policy and fiscal goals. 

In its role as the Controller for GSA’s General Management 

and Administration (GM&A) functions, the OCFO worked 

hard to support the Administrator’s goal of reducing the cost 

of services provided to GSA’s customers. Providing common 

support functions such as human resources, financial 

management, and information management, centrally to all 

GSA organizations significantly reduces their total cost to 

the Agency. Through aggressive application of the PMP and 

extensive, cooperative interaction with the GM&A service 

providers, the OCFO was able to reduce GM&A costs in the 

FY 2007 budget by over $15 million from FY 2006. 

ORGANIZATION AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS:

In FY 2007, the OCFO continued to evolve as a shared service 

provider of financial management services to customer 

agencies and commissions. The OCFO’s Federal Integrated 

Solutions Center (FISC) provides integrated shared services 

that enhance effectiveness, improve efficiency, and reduce 

risk for Federal government agencies, enabling them to focus 

on their core missions. The OCFO’s FY 2007 focus was on 

standing up FISC services and establishing partnerships with 

OFFI CE OF THE CHIEF FINANC IAL OFFI CER

OCFO
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 77

OCFO

small to mid-sized agencies to deliver these services. The 

OCFO’s long-term goal is for the FISC to become the leading 

provider of expert, integrated process, technology, and 

management solutions to Federal government agencies. 

Financial transaction and system operations are at the core 

of the services that the OCFO delivers. The OCFO delivers 

these services both internally to GSA and externally to other 

governmental agencies and commissions. Pursuant to its goal 

to be a government-wide leader in these business offerings, 

the OCFO is working to achieve efficiencies by streamlining 

financial transaction processing at its OCFO financial 

operation centers. During FY 2007, the OCFO completed an 

initiative to map out all of the processes required to perform 

account receivable, account payable, asset management, cash 

and disbursement operations, and financial reporting services. 

This initiative identified a number of potential process 

improvements for study and implementation during FY 2008. 

Another key financial initiative was the creation of the 

OCFO’s Executive Scorecard. To ensure that GSA is managing 

its customer’s money in full compliance with all statutory 

requirements, the OCFO began producing aging reports on 

Unfilled Customer Orders, Accounts Receivable, Accounts 

Payable, Obligations, and Charge Card logging. These reports 

were consolidated into a monthly Executive Scorecard that 

helps focus GSA senior management on older and possibly 

invalid data residing in GSA systems. The scorecard provides 

managers with an unambiguous snapshot on current 

organization performance and indicates where management 

attention should be focused to prevent future problems. 

The Executive Scorecard has successfully focused GSA 

management resources on identifying errant data and purging 

it from GSA, helping to ensure the financial integrity of GSA 

and its customers. 

In the area of financial management systems, the OCFO is 

working to implement a world-class shared services financial 

system enterprise that meets customer needs and positions 

GSA to provide efficient and effective IT services, today and 

for the long term. Throughout FY 2007, the OCFO worked to 

unify GSA financial management systems operations through 

Financial Management Enterprise Architecture (FMEA), 

replace its remaining legacy financial systems modules, 

simplify financial management information access, and offer 

a high-quality delivery of services that meets GSA customer 

requirements. As part of its continuing effort to modernize 

GSA’s financial applications, the OCFO implemented costallocation, vendor self-service, and e-Travel modules, with 

implementation of E-Authentication planned for the near 

future. In addition, final planning and acquisitions are 

underway for two major functional areas—billing and 

accounts receivable, and asset management. Much of the 

required development and planning work was completed 

in FY 2007, positioning GSA to begin implementation in 

FY 2008. The OCFO also worked diligently to ensure that GSA 

was in full compliance with all Federal financial management 

systems requirements. A significant step was implementation 

of a major version upgrade to GSA’s financial management 

commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) application to help maintain 

Financial System Integration Office (FSIO) compliance. 

INTERNAL CONTROLS AND AUDITS:

The OCFO made a major effort in FY 2007 to implement 

the latest OMB Circular A-123 policy management and 

internal control requirements throughout GSA’s nationwide 

programs. To achieve these new mandatory government-wide 

requirements, the OCFO expanded the process of conducting 

risk assessments for all GSA programs, incorporating riskbased testing into internal control reviews, and tracking 

implementation of internal control review recommendations. 

In addition, the OCFO established a fully functional internal 

control database, providing all GSA employees with a central 

location to electronically complete assurance statements, 

risk assessments, and internal control reviews. The OCFO 

also significantly improved its automated system for tracking 

audits and required follow-up actions. As a result, GSA was 

able to meet all of its audit deadlines on time in FY 2007. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

78 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

OCFO

OCFO Performance By GSA Strategic Goals 

Stewardship

Lead Federal agencies in the economical and efficient management of Federal assets by 

spearheading effective policy development and by the exemplary management of the buildings/

workplaces, motor vehicles, and personal property provided by GSA.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

OCFO Percent of invoices received electronically. Not Met

OCFO

Performance Goal

Increase the percentage of vendor invoices received electronically by Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or through 

the Internet.

Measure

Percent of invoices received electronically. 

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

56.0% 64.0% 71.0% 80.0% 73.0%

DESCRIPTION OFTHE MEASURE: Electronic invoicing increases the efficiency and reduces associated costs of financial transaction 

processing operations. The OCFO continues to market electronic invoicing options to GSA’s vendors. By placing clauses in GSA 

contracts and orders, the OCFO is encouraging electronic invoices via the Internet. 

DATA SOURCE: Pegasys—GSA’s official accounting system of record.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was not met. At year-end, 73 percent of GSA’s invoices were received 

electronically. While this represents an improvement over the previous fiscal year, GSA continues to experience challenges in 

convincing large and small vendors to participate in electronic invoicing. In the case of large vendors, they typically have their 

own invoicing systems and are reluctant to modify business processes to meet GSA requirements. Conversely, small vendors 

face impediments in the cost of technological equipment to enable them to submit invoices electronically. GSA continues to 

explore incentives to increase electronic invoicing from its vendor community. One example is that GSA now offers 10-day 

quick payment terms to eligible vendors who submit their invoices via the Internet. The OCFO also encourages contracting 

officers to make electronic invoicing a requirement in new contracts. Electronic invoicing has proven to be more efficient, 

reducing costs and errors in the invoicing process for both GSA and its customers. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 79

The mission of the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer 

(OCHCO) is to contribute to 

GSA’s business success by providing 

human capital management strategies, 

policies, advice, information, services, and 

solutions consistent with merit system 

principles. In order to remain focused on 

this mission, the OCHCO will continue to 

lead the implementation of the Strategic 

Management of Human Capital in support 

of the PMA, as well as other Agency-specific 

objectives in GSA’s Human Capital Strategic 

Plan (HCSP).

At GSA, human capital is integral to the Agency’s ability to 

achieve its mission. Recognizing the strategic importance 

of human capital, the Agency is committed to maintaining a 

world-class workforce and a world-class workplace. 

GSA’s HCSP established seven goals to support GSA’s business 

and performance objectives and meet PMA requirements.

Performance Highlights

The following summarizes key OCHCO accomplishments in 

these areas during FY 2007:

Strategic and Organizational Alignment: During 

FY 2007, the OCHCO provided workforce information 

and met strategic human capital needs with GSA Heads of 

Services and Staff Offices and Regional Administrators to 

ensure organizational and strategic alignment and focus. 

Furthermore, the OCHCO worked closely with its largest 

internal customers to implement organization-specific 

human capital strategies. One of the primary areas of focus 

for this fiscal year was the establishment of the Federal 

Acquisition Service (FAS). The OCHCO provided the 

human capital tools necessary to establish this worldwide 

organization of over 4,000 employees. Strategies included 

assessing and enhancing the skills of employees, hiring new 

talent, organizational realignment, succession planning, 

and competitive sourcing. In support of realignment and 

competitive sourcing initiatives, the OCHCO continued to 

assist its customers in the utilization of workforce-shaping 

tools such as Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment and 

Voluntary Early Retirement Authority. The OCHCO was 

also involved in a number of other major reorganization 

efforts, including the Office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO) and the Board of Contract Appeals.

Executive Leadership: GSA’s internal leadership talent 

pipeline continues to replenish supervisory vacancies 

effectively. During FY 2007, GSA hired 30 Senior Executive 

Service (SES) employees, which represents 26 percent of 

the SES cadre at GSA. Over 85 percent of GSA’s supervisory 

OFFI CE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFI CER

OCHCO
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

80 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

OCHCO

positions and wants to focus on increased percentages of 

representation among people with disabilities. 

Performance Culture: The OCHCO continued to 

revise GSA’s employee performance management and 

recognition policies to reinforce GSA’s business goals and 

strategies. As a result, there was an increased ability to hold 

managers accountable for their performance management 

responsibilities, enhanced data capture, and the ability to 

link employee performance to GSA’s recognition program. 

The automation of the Performance Management Process 

(PMP) allows employees to access their performance 

plans and completed appraisals through the Internet, 

and enables GSA Human Resources offices to generate 

reports on activity at each stage, and use that information 

to drive behavior. GSA’s first full year of implementation 

of the awards processing program from FEDdesk to the 

Comprehensive Human Resources Integrated System 

(CHRIS) was very successful. The new custom-built awards 

process is easier for managers and administrative staff to 

use and supports an increased level of accountability, data 

retention, and compliance. This ensures fairness in the 

program and recognizes high-performance throughout 

the Agency. OPM rated GSA’s performance management 

and recognition system as an “effective strategy,” the top 

category in their ranking methodology. 

Learning and Knowledge Sharing: During FY 2007, the 

OCHCO promoted Online University as a cost effective 

distance learning method to deliver training. During the 

fiscal year, there were 37,941 course completions. GSA 

also migrated to a new Learning Management System 

provider (Learn.com) that offers a number of additional 

features, which are currently being reviewed for possible 

implementation. These include Individual Development 

Plan Module; Competency Management System Module; 

Instructor Led Training/Classroom Scheduler Module; 

Learning Content Management System Module; and the 

SF 182, Authorization, Agreement and Certification of 

Training Module. Additionally, this new contract will 

enable GSA to have one Learning Management System for 

the Agency, which will lead to a complete training dataset 

for each GSA employee.

vacancies were filled with internal GSA employees. GSA’s 

Leadership Institute is used to enhance the effectiveness 

of current and future leaders. The Advanced Leadership 

Development Program (ALDP) is an intensive and highly 

selective program designed to prepare employees for 

executive careers, and the Leadership for New Supervisors 

(LNS) course provides new supervisors with the tools 

and information to effectively manage their organization. 

During FY 2007, 30 GSA employees participated in the 

ALDP and 141 participated in the LNS program, which 

was a significant increase from last year’s program. 

Mentoring Program: GSA launched a mentoring program 

to foster future leadership and compliment its succession 

planning work. The mentoring program pairs talented, 

experienced employees (mentors) with employees 

(protégés) who need to enhance their leadership and 

other business skills. A mentoring relationship benefits 

both participants. Protégés have a chance to learn from 

a seasoned professional and mentors get a chance to see 

things from a new perspective. 

Talent: During FY 2007, the OCHCO completed its 

skill gap analysis for mission critical workforces and is 

developing strategies to close gaps. This analysis used 

competency-based models to target training, recruitment, 

and selection efforts to respond to current and emerging 

organizational needs. GSA continues to implement 

improvements in the hiring process to improve 

effectiveness and efficiency outcomes. GSA established 

a talent center to work on mission critical workforce 

announcements and hiring process improvements. GSA 

is achieving more efficient hiring timelines, using both the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and GSA models. 

GSA is also receiving increased satisfaction rates from 

hiring managers on the quality of applicants. 

Diversity: During FY 2007, the OCHCO worked to 

establish a more robust liaison with community groups 

and organizations representing diverse backgrounds. 

The OCHCO further developed plans to address 

under-representation of women and minorities in SES 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 81

OCHCO

Workplace and Environment: GSA continued to enjoy 

the recognition of being named in the top ten agencies 

in the Federal government by the Best Places to Work

organization. This recognition is based on employee 

survey feedback to which employees scored GSA in 

the top ten agencies for Talent Management, Leadership 

and Knowledge Management, and Job Satisfaction. GSA 

implemented a Workforce Engagement Survey in FY 

2007 to comply with the new annual employee survey 

requirement. 

OCHCO Performance By GSA Strategic Goals 

Stewardship

Lead Federal agencies in the economical and efficient management of Federal assets by 

spearheading effective policy development and by the exemplary management of the buildings/

workplaces, motor vehicles, and personal property provided by GSA.

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

OCHCO Number of days to fill a vacancy. Met

OCHCO

Performance Goal

Enhance ability to attract talent to GSA.

Measure

Number of days to fill a vacancy.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

Not Measured 26.3 30.1 45.0 26.25

DESCRIPTION OFTHE MEASURE: This goal measures GSA’s ability to fill a vacancy from the time that the announcement is posted 

until a selection is made. This goal is established by OPM. 

DATA SOURCE: Manual spreadsheet extracted from GSAjobs.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The OCHCO achieved its target in this area for FY 2007. The target, 45 days, was 

established by OPM to measure how much time was needed to make a selection once a particular job announcement closes. GSA 

was able to exceed this goal, while at the same time it was undergoing the Business Process Re-engineering effort to improve the 

hiring process and worked closely with customers in major reorganization efforts, such as FAS and the OCIO organizations.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

82 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

The Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP) 

provides a policy and best practices framework 

for more effective and efficient use of Federal 

resources and improved performance in real and personal 

property, automotive and aviation fleet management, travel, 

transportation, mail management, IT, financial management, 

alternative workplaces, telework, committee management, 

and the regulatory process. Under the direction of OMB and 

Congress, OGP provides leadership and program support in 

the development of a policy environment that encourages 

the adoption of innovative solutions toward more productive 

work environments, and coordinates major government-wide 

management improvement initiatives. OGP actively helps 

agencies understand and implement new ways of doing 

business, effectively align with common standards, and adopt 

government-wide solutions that increase efficiencies. OGP 

accomplishes this through collaboration, communication, 

performance measurement, monitoring compliance, and 

managing essential government-wide databases and Webbased applications. OGP ensures the involvement and buy-in 

of Federal agencies, the private sector, and other stakeholders 

in these processes. OGP also serves as an incubator for new 

programs or business opportunities created by Administration 

policies or by law, and ensures that opportunities that 

prove viable are migrated to GSA services or other suitable 

government or private organizations for operational 

implementation.

Performance Highlights

OGP achieved the rating “moderately effective” in the PART 

process for FY 2007. The continued implementation of 

OGP’s innovative Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS) 

continues to be the primary mechanism OGP employs to 

demonstrate its effectiveness under PART. To increase its 

PART score, OGP finalized the development of its policy 

compliance assessment methodologies, which will serve to 

fulfill the PART requirement that OGP holds Agency partners 

accountable for their performance. 

The following reflects the performance highlights of each of 

the initiatives that comprised OGP’s FY 2007 3PS portfolio:

OGP vastly improved its performance rating under the 3PS 

interagency survey. OGP’s effectiveness rating increased 

from 53 percent in FY 2006 to 70 percent in FY 2007. This 

increase represents a combined effort by OGP leadership 

to improve communication and collaboration with its 

stakeholders and partners in the Federal community. 

OGP’s Office of Technology Strategy (OTS) successfully 

worked to meet the deadline imposed by the HSPD-12 

to begin issuing the new Personal Identity Verification 

(PIV) card no later than October 27, 2006 and to meet 

all subsequent milestones. In FY 2007, the Identity 

Management Division established the HSPD-12 

interagency Architecture Working Group and together 

OFFI CE OF GOVERNMENTWIDE POLI CY

OGP
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 83

OGP

developed interface specifications for the exchange of 

data across all HSPD-12 systems and system components. 

With this in place, compliant systems interoperated on a 

government-wide basis. The architecture was designed 

to be implemented with the approved products from 

the FIPS 201 evaluation program, an integral part of the 

program; the evaluation program ensures products meet 

the FIPS 201 requirements. Identity Management targeted 

the completion of six of 11 interface specifications and 

successfully issued 10 of the 11 interface specifications. 

Currently there are 26 schedule providers with multiple 

HSPD-12 products and services available for governmentwide use. Through standardization, competition, and 

aggregate buying power, the seat price of a PIV identity 

account was reduced to under $50. 

The Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB) 

improved the cost, quality, and performance of financial 

management by standardizing financial system data, 

expanding shared service solutions, and implementing 

other government-wide reforms that foster efficiencies in 

Federal financial operations. In order to mitigate the risk 

of moving to shared services solutions, common standards 

and processes must first be established. FMLoB met its 

improvement target to issue four of 10 (40 percent) data 

or process standards. The Common Government-wide 

Accounting Classification issued in June is an extremely 

important standard; it defines a uniform way to capture 

information when classifying the financial effects of 

government business activities. The structure facilitates 

seamless data exchange among agencies’ financial 

systems. 

OGP’s Office of Real Property Management met five of 

the six1 Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) business 

needs on schedule. The business needs were developed 

to support the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) 

goals to improve real property managers’ decision-making 

abilities by providing accurate and reliable data and to 

increase Agency accountability for asset management. In 

support of this effort, OGP has:

Continued to improve and enhance the FRPP and 

Performance Assessment Tool in order to maximize 

the effectiveness of the FRPP for its users. 

In just over three years, the FRPP has helped agencies 

track the disposal of more than $4.5 billion in 

unneeded Federal real property. 

Successfully completed two years of inventory data 

collection, enabling the capacity to generate delta and 

variance reports from year to year. 

Provided the new ability to track annual inventory 

changes to improve the reliability and accuracy of 

Agency data in the coming years. 

Performed extensive data analyses and answered 

numerous requests by external constituents to prove 

the benefits of a centralized database and how it leads 

to more responsible asset management. 

Remained proactive in customer service to GSA’s 

FRPP user community by developing annual guidance 

and convening training. 

OGP’s Alternative Workplace Arrangements (AWA) 

initiative increased the knowledge of Federal government 

managers and employees regarding AWA policies and 

practices. This initiative aided in the support of more 

efficient real property asset management:

OGP provided guidance, program promotion, and 

technical assistance resulting in at least four agencies 

(Environmental Protection Agency, Department of 

Defense, National Institutes of Health, and Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission) planning 

and/or implementing AWA initiatives for space and 

facility cost savings. 

OGP worked with GSA’s Region 10 to reconfigure 

underutilized space into a telework center, which 

began operation in September 2007. 

1 The sixth and final business need for FY 2007, titled “Deliver a final FRPP Data Security Plan to the FRPC,” is currently delayed and awaiting security requirements 

from the FRPC. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

84 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

OGP

OGP developed and issued Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR) Bulletin 2007-B1, Information

Technology and Telecommunications and Other 

Alternative Workplace Arrangement Programs, 

which provided: 

(1) a much-needed, management-oriented, easy-toread overview of AWA technology information, 

policies, and practices; 

(2) a tool to assist in effective management of agency 

technology assets. This policy bulletin has been 

heralded by agencies, the media, and technology 

experts for improving awareness of, and offering 

the first-ever guidance on, key AWA technology 

issues. 

OGP outreach activities included collaborating 

with Congressional staff, which helped to guide 

development of telework bills introduced by both 

the House and Senate to further increase and steer 

Federal telework participation. 

The Federal Asset Sales initiative has enjoyed great success 

during FY 2007. A few of these key accomplishments are 

outlined below: 

OGP successfully worked with all scorecard agencies 

to migrate to selected sales centers for both real and 

personal property. Each agency, as a result, provided 

OGP with a completed migration plan as evidence of 

this success. 

A FY 2008 and beyond funding model for the Federal 

Asset Sales initiative was approved by the initiative’s 

Executive Steering Committee. 

In July 2007, the Executive Steering Committee 

approved two new sales centers at IRS and DOI. 

The GovSales.gov portal was updated and improved 

to include a section focused on selling international 

property owned by the U.S. government. 

The Federal Asset Sales Program Office contracted 

to conduct an online customer satisfaction survey of 

GovSales.gov customers. The survey, intended to capture 

customer feedback and satisfaction with the portal, was 

posted in May 2007. Preliminary results showed that 

there were areas that needed improvement; overall, 

the results indicated that customer satisfaction with 

GovSales.gov is high. The portal was consistently given 

a customer service score of 70 out of a possible 100; the 

benchmark score for government sites, as described by 

ForeSee Results, was 71. Thus, the GovSales portal scored 

on par with other government Web sites, many of which 

have been in operation longer than GovSales.gov. To 

further enhance the customer experience, the initiative 

also sponsored ongoing usability tests to ensure that the 

Govsales.gov portal adheres to best practices with regard 

to organization, content, presentation, navigation, and 

other measurement areas. 

After 14 months of development, the newly redesigned 

Federal Aviation Interactive Reporting System (FAIRS) 

v2.0 was made operational in February 2007. In the new 

version, OGP embedded an interactive training system that 

allows each user to learn and be certified in the system 

functions they need to know, rather than conducting 

costly traditional classroom instruction nationwide. Issues 

and problems that surfaced prior to implementation were 

rapidly resolved and, where necessary, enhancements 

were prioritized and immediately implemented. One 

of the major goals of the redevelopment was to reduce 

operating costs for the entire application. Throughout 

the year, system reliability was consistently over 

99 percent. Implementing FAIRS v2.0 not only improved 

the quality and accuracy of data reported by Federal 

agencies on all aircraft program costs, but also improved 

system accessibility and reliability for GSA’s Federal 

agency customers. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 85

OGP

OGP Performance By GSA Strategic Goals 

Innovation

Develop new and better ways of conducting business that result in more productive and effective 

Federal policies and administrative operations. 

Program PERFORMANCE Measure Result

OGP Extent to which policy initiatives achieve improvement targets. Met

OGP Percentage of key policy stakeholders and agency users who rate 

policy initiatives effective.

Met

OGP

Performance Goal

Ensure OGP policy initiatives achieve improvement targets.

Measure

Extent to which policy initiatives achieve improvement targets.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

66% 71% 100% 84% 98%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: This measure is a composite of eight component measures that represent the progress of 

programs and initiatives that comprise OGP’s Performance Portfolio. 

DATA SOURCE: For FY 2007, the data sources associated with this measure include: FAIRS; the Regulatory Information Service 

Center (RISC)/Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Consolidated Information System (ROCIS); the Financial 

Systems Integration Office publications and Web site; publication of PIV interface specifications; executive assessments of 

OGP by the FRPC in regards to the FRPP; and analytical assessments of Business Reference Model (BRM) agencies migrating to 

approved sales centers under the Federal Asset Sales initiative.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007TARGETVS. RESULTS: OGP set a target to achieve an 84 percent rating for this measure for FY 2007. Seven 

of the eight component measures fulfilled or exceeded their targets. In one case, five of the six business needs (83 percent) 

required by the FRPC were met. The sixth and final business need for FY 2007 requires OGP to deliver a final FRPP data security 

plan to the FRPC. However, this is currently delayed and awaiting security requirements to be issued from the FRPC. The 

83 percent result for this one component averaged with the six other initiatives in the portfolio which each achieved 

100 percent results in a final score of 98 percent.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

86 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

OGP

Component measures that exceeded their FY 2007 target include:

91 percent of PIV interface specifications for major HSPD-12 architecture components were issued, which was 31 percent 

above target.

Nine major agencies are reporting real estate cost saving from telework programs, which was five agencies above target.

All of the 24 BRM agencies are migrating to OMB-approved sales centers under the Federal Asset Sales initiative, which is six 

agencies above target.

OGP

Performance Goal

Ensure OGP policy initiatives are effective. 

Measure

Percentage of key policy stakeholders and agency users who rate policy initiatives effective.

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

TARGET

FY 2007

Actual

Not Measured Not Measured 54% 57% 70%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: This measure is a survey of how many stakeholders and agency users rate policy initiatives 

effective. 

DATA SOURCE: The data is collected by a third-party contractor via Web surveys and focus group sessions which yield a composite 

performance rating from OGP’s key policy stakeholders and agency points of contact involved in a specified set of programs and 

initiatives that comprise OGP’s Performance Portfolio.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 TARGETVS. RESULTS: The 2006 overall effectiveness rating was 54 percent, which was a baseline because 

it represented the first year OGP conducted this type of study. The goal for 2007 was set at 57 percent. For 2007, the average 

rating across all the programs/policies was 70 percent. This was a significant improvement, up 16 percent, since 2006. OGP 

was rated highest on keeping users and stakeholders informed about matters that affect GSA, responding in a timely manner 

to inquiries, and knowledge and expertise. Also, nearly one-half of respondents believe that OGP’s performance has improved 

over the past year.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 87

Linking Strategic Goals and Performance 

Measures to Budget

The results presented in the following table linking strategic goals and performance measures to budget are preliminary. The purpose of this table is to show the financial impact of each performance measure and the corresponding strategic goal. The final results will be presented 

in the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) addendum to be available online by January 2008. 

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

Stewardship

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Increase to 74% the percentage

of government-owned assets 

with are turn one quity (ROE) 

of at least 6% by FY 2007.

Percentage of government-owned 

assets with an ROE of at least 6%. 2

71% 76.4% $ 111,998 75.6% $ 88,788

Increase the percentage of 

government-owned assets with a 

positive Funds From Operations 

(FFO) to 90% by FY 2007.

Percentage of government-owned 

assets achieving a positive FFO. 2

85% 82.7% $ 2,665 84% $ 2,721

Decrease the vacant (available 

and committed) space to 7% 

of the owned inventory by FY 

2005 and maintain thereafter.

Percentage of available and 

committed space in governmentowned inventory.

7% 7% $ 43,270 7% $ 50,257

Execute energy conservation 

goals while increasing GSA’s 

Customer Satisfaction scores to 

75% by FY 2007.

Customer Satisfaction - tenants in 

owned space.

73% 83% $ 773,988 75% $1,017,973

PBS (Leasing) Maintain percent of vacant 

space in leased buildings at 

less than or equal to 1.5% by 

FY 2007.

Percent of vacant space in leased 

inventory.

≤1.50% 1.50% $ 51,851 <1.50% $ 52,906

Manage the costs of 

administering leased space so 

that leased FFO is greater than 

0% and no more than 2% of the 

leased inventory revenue.

Percent of leased revenue available 

after administering the leased 

program.

0%-2% 1.50% $3,925,020 0%-2% $4,068,118

PBS (New 

Construction)

By FY 2007, certify 25% of the 

New Construction program 

for Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) 

within 18 months of substantial 

construction completion.

Percent of New Construction program 

that is certified for LEED.

20% 0% $ 11,564 25% $ 12,982

Verify 35% of newly constructed 

buildings for achievement 

of established operational 

requirements by FY 2007.

Percent of newly constructed 

buildings independently verified 

for achievement of established 

operational requirements. 

30% 100% $ 216,574 35% $ 145,066

PBS (Real Property) Award 100% of public sales 

within 170 days for FY 2007.

The percent of public sales awarded 

within 170 days.

95% 100% $ 11,626 100% $ 11,483

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

88 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

Stewardship (continued)

FAS (Long Distance) Award and effectively manage 

the Network Services contracts.

Complete the Networx Transition 

Planning versus actual.3

Not Measured Not Measured $ 5,482 0% $ -

FAS (Vehicle 

Acquisition)

Manage program resources to 

meet its future needs while 

maximizing program efficiency.

Number of vehicles purchased per 

full-time equivalent (FTE).

1,300 1,676 $ 2,399 1,310 $ 2,446

FAS (Fleet) Maintain the gap between GSA 

Fleet rates and commercial rates 

at 20% or more.

Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates 

below commercial rates on the GSA 

Vehicle Leasing Schedule.

>29% 39.06% $ 38,479 >29.25% $ 45,363

Aggressively pursue 

consolidation opportunities 

to reduce overall government 

expenses.

Number of vehicles managed per 

onboard associate.

335 352 $ 19,188 340 $ 6,038

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Provide quality telecommunications services through 

appropriate consistency in 

the acquisition management 

process from pre-award through 

closeout.

Percentage of task and delivery 

orders subject to the fair opportunity 

process.4

80% 86.84% $ 18,977 80% $ -

Percentage of schedule task orders 

solicited using e-Buy.4

Not Measured Not Measured $ 18,218 80% $ -

FAS (Card ServicesSmartPay)

Maximize program-operating 

efficiency.

Government-wide spend per GSA 

SmartPay contract administration FTE.

$5B $5.31B $ 2,339 $5.05B $1,825

OCFO Increase the percentage of 

vendor invoices received 

electronically by Electronic Data 

Interchange (EDI) or through 

the Internet.

Percent of invoices received 

electronically.4

68% 71% $ - 80% $ -

OCHCO Enhance ability to attract talent 

to GSA.

Number of days to fill a vacancy.4 45 30.1 $ - 45 $ -

Enhance performance culture by 

the successful implementation 

for all employees of associate 

performance plans that are 

linked to the Performance 

Management Process (PMP).

Percentage of employees that have 

individual performance plans and 

receive ratings at end of rating cycle.4

95% 96% $ - 95% $ -

OCIO Provide a secure IT 

environment.

Percentage of IT systems that 

have a current certification and 

accreditation.3

100% 100% $ - 100% $ -

OCIO Obtain a high rating of major 

IT initiatives by OMB for 

Enterprise Architecture-FY 2005 

Exhibit 300 Submission.

Percent of major IT initiatives by OMB 

for Enterprise Architecture-FY 2005 

Exhibit 300 Submission.3

100% 100% $ - 100% $ -

OGP Ensure OGP policy initiatives 

meet their scheduled 

development milestones.

Percentage of OGP initiatives meeting 

their scheduled development 

milestones.

80% 100% $ 3,056 84% $ 3,171

OGP Ensure all OGP initiatives meet 

their cost targets.

Percentage of OGP initiatives meeting 

their scheduled cost targets.

100% 80% $ 2,496 100% $ 3,406

OCSC Disseminate strategic information messages to all audiences 

by providing integrated and 

coordinated communications to 

GSA associates and news media.

Strategic Messages (Favorable, Neutral, 

and Unfavorable).

26%, 

67%, 

7%

35%, 

51%, 

14%

$ 2,299 30%, 

60%, 

10%

$ 1,416

Stewardship Total - - $5,261,489 - $5,513,959

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 89

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

Superior Workplaces

PBS (Asset 

Management)

88% of repairs and alterations 

(R&A) projects on schedule by 

FY 2007.

R&A projects on schedule.3 88% 83% $ 623,529 88% $ -

Obligate 75% of the minor R&A 

budget for planned projects by 

the end of FY 2007.

Percent of minor R&A budget 

obligated on planned projects by the 

end of the fiscal year.

75% 85% $ 340,046 75% $ 326,170

Maintain the percent of 

escalations on R&A projects 

at less than or equal to 1% by 

FY 2007.

Percent of escalations on R&A 

projects.3

≤1% 3.20% $ 77,258 <1% $ -

PBS (Leasing) Achieve a satisfied customer 

satisfaction rating (4’s and 5’s) 

74% of the time by FY 2007.

Satisfied tenant customer satisfaction 

rating (4 and 5 responses) in leased 

space surveyed.

72% 78% $ 45,732 74% $ 48,176

Analyze 100% of leases expiring 

within three years for market 

opportunities to reduce rental 

payments where market data is 

available.

Percent of existing lease 

inventory reviewed for beneficial 

opportunities.4

100% 100% $ - 100% $ -

PBS (New 

Construction)

New construction projects on 

schedule 87% of the time by 

FY 2007.

Construction projects on schedule. 86% 84% $ 477,915 87% $ 366,121

FAS (Fleet) Maintain the Vehicle Leasing 

program’s current level 

of world-class customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction survey 

score.

83 84.5 $ 10,703 83.1 $ 26,496

Superior Workplaces Total - - $1,575,183 - $ 766,963

BestValue

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Maintain operating service costs 

in office and similarly serviced 

space at 3% or more below 

private sector benchmarks by 

FY 2007.

Percent below private sector 

benchmarks for cleaning, maintenance 

and utility costs in office and similarly 

serviced space.

-3% -4.20% $ 877,203 -3% $ 663,574

PBS (Leasing) Award leases at an average 

rental rate of not less than 8.8% 

below industry averages for 

comparable office space by 

FY 2007.

Cost of leased space relative to 

industry market rates.

-8.50% -9.20% $ 267,878 -8.80% $ 307,085

Deliver leased space when the 

customer needs it 84% of the 

time or better by FY 2007.

Percent of customers surveyed who 

say they received their leased space 

when needed.

82% 67% $ 57,472 84% $ 59,547

Use National Broker Contract 

for at least 70% of expiring 

leases by FY 2007.

Percent of expiring leases using the 

National Broker Contract.3

60% 48% $ - 70% $ -

PBS (New 

Construction)

Average cycle time on new 

courthouse construction 

projects is 3,100 days or less by 

FY 2007.

Number of days to complete new 

courthouse construction projects.

≤3,100 3,458 $ 301,984 ≤3,100 $ 307,417

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

90 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

BestValue (continued)

PBS (Real Property) Award 95% of utilization and 

donation (U&D) property 

within 240 days for fiscal year 

2007.

Percentage of U&D property awarded 

within 240 days.

90% 97% $ 22,305 95% $ 21,729

Maintain “highly satisfied” 

ratings of 93% or higher on 

the Customer Transaction 

Satisfaction Survey by FY 2007.

The percent of disposal transactions 

that “exceed” or “greatly exceed” 

customer expectations.

