U.S. General Services Administration

F Y 2 0 0 6 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 2 0 0 6

GSA helps Federal agencies better serve the public by 

offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert 

solutions, acquisition services, and management policies 
How to use this report

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

2006 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 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 (MD&A)

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

Section, and Appendices. The 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 2006. 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 2006. An introduction letter from GSA’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO), 

followed by the Independent Auditor’s Report; the Agency’s audited financial statements and other supplemental financial 

information containing the Inspector General’s (IG) Updated Assessment of GSA’s Major Management Challenges with 

Management’s comments; and information on the Agency’s Debt Management and Payments Management.

5 Appendices

Summary chart of performance information, Improper Payments Improvement Act (IPIA) information, and a glossary of 

acronyms.
Mission Statement

GSA helps federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior 

workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services, and management policies.

Strategic Goals

Provide best value for customer agencies and taxpayers

Achieve responsible asset management

Operate efficiently and effectively

Ensure financial accountability

Maintain a world-class workforce and a world-class workplace

Carry out social, environmental, and other responsibilities as a federal agency
 F Y 2 0 0 6 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

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 2006 Key Performance Measures within Strategic Goals 23

The President’s Management Agenda 25

Financial Statements Analysis and Summary 32

Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance

Introduction to Management Assurances 37

Statement of Assurance 38

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control 40

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, Section 2 41

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, Section 4 44 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 45

Federal Information Security Management Act 45

Financial Management Systems Framework 46

Anti-Deficiency Act 48

Improper Payments Information Act 49

Limitations of Financial Statements 50

PERFORMANCE SECTION

Introduction to Performance 53

Performance by Service/Staff Office

Public Buildings Service 56

Federal Acquisition Service 65

Office of Citizen Services and Communications 77

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 81

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 83

Office of Governmentwide Policy 87

Linking Long-Term Outcome Goals to Budget 90

Performance Measurement Data Validation and Verification 99

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 6 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 

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

FINANCIAL SECTION

Letter from the Chief Financial Officer 103

Office of the Chief Financial Officer Major Accomplishments for 2006 105

Independent Auditor’s Report

Letter of Transmittal from the Inspector General 107

Report of Independent Auditors 110

Inspector General’s Report on Internal Controls Over Performance Measures 124

Financial Statements

Principal Financial Statements 126

Notes to the Financial Statements 136

Required Supplementary Information 154

Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements

Office of Inspector General’s Updated Assessment of GSA’s Major Management Challenges 155

Agency Management Comments on the Inspector General’s Updated Assessment 

 of GSA’s Major Management Challenges 171

Debt Management 176

Cash and Payments Management 176

APPENDICES

I Summary Chart of Goals and Measures 179

II Performance Goals and Measures No Longer Reported 187

III Improper Payment Information Act Reporting Details 189

IV Acronyms and Abbreviations 190
 F Y 2 0 0 6 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

Letter from the Administrator

FY 2006 Performance and 

Accountability Report

I

am pleased to present the Fiscal Year (FY) 

2006 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 help 

other agencies better serve the public by 

meeting, at best value, their needs for products 

and services, and to simplify citizen access to 

government information. 

GSA is committed to delivering products and services in an 

effective and efficient manner while ensuring accountability to 

the U.S. taxpayer through superior performance and prudent 

financial and budget management. GSA is the premier source 

for cost-effective, timely, and compliant property management 

and government procurement. GSA procurements offer the 

Federal government products and services at lower costs, 

more quality, and with greater compliance. This vision 

requires us to improve all of our customer services and 

better understand and anticipate the requirements of our 

customers. As Administrator, I am committed to doing this 

through rekindling the entrepreneurial spirit within GSA and 

developing sound metrics that demonstrate our performance. 

Moreover, GSA is now taking on a leadership role in reducing 

wasteful government spending associated with buying 

the goods and services that are required by the Federal 

government.

Unqualified “Clean” Opinion

During FY 2006, we continued our emphasis on ensuring 

that GSA has strong internal controls in place to minimize 

the risk of waste, fraud, and erroneous payments. We also 

intensified our efforts toward addressing 

the six reportable conditions, including 

the material weakness, “Controls over 

monitoring, accounting, and reporting of 

budgetary transactions, are inadequate,” 

identified in FY 2005. The outcome of this 

effort resulted in an unqualified “clean” 

opinion for the FY 2006 audit. Moreover, 

the material weakness was reduced to 

a reportable condition, and three of the 

other five previous reportable conditions 

were resolved.

With the attainment of the unqualified financial statement 

opinion, we are committed to moving forward during 

FY 2007 to continue improving our internal control processes 

and fulfilling the financial management improvement goals 

of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). While our 

auditor’s disclaimer of opinion last year ended a long string of 

clean opinions, it strengthened our determination to educate 

the Agency in the proper closeout of completed projects and 

returning unused budgetary authority, regardless of whether 

it is expired or canceled, and therefore, no longer available. 

These actions have resulted in more accurate financial 

accounting and reporting and eliminated the prior year material weakness. 

GSA Priorities 

President Bush has challenged all Federal agencies to find 

new and smarter ways to do business and move toward a 

government that is citizen-centered and results-oriented. 

There are important changes underway at GSA that will 

help us to meet the President’s directive, meet the needs of 

our customers, and at the same time provide savings to the 

taxpayers. Under my tenure, my top priorities in meeting the 

President’s call for leadership are:

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 6 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 

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

Rededicating the mission of GSA as the pre-eminent 

procurement agency for the Federal government

Ensuring the Agency’s financial stability and returning 

GSA’s technology offerings to a full cost recovery basis

Enforcing sound financial management practices 

through transparency, integrity, and accountability

Successful implementation of the Federal Acquisition 

Service (FAS)

Improving employee morale and confidence

Providing best value for GSA customers and costsavings for the U.S. taxpayer

Restoring and enhancing customer satisfaction and 

service by putting the customer at the center of all 

GSA business transactions

Making GSA the premier platform for goods and 

services to support emergency response and recovery 

Facilitating opportunities for small businesses to 

participate in government contracting. 

Federal Acquisition Service 

GSA has now embarked upon the boldest and most 

comprehensive restructuring and reorganization in the 

Agency’s 50-year history. Once fully implemented, the 

restructuring will bring transformational changes to GSA 

resulting in significant savings to taxpayers on all goods and 

services procured through GSA. As a direct result of the 

GSA Reorganization Bill signed into law by President Bush 

in October 2006, we have taken the following actions:

FAS has been created which consolidates the Federal 

Supply Service (FSS) and Federal Technology Service 

(FTS) into one department. In this way, disparate 

services have been combined, management strengthened, redundant and duplicative efforts eliminated, and 

policies standardized. 

Financial controls, accountability, and oversight have 

been strengthened. Two different GSA funds, requiring 

separate controls and budgetary oversight, have been 

combined into a single Acquisition Fund.

The new reorganization has brought significant improvements to GSA and given us the necessary authorities to 

reduce and eliminate redundant efforts that once only 

confused our stakeholders, delayed our procurements, and 

frustrated our employees. Perhaps more importantly, it has 

given us a fresh opportunity to rethink all of our business 

processes with the goal of eliminating needless bureaucratic 

actions that no longer serve our stakeholders. In particular, 

I am happy to highlight just two of the many examples of 

new entrepreneurial energy from GSA employees:

Small businesses reported excessive delays and time 

required to apply for and be awarded a simple GSA 

Schedule. GSA Schedules are particularly important 

to the small business community, and it was taking 

far too long to navigate this cumbersome process. 

GSA employees have recently found ways to speed 

the process and the average time it takes a small 

business to apply for and receive a GSA Schedule, and 

we are committed to achieving an average of 30 days 

to award a basic GSA Schedule by the end of the 2007 

calendar year. 

A GSA employee came up with a great idea to save 

taxpayer money by reducing the amount of expensive 

warehouse space needed to stockpile large amounts 

of office supplies. After calculating that it was costing 

the government more to store these supplies than the 

supplies were worth, he then came up with the inspired 
 F Y 2 0 0 6 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

idea that GSA could donate these supplies to schools 

and libraries in the Gulf region that is still recovering 

from Hurricane Katrina and save taxpayer money at the 

same time. 

We have recently made some difficult choices to tighten fiscal 

discipline and manage all of our operations to budget. One 

of my first actions as Administrator was to revise the FY 2007 

financial plans and cut approximately nine percent from GSA 

operations. These cuts allowed us to trim wasteful spending 

and programs that were underperforming. I also placed limitations on spending across GSA, including reducing funding 

for non-essential travel of senior executives, service support 

contracts, and hiring for only critical positions. Interestingly 

enough, GSA managers at all levels of the organization 

(with only one exception) were eager to confront the many 

programs and policies that had outlived their usefulness and 

were wasting taxpayer money. 

While it might be counterintuitive, morale throughout the 

organization has soared. GSA is suddenly an exciting place, 

doing exciting things. Yes, we still face a number of challenges 

(which will be outlined shortly), but the future of GSA is 

bright and getting better everyday. Today, GSA is now leaner 

and meaner and ready to take on new challenges.

As this report describes, GSA has taken specific new steps 

over the past year to further these objectives and improve 

performance across the Agency. While GSA saw a decline in 

revenue and a loss of customers, particularly in our technology 

offerings during the past fiscal year, we are working 

aggressively to correct that situation. GSA has clarified and 

standardized the basic internal rules to improve procurement 

activities. GSA customers can expect consolidated, enterprisewide, efficient solutions for their procurement needs. We 

have also taken steps to ensure procurement professionals in 

GSA and other government agencies have the knowledge and 

training they need. Additionally, I am meeting individually 

with my counterparts at our client agencies to assure them 

that GSA is the best source for all of their workplace needs. 

The new organization will strive for the best value at the best 

prices through strategic sourcing, faster contracting services, 

greater efficiency and flexibility in procurement processes, 

lower transaction costs, and smarter ways of doing business. 

Second, FAS continues to face a downturn of business and 

revenue shortfalls. We analyzed and revised the FY 2007 

financial plans and cut approximately nine percent from nonperforming programs. In order to help offset losses in FAS 

and free up funds in the Public Buildings Service (PBS) for 

additional project-related work, limitations have been placed 

on spending across GSA, including reducing funding for 

non-essential travel, service support contracts, and hiring for 

critical positions only. We are working aggressively to regain 

old business and seize new business opportunities. 

Third, GSA has taken the necessary steps to address a small 

number of past contracting irregularities, and we are confident 

that GSA contract awards are compliant with the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR). A review by the GSA Inspector 

General (IG) reflected that 12 Customer Service Centers are 

now conforming to procurement regulations. Additionally, 

our FY 2005 reportable condition on contracting practices no 

longer exists. GSA continues to work on the development of 

consistent policies and procedures for GSA and Department 

of Defense (DoD) interagency contracting.

Fourth, the bill authorizing the reorganization and consolidation of two GSA funds into a single Acquisition Fund was 

approved by Congress at the end of FY 2006 and signed by 

President Bush at the beginning of FY 2007. This legislative 

change will streamline the financial process, improve 

accountability and oversight, and is consistent with GSA’s 

acquisition excellence efforts.

Public Buildings Service 

GSA’s PBS has made great progress improving asset 

management of GSA’s real property and successfully 

delivering large, complex construction projects, including 

land border ports of entry, government buildings, and 

Federal courthouses. 

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 6 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 

Finally, PBS has maintained a steady course in FY 2006. PBS’s 

extraordinary efforts led GSA in becoming the first agency 

to achieve the Green rating for Real Property, and it has 

consistently maintained this high standard. 

Over the past few years, PBS has been working to restructure 

and introduce new efficiencies to its leasing program. In 

August 2006, PBS announced that beginning in FY 2008, 

the leasing fees it charges Federal customer agencies will be 

reduced. The fee for most leased space will decrease from 

eight to seven percent. Unique space will see a drop from 

six to five percent. GSA currently leases over 166 million 

rentable square feet of space in 7,300 buildings nationwide. 

New online leasing tools and other technologies, as well 

as a restructured PBS workforce, have provided greater 

efficiencies for GSA, enabling the Agency to reduce its fees 

and save additional monies for taxpayers.

I look to FY 2007 with optimism, confidence, and a renewed 

sense of purpose to meet the management challenges set 

out by President Bush and a return to GSA’s core function: 

helping other agencies perform their missions of service on 

behalf of the American people. I am proud and honored to 

serve as the 18th Administrator.

President’s Management Agenda 

The PMA Scorecard as of the end of FY 2006 shows solid 

accomplishments for GSA as well as continued work to 

be done to push us further and further toward improving 

performance. GSA is rated Green for status and progress for 

both Budget and Performance Integration and Real Property. 

This is the first time GSA has earned a Green-Green rating 

on the Budget and Performance Integration Scorecard. The 

rating for Human Capital and E-Gov was Yellow for status 

and Green for progress with the reverse for Competitive 

Sourcing, Green status and Yellow progress. It is anticipated 

that with the completion of key deliverables early in FY 2007, 

these will be elevated to Green-Green. Financial Performance 

has a rating of Red for status and Green for progress largely 

related to last year’s financial audit. This year’s successful audit 

should improve that rating to Green. These results indicate, 

through the efforts and willingness to go the extra mile by 

GSA’s employees, our performance is improving across the 

board.

Financial Performance and Program Data

The ability of GSA financial management to respond to the 

disclaimer of opinion on the FY 2005 financial statements 

demonstrates the determination and motivation to promote 

and support first-class financial management. In FY 2006, 

GSA addressed the identified material weakness and system 

nonconformance related to budgetary controls and reporting. 

Agency managers made significant progress in remediation of 

the audit findings. 

GSA obtained a clean audit opinion on our FY 2006 financial 

statements. 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 new 

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 tasks 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 I believe it to be complete and reliable.

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 6 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

Management Challenges

During the coming months GSA faces a number of challenges 

that will test our abilities and stress our new organizational 

structure:

We have several billion dollar, high risk, high priority 

contracts to award, including Networx, HSPD-12, Alliant 

Small Business, and IT Infrastructure Support (GITGO); 

and the President is counting on GSA to roll out these 

services on time and at a fair price to taxpayers.

We face challenges in managing public buildings. We 

must reduce the time required to build public buildings. 

We must not be afraid to think creatively about how we 

could build the different public buildings, court houses, 

and ports of entry faster and at a lower cost to taxpayers. 

GSA has made great progress in creating a culture 

of excellence, but that task is not complete. Senior 

management must create a climate that fosters and rewards 

better and innovative ideas. Programs and processes that 

are no longer serving their intended purposes must be 

identified and eliminated. 

GSA has a difficult responsibility to press all agencies 

to make better use of GSA contracting expertise. In 

particular, the widespread proliferation of Government 

Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWAC) has resulted in 

wasted taxpayer money, but these contracts are deeply 

entrenched throughout the Federal government. GSA 

will put forth a determined effort to help our colleagues 

throughout the Federal government understand that these 

GWACs are duplicative and expensive to maintain. 

GSA’s IG is unsupportive of recent changes, including my 

decision to deny the request for additional reimbursable 

spending authority. The IG budget and staff have grown 

annually and substantially over the past five years and 

future unrestrained growth cannot be justified or afforded. 

A more serious challenge is how to engage the Office 

of Inspector General (OIG) to be a full participant in 

GSA’s efforts to modernize and improve operations. GSA 

stakeholders and contracting officers report that there 

is undue pressure and intimidation from the OIG, and it 

is vital that we work together to find a balance between 

proper and independent oversight without intimidating 

our work force. This will prove to be our most serious 

challenge. 

Last, and most importantly, during the past few months, GSA 

has made an important transformation into a world class 

organization and the leader in Federal procurement. Our 

task now is to keep moving forward and to leverage all of our 

talents, abilities, and energy to provide direct and meaningful 

savings to taxpayers. To be sure, good things are happening 

and our customers are starting to realize the savings possible 

from GSA services. One such customer, when discussing how 

best to meet the requirements for new government-wide 

ID cards, said, “The most efficient and cost-effective way (to 

comply) is to go with GSA. If you don’t come to GSA or you 

do your own thing, you will pay higher prices.”

A great start, but only a start. Over the next 12 months, it will 

be the task of every GSA employee from the Administrator 

down to the newest and most junior hire to build on this 

hard won progress. If we do, we can change the way the 

government procures goods and services and bring significant 

savings to taxpayers. 

This is our goal. This is our challenge. This is GSA.

Lurita Doan

Administrator

November 10, 2006

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 6 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’s mission statement establishes how it supports 

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 taxpayer’s money is sometimes unclear 

to the U.S. public. The following gives some examples of how 

GSA directly benefits the public.

Recovery from Hurricane Katrina

When Hurricane Katrina hit the United States, GSA and its 

associates moved quickly to deliver critical information, 

supplies and other services to millions of hurricane victims. 

The week before Katrina made landfall, GSA’s Public 

Buildings Service (PBS) prepared buildings for the anticipated 

destruction and established information hotlines and Web 

sites to communicate with customers. In the days, weeks 

and months following the storm, GSA provided more than 

$1 billion in supplies and services, answered more than 

1.5 million hurricane related inquiries, and dispatched more 

than 700 Agency experts to help citizens who, in many 

cases, lost all their material possessions in the hurricane. 

Additionally, the Federal Acquisition Services’ (FAS) 

National Furniture Center provided the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) with furniture and office 

equipment in a matter of days, thus allowing FEMA to 

continue assisting people in the Gulf Region who were in 

need of food, clothing, and shelter. 

GSA’s Office of Citizen Services and Communications (OCSC) 

provided $54 million worth of contact center services to 

FEMA and provided hurricane victims and their families with 

real time information 24 hours a day. FirstGov.gov, which is 

managed by GSA’s OCSC, served as the government’s leading 

source for information on “Finding Family and Friends.” 

The Greater Southwest Region also contributed greatly in 

the recovery efforts of Hurricane Katrina. In the first 70 days 

following the storm, the region awarded 43 temporary leases 

to displaced Federal agencies.

Nationally, the GSA Property Management Program facilitated 

over $21 million in transfers and donations of excess and 

surplus property to support State Agencies for Surplus 

Property (SASP) and Federal activities in emergency disaster 

areas. GSA Fleet worked closely with Federal agencies and 

provided over 700 vehicles. The vehicles were assigned on 

an immediate, short-term basis and supported relief work in 

the affected areas. 

GSA disaster preparations have further improved for the 

2006 hurricane season. Since the summer of 2005, the GSA 

Office of Emergency Management (OEM) has standardized 

emergency operating procedures, updated the emergency 

management program handbook, and participated in 

exercises/discussions with Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS/FEMA) and other support agencies. Because GSA plays 

a critical role in emergency response and disaster recovery, it 

is GSA’s responsibility to ensure that its emergency response 

procedures are exemplary.

War on Terrorism

The Army and the GSA Fleet partnered to provide non-tactical 

vehicles to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. GSA Fleet 

leased the U.S. Army 520 vehicles for use in the Green Zone 

in Baghdad. These vehicles replaced commercially leased 

vehicles at a cost savings of $19,842 per vehicle, saving the 

Army and the U.S. public over $10 million dollars annually. 

GSA Fleet continues to provide vehicles to assist the Army in 

its expanded recruiting efforts. This past year, GSA supplied 

50 H3 Hummers for use as a recruiting asset at special events. 

These H3s are mobile theaters with the intent to educate the 

U.S. public and future recruits on the opportunities offered 

by the Army. 

The Eastern Distribution Center located in GSA’s Mid Atlantic 

Region 3 continues to provide Global Supply support for 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

It supplies U.S. troops with anything they need ranging from 

tools and hardware, safety items, industrial supplies, as well 

as office supplies and furniture.

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 6 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

Commitment to Small Businesses

The strength and viability of small businesses are important to 

the nation’s economy and the public, particularly since they 

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

of Federal tax revenues. GSA is committed to increasing 

contracting opportunities for small businesses. Since Hurricane 

Katrina hit the Gulf Coast over a year ago, 76 percent 

($478 million) of GSA’s contracting dollars, in response 

to Katrina, have been awarded to small businesses. GSA 

continues to reach out to small businesses by simplifying the 

process of finding Federal contracting opportunities through 

its Web site, GSA.gov. A Disaster and Emergency Operations 

Vendor Profile form is now online so that small businesses do 

not miss out on Federal contract opportunities in a time of 

disaster. 

In FY 2006, the Heartland Region added a new government 

wide acquisition contract (GWAC) to their portfolio with 

the creation of Veterans Technology Services (VETS). As a 

result of VETS, there are now three GWACs dedicated 

exclusively to small businesses. 

The Southeast Sunbelt Region continues to be a champion 

of small businesses by organizing numerous Small Business 

Outreach events and conferences throughout the region. 

This past year they hosted five small business events and 

over 1,100 small businesses participated. GSA hopes to 

leverage more opportunities in the Federal contracting 

process by increasing support to the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program, the Women 

Owned Small Business Program, the GSA Native American 

Business Center (NABC); and creating a new business 

development task force. This will be done by providing 

extensive national and regional outreach. Additionally, GSA’s 

Office of Small Business Utilization (OSBU) makes it possible 

for the small business community to meet key contracting 

experts and be counseled on the procurement process. 

E-Government

FirstGov.gov is the U.S. government’s official Web portal. It 

is the only Web site that provides information and services 

from Federal, state, and local government all “under one 

roof.” FirstGov.gov helps citizens find and do business with 

government online, on the phone, by mail, or in person. 

The site is clear, simple, user friendly, and connects citizens 

to a wide array of topics, such as education, health, taxes, 

housing, driver’s licenses, Federal benefits, and many other 

online government resources. It is easy to navigate and uses 

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, this 

Web site is the U.S. public’s gateway to government services. 

Brown University designated FirstGov.gov as the number one 

Web site in the Federal government. Additionally, the United 

Nations rated FirstGov.gov as the number one Web site for 

quality and e-government readiness.

Rapid Response Efforts

In June 2006, a severe storm that hit the Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan region caused severe flooding in several Federal 

buildings and steam tunnels, which resulted in loss of power 

and air conditioning as well as an interruption of hot water 

service. The National Capital Region (NCR) PBS employees 

and contractors responded immediately and worked with 

Federal tenants to remove water, restore power, and correct 

damage caused by the storm. Through their efforts, only 

five of the 189 GSA-owned buildings in the NCR were 

closed immediately following the floods. Because of the 

GSA employees’ leadership, dedication, and extraordinary 

efforts, only the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building 

is still undergoing repairs, and is expected to be ready for 

occupancy in January 2007. 

In FY 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

requested GSA’s assistance in a project to assemble and 

store “Strike Kits.” These kits can be used to disinfect areas 

infected by avian influenza. Each kit consists of items such 

as gloves, protective suits, disinfectant, and brushes, and is 

designed to support as many as 31 users for up to three days. 

The initial purchase of over $2 million worth of kits is being 

properly stored and will be readily accessible if ever needed.

Partner in Wildfire Protection

GSA furnishes wildfire protection equipment and supplies to 

Federal agencies through formal agreements with USDA, the 

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 6 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 11

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 are received, processed, 

and shipped to support ongoing 

firefighting and replenishment 

efforts. GSA, through FAS, 

manages and coordinates the 

various functions necessary for 

support of wildland firefighting 

operations and includes fire item 

specifications, purchasing, order 

processing, stocking, inventory 

management, and transportation. 

In FY 2006, the Northwest/Arctic Region significantly 

improved its lead times in providing critical items during 

the fire season to fire personnel in Alaska. GSA worked with 

BLM in Alaska and agreed to stock certain critical supplies 

for BLM, as well as state and local fire departments directly 

in the BLM Fire Cache in Fairbanks, AK. As a result, supplies 

can now arrive within 24 hours from the time they are 

ordered. GSA is committed to actively assisting and 

participating in the national wildfire suppression effort. 

Energy Conservation and Alternative Fuel 

GSA has taken great strides over the years to reduce energy 

consumption in buildings and comply with related executive 

orders and mandates. Since 1985, GSA has achieved an 

overall energy reduction of 35 percent in its facilities. 

Through its Energy and Water Conservation Programs, GSA 

has reduced Federal utility costs by promoting optimal energy 

use and offering organizations strategic energy management 

programs. These resources are available to all Federal 

agencies and nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, Federal 

and non-Federal customers look to GSA’s energy program 

to procure green and non-green power that is cost effective 

and environmentally responsible. 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). 