93% 97% $ 275 93% $ 275

Attain 1.08% cost of sales as a 

percentage of sales proceeds 

for reimbursable sales for fiscal 

year 2007.

Cost of reimbursable sales as a 

percentage of sales proceeds.

1.08% 0.12% $ 6,050 1.08% $ 6,050

FAS (Global Supply) Reduce Supply blended mark-up 

from 31% to 29% toward goal 

of 28%.

Percentage of supply blended 

mark-up.

31% 32.71% $ 56,100 30.50% $ 56,255

Achieve timely delivery for 

customers orders.

Compliance rate with DoD Time 

Definite Delivery shipment processing 

standards.2

21.20% 22.20% $ 54,105 10%>VBL $ -

 Increase customer satisfaction 

toward the 75th percentile 

for customer satisfaction in 

Government.

External customer satisfaction survey 

score.

79.9 80.3 $ 30,999 80 $ 30,475

Increase program efficiency 

and value to Global Supply 

customers by minimizing 

program operating costs.

Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 10.50% 10.50% $ 24,092 10.40% $ 24,157

FAS (Personal 

Property)

Decrease the time it takes to 

complete disposal action for 

excess property to 55 days by 

FY 2007.

Cycle time for disposal process (days). 76 52 $ 7,217 55 $ 6,665

Maintain a customer satisfaction 

score higher than the Federal 

government ACSI reflecting 

customer satisfaction in 

government in FY 2007 and 

each year thereafter.

External customer satisfaction survey 

score.

79 82.30 $ 2,860 79 $ 3,324

Align program-operating costs 

relative to revenue generated by 

the Sales Program, and strive to 

maximize the return on these 

resources.

Direct cost of Sales Program as a 

percent of revenue.

46% 47.49% $ 1,443 45% $ 1,594

Operating cost per $100 business 

volume.

$22.00 $18.77 $ 1,443 $21.50 $ 1,594

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 91

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

BestValue (continued)

FAS (National 

Furniture Center)

Reduce the time required 

to award new contracts and 

modify existing contracts.

Timeliness to award new contracts 

(days).

84 73.50 $ 12,363 80 $ 11,249

Timeliness to award contract 

modifications to add products and 

services (days).

13 18.10 $ 12,363 12 $ 11,249

Enable customers to capitalize 

on cost savings and improved 

services through competition in 

the vendor community.

Number of schedule task orders 

solicited using GSA e-Buy.

7,700 8,207 $ 5,890 8,200 $ 5,297

Align program operations to 

support efficiency of operations 

and reduce operating costs.

Direct operating expenses as a 

percentage of gross margin.

49.52% 52.09% $ 3,858 48.20% $ 2,518

Ratio of full-time equivalents (FTE) to 

business volume.

0.0057% 0.0056% $ 3,858 0.0052% $ 2,518

FAS (Long Distance) Provide robust portfolio of 

telecommunications services 

and value-added solutions 

to satisfy diverse customer 

requirements.

Percentage of solutions reviewed 

compliant with policy and regulations, 

internal polices and procedures.3

100% 100% $ 13,915 100% $ -

Overall customer satisfaction.3 Not Measured Not Measured $ - 80% $ -

Provide substantially lower cost 

service to customer agencies.

Savings provided to customers.3 $550M $620M $ 7,590 $500M $ -

Percentage of Network Service prices 

are below best commercial prices.3

35% 41.40% $ 7,590 35% $ -

Award and effectively manage 

the Network Services contracts.

Complete the Networx Transition 

Planning versus actual.3

Not Measured Not Measured $ 5,482 0% $ -

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Total Long Distance program 

expenses as a percentage of gross 

margin.3

55% 43% $ 3,795 55% $ -

FAS (Professional 

Services)

Improve performance against 

business performance metrics, 

including timeliness, costeffectiveness, and efficiency to 

verify best value and effective 

acquisition management are 

achieved.

Percentage of negotiated award dates 

for services and commodities that are 

met or bettered.3

>95% 93% $ 6,695 >95% $ -

Provide quality services through 

appropriate consistency in 

the acquisition management 

process from pre-award through 

closeout.

Percentage of task and delivery 

orders subject to the fair opportunity 

process.3

>86% Not Measured $ 6,447 >86% $ -

Percentage of schedule task orders 

solicited using e-Buy.3

90% 93% $ 5,208 90% $ -

Manage acquisitions to ensure 

industry provides solutions that 

meet client agencies’ mission 

needs.

Percentage of dollar value of eligible 

service orders awarded with 

performance-based statements of 

work.3

50% 66% $ 5,704 52% $ -

FAS (Professional 

Services)

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Total program expenses as a 

percentage of gross margin.3

66% 86% $ 744 65% $ -

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

92 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

BestValue (continued)

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Manage acquisitions to ensure 

industry provides solutions that 

meet client agencies mission 

needs.

Percentage of dollar value of eligible 

service orders awarded with 

performance-based SOWs.3

50% 89% $ 7,591 60% $ -

Percentage of projects meeting agreed 

performance according to the Quality 

Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).3

75% Not Measured $ 5,313 76% $ -

Improve performance against 

business performance metrics, 

including timeliness, costeffectiveness, and efficiency to 

verify best value and effective 

acquisition management are 

achieved.

Percentage of negotiated award dates 

for services and commodities that are 

met or bettered.3

76% 94% $ 7,591 77% $ -

Provide cost management for 

solutions delivery.

Percentage of solutions that are met at 

or below initial cost estimates.3

80% Not Measured $ 6,832 90% $ -

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Total Regional Telecommunications 

program expense as a percentage of 

gross margin.3

66% 52% $ 11,386 66% $ -

FAS (IT SolutionsNational)

Improve performance against 

business performance metrics, 

including timeliness, costeffectiveness, and efficiency to 

verify best value and effective 

acquisition management are 

achieved.

Percentage of negotiated award dates 

for services and commodities that are 

met or bettered.

>95% 89% $ 15,201 >95% $ -

Manage acquisitions to ensure 

industry provides solutions that 

meet client agencies mission 

needs.

Percentage of dollar value of eligible 

service orders awarded with 

performance-based SOWs.

>50% 4.56% $ 12,966 >50% $ -

Provide quality IT solutions 

services through appropriate 

consistency in the acquisition 

management process from preaward through closeout.

Percentage of task and delivery 

orders subject to the fair opportunity 

process.

>95% 90% $ 14,754 >95% $ -

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Total program expenses as a 

percentage of gross margin.3

80% 89.40% $ 1,788 79% $ -

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 93

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

BestValue (continued)

FAS (IT SolutionsRegional)Improve performance against 

business performance metrics, 

including timeliness, costeffectiveness, and efficiency to 

verify best value and effective 

acquisition management are 

achieved.

Percentage of negotiated award dates 

for services and commodities that are 

met or bettered.2

>95% 95% $ 42,328 >95% $ -

Provide cost management for 

solutions delivery.

Percentage of solutions that are met at 

or below initial cost estimates.3

Not Measured Not Measured $ 23,392 83% $ -

Provide quality IT solutions 

services through appropriate 

consistency in the acquisition 

management process from preaward through closeout.

Percentage of task and delivery 

orders subject to the fair opportunity 

process.2

>95% 92% $ 41,214 >95% $ -

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Total program expenses as a 

percentage of gross margin.3

95% 148.50% $ 4,456 94% $ -

FAS (Vehicle 

Acquisition)

Maintain 28% or better discount 

from manufacturer’s invoice 

price.

Percentage discount from invoice 

price.

28% 39% $ 5,491 >28.50% $ 5,265

Maintain the Vehicle Acquisition 

program’s customer satisfaction 

at or above the 75th percentile 

for customer satisfaction in 

government.

External customer satisfaction score. 79 77.90 $ 1,433 80 $ 1,659

FAS (Fleet) Maintain the gap between GSA 

Fleet rates and commercial rates 

at 20% or more.

 Program support and operational 

expenses per vehicle year of 

operation.

$504 $496 $ 19,188 $500 $ 6,038

FAS (Travel) Increase the program’s 

customer satisfaction toward 

the 75th percentile for customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction score. 74.0 75.4 $ 965 75.5 $ 956

Provide policy-compliant, 

consolidated and fully 

integrated end-to-end travel 

services government-wide.

Percentage of vouchers serviced 

through the E-Gov Travel (percent of 

total voucher population).

5.25% 6.70% $ 5,489 18.41% $ 5,872

Percentage of Business Reference 

Model (BRM) agencies migrating to 

E-Gov Travel.

58.30% 54.17% $ 4,476 70.83% $ 4,803

Provide programs that enable 

customer agencies to realize 

discounts off of commercially 

available rates.

FedRooms percentage off consortia 

rate.

33% 29% $ 417 28% $ 393

City Pairs Program (CPP) percentage 

off the lowest published full economy 

fare.

Not Measured Not Measured $ - 67% $ 499

FAS (Travel) Reduce program operating 

costs.

Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 64% 38% $ 933 63% $ 905

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

94 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

BestValue (continued)

FAS

(Transportation)

Increase the program’s 

customer satisfaction toward 

the 75th percentile for customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction score. 77.3 78.8 $ 725 77.4 $ 866

Maximize customer savings 

through the use of GSA 

Transportation programs.

Freight savings. Tracking Only 40% $ 897 40.50% $ 932

Household goods savings. Tracking Only 58% $ 897 59% $ 932

Domestic Delivery Services Savings. Tracking Only 69% $ 897 70% $ 932

Incorporate automation in 

the audits process to ensure 

claims are processed in a timely 

manner.

Percent of audits performed 

electronically.

96% 92.40% $ 8,991 96.50% $ 5,694

Percent of claims processed within 

120 days.

75% 78.90% $ 5,994 80% $ 5,694

FAS

(Transportation)

Reduce program operating 

costs.

Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 52% 48% $ 2,616 51.50% $ 2,565

FAS (Card Services 

-SmartPay) 

Provide quality services to GSA 

customers as determined by 

satisfaction scores.

Overall customer satisfaction of GSA 

SmartPay Program.

Not Measured Not Measured $ - 63% $ 3,833

GSA SmartPay Conference Satisfaction 

as determined by attendee survey 

results.

92.5 91.2 $ 1,071 93 $ 982

Provide timely information to 

customers as requested to meet 

their needs.

Timeliness of report submission. Not Measured Not Measured $ - >85% $ 802

OCSC Federal agencies and E-Gov 

initiatives using USA Services 

contact center services contract 

(FirstContract) to meet citizen 

information needs.

FirstContact and Web solutions task 

orders.

6 new, 12 total 14 $ 1,150 5 new, 19 total $ 160

Best Value Total - - $2,069,370 - $1,572,195.6

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 95

LINKING STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BUDGET (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

StrategicGoals

Business Line

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 FY 2007 Projected

Target Actual Dollars Target Dollars1

Innovation

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Reduce energy consumption in 

GSA Federal buildings by 4% (as 

measured by Btu/GSF) over the 

FY 2003 baseline by FY 2007.

Percent reduction in energy 

consumption over the FY 2003 

baseline.

-2% -4.40% $ 35,941 -4% $ 25,108

PBS (New 

Construction)

By FY 2007, register 50% of the 

New Construction program for 

LEED in the same fiscal year 

design funding is authorized.

Percent of New Construction program 

registered for LEED.

25% 100% $ 17,346 50% $ 19,473

OCSC Enable a citizen-centric 

government by sharing the 

FirstGov infrastructure and 

e-Gov expertise with the 

President’s E-Gov initiatives.

Citizen visits to USA.Gov Web sites.4 Not Measured 84.3M $ 4,383 88M $ -

Uptime for FirstGov.4 99% 100% $ 3,941 99.20% $ -

Number of search queries through 

FirstGov and FirstGov search.4

7.6M 10.8M $ 6,239 11.3M $ -

Public acceptance and increased 

usage of all public information 

channels.

Citizen touchpoints. 128.8M 133M $ 14,850 168.6M $ 4,640

Improvement in the quality of 

citizen web interactions across 

the government.

Government-wide Web site ASCI 

satisfaction benchmark.

73 73.7 $ 1,354 74 $ 50

OGP Ensure OGP policy initiatives 

achieve improvement targets.

Extent to which OGP policy initiatives 

achieve improvement targets.

80% 100% $ 9,638 84% $ 12,969

Ensure OGP policy initiatives 

are effective.

Percentage of key policy stakeholders 

and agency users who rate OGP 

policy initiatives effective.

80% 54% $ 9,173 57% $ 5,383

Innovation Total - - $ 102,865 - $ 62,980

Total - - $9,008,907 - $7,916,098

1	The source of the FY 2007 dollars is the FY 2009 Budget Request; because the request was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the dollars are projections.

2	The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation

of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 

3	These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2007, because they have since been changed or phased out, but they are reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications.

4	These performance measures do not have dollar amounts associated with them.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

96 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Performance Measurement 

Data Validation and Verification

Each agency is required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the Reports 

Consolidation Act of 2000 to certify the completeness and 

reliability of performance data and describe the method 

used to verify and validate this data. GSA accomplishes this 

requirement through the use of a survey. 

The survey is issued to the Services and major Staff Offices 

on a rotating schedule. The survey is designed to ensure 

that each office has the proper procedures and processes in 

place to verify the validity and accuracy of the corresponding 

performance measurement data. A review of this method was 

conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The 

OIG found that GSA’s system of internal controls over the 

performance measurement data was effective.

The survey focuses on seven specific areas:

Validity – the extent to which the data adequately 

represents actual performance.

Completeness – the extent to which enough of the 

data is collected from a sufficient portion of the target 

population.

Consistency – the extent to which data is collected using 

the same procedures and definition across collectors and 

times.

Accuracy – the extent to which data is free from 

significant error.

Timeliness – whether data about performance is available 

when needed to improve program management and to 

report to Congress.

Ease of Use – measures how easily information is 

obtainable.

Independent Evaluations – were also reviewed to 

determine the accountability of the program. 

GSA major systems are certified and accredited. Most 

data originates from one of the major systems. Reviews 

are conducted for the manually inputted data to identify 

any inconsistencies in the data. External data sources are 

reputable and backup data records are available. Periodic 

quality assurance reviews are conducted to ensure accuracy. 

Each organization has its own approach to checking 

for accuracy. The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) has 

established Performance Management teams in addition to 

planning champions that check for accuracy. The Public 

Buildings Service (PBS) has national and regional points 

of contact that ensure the accuracy of the data. The Staff 

Offices have Regional and internal staff reviewing to check 

for accuracy. All performance data is available for viewing 

by all GSA associates in the Performance Measurement Tool 

(PMT), an Agency-wide used tool that displays all performance 

measures. This tool provides targets and results and is updated 

monthly, quarterly, and/or annually.

GSA uses a broad range of performance goals and measures. 

The data and the means to verify and validate the measures 

are also diverse. A general discussion of the verification and 

validation of each of those sources follows. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 97

Controls and Procedures

GSA’s performance measurement data can be divided into 

five types. The controls and procedures used to validate and 

verify each type are outlined below.

1. FINANCIAL DATA: During the FY 2007 financial statement 

audit, various tests and reviews of the core accounting 

system and internal controls were conducted as required 

by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. GSA’s primary 

financial system is PEGASYS. This is GSA’s official 

accounting system and is a reliable, highly stable system 

that processes over 40 million transactions a year. It also 

serves as the primary system for other feeder systems 

used throughout GSA.

2. DATA FROM LARGE COMPUTER SYSTEMS: GSA has 

undertaken an extensive process of systems certification 

to ensure that its computer systems operate as intended. 

Data quality is maintained through ongoing training. 

The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and the 

System for Tracking and Administering Real Property 

(STAR) are the major large computer systems.

3. DATA FROM MANUAL OR SMALL FEEDER COMPUTER

SYSTEMS: For these systems, GSA stresses confirmation 

that more than one person is responsible for data and 

written policy and procedures. There are a variety of 

manual and feeder systems such as: Transportation 

Accounts Receivable and Payable Systems; Requisitioning, 

Ordering, and Documentation System (ROADS); Sales 

Automation System (SASy); Rent Estimate (RentEst); 

Telecommunications Ordering and Pricing System (TOPS); 

Office of IT Integration Management Information System 

(OMIS); Tracking and Ordering System (TOS); IT Solutions 

Shop/Integrated Task Order Management System 

(ITSS/ITOMS): and Commercial Acquisition and Supply 

Operating and Management Information System (FSS-19).

4. BENCHMARK DATA FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES: GSA uses 

external data as a benchmark for those activities that are 

similar to the private sector. Highly reputable sources of 

data are used as industry benchmarks such as: the Gallup 

Organization, Building Owners and Managers Association 

(BOMA), Society of Industrial and Office Realtors (SIOR), 

and Logistics Management Institute (LMI).

5. DATA OBTAINED UNDER CONTRACT: Highly reputable 

outside polling firms are often contracted to develop 

customer satisfaction or other survey data. GSA’s contract 

provisions require that sound business practices be 

followed and GSA follows up to ensure confidence in 

the results. The Gallup Organization is most often used 

because there is every assurance that the customer 

satisfaction information is credible, verifiable, and valid.

In accordance with the approved cycle, a second round of 

reviews has now been conducted for all Service and Staff 

Offices. Surveys have found that the controls are adequate 

to ensure the validity of the performance measurement data. 

Accuracy and reliability are determined through review of the 

underlying systems and procedures.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

98 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t
Financial Section

GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) has added an “Environmental Isle” 

to its GSA Advantage online store. (www.GSAadvantage.gov)
GSA’s FAS provides contracts for environmentally friendly 

products and services like:

Waste management

Reclamation, recycling, and disposal

Energy Star products

Compact fluorescent light bulbs

Environmental planning services

Recycled products

Environmental compliance services

Safer paints, cleaning, and other 

chemical products

www.GSA.gov/green
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 101

Last year I began by noting that 

regaining our unqualified “clean” 

opinion in fiscal year (FY) 2006 had 

imbued the General Services Administration 

(GSA) financial management community 

with a renewed sense of purpose and 

optimism. In FY 2007, the Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer (OCFO) worked hard to 

build on that success, making steady progress 

and laying the ground work for sustained 

excellence. I am happy to be able to report 

that GSA received another unqualified 

opinion on its 2007 financial statements. In 

addition, our Performance and Financial Performance 

Improvement initiatives under the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA) were rated by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) as “green” for both status and progress. 

A major accomplishment this past year was the publication 

of the new GSA Strategic Plan. The plan establishes a new 

mission, new goals, and re-affirms our core values. The plan 

fulfills requirements of the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act 

and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

related to the integration of performance management and 

budgets. The plan guides GSA operations, including financial 

services, and provides meaning and significance to the 

financial statements. 

GSA made significant progress in FY 2007 toward full 

integration of performance management into our budget 

process. Such integration provides the Agency’s senior leaders 

with the robust financial analysis required to support timely 

and effective strategic planning and decision-making. 

Throughout the GSA financial management 

community, we are continuing to further 

improve internal control. For example, two 

years ago the Federal Acquisition Service 

(FAS) was required to adjust its books 

by hundreds of millions of dollars from 

statistical sampling efforts. In FY 2007, our 

financial statement auditors concluded that 

they could rely on FAS internal control and 

no statistical samples were necessary. In 

addition, we pursued a variety of financial 

management and systems initiatives 

designed to improve our ability to provide 

professional, value-added financial services to our customers 

at the lowest possible cost. 

As the OCFO becomes increasingly reliant on its Information 

Technology (IT) systems, it needs to ensure that system 

controls are designed and implemented effectively. Recently, 

IT system control requirements have increased without 

increases in staffing or financial resources. To address this 

challenge, the OCFO has endeavored to work closely with 

others to ensure that IT system controls are managed in a 

risk-based and cost-effective manner. During FY 2007, certain 

vulnerabilities were noted with respect to information and 

system access controls. Actions were initiated to effectively 

limit information and systems access on a need-to-know basis, 

thereby improving IT security controls. 

Our commitment to providing transparency and accountability 

in budget, financial management, policy, and operations 

remains strong.

Kathleen M. Turco

Chief Financial Officer

November 9, 2007

Letter from the Chief Financial Officer

Kathleen Turco
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

102 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Major Accomplishments

GSA associates’ time, efforts, and dedication are reflected in GSA’s success.

GSA Budget Development

Major improvements were made to the GSA Performance Management Process (PMP) in FY 2007, significantly 

improving its utility in formulating the FY 2009 GSA budget 

submission. Most notably, the improved process required that 

all proposed FY 2009 budget initiatives include quantifiable 

estimates of the associated return on investment and/or 

increase in performance. Using the improved PMP process, 

the GSA Administrator was provided with comprehensive, 

data driven financial and performance analysis, allowing her 

to make informed budget decisions. As a result, GSA delivered 

an FY 2009 budget submission to OMB that was both within 

OMB’s guidance and fully consistent with the Administrator’s 

policy and fiscal goals. 

In its role as the Controller for GSA’s General Management 

and Administration (GM&A) functions, the OCFO worked 

hard to support the Administrator’s goal of reducing the cost 

of services provided to GSA’s customers. Providing common 

support functions such as human resources, financial 

management, and information management centrally to all 

GSA organizations significantly reduces their total cost to the 

Agency. Through aggressive application of the Performance 

Management Process (PMP) and extensive, cooperative 

interaction with the GM&A service providers, the OCFO was 

able to reduce GM&A costs in the FY 2007 budget by nine 

percent, a saving of over $15 million from FY 2006. 

Organization and Process Improvements

In FY 2007, the OCFO continued the development and 

implementation of the Federal Integrated Solutions Center 

(FISC) as a means to facilitate GSA’s role as a financial 

management shared service provider. The FISC provides 

integrated shared services that enhance effectiveness, improve 

efficiency, and reduce risk for Federal government agencies, 

enabling them to focus on their core missions. The OCFO’s 

FY 2007 focus was on standing up FISC services and 

establishing partnerships with small to mid-sized agencies to 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 103

GSA financial management systems operations through 

Financial Management Enterprise Architecture (FMEA), 

replace GSA’s remaining legacy financial system modules, 

simplify financial management information access, and offer a 

high-quality delivery of services that meet GSA customer 

requirements. As part of its continuing effort to modernize 

GSA’s financial applications, GSA implemented cost allocation, 

vendor self-service, and E-Gov Travel modules, with 

implementation of E-authentication planned for the near 

future. In addition, final planning and acquisitions are 

underway for two major functional areas—billing and 

accounts receivable, and asset management. Much of the 

required development and planning work was completed in 

FY 2007, positioning GSA to begin implementation in 

FY 2008. The OCFO also works diligently to ensure that GSA 

was in full compliance with all Federal financial management 

systems requirements. A significant step was implementation 

of a major version upgrade to GSA’s financial management 

commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) application to help maintain 

Financial System Integration Office (FSIO) compliance. 

Internal Controls and Audits

GSA made a major effort in FY 2007 to further implement the 

latest A-123 policy management and internal control 

requirements throughout GSA’s nationwide programs. To 

achieve these new mandatory government-wide requirements, 

the OCFO expanded the process of conducting risk 

assessments for all GSA programs, incorporating risk-based 

testing into internal control reviews, and tracking 

implementation of internal control review recommendations. 

In addition, the OCFO established a fully functional internal 

control database, providing all GSA employees with a central 

location to electronically complete assurance statements, risk 

assessments, and internal control reviews. The OCFO also 

significantly improved its automated system for tracking 

audits and required follow-up actions. As a result, GSA was 

able to meet all of its audit deadlines on time in FY 2007.

deliver these services. GSA’s long-term goal is for the FISC to 

become the leading provider of expert, integrated process, 

technology, and management solutions to Federal government 

agencies. 

Financial transaction and system operations are at the core of 

the services provided by the GSA financial management 

community. The OCFO delivers these services both internally 

to GSA and externally to other governmental agencies and 

commissions. Pursuant to GSA’s goal to be a governmentwide leader in these business offerings, GSA is working to 

achieve efficiencies by streamlining financial transaction 

processing. During FY 2007, the OCFO completed an initiative 

to map out all of the processes required to perform accounts 

receivable, accounts payable, asset management, cash and 

disbursement operations, and financial reporting services. 

This initiative identified a number of potential process 

improvements for study and improvement during FY 2008. 

Another key financial initiative was the creation of the 

OCFO Executive Scorecard. To ensure that GSA is managing 

its customer’s money in full compliance with all statutory 

requirements, the OCFO began producing aging reports 

on unfilled customer orders, accounts receivable, accounts 

payable, obligations, and Charge Card logging. These reports 

were consolidated into a monthly OCFO Executive Scorecard 

which helps focus GSA financial staff and senior management 

on older and possibly invalid data residing in its systems. The 

scorecard provides managers with an unambiguous snapshot 

of current organization performance and indicates where 

management attention should be focused to prevent future 

problems. The OCFO Executive Scorecard has successfully 

focused GSA financial management resources on identifying 

errant data and purging it from GSA financial systems, helping 

to ensure the financial integrity of GSA and its customers. . 

In the area of financial management systems, GSA is working 

to implement a world class shared services financial system 

enterprise that meets customer needs and positions GSA 

to provide efficient and effective IT services, today and for the 

long term. Throughout FY 2007, the OCFO worked to unify 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

104 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n 

MEMORANDUM FOR LURITA DOAN 

 ADMINISTRATOR (A) 

KATHLEEN M. TURCO 

 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (B) 

FROM: BRIAN D. MILLER 

 INSPECTOR GENERAL (J) 

SUBJECT: Audit of the General Services Administration’s

 Fiscal Years 2007 and 2006 Financial Statements

This memorandum transmits PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP’s (PwC), an 

independent certified public accounting firm, report on its audit of the General 

Services Administration’s (GSA) financial statements as of September 30, 2007 

and 2006, and for years then ended, and the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) 

Report on Internal Controls over Performance Measures. 

The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-576) requires GSA’s 

OIG or an independent external auditor, as determined by the OIG, to audit the 

Agency’s financial statements. Under a contract monitored by the OIG, PwC 

performed the Fiscal Years 2007 and 2006 Financial Statements Audit of GSA. 

The contract required that the audit be performed in accordance with 

Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United 

States and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, 

Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.

Results of Independent Audit

Report on the Financial Statements of GSA, the Federal Buildings Fund, 

and the Acquisition Services Fund 

In PwC’s opinion, the financial statements of GSA, the Federal Buildings Fund, 

and the Acquisition Services Fund presented fairly, in all material respects, the 

balance sheets, as of September 30, 2007 and 2006, the related consolidated 

and individual statements of net cost, changes in net position, and the combined 

statement of budgetary resources for the years then ended, in conformity with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

Independent Auditor’s Report

November 8, 2007
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 105

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Report on Internal Controls 

In its report on internal controls over financial reporting, PwC determined that 

GSA, the Federal Buildings Fund, and the Acquisition Services Fund had no 

material weaknesses. However, PwC identified two significant deficiencies 

concerning GSA’s need to (1) improve the controls over monitoring, accounting, 

and reporting of budgetary transactions and (2) strengthen system access, 

separation of duties, and monitoring controls.

Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

PwC also reported no reportable instances of GSA non-compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations specified in Appendix E of OMB Bulletin No. 07-

04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. In addition, PwC 

found no reportable instances of non-compliance in which GSA’s financial 

management systems did not substantially comply with the requirements of the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA).

OIG Evaluation of PwC’s Audit Performance

To ensure the quality of the audit work performed, we conducted a review of 

PwC’s Fiscal Years 2007 and 2006 Financial Statements Audit of GSA. 

Specifically, we: 

• Reviewed and accepted PwC’s approach and planning of the audit; 

• Ensured the qualifications and independence of the auditors; 

• Monitored the progress of the audit at key points; 

• Reviewed and accepted PwC’s audit report; and 

• Performed other procedures we deemed necessary. 

PwC is responsible for the attached auditor report dated November 8, 2007, and 

the conclusions expressed therein. We do not express an opinion on GSA’s 

financial statements; internal controls; or on whether GSA’s financial 

management systems substantially complied with FFMIA; or compliance with 

laws and regulations.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

106 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

Report on Internal Controls Over Performance Measures

In accordance with OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, the OIG performed the necessary 

audit procedures to obtain an understanding of the design and operation of 

internal controls over the reliability of data supporting the performance measures 

reported in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of GSA’s Fiscal 

Year 2007 Annual Performance and Accountability Report. Our review found 

that these internal controls as designed by the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) are operating effectively. 

The Office of Inspector General appreciates the courtesies and cooperation 

extended to PwC and to our audit staff during the audit and review. If you or your 

staff has any questions, please contact Andrew Patchan Jr., Assistant Inspector 

General for Auditing at (202) 501-0374. 

Attachments
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 107

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

1

Report of Independent Auditors 

To Mr. Brian Miller 

Inspector General of the United States General Services Administration 

In our audits of the United States General Services Administration (GSA) and its two primary revolving 

funds, the Federal Buildings Fund (the FBF), and the Acquisition Services Fund (the ASF) we found: 

• The balance sheets of GSA, the FBF, and the ASF, as of September 30, 2007 and 2006, and the 

related consolidated and individual statements of net cost and changes in net position, and the 

combined statements of budgetary resources for the years then ended are presented fairly, in all 

material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States 

of America. 

• GSA, the FBF, and the ASF had no material weaknesses in internal control over financial 

reporting. 

• No reportable instances of non-compliance with the applicable laws and regulations we tested, as 

specified in Appendix E of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit 

Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. 

• No reportable instances of non-compliance in which GSA’s financial management systems did not 

substantially comply with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act (FFMIA). 

Opinion on the Financial Statements 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the GSA and the individual balance 

sheets of the FBF, and the ASF as of September 30, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated and 

individual statements of net cost and changes in net position, and the combined statements of budgetary 

resources for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of GSA’s 

management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Suite 900 

1800 Tysons Boulevard 

McLean, VA 22102 

Telephone (703) 918 3000 

Facsimile (703) 918 3100 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

108 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

2

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of 

America, the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued 

by the Comptroller General of the United States, and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements 

are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the 

amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting 

principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial 

statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above, present fairly, in all material respects, the 

financial position of GSA, the FBF, and the ASF at September 30, 2007 and 2006, and its net cost of 

operations, changes in net position, and budgetary resources for the years then ended, in conformity with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

Report on Internal Control 

In planning and performing our audit, we considered GSA’s, the FBF's, and the ASF's internal control over 

financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of the design effectiveness of GSA's, the FBF's and the 

ASF's internal control, determining whether these controls had been placed in operation, assessing control 

risk, and performing tests of the GSA's, the FBF's, and the ASF's controls in order to determine our 

auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the consolidated, combined, and 

individual financial statements, where applicable, and not to provide an opinion on the internal controls. 

Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the GSA's, the FBF's and the ASF's 

internal control over financial reporting. 

We limited our control testing to those controls necessary to achieve the following OMB control objectives, 

except for the provisions of paragraph 6.11 of OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, relating to internal control over 

performance measures, that provide reasonable, but not absolute assurance, that: (1) transactions are 

properly recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of the consolidated, combined, and 

individual financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United 

States of America, and to safeguard assets against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition; 

(2) transactions are executed in compliance with laws governing the use of budget authority, governmentwide policies and laws identified in Appendix E of OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, and other laws and 

regulations that could have a direct and material effect on the consolidated and combined financial 

statements; and (3) transactions and other data that support reported performance measures are properly 

recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of performance information in accordance 

with criteria stated by management. The work required by the provisions of paragraph 6.11 relating to 

internal control over performance measures was performed by the GSA Office of Inspector General, and 

the objective of that work was to gain an understanding of and report deficiencies in the design of internal 

control over performance measures, rather than to plan the financial statement audit. 

We did not test all internal controls relevant to the operating objectives broadly defined by the Federal 

Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 109

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

3

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or 

employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements 

on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, 

that adversely affects the GSA's, the FBF's, and the ASF's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or 

report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is 

more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the GSA's, the FBF's, and the ASF's financial 

statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the GSA's, the FBF's, and 

the ASF's internal control. 

We identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be significant deficiencies. These 

deficiencies are: 

The Public Buildings Service (PBS) controls over monitoring, accounting, and reporting of budgetary 

transactions need improvement 

Significant Deficiency

In prior fiscal years, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) has reported in its Report of Independent 

Auditors on Internal Control, reportable conditions surrounding GSA's financial management systems, its 

processes, and substantial transaction errors resulting from insufficient controls related to reporting of 

budgetary accounts and balances. During fiscal year 2007, the GSA Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

(OCFO) issued policies to each GSA Service (PBS and Federal Acquisition Service) to address the need to 

strengthen internal controls over budgetary balances to mitigate known weaknesses in the transaction level 

controls. These policies require semi-annual reviews and certifications of Undelivered Orders (UDOs), 

Delivered Orders (DOs), and unfilled customer orders (UFCOs); performing reconciliations of subsystems 

and business systems to the general ledger; developing policies and procedures to identify invalid contracts 

based on procurement regulations; performing reviews of budgetary entries at the transaction level; and 

maintaining quarterly performance data by region. 

While tangible progress was made by management, control weaknesses continued to exist. These control 

weaknesses exist in both the design and operating effectiveness of management's controls. We performed 

tests of controls related to the processing, recording, reporting, and monitoring of budgetary transactions. 