The Mid-Atlantic Region also realizes the importance of energy 

consumption in buildings. The region has recently reduced 

gas consumption in two of its courthouses by seven percent 

and installed energy-saving lighting and motion sensors, 

which translate to an annual savings of $716,000 for U.S. 

taxpayers. Additionally, through 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 Fleet has been involved in the Federal government’s 

alternative fuel program since the enactment of the 

Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 (AMFA). By purchasing 

over 100,000 Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV), cars and trucks 

that operate on fuels other than gasoline and diesel, GSA 

leads the government in fuel conservation efforts. AFVs can 

enhance GSA’s energy security by reducing the need for 

imported fuels, and can improve air quality by reducing the 

emissions associated with many vehicles that use traditional 

transportation fuels. More than half of the gasoline GSA puts 

in its cars comes from oil imported from other countries.

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, that 

property is declared excess and is available for transfer to any 

On March 23, 2006, the GSA’s Denver Federal 

Center Campus was notified by the Colorado 

State Health Department that it was 

awarded the 2006 Bronze Environmental 

Achievement Award. The Bronze tier of 

the Health Department’s Environmental 

Leadership Program is the entry-level tier 

that recognizes the voluntary and significant 

environmental achievements of Colorado 

businesses and organizations. The award 

was made in recognition of the significant 

achievements made by GSA to improve 

environmental management practices and 

ultimately develop a more sustainable 

campus. 

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 6 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

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

it is declared surplus for Federal needs and may be donated or 

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 nonprofits. This 

results in (1) a benefit to schools who receive much needed 

computers, (2) organizations which no longer waste space 

storing surplus computers, and (3) 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 400 historic 

properties. 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. Currently over 

200 properties are listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places. GSA continues to preserve historic properties by 

providing redevelopment in urban areas. For example, one 

of the properties listed on the register, the Denver Federal 

Center (DFC) in GSA’s Rocky Mount Region is located in the 

city of Lakewood six miles west of Denver. GSA is selling 65 

acres of vacant land to the city of Lakewood with the intent 

that a major level one trauma hospital and a bus and light rail 

station will be built on the site. The hospital will be a first in 

the city of Lakewood and will bring a host of services to the 

community that they currently don’t enjoy.

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 stewards 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.

The year 2006 brought more recognition for GSA’s innovative renovation of the century-old Howard M. Metzenbaum 

U.S. Courthouse in Cleveland, OH. 

H o w G SA B e n e f i t s t h e P u b l i c
Management’s Discussion 

and Analysis
Awards GSA Has Won in 2006

2

0

0 6 A W A R

D

S

Knoxville-Knox Commission Honors Baker Courthouse With 2006 Silver Excellence Award

On August 18, the Howard H. Baker Jr. U.S. Courthouse received the 2006 Silver Anniversary Excellence Award from the Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission. 

As part of their Silver Anniversary celebration, the Commission reviewed over 180 projects, each 

having a significant impact within the City of Knoxville or Knox County over the past 25 years. 

The Commission then selected 12 projects as being the “best of the best.” The U.S. Courthouse 

was cited has having a significant impact on the downtown economy, for its architectural design 

and its contribution to the revitalization of downtown. The Courthouse is managed by the 

Knoxville Office of the Nashville TN Service Center 

Southeast Sunbelt Region Receives Safety Award from Protecting People First Foundation 

The Southeast Sunbelt Region accepted a Safety Award from the Protecting People First Foundation May 10, in Miami, FL. The award was presented for use of blast-resistant glass, 

which was installed in Miami’s new Wilkie D. Ferguson Courthouse. Regional Administrator 

accepted the award from Aren Almon-Kok, the mother of a child killed in the Oklahoma City 

bombing. 

Great Lakes Region Receives Presidential Award 

The Great Lakes Region won its first Presidential Award for Leadership in Federal Energy Management for a 2004 conservation program that cut consumption nearly 107 billion Btus 

and saved taxpayers an estimated $460,000. The program included purchasing renewable energy 

contracts, conducting facility energy audits, accomplishing energy conservation projects, and 

partnering with the Department of Energy (DOE) for training and technical assistance. GSA was 

the only civilian agency to receive the award this year. 
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 6 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 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. 

Today for the great majority of functions, agencies are able to 

determine for themselves whether GSA’s centralized services 

serve their needs as these are no longer mandatory. GSA also 

seeks efficiencies through joint management policy-making 

with departments and other agencies. 

A major change to the delivery of GSA’s mission is currently 

being implemented through the consolidation of the former 

Federal Supply Service (FSS) and the Federal Technology 

Service (FTS). 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. 

The reorganization of the FSS and FTS is the best opportunity 

that GSA has to significantly improve, simplify, and facilitate 

the way agencies buy products and services. The new Federal 

Acquisition Service (FAS) will generate value to the taxpayer 

by lowering the cost of government by efficiently leveraging 

the government’s buying power to obtain the best value 

in products and services from suppliers at the lowest total 

transaction cost. One means of doing this will be the strategic 

sourcing approach through which FAS will concentrate 

its buying of a commodity through the most advantageous 

suppliers. The new organization will also strive to better 

serve government agency customers by creating efficient 

and effective processes to save customers’ time, help them 

negotiate better terms and prices, offer easy and manageable 

access to thousands of suppliers, and enable them to focus 

on their own core missions. And lastly, the new FAS will 

increase value to commercial suppliers of all types and sizes 

by creating consistent and innovative processes to offer their 

products and services to the government more efficiently.

Mission, Values, and Goals

GSA As the government’s premier procurement agency, GSA continues to assist its customers with procuring 

various goods and services cheaper, faster, and in compliance with laws and regulations. This 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, which only they can do. 

GSA Mission Statement

GSA helps federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior 

workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services, and management policies.

GSA Values

Ethics and integrity in everything we do

Respect for fellow associates

Results orientation

Teamwork

Professionalism
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 6 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

Organization

The basic framework of any enterprise is its 

organizational structure. GSA has a network of 11 

regional offices, including a central office in Washington, 

D.C. The central office consists of two services responsible 

for coordinating nationwide programs, 11 staff offices that 

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

and the Board of Contract Appeals (BOCA). 

The Agency’s regional and staff offices are critical to GSA’s 

ability to deliver services to customers in a cost-effective 

manner. GSA’s 11 geographic regions acquire office space, 

equipment, supplies, telecommunications, and IT to support 

Federal agencies throughout the 50 states, U.S. territories, 

and overseas.

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

real estate organization in the nation providing workspace 

and workplace solutions to more than 100 Federal agencies. 

It 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. It translates 

general needs into discrete requirements, marshals the 

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. 

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. 

Recently, GSA launched the improved FirstGov.gov Search 

(www.firstgovsearch.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 E-Gov directive, which 

is to provide citizens with accurate, timely, and consistent 

information about government programs and services. 

FirstGov.gov has been rated the number one Web site in the 

Federal government for quality and e-government readiness.

Strategic Goals

Provide best value for customer agencies 

and taxpayers

Achieve responsible asset management

Operate efficiently and effectively

Ensure financial accountability

Maintain a world-class workforce and a 

world-class workplace

Carry out social, environmental, and 

other responsibilities as a federal agency

The GSA OCHCO’s focus is to attract, motivate, 

develop, retain, and reward its most valuable asset: 

GSA’s employees.
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 6 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 17

CHIEF OF STAFF DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR

 ADMINISTRATOR

FEDERAL

ACQUISITION

SERVICE

PUBLIC

BUILDINGS

SERVICE

GSA BOARD

OF CONTRACT

APPEALS

 OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR

GENERAL

NATIONAL

SERVICES

NEW ENGLAND

REGION 1

BOSTON, MA

NORTHEAST AND

CARIBBEAN REGION 

NEW YORK, NY

MID-ATLANTIC

REGION 

PHILADELPHIA, PA

SOUTHEAST

SUNBELT REGION 

ATLANTA, GA

GREAT LAKES

REGION 

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

REGIONAL OFFICES

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

CONGRESSIONAL &

INTERGOV AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF

CIVIL RIGHTS

OFFICE OF

PERFORMANCE

IMPROVEMENT

OFFICE OF

GOVERNMENTWIDE

POLICY

OFFICE OF

SMALL BUSINESS

UTILIZATION

CENTRAL OFFICE

necessary resources, and sees that space is delivered. 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.

Within PBS, the OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OEM)1

coordinates emergency management services throughout 

GSA. Emergency management includes all aspects of disaster 

and emergency program development and implementation, 

such as response operations, training, drills, exercises, 

continuity, and recovery.

FEDERAL ACQUISITION SERVICE (FAS): The new FAS resulted 

from the consolidation of the former Federal Supply Service 

(FSS) and the Federal Technology Service (FTS). Many 

factors led to this reorganization, including shifting customer 

needs, an evolution in how agencies acquire technology 

products and services, and a greater emphasis on GSA’s 

role in Federal procurement. The new organization will 

be a premier acquisition corps in the areas of contracting, 

technology, and program management. FAS is organized into 

three major business portfolios: Integrated Technology 

Services (ITS); General Supplies and Services (GSS); and 

Travel, Motor Vehicles, and Card Services (TMVCS).

1	 During FY 2007, GSA will reemphasize the importance of these functions by establishing the Office of Emergency Response and Recovery.
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 6 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

FTE BREAKdOWN BY ORGANiZATiON

TOTAL 12,304

STAFF OFFicES

12%

1,444

PBS

48%

5,915

OGP

1%

139

FAS

36%

4,381

OiG

2%

292

OcSc

1%

133

The OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTWIDE POLICY (OGP) improves 

government-wide management. Its responsibilities span 

personal and real property, travel and transportation, IT, 

regulatory information, and the use of Federal advisory 

committees. The work of OGP is accomplished through 

collaboration with Federal agencies and other stakeholders. 

The OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES AND COMMUNICATIONS 

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

government. OCSC has helped 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 communication support to the rest of GSA.

The OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER (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. 

The OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (OCIO)

provides high quality, enterprise IT services and solutions 

at best value by leveraging IT resources to support GSA 

business needs. Additionally, the OCIO is GSA’s lead for the 

seven President’s Management Agenda (PMA) E-Gov and 

Line of Business (LoB) initiatives (eAuthentication, ETravel, 

Integrated Acquisition, Federal Asset Sales, USA Services, 

Financial Management LoB (FMLoB), and Infrastructure 

Optimization Initiative LoB). 

The OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER (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, and policies; fostering full and open competition for 

contract awards; developing the acquisition workforce; and 

maintaining accountability for acquisition decision-making.

The OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (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 implementation of 

GSA’s statutory responsibilities, and provides legal counsel to 

GSA officials except for the OIG and BOCA.

The OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT (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 PMA and competitive sourcing activities.

The OFFICE OF SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION (OSBU)

advocates for small, minority, veteran, HUBZone, and women 
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 6 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 19

business owners. OSBU promotes the increased access to 

GSA’s nationwide procurement opportunities by nurturing 

entrepreneurial opportunities, outreach, and training.

The OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

AFFAIRS (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.

The OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (OCFO) 

provides corporate shared services and full service financial 

management for all of GSA and more than 40 external 

customers. The OCFO conducts the performance process, 

including strategic planning, budgeting, and the performance 

management cycle within GSA; manages GSA’s core accounting system; and prepares financial statements and reports.

The OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR) implements both the 

internal and external civil rights programs at GSA. The internal 

civil rights program 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 retaliation for protected EEO activity. The 

external civil rights program ensures nondiscrimination on the 

basis of race, color, sex, age, national origin, and disability by 

recipients of GSA’s Federal Financial Assistance and federally 

conducted programs.

The BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS (BOCA) serves as an 

independent and objective tribunal in hearing and deciding 

contract disputes between government contractors and GSA, 

and contractors and other Executive agencies. The Board 

provides alternative dispute resolution services to all Federal 

agencies and contractors. The Board also hears and decides 

claims involving transportation rate determinations, Federal 

employee travel and relocation and expense claims, and a 

small number of other types of claims.

The OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) promotes economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within GSA, and prevents and 

detects fraud in the Agency’s programs and operations.

In FY 2006, GSA had 12,304 full-time equivalent employees 

(FTE). Staffing levels have been consistent since 1998, adjusting 

for the FY 2003 transfer of the Federal Protective Service 

(FPS) and the Federal Computer Incident Response Center to 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The chart on 

page 18 reflects the FTE breakdown by organization.

African Burial Ground Memorial.

In 1991, the remains of more than 400 17th and 18th 

century Africans were discovered during pre-construction 

work for a Federal building in New York City. The finding 

deeply impacted the descendants and broader community 

and, at the same time, renewed awareness in cultural 

significance and historic preservation. The African 

Burial Ground was designated a National Monument in 

February 2006. 
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 6 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 Summary and Highlights

During FY 2006, GSA’s activities advanced the Agency towards achievement of the six strategic goals. Specific 

long-term outcome and performance goals were set in the 

FY 2006 Performance Plan which also serves as the Agency’s 

Congressional Budget Justification. GSA uses performance 

measures extensively to chart its progress and establish 

accountability.

This section highlights the most significant GSA-wide 

FY 2006 performance measures identified by GSA management and related performance results. A chart of Key 

Performance Measures follows the discussion and detailed 

performance information is contained in the Performance 

Section.

Here are a few accomplishments for each strategic goal that 

illustrate GSA’s commitment to excellence in FY 2006:

Provide Best Value for Customer Agencies 

and Taxpayers

With GSA’s diverse mission, “best value” can take many forms. 

For example, GSA rededicated the Pioneer Courthouse 

in Portland, OR in FY 2006. That ceremony capped over 

15 years of planning and a two-year construction effort for 

the complete seismic upgrade, rehabilitation, and renovation 

project of this National Landmark historic property. Pioneer 

Courthouse is the oldest surviving Federal structure in the 

Pacific Northwest and the second oldest courthouse west of 

the Mississippi River. Constructed between 1869 and 1875, 

for the last 35 years it has been home to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals. The project for seismic base isolation and historic 

preservation was awarded the “Platinum Reconstruction/

Renovation Award” from Building Design and Construction 

Magazine.

“Best value” can be responding to a disaster. In addition, 

GSA successfully responded to the flooding caused by a 

severe storm in the Washington, DC area. The floods affected 

several Federal buildings and the connected steam tunnels 

which resulted in lost power and air conditioning and 

interruption of hot water service. Teams of employees and 

contractors responded immediately and worked with tenants 

to remove water, restore power, and correct damage caused 

by the horrific storm. Through their efforts, only 15 of the 189 

GSA-owned buildings were closed after the floods.

“Best value” can also mean providing steady reliable service. 

GSA is continuing to rebuild relationships with former IT 

assisted-service customers located at major Department of 

Defense (DoD) installations. These include Scott Air Force 

Base in Illinois and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. 

By providing these customers needed acquisition support, 

they in turn can focus their human capital on their core 

missions.

Achieve Responsible Asset Management

Creativity and innovation are crucial to GSA’s management 

of billions of dollars worth of real property and other assets. 

GSA operates the Denver Federal Center (DFC), a 630 acre 

campus located in the city of Lakewood six miles west of 

Denver with four million square feet of office, laboratory, 

and warehouse space, and home to approximately 6,000 

tenants from 28 different government agencies. The DFC 

faces significant challenges with a portfolio of industrial 

buildings constructed during World War II that are in need 

of major repair and replacement. Currently, GSA is selling 

65 acres of vacant land to the city of Lakewood with the intent 

that a major level one trauma hospital and a bus and light rail 

station will be built on the site. The hospital will be the first in 

Lakewood and will bring a host of services to the community. 

The station will improve public transportation for both 

DFC tenants and the surrounding community. The proceeds 

from this sale will be used to repair and replace failing water 

and sewer lines on the Federal Center and reduce the needed 

funding for infrastructure.
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 6 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 21

In 2006, GSA worked with the Air Force to accomplish one 

of the most complicated real estate and environmental 

transactions in a timely manner. The National Imagery 

and Mapping Agency team conveyed 39.1 acres of 

environmentally contaminated and formerly flooded property 

to the St. Louis County Port Authority. The productive use of 

this property is projected to result in an initial investment 

of approximately $375 million in entertainment and retail 

economic development and clean up of contamination ahead 

of schedule.

Operate Efficiently and Effectively

GSA is constantly striving to improve its operations. For 

example, GSA, working cooperatively with U.S. and Canadian 

border inspection agencies and others, significantly reduced 

transit times at two of the busiest border crossings in North 

America. These crossings are the Ambassador Bridge in 

Detroit, MI and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, MI. GSA 

took the lead on developing, designing, and implementing 

infrastructure improvements that contributed to reduction of 

transit times by 62 percent at the Ambassador Bridge and over 

25 percent at the Port Huron Bridge.

Improvements often help agencies better achieve their own 

missions. GSA’s Eastern Distribution Center in New Jersey 

continues to provide the primary Global Supply support for 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

For FY 2006, shipped sales were over $145 million. The 

Eastern Distribution Center provides the troops many items 

that they need to fulfill their missions, including tools and 

hardware, safety items, industrial supplies, as well as office 

supplies and furniture.

Ensure Financial Accountability

GSA fully implemented OMB Circular A-123, “Management’s 

Responsibility for Internal Control” by promoting and 

ensuring Agency-wide responsibility for management 

and internal controls. This effort included documenting, 

evaluating, and testing key GSA’s financial controls. 

The GSA core financial system was successfully upgraded 

in FY 2006 and now includes a cost allocation module. 

This module provides GSA services with a tool to distribute 

centrally charged costs or centrally collected revenues to the 

object (i.e., program, organization, or activity) that benefits 

from or drives the particular cost or revenue.

Maintain a World-Class Workforce 

and a World-Class Workplace

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rated GSA as 

one of the ten best places to work in the Federal government 

during FY 2006. The Partnership for Public Service and the 

Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation at 

American University compiled the rankings based on OPM’s 

Federal Human Capital Survey of 150,000 Executive branch 

employees. The good results indicate that in GSA, good 

leaders are the linchpins of a successful work environment. 

Good managers provide open lines of communication with 

employees, offer honest feedback in an ongoing fashion, 

clearly outline performance goals and rewards, and empower 

employees to make key decisions.

Carry Out Social, Environmental, and Other 

Responsibilities as a Federal Agency 

This goal covers a broad range of activities ranging from 

energy conservation to fine art. For example, GSA successfully completed two build-to-suit leased buildings for the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2006. One and 

Two Potomac Yard in Northern Virginia with over 400,000 

square feet of office space is the new home for EPA’s Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances. These buildings 

have been designed to reflect EPA’s mission to protect human 

health and the environment. They represent 20 percent 

energy savings and 40 percent water use reduction. Their 

features demonstrate several environmental sensitivities, 

including a “green roof” building connector, environmentally 

friendly fixtures and finishes, and the use of recycled content. 

Through “daylight harvesting” the perimeter overhead 

lighting will dim automatically based on ambient daylight. 

The buildings have achieved Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) Gold Certification, the first new 

construction in the Washington, DC metro area to do so.
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 6 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

As part of the Art-in-Architecture program, GSA included 

significant artwork in the recently completed repairs and 

alterations (R&A) project at the Pittsburgh Post Office and 

U.S. Courthouse during 2006. Lia Cook’s oversized woven 

tapestries of childhood snapshots convey a shared emotional 

experience, capturing fleeting human expressions. Brian 

Shure’s three oil on linen paintings capture the essence of 

the city’s past and present, revealing the diverse urban fabric 

of Pittsburgh.

Overview of Key Performance Measures

The chart above demonstrates that overall GSA 

met or exceeded expectations for 86 percent of 

its FY 2006 Key Performance Measures. A detailed 

discussion regarding the unmet targets and 

alternative plans for accomplishing them can be 

found in the Performance Section. The use of the 

Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) and greater 

experience with the Performance Management 

Process (PMP) has contributed to this sustained 

level of success. GSA fully incorporates performance 

measures into the individual Associate Performance 

Plan and Appraisal Process (APPAS) documents for 

each associate.

Program Assessment Rating Tool 

The President’s Management Agenda’s (PMA) emphasis on 

results led to GSA’s commitment to the Program Assessment 

Rating Tool (PART), which was used to critically evaluate 

the performance of GSA programs. By the end of FY 2006, 

92 percent of GSA’s program dollars have been rated. The 

PART process has helped GSA define long-term outcome goals 

that focus on how GSA meets customer agency needs quickly 

and has reinforced its efforts to link budget to performance, to 

set ambitious goals, and to improve its efficiency measures.

FY 2006 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

7

7

1

1

1

1

18

0

3

0

0

0

0

3

totAl

4

8

10

oGP

TOTAL

7

10

1

1

1

1

21

ocSc ocFo ocHco

18

20

A joint U.S.-Canadian port of entry, the design of the 100,000-

square-foot facility, which process more than one million travelers 

and more than 400,000 commercial shipments annually, evokes 

the materials and forms of the silos and barns that rise across the 

northern prairie.

Photo Courtesy of Timothy Hursley
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 6 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 23

FY 2006 Key Performance Measures 

within Strategic Goals

Strategic Goal/

Service or Office Measures FY 2006Target

FY 2006

Actual Result

PROVIDE BEST VALUE FOR CUSTOMER AGENCIES AND TAXPAYERS

PBS – Leasing Cost of leased space relative to industry market -8.5% -9.2% Met

FAS – Vehicle Acquisition Percentage discount from invoice price > 28% 39% Met

FAS – Vehicle Leasing (Fleet) Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates below 

commercial rates on the GSA Vehicle Leasing 

Schedule

> 29% 39% Met

FAS – Travel Management and 

Transportation Management

Percentage of vouchers serviced through the 

E-Gov Travel system (percent of total voucher 

population)

12.9% 6.7% Not Met

FAS – IT Solutions (National) Percentage of negotiated award dates for services 

and commodities that are met or bettered

> 95% 89% Not Met

FAS – Network Services Savings provided to customers $550M $620M Met

FAS – Regional 

Telecommunications

Percentage (by dollar value) of eligible service 

orders awarded with performance-based 

statements of work

50% 89% Met

Office of Citizen Services and 

Communications

Total number of multi-channel contacts with the 

public (citizens, business, government) per year

235M 235.1M Met

ACHIEVE RESPONSIBLE ASSET MANAGEMENT

PBS – Asset Management Percentage of vacant and committed space in the 

government-owned inventory

7.0% 7.0% Met

PBS – Real Property Disposal Percentage of U&D property awarded with 240 

days

90% 97% Met

PBS – Real Property Disposal Percent of public sales awarded within 170 days 95% 100% Met

OPERATE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY

PBS – Asset Management Percent below private sector benchmarks for 

cleaning, maintenance and utility costs in office 

and similarly serviced space

-3.0% -4.2% Met

PBS – New Construction Percent of newly constructed buildings 

independently verified for achievement 

of established operational requirements 

(Commissioning)

30% 100% Met

FAS – Global Supply Percentage of global supply mark-up on stocked 

items

40.1% 44.23% Not Met

FAS – Personal Property Cycle time for disposal process (days) 56 52 Met

FAS – IT Solutions 

(Professional Services)

Percentage of schedule task orders solicited using 

e-Buy

90% 93% Met

Continued on following page
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 6 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

Strategic Goal/

Service or Office Measures FY 2006Target

FY 2006

Actual Result

ENSURE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Office of Chief Financial 

Officer

Percent of vendor invoices received electronically 68% 71% Met

FAS – Travel management and 

Transportation management

Direct cost as a percentage of revenue 52% 48% Met

MAINTAIN A WORLD-CLASS WORKFORCE AND WORLD-CLASS WORKPLACE

Office of the Chief Human 

Capital Officer

Number of days to fill a vacancy 45 30.1 Met

CARRY OUT SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES AS A FEDERAL AGENCY

PBS – Asset Management Percent reduction in energy consumption over 

the FY 2003 baseline

-2% -4.4% Met

Office of Governmentwide 

Policy

Percentage of agencies whose work demonstrates 

the use of Section 508 tools

30% 42% Met

Administrator Doan (blue sweater) joined FBI Director Robert S. Mueller (immediately right of lectern) along with Chicago 

Mayor Richard M. Daley (next to Mueller) and other officials to snip a 20-foot-long blue ribbon on September 12, 2006, at the 

dedication of the FBI field office in Chicago. The new facility, developed at a cost of $125 million, has a gross area of 800,000 

square feet and is the largest complex thus far built in GSA’s lease-construction program to provide the FBI with new field 

offices in major cities nationwide. 

Photo Courtesy of Regina Kosicki
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 6 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 25

The President’s Management Agenda

GSA’s Status and Progress

INITIATIVE CURRENT STATUS PROGRESS

Human Capital

Competitive Sourcing

Financial Performance

E-Government

Budget and Performance Integration

Real Property

What Progress Indicates 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

assesses agency “progress” on a case-by-case basis 

against the deliverables and time lines established 

for the five 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

26 F Y 2 0 0 6 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

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 maintained its “yellow” status through 

FY 2006 completing all but one critical success factor to “get 

to green.” The Agency continued to implement improvements 

to its performance management system for all employees. 