We observed the following continued weaknesses in the FBF during fiscal year 2007: 

Financial Management Weaknesses 

During fiscal year 2007, PBS and Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) management instituted the OCFO 

policy. However, we noted that the design of the mitigating control over obligations is not extensive 

enough to ensure that all material populations of transactions are addressed. The current control is a review 

of UDO, DO, and UFCO transactions based on predefined percentages, dollar thresholds, and the number 

of days since last activity. The design of this control results in a material population of transactions that is 

not reviewed by management during each semi-annual review process. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

110 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

4

We noted differences in the implementation of the policy described above by PBS and FAS. While both 

PBS and FAS executed upon the required policy, FAS management proactively implemented additional 

controls to aggressively address the risk related to the transactions not covered via the original OCFO 

guidance. In addition to performing the semi-annual review required by the OCFO, FAS management 

performs a more detailed monthly review that targets testing of the high risk items to mitigate the risk of 

potential invalid UDO, DO, and UFCO transactions that are included in the initial not reviewed balance. 

PwC's tests of ASF controls did not evidence the need to expand testing over its budgetary accounts. 

However, as part of PBS management's review of its November 2006, balances, we noted that a material 

balance of $1.8 billion dollars in open obligations and $600 million of UFCOs was not reviewed by 

management, which increases the risk that material misstatements may occur and not be detected by 

management throughout their normal course of business. In our interim test of controls, we noted errors in 

the population of transactions that were not reviewed by management, as well as errors in the population of 

transactions that were part of management's semi-annual review. We also noted PBS' failure to return 

spending authority to customer agencies for expired obligations and where bona fide needs for UFCOs 

ceased to exist, due to continued weaknesses in controls over these budgetary transactions. In July 2007, 

PBS management subsequently performed a minimal review of 70 obligations that were in their previously 

not reviewed population. 

Transaction Level Errors

Underlying transaction level errors during our interim controls tests included instances of both 

overstatements and understatements of: 1) UDOs, which represent GSA's obligations to vendors for goods 

and services ordered on behalf of customer agencies; and 2) DOs, which represent GSA's obligations to 

vendors for goods and services received. The design of GSA’s internal control over the management of 

obligations are not adequate to ensure recorded obligations are valid and complete to determine the timely 

removal of liquidated obligations and the accurate classification between undelivered orders and accounts 

payable at year-end. In our interim sample of 45 obligation transactions, we noted 14 errors. 

PwC also reviewed Reimbursable Work Authorization agreements (RWAs) for FBF and noted instances in 

which RWAs did not have adequate documentation to support a valid UFCO balance. There were also 

instances of long outstanding and inactive RWAs. In our interim sample of 45 UFCO transactions, we 

noted four errors. 

In response to the design weakness and accounting errors determined through PwC's interim audit tests, 

PBS management developed a remediation plan to conduct a full management review of a statistical sample 

of its UDO, DO, and UFCO transactions as of July 31, 2007, and a second statistical sample of September 

transactions. The sampling was undertaken to identify incorrect transactions and correct the 

September 30, 2007, UDO, DO, and UFCO account balances. 

As described in the following table, management's statistical sampling revealed significant transaction-level 

errors that misstated the originally recorded balances. Based upon the extrapolation of the sampling error 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 111

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

5

rates to the September 30, 2007, balances, as well as transactions assumed to be 100% in error for statistical 

sampling purposes, management recorded the following adjustments. 

Population Sampled 

by Management 

Adjustments Needed to Correct Errors 

in Budgetary Account Balances 

(dollars in millions) 

UDOs $74 

DOs $37 

UFCOs $165 

PwC tested a subset of 45 transactions that were subject to management's statistical sampling process and 

noted one error in this test of 45 transactions which was subject to the additional level of scrutiny by FBF 

management. Furthermore, PwC also performed tests of controls over the cut-off of UDOs reported at year 

end. In the sample of UDOs we tested, we noted two out of six UDO transactions were executed in fiscal 

year 2007, but not entered into the financial system until fiscal year 2008. Corrections were made for these 

items as a result of our review. 

Our control evaluation demonstrated that while policies and processes have been implemented, and 

monitoring of down-stream control processes was performed by PBS’ financial management community, 

there exists a need for further evaluation and improvement of FBF's controls over UDOs, DOs, and 

UFCOs. PBS needs to continue to drive financial management and reporting initiatives and improvements 

throughout the various regional offices and districts. Continuation of these practices, without the institution 

of sufficient routine and mitigating controls, will continue to heighten PBS' risk that material errors will not 

be prevented or detected in its budgetary accounts in interim and annual financial reports. 

According to OMB Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control:

• The control environment is the organizational structure and culture created by management and 

employees to sustain organizational support for effective internal control. Within the 

organizational structure, management must clearly: define areas of authority and responsibility; 

appropriately delegate the authority and responsibility throughout the agency; and establish a 

suitable hierarchy for reporting. Management’s commitment to establishing and maintaining 

effective internal control should cascade down and permeate the organization’s control 

environment which will aid in the successful implementation of internal control systems. 

• Control activities include policies, procedures and mechanisms in place to help ensure that agency 

objectives are met. Several examples include: proper segregation of duties (separate personnel 

with authority to authorize a transaction, process the transaction, and review the transaction); 

physical controls over assets (limited access to inventories or equipment); proper authorization; 

and appropriate documentation and access to that documentation. Application control should be 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

112 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

6

designed to ensure that transactions are properly authorized and processed accurately and that the 

data is valid and complete. 

• Monitoring the effectiveness of internal control should occur in the normal course of business. In 

addition, periodic reviews, reconciliations or comparisons of data should be included as part of the 

regular assigned duties of personnel. Periodic assessments should be integrated as part of 

management’s continuous monitoring of internal control, which should be ingrained in PBS' 

operations. If an effective continuous monitoring program is in place, it can level the resources 

needed to maintain effective internal controls throughout the year. 

• Deficiencies identified whether through internal review or by an external audit should be 

evaluated and corrected. A systematic process should be in place for addressing deficiencies. 

A goal of the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act is to improve accounting and financial management 

practices by providing management with the full range of information needed for day-to-day management. 

The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) builds on the foundation laid by 

the CFO Act by emphasizing the need for agencies to have financial management systems that can generate 

reliable, useful, and timely information with which to make fully informed decisions and to ensure 

accountability on an ongoing basis. Specifically, section 803(a) of the FFMIA requires each agency to 

implement and maintain systems that comply substantially with: (1) the Federal financial management 

systems requirements; (2) the applicable Federal accounting standards; and (3) the United States Standard 

General Ledger at the transaction level. 

Recommendation:

We recommend that PBS: 

• Perform a critical analysis of the transaction level control activities and monitoring controls used 

for substantiating FBF's budgetary transactions. This analysis should include a variety of criteria, 

including dollar thresholds, risk, type, complexity, activity, and populations of transactions not 

subject to management review. 

• If changes to underlying transaction level or monitoring controls are not implemented, PBS should 

perform ongoing statistical sampling of its budgetary transactions to address the identified control 

weaknesses. 

• Ensure compliance with policies and procedures to prepare and monitor budgetary accounting and 

reporting on a routine basis, which includes supervisory reviews, analytical procedures, and data 

validation, and ensure that activities are in compliance with the applicable guidance. 

• Expand upon the implementation of OMB Circular A-123 to address root causes of budgetary 

reporting control weaknesses across the breadth and depth of the financial reporting process -- 

from the level of transaction initiation, through all processing and monitoring activities, through 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 113

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

7

the preparation of interim and annual financial reports. Effective remediation should be instituted 

to implement needed reforms to the control environment, risk assessment processes, control 

activities, information and communication, and monitoring elements of GSA's integrated internal 

control system. GSA's assessment and remediation should encompass operating activities that 

may occur indirectly or outside of the finance function -- such as contract management -- but 

which have a direct and fundamental impact upon the complete, accurate, and reliable reporting of 

transaction-level information. 

Management's Response: 

We are encouraged by the fact that the Federal Acquisition Service has successfully addressed the 

recommendations noted in the prior year's reportable condition and is not noted in this year's significant 

deficiency. Additionally, the Public Building Service has declining statistical error projections over 

budgetary populations in prior year samplings. However, more work remains. We plan to review our 

existing corrective action plans on this subject as well as our auditor's recommendations and develop 

revised corrective action plans to further improve our internal control in this area. 

During fiscal year 2007, testing evidenced security weaknesses across the Office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO) and the PBS. Specifically, control deficiencies were identified that indicate the need for 

continued progress to address weaknesses within GSA's logical access controls, segregation of duties, and 

monitoring of user actions. These control deficiencies create exposure risks and vulnerability to financial 

data and OCFO system operations. Similar weaknesses were identified and subsequently corrected in 

different applications and Service Lines in prior year audits. Our testing indicated the following: 

1. Inadequate procedures for granting access and maintaining completed access authorizations: 

• Policies and procedures did not exist for performing periodic user recertification for the 

Inventory Reporting Information System (IRIS) and the RWA Entry and Tracking 

Application (RETA). 

• Accounts for separated users were not removed in a timely manner from IRIS and the Region 

6 Local Area Network (LAN). 

• Access authorizations were not properly completed for operating system and standard user 

logical access to the Region 6 LAN. 

GSA needs to strengthen system access, separation of duties, and monitoring controls 

Significant Deficiency
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

114 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

8

2. Weak segregation of user and administrator duties: 

• Administrator accounts with access to the Oracle environment in IRIS were shared by 

multiple individuals with little accountability for user actions. 

• Administrator accounts in IRIS were not restricted from accessing production data. 

3. Weak monitoring of application and system audit trails and violation reports of user actions: 

• The logging capability and review process for IRIS and the System for Tracking and 

Administering Real Property (STAR) logs needs enhancement. 

• Procedures did not exist for performing a periodic, documented review of user security 

monitoring and violation reports for the Region 6 LAN. 

• Monitoring of administrator security logs and violation reports were not performed and 

documented for the Region 6 LAN. 

4. Documentation provided to support that controls over Access Controls, System Software, Service 

Continuity, and Segregation of Duties for the OCIO Enterprise Infrastructure Operations (EIO) 

LAN were operating effectively was incomplete and did not provide evidence on the operational 

effectiveness of all EIO controls. Controls within Security Planning were tested with no noted 

deficiencies. 

These weaknesses expose GSA’s financial management systems and resources to the following risks: 

• Failure to maintain documentation of user authorizations and performance of recertification 

procedures presents the risk that unauthorized users can have access to the applications that is not 

commensurate with their current job responsibilities, and potentially affect the integrity of the 

financial data. 

• Failure to remove accounts upon separation presents the risk that unauthorized users can have 

access to the applications, and potentially affect the confidentiality and integrity of the financial 

data. 

• Lack of enforcement of separation of duties policies and procedures exposes the applications to 

the risk that certain users (IT management staff and end users) could obtain the ability to perform 

multiple critical system maintenance tasks and initiate and approve transactions without adequate 

oversight and limitations. This violation of the concept of “least privilege” may lead to an 

environment more conducive to fraudulent activity and/or inaccurate processing of financial data, 

ultimately affecting the integrity of the financial statements. 

• Allowing administrator accounts with shared passwords creates an environment where malicious 

or inadvertent activity could occur with little or no individual accountability or audit trail. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 115

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

9

Multiple users accessing sensitive system functions under the same user account detracts from the 

ability to trace system events and actions to specific users. This creates a risk from a financial 

reporting perspective if the application feeds financial data to the general ledger, and ultimately 

the financial statements. 

• Without a timely and formal review of user activity logs and violation reports, critical financial 

data may be corrupted, potentially affecting the financial statements. Furthermore, the lack of 

formal review of these logs invites the possibility of improper user activity going undetected or 

uncorrected. 

The combination of these risks results in users having potentially unauthorized and unmonitored access to 

the applications that support financial line items, and potentially having the ability to perform unauthorized 

transactions and updates without being detected. 

Recommendation:

The OCIO, OCFO, and PBS management should coordinate an implementation plan Agency-wide to 

strengthen general and application security controls by taking actions to improve: 

• Procedures for performing user access recertification; 

• Completion and maintenance of access authorizations; 

• Procedures for removing user access for separated individuals; 

• Access role structures to ensure compliance with separation of duties and least privilege policies; 

and

• Monitoring and review of user and administrator security logs and violation reports. 

Management's Response: 

GSA Management is currently reviewing the details and findings supporting this significant deficiency and 

will have detailed corrective action plans drafted by calendar year-end. As noted in the Follow-up on 

Previous Report section of this report, we have closed similar issues in other systems that were reviewed in 

prior year audits and anticipate employing those procedures for the systems noted in this year's significant 

deficiency.

* * * 

A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in 

more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented 

or detected by the GSA's, the FBF's, and the ASF's internal control. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

116 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

10

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the Internal Control section 

of this report and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant 

deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we 

consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. 

As required by Government Auditing Standards, our discussion of significant deficiencies within this report 

includes management's response to our recommendations. Management describes corrective actions it has 

taken subsequent to our performance of internal control testing. We have not performed additional 

procedures to validate the corrective actions management has described. 

Follow-up on Previous Report 

As required by Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, we have reviewed the status 

of the GSA’s corrective actions with respect to findings and recommendations from our prior audits. The 

analysis below provides our assessment of the progress GSA, the FBF, and the ASF have made in 

correcting the reportable conditions identified during our prior year audits. We also provide the year where 

this condition was last reported, our recommendation for improvement, and the status of the condition as of 

the end of fiscal year 2007: 

Report Reportable Condition Status 

2006 Reportable Condition: Controls over monitoring, accounting, and 

reporting of budgetary transactions need improvement. 

Recommendation: GSA with OCFO oversight should: 

• Ensure compliance with policies and procedures to prepare 

and monitor budgetary accounting and reporting on a 

routine basis, which include supervisory reviews, 

analytical procedures, and data validation, and ensure that 

activities are in compliance with the applicable guidance. 

• Enhance service line business system capabilities to enable 

the timely and accurate transmission of budgetary 

reporting requirements to Pegasys. 

• Continue its internal quality reviews and maintain 

evidence of monitoring controls, specifically supervisory 

reviews on a quarterly basis, to ensure compliance with 

laws and regulations and to validate the presentation of the 

statement of budgetary resources and the financial 

statements. 

• Expand upon the implementation of OMB Circular A-123 

to address root causes of budgetary reporting control 

weaknesses across the breadth and depth of the financial 

reporting process, from the level of transaction initiation, 

through all processing activities, through the preparation 

of interim and annual financial reports. Effective 

remediation should be instituted to implement needed

reforms to the control environment, risk assessment 

Partially

Resolved 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 117

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

11

Report Reportable Condition Status 

processes, control activities, information and 

communication, and monitoring elements of GSA's 

integrated internal control system. GSA's assessment and 

remediation should encompass operating activities that 

may occur indirectly or outside of the finance function -- 

such as contract management -- but which have a direct 

and fundamental impact upon the complete, accurate, and 

reliable reporting of transaction-level information.

2006 Reportable Condition: GSA needs to strengthen system access, 

separation of duties, and monitoring controls. 

Recommendation: GSA management should strengthen network 

and application security controls by taking actions to improve: 

• Completion and maintenance of access authorizations; 

• Procedures for performing user access recertification; 

• Procedures for requesting and granting access to 

applications; 

• Access role structures to ensure compliance with 

separation of duties and least privilege policies; and 

• Monitoring and review of user security logs and violation 

reports. 

Closed 

2006 Reportable Condition: Controls over accounting, reporting, and 

monitoring of construction in process projects continue to need 

improvement. 

Recommendation: PBS should: 

• Work with the GSA OCFO on replacing RPADS with an 

Asset Management Module integrated with Pegasys that 

enables the reporting of CIP transactions at the individual 

asset level. This will reduce the number of summary 

adjustments made to the financial statements for financial 

reporting purposes. 

• Enhance the capabilities of IRIS to include budgetary and 

proprietary accounting related information at the asset 

level within an ASID. 

• Continue its efforts to communicate the definition of 

“substantial completion” to its Regional offices. 

• Continue to enforce its control procedures at the project 

level, to ensure that substantially complete CIP projects 

are transferred to the appropriate asset account in a timely 

manner. 

• Implement Regional procedures that require expensing 

items from CIP when a project is cancelled or when the 

item does not meet the definition of a capital asset. 

• As enhancements are implemented, management should 

perform compensating detective controls aimed at 

resolving potential financial reporting errors. 

Partially

Resolved 

Remaining 

matters have 

been

communicated 

in a separate 

letter to 

management. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

118 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

12

We noted other matters involving the GSA's, the FBF's, and the ASF's internal control that we will 

communicate to management in a separate letter. 

Report on Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations 

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material 

misstatement, we performed tests of the compliance with laws and regulations including laws governing the 

use of budgetary authority, laws, regulations, and government-wide policies identified in Appendix E of 

OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 and other laws, non-compliance with which could have a direct and material 

effect on the determination of consolidated and combined financial statements. Under FFMIA, we are 

required to report whether the GSA's, the FBF's, and the ASF’s financial management systems substantially 

comply with the Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting 

standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. To meet 

this requirement, we performed tests of compliance with FFMIA section 803(a) requirements. 

We limited our tests of compliance to the provisions of laws and regulations referred to in the preceding 

paragraph. Providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, 

and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

The results of our tests of compliance disclosed the following instance of possible non-compliance with 

laws and regulations discussed in the preceding paragraph exclusive of FFMIA or other matters that are 

required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. 

FAS contracting practices 

In a letter dated October 27, 2006, the GSA Office of General Counsel (OGC) communicated to GSA 

management 14 matters involving possible infractions on the part of GSA related to the Anti Deficiency 

Act and Purpose Statute. Of the 14 matters, ten were fixed during the fiscal year as a result of corrective 

funding provided by the Department of Defense (DoD). Of the remaining four matters, the GSA OGC 

determined that these can be fixed provided that the DoD can supply corrective funding. 

Management's response: We are continuing to work with our respective trading partner for allowable 

funding and are confident we can ultimately remedy the four remaining matters. 

Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether GSA’s, the FBF’s, and the ASF’s financial management 

systems substantially comply with: (1) the Federal financial management systems requirements; (2) the 

applicable Federal accounting standards; and (3) the United States Standard General Ledger at the 

transaction level. To meet this requirement, we performed tests of compliance with FFMIA. 

The results of our tests disclosed no instances in which GSA's, the FBF's, and the ASF's financial 

management systems did not substantially comply with the three requirements discussed in the preceding 

paragraph. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 119

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

13

Other Information 

The Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), and Required Supplementary Information (RSI) are 

not a required part of the financial statements but are supplementary information required by the Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board and OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. We 

have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding 

the methods of measurement and presentation of the MD&A and RSI. However, we did not audit the 

information and express no opinion on it. 

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated and combined, and 

individual financial statements of the GSA taken as a whole. The other accompanying information 

included in this performance and accountability report is presented for purposes of additional analysis and 

are not a required part of the consolidated and combined, or individual financial statements. Such 

information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the consolidated and 

combined, and individual financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. 

* * * 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management and Inspector General of 

GSA, OMB, the Government Accountability Office, and Congress, and is not intended to be and should not 

be used by anyone other than these specified parties. 

November 8, 2007 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

120 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

Independent Auditor’s Report

October 22, 2007
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 121

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

122 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Consolidating Statements of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006

(Dollars in Millions)

2007 2006

Federal Buildings Fund

Revenues:

Building Operations - Government-Owned $ 3,822 $ 3,740

Building Operations - Leased 5,051 4,769

Expenses:

Building Operations - Government-Owned 3,182 3,188

Building Operations - Leased 5,133 4,714

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations 558 607

ACquisition Services Fund

Revenues:

IT Solutions 3,136 3,700

Network Services 1,132 1,208

Global Supply Operations 1,085 1,029

Vehicle Acquisition and Leasing 1,717 1,526

 Commercial Acquisition 396 424

 Professional Services 572 661

Other Programs 104 62

 Revenues Subtotal 8,142 	 8,610

Expenses:

IT Solutions 3,202 3,852

Network Services 1,114 1,167

Global Supply Operations 1,062 1,005

Vehicle Acquisition and Leasing 1,625 1,465

 Commercial Acquisition 356 368

 Professional Services 573 675

Other Programs 88 66

 Expenses Subtotal 8,020 	 8,598

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations 122 12

Principal Financial Statements
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 123

Continued from previous page

2007 2006

Other Funds

Revenues:

Working Capital Fund 356 367

GSA OE and OGP Funds 17 20

Other Funds 19 13

Expenses:

Working Capital Fund 358 372

GSA OE and OGP Funds 156 160

 Other Funds 103 110

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations (225) 	 (242)

Less: Intra-GSA Eliminations (Note 1-B)

Revenues 534 579

Expenses 567 611

GSA Consolidated

Revenues 16,873 16,940

Expenses 16,385 16,531

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations $ 488 $	 409

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

124 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Principal Financial Statements

Consolidating Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2007 and 2006

(Dollars in Millions)

Federal

Buildings Fund

Acquisition Services

Fund 

2007 2006 2007 2006 

ASSETS

Intragovernmental Assets:

Funds with U.S. Treasury (Notes 1-D,2) $ 5,620 $ 5,606 $ 782 $ 678 

Accounts Receivable - Federal, Net (Note 4) 334 295 1,032 1,206 

Prepaid Expenses and Advances - Federal - 6 4 4 

 Total Intragovernmental 5,954 5,907 1,818 1,888 

Inventories (Note 1-E) 6 6 219 246 

Accounts Receivable - Public, Net (Note 4) 22 11 78 90 

Prepaid Expenses and Advances - Public 1 20 - - 

Other Assets 27 12 8 10 

Property and Equipment (Notes 1-F,5):

Buildings 27,656 25,764 - - 

Leasehold Improvements 263 207 25 24 

Telecommunications and ADP Equipment - - 100 104 

Motor Vehicles - - 4,086 3,935 

Other Equipment 88 76 163 157 

Less: Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization (13,743) (12,760) (1,465) (1,421) 

 Subtotal 14,264 13,287 2,909 2,799 

Land 1,485 1,438 - - 

Construction in Process and Software in Development 1,723 2,118 6 16 

 Total Property and Equipment 17,472 16,843 2,915 2,815 

Total Assets $ 23,482 $ 22,799 $ 5,038 $ 5,049 

LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION

Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses - Federal $ 61 $ 75 $ 21 $ 21 

Deferred Revenue and Advances - Federal 10 13 68 112 

Intragovernmental Debt (Note 6) 2,151 2,192 - - 

Other Intragovernmental Liabilities (Note 9) 291 259 7 164 

 Total Intragovernmental 2,513 2,539 96 297 

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses - Public 921 944 940 1,077 

Deferred Revenue and Advances - Public 3 4 1 1 

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Notes 5,10) 105 94 - - 

Obligations Under Capital Leases (Note 8) 273 285 - - 

Workers’ Compensation Actuarial Liability (Note 7) 108 106 37 39 

Annual Leave Liability (Note 1-G) 43 43 29 30 

Deposit Fund Liability - - - - 

Other Liabilities (Note 9) 309 232 - - 

Total Liabilities 4,275 4,247 1,103 1,444 

Net Position (Note 14)

Cumulative Results of Operations 19,207 18,552 3,935 3,605 

Unexpended Appropriations - - - - 

Total Net Position 19,207 18,552 3,935 3,605 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 23,482 $ 22,799 $ 5,038 $ 5,049 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 125

Other Funds

LESS: INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006

$ 609 $ 595 $ - $ - $ 7,011 $ 6,879

3 3 21 22 1,348 1,482

3 2 3 4 4 8

615 600 24 26 8,363 8,369

- - - - 225 252

32 26 - - 132 127

- - - - 1 20

2 1 15 20 22 3

- - - - 27,656 25,764

- - - - 288 231

- - - - 100 104

- - - - 4,086 3,935

83 80 - - 334 313

(51) (40) - - (15,259) (14,221)

32 40 - - 17,205 16,126

- - - - 1,485 1,438

- 1 - - 1,729 2,135

32 41 - - 20,419 19,699

$ 681 $ 668 $ 39 $ 46 $ 29,162 $ 28,470

$ 5 $ 6 $ 21 $ 22 $ 66 $ 80

33 39 18 24 93 140

- - - - 2,151 2,192

62 61 - - 360 484

100 106 39 46 2,670 2,896

28 33 - - 1,889 2,054

- - - - 4 5

24 31 - - 129 125

- - - - 273 285

20 20 - - 165 165

20 19 - - 92 92

97 56 - - 97 56

7 49 - - 316 281

296 314 39 46 5,635 5,959

264 243 - - 23,406 22,400

121 111 - - 121 111

385 354 - - 23,527 22,511

$ 681 $ 668 $ 39 $ 46 $ 29,162 $ 28,470
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

126 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Principal Financial Statements

Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006

(Dollars in Millions)

Federal

Buildings Fund

Acquisition Services

Fund 

2007 2006 2007 2006 

Beginning Balance of Net Position

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 18,552 $ 17,738 $ 3,605 $ 3,706 

Unexpended Appropriations - - - - 

Net Position Beginning Balance 18,552 17,738 3,605 3,706 

Results of Operations

Net Revenue From (Cost of) Operations 558 607 122 12 

Appropriations Used (Note 1-C) 94 75 - - 

Non-Exchange Revenue (Notes 1-C, 1-G) 5 2 - - 

Imputed Financing Provided By Others 56 57 47 45 

Transfer of Earnings Paid and Payable to U.S. Treasury - - - - 

Transfers of Net Assets and Liabilities

(To) From Other Federal Agencies (59) 73 161 (159) 

Receipts Paid and Reclassified as Payable From

(To) the Land and Water Conservation Fund - - - - 

Other 1 - - 1 

Net Results of Operations 655 814 330 (101) 

Changes in Unexpended Appropriations

Appropriations Received 94 75 - - 

Appropriations Used (94) (75) - - 

Appropriations Adjustments and Transfers From 

Other Agencies or Funds - - - - 

Other - - - - 

Net Change in Unexpended Appropriations - - - - 

Ending Balance of Net Position

Cumulative Results of Operations 19,207 18,552 3,935 3,605 

Unexpended Appropriations - - - - 

Net Position Ending Balance $ 19,207 $ 18,552 $ 3,935 $ 3,605 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 127

Other Funds

LESS: INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006

$ 243 $ 231 $ - $ - $ 22,400 $ 21,675

111 105 - - 111 105

354 336 - - 22,511 21,780

(225) (242) (33) (32) 488 409

196 197 - - 290 272

132 94 - - 137 96

24 26 33 32 94 96

(107) (68) - - (107) (68)

6 11 - - 108 (75)

(3) (6) - - (3) (6)

(2) - - - (1) 1

21 12 - - 1,006 725

213 217 - - 307 292

(196) (197) - - (290) (272)

(7) (14) - - (7) (14)

- - - - - -

10 6 - - 10 6

264 243 - - 23,406 22,400

121 111 - - 121 111

$ 385 $ 354 $ - $ - $ 23,527 $ 22,511
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

128 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

COMBINING Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006

(Dollars in Millions)

Federal

Buildings Fund

2007 2006 

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net - Beginning Balance $ 4,028 $ 3,834 

Prior Year Recoveries 237 65 

Budget Authority

Appropriations 94 75 

Spending Authority:

 Earned Revenue 8,858 8,546 

 Change in Unfilled Customer Orders 478 165 

 Previously Unavailable 56 515 

Resources Temporarily Not Available (141) (56) 

Transfers (102) (41) 

Total Budgetary Resources 13,508 13,103 

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct - - 

Reimbursable 9,083 9,075 

Unobligated Balance - Available

Apportioned 4,425 4,028 

Exempt from Apportionment - - 

Unobligated Balance - Not Available - - 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources 13,508 13,103 

CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE

Obligated Balance, Net - Beginning Balance

Unpaid Obligations, Oct 1 3,476 2,942 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments, Oct 1 (1,887) (1,731) 

Obligations Incurred 9,083 9,075 

Less: Gross Outlays (8,797) (8,476) 

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (237) (65) 

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments (Increase)/Decrease (534) (156) 

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period: 

Unpaid Obligations 3,525 3,476 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments (2,421) (1,887) 

NET OUTLAYS

Gross Outlays 8,797 8,476 

Less: Offsetting Collections (8,802) (8,555) 

Less: Offsetting Receipts - - 

Net Outlays $ (5) $ (79) 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

Principal Financial Statements
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 129

Acquisition Services

Fund Other Funds

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006

$ 1,822 $ 2,483 $ 235 $ 194 $ 6,085 $ 6,511

253 450 13 25 503 540

- - 249 260 343 335

 9,185 9,574 387 396 18,430 18,516

(786) (982) 5 (17) (303) (834)

- - - - 56 515

- - - - (141) (56)

- (92) (13) (13) (115) (146)

 10,474 11,433 876 845 24,858 25,381

- - 246 206 246 206

9,304 9,611 414 404 18,801 19,090

 1,170 588 108 108 5,703 4,724

- 1,234 - - - 1,234

- - 108 127 108 127

 10,474 11,433 876 845 24,858 25,381

 3,721 4,309 166 195 7,363 7,446

(4,864) (6,070) (5) (16) (6,756) (7,817)

 9,304 9,611 660 610 19,047 19,296

(9,233) (9,749) (635) (614) (18,665) (18,839)

(254) (450) (13) (25) (504) (540)

 938 1,206 (5) 11 399 1,061

 3,538 3,721 178 166 7,241 7,363

(3,926) (4,864) (10) (5) (6,357) (6,756)

 9,233 9,749 635 614 18,665 18,839

(9,337) (9,797) (387) (390) (18,526) (18,742)

- - (108) (76) (108) (76)

$ (104) $ (48) $ 140 $ 148 $ 31 $ 21
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

130 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

For the Fiscal Years Ended 

September 30, 2007 and 2006

Organization

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) 

was created by the U.S. Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. 

Congress enacted this legislation to provide for the Federal 

government an economic and efficient system for the 

procurement and operation of buildings, procurement and 

distribution of general supplies, acquisition and management 

of a motor vehicle fleet, management of automated data 

processing resources, and management of telecommunications 

programs. 

The Administrator of General Services, appointed by the 

President of the United States with the advice and consent of 

the U.S. Senate, oversees the operations of GSA. GSA carries 

out its responsibilities through the operation of several 

appropriated and revolving funds.

1 	 Significant Accounting Policies 

A. Reporting Entity

For its principal financial statements, GSA uses consolidating 

and combining formats to display its two largest components: 

the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) and the Acquisition Services 

Fund (ASF). All other funds have been combined under Other 

Funds. 

The FBF is the primary fund used to record activities of 

the Public Buildings Service (PBS). The ASF, created by law 

in fiscal year (FY) 2007 from the merging of GSA’s former 

Information Technology Fund (ITF) and General Supply Fund 

(GSF), is the primary fund used to record activities of the 

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). See Note 17 for further 

information on the ASF. 

The accompanying financial statements of GSA include 

the accounts of all funds which have been established and 

maintained to account for resources under the control of 

GSA management. The entities included in the Other Funds 

category are described below, together with a discussion of 

the different fund types.

Revolving Funds are accounts established by law to finance 

a continuing cycle of operations with receipts derived from 

such operations usually available in their entirety for use by 

the fund without further action by Congress. The revolving 

funds in the Other Funds category consist of the following:

Federal Citizen Information Center Fund (FCICF)

Panama Canal Revolving Fund

Working Capital Fund (WCF)

General Funds are accounts used to record financial 

transactions arising under Congressional appropriations or 

other authorizations to spend general revenues. GSA manages 

12 General Fund accounts of which four are funded by 

current year appropriations, two by no-year appropriations, 

and six which cannot incur new obligations. The general 

funds included in the Other Funds category are as follows:

Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents

Budget Clearing Account

Undistributed Intragovernmental Payments

Election Reform Payments

Election Reform Reimbursements

Excess and Surplus Real and Related Personal 

Property Holding Account

Expenses, Electronic Government Fund

Expenses, Presidential Transition

Office of Inspector General 

Operating Expenses, General Services 

Administration

Operating Expenses, Government-wide Policy

Real Property Relocation
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 131

SpecialFunds are accounts established for receipts earmarked 

by law for a specific purpose, but are not generated by a cycle 

of operations for which there is continuing authority to 

reuse such receipts. In accordance with Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Statements of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 27, Identifying 

and Reporting Earmarked Funds, these Special Funds are 

classified as earmarked funds. Although immaterial, earmarked 

fund balances are displayed in Note 2-B. GSA uses Special Fund 

receipts to pay certain costs associated with the disposal of 

surplus real property, for funding of the Transportation Audits 

program, and to fund the Acquisition Workforce Training 

program. GSA’s Special Funds consist of the following:

Expenses, Disposal of Real and Related Personal 

Property

Expenses, Transportation Audits

Expenses, Acquisition Workforce Training Fund

Operating Expenses, Disposal of Real and Related 

Personal Property

Other Receipts, Surplus Real and Related Personal 

Property

Receipts of Rent, Leases and Lease Payments for

Government-Owned Real Property

Receipts, Transportation Audits

Receipts, Acquisition Workforce Training Fund

Transfer of Surplus Real and Related Personal Property

Miscellaneous Receipt and Deposit Fund accounts are 

considered non-entity funds since GSA management does not 

exercise control over how the monies in these accounts can be 

used. Miscellaneous Receipt Fund accounts hold receipts and 

accounts receivable resulting from miscellaneous activities of 

GSA where, by law, such monies may not be deposited into 

funds under GSA management control. The U.S. Department 

of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury) automatically transfers all cash 

balances in these receipt accounts to general funds of the U.S. 