The Agency also engaged in restructuring activities in 

establishing the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). In the 

second quarter of FY 2007, GSA plans to submit documentation 

of FAS mapping results to secure Office of Personnel 

Management/Office of Management and Budget (OPM/OMB) 

approval of mission critical workforce skills gap closures. 

FY 2007 priorities include the stand up of FAS to comply with 

newly created critical success standards and to continue to 

address GSA’s short and longer term business needs.

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

Strategic Management of Human Capital. GSA verified its 

current human capital strategic goals and developed the 

FY 2006 – 2007 Action Plan through improvements made in 

the FY 2008 Strategic Assessment and Budget Process. GSA 

continued to work with internal stakeholders to implement 

the FAS Human Capital Implementation Plan to facilitate a 

successful transition to the new organization. GSA updated 

its Executive Leadership Succession Plan and received 

approval for its overall Leadership Succession Plan, as well 

as its identification of Leadership Bench Strength targets. 

GSA continues to deploy efforts to improve GSA’s resultsoriented performance culture. Several managerial and 

employee guides were developed to reinforce performance 

management policy and objectives. Improvements were 

made to GSA’s Comprehensive Human Resources Integrated 

System (CHRIS) to improve user input and access to a fully 

automated performance management and recognition system. 

The performance recognition system was moved from 

FedDesk to CHRIS with an enhanced automated system of 

checks and balances designed to conform to GSA performance management and recognition policy. GSA’s Southwest 

Region received OPM’s highest government score for 

its performance management efforts and results. An 

accountability review of GSA’s first year of the performance 

management system was completed and improvement 

strategies were identified and implemented. Talent 

management strategies and skills gap reduction reports were 

completed for GSA’s mission critical workforces. OMB noted 

that GSA had resolved all high risk information technology 

(IT) skill gaps. GSA successfully demonstrated continuous 

skill and competency gap progress for these workforces. 

In addition to skills and competency efforts, GSA reviewed 

recruitment and hiring strategies within mission critical 

workforces to improve overall effectiveness and diversity. 

GSA continued to improve its hiring process through the Staff 

Acquisition Business Process Re-engineering effort. A GSAwide review on Delegated Examining (DE), which assessed 

effectiveness, efficiency, and regulatory compliance, was 

completed and GSA completed 100 percent of its DE reviews. 

GSA also achieved both Senior Executive Service (SES) and 

non-SES hiring timeline targets. GSA received OPM approval 

for its Human Resources Management Accountability System 

(HRMAS). 

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 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 27

BACKGROUND: The goal of competitive sourcing, one of 

President Bush’s Management Agenda initiatives, is to improve 

agency performance by using the A-76 process to conduct 

public/private competitions of an agency’s commercial 

activities or functions. GSA has established an infrastructure 

to accomplish this goal and continues to build on this 

infrastructure.

Status: Since the establishment of the competitive sourcing 

goals by the President in FY 2001, GSA has moved from “red” 

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

for “Current Status.” This score was achieved during the 

fourth quarter of FY 2004. Additionally, GSA has completed 

84 Streamlined Competitions and one Standard Competition 

under the revised Circular, and has completed one Standard 

Competition under the old Circular. During FY 2006, GSA 

conducted 12 Streamlined Competitions on the Agency’s 

Administrative Support Function encompassing 178 full-time 

equivalent employees (FTE) in the Public Buildings Service 

(PBS) and the General Management and Administration 

(GM&A) organizations. Of the 12 competitions, nine were 

awarded to the Most Efficient Organization (MEO), two were 

awarded to the “as is” organization, and one was awarded 

to the private sector. PBS completed six Streamlined 

Competitions of their Craft and Trade Functions involving 

69 FTE. Four of the competitions were announced in 

FY 2005 and completed during the first quarter of FY 2006. 

The Performance Decision for all of the PBS Competitions 

was to award the function to the Agency Provider. The 

estimated savings and cost avoidance of these competitions is 

in excess of $40 million over five years. Finally, GSA submitted 

its FY 2006 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act 

Inventory to OMB, with justifications, on June 30, 2006, and is 

also currently revising GSA’s Competitive Sourcing Strategic 

“Green” Plan that covers planned competitions through 

FY 2011 and the FY 2006 Report to Congress covering GSA 

FY 2006 Competitive Sourcing accomplishments.

Progress: GSA completed 18 Streamlined Competitions 

in FY 2006. There were 12 Competitions of the Agency’s 

Administrative Support Function involving 178 FTE and 

another six Competitions of the PBS Craft and Trade 

Functions covering a total of 69 FTE throughout FY 2006. 

The Office of Performance Improvement (OPI) continues to 

provide training on Competitive Sourcing to GSA associates 

as needed. During FY 2006, GSA completed the transition 

to a Web-based FAIR Act Inventory Tool (FIT) with the 

implementation of the Federal Supply Service (FSS) (now 

part of the Federal Acquisition Service [FAS]) and the GM&A 

organizations. GSA also began the development of a postcompetition accountability system. GSA is modifying the 

Activity Cost Tracking Tool (ACTT) System developed by the 

Air Force to be used in conjunction with GSA’s Competitive 

Sourcing reporting requirements 

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

28 F Y 2 0 0 6 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

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. The goal is to 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: Previously GSA had successfully met the criteria 

for “green” status. As a result of the GSA FY 2005 material 

weakness concerning inadequate controls over the 

monitoring, accounting, and reporting of budgetary 

transactions, and the loss of an unqualified audit opinion, 

the GSA status rating moved to “red” for FY 2006. The Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has led a successful 

GSA-wide effort to address the weakness in internal control 

and issues in financial performance as evidenced by the 

unqualified opinion on GSA’s FY 2006 financial statements. 

Although the PMA status as of September 30 is “red,” GSA is 

confident that the clean opinion and removal of its material 

weakness will result in “green” status in FY 2007. 

Progress: As of September 30, 2006, GSA continues to be 

“green” in progress. GSA’s financial performance consistently 

produces a payment error rate below government standards. 

The Agency implemented a comprehensive program of the 

assessment of internal control over financial reporting, and 

continues to improve the reporting of intragovernmental 

accounting transactions. GSA has resolved its material 

weakness by establishing policies and procedures, creating 

and monitoring aging reports, as well as effectively 

monitoring and reducing unfilled customer orders and 

undelivered obligations. There have been substantial gains 

in achieving progress toward goals and objectives in policy, 

financial analysis, financial systems lifecycle management, and 

the management control process. GSA continues to progress 

toward its goal of providing accurate and timely financial 

data so programs can operate efficiently and effectively and 

provide the best value to customer agencies and taxpayers.

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 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 29

Background: This initiative supports specific goals to reduce 

redundancy of IT investments, increase the effectiveness 

of outreach to citizens, and improve the efficiency of IT 

investment management. This initiative provides collaborative 

development of the expanded e-government areas of E-Gov 

implementation, IT Capital Planning, Enterprise Architecture 

(EA), Earned Value Management, and IT Security. 

The Presidential E-Gov initiatives have entered the adoption, 

utilization, and institutionalization phase. One aspect of this 

is that the E-Gov initiatives should be integrated in the normal 

day-to-day operations of the Federal government, including 

business, IT, and budgetary processes. As the E-Gov programs 

continue to identify IT opportunities for collaboration and 

consolidation, increased Agency adoption and customer 

utilization will be the primary measures of success. 

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 and IT acquisitions 

are not duplicative of the President’s 24 E-Gov and Lines of 

Business (LoB) initiatives. 

GSA’s IT team will continue to identify redundant IT 

systems and determine when to retire them, and ensure 

GSA associates have the technology needed to do 

their jobs and that GSA systems are secure. 

Status: GSA maintained its “yellow” status in FY 2006. The 

Agency’s EA received a satisfaction assessment from OMB 

in Completion and Results. All 27 IT business cases were 

rated by OMB as acceptable. GSA’s IT investment portfolio 

remained within the 10 percent cost and schedule variance 

meeting the ANSI/EIA (American National Standards Institute/

Electronics Industry Alliance) Standard 748A for Earned 

Value Management. GSA certified and accredited 100 percent 

of its IT systems and the Inspector General (IG) verified the 

effectiveness of the Department-wide IT Security remediation 

process. The Agency has an OMB approved and accepted 

E-Gov Implementation plan and has successfully completed 

all the FY 2006 milestones. 

GSA continues to make progress toward a status rating of 

“green” by continuing to work with OMB to demonstrate its 

use of Earned Value Management data and analysis to make 

IT portfolio management decisions. 

Progress: GSA progress rating remains “green.” GSA 

continues to deliver on the PMA goals, quarterly E-Gov 

implementation milestones, and scorecard planned actions. 

The progress rating is based on the submission of several 

Agency program plans such as the EA milestone plan; a 

quarterly Federal Information Security Management Act 

(FISMA) plan of action; milestone report demonstrating 

that GSA’s IT system certification and accreditation (C&A) 

percentage increased to about 100 percent; updated and 

tested IT contingency plans; and a quarterly Earned Value 

Management (EVM) variance and high risk report. 

PMA

Status Expanded Electronic Government Progress

The electronic “front door” for the Federal government.
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 6 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

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 allocations decisions. The outcome will be 

better control over resources and accountability for results by 

program managers. 

Status: GSA has moved from “yellow” to “green” on the 

President’s quarterly scorecard for “current status.” This score 

was achieved during the fourth quarter of FY 2006. GSA 

worked hard to complete all outstanding criteria for green, 

specifically removing all but one program from the Results 

Not Demonstrated (RND) list, having efficiency measures for 

all PARTed programs, and reporting marginal costs that were 

satisfactory to OMB.

In this year’s rescores, the Travel Management Program, 

Transportation Management Program, and the Office of 

Governmentwide Policy (OGP) Program were all rated 

“Moderately Effective.” The Charge Card Service Program 

was rated “Effective,” which is the highest rating that a 

program can receive. Each program area developed long-term 

outcome goals with attainable targets and efficiency 

measures. Most notably, OGP developed the Policy Portfolio 

Performance System (3PS), which measures and reports on 

the effectiveness of policy-related activities.

The Agency also PARTed two new programs this year; the 

National Furniture Center Program, rated “Moderately 

Effective” and USA Services rated “Effective”. The USA 

Services, managed by the Office of Citizens Services and 

Communications (OCSC), serves as a model program for 

other government agencies desiring to become more citizencentric. This rating is achieved by only a small percentage 

of programs government-wide. GSA now maintains a “green” 

status by having over 90 percent of its programs successfully 

PARTed.

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 longterm outcome goals and efficiency measures for its programs. 

GSA continues to work with OMB on establishing goals and 

measures for the remaining programs. Quarterly reviews 

of each organization’s financial and performance results 

continue to be conducted. GSA is developing a Green Plan 

that includes specific actions the Agency will complete to 

achieve performance and efficiency improvements.

PMA

Status Budget and Performance Integration 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 6 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 31

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: GSA was the first agency to achieve “green” on the 

President’s quarterly Executive scorecard for “Current Status.” 

This score was attained at the end of the first quarter of 

FY 2006 by providing evidence that GSA’s asset management 

plan is being implemented to achieve improved real property 

asset management.

GSA was able to demonstrate to OMB results in implementing 

the right-sizing initiatives:

Improved utilization by increasing occupancy by 

3.2 percent over the past seven years

Over 75 percent of GSA’s inventory meets or exceeds 

Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) standards for 

facility condition

Maintained operating costs at approximately 4.2 percent 

below market

Since FY 2002, 245 assets have been accepted into the 

disposal process.

Progress: GSA maintained “green” in progress for real 

property. GSA completed all deliverables and all milestones 

identified in the three-year timeline. Specifically of note, GSA 

reviewed and updated its asset level strategies, completed 

21 major capital reinvestment projects reoccupying over 

586,000 rentable square feet (RSF), disposed of over 495,000 

RSF reducing GSA’s reinvestment liability by over $26 million, 

received proceeds from the sale of vacant and underutilized 

property in excess of $51 million, and targeted 4.2 percent of 

capital investment dollars on energy projects. 

GSA will continue to play a leadership role in advancing real 

property asset management.

PMA

Status Real Property Progress

The Census Bureau Headquarters Building was 

dedicated in 2006. 
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 6 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 Road to Accountability – 

Financial Highlights

For FY 2006, the independent accounting firm of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PwC) expressed an unqualified (clean) opinion on GSA’s comparative proprietary 

financial statements, the Statements of Net Cost, Balance 

Sheets, and Statements of Changes in Net Position. GSA 

has regained an unqualified opinion on the budgetary 

statements, the Statements of Budgetary Resources, and 

Statements of Financing for the FY 2006 financial statements. 

The Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) received a clean opinion 

on the comparative FY 2005 budgetary statements. For the 

Information Technology Fund (ITF), General Supply Fund 

(GSF), and the GSA Consolidated FY 2005 budgetary 

statements, PwC was not able to express an opinion due to 

material weaknesses found in reporting unfilled customer 

orders and undelivered orders in the ITF and GSF. Throughout 

FY 2006 GSA’s management significantly increased attention 

and control regarding budgetary reporting as part of its goal 

in ensuring 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 $28,470 million at the end of 

FY 2006. This represents an increase of $636 million 

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

$27,834 million. This increase is largely attributable to 

continued growth in GSA’s FBF primary business operations, 

which is reflected in capital asset purchases and alterations 

and increases in earnings that provided cash (Funds with U.S. 

Treasury) from operations. 

Taken together, Property and Equipment combined with Funds 

with U.S. Treasury comprise 93.35 percent of the total assets 

for FY 2006. The $101 million increase in Funds with U.S. 

Treasury was primarily due to resources exceeding the capital 

needs of the program in the FBF. The $6,879 million of Funds 

with U.S. Treasury is generally available to GSA to liquidate 

outstanding commitments and to provide working capital 

to the revolving fund programs, and contains balances that 

will fund future needs. While the majority of these balances 

($5,920 million) are available for such future needs, $2,407 

million of the available balance is committed to funding of 

building construction and alteration projects provided for in 

legislation. Amounts totaling $382 million were unavailable 

for spending as of September 30, 2006 and would require 

future authorization or even legislation to be used.

GSA’s assets reflected in the Consolidating Balance Sheets are 

summarized in the table below:

assets (Dollars in Millions) FY 2005 FY 2006

Land, Property and Equipment, Net $ 18,915 $ 19,699

Funds with U.S. Treasury 6,778 6,879

Accounts Receivable, Net 1,885 1,609

Other Assets 256 283

Total Assets $ 27,834 $ 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 6 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 33

ASSETS BY TYPE (Dollars in Millions)

TOTAL ASSETS $28,470

LANd, PROPERTY

ANd EQUiPMENT

69.19%

$19,699

OTHER ASSETS

1%

$283

AccOUNTS

REcEiVABLE, NET

5.65%

$1,609

FUNdS WiTH

TREASURY

24.16%

$6,879

LIABILITIES (Dollars in Millions) FY 2005 FY 2006

Accounts Payable $ 2,269 $ 2,130

Intragovernmental Debt 2,201 2,192

Other Unfunded Liabilities 177 176

Workers’ Compensation 203 197

Capital Leases/Installment Purchases 445 451

U.S. Treasury Judgement Fund 244 238

Contingencies/Environmental Disposals 119 156

Deferred Revenues/Advances 184 145

Miscellaneous Liabilities 212 274

Total Liabilities $ 6,054 $ 5,959

LIABILITIES BY TYPE (Dollars in Millions)

4.60%

$274

2.43%

$145

2.62%

$156

7.57%

$451

3.99%

$238

LIABILITIES

Accounts Payable

Intragovernmental Debt

Other Unfunded Liabilities

Worker’s Compensation

Capital Leases/Installment Purchases

U.S.Treasury Judgement Fund

Contingencies/Environmental Disposals

Deferred Revenues/Advances

Miscellaneous Liabilitie

TOTAL LIABILITIES $5,959

36.79%

$2,192

3.31%

$197

35.74%

$2,130

2.95%

$176
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 6 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

Property and Equipment increased by $784 million (four 

percent) from FY 2005. Property acquisitions of $2,548 

million during the year, net of the recorded depreciation 

expense of $1,356 million and $408 million in property 

disposals and write-offs, account for most of this increase. 

For the total amount of property acquisitions in FY 2006 

$1,690 million were comprised of construction, modernization, and alterations to buildings.

LIABILITIES: In FY 2006, total Agency liabilities decreased 

by $95 million (1.57 percent) to $5,959 million from 

$6,054 million in FY 2005. Liabilities reported on the 

Consolidating Balance Sheet are summarized in the table on 

the adjoining page.

For FY 2006 GSA’s largest liability balance is Intragovernmental 

Debt. The $2,192 million of Intragovernmental Debt is 

36.78 percent of total liabilities, of which $48 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. Treasury’s Federal 

Financing Bank, 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 

taking on. 

Accounts payable makes up 35.74 percent of total liabilities. 

These balances decreased $139 million (6.13 percent) in 

FY 2006 primarily due to the ITF’s decrease in business 

activity. The decrease in business activity for the ITF is further 

explained in the section on Results of Operations.

Liabilities totaling $1,244 million, or 20.88 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 $197 million for Workers’ Compensation, $451 million 

for capital leases and installment purchases, $238 million for 

reimbursements due the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund for 

costs from past litigation, and $156 million for contingencies 

and environmental/disposal liabilities.

ENDING NET POSITION: GSA’s Net Position at the end of 2006 

on the Consolidating Balance Sheet and the Consolidating 

Statement of Changes in Net Position was $22,511 million, a 

$731 million (3.36 percent) increase from the prior fiscal year. 

Net Position is the sum of the Unexpended Appropriations 

and Cumulative Results of Operations at the end of 2006. 

The increase in Cumulative Results of Operations resulted 

primarily from the Net Results of Operations in GSA’s FBF 

(results of $814 million) which mostly funds the capital needs 

of those programs. The FBF’s Net Results of Operations is 

offset by decreases in earnings of the GSF and ITF totaling 

$101 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, GSF, ITF, 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 2006, after intra-agency eliminations, was $409 million, a 

$429 million (51.19 percent) decrease from the prior fiscal 

year. The Net Revenue from Operations is presented as Total 

Revenues less Total Expenses at the end of FY 2006. The 

decrease in Net Revenue from Operations is primarily due 

to the activity of the FBF. The FBF reported a decrease in net 

results of operations of $367 million for FY 2006, representing 

a 37.68 percent decline. While total FBF revenue increased 

by $264 million (3.2 percent), total expenses for the FBF 

increased by $631 million (8.68 percent), mainly due to rising 

utility costs and inflation in rent costs.

Other significant declines in GSA’s Net Operating Results 

pertain to the decrease in ITF net revenue of $100 million by 

the end of FY 2006 compared to FY 2005. This extreme drop 

in ITF’s net operating results is due to management’s decision 

to discontinue a major information system development 
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 6 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 35

project, referred to as GSA Preferred (GSAP), which was 

initially implemented in FY 2004. Serious deficiencies in the 

new system could not be corrected without considerable 

additional investment, which would not have been in the best 

interest of the government. As a result, a loss of $71 million 

was charged to the ITF.

In addition to the write-off of GSAP, the ITF experienced a 

decline in business volume as GSA’s larger customers chose 

other procurement sources outside of GSA, some of which 

was related to internal control weaknesses found in prior 

audits. Current OIG audits show that GSA has made great 

strides strengthening the procurement process and correcting 

internal control weaknesses. 

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 2006 and how these funds were used.

HOW FUNDS WERE USED (Dollars in Millions)

FEDERAL

BUILDINGS FUND

$7,902

45.36%

INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY FUND

$5,025

28.84%

OTHER FUNDS

$642

3.69%

APPROPRIATIONS

USED

$272

1.56%

GENERAL

SUPPLY FUND

$3,580

20.55%

REVENUE SOURCES (Dollars in Millions)

FEDERAL

BUILDINGS FUND

$8,509

47.76%

INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY FUND

$4,914

27.58%

OTHER FUNDS

$400

2.24%

APPROPRIATIONS

RECEIVED

$292

1.64%

GENERAL

SUPPLY FUND

$3,703

20.78%
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 6 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

Budgetary Issues

The decline in ITF business volume discussed in the sections 

above also had a large effect on the budgetary statements, 

as Unfilled Customer Orders decreased by $861 million and 

Obligations incurred decreased by $1,238 million. In addition, 

Uncollected Customer Payments decreased by $1,062 million 

and Collections decreased by a total of $1,742 million. Total 

Budgetary Resources in the ITF declined $1,773 million 

(22.18 percent).

With the merger of the Federal Supply Service (FSS) and the 

Federal Technology Service (FTS) into the Federal Acquisition 

Service (FAS), FAS has been operating under two revolving 

funds with varying legislative authorities. In October of 2006, 

the President signed passed the funding legislation for FAS 

allowing the new organization to operate under one revolving 

fund, the Acquisition Services Fund (ASF). GSA expects the 

merger to allow FAS to operate more efficiently and effectively 

under the new legislation.

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 $6.6 billion backlog of 

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

Federal customers and the visiting public.

Fresno, CA’s richly textured character finds its eloquent expression in the new U.S. 

Courthouse. The building is at once rational and rugged, responding gracefully to 

its urban context while telling a story about the natural history of the region.

Photo Courtesy of Tim Griffith
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 6 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 37

GSA is pleased to provide the following assurances as 

to the status and effectiveness of the internal controls and 

management systems that support the preparation of the 

financial statements. GSA exceeded expectations by reaching 

its overarching goal in delivering excellent service to its 

customers while maintaining internal control as a result of the 

Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance

passion and dedication of Agency employees. GSA balanced 

its focus on well-trained Agency experts and customer 

satisfaction and developing customized solutions to meet 

the ever-changing needs and challenges within the Federal 

community. GSA continued to build strong relationships and 

improve service to retain its customers. 

Introduction to Management Assurances

GSA distributed Executive and Associate’s Guides, to provide associates a quick reference to internal 

controls and to assist managers in completing internal control reviews. 
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 6 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

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). GSA conducted its assessment of 

the effectiveness of internal control over the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for 

Internal Control. Based on the results of this evaluation, GSA can provide reasonable assurance that its internal control over the 

effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations as of September 30, 2006, was 

operating effectively and no material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the internal controls.

In addition, 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, in accordance with the requirements of 

Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123. Based on the results of this evaluation, GSA identified one material weakness and a related 

system non-conformance in its internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2006. The material weakness related to 

reporting of unfilled customer orders and obligations. The related system non-conformance pertained to the lack of reconciling 

certain business systems to the Agency general ledger and primary accounting system. 

Corrective actions were taken during FY 2006 to resolve these conditions as follows:

1 Substantially implemented the budgetary functionality of the current financial accounting system to ensure financial activity 

was completed and accurately recorded. 

2 Designed processes and controls effectively so that budgetary and accrual-based accounting concepts were applied 

continuously and consistently throughout the year when recording financial transactions. 

3 Developed and documented policies and procedures to prepare and monitor the Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) 

reporting, which included supervisory review, analytical procedures, data validation, and ensured that activities were in 

compliance with applicable guidance.

4 Improved internal control quality reviews and maintained documentary 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 SBR and the financial statements. 

5 Tested the design and operating effectiveness of corrective actions during the annual assessment of internal controls over 

financial reporting in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A. 

Based on a review of the corrective actions completed, GSA can provide reasonable assurance that its internal control over 

financial reporting as of September 30, 2006, was operating effectively and no material weaknesses and non-conformance were 

found in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting.

Lurita Doan

Administrator

November 10, 2006
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 6 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 39

GENERAL SERVi cES AdMiNiSTRATiON

FY 2006 — YEAR OF THE iNTERNAL cONTROLS

New Internal Control Framework

Implementing A-123, Appendix A,

Internal Controls Over

Financial Reporting

FMFIA Assurance Process

PERFORMANCE AND

ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

containing the GSA Assurance Statement

november 15, 2006

Management Control Oversight Council

determines content of Assurance Statement

november 2, 2006

Pwc Provides Preliminary

results of Financial Audit

Findings and notification of

material Weaknesses and

reportable conditions

october 30, 2006

Senior Assessment team Prepares

Assurance Statement for internal controls

over Financial reporting

June 30, 2006

Submit consolidated responses to the

deputy Administrator for review by the

management control oversight council

August 8, 2006

Senior executives complete Assurance Statement

Questionnaire based on responses received from

Subordinate managers and results from internal

controls over Financial reporting tests

regions — July 25, 2006

HSSo’s — August 7, 2006

Senior Assessment team will

report testing results

may 31, 2006

regional and HSSo Program managers and

Systems Administrators receive Assurance

Statement Questionnaire

June 30, 2006

Evaluate

Controls at the

Entity Level

continuous

Evaluate

Controls at the

Process Level

continuous

Testing of

Controls at the

Transaction Level

continuous

Initial Planning

Performance

Goals and

Scorecards

continuous

FISMA

Systems

Reviews

continuous

CFO Internal

Control

Reviews

continuous

CAO

Procurement

Reviews

continuous

OIG, GAO,

and

PwC Audits

continuous

FMFIA Section 2 and 4

Self Assurance and Testing

effectiveness and efficiency of operations

the reliability of Financial reporting

Federal Financial management Section

compliance with Applicable laws and regulations
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 6 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 successfully implemented the requirements of revised 

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

Appendix A, during FY 2006. The revisions to the circular 

serve 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 implemented 

a comprehensive program to complete its assessment of 

internal control over financial reporting. The CFO established 

the Senior Assessment Team (SAT) comprised of senior 

executives to 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 (SBR); Statement of 

Financing; Notes to the Financial Statements; and 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 three revolving funds at GSA 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 Region within 

GSA, including the central offices, 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. 