Treasury at the end of each fiscal year. Deposit Fund accounts 

hold monies outside the budget. Accordingly, their transactions 

do not affect budget surplus or deficit. These accounts include 

(1) deposits received for which GSA is acting as an agent or 

custodian, (2) unidentified remittances, (3) monies withheld 

from payments for goods and services received, and (4) 

monies whose distribution awaits a legal determination or 

investigation. The receipt and deposit funds in the Other 

Funds category consist of the following:

Advances Without Orders from Non-Federal Sources

Employees’ Payroll Allotment Account, U.S.

Savings Bonds

Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise 

Classified

Forfeitures of Unclaimed Money and Property

General Fund Proprietary Interest, Not Otherwise 

Classified

General Fund Proprietary Receipts, Not Otherwise

Classified, All Other 

Other Earnings From Business Operations and 

Intragovernmental Revolving Funds 

Proceeds from Sale of Surplus Property

Reserve for Purchase Contract Projects

Unconditional Gifts of Real, Personal, or Other 

Property

Withheld State and Local Taxes

In the FBF, Electronic Government Fund, Allowances and Staff 

for Former Presidents fund, and Real Property Relocation fund, 

GSA has delegated certain program and financial operations 

of a portion of these funds to other Federal agencies to 

execute on GSA’s behalf. Unique sub-accounts, also known as 

allocation accounts (child), of GSA’s funds (parent) are created 

in the U.S. Treasury to provide for the reporting of obligations 

and outlays incurred by such other agencies. Generally, 

all child allocation account financial activity is reportable 

in combination with the results of the parent fund, from 

which the underlying legislative authority, appropriations, 

and budget apportionments are derived. GSA has allocation 

accounts in this regard with the following Federal entities: 

the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Homeland 

Security, and Interior, the Office of Personnel Management, 

and the Small Business Administration.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

132 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

B. Basis of Accounting

The principal financial statements are prepared in accordance 

with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) 

as promulgated by the FASAB, and Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular A-136, Financial Reporting 

Requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountant’s (AICPA) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 

91, Federal GAAP Hierarchy, established a hierarchy of GAAP 

for Federal financial statements. GSA’s financial statements 

are prepared in accordance with requirements prescribed in 

OMB Circular A-136, in all material respects. These formats 

are considerably different from business-type formats. The 

Consolidating Statements of Net Cost present the operating 

results of GSA by major programs and responsibilities. The 

Consolidating Balance Sheets present the financial position 

of GSA using a format clearly segregating intragovernmental 

balances. The Consolidating Statements of Changes in 

Net Position display the changes in equity accounts. The 

Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources (CSBR) present 

the sources, status, and uses of GSA’s budgetary resources. 

GSA reconciles all intragovernmental fiduciary transactions 

activity, and works with agency partners to reduce significant 

or material differences reported by other agencies in 

conformance with U.S. Treasury intragovernmental reporting 

guidelines and requirements of OMB Circular A-136.

Certain prior year balances have been reclassified to conform 

with the current year’s presentation.

On the Consolidating Statements of Net Cost, Consolidating 

Balance Sheets, and Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net 

Position, all significant intra-agency balances and transactions 

have been eliminated in consolidation. No such eliminations 

have been made on the CSBR. Certain amounts of expenses 

eliminated on the Consolidating Statements of Net Cost are 

imputed costs for which the matching resource is not revenue 

on this statement, but imputed resources provided by others, 

displayed on the Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net 

Position. Accordingly, on the Consolidating Statements of Net 

Cost the revenues and expense eliminations do not match. 

The Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position 

display the offsetting balances between these categories. 

The preparation of financial statements requires management 

to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported 

amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent 

assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements 

and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during 

the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those 

estimates.

C. Revenue Recognition and Appropriations Used

Substantially all revenues reported by GSA’s funds on the 

Consolidating Statements of Net Cost are generated from 

intragovernmental sales of goods and services. With the 

exception of ASF Schedules programs revenues noted 

below, GSA earns 97 percent of revenues from other Federal 

customers. Expenses are primarily incurred with nonFederal entities supplying the underlying goods and services 

being provided to GSA’s Federal customers, with only two 

percent of operating expenses resulting from purchases 

from Federal agencies. Each fund has established rate-setting 

processes governed by the laws authorizing its activities. 

In most cases, the rates charged are intended to cover the 

full cost that the funds will pay to provide such goods and 

services and to provide capital maintenance. In accordance 

with the governing laws, rates are generally not designed to 

recover costs covered by other funds or entities of the U.S. 

government, such as for post-employment and other interentity costs. Revenues from non-Federal entities make up an 

immaterial portion of GSA’s total sales. Accordingly, where 

not otherwise governed by law, unique rates for non-Federal 

customers have generally not been established. 

Generally, Revolving Fund and reimbursable General Fund 

revenue is recognized when goods have been delivered or 

services rendered. 

In the FBF, rent revenues are earned based on occupancy 

agreements with customers, as space and services are 

provided. Generally, agencies are billed for space at rent 

based upon commercial rates for comparable space. In 

some instances special rates are arranged in accordance 

with Congressional guidance or other authorized 

purposes. Most agencies using funding from Trust Funds 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 133

have rent rates set to recover full cost. Revenue under 

nonrecurring reimbursable building repairs and alterations 

(R&A) projects is recognized under the percentage-ofcompletion method.

In the ASF, Global Supply revenues are recognized as 

goods are provided to customers. Vehicle Acquisition and 

Leasing revenues are recognized when goods are provided 

and based on rental agreements over the period vehicles 

are dispatched. Commercial Acquisitions revenues are 

recognized when goods are provided, and fee revenues 

in the GSA Schedules programs are earned based on 

estimated and actual usage of GSA’s contracting vehicles 

by other agencies. The Schedules programs generated 

$267 million in fees, constituting three percent of ASF 

revenues in FY 2007, and $276 million (three percent of 

ASF revenues) in FY 2006. Professional Services revenues 

are recognized when goods and services are provided. 

Telecommunications service revenues are generally 

recognized based on customer usage or on fixed line 

rates. IT Solutions revenues are earned when goods or 

services are provided or as reimbursable project costs are 

incurred. 

In the WCF, revenues are generally recognized as general 

management and administrative services are provided to 

the Service components of GSA and to external customers. 

Such WCF revenues are earned in accordance with 

agreements that recover the direct cost and an allocation 

of indirect costs from the components of GSA receiving 

those services. 

Non-Exchange Revenues are recognized on an accrual basis 

on the Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position 

for sales of surplus real property, reimbursements due from 

the audit of payments to transportation carriers, and other 

miscellaneous items resulting from GSA’s operations where 

ultimate collections must be deposited in miscellaneous 

receipt accounts of the U.S. Treasury. Non-Exchange 

Revenues are reported net of associated bad debt expense on 

uncollectible accounts.

Appropriations for General Fund and Special Fund activities 

are recorded as a financing source on the Consolidating 

Statements of Changes in Net Position when expended. 

Unexpended appropriations are reported as an element of 

Net Position on the Consolidating Balance Sheets.

D. Fund Balance with Treasury 

This total represents all unexpended balances for GSA’s 

accounts with the U.S. Treasury. Amounts in Fund Balance 

with Treasury are based on the balances reported on the 

books of the U.S. Treasury, as the official record of the Federal 

government. Adjustments are only made to those amounts 

when significant errors are identified.

GSA acts as a disposal agent for surplus Federal real and 

personal property. In some cases, public law entitles the 

owning agency to the sales proceeds, net of disposal expenses 

incurred by GSA. Proceeds from the disposal of equipment 

are generally retained by GSA to replace equipment. Under 

GSA’s legislative authorities, the gross proceeds from some 

sales are deposited in GSA’s Special Fund receipt accounts 

and recorded as Non-Exchange Revenues in the Consolidating 

Statements of Changes in Net Position. A portion of these 

proceeds is subsequently transferred to a Special Fund to 

finance expenses incurred in disposing of surplus property. 

The remainder is periodically accumulated and transferred, by 

law, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered 

by the Department of the Interior (DOI).

E. Inventories

Inventories held for sale to other Federal agencies consist 

primarily of ASF inventories, which are valued at historical 

cost, generally determined on a moving average basis. The 

recorded values are adjusted for the results of physical 

inventories taken periodically in accordance with a cyclical 

counting plan. In the ASF, $5.4 million of the balances in 

inventories held for sale are excess inventories. Excess 

inventories are defined as those exceeding the economic 

retention limit (i.e., the number of units of stock which may be 

held in inventory without incurring excessive carrying costs). 

Excess inventories are generally transferred to another Federal 

agency, sold, or donated to state or local governments.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

134 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

In the FBF, inventory balances consist of operating supplies and 

materials that will be consumed in operations. In accordance 

with FASAB SFFAS No. 3, Accounting for Inventory and 

Related Property, as balances of these supplies are immaterial 

and in the hands of end users for use in normal operations, 

they are accounted for using the purchases method. Amounts 

on hand at the end of the reporting period are valued at 

market for presentation on the Consolidating Balance Sheets.

F. Property and Equipment (See Note 5)

Generally, property and equipment purchases and additions of 

$10,000 or more and having a useful life of two or more years 

are capitalized and valued at cost. Property and equipment 

transferred to GSA from other Federal agencies on the date 

GSA was established is stated at the transfer value, which 

approximates historical cost. Subsequent thereto, equipment 

transferred to GSA is stated at net book value, and surplus real 

and related personal property transferred to GSA is stated at 

the lower of net book value or appraised value.

Expenditures for major additions, replacements, and alterations 

to real property of $50,000 or more are capitalized. Normal 

repair and maintenance costs are expensed as incurred. The 

cost of R&A and of leasehold improvements performed by 

GSA, but financed by other agencies, is not capitalized in GSA’s 

financial statements as such amounts are transferred to the 

other agencies upon completion of the project. Substantially 

all land, buildings, and leasehold improvements are leased 

to other Federal agencies under short-term cancellable 

agreements.

Depreciation and amortization of property and equipment are 

calculated on a straight-line basis over their initial or remaining 

useful lives. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the 

lesser of their useful lives, generally five years, or the unexpired 

lease term. Buildings capitalized by the FBF at its inception in 

1974 were assigned remaining useful lives of 30 years. Prior to 

1974, no depreciation was recorded by GSA. It is GSA policy 

to capitalize construction costs in the Land and Buildings 

accounts upon project completion. Buildings acquired under 

capital lease agreements are also depreciated over 30 years. 

Major and minor building renovation projects carry estimated 

useful lives of 20 years and 10 years, respectively.

Telecommunications equipment and automated data 

processing equipment are used in operations to perform 

services for other Federal agencies for which billings are 

rendered. Most of the assets comprising Other Equipment 

are used internally by GSA. Telecommunications and other 

equipment is depreciated over periods generally ranging from 

three to 10 years. Automated data processing equipment is 

depreciated over periods generally ranging from three to five 

years.

Motor vehicles are generally depreciated over four to six 

years.

In accordance with FASAB SFFAS No. 10, Accounting for 

Internal Use Software, capitalization of software development 

costs incurred for systems having a useful life of two years or 

more is required. With implementation of this standard, GSA 

adopted minimum dollar thresholds per system that would 

be required before capitalization would be warranted. For 

the FBF, this minimum threshold is $1 million. For all other 

funds, it is $250,000. Once completed, software applications 

are depreciated over an estimated useful life determined on a 

case-by-case basis, ranging from three to 10 years.

G. Annual, Sick, and Other Types of Leave

Annual leave liability is accrued as it is earned and the accrual 

is relieved as leave is taken. Each year the balance in the 

accrued annual leave account is adjusted to reflect current 

pay rates.

Sick leave and other types of nonvested leave are expensed 

as taken.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 135

2 Fund Balance With Treasury

A. Reconciliation to U.S. Treasury 

There were only negligible differences between amounts 

reported by GSA and those reported to the U.S. Treasury as of 

September 30, 2007 and 2006. 

B. Balances by Fund Type

GSA’s most significant amounts in Fund Balance with Treasury 

are found in its revolving funds such as the FBF and ASF. 

Within the Other Funds category, Special Receipt and Special 

and Trust Expenditure Funds are classified as earmarked 

funds in accordance with FASAB SFFAS No. 27, Identifying 

and Reporting Earmarked Funds. The fund balances in the 

Other Funds category contains amounts in the following fund 

types (dollars in millions):

2007 2006

Revolving Funds $ 195 $ 218

Appropriated and General Funds 173 181

Special Receipt Funds 114 113

Special and Trust Expenditure Funds 48 45

Deposit Funds 79 38

Total Other Funds $ 609 $ 595

C. Relationship to the Budget

In accordance with FASAB SFFAS No. 1, Accounting for 

Selected Assets and Liabilities, the following information is 

provided to further identify amounts in Fund Balance with 

Treasury as of September 30, 2007 and 2006, against which 

obligations have been made, and for unobligated balances, to 

identify amounts available for future expenditures and those 

only available to liquidate prior obligations. Unobligated 

balances presented below will not equal related amounts 

reported on the CSBR. In the FBF, the CSBR includes balances 

associated with borrowing authority for which actual funds 

have not yet been realized (see Note 6). In the Other Funds 

group, the schedule below includes unavailable unobligated 

balances of Special Receipt and Deposit Funds, shown above 

in Note 2-B, which are not reportable for purposes of the 

CSBR. The following schedule presents elements of Fund 

Balance with Treasury (dollars in millions):

Obligated

Balance, 

Net

Unobligated Balance

available Unavailable TOTAL

FY 2007

FBF $ 1,087 $ 4,392 $ 141 $5,620

ASF (388) 1,170 - 782

Others 168 108 333 609

Total $ 867 $ 5,670 $ 474 $7,011 

FY 2006

FBF $ 1,560 $ 3,990 $ 56 $5,606

ASF (1,144) 1,822 - 678

Others 161 108 326 595

Total $ 577 $ 5,920 $ 382 $6,879

D. Availability of Funds

In GSA’s earmarked Special Receipt Funds, included in balances 

of Fund Balance with Treasury, are certain amounts that may 

be transferred to either the U.S. Treasury or the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (see Note 1-D). These amounts, related 

to the Transportation Audits program, Acquisition Workforce 

Training program, and surplus real property disposals, are 

subject to transfer subsequent to GSA’s determination of 

the internal working capital needs of these programs. Such 

amounts totaled $114 million and $113 million at September 

30, 2007 and 2006, respectively, of which $43 million and 

$32 million, respectively, were recorded as liabilities in the 

Consolidating Balance Sheets.

At both September 30, 2007 and 2006, the amounts in Fund 

Balance with Treasury that were no longer available for 

expenditure and for which related authorities were cancelled, 

totaled $4 million. Of these amounts, substantially all balances 

were transferred back to the Special Fund Receipt Accounts 

from which they were appropriated, with minor amounts 

returned to the Treasury General Fund.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

136 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

A portion of Fund Balance with Treasury also includes amounts 

where authority to incur new obligations has expired, but 

are available to liquidate residual obligations that originated 

when the funds were available. Such expired balances totaled 

$40 million and $38 million at September 30, 2007 and 2006, 

respectively.

The FBF has balances that are temporarily not available in 

accordance with annual appropriation acts that limit the 

amount of reimbursable resources that are available for 

spending each year. Such amounts totaled $141 million and 

$56 million at September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively, 

and will not be available for expenditure except as authorized 

in future appropriation acts. 

Before the GSF and ITF were merged into the ASF, legislative 

authorities set certain limitations on the amount of earnings 

that may have been retained in those funds. Amounts in 

excess of such limitations were returned to the Treasury 

General Fund. At the end of FY 2006, only the GSF had 

estimated excess balances in this regard, totaling $157 million 

classified as Earnings Payable to Treasury. Under ASF legislative 

authorities, more similar to those of the ITF, GSA is allowed 

to retain earnings to ensure the fund has sufficient resources 

to support operations in association with a cost and capital 

planning process as approved by the Administrator of GSA. 

At the end of FY 2007, management has determined that all 

earnings will be retained in accordance with this process.

Effective on October 1, 2004, Public Law 108-309 transferred 

the balances of the Panama Canal Revolving Fund to GSA as 

the Panama Canal Commission was abolished. At September 

30, 2006, this fund contained $41 million of balances being 

retained to liquidate claims related to that commission and 

its responsibilities. In FY 2007, all remaining legal issues 

were resolved and the remaining balance was returned to the 

government of Panama.

3 Non-Entity Assets

As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, certain amounts reported 

on the balance sheet are not available to management for use 

in ongoing operations and are classified as Non-entity assets 

(see Note 1-A). These balances consisted of the following 

(dollars in millions):

2007 2006

Funds Balance with Treasury $ 111 $ 85

Accounts Receivable - Public - 1

Total $ 111 $ 86
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 137

4 Accounts and Notes Receivable

Substantially all accounts receivable are from other Federal agencies. Unbilled accounts receivable result from the delivery of 

goods or performance of services for which bills have not yet been rendered. Allowances for doubtful accounts are recorded 

using aging methodologies based on analysis of historical collections and write-offs.

Notes receivable are from the sale of surplus real and related personal property, from motor vehicle damage claims, and from 

contract claims. Interest rates range from 0.001 percent to 12.6 percent.

A summary of Accounts and Notes Receivable is as follows (dollars in millions):

Federal

Buildings

Fund

Acquisition 

Services Fund Other Funds

LESS: 

INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA 

Consolidated 

Totals

2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006

Current

Accounts Receivable - Billed $ 112 $ 110 $ 113 $ 115 $ 36 $ 30 $ - $ - $ 261 $ 255

Accounts Receivable - Unbilled 251 200 1,000 1,185 2 3 21 22 1,232 1,366

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts (7) (4) (3) (4) (3) (4) - - (13) (12)

 Subtotal Current Receivables 356 306 1,110 1,296 35 29 21 22 1,480 1,609

Noncurrent Notes Receivable

(Net of Allowance of $58 million and 

$51 million in 2007 and 2006, 

respectively) - - - - - - - - - -

 Total Accounts and Notes 

 Receivable $ 356 $ 306 $1,110 $1,296 $ 35 $ 29 $ 21 $ 22 $1,480 $1,609
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

138 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

5 	 Property and Equipment

A. Summary of Balances

In FY 2007, GSA recorded capitalized interest costs of $3.1 million in the Construction in Process account associated with debt 

provided by the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank (FFB), as discussed in Note 6. Interest capitalized in FY 2006 amounted 

to $6.7 million. Balances in GSA’s Property and Equipment accounts subject to depreciation as of September 30, 2007 and 2006 

are summarized below (dollars in millions):

2007 2006

Cost

Accumulated

Depreciation

Net Book 

Value Cost

Accumulated

Depreciation

Net Book 

Value

Buildings $27,656 $ 13,506 $14,150 $ 25,764 $ 12,534 $ 13,230

Leasehold Improvements 288 206 82 231 197 34

Telecom and ADP Equipment 100 92 8 104 88 16

Motor Vehicles 4,086 1,260 2,826 3,935 1,224 2,711

Other Equipment 334 195 139 313 178 135

Total $32,464 $15,259 $17,205 $ 30,347 $ 14,221 $ 16,126

B. Cleanup Costs

In GSA’s FBF, certain properties contain environmental 

hazards that will ultimately need to be removed and/or 

require containment mechanisms to prevent health risks to 

the public. Cleanup of such hazards is governed by various 

Federal and state laws. The laws most applicable to GSA are 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation 

and Liability Act of 1980, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act.

In accordance with FASAB SFFAS Nos. 5 and 6, Accounting 

for Liabilities of the Federal Government and Accounting 

for Property Plant and Equipment, respectively, and 

interpretive guidance in Federal Financial Accounting and 

Auditing Technical Release No. 2, Determining Probable and 

Reasonably Estimable for Environmental Liabilities in the 

Federal Government, issued by the Accounting and Auditing 

Policy Committee, if an agency is required by law to clean 

up such hazard, the estimated amount of cleanup cost must 

be reported in the financial statements. Accordingly, GSA 

recognized liabilities totaling $105 million and $94 million 

for Environmental and Disposal costs as of September 30, 

2007 and 2006, respectively, for properties currently in 

GSA’s property inventory. In instances where no reasonable 

estimate of the cost to clean up a particular site could 

be made, GSA recognized the estimated costs for related 

environmental studies as is prescribed in the guidance noted 

above. Management has estimated an additional $15 million 

in both FYs 2007 and 2006 of potential cleanup costs where 

it is only possible that GSA could incur additional costs. In 

some instances, GSA has been named as a party in certain 

environmental cases where the subject property is no longer 

in the GSA or Federal property inventory. GSA’s liability for 

such cases is further discussed in Note 10.

C. Heritage Assets

With an average age of GSA’s buildings being over 44 years old, 

many buildings have historical, cultural, and/or architectural 

significance. While GSA uses these buildings to meet the office 

space and other needs of the Federal government, maintaining 

and preservation of historical elements is a significant priority. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 139

In accordance with FASAB SSFAS No. 29, Heritage Assets and 

Stewardship Land, these buildings meet the definition of 

Multi-use Heritage Assets, and are reportable within general 

property, plant, and equipment on the Consolidating Balance 

Sheets. 

GSA define its Historic Buildings as those buildings that 

are either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 

have formally been determined eligible, or appear to meet 

eligibility criteria to be listed. GSA has 254 buildings on the 

National Register, of which 63 are designated as National 

Historical Landmarks. An additional 86 buildings are, or 

appear, eligible for listing on the National Register. Under 

the National Historic Preservation Act, GSA is required to 

give these buildings special consideration, including first 

preference for Federal use, and rehabilitation in accordance 

with standards established by DOI.

6 Intragovernmental Debt

A. Lease Purchase Debt

Starting in FY 1991, GSA entered into several agreements to 

fund the purchase of land and construction of buildings under 

the FBF lease purchase authority. Under these agreements, 

the FBF borrows monies (as advance payments) through the 

FFB or executes lease-to-own contracts to finance the lease 

purchases. The program authorizes total expenditures of 

$1,945 million for 11 projects. In FYs 2007 and 2006, the FFB 

made advance payments on behalf of GSA totaling $18 million 

and $44 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2007 and 

2006, $49 million and $67 million, respectively, of borrowing 

authority under the lease purchase program remained 

available for additional advance payments.

Resources to retire debt are obtained from annual revenues 

generated by the FBF. Aggregate debt maturities are as follows 

(dollars in millions): 2008 - $43; 2009 - $47; 2010 - $50; 2011 

- $53; 2012 - $57; 2013 and beyond - $1,215.

B. Pennsylvania Avenue Debt

The former Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation 

(PADC) originally received authority to borrow from the 

FFB to finance construction of the Ronald Reagan Building 

(RRB) in Washington, D.C., with a project budget of $738 

million. Effective March 31, 1996, the PADC was dissolved, 

with portions of its functions, assets, and liabilities being 

transferred to GSA, including the RRB.

Subsequent legislation consolidated GSA’s portion of these 

assets and liabilities into the FBF, in which the cost and 

associated debt for the RRB is now recorded.

No additional amounts are anticipated to be borrowed under 

this authority.

Aggregate maturities on debt related to the RRB are as follows 

(dollars in millions): 2008 - $18; 2009 - $19; 2010 - $20; 2011 

- $22; 2012 - $23; 2013 and beyond - $584.

C. Schedules of Debt Arrangements

GSA’s outstanding debt arrangements in the FBF at September 

30, 2007 and 2006 were as follows (dollars in millions):

2007 2006

Lease Purchase Debt

Mortgage loans and construction advances held by the FFB, due at various dates from June 28, 

2021, through August 1, 2035, at interest rates ranging from 3.935 percent to 8.561 percent $ 1,465 $ 1,489

Pennsylvania Avenue Debt

Ronald Reagan Building, mortgage loans due November 2, 2026, 

at interest rates ranging from 4.004 percent to 8.323 percent 686 703

TOTAL GSA DEBT $ 2,151 $ 2,192
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

140 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

7 	 Workers’ Compensation Benefits

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides 

income and medical cost protection to covered Federal civilian 

employees injured on the job, employees who have incurred 

a work-related occupational disease, and beneficiaries of 

employees whose death is attributable to a job-related injury 

or occupational disease. The FECA program is administered 

by the Department of Labor (DOL), which initially pays valid 

claims and subsequently seeks reimbursement from the 

Federal agencies employing the claimants. DOL provides the 

actuarial liability for claims outstanding at the end of each 

fiscal year. This liability includes the estimated future costs 

of death benefits, workers’ compensation, and medical and 

miscellaneous costs for approved compensation cases. The 

present value of these estimates at the end of FY 2007 was 

calculated by DOL using a discount rate of 4.930 percent for 

FY 2007, and 5.078 percent for FY 2008 and thereafter. At the 

end of FY 2006, the discount rate used was 5.170 percent for 

FY 2006, and 5.313 percent for FY 2007 and thereafter. At 

both September 30, 2007 and 2006, GSA’s actuarial liability 

totaled $165 million.

8 Leasing Arrangements

As of September 30, 2007, GSA was committed to various noncancellable operating leases primarily covering administrative 

office space and storage facilities maintained by the FBF. Many 

of these leases contain escalation clauses tied to inflationary 

and tax increases, and renewal options. GSA also uses a 

small volume of operating leases of vehicles in the ASF to fill 

demand when sufficient owned vehicles are not available. 

The following are schedules of future minimum rental 

payments required under leases that have initial or remaining 

non-cancellable terms in excess of one year, and under capital 

leases together with the present value of the future minimum 

lease payments (dollars in millions):

Operating Leases

FISCAL YEAR TOTAL

2008 $ 3,913

2009 3,285

2010 2,881

2011 2,547

2012 2,217

2013 and thereafter 8,190

Total future minimum lease payments $ 23,033

Capital Leases

FISCAL YEAR FBF

2008 $ 32

2009 32

2010 31

2011 31

2012 32

2013 and thereafter 272

Total future minimum lease payments 430

Less: Amounts representing–

Interest 154

Executory Costs 3

Total obligations under capital leases $ 273

Substantially all leased space maintained by the FBF is 

sublet to other Federal agencies at rent charges based upon 

approximate commercial rates for comparable space. The 

agreements covering the sublease arrangements allow 

customer agencies to terminate the sublease at any time. In 

most cases, however, GSA believes the subleases will continue 

without interruption. Rental income under subleasing 

agreements approximated $5.0 billion and $4.4 billion for the 

fiscal years ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. 

Rent expense under all operating leases, including shortterm non-cancellable leases, was approximately $4.4 billion 

and $4.1 billion in FYs 2007 and 2006, respectively. The 

Consolidating Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2007 and 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 141

FBF ASF Others TOTAL GSA 

2007

Other Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Workers’ Compensation Due to DOL $ 22 $ 7 $ 4 $ 33

Deposits Held in Suspense - - 14 14

Earnings Payable to Treasury - - 44 44

Payments Due to the Judgment Fund (Note 10) 269 - - 269

Total $ 291 $ 7 $ 62 $ 360

Other Liabilities:

Contingencies $ 28 $ - $ - $ 28

Installment Purchase Liabilities 154 - - 154

Pensions for Former Presidents - - 7 7

Unamortized Rent Abatements 127 - - 127

Total $ 309 $ - $ 7 $ 316

2006

Other Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Workers’ Compensation Due to DOL $ 21 $ 7 $ 4 $ 32

Deposits Held in Suspense - - 25 25

Earnings Payable to Treasury - 157 32 189

Payments Due to the Judgment Fund (Note 10) 238 - - 238

Total $ 259 $ 164 $ 61 $ 484

Other Liabilities:

Contingencies $ 31 $ - $ - $ 31

Installment Purchase Liabilities 166 - - 166

Pensions for Former Presidents - - 8 8

Liabilities of the Panama Canal Commission - - 41 41

Unamortized Rent Abatements 35 - - 35

Total $ 232 $ - $ 49 $ 281

2006, include capital lease assets of $362 million in both years 

for buildings. Aggregate accumulated amortization on such 

structures totaled $140 million and $129 million in those 

years, respectively. For substantially all of its leased property, 

GSA expects that in the normal course of business such leases 

will be either renewed or replaced in accordance with the 

needs of its customer agencies.

9 Other Liabilities

As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, amounts reported on 

the Consolidating Balance Sheets as Other Intragovernmental 

Liabilities and Other Liabilities, which are substantially all 

long-term in nature, consisted of the following (dollars in 

millions):
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

142 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

10 Commitments and Contingencies

A. Commitments and Undelivered Orders

In addition to future lease commitments discussed in Note 8, 

GSA is committed under obligations for goods and services 

that have been ordered but not yet received (undelivered 

orders) at fiscal year-end. Aggregate undelivered orders for 

all GSA activities at September 30, 2007 and 2006, were as 

follows (dollars in millions):

2007 2006

FBF $ 2,524 $ 2,459

ASF 2,569 2,610

Other Funds 145 132

Total Undelivered Orders $ 5,238 $ 5,201

B. Contingencies

GSA is a party in various administrative proceedings, legal 

actions, environmental suits, and claims brought by or against 

it. In the opinion of GSA management and legal counsel, the 

ultimate resolution of these proceedings, actions, and claims 

will not materially affect the financial position or results of 

operations of GSA.

C. Contingencies Covered by GSA Funds

As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, GSA recorded liabilities in 

total of $116 million and $122 million, respectively, for pending 

and threatened legal matters for which, in the opinion of 

GSA management and legal counsel, GSA funds will probably 

incur losses. Of these amounts, $86 million and $88 million, 

respectively, relate to environmental claims. Environmental 

claims are included in Environmental and Disposal Liabilities, 

and the balance of possible contingent liabilities are reported 

within Other Liabilities on the Consolidating Balance Sheets.

In addition, GSA had another $48 million and $130 million in 

contingencies at September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively, 

where it is reasonably possible, but not probable, that GSA 

funds will incur some cost. Accordingly, no balances have been 

recorded in the financial statements for these contingencies.

In most cases, legal matters which directly involve GSA relate 

to contractual arrangements GSA has entered into either for 

property and services it has obtained or procured on behalf of 

other Federal agencies. The costs of administering, litigating, 

and resolving these actions are generally borne by GSA 

unless it can recover the cost from another Federal agency. 

Certain legal matters in which GSA may be named party are 

administered and, in some instances, litigated by other Federal 

agencies. Amounts to be paid under any decision, settlement, 

or award pertaining thereto are sometimes funded by those 

agencies.

D. Contingencies Covered by the Judgment Fund

In many cases, tort and environmental claims are administered 

and resolved by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and any 

amounts necessary for resolution are obtained from a special 

Judgment Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury. In accordance 

with the FASAB’s Interpretation No. 2, Accounting for 

Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions, costs incurred by 

the Federal government are to be reported by the agency 

responsible for incurring the liability, or to which liability has 

been assigned, regardless of the ultimate source of funding. 

In accordance with this interpretation, GSA reported $24 

million and $31 million in FYs 2007 and 2006, respectively, 

of Environmental and Disposal and Other Liabilities for 

contingencies which will require funding exclusively through 

the Judgment Fund. Of those amounts, almost $24 million 

and $31 million result from several environmental cases 

outstanding at the end of FYs 2007 and 2006, respectively, 

where GSA has been named as a potentially responsible party. 

Environmental costs are estimated in accordance with the 

FASAB Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee’s Federal 

Financial Accounting and Auditing Technical Release No. 

2, Determining Probable and Reasonably Estimable for 

Environmental Liabilities in the Federal Government.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 143

Additional contingencies subject to ultimate funding from the 

Judgment Fund where the risk of loss is reasonably possible 

but not probable ranged from $159 million to $3.5 billion 

at September 30, 2007 and ranged from $149 million to 

$3.5 billion at September 30, 2006. 

The recognition of claims to be funded through the Judgment 

Fund on GSA’s Consolidating Statements of Net Cost and 

Consolidating Balance Sheets is, in effect, recognition of 

these liabilities against the Federal government as a whole, 

and should not be interpreted as claims against the assets or 

resources of any GSA fund, nor will any future resources of 

GSA be required to liquidate any resulting losses. Further, 

for most environmental claims, GSA has no managerial 

responsibility other than as custodian and successor on claims 

made against former Federal entities, particularly former 

World War II defense related activities.

Amounts paid from the Judgment Fund on behalf of GSA were 

$34 million and $12 million in FYs 2007 and 2006, respectively. 

Of these amounts, $30 million and $5 million, respectively, 

related to claims filed under the Contract Disputes Act for 

which payments have been or will be made to reimburse the 

Judgment Fund by the GSA funds liable under the contracts in 

dispute. The balance of claims paid on behalf of GSA does not 

require reimbursement to the Judgment Fund.