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 reportable condition, 

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 that 

one material weakness related to monitoring, accounting, 

and reporting of budgetary transactions existed as of 

June 30, 2006. Specifically, the material weakness existed 

in the controls over monitoring, accounting, and reporting 

of budgetary transactions, which includes unfilled customer 

orders as well as undelivered and delivered orders. Corrective 

actions were taken throughout the fiscal year but were not 

fully implemented as of June 30, 2006. Corrective actions 

have now been implemented and the material weakness 

has been resolved. Based upon the results of its corrective 

actions, GSA can provide reasonable assurance that its 

internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 

2006, was operating effectively and no material weaknesses 

existed in the design or operation of the internal control over 

financial reporting. 

In addition, during GSA’s testing of internal controls over 

financial reporting, it noted that one of its business feeder 

systems, FSS-19, does not transmit budget year information to 

FEDPAY; therefore, when an order that has been established 

with prior year funds is cancelled or modified, FEDPAY 

does not generate a prior year recovery as required by the 

U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL). FEDPAY is a financial 

system used by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

(OCFO) that transmits information to Pegasys. In response 

to this issue, management developed manual processes and 

controls that prevented any material misstatement in its 

FY 2006 financial statements. Through further inquiries, 

management was able to determine that this problem exists 

in other business feeder systems. However, mitigating 

controls exist which reduce the risk to a low level and 

ensure the integrity of the financial statements. Action plans 

will be developed during the next fiscal year to correct the 

deficiencies in GSA’s business feeder systems so that GSA is 

in conformance with the USSGL. 

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 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 41

The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982 

requires that agencies establish management control and 

financial systems to provide reasonable assurance that the 

integrity of Federal programs and operations are protected. 

Furthermore, it requires that the head of the agency provide 

an annual assurance statement on whether the agency has 

met this requirement and whether any material weaknesses 

exist. 

In response to the FMFIA, GSA developed an internal 

control program which holds managers accountable for 

the performance, productivity, operations, and integrity 

of their programs through the use of internal controls. 

Annually, senior managers at the Agency are responsible for 

evaluating the adequacy of the internal controls surrounding 

their activities and determining whether they conform to 

the principles and standards established by OMB and the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO). The results of 

these evaluations and other senior management information 

are used to determine whether there are any internal control 

problems to be reported as material weaknesses. The Agency’s 

Management Control Oversight Council, the organization 

responsible for oversight of the Internal Control Program, 

makes the final assessment and decision for the Agency. 

Accomplishments

GSA continues to provide updated OMB Circular A-123 

guidance and training to Agency managers at all levels 

to ensure awareness of management’s responsibility for 

establishing and maintaining internal control. Significant 

effort was directed at informing and training Agency 

managers on the impact and effect of the new OMB Circular 

A-123, with a focus on financial controls, system controls and 

system certification, and accreditation reviews. Additionally, 

Agency managers performed risk assessments and internal 

control reviews for their program areas and conducted 

evaluations.

In FY 2006, GSA improved the Web-based Assurance Statement 

Questionnaire that was launched in FY 2005. Managers at 

all levels were able to enter, update, and view assurance 

statement information and electronically forward completed 

statements to the next level supervisor. 

In FY 2006, GSA addressed the FY 2005 identified Section 2 

material weakness and Section 4 system nonconformance 

related to budgetary controls and reporting processing. 

Agency managers completed the actions addressing the 

material weakness by developing aging reports, implementing A-123 requirements, issuing policy on review and 

certification, and reconciling business systems to Pegasys. 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) — Section 2

GSA increased employee awareness of the Internal Control 

effort by displaying posters throughout the Service and 

Staff Office workplace. 
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 6 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

Statistical Summary of Performance

Section 2, Internal Control Systems — Material Weaknesses

GSA reported one in FY 2005. No new material weakness identified in FY 2006. 

NUMBER OF MATERIAL WEAKNESSES

NUMBER AT 

BEGINNING OF

FISCAL YEAR NUMBER CORRECTED NUMBER ADDED

NUMBER 

REMAINING END OF 

FISCAL YEAR

2002 Report 0 0 0 0

2003 Report 3 2 0 0

2004 Report 0 0 0 0

2005 Report 0 0 1 1

2006 Report 1 1 0 0

Material Weakness Remediation 

GSA completed all of the milestones related to the material weakness.

In addition to the above improvements, the SAT reviewed 

internal control over financial reporting. The review 

identified the proper fund for each unassigned funding 

citation, reconciled monthly business systems, implemented 

a successful income and expense accruals national program, 

developed business system enhancements to ensure the 

validity of assigned funding and undelivered orders moving 

forward, and archiving historical open orders. 

GSA is committed to ongoing efforts to integrate and improve 

the Agency’s financial systems and will continue to work 

with external auditors to strengthen fiscal management and 

accountability.

Traditions that have long distinguished Federal courthouse design emerge in fresh and unexpected ways 

along with new metaphors for a 21st century Federal courthouse in Eugene, OR.

Photo Courtesy of Frank Ooms
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 6 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 43

REMEDIATION of MATERIAL WEAKNESS and System Non-Conformance

Material Weakness Milestones

Original

Target

Correction

Date

Revised

Target

Date

Actual

Date of

Completion

Controls over monitoring, 

accounting, and reporting 

of budgetary transactions 

are inadequate.

Summary of the action plans from OCFO 

operations divisions and Service offices. 

OCFO – Office of the Chief Financial Officer

(1) Develop and document policies and 

procedures for open items cancellation, 

streamlined closeout and setting thresholds 

on unfilled customer orders.

May 

2006

May 

2006

(2) Implement the A-123 process. September 

2006

June 

2006

(3) Resolve issues encountered during 

reconciliation.

October 

2006

August

2006

FAS – Federal Technology Service

(1) Reconcile OMIS, GSAP, and CODB to 

Pegasys.

October 

2006

September

2006

(2) Define process and validate unassigned 

funds. 

October 

2006

September

2006

(3) Define process and validate undelivered 

orders for Assisted Acquisition Services. 

October 

2006

September

2006

FAS – Federal Supply Service

(1) FAS/FSS and the OCFO will reconcile the 

UDO and DO in the FAS/FSS feeder systems to 

the OCFO payment system, FEDPAY. The FSS-19 

systems included orders originating in FSS-19, 

ROADS, and Customer Service Center including 

Expanded Direct Delivery (EDD), Inventory 

Replenishment, and CPSA.

July 

2006

September

2006

(2) Develop aging reports. July 

2006

August 

2006

June

2006

PBS – Public Buildings Service

(1) Obtain certifications, including certifications 

for 75 percent of open items, excluding orders 

with known comfort levels, including statistical 

sample to validate accuracy.

October 

2006

September

2006

(2) Ensure that unfilled customer orders for 

projects, contracts and RWA balances are 

periodically monitored and reviewed for 

validity, including statistical samples.

October 

2006

September

2006
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 6 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

As required by law, GSA evaluates its financial management 

systems annually for compliance with Federal financial 

management systems requirements, applicable Federal 

accounting standards, and USSGL recording and reporting 

requirements at the transactional level. GSA evaluated its 

financial management systems controls and compliance by 

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

completing independent systems certification and accreditation 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 2006, 

a review of the current status of prior year systems-related 

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 systemsrelated review activities provide a sufficient basis for assessing 

Agency compliance with Section 4, FMFIA and FFMIA 

requirements for FY 2006. 

Based on all review work performed during FY 2006, Agency 

management believes that GSA is in substantial compliance 

with 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 resolve and remediate prior year audit 

findings relating to system change management controls. For 

example, during FY 2006 more than 100 action steps were 

completed to fully or partially resolve financial systems-related 

issues and findings. These conditions related to network 

and application security controls, system change controls, 

and other financial systems’ general and applications-related 

internal controls. 

No Entity-wide System Non-Conformances Noted 

No entity-wide system non-conformances are reported for 

GSA systems in FY 2006 (see page 43). 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. 

Reportable Conditions 

During FY 2006, significant progress was achieved in 

addressing both prior year reportable conditions related to 

systems. These conditions involved system change controls 

for GSA’s financial applications and technical information 

security controls. As a result of actions taken, the independent 

auditors have determined one of these issues is no longer 

considered to be a reportable condition. The remaining 

reportable condition is related to the need to improve certain 

system controls. 

Improvements needed include access controls, segregation 

of duties, and systems monitoring. To address these findings, 

new corrective action plans will be developed to ensure 

management takes appropriate corrective actions.

STATUS OF SYSTEM NON-CONFORMANCES

NUMBER AT 

BEGINNING OF 

Fiscal YEAR NUMBER CORRECTED NUMBER ADDED

NUMBER 

REMAINING END OF 

FISCAL YEAR

2003 Report 2 0 1 3

2004 Report 3 3 0 0

2005 Report 0 0 1 1

2006 Report 1 1 0 0

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 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 45

Additional Improvements Planned for FY 2007

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 2007. Major initiatives will involve taking various 

actions to improve financial reporting; strengthening systemsrelated policies, procedures, and system life-cycle management for program and financial systems. 

Additional actions are planned to improve the quality and 

documentation of systems-related policies, procedures, and 

system life-cycle management so that best practices can 

be more uniformly institutionalized and implemented 

within GSA. Areas of focus for these efforts will include 

access, configuration management, separation of duties, and 

technical systems controls.

Finally, action is planned during FY 2007 to more effectively 

integrate and streamline GSA review and assessment activities 

pertaining to FMFIA, FFMIA, FISMA, and OMB Circular A-123 

and OMB Circular A-127 compliance. During the past two 

years, significant progress has been achieved in integrating 

GSA’s internal processes for assessing the sufficiency of 

management and systems-related internal controls via one 

survey instrument. During FY 2007, the challenge will 

be to devise and implement an improved and more fullyintegrated process to streamline and document the conduct of 

various reviews relating to internal controls and compliance 

with OMB Circular A-123 and the new National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements pertaining to 

system-related internal controls. Currently, these activities 

require considerable efforts on the part of several different 

groups within GSA. By more effectively coordinating and 

consolidating these review activities, more comprehensive 

and meaningful reviews and assessments will be able to be 

completed in a more timely manner at less cost. 

All planned FY 2007 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: (1) Federal financial management systems 

requirements; (2) applicable Federal accounting standards; 

and (3) 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 Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) and GAO audit reports, annual financial statement 

audits, FISMA-related and other questionnaire results, FISMA 

compliance reviews, and other systems-related activities.

Based on all information assessed, the GSA Administrator has 

determined that GSA’s financial management systems are in 

substantial compliance with FFMIA for FY 2006. 

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 

system-related 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 
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 6 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

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 2006, GSA continued to strengthen its system 

controls by addressing weaknesses identified within its 

Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) and completing 

many FISMA-related system control initiatives. Significant 

accomplishments included completing system certifications 

and accreditations (C&A), planned systems tests, and 

contingency plan tests for all of GSA’s 79 systems during 

FY 2006. More than 15,000 Agency employees and 

contractors completed IT security awareness training and 

99.7 percent of Agency employees with significant security 

responsibilities also completed specialized role based 

training during the past year. Privacy Impact Assessments 

(PIA) were completed on all applicable systems. Additionally, 

GSA completed the required OMB privacy review of its 

systems pursuant to OMB’s memorandum pertaining to the 

safeguarding of personally identifiable information. 

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 maintain or improve upon its OMB scorecard grade 

of A- for 2006.

Financial Management Systems Framework

Financial Management Systems

The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act assigns clear 

responsibilities for planning, developing, maintaining, and 

integrating all accounting and financial management systems 

within an agency. During FY 2006, 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.