11 Unfunded Liabilities

As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, budgetary resources were 

not yet available to fund certain liabilities reported on the 

Consolidating Balance Sheets. For such liabilities, most are 

long-term in nature where funding is generally made available 

in the year payments are due or anticipated. The portion 

of liabilities reported on the Consolidating Balance Sheets 

that are not covered by budgetary resources consists of the 

following (dollars in millions): 

2007 2006

Intragovernmental Debt $ 31 $ 48

Other Intragovernmental 

Liabilities 360 270

Obligations Under Capital 

Lease 252 263

Workers’ Compensation 

Actuarial Liabilities 165 165

Environmental and Disposal 129 125

Annual Leave Liability 92 92

Other Liabilities 316 281

Total Liabilities Not Covered

 By Budgetary Resources $ 1,345 $ 1,244

In addition, all balances reported in the Consolidating Balance 

Sheets under the caption Deposit Fund Liability, as well as 

amounts shown as Other Intragovernmental Liabilities - 

Deposits Held in Suspense and Earnings Payable to Treasury 

in Note 9, while also unfunded by definition (as no budgetary 

resources have been applied), will be liquidated from 

resources outside of the traditional budgeting process and 

require no further Congressional action to do so.

12 Reconciliation to the President’s Budget

In accordance with FASAB SFFAS No. 7, Accounting for 

Revenue and Other Financing Sources and Concepts for 

Reconciling Budgetary and Financial Accounting, if there 

are differences between amounts reported in these financial 

statements versus those reported in the most recent Budget 

of the United States Government (President’s Budget), they 

must be disclosed. With the President’s Budget generally 

released in February each year, the most current comparable 

data is the FY 2008 President’s Budget, which contains 

FY 2006 financial statement results. The FY 2009 President’s 

Budget, containing FY 2007 actual results is expected to be 

released in February 2008 on OMB’s Web site. The portion 

of the President’s Budget relating specifically to GSA can 

be found in the appendix. Balances submitted to the U.S. 

Treasury constitute the basis for reporting of actual results in 

the President’s Budget. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

144 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

FBF ASF Others TOTAL

CSBR President’s

Budget

CSBR President’s

Budget

CSBR President’s

Budget

CSBR President’s

Budget

Difference

Budgetary Resources $13,159 $13,166 $11,433 $11,433 $845 $ 813 $25,437 $25,412 $ 25

Obligations Incurred 9,075 9,084 9,611 9,611 610 610 19,296 19,305 (9)

Unobligated Balances 4,084 4,082 1,822 1,822 235 203 6,141 6,107 34

Balance of Obligations 1,589 1,591 (1,142) (1,144) 161 167 608 614 (6)

Outlays (79) (79) (48) (47) 148 226 21 100 (79)

Budgetary 

Resources

Obligations

Incurred

Unobligated 

Balance

Obligated 

Balance

Net 

Outlays

Combined Statement of Budgetary 

Resources $ 25,437 $ 19,296 $ 6,141 $ 608 $ 21

Expired Funds, Not Reflected in the Budget (39) – (37) (2) –

Amounts Cancelled in Other Funds, 

Not Reflected in the Budget 7 – – – –

FBF Statistical Sampling, Not Reflected in the 

Budget 6 9 3 3 –

Offsetting Receipts Not Reflected in the Budget – – – – 76

Rounding 1 – – 5 3

Budget of the U.S. Government $ 25,412 $ 19,305 $ 6,107 $ 614 $ 100

Differences between the CSBR and the President’s Budget 

can be due to adjustments identified by GSA during the 

preparation of the CSBR, which occurred after the U.S. 

Treasury’s deadline for reporting of fund balances and budget 

execution results. Such adjustments to the balances reported 

to the U.S. Treasury were made on the CSBR to more fully 

reflect the activity for the fiscal year ended, and for balances 

as of September 30, 2006. 

The basis of the CSBR is data reported to the U.S. Treasury on 

the Reports on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources 

(SF 133’s). However, as the CSBR is being developed, items 

may be identified that require adjustment to the data originally 

submitted on the SF 133’s, which would create differences 

between the CSBR and the President’s Budget. Generally, such 

items are identified after the deadlines for reporting to the 

U.S. Treasury, and reflect reclassifications of balances to report 

the proper status of obligations or budgetary resources. For 

FY 2006, the only significant differences were due to the 

effect of adjustments recorded in the FBF, based on statistical 

sampling techniques which were not sufficiently detailed for 

SF 133 reporting. 

Additional reconciling differences are caused by the 

presentation style of the President’s Budget, which excludes 

Budgetary Resources, Obligations Incurred, and Unobligated 

Balances in expired annual funds, as well as offsetting 

collections, which are required for reporting on the CSBR.

In some instances OMB may require additional changes to 

actual reported results for pending or known changes in 

legislation that affect future presentations. Small rounding 

differences also exist due to differences in display of the CSBR 

versus the President’s Budget.

Below are two schedules highlighting the most significant 

comparable amounts reported in the FY 2006 CSBR and 

FY 2008 President’s Budget (dollars in millions). The first 

schedule shows the total differences where the CSBR 

contains balances greater or (less) than amounts reported in 

the President’s Budget by fund. Following this is a second 

schedule displaying the components of each difference at the 

consolidated level.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 145

13 Combining Statements of Budgetary

Resources

The CSBR presents GSA’s budgetary results in accordance 

with reporting requirements prescribed in OMB Circular A-11, 

Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget,

which identifies budgetary resources available for spending, 

the status of those resources, and the relationship between 

obligated balances and outlays (see Note 12). For balances 

reported as obligations incurred, the ASF includes amounts 

from the former ITF (shown also in Note 17) that were 

classified as exempt from apportionment, while all other 

significant balances in the ASF and the rest of GSA’s funds are 

classified as Category A in accordance with OMB guidelines. 

In consolidated reporting by OMB and the U.S. Treasury, for 

the U.S. government as a whole, substantially all of GSA’s 

program operations and operating results are categorized as 

general government functions.

Balances reported on the CSBR as Prior Year Recoveries 

generally reflect the downward adjustment of obligations that 

originated in prior fiscal years which have been cancelled or 

reduced in the current fiscal year. These balances may also 

include the effect of adjustments caused when an obligation 

is modified to change the applicable program, or budget 

activity. In managing and controlling spending in GSA’s funds 

on a fund-by-fund basis, unique budget control levels (such as 

programs, budget activities, or projects) are established. These 

levels are based on legislative limitations, OMB apportionment limitations, as well as management-defined allotment 

control limitations, in order to track and monitor amounts 

available for spending and obligations incurred against such 

amounts, as is required under the Antideficiency Act. When an 

obligation from a prior year is modified to change the budget 

control level of an obligation, a Prior Year Recovery would be 

credited to the level that was initially charged, and Obligations 

Incurred would be charged to the new level. While there may 

be no net change to total obligations in a particular fund, 

offsetting balances from the upward and downward 

adjustments would be reported on the corresponding lines of 

the CSBR.

The basis of the CSBR is data reported to the U.S. Treasury 

on the SF 133’s. However, as the CSBR is being developed, 

items may be identified that require adjustment to the data 

originally submitted on the SF 133’s. Generally, such items are 

identified after the deadlines for reporting to the U.S. Treasury, 

and reflect reclassifications of balances to reflect the proper 

status of obligations or budgetary resources. For FY 2007, 

the most significant differences were due to the effect of 

adjustments made to the CSBR as a result of statistical samples 

used to validate balances reportable as Undelivered Orders 

and Delivered Orders in the FBF. Projections of such 

adjustments are based on extrapolations of aggregate amounts 

which could not readily be determined to the detailed levels 

that are required to accompany SF 133 reporting. The 

following differences existed between the CSBR and SF 133’s 

of the FBF for FY 2007 due to increases (decreases) to the 

CSBR (dollars in millions): 

Unobligated Balance, Net – Ending Balance $ 92

Prior Year Recoveries $ 53

Obligated Balance – Ending $ (92)

Obligations Incurred $ (36)

14 Consolidating Statements of Changes

in Net Position

A. Cumulative Results of Operations

Cumulative results of operations for Revolving Funds include 

the net cost of operations since their inception, reduced 

by funds returned to the U.S. Treasury, by Congressional 

rescissions, and by transfers to other Federal agencies, in 

addition to balances representing invested capital. Invested 

capital includes amounts provided to fund certain GSA assets, 

principally land, buildings, construction in process, and 

equipment, as well as appropriated capital provided as the 

corpus of a fund (generally to meet operating working capital 

needs).
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

146 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

GSA’s FBF, ASF, WCF, and FCICF have legislative authority 

to retain portions of their cumulative results for specific 

purposes. The FBF retains cumulative results to finance 

future operations and construction, subject to appropriation 

by Congress. In the ASF, earnings are retained to cover the 

cost of replacing the motor vehicle fleet and supply inventory 

as well as to provide financing for major systems acquisitions 

and improvements, contract conversion costs, major 

contingencies, and to maintain sufficient working capital. The 

WCF retains earnings to finance future operations. The FCICF 

retains cumulative results to finance future operations, subject 

to appropriation by Congress.

Cumulative Results of Operations on the Consolidating 

Balance Sheets include immaterial balances of earmarked 

funds as defined in FASAB SFFAS No. 27. As further discussed 

in Notes 1 and 2, earmarked balances are those reported in 

GSA’s Special Funds, within the Other Funds display on the 

Consolidating Balance Sheets. 

B. Unexpended Appropriations

Unexpended Appropriations consist of unobligated balances 

and undelivered orders, net of unfilled customer orders in 

General Funds that receive appropriations. Undelivered orders 

are orders placed by GSA with vendors for goods and services 

that have not been received. Unfilled customer orders are 

reimbursable orders placed with GSA by other agencies, other 

GSA funds or from the public where GSA has yet to provide 

the good or service requested. At September 30, 2007 and 

2006, balances reported as unexpended appropriations were 

as follows (dollars in millions):

2007 2006

Unobligated Balances:

Available $ 35 $ 35

Unavailable 40 26

Undelivered Orders 64 68

Unfilled Customer Orders (18) (18)

Total Unexpended Appropriations $ 121 $ 111

15 Employee Benefit Plans

A. Background

Although GSA funds a portion of pension benefits for its 

employees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) 

and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and 

makes the necessary payroll withholdings from them, GSA 

is not required to disclose the assets of the systems or the 

actuarial data with respect to accumulated plan benefits 

or the unfunded pension liability relative to its employees. 

Reporting such amounts is the direct responsibility of the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Reporting of 

health care benefits for retired employees is also the direct 

responsibility of OPM.

In accordance with FASAB SFFAS No. 5, Accounting for 

Liabilities of the Federal Government, GSA recognizes the 

normal cost of pension programs and the normal cost of 

other post-employment health and life insurance benefits, 

as defined in that standard, on the Consolidating Statements 

of Net Cost. While these costs will ultimately be funded out 

of direct appropriations made to OPM and do not require 

funding by GSA activities, they are an element of governmentwide costs incurred as a result of GSA’s operations.

B. Civil Service Retirement System

At the end of FY 2007, 27.9 percent (down from 30.4 percent 

in FY 2006) of GSA employees were covered by the CSRS, 

a defined benefit plan. Total GSA (employer) contributions 

(7.5 percent of base pay for law enforcement employees, 

and 7.0 percent for all others) to CSRS for all employees 

amounted to $22 million and $24 million in FYs 2007 and 

2006, respectively.

C. Federal Employees Retirement System

On January 1, 1987, the FERS, a mixed system of defined benefit 

and defined contribution plans, went into effect pursuant 

to Public Law 99-335. Employees hired after December 31, 

1983, were automatically covered by FERS and Social Security 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 147

while employees hired prior to January 1, 1984, elected to 

either join FERS and Social Security or remain in CSRS. As of 

September 30, 2007, 71.7 percent (up from 69.1 percent in 

FY 2006) of GSA’s employees were covered under FERS. 

One of the primary differences between FERS and CSRS is 

that FERS offers automatic and matching contributions into 

the Federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for each 

employee. Under CSRS, employees can invest up to 10 percent 

of their base pay in the TSP. Employees under FERS can invest 

up to 15 percent of base pay, plus GSA will automatically 

contribute one percent of base pay and then match employee 

contributions up to an additional four percent of base pay. 

During FYs 2007 and 2006, GSA (employer) contributions 

to FERS (23.8 percent of base pay for law enforcement 

employees and 11.2 percent for all others) totaled $73 million 

and $69 million, respectively. Additional GSA contributions 

to the TSP totaled $28 million and $27 million in FYs 2007 

and 2006, respectively.

D. Social Security System

GSA also makes matching contributions to the Social 

Security Administration (SSA) under the Federal Insurance 

Contributions Act (FICA). For employees covered by 

FERS, GSA contributed matching amounts of 6.2 percent 

of gross pay (up to $97,500 in calendar year 2007, and 

$94,200 in calendar year 2006) to SSA’s Old-Age, Survivors, 

and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in calendar year 

2007. Additionally, GSA makes matching contributions for 

all employees of 1.45 percent of gross pay to the Medicare 

Hospital Insurance program in calendar year 2007. In both 

FYs 2007 and 2006, only 0.5 percent of GSA’s employees are 

covered exclusively by these programs. Payments to these 

programs in FYs 2007 and 2006, amounted to $55 million and 

$53 million, respectively.

E. Schedule of Unfunded Benefit Costs

Amounts recorded in FYs 2007 and 2006, in accordance with 

FASAB SFFAS No. 5 for imputed post-employment benefits 

are as follows (dollars in millions):

PENSION

BENEFITS

Health/Life

INSURANCE TOTAL

2007

FBF $ 13 $ 29 $ 42

ASF 12 18 30

Other Funds 8 11 19

Total $ 33 $ 58 $ 91 

2006

FBF $ 14 $ 27 $ 41

ASF 13 19 32

Other Funds 8 10 18

Total $ 35 $ 56 $ 91 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

148 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

16 Reconciliation of Net Costs of Operations to Budget

The recognition of earning reimbursable budgetary resources and spending budgetary resources on the CSBR generally 

has a direct or causal relationship to revenues and expenses recognized on the Consolidating Statements of Net Cost. The 

reconciliation schedules below bridge the gap between these sources and uses of budgetary resources with the operating 

results reported on the Consolidating Statements of Net Cost for the fiscal years ending on September 30, 2007 and 2006 

(dollars in millions): 

Reconciliation of Net Costs of Operations to Budget

Federal

Buildings Fund

Acquisition Services

Fund 

2007 2006 2007 2006 

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Obligations Incurred $ 9,083 $ 9,075 $ 9,304 $ 9,611 

Less: Spending Authority From Offsetting Collections

and Adjustments (9,573) (8,776) (8,652) (9,042) 

Financing Imputed for Cost Subsidies 56 57 47 45 

Other 39 (82) 9 81 

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities (395) 274 708 695 

Resources Used That Are Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations

(Increase)/Decrease in Goods and Services Ordered But

Not Yet Received (42) (394) 42 329 

Increase/(Decrease) in Unfilled Customer Orders 478 165 (787) (982) 

Costs Capitalized on the Balance Sheet (1,665) (1,655) (775) (749) 

Financing Sources Funding Prior Year Costs (97) 48 4 (84) 

Other (5) - (173) 73 

Total Resources Used That Are Not Part of 

 the Net Cost of Operations (1,331) (1,836) (1,689) (1,413) 

Costs Financed by Resources Received in Prior Periods

Depreciation and Amortization 1,029 940 417 407 

Net Book Value of Property Sold 12 12 288 285 

Other 10 22 158 11 

Total Costs Financed by Resources Received

 in Prior Periods 1,051 974 863 703 

Costs Requiring Resources in Future Periods

Unfunded Capitalized Costs 118 (33) - - 

Unfunded Current Expenses (1) 14 (4) 3 

 Total Costs Requiring Resources in Future Periods 117 (19) (4) 3 

Net (Income From) Cost of Operations $ (558) $ (607) $ (122) $ (12) 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 149

Other Funds

LESS: INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006

$ 660 $ 610 $ - $ - $19,047 $ 19,296

(405) (404) - - (18,630) (18,222)

24 26 33 32 94 96

(111) (76) - - (63) (77)

168 156 33 32 448 1,093

 (15) 20 - - (15) (45)

5 (17) - - (304) (834)

(5) (9) - - (2,445) (2,413)

3 - - - (90) (36)

 61 69 - - (117) 142

 49 63 - - (2,971) (3,186)

15 14 - - 1,461 1,361

- - - - 300 297

- - - - 168 33

15 14 - - 1,929 1,691

- - - - 118 (33)

(7) 9 - - (12) 26

(7) 9 - - 106 (7)

$ 225 $ 242 $ 33 $ 32 $ (488) $ (409)
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

150 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Notes to the Financial Statements

17 Acquisition Services Fund

The GSA Modernization Act was signed into law on October 6, 2006. This law merged the General Supply Fund (GSF) and 

Information Technology Fund (ITF) into one new fund, the Acquisition Services Fund (ASF). Implementation of the ASF, 

effective January 1, 2007, created a funding structure that allows greater efficiencies in operations and more focused financial 

management. In the current operating environment, elements of technology are highly integrated into most significant 

procurements. The separate funding structures and authorities of the GSF and ITF required segregation of technology from 

non-technology procurements, which significantly hindered the efficient management of procurements.

Displayed below is an unaudited summary schedule of the closing balances for the GSF and ITF as of December 31, 2006 

(dollars in millions):

(Unaudited) GSF ITF TOTAL

ASSETS

Fund Balance with Treasury $ 541 $ 206 $ 747

Accounts Receivable, Net 414 709 1,123

Property and Equipment 2,751 16 2,767

Other Assets 277 6 283

Total Assets $ 3,983 $ 937 $ 4,920

LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses $ 220 $ 707 $ 927

Deferred Revenue and Advances 75 25 100

Other Liabilities 233 15 248

Total Liabilities 528 747 1,275

Net Position

Total Net Position 3,455 190 3,645

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 3,983 $ 937 $ 4,920

Net Cost

Total Revenues: $ 826 $ 1,056 $ 1,882

Total Expenses: 772 1,071 1,843

Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations $ 54 $ (15) $ 39

(continued on next page)
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t 151

GSF ITF TOTAL

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net - Beginning Balance $ 588 $ 1,234 $ 1,822

Prior Year Recoveries 15 93 108

Spending Authority 4,239 4,529 8,768

 Total Budgetary Resources $ 4,842 $ 5,856 $ 10,698

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred 973 1,918 2,891

Unobligated Balance - Available 3,869 3,938 7,807

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 4,842 $ 5,856 $ 10,698

Obligated Balance

Unpaid Obligations 1,159 3,260 4,419

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments (1,861) (3,914) (5,775)

Obligated Balance, Net - Ended December 31 $ (702) $ (654) $ (1,356)

Net Outlays

Gross Outlays 913 1,171 2,084

Less: Offsetting Collections (965) (1,189) (2,154)

Net Outlays $ (52) $ (18) $ (70)
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

152 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t

Required Supplementary Information

Deferred Maintenance 

As of the end of FY 2007, GSA had no material amounts of deferred maintenance cost to report. GSA administers 

the Building Maintenance Management Program that, on 

an ongoing basis, maintains the Building Class inventory in 

acceptable condition, as defined by GSA management. GSA 

utilizes a condition assessment survey methodology, applied at 

the overall portfolio level, for determining reportable levels of 

deferred maintenance. Under this methodology, GSA defines 

“acceptable condition” and “acceptable level of service” in 

terms of certain National Performance Measures, formulated 

under the provisions of the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. 

GSA expenses normal repair and maintenance costs as 

incurred. Although GSA has no substantive backlog of deferred 

maintenance tasks, the average building in the GSA inventory 

is 44 years old, and only 29 percent of these buildings have 

had extensive modernization. This has led to a large inventory 

of capital repairs and alterations (R&A) work items of which 

approximately $6.3 billion has not yet been addressed by 

an ongoing PBS R&A project. As this backlog is related to 

capitalizable improvements and modernization, they are not 

considered deferred maintenance in accordance with FASAB 

SFFAS No. 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, 

which is intended to report only maintenance items that 

would be expensed through the normal course of business. 

U.S. Border Patrol Station, Murrieta, CA
Other Accompanying 

Information

GSA manages the Federal government’s Web portal USA.gov, 

providing Americans with environmental information through 

our 235 million contacts with the public each year.
Through USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov, GSA 

provides the American public 

with information on everything 

from clean power, gas prices, and 

recycling, to information on the 

nation’s forests and fisheries.

www.GSA.gov/green

Gobierno

Información oficial en español
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 155

As GSA moves towards complete integration of budget and performance, it has replaced our stand alone Performance Plan with a Performance Budget. The following measures and targets were used in FY 2007 and were reflected in the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. The 17 Key 

Performance Measures are highlighted in the Summary Chart of Goals and Measures below. The results for the remaining performance measures 

will be published on GSA’s Web site in December 2007. A list of measures reported in the FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) 

that are no longer externally reported can be found in the next section, Performance Goals and Measures No Longer Reported. 

Summary Chart of Goals and Measures

Program Performance Measures

FY 2004 

TARGET

FY 2004 

ACTUAL

FY 2005 

TARGET

FY 2005 

ACTUAL

FY 2006 

TARGET

FY 2006 

ACTUAL

FY 2007 

TARGET

FY 2007 

ACTUAL Result

STEWARDSHIP

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Percentage of government-owned assets 

with an ROE of at least 6%.1

65% 70% 68% 74% 71% 76.4% 75.6% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Percentage of government-owned assets 

achieving a positive FFO. 1

75% 78% 80% 84.3% 85% 82.7% 84% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Percentage of available and committed space 

in government-owned inventory.

7.60% 7.90% 7.00% 6.80% 7% 7% 7% 7.70% Not Met

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Customer Satisfaction - tenants in owned 

space.

69% 72% 72% 77.60% 73% 83% 75% 78% Met

PBS (Leasing) Percent of vacant space in leased inventory. 1.50% 1.20% 1.50% 1.20% <1.50% 1.50% <1.50% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing) Percent of leased revenue available after 

administering the leased program.

0% - 2% 1.90% 0% - 2% 2.20% 0% - 2% 1.50% 0% - 2% Not 

Available

PBS (New 

Construction)

Percent of New Construction program that 

is certified for LEED.

10% 0% 15% 17% 20% 0% 25% Not 

Available

PBS (New 

Construction)

Percent of newly constructed buildings 

independently verified for achievement of 

established operational requirements. 

15.00% 13.80% 20% 21.90% 30% 100% 35% Not 

Available

PBS (Real Property) The percent of public sales awarded within 

170 days.

N/A 73% N/A 92% 95% 100% 100% 100% Met

FAS (Long Distance) Complete the Networx Transition Planning 

versus actual.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

0% Not 

Measured

FAS (Vehicle 

Acquisition)

Number of vehicles purchased per full-time 

equivalent (FTE).

1,250 1,350 1,275 1,498 1,300 1,676 1,310 Not 

Available

FAS (Fleet) Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates below 

commercial rates on the GSA Vehicle Leasing 

Schedule.

25% 32% 27% 43.13% ≥ 29% 39.06% >29.25% 42.38% Met

FAS (Fleet) Number of vehicles managed per onboard 

associate.

277 275 322 329 335 352 340 Not 

Available

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Percentage of task and delivery orders 

subject to the fair opportunity process.

>60% 96% >65% 90.60% 80% 86.84% 80% Not 

Measured

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Percentage of schedule task orders solicited 

using e-Buy.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

80% Not 

Measured

FAS (Card ServicesSmartPay)

Government-wide spend per GSA SmartPay 

contract administration FTE.

N/A $4.92B N/A $4.99B $5B $5.31B $5.05B Not 

Available

OCFO Percent of invoices received electronically. 85% 56% 56% 64% 68% 71% 80% 73% Not Met

OCHCO Number of days to fill a vacancy. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

45 26.3 45 30.1 45 26.25 Met

(continued on next page)

Performance Measures

1 The targets and actuals for these measures do not match the FY 2008 Congressional Justifications. In the FY 2007 PART review of this program, 

GSA and OMB jointly revised the calculation of both measures to include land ports of entry, which had previously been excluded. 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

156 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Performance Measures 

Program Performance Measures

FY 2004 

TARGET

FY 2004 

ACTUAL

FY 2005 

TARGET

FY 2005 

ACTUAL

FY 2006 

TARGET

FY 2006 

ACTUAL

FY 2007 

TARGET

FY 2007 

ACTUAL Result

STEWARDSHIP (continued)

OCHCO Percentage of employees that have 

individual performance plans and receive 

ratings at end of rating cycle.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

95% 95% 96% 95% Not 

Available

OCIO Percentage of IT systems that have a current 

certification and accreditation.

100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Not 

Available

OCIO Percent of major IT initiatives by OMB for 

Enterprise Architecture-FY 2005 Exhibit 300 

Submission.

100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Not 

Available

OGP Percentage of OGP initiatives meeting their 

scheduled development milestones.

Baseline 50% 75% 75% 80% 100% 84% Not 

Available

OGP Percentage of OGP initiatives meeting their 

scheduled cost targets.

Baseline 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% Not 

Available

OCSC Strategic Messages (Favorable, Neutral, and 

Unfavorable).

N/A 37%, 

56%,

 7%

50%, 

25%, 

25%

27.54%, 

65.17%, 

7.29%

26%, 

67%, 

7%

35%, 

51%, 

14%

30%, 

60%, 

10%

Not 

Available

SUPERIOR WORKPLACES

PBS (Asset 

Management)

R&A projects on schedule. 86% 78% 86% 95% 88% 83% 88% 94.20% Met

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Percent of minor R&A budget obligated on 

planned projects by the end of the fiscal 

year.

Baseline 87% 75% 87% 75% 85% 75% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Percent of escalations on R&A projects. 1.50% 0.50% 1% 0.40% <1% 3.20% <1% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing) Satisfied tenant customer satisfaction 

rating (4 and 5 responses) in leased space 

surveyed.

68% 70% 70% 78% 72% 78% 74% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing) Percent of existing lease inventory reviewed 

for beneficial opportunities.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

100% 100% 100% Not 

Available

PBS (New 

Construction)

Construction projects on schedule. 84% 80.20% 85% 100% 86% 84% 87% 79.80% Not Met

FAS (Fleet) External customer satisfaction survey score. 83 84.9 83 85.9 83 84.5 83.1 84.9 Met

BEST VALUE

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Percent below private sector benchmarks 

for cleaning, maintenance and utility costs in 

office and similarly serviced space.

-13.40% -14.50% -12% -11% -3% -4.20% -3% -1.60% Not Met

PBS (Leasing) Cost of leased space relative to industry 

market rates.

-8.00% -10.60% -8.30% -9.20% -8.50% -9.20% -8.80% -10.60% Met

PBS (Leasing) Percent of customers surveyed who say they 

received their leased space when needed.

74% 86.70% 75% 82% 82% 67% 84% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing) Percent of expiring leases using the National 

Broker Contract.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

60% 48% 70% Not 

Available

PBS (New 

Construction)

Number of days to complete new 

courthouse construction projects.

2,900 2,988 2,900 2,928 <3,100 3,458 <3,100 Not 

Available

PBS (Real Property) Percentage of U&D property awarded within 

240 days.

N/A 75% N/A 39% 90% 97% 95% Not 

Available

PBS (Real Property) The percent of disposal transactions that 

“exceed” or “greatly exceed” customer 

expectations.

93% 94% 93% 93% 93% 97% 93% Not 

Available

(continued on next page)
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 157

Program Performance Measures

FY 2004 

TARGET

FY 2004 

ACTUAL

FY 2005 

TARGET

FY 2005 

ACTUAL

FY 2006 

TARGET

FY 2006 

ACTUAL

FY 2007 

TARGET

FY 2007 

ACTUAL Result

BEST VALUE (continued)

PBS (Real Property) Cost of reimbursable sales as a percentage of 

sales proceeds.

4.00% 0.18% 1.00% 0.13% 1.08% 0.12% 1.08% Not 

Available

FAS (Global Supply) Percentage of supply blended mark-up. N/A N/A N/A 31.60% 31% 32.71% 30.50% Not 

Available

FAS (Global Supply) Compliance rate with DoD Time Definite 

Delivery shipment processing standards.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

21.20% 18.80% 21.20% 22.20% 10%>VBL Not 

Measured

FAS (Global Supply) External customer satisfaction survey score. 84.1 79.3 79.80 77.3 79.9 80.3 80 Not 

Available

FAS (Global Supply) Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 10.2% 9.9% 9.0% 10.60% 10.50% 10.50% 10.40% Not 

Available

FAS (Personal 

Property)

Cycle time for disposal process (days). 76 72 77 56 76 52 55 Not 

Available

FAS (Personal 

Property)

External customer satisfaction survey score. 77 75.6 78 74.6 79 82.3 79 Not 

Available

FAS (Personal 

Property)

Direct cost of Sales Program as a percent of 

revenue.

57.60% 47.90% 47% 34.70% 46% 47.49% 45% Not 

Available

FAS (Personal 

Property)

Operating cost per $100 business volume. $33.76 $24.88 $22.95 $15.23 $22.00 $18.77 $21.50 Not 

Available

FAS (National 

Furniture Center)

Timeliness to award new contracts (days). 105 87 99 97.8 84 73.50 80 Not 

Available

FAS (National 

Furniture Center)

Timeliness to award contract modifications 

to add products and services (days).

22 14 20 19.8 13 18.1 12 Not 

Available

FAS (National 

Furniture Center)

Number of schedule task orders solicited 

using GSA e-Buy.

40,000 25,585 40,000 41,179 7,700 8,207 8,200 Not 

Available

FAS (National 

Furniture Center)

Direct operating expenses as a percentage of 

gross margin.

N/A 41.96% N/A 51.34% 49.52% 52.09% 48.20% Not 

Available

FAS (National 

Furniture Center)

Ratio of FTE to business volume. N/A 0.01% N/A 0.01% 0.0057% 0.0056% 0.0052% Not 

Available

FAS (Long Distance) Percentage of solutions reviewed compliant 

with policy and regulations, internal polices 

and procedures.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Not 

Measured

FAS (Long Distance) Overall customer satisfaction. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

80% Not 

Measured

FAS (Long Distance) Savings provided to customers. Not 

Measured

$705M $780M $633 M $550M $620M $500M Not 

Measured

FAS (Long Distance) Percentage of Network Service prices are 

below best commercial prices.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

41.50% 35% 41.40% 35% Not 

Measured

FAS (Long Distance) Complete the Networx Transition Planning 

versus actual.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

0% Not 

Measured

FAS (Long Distance) Total Long Distance program expenses as a 

percentage of gross margin.

52% 41% 56% 41.30% 55% 43% 55% Not 

Measured

FAS (Professional 

Services)

Percentage of negotiated award dates for 

services and commodities that are met or 

bettered.

N/A 83% >93% 88% >95% 93% >95% Not 

Measured

FAS (Professional 

Services)

Percentage of task and delivery orders 

subject to the fair opportunity process.

N/A 83% >85% 81% >86% Not 

Measured

>86% Not 

Measured

FAS (Professional 

Services)

Percentage of schedule task orders solicited 

using e-Buy.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

90% 93% 90% Not 

Measured

(continued on next page)
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

158 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Performance Measures 

Program Performance Measures

FY 2004 

TARGET

FY 2004 

ACTUAL

FY 2005 

TARGET

FY 2005 

ACTUAL

FY 2006 

TARGET

FY 2006 

ACTUAL

FY 2007 

TARGET

FY 2007 

ACTUAL Result

BEST VALUE (continued)

FAS (Professional 

Services)

Percentage of dollar value of eligible service 

orders awarded with performance-based 

statements of work.

Not 

Measured

43% 50% 64% 50% 66% 52% Not 

Measured

FAS (Professional 

Services)

 Total program expenses as a percentage of 

gross margin. 

52% 64% 82% 50% 66% 86% 65% Not 

Measured

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Percentage of dollar value of eligible service 

orders awarded with performance based 

SOWs.

40% 47% 40% 72% 50% 89% 60% Not 

Measured

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Percentage of projects meeting agreed 

performance according to the Quality 

Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

75% Not 

Measured

76% Not 

Measured

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Percentage of negotiated award dates for 

services and commodities that are met or 

bettered.

>93% 89% 75% 96% 76% 94% 77% Not 

Measured

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Percentage of solutions that are met at or 

below initial cost estimates.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

80% Not 

Measured

90% Not 

Measured

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Total Regional Telecommunications program 

expense as a percentage of gross margin.

67% 56% 70% 52% 66% 52% 66% Not 

Measured

FAS (IT SolutionsNational)Percentage of negotiated award dates for 

services and commodities that are met or 

bettered.

93% 95% 94% 87% >95% 89% >95% 72% Not Met

FAS (IT SolutionsNational)Percentage of dollar value of eligible service 

orders awarded with performance-based 

SOWs.

40% 58% 50% 26% >50% 4.56% >50% Not 

Measured

FAS (IT SolutionsNational)

Percentage of task and delivery orders 

subject to the fair opportunity process.

95% 98% 95% 94% >95% 90% >95% Not 

Measured

FAS (IT SolutionsNational)

Total program expenses as a percentage of 

gross margin.

67% 78.4% 62% 80% 62% 89.40% 79% Not 

Measured

FAS (IT SolutionsRegional)

Percentage of negotiated award dates for 

services and commodities that are met or 

bettered.

93% 88% 94% 84% >95% 95% >95% Not 

Measured

FAS (IT SolutionsRegional)

Percentage of solutions that are met at or 

below initial cost estimates.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

83% Not 

Measured

FAS (IT SolutionsRegional)Percentage of task and delivery orders 

subject to the fair opportunity process.

85% 96% 95% 92% >95% 92% >95% Not 

Measured

FAS (IT SolutionsRegional)

Total program expenses as a percentage of 

gross margin.

48% 52.3% 48% 96% 76% 148.50% 94% Not 

Measured

FAS (Vehicle 

Acquisition)

Percentage discount from invoice price. 27% 33% 28% 40.60% 28% 39% >28.50% 31.90% Met

FAS (Vehicle 

Acquisition)

External customer satisfaction score. 78 77 79 79.3 79 77.9 80 Not 

Available

FAS (Fleet) Program support and operational expenses 

per vehicle year of operation.

$530 $556 $482 $508 $504 $496 $500 Not 

Available

FAS (Travel) External customer satisfaction score. 74.3 73.6 74 73.6 74 75.4 75.5 Not 

Available

FAS (Travel) Percentage of vouchers serviced through 

the E-Gov Travel (percent of total voucher 

population).

2% 0% 3.00% 1.10% 5.25% 6.70% 18.41% Not 

Available

FAS (Travel) Percentage of Business Reference Model 

(BRM) agencies migrating to E-Gov Travel.

33.00% 8.33% 62.50% 29.20% 58.30% 54.17% 70.83% Not 

Available

(continued on next page)
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 159

Program Performance Measures

FY 2004 

TARGET

FY 2004 

ACTUAL

FY 2005 

TARGET

FY 2005 

ACTUAL

FY 2006 

TARGET

FY 2006 

ACTUAL

FY 2007 

TARGET

FY 2007 

ACTUAL Result

BEST VALUE (continued)

FAS (Travel) FedRooms percentage off consortia rate. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

33% 29% 28% Not 

Available

FAS (Travel) City Pair Program (CPP) percentage off the 

lowest published full economy fare.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

67% Not 

Available

FAS (Travel) Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 52.00% 55.00% 65.00% 66.00% 64% 38% 63% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation) External customer satisfaction score. 76 74.1 77 73.3 77.3 78.8 77.4 Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation) Freight savings. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Tracking 

Only

40% 40.50% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation) Household goods savings. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Tracking 

Only

58% 59% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation) Domestic Delivery Services Savings. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

69% Tracking 

Only

69% 70% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation) Percent of audits performed electronically. 94% 92.10% 94.50% 94% 96% 92.40% 96.50% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation) Percent of claims processed within 120 days. N/A N/A 40% 69.30% 75% 78.90% 80% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation) Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 52.00% 57.20% 65.00% 51.60% 52% 48% 51.50% Not 

Available

FAS (Card ServicesSmartPay)

Overall customer satisfaction of GSA 

SmartPay Program.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

63% Not 

Available

FAS (Card ServicesSmartPay)GSA SmartPay Conference Satisfaction as 

determined by attendee survey results.

90 93 92 95 92.5 91.2 93 Not 

Available

FAS (Card ServicesSmartPay)

Timeliness of report submission. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

>85 Not 

Available

OCSC FirstContact and Web solutions task orders. Contract 

Awarded

N/A 5 new 6 6 new, 

12 total

14 5 new, 

19 total

Not 

Available

INNOVATION

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Percent reduction in energy consumption 

over the FY 2003 baseline.

22.60% -22.40% -30.00% -35.30% -2% -4.40% -4% -8.30% Met

PBS (New 

Construction)

Percent of New Construction program 

registered for LEED.

10% 0% 10% 9.10% 25% 100% 50% Not 

Available

OCSC Citizen visits to USA.Gov Web sites. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

84.3M 88M Not 

Measured

OCSC Uptime for FirstGov. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

99% 100% 99.20% Not 

Measured

OCSC Number of search queries through FirstGov 

and FirstGov search.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

7.6M 10.8M 11.3M Not 

Measured

OCSC Citizen touchpoints. Baseline 101.5M 106.5M 122.7M 128.8M 133M 168.6M 222M Met

OCSC Government-wide Web site ASCI satisfaction 

benchmark.

Baseline 70.3 71 72 73 73.7 74 Not 

Available

OGP Extent to which OGP policy initiatives 

achieve improvement targets.

Baseline 66% 70% 71% 80% 100% 84% 98% Met

OGP Percentage of key policy stakeholders and 

agency users who rate OGP policy initiatives 

effective.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

80% 54% 57% 70% Met
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

160 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Performance Measures 

Performance Goals and Measures No Longer Reported

Program Performance Goals Performance Measures

STEWARDSHIP

FAS

(Travel and Transportation) 

Reduce program operating costs. Operating cost per $100 business volume.

OGP Assist agencies in the re-engineering of the identity 

management process for external e-government online 

services and for physical and logical access to federal 

facilities and systems.

Percentage of Authentication service lines with 

three or more providers to achieve competition. 

OGP Improve the compliance with Section 508 governmentwide by improving the compliance of GSA contracts 

and programs.

Percentage of agencies whose work 

demonstrates the use of 508 tools.

OGP Federal Enterprise Architecture/Component 

Organization and Registration Environment (FEA/CORE) 

- Increase adoption of common business processes and/

or key components enabling those processes.

Number of components submitted for approval 

to IAC Component Organization and Registration 

Environment (CORE) steering committee 

registered at CORE.

SUPERIOR WORKPLACES

FAS

(Global Supply)

Achieve timely delivery for all customer orders. Percent of domestic, non-hazardous orders 

shipped within 24 hours.

FAS

(Global Supply)

Increase program efficiency and value to Global Supply 

customers by minimizing program operating costs.

Operating costs per $100 business volume.

FAS

(Global Supply)

Reduce Global Supply mark-up on stocked items. Percentage of Global Supply mark-up on stocked 

items.

BEST VALUE

FAS

(Network Services)

Provide robust portfolio of telecommunications services 

and value added solutions to satisfy diverse customer 

requirements.

Customer satisfaction with value added solutions.

FAS

(IT Solutions-Professional 

Services)

Provide cost management for solutions delivery. Percentage of solutions that are met or below 

initial cost estimates.

FAS

(IT Solutions-Regional)

Provide cost management for solutions delivery. Percent of dollar savings between independent 

government cost estimates (IGCEs) and award 

amounts.

OCSC Help the Federal government become more citizencentric by increasing the magnitude, quality and 

outreach of Federal information via various channels 

and enable Federal agencies to become more citizencentric by providing answers to citizens that are timely, 

accurate and responsive via the channel of their choice. 

Public contact derived as a result of citizen 

interaction with USA Services channels.

FAS

(Network Services)

Grow customer base to increase market share and 

maximize savings to the government.

Percentage of agencies serviced by Network 

Services.

FAS

(Network Services)

Provide effective management of Network Services 

acquisitions.

Network Program Milestones planned vs. actual.

INNOVATION

OGP Develop and issue effective guidance and 

implementation policies in support of the Federal 

Identity Credentials.

Percentage of major agencies adopting crossagency policy and uniform standards for Federal 

Identity Credentials.

OGP Provide tools and incentives to improve the 

effectiveness of property management operations.

Percentage of agencies reporting real property 

performance measures tracked by OGP.

OCIO Improve IT Investment Control & Project Management. Percentage of the IT Portfolios DM&E Projects 

that have a schedule variance within 10% of plan.
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 161

Management Challenges

Office of Inspector General’s Assessment of 

GSA’s Major Management Challenges
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

162 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

Office of Inspector General’s Updated Assessment of GSA’s Major 

Management Challenges

October 2007

Acquisition Programs 

Contract Management 

Information Technology 

Management Controls 

 Stewardship of Federal Real Property 

Human Capital 

Protection of Federal Facilities and Personnel 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 163

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL’S UPDATED ASSESSMENT OF GSA’S MAJOR 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

OCTOBER 2007

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 

The General Services Administration (GSA) plays a lead role in interagency contracting, 

providing Federal agencies with products and services valued in the billions of dollars 

through various types of contracts it establishes and administers. To streamline the 

structure and strengthen GSA’s capability to provide excellent acquisition services to 

customer agencies at the best value, and to make it easier for contractors to understand 

and participate in GSA’s acquisition processes, GSA merged the Federal Supply Service 

(FSS) and the Federal Technology Service (FTS) to form the new Federal Acquisition 

Service (FAS). Both the specific contracting programs and the reorganization give rise 

to management challenges. Further, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

added management of interagency contracting to its High Risk list in 2005. 

External factors also are affecting how the new organization will do business. At the 

same time GSA is combining its two procurement organizations, cash-strapped 

customer agencies are following the advice of the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and are developing strategic sourcing procurement programs. Under this 

approach, agencies amass their common goods and services, consolidating their 

requirements into one or a few awards, with the expectation of suppliers substantially 

lowering prices. This practice is being used more frequently and presents a new 

dynamic that GSA must factor into its business lines. Also, the Department of Defense 

(DoD), GSA’s largest customer, is moving toward doing more of its own contracting. 

ISSUE: Among other contracting programs and vehicles, GSA is responsible for the 

Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program and many Governmentwide Acquisition 

Contracts (GWACs). Management challenges in this area generally center on the 

contract evaluation and award process and involve the often-related issues of 1) 

competition, 2) pricing, and 3) compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. 

The MAS Program provides Federal agencies with a simplified procurement process for 

the purchase of a diverse range of commercial supplies and services from multiple 

vendors at prices associated with volume buying. MAS contracts are awarded to 

contractors supplying items or services at prenegotiated prices for delivery within the 

same geographic areas. Federal agencies then simply order supplies or services from 

the schedules (or catalogs) at the prenegotiated prices and pay the contractors directly 

for their purchases. GSA administers over 40 schedules that produced $34.8 billion in 

sales in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, and the business volume continues to grow. 

Our Office is concerned that, as the MAS program has grown, the importance of certain 

program fundamentals – including pricing objectives and other pricing tools – has 

diminished. These fundamentals include the mandate for most-favored customer (MFC) 

pricing, the requirement to perform meaningful price analysis when awarding or 

extending contracts, and the use of Office of Inspector General (OIG) preaward reviews 

to assist contracting officers in negotiating the best value in awarding these contracts. 

1
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

164 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

MFC pricing ensures that MAS contract pricing harnesses the Federal Government’s 

collective buying power for pricing purposes. Price analysis is the key substantive step a 

contracting officer performs for the purpose of arriving at fair and reasonable prices. 

OIG preaward reviews are the main analytical tool by which a contracting officer can be 

assured that a vendor’s pricing is appropriate. These reviews also provide contracting 

officers with additional detailed analyses regarding a vendor’s pricing and sales 

practices in anticipation of negotiations. 

In past reviews, we reported that FSS did not consistently negotiate most favored 

customer prices, many MAS contract extensions were accomplished without adequate 

price analysis, and available tools were not being used effectively to negotiate better 

MAS prices. Moreover, in a February 2005 report, GAO concluded that, despite GSA’s 

recent initiative to perform quality reviews of contract awards and documentation, GSA 

cannot be assured that fair and reasonable prices have been negotiated for its MAS 

contracts.

Since 2004, with the support and endorsement of OMB, GSA has provided us with 

additional financial support enabling us to markedly increase the number of these 

preaward contract reviews. These reviews have successfully provided contracting 

officers with information to help establish fair and reasonable pricing. Over the past 

three years, the OIG has found material flaws in about 75 percent of the proposals 

audited that amounted to over $2 billion in proposed contract price savings. Additionally, 

our reviews of MAS contracts have yielded millions in recoveries, including a recent 

$98.5 million settlement with Oracle Corporation for PeopleSoft’s defective pricing of 

sales, the largest recovery for false statements in the history of the MAS Program. 

Despite these results, in 2006 the Administrator endeavored to withdraw financial 

support for the preaward reviews performed by the OIG, but was not successful. We 

believe that the results of our work demonstrate a very tangible positive impact on the 

integrity, economy, and efficiency of an important GSA program. We believe that other 

GSA stakeholders see this as well, as demonstrated by Senate Report 110-129 

Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2008, that directed GSA 

to provide $5 million in reimbursable funding to the OIG for preaward audits and surveys. 

We will continue to work with FAS to assist contracting officers in negotiating the best 

value in awarding these contracts. 

A concern related to pricing is the funding mechanism for the MAS Program. A .75 

percent fee is included in the price of a product or service on the schedules. When the 

vendor is paid by the agency placing the order, the vendor remits the portion of the price 

that represents this fee to GSA. This methodology can have the unintended result of 

reducing the incentive to negotiate the best price possible, since lowering prices or not 

awarding a contract adversely impacts revenue. Further, the operating expenses that 

the MAS fee funds are not restricted to the MAS Program. Strong controls are needed 

to ensure that the contracting officers have sufficient information and incentives to 

negotiate fair and reasonable pricing and that the fee and operating expenses are 

balanced.

 Also, the broad definition of a commercial item in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) presents challenges to a contracting officer’s ability to perform a valid price 

analysis. The MAS Program operates under the premise that: (1) GSA vendors would 

routinely sell their commercial products and services to the general public in a 

competitive open market; (2) this competitive process would establish “market prices” 

2
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 165

(fair and reasonable prices); and, (3) GSA contracting officers (COs) could use market 

prices as a starting point in negotiations to establish a government price that was equal 

to a comparable buyer in the private sector. However, under the current definition, a 

commercial item is any item and many services “of a type” customarily used by the 

general public. Thus, the current FAR definition of a commercial item does not require a 

vendor to have any commercial, competitive sales of a product or service. There are 

vendors who have commercial sales but organizationally segregate units that do 

commercial business from those that do government business. We have also seen 

commercial items that are actually special purpose items that are only purchased by 

specific government customers, such as a weapon system tool kit. In addition, we have 

found that, although a commercial market exists for a vendor’s services, its commercial 

contracts are typically awarded on a firm fixed-price basis, while its GSA schedule 

clients have been doing business mainly on a time-and-materials basis. 

GWACs are multiple award contracts for information technology (IT). GWACs are 

openly competed and then awarded to a pool of specific vendors. Once the contract is 

awarded, solicitations of proposals for task orders are limited to those vendors. GSA 

recently awarded two GWACs for IT services with a total ceiling of $65 billion over 10 

years. Based on experience with awarding past GWACs, GSA can expect a significant 

workload for its acquisition resources. These contracts are coming into existence at the 

same time that GSA is reorganizing its acquisition services. Also, ensuring competition 

under the GWACs will be a challenge. During past reviews of the Client Support 

Centers (CSCs) and other contracting reviews, we concluded that often task order bids 

are received from only one vendor although the solicitation was sent to all of the contract 

holders. This can occur because the incumbent has a competitive advantage in its 

knowledge of the task, or due to vendors dropping out of the GWAC over time thereby 

decreasing potential competitors. GSA needs to focus on ensuring that the government 

receives competition and best value on its procurements. 

Client Support Centers: In recent years, we identified improper contracting practices at 

the CSCs (formerly part of FTS) in several regions. CSC officials breached government 

procurement laws and regulations, and, on a number of occasions, processed 

procurement transactions totaling more than $100 million through the Information 

Technology Fund for goods and services that were well outside the fund’s legislatively 

authorized purposes. Many of these issues were related to DoD procurements. 

Inappropriate contracting practices included: improper sole source awards, misuse of 

small business contracts, allowing work outside the contract scope, improper order 

modifications, frequent inappropriate use of time-and-materials task orders, and not 

enforcing contract provisions. Because of these concerns, Congress, in the 2005 

Defense Authorization Act, directed that the GSA and DoD IG offices review each CSC 

to determine if they are compliant with Federal and DoD specific procurement 

regulations. In our 2006 review of the CSCs, we determined the CSCs are now 

compliant with procurement regulations although some minor procurement deficiencies 

in several of the CSCs did exist. GSA and DoD procurement officials are continuing to 

work on the development of consistent policies and procedures for GSA and DoD 

interagency contracting, including the use of funds across fiscal years and the format for 

interagency agreements. 

Another issue brought out by the CSC reviews was the lack of procurement expertise. 

We found that, frequently, neither GSA nor its customer agencies had the expertise to 

prepare statements of work, evaluate vendor proposals, or prepare independent 

3
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

166 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

government cost estimates for many service task orders. The ordering contracting 

officers (OCOs) who place orders for “commercial” items against the MAS and GWACs 

are, in many cases, at an even greater disadvantage than the COs awarding MAS and 

GWACs. OCOs are expected to get even better prices and rates on large orders and 

are to obtain competition for the orders they award. Our experience has been that many 

of the largest tasks are awarded to the same vendor time after time and, often, no other 

vendors bid on the task. 

AGENCY ACTIONS: We continue to participate with FAS on a working group to review 

current MAS procurement practices and analyze potential enhancements to program 

pricing activities. The group is comprised of representatives from the Office of the Chief 

Acquisition Officer (OCAO), General Counsel, FAS, and the OIG. On April 29, 2005, 

FSS issued a revised Procurement Information Bulletin (PIB) to update guidance and 

instructions to contracting officers in requesting audit assistance from the OIG when 

exercising options to extend the term of a contract. The principles in the PIB also apply 

to audits of new MAS offers. The guidance in the PIB was reinforced in a Procurement 

Information Notice issued on September 22, 2006. 

Many of the problems identified in the CSC audits related to OCO, vendor, and user 

agency misuse of GSA contract vehicles. As a result, GSA was challenged to ensure its 

overall contracts are properly used. GSA continues to work closely with other Federal 

agencies, particularly the DoD, in identifying actions necessary to clarify guidance and 

ensure proper use of GSA contracting vehicles. In December 2006, DoD and GSA 

entered into an agreement specifying steps the GSA will take to alleviate DoD concerns 

about interagency contracting. The agreement defines some ambiguous aspects of 

existing acquisition policy regarding interagency contracting. In addition, it establishes 

responsibility and clarifies rules applying to acquisitions conducted on DoD’s behalf. 

GSA and DoD procurement officials are continuing to work on the development of 

consistent policies and procedures for GSA and DoD interagency contracting. 

Emergency Contracting: Under the National Response Plan, GSA provides 

procurement support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during 

national emergencies. In responding to Hurricane Katrina, issues in GSA’s emergency 

contracting processes were exposed. As reported by GAO, GSA contracting personnel 

needed better coordination with FEMA personnel who were responsible for monitoring 

contractor performance. In our review of over 200 contracts and orders with an 

aggregate value of $741 million, we found that contracting personnel did not always 

award contracts that adequately protected the government’s interest. Sixty-one of the 

contracts reviewed did not contain evidence of any form of contractor responsibility 

determination. Further, contracting personnel failed to perform adequate price 

reasonableness determinations for nearly half of the contract actions reviewed. As a 

result, GSA awarded some contracts that did not provide fair and reasonable pricing. 

For example, GSA awarded two contracts to one vendor for the same products and 

services but pricing for one was triple that of the other. In addition, many GSA 

contracting personnel did not have emergency contracting guidance or training and 

many did not have knowledge of the products and services or the sourcing capabilities 

needed to ensure price reasonableness. Finally, the manual tracking of contract 

information led to inaccurate and incomplete reporting. 

4
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 167

AGENCY ACTIONS: GSA concurred with our recommendations and has taken a 

number of actions to address this situation. To improve coordination with FEMA 

personnel, GSA has been working to update the memorandum of understanding with 

FEMA and revising its emergency policies and procedures. GSA is also working with 

FEMA to put contract vehicles in place in advance of future disasters. 

Reorganization: GSA is in the midst of a major reorganization of its acquisition programs 

that will affect staffing levels, morale, revenue and fee structures, information systems, 

and the number and type of programs offered. FAS, which will operate on a cost 

recovery basis, has an estimated annual value of contract actions between $40 and $50 

billion and a staff of approximately 3,900 employees. As part of the FAS structure, the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has merged the Information Technology and General 

Supply Funds into the Acquisition Services Fund. In merging these two revolving funds, 

management will be faced with the significant challenge of ensuring that the transition 

process does not impact operations and that sufficient controls are in place over the new 

fund.

AGENCY ACTIONS: The FAS reorganization is underway and on December 5, 2006, 

the Administrator signed a GSA Order that officially established the full organizational 

substructure of the regional offices. Further, the FAS Acquisition Management team, led 

by GSA's Chief Acquisition Officer, has been working to create an organization that will 

partner with the OCAO to enhance the GSA workforce by fostering acquisition 

excellence in training and work environments. The team is also focused on ensuring 

consistency among the GSA schedules contracts. This team must create an 

organization that optimizes GSA processes, while ensuring that customers and suppliers 

have a positive and consistent FAS experience. The OCAO also established a process 

for improving acquisition programs in Public Buildings Service (PBS) and FAS by 

evaluating the quality of contracts awarded in each business line. Each year, the OCAO 

selects GSA buying activities to analyze, evaluate, and validate their acquisition 

processes through Procurement Management Reviews. 

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT 

ISSUE: GSA increasingly accomplishes its mission by using contractors to provide 

client services and products. For example, in April 2005, GSA initiated a new National 

Broker Contract with the intention of transitioning, over time, the majority of its lease 

acquisitions to four broker contractors. In FY 2005, PBS had over 7,300 private sector 

leases that generated more than $4.1 billion in direct revenue. While GSA gains 

tremendous advantage by leveraging its human capital through the use of contractors, 

the corporate skill base necessary to effectively manage contracts is not keeping pace 

with the growth and complexity of this important activity. 

Through various audits performed over recent years, we have observed certain trends 

that cause us to be concerned with contract management. Some points we have noted 

are:

x Weak selection criteria permitted poor performing contractors to win awards or 

projects were awarded to contractors with no expertise in the services needed. Task 

objectives were poorly crafted, milestone plans were missing, and unauthorized 

5
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

168 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

personnel issued some task orders. In addition, contracts were awarded without 

appropriate clauses to hold contractors responsible for protecting sensitive data from 

unauthorized release. 

x Use of certain contract formats offered no incentives to keep projects moving or 

control costs. Contractors neglected to establish required quality control programs or did 

not submit firm construction schedules meaning that delays were unknown until they 

became significant. 

x GSA personnel provided limited project oversight, acted too slowly in making projectcritical decisions and, at times, failed to inspect completed work projects prior to 

payment. Also, not all services paid for were provided, and approvals to pay for services 

invoiced often lacked supporting documentation. 

x GSA leasing officials did not monitor receipt of services required under leases and 

relied on tenant complaints for identifying service deficiencies rather than taking a 

proactive approach to ensure required services were provided. We also noted a lack of 

documentation supporting whether identified fire and other safety conditions in leased 

facilities were corrected. 

x Leasing project files lacked strong support for the price reasonableness of tenant 

improvements, contained limited documentation of active project management during 

the build-out process, and the level of project cost tracking and reconciliation varied 

significantly.

In our briefings to GSA senior management, we have emphasized that effective contract 

management starts with complete acquisition planning; relies on sound source selection 

criteria to select only the best contractors; requires clear and concise contract language; 

demands well trained contract administrators; and needs well defined work or task order 

requirements, including milestone plans with positive and negative incentives and, more 

importantly, assertive action to get wayward contracts promptly on track. There is a 

heightened need for improvement as GSA’s contracting workload continues to increase 

at a rapid rate. While many GSA contracts are well crafted and properly administered, 

we continue to find weaknesses. 

In October 2004, GSA awarded the National Broker Services Contract to provide leasing 

services for up to 3.2 million square feet of space throughout the country. GSA 

predicted that much of the real property contracting process would be done by personnel 

from one of four national commercial property management firms, which would handle 

about 50 percent of the new leasing workload in the first year of the contract. PBS found 

it necessary to contract for these services because the number of realty specialists was 

shrinking while the amount of space they were responsible for was growing. Turning 

over such a large part of the workload created a new demand on PBS realty specialists 

who now have major contract oversight responsibilities. Our greatest concern is turning 

over such an important part of PBS workload (both in size and dollars) to contractors 

who will be paid by the lessor. The ‘no cost’ aspect of the contracts allows the brokers 

to collect payment from landlords in the form of commissions. Consequently, the 

incentives to keep costs down and the controls to prevent collusion or (in cases where 

they may have a relationship with the potential lessor) to prevent steering the award to a 

preferred lessor are key to the success of the contract. There may also be proprietary 

6
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 169

data issues where one GSA contractor seeking a lease award may be required to 

provide proprietary data to a competitor that is overseeing the award. This may lead to 

impaired competition. Moreover, the implementation of the Broker contract is highly 

dependent on post award oversight, which has been a GSA weakness in the past. 

On January 31, 2007, GAO issued a report on the Broker contract entitled, “Initial 

Implementation of the National Broker Services Contracts Demonstrates Need for 

Improvements,” to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives. The report focused on GSA’s administration of the leasing contracts 

for the first contract year, ending March 31, 2006, and addresses, among other matters, 

(1) how GSA is attempting to prevent conflicts of interest in the National Broker Service 

(NBS) leasing program and to safeguard its information; (2) what, if any, savings have 

accrued to the government; and (3) how GSA is distributing its leasing workload among 

the brokers. 

GAO found that GSA has developed controls to help prevent conflicts of interest in the 

NBS leasing program, but has not fully mitigated potential conflicts of interest, as it has 

not modified the contracts to ensure that each contains all of the requirements applicable 

to the brokers’ disclosure of potential or actual conflicts of interest. Further, GSA has not 

assessed the risk and magnitude of harm that could arise from the brokers’ unauthorized 

access to, or disclosure of, GSA’s proprietary information. GSA also has not adequately 

mitigated the inherent conflict created by allowing the brokers to represent the 

government while negotiating their commission payments with building owners. Absent 

additional controls, GSA has insufficient assurance that the brokers will select the best 

value regardless of offered commissions. 

GAO also noted that GSA expected the contracts to result in savings based on lower 

rents using the brokers’ expert knowledge of the commercial real estate market and from 

reduced administrative expenses. However, GSA does not know what, if any, savings 

result from the NBS contracts, mainly because – except for the commission credits – it 

has not developed procedures for quantifying most of its expected savings. GSA 

distributed its initial leasing workload fairly equally among the brokers during the first 

year but program delays, insufficient data, and a lack of procedures have slowed the 

transition to performance-based distributions. 

AGENCY ACTIONS: GSA has provided training in source selection and related 

procurement issues for property development personnel. It has also established an online folder to post source selection best practices. Contracting officers are receiving 

classes in advanced source selection and refresher training on aspects of construction 

project administration such as critical path analysis, enforcement of clauses and 

scheduling, claims management, processing change orders, and linking the indirect 

costs of client directed changes back to clients. 

GSA also issued, in August 2006, the Lease Management Guide to “promote proactive 

lease management as the primary driver to Real Property Asset Management principles, 

customer-driven positioning, consistent customer experiences, and the Administrator’s 

Acquisition Excellence program (formerly referred to as the “Get it Right” acquisition 

process initiative) for our contracts and financial transactions.” The Guide provides the 

minimum areas of responsibility to effectively conduct lease management oversight. 

7
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

170 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

In developing the new National Broker Services Contract, the Agency took into 

consideration several of our concerns from the prior national broker contracts by 

including controls for oversight and follow up. PBS established a certification training 

plan for realty personnel involved with the Broker Contract. Key personnel will be 

required to hold a Leasing Warrant. PBS is currently responding to the GAO 

recommendations to the National Broker Service Contract. 

Further, GSA and DoD have begun implementing the action items outlined in their 

mutual Memorandum of Agreement signed in December 2006, defining the operational 

relationship between the two agencies in acquisition policies. Completed tasks include 

developing standardized content for interagency agreements, providing online and video 

training for all GSA contract specialists, and determining requirements for data reported 

in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation. Both agencies are 

continuing efforts toward completing the remaining action items in achieving Acquisition 

Excellence. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION AND SECURITY

ISSUE: Planning, building, and implementing cost-effective, customer-focused, and 

secure information technology in support of GSA’s evolving business lines and various 

missions have never been more important. GSA is reorganizing its Acquisition Program 

area, modernizing its systems, and leading five E-Government initiatives. GSA faces 

challenges related to system requirements, performance, and development. Many of its 

Information Technology (IT) applications, particularly in the E-Government initiatives, 

that were developed to better manage operations and interface with the public, also give 

rise to complex integration and security issues that must be addressed. Additionally, 

many of the Agency’s systems also store and process sensitive data, including 

personally identifiable information, financial data, and contractors’ proprietary 

information. It is critical that the IT Security Program adequately manage all IT security 

risks.

Information Technology Implementation: GSA’s IT budget for FY 2007 was $553 million. 

It is critical that GSA have a sound capital planning and investment control process to 

manage project risk with major investments for information systems and information 

technology. Crucial to this control process is the Agency’s ability to deploy and maintain 

structured system development practices that ensure the proper development of 

requirements. However, GSA systems commonly experience development schedule 

delays and cost overruns, need frequent redesign, and have difficulty providing basic 

functionality and sharing usable data between systems. 

Many GSA IT projects attempt to minimize development cost and deployment schedules 

by developing systems based on existing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software 

packages. The majority of COTS solutions require modifications to meet unique Federal 

requirements. Moreover, new systems require interfaces that are difficult to implement 

with existing systems. Reviews by our office have shown this to be the case with GSA’s 

accounting system, Pegasys, and with the former GSA Preferred (GSAP), both of which 

are based on COTS products. It is important to adhere to the required structured 

practices. For example, the Federal Technology Service (now Federal Acquisition 

Service) attempted implementation of GSAP in two regions to replace four legacy 

8
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 171

systems. GSAP was intended to provide “cradle to grave” activities to identify and 

deliver more effective technology solutions and services. GSA expected to provide 

employees and Federal clients with real time access to acquisition, financial, project, 

program, and contracting information. However, the system and its interfaces did not 

function as intended, and the project faced budget and schedule overruns. GSAP was 

terminated and FAS is reverting to the legacy systems that GSAP was intended to 

replace, but these systems lack a number of important controls. Another example of 

GSA’s modification of a COTS product was the Enterprise Customer Relationship 

Management (ECRM) system. ECRM was planned to facilitate information sharing 

among GSA Services about its customers in order to provide better acquisition solutions 

and workplaces. In July 2006, the Administrator recognized that, although significant 

effort and funds had been committed to the project, it was no longer economical to 

pursue.

GSA is moving toward agency-wide enterprise architecture (EA) because of its 

recognized benefits such as reduced redundancies, improved interoperability between 

processes and systems, and realization of economies of scale. However, progress is 

slow and the lack of effective enterprise governance and executive accountability for IT 

decisions has resulted in stove-piped business processes and systems. Consequently,

duplicative systems develop across the Agency, lacking the necessary technical 

compatibility to share information. The need for business-driven EA was raised as a 

concern by numerous IT officials during the budgeting cycle as the Chief Information 

Officer (CIO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) attempted to weigh the cost and benefits 

for GSA’s major IT investments.

GSA also faces systems development challenges in aligning its applications, IT 

infrastructure, and services to government-wide goals and new Lines of Business. 

Specific system-related risk areas for E-Government include: (1) managerial and 

technical controls, (2) application interfaces and data standards, and (3) security 

controls, including access controls, patch management, and contingency planning. 

Beyond the five E-Government initiatives, GSA manages other IT systems that provide 

critical administrative support to both GSA Service and Staff Offices and to Federal 

customers, such as GSA’s Comprehensive Human Resources Information System 

personnel system and the E2 Solutions travel application. Close attention to the controls 

for systems that provide cross-services to other Federal Agencies is also needed with 

the new financial management and Human Resource Management centers that GSA is 

moving to under the E-Government lines of business initiatives. GSA business owners 

need to document how their business operations and supporting IT systems align with 

agency-wide business architecture to provide a base for completing enterprise 

architecture. 

An important initiative is to consolidate the Agency’s IT infrastructure services under the 

GSA IT Infrastructure Technology Global Operations (GITGO) task order, expected to 

cost about $200 million, that was awarded in 2007. The GITGO initiative is intended to 

provide a number of improvements including combining 40 disparate contracts into one 

consolidated contract; enhancing efficiency by aligning functions now performed by 

multiple organizations and locations; establishing consistent IT infrastructure levels of 

service throughout GSA; and improving management controls over funding for IT 

infrastructure. However, challenges with the new GITGO strategy include the need to 

manage technical and management risks in such areas as the development of standard 

operating procedures and continuity of operations plan, prime and subcontractor 

9
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

172 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

performance, alignment of GITGO to evolving requirements for OMB’s IT Infrastructure 

Optimization Initiative Line of Business, and adequacy of general and application 

controls including security and privacy controls in GITGO operations. 

Security: GSA has over 90 systems, 500 servers, 660,000 Web pages, and an array of 

database systems. Annually, we review GSA’s Information Technology Security 

Program as required by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). 

The audit includes tests of network and application controls, including vulnerability 

scanning. While the GSA’s overall IT Security Program is improving in a number of 

areas, we continue to identify deficiencies similar to those reported in prior years 

resulting from ineffective implementation by system security officials. As in previous 

years, we found weaknesses with the implementation of GSA’s Certification and 

Accreditation process, contractor background checks, and contractor provided solutions. 

Completion of required background checks before contractors are granted access to 

GSA systems remains a challenge. The GSA IT Security Program must incorporate 

requirements for contractor provided data system solutions where GSA owns, and is 

responsible for, the data but does not own the hardware, software, facility, or provide 

system security. Shortfalls in these areas demonstrate the need for improved 

component accountability since many of the staff with key IT security responsibilities 

report to their individual organizations and not to the CIO. This condition also stresses 

the importance of more specific guidance for those in IT security roles and the need to 

establish standardized performance goals and measures across organizations for a 

more effective agency-wide IT Security Program. 

Attention must also be placed on the completeness of applications addressed in the 

Agency’s inventory of systems, which are managed under the IT Security Program. For 

example, a recent audit found that GSA’s Electronic Messaging Services and National 

Notes Infrastructure had not been adequately analyzed through GSA’s IT Security 

Program and certification and accreditation processes. Significant weaknesses exist 

that put information, systems and services at risk. This underscores the need to 

consider security related agency-wide initiatives such as e-Authentication, Active 

Directory, GITGO, and Enterprise Architecture to better direct priorities and set Agency 

security improvement goals through a more comprehensive implementation plan for the 

IT Security Program.

The importance of application security is increasing as applications move to this 

expanded form of connectivity. Over 70 percent of attacks against sites or applications 

come at the application layer, not the network or system layer. Attacks on applications, 

both internal and external, bypass traditional network firewall and password access 

controls and may not be monitored. Attackers are increasingly targeting applications 

that have traditionally not been secured as well as network perimeters. As part of the 

annual FY 2007 FISMA technical control review, we tested security controls for several 

of GSA’s public facing and intranet applications and found significant areas of risk that 

need to be more comprehensively addressed. There is a need to strengthen 

configuration settings affecting confidentiality, integrity, and system availability, and to 

address conflicting configuration policy for handling unsuccessful login attempts and 

warning banners. 

Greater emphasis is also required for security of privacy information and the use of 

unencrypted data stored outside GSA’s secured facilities. In FY 2006, several 

significant incidents of loss of privacy data were reported across the government and 

10
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 173

private industry, and such incidents have continued in 2007. This emphasized the need 

for protecting personally identifiable information, particularly since identity theft is a 

rapidly growing category of crime facilitated by use of the Internet. Poor physical 

security and a lack of training and enforcement of current security policies and 

procedures caused most of the reported incidents. GSA encountered this type of 

difficulty when, in FY 2005, the Bank of America lost computer tapes on the GSA 

SmartPay® program affecting 1.2 million account holders. Data lost included social 

security numbers, addresses, and account numbers. Since the incident, FAS has 

worked with the service providers to strengthen their security controls. To stress the 

importance of strengthening controls in this area, the OIG conducted two reviews and 

made recommendations to management to improve controls for Privacy Act systems, 

including close collaboration across the Agency. OMB has also recommended Federal 

agencies take specific actions to improve awareness and overall controls for sensitive 

data, including personally identifiable information. An emerging area where these issues 

are of concern is in the formulation of telework procedures as they relate to the 

protection of personally identifiable information. The press has repeatedly highlighted 

this area of concern. Establishing procedures and training for protecting privacy data 

while teleworking is especially significant for GSA since GSA is the lead agency for the 

telework program.

AGENCY ACTIONS: The CIO has updated the GSA Information Technology Security 

Policy, GSA Order CIO P 2100.1C, issued February 17, 2006. This order issues and 

transmits the GSA Information Technology Security Handbook. Instructional Letter 05-

03, containing training requirements for persons with significant security responsibilities 

was issued on April 21, 2005. The CIO also updated a number of technical and 

procedural guides and added the Oracle technical guide. Further, the CIO is maintaining 

contractor support for:

x Procedural and Technical Guide development and maintenance. 

x Vulnerability scanning of over 1,800 devices each quarter. 

x Incident handling response and investigation. 

x E-authentication risk assessment preparation. 

x Security training for persons with significant security responsibilities. 

x Certification and Accreditation and Plans of Actions and Milestones reviews for 

consistency with procedural and technical guides. 

x Annual FISMA reporting. 

The Agency issued GSA Order ADM 5440.601 on January 29, 2007, that realigned 

many of the IT duties performed by services and staff office personnel staff under the 

CIO.

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 

ISSUE: As GSA has continued reinvention initiatives, along with its reorganization 

efforts, to replace multiple management controls with fewer and broader controls, it has 

become increasingly essential that the remaining controls be emphasized and 

consistently followed in conjunction with streamlining the processes. The matter of weak 

11
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

174 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

internal controls in business practices will impact GSA’s credibility to its customers, and 

underlies several of the other management challenges discussed elsewhere in this 

document. We have also found that inconsistencies among operating groups damage 

GSA’s credibility with its customers. 

Merger of the Federal Supply Service and the Federal Technology Service: The 

General Services Administration Modernization Act authorized the creation of the 

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) from the merger of the Federal Supply Service (FSS) 

and Federal Technology Service (FTS). Management will face new challenges as it 

streamlines organizational structures and strengthens GSA’s capability to provide 

excellent acquisition services to customer agencies. 

Budgetary Accounting: Customer agencies place orders through GSA for some goods 

and services. This is particularly true for work performed by the former FTS and the 

Public Buildings Service (PBS). During FY 2005, GSA management identified material 

unfilled customer orders and undelivered orders of the Information Technology Fund (for 

FTS) that were either invalid and/or cancelled. Consequently, the Independent Public 

Accountant (IPA) issued a disclaimer on the GSA’s, the General Supply Fund’s, and the 

Information Technology Fund’s FY 2005 and 2004 statements of budgetary resources 

and statements of financing. Management placed reliance on regions and national 

customer service centers to monitor outstanding orders and initiate the close-out of 

invalid and long outstanding customer orders through the use of the open items review, 

the contract close-out process, and return of customer funds. However, due to improper 

monitoring controls, monthly reviews of open items did not work efficiently and 

effectively. During the past three fiscal years (FY 2005, 2006, and 2007), management 

has been reviewing and addressing budgetary account issues. Nevertheless, as noted 

by the IPA during the FY 2006 financial statement audit, the following issues continue to 

need attention: 

x Undelivered Orders (UDOs) – represent GSA’s commitment under obligations to 

vendors for goods and services ordered on behalf of customer agencies. During FY 

2006, the IPA found instances where the Federal Buildings Fund and General Supply 

Fund management were unable to properly identify and record obligations as valid or 

complete.

x Unfilled Customer Orders (UFCOs) – represent spending authority that customer 

agencies have obligated to GSA. During the FY 2006 period, the IPA noted that the 

Federal Buildings Fund, the General Supply Fund, and the Information Technology 

Fund management were unable to properly identify, classify, and record its UFCOs. 

x Prior Year Recoveries (PYRs) – represent de-obligations or downward adjustments 

to obligations incurred in prior years. GSA’s business feeder systems for the General 

Supply and Information Technology Funds did not provide detailed transaction level 

information to correctly recognize PYRs within Pegasys. As a result, time-consuming 

manual procedures were needed to compensate for the financial systems limitations. 

Accounting for Capital Projects: Since 2001, the Federal Buildings Fund has 

experienced problems related to cost transfers of construction, major and minor repairs, 

and alteration projects out of the construction in process (CIP) general ledger accounts 

to the appropriate asset general ledger accounts upon substantial completion, as well as 

not expensing items from CIP when a project is abandoned, or cancelled, or when the 

12
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 175

item does not meet the definition of a capital asset. Additionally, for some projects that 

were transferred from the CIP account to the fixed asset account, the substantial 

completion date per the Real Property Accounting and Depreciation System did not 

agree with the external support provided by management. Although management had 

knowledge that the assets were substantially complete, this discrepancy occurred 

because management lacked sufficient external support to conclude on the accuracy of 

the substantial completion date used to depreciate fixed assets. 

Data Integrity: In passing the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 

Congress emphasized that the usefulness of agencies’ performance data depends, to a 

large degree, on the reliability and validity of those data. Past audit work has shown that 

the absence of controls or non-compliance with existing controls has resulted in poor 

quality data at the operational levels of many GSA programs, negatively affecting 

customer expectations. 

Managers need to consider the impact of bad data since poor data quality affects all 

reporting, including to Congress and the public. Inaccurate, incomplete, and untimely 

information can result in bad decisions making. There is a temptation to dismiss the 

data quality problem as consisting of only a series of anecdotes, but the anecdotes are 

far too numerous. There are frequent examples of data problems. 

In FY 2006 and 2007, PBS was challenged with the data integrity of its rental rates. 

According to PBS’S pricing policy, the rental rates for GSA-owned buildings should be 

based on independent appraisals of the buildings. However, OIG and PBS reviews 

indicated problems with courthouse appraisals; GSA personnel were extensively 

modifying some appraisals and, as a result, rental rates were being questioned. Due to 

these and other issues, PBS is putting controls in place to ensure the data integrity of 

appraisals as well as for lease and other building information. 

Further, the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) was 

challenged to provide timely and accurate data for procurements related to the response 

and recovery efforts for Hurricane Katrina. The magnitude of spending for the disaster 

efforts highlighted the importance of timely, accurate, and reliable data in FPDS-NG. 

Data reliability is dependent on agencies having a vested interest in ensuring reliable 

data, and that data will likely be used to meet the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006. 

Our concern is that GSA needs to create an awareness of the problem and its impact, 

which is the first step toward the resolution of a problem. Data quality cannot be 

improved unless the poor data problem is first recognized. 

Charge Cards: Many agencies have availed themselves of the services available under 

GSA’s government-wide charge card program, yet some have failed to adequately 

implement controls over the use of the cards by their employees. While it is the 

responsibility of individual agencies to establish controls for their own cardholders, OMB 

and the Congress still look to GSA to take a leadership role in the development of 

effective charge card program controls across the government. There are currently over 

350 agencies/organizations participating in the GSA SmartPay® program, spending 

more than $26 billion in FY 2006, through 98 million transactions on approximately three 

million charge cards. Within GSA, the key control over purchase cards is supervisory 

review of cardholders’ transactions that is now more consistently followed; however, we 

13
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

176 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

do occasionally identify problems. In fact, GSA recently ranked ninth in net bad debt 

write-offs of 25 agencies tracked under the SmartPay® contract, which is attributable to 

poor spending and vouchering habits related to the travel cards. 

The Fleet is very concerned about misuse of Voyager charge cards. These cards are 

primarily used to charge for gas. It is a management challenge to filter through the 

thousands of transactions to identify potential misuse of cards. 

AGENCY ACTIONS: The revised OMB Circular No. A-123, Management’s 

Responsibility for Internal Control became effective in FY 2006. It requires Federal 

agencies and individual managers to develop and implement internal controls sufficient 

for results-oriented management, assess the adequacy of those internal controls, 

separately assess and document the internal controls over financial reporting consistent 

with Appendix A of the Circular, identify needed improvements and take corrective action 

to address them, and report annually on internal control through the management 

assurance statements. These changes require management to focus a much higher 

portion of its resources on internal controls, particularly in its efforts to assess and 

document these controls. GSA has taken several steps to address the revised 

requirements of A-123. The Controller’s office has worked to address the revised 

Circular by extending training to GSA’s Services and Staff Offices nationwide on the 

Management Control Improvement Program. Additionally, the CFO has developed 

internal control assessment documents for the major financial line items for each Service 

and Staff Office. The Management Control and Oversight Council also continues to be 

heavily involved in this process. 

One aspect of management controls is common business models to promote consistent 

cost efficiencies and effective service delivery. GSA needs to incorporate 

standardization of processes across all business lines that will enhance management 

controls, and has begun to do so. For example, PBS is in the process of implementing 

the Rent Bill Management Program. PBS’S goal is to have a national standardized 

process to: apply policy consistently; implement standard billing practices across 

regions; ensure all billing inputs are based on source documents; implement stringent 

checks before every billing input; use one contractor as a central control point for billing 

input; and implement quality control at every level. Further, to address customer 

concerns regarding the accuracy and consistency of the rent bills, in May 2006, PBS 

began a national review to verify that the rates on the customers’ rent bills are supported 

by the appropriate source document. The intent of the review is to identify financial 

inaccuracies on rent bills as well as administrative issues related to the Occupancy 

Agreements that PBS has with its customers. PBS is also taking action to improve the 

overall effectiveness of the appraisal program, including eliminating the regional 

appraiser’s ability to adjust appraisal value conclusions, adding additional management 

oversight, and adjusting its policy on customer access to appraisal information. 

Additionally, to address data reliability in FPDS-NG, OMB established requirements on 

March 9, 2007, for agencies to verify and validate the accuracy and timeliness of their 

data being entered into the database. GSA concurred with the recommendation in the 

audit report on GSA’s Response to Hurricane Katrina, issued February 26, 2007, to 

coordinate with FEMA to explore the use of a centralized information system that 

automatically captures procurement data. 

14
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 177

GSA’s CFO has worked with our office to strengthen controls for charge card 

transactions. Processes are in place that require reviewing officials to examine 

purchase transactions monthly. Cards are withdrawn from those who do not comply. 

GSA purchase cardholders and approving officials are required to complete refresher 

training every two years. As a result, we have seen a substantial reduction of fraud 

stemming from card use. Additionally, although the current GSA SmartPay® contract 

expires in November 2008, its successor program, GSA SmartPay® 2, is set to include 

several improvements such as increased security requirements, strategic sourcing 

support, and transaction modeling to better detect misuse, fraud, and abuse. 

The Fleet is working to improve the controls over Voyager charge cards. In the past 

year, GSA provided us additional funding support to markedly increase the number of 

reviews of questionable Voyager charge card transactions. Further, we identified 

additional ways to enhance the Fleet’s national loss prevention program and 

decentralized processes that produced inconsistent results weakening the program’s 

effectiveness. GSA is also a key participant in an OMB sponsored Federal committee 

on identifying ways to improve the overall charge card control systems governmentwide.

STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY 

ISSUE: PBS, as one of the core real estate organizations in the Federal Government, 

faces challenges in providing quality space to Federal agencies with an aging, 

deteriorating inventory of buildings and critical budgetary limitations. Its building 

inventory consists of over 8,600 assets, generally buildings and leases, with 347 million 

square feet of rentable space that house over a million Federal employees. Although 

PBS has substantial growth in its leased inventory, it requires funding for its capital 

program of major new construction and repair and alteration projects. To meet the 

Federal government needs, PBS needs funding to construct new courthouses, border 

stations, and Federal buildings. Further, PBS’s owned building inventory has an 

average age of 45 years and requires approximately $6.6 billion for repair and alteration 

projects over the next five years for these assets. 

PBS funds its real property operations through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). The 

FBF is a revolving fund; rents collected by PBS are deposited into the fund and those 

funds are then used not only to operate and maintain building assets, but also for 

investment in the capital program to repair and modernize facilities and construct new 

buildings in support of customer agency missions. However, as part of the annual 

appropriation process, limits are placed on how much of the fund can be used in a given 

fiscal year and how much can be used to support the major real property functions. This 

includes approval of the capital program’s major new construction and major repair and 

alteration projects as well as the funds needed for these projects. In FY 2006, the 

funding for the capital program included $792,056,000 for major new construction, 

$861,376,000 for major repairs and alterations, $434,992,000 for basic repairs and 

alterations, and $21,915,000 for the design program. 

As agencies face increasing budget constraints, some are examining their rental 

payments as a means to lower their costs. For example, in 2004, the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts requested a $483 million annual rent exemption, which GSA 

15
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

178 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

denied. Reduced rental payments would decrease funding within FBF, thereby reducing 

the funds available to repair and restore Federal buildings. 

In recent history, the capital program has been subject to cost escalations in excess of 

the approved funding on its major new construction and major repair and alteration 

projects. GSA has authority to fund cost escalations up to ten percent of the approved 

funds using savings from past projects without seeking Congressional approval. If the 

cost escalation is greater than ten percent, Congressional approval is needed. 

However, because of project cost overruns, the cost savings available for new 

construction projects has been depleted. A recent GAO audit1

 found $31 million in cost 

savings available for renovation projects, but most were used soon after being identified. 

As new appropriations to fund escalations have not been forthcoming, PBS has had to 

reprogram funds from other FBF functions, such as leasing and basic repairs and 

alterations budgets to fund the cost of escalations. In FY 2006, PBS reprogrammed 

approximately $279 million for the capital program. As a result, the funds are invested in 

the capital asset and no longer revolve through the FBF as a source to fund operating 

expenses.

PBS is heavily reliant on its operations to replenish the FBF and provide funds for the 

capital program. PBS’s primary measure for tracking the incoming funds from 

operations, known as Funds from Operations (FFO), is essentially net income before 

depreciation is deducted (or total revenue less all expenses except depreciation). In FY 

2006, PBS’s total revenues increased by over $200 million, mostly due to growth in the 

leased inventory. However, PBS’s FFO decreased due to increases in operating costs, 

which offset the increased revenue. PBS is also projecting that revenues will remain flat 

in FY 2007 and 2008, resulting in tighter budgets and a focus on reducing costs. This 

will also curtail the funding that PBS can use to invest in its capital program. At the 

same time, PBS has reduced the administrative fee it charges for leased space 

beginning in FY 2008 to recognize new efficiencies achieved, in part, from the National 

Broker Contracts. Yet a recent GAO audit report2

 stated that GSA does not know what, 

if any, savings have been achieved through the National Broker Contracts because it 

has not developed procedures for quantifying most of its expected savings. 

To make the best use of the funds that are available, PBS needs to determine which 

buildings represent the greatest risk from a safety and operational perspective, which will 

yield the best return on investment, what the Government’s future space requirements 

are, and how to fund the highest priority projects in a timely manner. PBS needs a 

comprehensive strategy to enable an evaluation of its building projects nationwide. 

This problem exists government-wide. Federal real property was designated a high-risk 

area by the GAO because of the many long-standing and complex issues surrounding it. 

As further recognition of the significance of these issues, the President signed Executive 

Order 13327 and added the Federal Asset Management Initiative to the President’s 

Management Agenda in February 2004. 

1

“General Services Administration Could Better Manage Unexpended Construction Balances and 

Make Its Budget More Transparent”, Report Number GAO-07-409R, (May 2007). 2

 “GSA Leasing: Initial Implementation of the National Broker Services Contracts Demonstrates 

Need for Improvement” Report Number GAO-07-17 (Jan. 2007). 

16
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 179

AGENCY ACTIONS: To address this challenge, PBS is taking action in several different 

ways. In the short term, PBS has requested $344,450,000 in new appropriations in its 

FY 2008 budget request. These funds are needed to ensure PBS’s capital program 

stays on plan in the near term. In the long term, PBS has implemented a portfolio 

strategy to maximize income-producing properties and identify underperforming assets. 

PBS has also adjusted its priorities to address these issues. 

PBS has developed a strategy for restructuring the owned building inventory. The 

strategy envisions a combination of actions including disposals, exchanges, 

public/private partnerships, outleases, and new construction. With the Portfolio 

Restructuring Initiative, PBS has proposed a three-tiered approach in prioritizing the 

inventory, using a series of asset diagnostic tests or measures, each with a performance 

target or threshold that will assist in categorizing individual buildings. The first test 

simply seeks to determine whether the property produces sufficient income to meet both 

operating expenses and a reserve for replacement. The second test measures an 

asset’s financial performance in terms of return on investment. Other tests address 

operating efficiency, customer satisfaction, rental rate and vacancy levels, and current 

repair and replacement needs. After this performance review, each asset will be 

categorized as either performing, under-performing, or non-performing. PBS will consult 

with affected agencies on appropriate resolution strategies for each troubled asset. GSA 

has briefed congressional subcommittees with jurisdiction over GSA, and they are very 

supportive of this effort, as are OMB and GAO. Since FY 2002, PBS has reported 258 

assets as excess. Of these, 119 have left the inventory through exchange, transfer or 

sale. In addition, 53 assets have been demolished. 

In FY 2007, the PBS Commissioner also identified PBS’s priority areas, several of which 

affect the capital program. Priorities include improving PBS’s real property capital 

project planning and delivery. To achieve this, PBS is developing project monitoring and 

mitigation tracking tools, and establishing national program standards for ownership of 

project data accuracy. PBS is also executing a national training strategy and action plan 

for project managers, as well as developing future leadership in the Office of Chief 

Architect. The primary goal of these efforts is to deliver projects on time, on budget, and 

within scope. 

PBS’s priorities also include exploring ways to leverage funding of real property capital 

projects to help offset the growing burden of capital funds. PBS is examining increased 

investment in real property through the use of alternative financing options as an 

opportunity to support further investment and reinvestment in its portfolio. To do this, 

PBS is seeking to use authorities identified under Section 412 of the FY 2005 

appropriation law. Under this authority, PBS was given the right not only to deposit 

proceeds from the disposal of GSA owned property into the FBF, but also the ability to 

out-lease GSA owned property and then lease it back. With these authorities, PBS 

would like to out-lease properties in need of reinvestment to an entity that would perform 

the needed repairs and alterations and then leaseback the renovated property from that 

entity. Thus, the reinvestment costs will be financed through a lease arrangement, 

rather than being funded directly through the FBF. 

17
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

180 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

HUMAN CAPITAL 

ISSUE: Since 1998, the OIG has consistently cited human capital management as one 

of the major management challenges facing GSA resulting from a loss of both 

knowledge and critical skills. GAO added this issue in 2001 to its high-risk series of 

issues facing Federal agencies. Strategic human capital planning and organizational 

alignment, leadership continuity and succession planning, recruitment and retention of 

staff with the right skills, and results-oriented organizational cultures were identified as 

key areas needing attention. 

GSA is undergoing a major transformation in its workforce. In 1999, the workforce was 

approximately 14,000 and today it is around 12,100. As with many Federal agencies, a 

large portion of the staff has reached or is nearing retirement age. In fact, according to 

GSA’s 2006 Workforce Analysis, 18.56 percent of GSA employees are eligible to retire 

by the end of 2007. For the Senior Executive Service (SES) workforce, there was a 33 

percent attrition rate in 2006, and within this analysis, approximately 52 percent are 

eligible to retire within five years. GSA has recently seen a significant loss of key 

management staff, such as the General Counsel, Budget Director, Chief Acquisition 

Officer, and Chief Information Officer, and Deputy Commissioner of FAS, creating 

vacancies to be filled. Newly filled positions include those vacancies along with several 

management appointments in FAS, the Office of Governmentwide Policy, the Office of 

Citizen Services and Communications, and the Office of Emergency Response and 

Recovery; however, there remains a 25 percent vacancy rate in SES positions. Hard-tofill positions and retention issues continue to be human capital concerns. Coupled with 

the FAS reorganization and the ripple effect of changes related to Assisted Acquisition 

Services reassignments, many staff will find themselves in unfamiliar positions and 

uncertain as to their reporting role in the organization. 

With Government procurement as GSA's primary mission and the act of issuing 

contracts "an inherent government responsibility," we foresee a continuing need for 

competent contracting officers. There is a question as to whether GSA has enough 

qualified trained contracting officers with the knowledge, education, and negotiating skills 

to deal with the complex MAS contracts in place, especially service contracts pricing. 

Although staffing has recently increased to some extent, FAS noted in its October 2006 

Business Plan for the Schedules program that hiring experienced contracting personnel 

remains a challenge as the number of offers and modifications continue to increase. 

Further, a fairly high percentage of FAS personnel are eligible for retirement within the 

next five years. 

Another related challenge is that many contracting officers currently have responsibility 

for over 100 contracts, many of which are in the services area. Some contracts, 

especially in the computer equipment and supplies area, require substantial effort to 

administer due to constant changes to products and prices that have to be added or 

deleted to the contract via contract modifications, which for some contracts number in 

the hundreds. Our recent review of the MAS program’s contract workload management 

reported that, although management endeavors to ensure that workload is fairly 

balanced, FAS could facilitate workload distribution by improving the quality and 

accuracy of data used to manage MAS work, and could further adopt a more strategic 

approach in managing the Schedules program to more effectively utilize its resources to 

enhance customer and vendor satisfaction. Also, FAS could improve consistency and 

18
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 181

effectiveness in achieving best value for customer agencies and taxpayers by improving 

guidance for contracting personnel and enhancing performance measures related to 

increased emphasis on costs. 

In an effort to more accurately and consistently inventory its activities under the Federal 

Activities Inventory Reform Act, GSA’s competitive sourcing team oversees each 

Service’s inventory and reports on any discrepancies or variances. The Office of 

Performance Improvement oversees the competitive sourcing initiatives in GSA. The 

President’s Management Agenda identifies competitive sourcing as a major 

Government-wide initiative. As the competitive sourcing process focus shifts from PBS 

to FAS and other parts of the Agency, GSA will be challenged in responding, given the 

ongoing human capital issues resulting from its reorganization of FAS and realignment 

of business line resources. 

Top agency management presents a special category of management challenges. The 

tone that top management sets for an agency has an important impact on performance 

at all levels. We will continue to carefully monitor how top management conveys the 

importance of respect for the law, good stewardship of taxpayer funds, and recognition 

of the need for independent scrutiny of government operations and accountability. 

AGENCY ACTIONS: GSA has moved out on several fronts to meet identified human 

capital challenges. The Agency completed an agency-level workforce analysis that 

parallels GSA’s Human Capital Strategic Goals developed as part of its strategic plan in 

August 2002, updated in November 2005. The report has assisted management in 

making informed human capital decisions. Identified mission critical occupations are 

particularly emphasized in recruitment and retention strategies. The Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer selectively uses human resource flexibilities to compete for 

employees. It has developed recruitment and retention strategies with the help of the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and employee focus groups, and uses the 

compelling job offer technique to convince potential employees of the importance of the 

position. In OPM’s FY 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, employees ranked GSA 

among the top ten federal workplaces in three of four broad categories. 

GSA has a number of initiatives regarding employee orientation, engaging existing 

employees, and developing leaders within GSA, along with a commitment to provide a 

workplace and work environment to meet current and future needs of its employees. 

New employees are provided the opportunity to attend an intensive introduction to the 

Agency and orientation to the individual’s specific organization. As part of its human 

capital strategy, and to address planning needs, the Office of the Chief Human Capital 

Officer launched the GSA Leadership Institute in February 2002, and has continued to 

add programs and training opportunities to develop new supervisors and managers, and 

equip them for senior-level positions in the Agency. Additionally, GSA’s Online 

University continues to provide a learning environment for employees to enhance their 

skills and competencies. 

GSA has also implemented a Telework Program as an innovative family-friendly 

workplace solution, and provided security and safety measures for emergency 

preparedness, through its Continuity of Operations Plan and Pandemic Influenza Plan. 

An audit of the Telework Program, however, reported that GSA needs improvement in 

implementing a consistently administered agency-wide training program, monitoring 

19
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

182 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

controls, current guidance, and determining official duty stations of full time participants. 

The Administrator recently set a telework challenge for 50 percent of GSA employees 

who are eligible to telework one or more days per week by 2010, phased in with interim 

goals.

In order to address the President’s Management Agenda and comply with OMB’s 

Circular No. A-76, the Office of Performance Improvement is taking steps to review 

current methods of performing commercial activities in a variety of areas. The goal of 

these efforts is to assess programs and activities to determine whether internal or 

external changes would yield a better value for customer agencies and the taxpayer. 

PROTECTION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL 

ISSUE: Providing a safe, healthful, and secure environment for over one million workers 

and visitors to approximately 8,600 owned and leased Federal facilities nationwide is a 

major multifaceted responsibility of GSA. Increased risks from terrorism have greatly 

expanded the range of vulnerabilities traditionally faced by building operations 

personnel. In March 2003, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) was transferred from 

GSA to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While FPS is no longer part of 

GSA, the Agency will have a continual need to closely interact with security personnel 

due to GSA’s mission of housing Federal agencies. GSA and FPS/DHS operate under a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for obtaining services, such as basic security for 

buildings, contract guards, law enforcement, background suitability determinations for 

contractors (including Child Care), pre-lease security checks, occupant emergency plan 

support, and continuity of operations plan activation support. Ensuring that Federal 

employees have a secure work environment and that building assets are adequately 

safeguarded must remain a primary consideration for GSA. 

One concern relates to the future funding for upgrades and replacement of the security 

countermeasure equipment initially authorized directly by Congress. As equipment ages 

and technology advances, the cost to maintain the security of GSA’s buildings could 

significantly impact availability of funds for other building needs, and could result in 

higher rent costs to tenants resulting from upgraded security. Under the new MOA, with 

the exception of prospectus-level equipment or projects, security equipment determined 

by FPS to be a mandatory countermeasure will be funded by DHS or tenant agencies 

through Security Work Authorizations, on a prioritized, funds-available basis. FPS had 

experienced major funding shortfalls and was reevaluating its structure and mission, 

which could affect the services it provides to GSA. Security fixtures and mandatory 

security equipment countermeasures valued above the prospectus-level, or installed in 

prospectus-level projects, will be purchased and installed by GSA on a prioritized, funds 

available basis, with PBS Assistant Regional Administrators (ARA) reserving the right 

not to implement mandatory measures, after consulting with DHS. To date, however, 

the ARAs have implemented mandatory measures. In view of the many issues facing 

PBS, we are concerned about the level of security under the current MOA and will be 

monitoring the situation closely 

Additionally, a recent audit identified that GSA will not complete the next phase of 

Homeland Security Presidential 12 (HSPD-12) implementation by OMB’s original 

milestone date of October 27, 2007, due to the late award of a Managed Service Office 

20
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 183

(MSO) contractor and the limited Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card production 

capability of that contractor. By this date, all contractors and employees with15 years or 

less of service were required to be issued PIV II compliant cards. Instead, the report 

identified that GSA is focusing on issuing the cards to all employees and contractors by 

October 27, 2008. In addition to issues with the MSO contractor, GSA is faced with 

other obstacles affecting its ability to implement HSPD-12. These include the lack of a 

detailed HSPD-12 implementation plan and the absence of a centralized database 

capturing GSA-wide contractor information with access to GSA systems. This makes it 

difficult to identify those contractors who do not have completed background 

investigations. 

AGENCY ACTIONS: Effective June 1, 2006, GSA and FPS entered into a new, more 

comprehensive, MOA that clearly addresses the roles, responsibilities, and operational 

relationships between FPS and GSA concerning the security of GSA-controlled space. 

FPS continues to provide law enforcement services, conduct Building Security 

Assessments, and identify security countermeasures that can be implemented to reduce 

vulnerabilities and potential threats to Federal facilities. Building specific security 

measures include contract guards, security equipment, and security fixtures. Further, 

GSA has formed a Building Security & Policy Division within the PBS and a Regional 

Security Network, while taking an active role on Interagency Security Committee working 

groups.

While it has experienced some setbacks, GSA is moving forward to adopt a credential 

as part of the Federal Government’s implementation of HSPD-12, which mandates a 

common identification standard for Federal employees and contractors. The credential, 

with an embedded smart chip, will identify each employee visually and electronically for 

both identification and physical access purposes. GSA has met OMB’s first two 

deadlines requiring issuance of operating procedures by October 27, 2005, and the 

production of a PIV II compliant card by October 27, 2006. GSA is also continuing to 

move forward in such aspects of HSPD-12 implementation as processing employee and 

contractor background investigations, developing plans for logical and physical access, 

and updating its general HSPD-12 policies. 

21
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

184 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

MEMORANDUM FOR BRIAN D. MILLER

INSPECTOR GENERAL (J) 

FROM: LURITA DOAN

ADMINISTRATOR (A) 

SUBJECT: Inspector General’s Assessment ofthe General Services Administration’s

Major Challenges

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review your assessment of the major challenges currently facing the 

General Services Administration (GSA) and the Agency’s progress in addressing those challenges. I will append my comments 

to your document before it is included in GSA’s Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). My comments refer to the 

assessment that you sent to me on October 12, 2007.

FY 2007 has been a year characterized by GSA’s leaders and employees who have increased their accountability to their 

government customers and to the American taxpayer. The past year has seen management efforts to increase the effectiveness 

of management controls in longstanding business lines such as acquisition and real property management as well as evolving 

areas such as e-government, information technology (IT), and physical security and privacy—and we have succeeded. 

The past year also witnessed the stand up of the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). That initiative provided us the opportunity 

to analyze and, where needed, strengthen management controls in our acquisition programs. As noted in your report, GSA has 

instituted significant changes in its acquisition practices to more effectively serve our customers. In the area of real property, 

your report extensively documents the measures and initiatives put in place to address the continuing challenges in real 

property management and construction. I am confident that GSA will meet the challenges. The Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) report also notes challenges in human capital management. As evidenced by our most recent President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA) green scores in both status and progress for the strategic management of human capital, I believe that, contrary 

to the OIG report’s assertion, GSA continues to be effective in our management of human resources.

As I observed last year in my statement on your assessment in the FY 2006 PAR, the major challenges and issues identified in this 

year’s assessment, as well as the language used to describe those challenges are, to a large extent, identical to those reported by 

you in past years. How disappointing that most of your narrative of GSA’s challenges is simply a rehash of the same assessments 

the OIG made a year ago. Since these challenges are nearly identical to the challenges outlined in a similar report last year, 

I would, at a minimum, have expected a more thorough analysis of the effectiveness of GSA’s efforts over the past year. How 

effective were GSA’s many initiatives and efforts to reduce risks and meet these challenges? What did GSA divisions do that 

worked? Which efforts had the most success? Why? What initiatives failed? Why did they fail? Perhaps most importantly, what 

new ideas would the OIG suggest or recommend to increase our effectiveness in serving our government customers and saving 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 185

taxpayer dollars? Unfortunately, there is no practical discussion of our efforts or, indeed, any substantive discussion of how GSA 

could better meet these challenges. 

You have also failed to undertake the more difficult but important task of looking forward to help GSA better anticipate 

future challenges and opportunities. Such an analysis would be of value to senior GSA management and would help us to 

better understand several troubling and disturbing trends, to name but two: (1) our difficulties attracting and retaining 

Federal contracting officers along with (2) the increased tendency for contract bundling which is freezing out participation of 

innovative small, minority, HubZone, and service-disabled veteran companies in Federal procurements. These are but two of 

the pressing and significant challenges facing Federal procurement and yet, there is no discussion of either in your report. The 

OIG missed an opportunity to help shape, guide, and propel Agency-wide improvement. 

Over the past year, GSA management has launched an unprecedented effort to fundamentally improve GSA performance and 

has completed the most significant reorganization in the history of the Agency. We have eliminated redundant services and 

combined many different functions impacting almost 4,000 GSA employees, and yet there is little discussion in your document 

regarding the effectiveness of these efforts. From lessons painfully learned from GSA’s performance during Hurricane Katrina, 

we have organized a new Office of Emergency Response and Recovery (OERR), with new powers to coordinate the full range 

of GSA operations and efforts during periods of national emergency. Somehow, a thoughtful analysis of the effectiveness of 

these new initiatives has yet to be made. GSA could use a thoughtful, fact-based appraisal of our programs and efforts, and so 

I repeat that the Inspector General (IG) Assessment report is a significant disappointment and an opportunity missed.

The OIG analysis provided on GSA programs and challenges is too superficial to be of substantive use to GSA’s management 

team. In your report, you state that there are inherent risks that must be carefully managed. Such a statement is of little use, 

for a certain element of risk is unavoidable and inherent in every new undertaking. What would be useful to GSA managers 

is not a statement of the obvious, but rather a careful and thoughtful analysis of each specific risk factor and, above all else, 

recommended steps that could be taken to minimize the inherent risks. For example, in your report you note that during the 

last year GSA awarded two new Government Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWAC) valued at $65 billion, and then tell us that 

“based on your experience” GSA can “expect a significant workload for its acquisition resources.” I can assure you that everyone 

in GSA understands that $65 billion in contracts generates a good deal of work for our procurement professionals. Instead of 

stating the obvious, it would have been useful for you to provide your assessment of how effectively we are organized, trained, 

prepared, and motivated to meet these challenges, and of course, what specific recommendations you would make to improve 

our abilities to serve our government customers better and to provide provable savings for the American taxpayers.

GSA managers need recommendations and analyses that can form the basis of action. An OIG report that can identify areas 

requiring improvements and identify the steps to achieve that improvement would be valuable indeed, for it will shape and 

guide actions and help to create a culture in which we fix the problem rather than fix the blame.
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

186 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

Acquisition Programs

The OIG reports continue to rely on seemingly outlandish estimates of potential savings and cost avoidance that have yet to be 

substantiated. I have asked for a quantitative analysis of your assertions of savings of $2 billion as a result of pre-award audits. 

What are the metrics that you use to calculate these “savings?” If, indeed, these numbers are accurate, the methodology and 

estimates that determine how these alleged “savings” are calculated should be transparent to all within GSA. In that way, all GSA 

managers at all levels could benefit from such knowledge. On the other hand, if these statements cannot withstand outside 

scrutiny and are not based upon a verifiable methodology, they should be dropped from all future reports. Uncorroborated 

claims of “savings” should not be considered a credible basis for any management decision or assessment. 

In the OIG management assessment, there are other misleading statements. For example, you note that “pre-award reviews are 

the main analytic tool with which a contracting officer can be assured that a vendor’s pricing is appropriate.” That statement is 

exaggerated. Contracting officers have many different tools. Moreover, contracting officers are responsible for direct discussions, 

negotiations, and reviews of past performance and they are ultimately, solely responsible for agreements on price. Certainly, 

OIG auditors play an important supporting but independent role. But, it is misleading to suggest that contracting officers are 

solely dependent upon the advice received from the OIG auditor. These pre-award audits should provide recommendations, 

but they are not a substitute for the exercise of sound, business judgment by the contracting officer. Any disagreement with 

such judgments does not establish that best value has not been obtained. 

For example, the OIG Management Report discusses the funding mechanism for the GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) 

program. The OIG report states that the present methodology for the funding fee can reduce the incentive to negotiate the 

best price possible. I am disturbed that you appear to be impugning the integrity of our contracting officials. Only contracting 

officers have been provided special training and warrants, giving them the responsibility to negotiate contracts. 

The OIG report could also have profited from an honest assessment of the limits and special problems with pre-award audits 

which often take several years to complete, which in turn often delay and extend the procurement cycle, driving up both 

government and vendor costs. That alternative methods may exist and should be explored and considered does not diminish 

the authority of the OIG, nor demean the value of pre-award audits. While it is unfortunate that we cannot come to agreement 

on this, our staffs continue to work together effectively in many other areas. 

Lastly, your management report fails because it avoids discussion of one of the most difficult challenges that GSA faces; that is 

simply the strained relationship between the OIG and the rest of the GSA organization. While we all might have different views 

regarding the best ways to solve this problem, there can be little doubt that it does exist. I believe that facing a problem is the 

first step to solving a problem, and that there is no constructive purpose in avoiding the difficult. 

This report does not meet the high standard of critical analysis that GSA needs to address the many different challenges 

we face. It is my hope that you will focus your staff on finding ways that the OIG can provide meaningful and innovative 

recommendations to help GSA management improve all of our programs and efforts. I am confident that your office will 

continue to assist GSA’s business lines, as well as its staff and policy offices, in our stewardship of taxpayer funds and in 

continuing improvement of our programs in service to our customers. 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 187

Recommendations

I believe that the independence of the OIG can be a valuable tool to assist GSA management. To that end, I have included 

several recommendations for consideration by the OIG leadership team to assist in successfully focusing its efforts in this 

upcoming year. 

First, in this upcoming year, I believe that the OIG and GSA management can work together more effectively if your office 

reports alleged contract violations to the Administrator early on, and recommends appropriate corrective action to resolve 

any such issues. In addition, the OIG should keep the Administrator fully and currently informed concerning fraud and other 

serious problems. In cases such as these, the OIG should recommend corrective action concerning such problems.

It is clearly the intent of the IG Act of 1978 that the OIG should function in an advisory role. This requires that the OIG avoid 

the perception of involvement in the programmatic and decision-making process at the negotiating table.

The relationship between the GSA Suspension and Debarment official and the OIG should be a close working relationship of 

shared data and shared recommendations and should work collaboratively to achieve the required actions.

Lastly, I encourage you to provide all members of the OIG with refresher training to help your auditors better understand exactly 

where the fine line between oversight and management actually lies in contract negotiations. Oversight and Management are 

the checks and balances that ensure proper running of programs and proper and effective use of taxpayer funds. We have 

an obligation to the American people as stewards of their hard earned funds and as the leaders of the government’s premiere 

procurement agency to do better. I urge you to work collaboratively with me to ensure that we hold ourselves and the Agency 

accountable to this important trust.

Attachment 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

188 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

Agency Management Comments on the 

Inspector General’s Assessment of GSA’s 

Major Management Challenges

Acquisition Programs

The Multiple Award Schedule Program

The assessment suggests that as the MAS program has grown, 

the importance of certain program fundamentals—including 

pricing objectives and other pricing tools—has diminished. 

Citing past OIG reviews and a dated Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report, the assessment observes 

that GSA did not consistently negotiate most favored customer 

pricing; many contract extensions were accomplished without 

adequate price analysis; and that available tools were not 

being effectively used to negotiate better MAS prices. Standing 

behind these asserted deficiencies is the often repeated 

criticism that contracting officers frequently fail to request 

and use OIG pre-award reviews. The Agency has responded to 

this criticism extensively in a variety of forums. Pre-award 

audits can be a useful tool. The results of such audits are not, 

however, a substitute for the exercise of business judgment by 

the contracting officer, and disagreement with such judgments 

does not establish that best value has not been obtained.

Most favored customer pricing remains a central tenet of the 

MAS program. Determination of most favored customer 

pricing is committed to the business judgment of the 

contracting officer. The OIG working group will continue to 

improve the relationships between the OIG audit staff and the 

Agency contracting staff, thereby providing contracting 

officers with timely, appropriate, and useful information to 

better enable the achievement of MAS program goals. 

The assessment also suggests that the Industrial Funding Fee 

collection and remittance methodology could have the 

unintended consequence of reducing the incentive to 

negotiate the best price possible. This suggestion has no place 

in the OIG assessment document as it is not based upon any 

demonstrable evidence but rather a concern about the 

integrity of the contracting officials. The Agency does not 

view the integrity of its professional staff as a management 

challenge. Moreover, the fee structure and corresponding 

program operating expenses are wholly separate matters 

from the negotiation and award of contracts. 

The assessment questions the appropriateness of the current 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) definition of commercial 

items and suggests that that definition impedes the ability of 

contracting officers to obtain the best price. While the OIG 

may be competent to opine on the impact of this definition in 

its audit work, the definition is consistent with existing statute 

and was duly promulgated. Compliance with the definition 

has not been demonstrated to be a management challenge. 

Moreover, the issue is a government-wide issue. Since the 

appropriateness of the current definition is a matter of current 

legislative interest, the Agency comments on that matter are in 

that context.

Proactively, the Agency has issued a request for quotes for 

research, analysis, benchmarking, and management consulting 

services related to MAS pricing. Award is expected in October 

2008. Analysis conducted under the task orders will assist us 

in determining if MAS prices reflect competitive market 

prices, and in proposing new operational plans and strategic 

directions for improving MAS contract pricing.

Government Wide Acquisition Contracts

The assessment raises the concern that sufficient competition 

may not occur under Agency GWACs. The Agency is unaware 

of any specific findings by the OIG or GAO that GSA-managed 

GWACs have failed to comply with the requirements of fair 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 189

opportunity under FAR Part 16. In FY 2007, 92 percent of FAS 

awarded task orders were competitively awarded. The Agency 

has designated a senior official as the task and delivery order 

ombudsman, and historically, that official has reported few 

instances of challenges to the fair opportunity requirements. 

Notwithstanding the absence of any evidence indicating lack 

of competition or fair opportunity, the Agency GWAC program 

office has greatly expanded the pool of contractors under 

GSA-managed GWACs and monitors the amount of bids 

received on task orders. Clauses have been included in the 

most recently awarded GWACs requiring contractors to 

periodically report reasons they did not bid on pending task 

orders. In addition, the GWAC program office is preparing 

and will disseminate ordering guides to promote fair 

opportunity.

Emergency Contracting

No responsible organization can deny the need to continually 

improve its emergency response and recovery functions. In 

response to lessons learned analysis as well as OIG 

recommendations, GSA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) in June 2007. The Agreement is intended to improve 

emergency and disaster response efforts in the areas of 

(1) ordering and provisioning of supplies, services, and space; 

(2) contract administration and support; (3) payment and 

reimbursement; (4) delineation and coordination of 

responsibilities; and (5) dispute resolution. In addition, the 

GSA OERR in conjunction with the Office of the Chief 

Acquisition Officer (OCAO) is identifying and training a 

volunteer cadre of contracting officers capable of being 

deployed to affected areas for disaster support. GSA will 

utilize this group during the Agency participation in the Top 

Officials exercise sponsored by the Departments of Justice 

and State and FEMA. GSA is also continually revising and 

updating its emergency policies and procedures and is 

working on pre-positioning contracts for emergency supplies 

and services.

The supplies, space, or services to be provided by GSA include, 

but are not limited to, the following:

Delivery of existing and available supplies and services 

from GSA’s General Supplies and Services (GSS) portfolio;

Access to GSA-managed GWACs;

Establishment of blanket purchase agreements;

Provide assisted acquisition services to procure supplies 

or services through open market procurements or 

competitive MAS purchases;

Lease/purchase of motor vehicles;

Other assisted acquisition services to procure supplies 

and services from existing contract vehicles;

Assignment of existing Federally-owned or controlled 

space; and

Acquisition of leasehold or other interests in real 

property.

Contract Management

The leasing management program and particularly the National 

Broker Services contract are specifically addressed. In that 

regard, the assessment highlights matters previously raised 

in a January 2007 GAO report. The GAO concerns are being 

addressed initially in that context. Nonetheless, a comment 

is required on one point. Contrary to your assertion, GSA 

has quantified savings resulting from the use of the National 

Broker Services contract. The government has realized an 

11.93 percent below market reduction based on 67 leases 

assessed with a total square footage of 1,279,432 since the 

contract began. For rent credits, based on 1,014 task orders 

issued through July 2007, we estimate receipt of $72,084,304 

in rent credits from projected commissions earned that will be 

passed through to our customers. These figures are evidence 

that the results of the program are quantifiable, the program 

is meeting its objectives, and that the program management 

concerns that had been raised have been recognized and 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

190 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Management Challenges 

addressed in contract and program management. The Agency 

has also been diligent in its oversight of delegations of leasing 

acquisition authority. We are limiting the net rentable square 

footage of space available under these delegations and are 

preparing a Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Bulletin 

on Revised Implementation Requirements for this program to 

reflect additional oversight of the Lease Acquisition Program.

Information Technology

The assessment largely duplicates the FY 2006 assessment. 

As a consequence, it contains many references to issues 

that have been resolved, completed, or are otherwise no 

longer applicable. I am quite proud of how much has 

been accomplished in FY 2007. In the area of Information 

Technology (IT) implementation, internal Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Exhibit 300 reviews have 

been initiated, significantly improving the exhibits and 

providing greater visibility of IT initiatives in the context of 

the One GSA enterprise architecture. The enterprise 

architecture policy has been updated and resources 

increased. Moreover, enterprise architecture metrics have 

been developed and are reported quarterly. GSA is “yellow” 

in status for E-Government. In the area of information 

security, we have published a number of technical security 

guides. GSA’s IT security program now includes both Web 

application security scanning and database security scanning 

in addition to traditional OS vulnerability scanning. We have 

purchased and have begun deployment of Credant laptop 

encryption in compliance with OMB Memorandum 06-16 

requiring encryption of mobile data.

Management Controls

GSA continues to refine and implement management 

controls into all of its major data systems. The Agency 

provides leadership in supporting the PMA and OMB in the 

implementation of various E-Gov initiatives to standardize and 

streamline Federal lines of business.

We must address an inaccurate statement made in the 

assessment. Contrary to the OIG statement, GSA does not rank 

ninth in bad debt write-off of the 25 agencies tracked under 

the SmartPay contract. In fact, GSA ranks ninth in terms of 

spending but only accounts for .06 percent of the total writeoff and is ranked as 22 out of 25 in terms of contribution to 

the total write-off. These numbers confirm that GSA properly 

manages its SmartPay spending and vouchering. 

GSA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) currently 

produces monthly reports on our Charge Card activities that 

specifically identify several categories of questionable charges. 

In addition, the OCFO also produces and monitors delinquent 

charge card balances. 

Protection of Federal Facilities and

Personnel

With the signing of Homeland Security Presidential Directive12 (HSPD-12) in 2004, the Office of Governmentwide Policy 

(OGP) has spearheaded policy efforts for rapid implementation 

of a government-wide standard for secure and reliable forms 

of identification for Federal employees and contractors. OGP 

personnel chair the Federal Identity Credentialing Committee 

(FICC), which provides a forum to Federal agencies to establish 

government-wide policy guidance. OGP continues to be a 

major driving force in all FICC activities such as the FICC 

Architecture Working Group’s efforts to develop the major 

standards interfaces required to ensure interoperability across 

Federal systems and efforts to establish governance and trust 

frameworks needed to ensure government-wide reliability.

With OMB’s designation of GSA as executive agent for 

government-wide acquisitions of IT, OGP established 

the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201 

evaluation program in 2005 to test commercial products for 

conformance to FIPS 201. The National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) FIPS 201 and FIPS 140 Conformance 

Testing and Certification are a component of the evaluation 

process for those categories of products designated to require 

conformance testing. OGP continues to work closely with 
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 191

NIST to ensure rapid technological advancements and policy 

enhancements are seamlessly translated into future available 

products and services.

OGP also continues to work closely with FAS personnel 

on the FAS Managed Services Office (MSO), which offers 

participating Federal agencies credential issuance and 

maintenance services. OGP continues to assist MSO in 

establishing interface standards with the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

for background checks. As MSO progresses with its work, OGP 

will initiate the development of government-wide interface 

standards needed for physical and logical access systems, 

which allow entry into Federal facilities and computer 

networks, respectively.

MSO re-engaged in April 2007 with a new contract award and 

an attractive pricing structure. Since May, the MSO customer 

base has doubled from 420,000 to 850,000 and the number of 

serviced agencies and commissions has grown from 42 to 67.

In addition, the GSA team has overcome a GAO protest, 

conducted a Certification and Accreditation, tested interfaces 

with OPM and customer agencies, and placed a very 

sophisticated identity management system in operation in 

mid-September 2007. Agencies are currently loading their 

configuration data into the MSO system and credentialing has 

commenced.

The MSO customer base has doubled within five months 

and appears to offer customer agencies a viable approach to 

meeting the HSPD-12 mandate. Meeting full compliance in 

October 2008 will be a major challenge with this growth and 

will depend much upon engagement by customer agencies 

to install enrollment centers and provide the data to MSO to 

support their employees. 

Given the high priority of HSPD-12, technical complexity 

of the government-wide system, tight OMB milestones, and 

limited OGP staff, the biggest challenge facing OGP in this 

area is sufficient staffing to meet programmatic demand. 

Succession planning for subject matter experts and executives 

eligible to retire is also a major concern.

While OGP and FAS have achieved significant results helping 

other agencies through their government-wide HSPD-12 role, 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is working 

closely with these agencies to deploy over 60,000 cards to all 

of GSA’s employees and embedded contractors by October 

27, 2008. As one of the MSO’s 67 customers, we are working 

closely with MSO to deploy enrollment and activation 

stations across the country and have identified six potential 

GSA locations for their use. Stations are already operational 

in GSA’s National Capital Region and Central Office, and the 

Crystal City station will come online within the next week. 

The OCIO is also working closely with the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), the Public Buildings 

Service (PBS), and regional credentialing officials to make 

our badge issuing procedures compliant with the new HSPD12 standards. As part of this effort, the OCHCO has already 

verified that approximately 97 percent of our employees with 

less than 15 years of service have the necessary background 

investigation to obtain HSPD-12-compliant badges. The OCIO 

has also completed a detailed implementation plan and has 

completed the first version of a contractor database, which 

are key recommendations from the recently completed 

HSPD-12 IG audit. The value of HSPD-12 will come from using 

the cards to access our facilities and computer systems. The 

OCIO delivered GSA’s strategy to OMB on October 1, 2007 for 

using the strong authentication features of HSPD-12 cards to 

access physical and logical facilities.
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

192 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA)

Reporting Details

G  SA continues to have low risk programs according to the threshold amounts established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ($10 million and 2.5 percent of program disbursements). Since GSA does not have any programs 

deemed risk susceptible, the next full risk assessment is not required until FY 2008. In the interim years, GSA will perform 

simplified risk assessments to review whether any significant legislative, programmatic, funding, and/or other changes 

that have occurred which would result in substantial program impacts. All improper payments information is reported one 

year in arrears.

Recovery Audit Program

Agency 

Component

Amount 

Subject 

to Review 

for CY 

Reporting

Actual 

Amount 

Reviewed 

and 

Reported CY

Amounts 

Identified for 

Recovery CY

Amounts 

Recovered 

CY

Amounts 

Identified 

for Recovery 

PYs

Amount 

Recovered 

PY(s)

Cumulative 

Amounts 

Identified 

for Recover 

(CY+PYs)

Cumulative 

Amounts 

Recovered 

(CY+PYs)

N/A $14.0B $11.0B $11.2M $9.4M $163.0M $68.8M $174.2M $78.2M

In FY 2006, a total of $11,165,987 in payment errors was 

discovered through internal reviews and recovery audit 

activities. The original disbursement date for the payment 

errors occurred in multiple fiscal years. An audit base of $11 

billion was examined during this fiscal year (see table above). 

Details regarding GSA’s recovery audit program for FY 2006 

are presented in the table to the right. The $1,027,733 in total 

Agency costs represent the total costs to GSA to recover the 

$11,165,987 in total payment errors identified. GSA does not 

reimburse itself for these costs. All amounts recovered are 

returned to the original program, excluding the contingency 

fee of 20.15 percent due to the recovery audit contractor 

upon successful collection.

Most of GSA’s business dealings with vendors are of recurring 

nature, therefore, it is anticipated that the outstanding 

balance will be successfully collected. Through FY 2007, 

the recovery audit contractor has identified $53 million 

in improper payments, and GSA has recovered $35 million 

of that amount. Payments are made to the recovery audit 

contractor upon identification and successful collection of 

erroneous payments. GSA continues to strengthen internal 

controls and improve its business processes to prevent and 

detect erroneous payments. As a result, GSA’s erroneous 

GSA’s FY 2006 Recovery 

Audit Program Results

(in dollars)

Total Agency Costs $ 1,027,733

Agency Salaries & Expenses $ 214,354 

Total Contracted Expenses $ 813,379 

 Paid $ 520,208 

 Due $ 293,171

Total Payment Errors Identified $ 11,165,987 

Discovered By Contractor $ 5,098,540 

 Amount Unrecoverable $ -

 Amount Recovered $ 4,026,629 

 Amount Outstanding $ 1,071,911 

Discovered Internally By GSA $ 6,067,447 

 Amount Unrecoverable $ -

 Amount Recovered $ 5,356,351 

 Amount Outstanding $ 711,096 

payments have declined from $46.7 million in FY 2005 to 

$11.2 million in FY 2006. GSA’s progress demonstrates a 

strong commitment to improving financial management.
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 193

Summary of Financial Statement Audit

Table 1. Summary of Financial Statement Audit

Audit Opinion: Unqualified

Restatement: No

Material Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Ending Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0

Summary of Management Assurances

Table 2. Summary of Management Assurances

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Financial Reporting (FMFIA § 2)

Statement of Assurance: Unqualified

Material Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Operations (FMFIA § 2)

Statement of Assurance: Unqualified

Material Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conformance with Financial Management System Requirements (FMFIA § 4)

Statement of Assurance: Systems conform to financial management system requirements

Non-Conformances Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Non-Conformances 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)

Agency Auditor

Overall Substantial Compliance Yes Yes

1. System Requirements Yes

2. Accounting Standards Yes

3. USSGL at Transaction Level Yes

Summary of Financial Statement Audit 

and Management Assurances
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

194 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Other, Agency-specific Statutorily Required Reports

Debt Management

G 

SA reported $145.2 million of outstanding debt from 

non-Federal sources and $11.1 million of delinquent 

debt at the end of FY 2007. The amount of delinquent debt 

decreased from $16.6 million in FY 2006 to $11.1 million. 

Non-Federal receivables consist of debts owed on third-party 

claims, travel advances, proceeds from the sale of real property, 

and other miscellaneous receivables.

To comply with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 

1996, GSA transmits delinquent claims each month to the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury) Financial 

Management Service (FMS) for collection cross-servicing. 

From October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007, the Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) referred over 

$2 million of delinquent non-Federal claims to U.S. Treasury 

for cross-servicing collection activities. Collections on nonFederal claims during this period exceeded $60.1 million. 

Administrative offsets resulted in additional collections of 

$9.8 million. GSA collected 265 Pre-Authorized Debits (PAD) 

totaling $87,162 of non-Federal claims from October 1, 2006 

to September 30, 2007. Additionally, $100,000 was collected 

as a result of a fraud claim. 

GSA actively pursues delinquent non-Federal claims using 

installment agreements, salary offset, administrative wage 

garnishment, and any other statutory requirement or 

authority that is applicable. Through an outside contract 

arrangement, GSA actively reviews and pursues overpayments 

in conjunction with its Public Buildings Service (PBS), Federal 

Acquisition Service (FAS), and the OCFO. GSA is continuing 

to remove all non-paying claims over two-years-old from its 

accounts receivable subsidiaries. All two-year-old claims 

without collection activity are researched and either collected 

or written off. 

Cash and Payments Management

The Prompt Payment Act, along with the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act of 1996, requires the 

timely payment of commercial obligations for supplies and 

services using electronic funds transfer (EFT). GSA reviews 

and modifies its procedures as necessary to ensure prompt 

payment utilizing EFT. The percentage of invoices paid on 

time increased slightly from FY 2006. GSA paid significantly 

less in interest penalties during FY 2007. The statistics for the 

current and preceding two fiscal years are as follows:

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Total Number of Invoices Paid 1,483,040 1,285,710 1,136,760

Total Dollars Disbursed $18.7 Billion $16.2 Billion $14.8 Billion

Total Dollars of Interest Penalties $981,111 $575,461 $452,014

Interest Paid per Million Disbursed $44.87 $30.84 $26.80

Percentage of Invoices Paid On Time 98.0% 98.7% 99.0%

Percentage of Invoices Paid Late 2.0% 1.3% 1.0%

Percentage of Invoices Paid Electronically 91.0% 94.0% 95.5%
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 195

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAS	 Assisted Acquisition Service

ACSI	 American Customer Satisfaction Index

ACTT	 Activity Cost Tracking Tool

ADA	 Anti-Deficiency Act

AFV	 Alternative Fuel Vehicle

AICPA	 American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants

ALDP	 Advanced Leadership Development Program

AMFA	 Alternative Motor Fuels Act

APPAS	 Associate Performance Plan and Appraisal 

System

ASF	 Acquisition Services Fund

ASHRAE	 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers

AWA	 Alternative Workplace Arrangements

AWTF	 Acquisition Workforce Training Fund

BIM	 Building Information Modeling

BLM	 Bureau of Land Management

BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association

BPA	 Blanket Purchase Agreement

BPR	 Business Process Re-engineering

BRM	 Business Reference Model

Btu	 British Thermal Unit

Btu/GSF	 British Thermal Units per Gross Square Foot

C&A	 Certification and Accreditation

CAO	 Chief Acquisition Officer

CBCA	 Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

CCR	 Central Contractor Registration

CFL	 Computers For Learning

CFO	 Chief Financial Officer

CHRIS	 Comprehensive Human Resources Integrated 

System

CIA	 Central Intelligence Agency

CIO	 Chief Information Officer

CIP	 Construction in Process

COs	 Contracting Officers

COOP	 Continuity of Operations Plan

COTS	 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf

CPI	 Consumer Price Index

CSBR	 Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

CSC	 Client Support Center

CSRS	 Civil Service Retirement System

DHS	 Department of Homeland Security

DOD	 Department of Defense

DOE	 Department of Energy

DOI	 Department of the Interior

DOJ	 Department of Justice

DOL	 Department of Labor
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

196 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Acronyms And Abbreviations

E-85	 A mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent 

gasoline

EDD	 Expanded Direct Delivery

EDI	 Electronic Data Interchange

EFT	 Electronic Funds Transfer

E-Gov	 Electronic Government

EMS	 Executive Management Scorecard

EPA	 Environmental Protection Agency

EUAS	 Energy Usage and Analysis System

ExGDDS	 Express and Ground Domestic Delivery Services

FAIR	 Federal Activities Inventory Reform

FAIRS	 Federal Aviation Interactive Reporting System

FAR	 Federal Acquisition Regulations

FAS	 Federal Acquisition Service

FASAB	 Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

FBF	 Federal Buildings Fund

FCAT-M	 Federal Competency Assessment Tool for 

Managers

FCICF	 Federal Citizen Information Center Fund

FEA/CORE	 Federal Enterprise Architecture / Component 

Organization & Registration Environment

FECA	 Federal Employees Compensation Act

FEDSIM	 Federal Systems Integration and 

Management Center

FEMA	 Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERS	 Federal Employees Retirement System

FFB	 Federal Financing Bank

FFMIA	 Federal Financial Management 

Improvement Act

FFO	 Funds From Operations

FICA	 Federal Insurance Contribution Act

FICC	 Federal Identity Credentialing Committee

FIPS	 Federal Information Processing Standards

FIS	 Fuel Information System

FISC	 Federal Integrated Solutions Center

FISMA	 Federal Information Security Management Act

FIT	 FAIR Act Inventory Tool

FMEA	 Financial Management Enterprise Architecture

FMFIA	 Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act

FM LoB	 Financial Management Line of Business

FMR	 Federal Management Regulation

FPDS	 Federal Procurement Data System

FPDS-NG	 Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation

FPS	 Federal Protective Service

FRPC	 Federal Real Property Council

FRPP	 Federal Real Property Profile

FSIO	 Financial Systems Integration Office

FSS	 Federal Supply Service

FSSI	 Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative

FTE	 Full-Time Equivalent
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 197

FTS	 Federal Technology Service

FY	 Fiscal Year

GAAP	 Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GAO	 Government Accountability Office

GITGO	 GSA IT Infrastructure Technology Global 

Operations

GM&A	 General Management and Administration

GPDS	 GSA Procurement Data System

GPRA	 Government Performance and Results Act

GSA	 General Services Administration

GSAP	 GSA Preferred

GSF	 General Supply Fund

GSS	 General Supplies and Services

GWAC	 Government Wide Acquisition Contract

HCSP	 Human Capital Strategic Plan

HEV	 Hybrid Electric Vehicle

HSPD-12	 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

HUD	 Housing and Urban Development

IDIQ	 Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

IG	 Inspector General

IPA	 Independent Public Accountant

IPIA	 Improper Payments Information Act

IRS	 Internal Revenue Service

IT	 Information Technology

ITF	 Information Technology Fund

ITS	 Integrated Technology Services

ITSS	 IT Solutions Shop

IVR	 Interactive Voice Response

LEED	 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LMI	 Logistics Management Institute

LoB	 Line of Business

MAS	 Multiple Award Schedule

MD&A	 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

MFC	 Most-Favored Customer

MOA	 Memorandum of Agreement

MSO	 Managed Service Office

NCC	 National Contact Center

NETREAL	 Net Real Estate Activity Locator

NISH	 National Industries for the Severely 

Handicapped

NIST	 National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOAA	 National Oceanic & Atmospheric 

Administration

NPIC	 National Passport Information Center 

(Department of State)

OASDI	 Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance

OCAO	 Office of Chief Acquisition Officer

OCFO	 Office of Chief Financial Officer

OCHCO	 Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

198 F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t

Acronyms And Abbreviations

OCIA	 Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Affairs

OCIO	 Office of Chief Information Officer

OCO	 Ordering Contracting Officers

OCR	 Office of Civil Rights

OCSC	 Office of Citizen Services and Communications

OERR	 Office of Emergency Response and Recovery

OGC	 Office of General Counsel

OGP	 Office of Governmentwide Policy

OIG	 Office of Inspector General

OIRA	 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB	 Office of Management and Budget

OPI	 Office of Performance Improvement

OPM	 Office of Personnel Management

OSBU	 Office of Small Business Utilization

OTS	 Office of Technology Strategy

PAD	 Pre-Authorized Debits

PADC	 Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation

PAR	 Performance and Accountability Report

PART	 Program Assessment Rating Tool

PBS	 Public Buildings Service

PIA	 Privacy Impact Assessments

PIB	 Procurement Information Bulletin

PIP	 Project Information Portal

PIV	 Personal Identity Verification

PMA	 President’s Management Agenda

PMP	 Performance Management Process

PMR	 Program Management Review

PMT	 Performance Measurement Tool

POA&M	 Plan of Action & Milestones

POR+	 Program of Requirements Plus

PwC	 PricewaterhouseCoopers

PYRs	 Prior Year Recoveries

QASP	 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

R&A	 Repairs and Alterations

RentEst	 Rent Estimate

RFQ/RFP	 Request for Quotes / Request for Proposals

RISC	 Regulatory Information Service Center

ROADS	 Requisitioning, Ordering and Documentation 

System

ROCIS	 RISC/OIRA Consolidated Information System

ROE	 Return on Equity

RRB Ronald Reagan Building

RSF	 Rentable Square Feet

SAS	 Statement on Auditing Standards

SAT	 Senior Assessment Team

SES	 Senior Executive Service

SF133	 Standard Form 133: Statement of Budget 

Execution and Budgetary Resources
O t h e r A c c o m p a n y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 7 A n n u a l P e r fo r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e po r t 199

SFFAS	 Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 

Standards

SIOR	 Society of Industrial and Office Realtors

SSA	 Social Security Administration

SSP	 Shared Service Providers

STAR	 System for Tracking and Administering Real 

Property

TMDRS	 Travel Management Data Reporting Service

TMSS	 Transportation Management Services Solution

TMVCS	 Travel, Motor Vehicles, and Card Services

TOPS	 Telecommunications Ordering and Pricing 

System

TOS	 Tracking and Ordering System

TSP	 Thrift Savings Plan

U&D	 Federal Personal Property Utilization, Donation, 

and Sales Program

UDO	 Un-Delivered Orders

U.S.	 United States

U.S.C.	 United States Code

UFCO	 Unfilled Customer Order

USDA	 United States Department of Agriculture

USSGL	 United States Standard General Ledger

VETS	 Veterans Technology Service

WCF	 Working Capital Fund 
The FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report is a collaborative endeavor on 

the part of many GSA employees and contractors. We would like to acknowledge 

and thank them for their hard work and commitment in successfully preparing 

this report and supporting the audit effort of the financial statements.

This report is available through our Web site at www.gsa.gov/annualreport. 

Also. linked to that site is our 2008 Congressional Performance Budget Justification 

and our past performance and accountability publications.

For additional copies contact

General Services Administration

Office of Finance

1800 F. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20405

(202) 501-0560

Other GSA Web pages of possible interest:

www.USA.gov

GSA Homepage: www.gsa.gov
FY 2006 Certificate of Excellence 

in Accountability Reporting
U.S. General Services Administration

1800 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20405

www.gsa.gov