Considerable progress was achieved related to maintaining 

and expanding the use of GSA’s 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 40 million transactions 

per year, and complies fully with Federal accounting 

standards and external financial reporting requirements. 

Pegasys also holds the most current Joint Financial 

Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) 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 new requirements to interface 

with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) component 

of the President’s integrated acquisition environment 

E-Gov initiative, as well as support the e-Payroll and e-Travel 

system initiatives. In keeping with plans to upgrade GSA’s 

core accounting system biennially, during FY 2006 Pegasys 

was upgraded to an HTML format. In addition, E-Gov Travel, 

Vendor Self-Service, and cost allocation functionality have 

been or are being added to GSA’s financial management 

system capabilities. 

U.S. Courthouse in Seattle, WA. 
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 6 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 47

Pegasys

Core Accounting Functions

NEAR

Accounts Receivable/Billing

Future 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 Management

e-Payroll

Payroll Functions

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

 GSA Awards FedDesk

Labor Data Collection/Distribution

 Miscellaneous Reimbursements

 Electronic Time & Attendance

 GSA Awards

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

48 F Y 2 0 0 6 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

Significant progress was also made in FY 2006 to review and 

improve internal controls regarding GSA financial systems 

(see page 46). For the second consecutive year, SAS 70 

reviews were completed for both GSA’s Payroll and Pegasys 

systems. These reviews provide needed feedback to the client 

agencies on GSA’s internal accounting and system controls 

in relation to established internal control objectives. The 

conduct of these reviews helps to ensure that GSA maintains 

an effective system of internal controls 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 controls 

environment, GSA was one of four Federal agencies selected 

by OMB to cross-service other Federal agencies as a Financial 

Management Line of Business (FMLoB). During FY 2007, 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 costeffective service provider of choice for financial management 

services. 

Anti-Deficiency Act

In their FY 2005 and FY 2006 reports, the Department of 

Defense (DoD) OIG identified potential Anti-Deficiency Act 

violations in DoD purchases made through GSA. GSA’s Office 

of General Counsel (OGC) reviewed the circumstances of 

these procurements and determined there were fourteen 

actions that potentially pose an Anti-Deficiency Act violation 

at GSA.

Since that time, GSA officials have taken aggressive action to 

work with DoD in order to resolve each of these actions. GSA 

is are currently determining whether appropriate funds are 

available within other DoD projects at GSA that could be used 

to correct these potential violations. The IT Solutions 

Regional Service Center, working with the IT Solutions 

Financial Services Center, the Office of Budget, and the 

OGC will make that determination. If proper funds are found 

within other projects, customer service representatives from 

the Regions will contact DoD, and with their permission, GSA 

would use that budget authority to correct the potential 

violation(s). If GSA cannot find sufficient budget authority 

associated with other DoD projects on its books, GSA will 

request DoD assistance in ascertaining whether they have 

other proper budget authority that could be applied. These 

reviews are currently underway and depending on the results, 

will assist GSA in further enhancing and improving acquisition 

quality and integrity across the organization. GSA is highly 

confident that, working together, DoD and GSA will correct 

this problem and no Anti-Deficiency Act violations will be 

reported.
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 6 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 49

FY 2006 Annual Risk Assessment

GSA conducted the erroneous payment risk assessment 

review during FY 2006 in accordance with Public Law 107-

300, The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002. 

The erroneous payment risk assessment is reported one 

year in arrears. The assessment consisted of reviewing all 

GSA business line/program erroneous payment information 

that was identified by the Regional Finance Centers and the 

Recovery Audit Contractor, as well as reviewing other audit 

findings. The risk assessment included such factors as prior 

audit reports, internal control reviews, complexity of payment 

calculations, complexity of laws and regulations, and other 

risk factors. 

The review indicates that no GSA program was highly 

susceptible to erroneous payments according to the threshold 

amounts established by OMB ($10 million and 2.5 percent of 

program disbursements)1. 

GSA continues to demonstrate a strong commitment to 

improving financial management and was at the forefront 

in the Federal government for operation of a recovery audit 

program. In 2001, prior to the National Defense Authorization 

Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-107), GSA entered into a contract 

for recovery audit services. The act requires that agencies 

that enter into contracts with a total value in excess of $500 

million in a fiscal year carry out a cost-effective program 

for identifying errors made in paying contractors and for 

recovering amounts erroneously paid to the contractors. A 

required element of such a program is the use of recovery 

audits and recovery activities.

1	 Erroneous or improper payments are any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under

statutory, contractual, and administrative or other legally applicable requirement. These involve overpayments, underpayments,

payments to ineligible recipients, payments for ineligible service, duplicate payments, payments for services not received, and payments

made without accounting for applicable discounts or credits.

1	 Erroneous or improper payments are any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under

statutory, contractual, and administrative or other legally applicable requirement. These involve overpayments, underpayments,

payments to ineligible recipients, payments for ineligible service, duplicate payments, payments for services not received, and payments

made without accounting for applicable discounts or credits.

Payments are only made to the recovery auditor upon 

identification and successful collection of erroneous payments. 

While GSA’s payment error rate remains low at 0.2384 

percent, GSA has benefited substantially from the recovery 

audit contract. GSA has also benefited from the valuable 

recommendations made by the recovery audit contractor to 

strengthen internal controls to prevent and detect erroneous 

payments. 

The GSA Administrator has delegated the authority for 

implementation of Public Law 107-300 to the Agency’s CFO. 

The CFO has further delegated to Agency program officials 

the responsibility for reporting any program deemed highly 

susceptible to erroneous payments, developing a corrective 

action plan, estimating the annual amount of erroneous 

payments in programs and activities, and establishing goals 

to reduce them in accordance with the guidance provided 

by OMB. 

AGENCY PLANS FOR FY 2007 – FY 2008

Effective for FY 2006, Circular A-123, 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 deemed not risk susceptible. Since GSA 

does not have any programs deemed risk susceptible, GSA will 

perform the next risk assessment in FY 2008. If a program 

in GSA experiences a significant change in legislation and/or 

a significant increase in funding level, GSA will reassess the 

program’s risk susceptibility during the next annual cycle, 

even if it is less than three years from the last risk assessment.

Improper Payments Information Act 
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

50 F Y 2 0 0 6 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

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 accordance 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

FAS furnishes wildfire protection equipment to Federal agencies through formal 

agreements with the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land 

Management.
Performance Section
Awards GSA Has Won in 2006

2

0

0 6 A W A R

D

S

“Partner in Excellence” award 

The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), Global Supply was given a “Partner in Excellence” award by National Industries for the Blind (NIB) for outstanding distribution of Skilcraft and other JavitsWagner-O’Day Act (JWOD) products. “In grateful appreciation of your support in creating jobs for people 

who are blind employed through the JWOD program.” This award is for continuing efforts to promote, 

market, and sell Skilcraft and other JWOD products creating jobs for people who are blind or severely 

handicapped and employed by the program. The theme “TEAMWORK makes our DREAM WORK,” holds 

true for the continuing growth of the GSA/NIB partnership. 

Personal Property Management 

The Furniture for Schools (F4S) initiative was recognized as the winner of the 2006 Miles Romney Achievement Award for Innovation in Personal Property Management for its outstanding efforts to 

help rebuild the Gulf Coast schools. In conjunction with the Department of Education and the Department 

of Defense (DoD), GSA Personal Property Management began the F4S program 

to make excess and surplus property available to help rebuild and reestablish 

schools in the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This program is 

ongoing and largely operated by GSA’s Mid Atlantic Region Property 

Management Office. It is a good complement to GSA’s Computers for 

Learning program which helps make excess computers available for 

pre-K through Grade 12 educational. For F4S, GSA has also worked 

to coordinate transportation of equipment to these schools. During 

FY 2006, almost 13,000 pieces of furniture and computers were provided 

under the F4S program, totaling $5,199,175 in original acquisition value.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 53

GSA focused on being a results-oriented organization during FY 2006, 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. As an improvement to this year’s PMP, the information 

technology (IT) capital planning process was more closely 

synchronized with the overall PMP cycle.

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 worked hard this past year and removed all but one 

program from the Results Not Demonstrated (RND) list. Key 

to this effort was developing acceptable long-term outcome 

goals and efficiency measures necessary to have the programs 

successfully rated.

GSA has 15 programs that have received PART reviews. 

Of the 15 programs reviewed, four were rated Effective—

Asset Management, Charge Card Services, New Construction, 

and USA Services; eight were rated Moderately Effective—

Vehicle Leasing (Fleet), Real Property Leasing, Personal 

Property Management, Real Property Disposal, Office of 

Governmentwide Policy (OGP), Transportation Management, 

Travel Management, and National Furniture Center; and two 

were rated Adequate—Global Supply and Vehicle Acquisition. 

IT Solutions was rated RND.

Additional information about GSA’s PART scores and results 

can be found on the OMB Web site, www.expectmore.gov.

GSA is proactively working with those programs that will 

be rated in FY 2007 in order to develop long-term outcome 

goals and efficiency measures for the programs to ensure that 

they are successfully rated. The following programs will be 

PARTed in FY 2007: Integrated Technology Solutions (Rescore 

of Regional and National IT Solutions) and Network Services.

GSA streamlined the number of measures reported in the 

Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) in order to 

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

54 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

focus attention on the key measures in support of GSA’s 

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 2006 measures can be found in Appendix I, 

and the full performance report will be published on the GSA 

Web site (www.gsa.gov/annualreports) in December 2006. 

No program evaluations were completed this year. Program 

evaluations are planned for future years in conjunction with 

PART improvement plans.

After the Gulf region was devastated by hurricanes in the fall of 2005, GSA provided more than 

$1 billion in supplies and services to the hardest-hit areas, answered more than 1.3 million 

hurricane-related inquiries, and dispatched more than 700 Agency experts to help citizens 

who, in many cases, lost all their material positions to killer winds, rain, or the subsequent 

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 55

GSA PART RESULTS

GSA PROGRAM RATING

PBS Asset Management of Real Property Effective 

PBS Construction Effective 

FAS Charge Card Services Effective 

OCSC USA Services Effective

PBS Real Property Leasing Moderately effective 

PBS Real Property Disposal Moderately effective 

FAS Vehicle Leasing (Fleet) Moderately effective 

FAS Personal Property Management Moderately effective 

FAS Travel Management Moderately effective 

FAS Transportation Management Moderately effective 

FAS National Furniture Center Moderately effective

OGP Office of Governmentwide Policy Moderately effective 

FAS Global Supply Adequate 

FAS Vehicle Acquisition Adequate 

FAS Commercial Acquisition 1 Results not demonstrated 

FAS Regional IT Solutions 2 Results not demonstrated

FAS National IT Solutions 2 Results not demonstrated

1	 FAS Commercial Acquisition is no longer a stand alone PART program. Charge Card Services is the successor program (in terms of the PART).

2	 FAS Integrated Technology Solutions now replaces the FAS Regional and National IT Solutions.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

56 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

PBS

Federal Asset Sales is an E-Gov initiative supporting the 

PMA. This program will consolidate all Federal property for 

sale through a single Web site making it easier for citizens 

to review property sales. Federal Asset Sales will provide 

agencies with an economical e-marketplace to increase 

exposure of properties in the marketplace. This focused 

enlarging of the marketplace promotes competition and 

increases the potential value of the properties. PBS launched 

the Value Added Services contracts for Federal Asset Sales. 

Value Added Services is a contract vehicle that will provide 

agencies an easy, economical means to acquire a la carte

realty services necessary to dispose of properties efficiently 

at reduced costs. 

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. 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. GSA earned its green rating by 

meeting the PMA right-sizing goals of utilization and disposal, 

operation and maintenance, and physical condition. GSA 

disposed of 27 vacant or underutilized properties through 

portfolio restructuring efforts; improved asset utilization to 

93.0 percent in government owned assets and 98.5 percent 

in leased assets by reducing vacant space; and improved the 

physical condition of its inventory by targeting reinvestment 

dollars toward core assets in the portfolio, among other 

achievements. Throughout FY 2006, GSA continued to 

provide leadership on the Federal Real Property Council 

(FRPC) and achieve the PMA goals, as evidenced by its 

continued green rating in both status and progress. 

PUBLI C BUILDINGS SERVI CE

PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE/STAFF OFFICE
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 57

PBS

Performance Highlights

PBS has completed four PART reviews of its major 

programs: (1) Asset Management of Real Property, (2) Real 

Property Leasing, (3) Real Property Disposal, and (4) New 

Construction. Leasing and Disposal are rated by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) as “Moderately Effective,” 

and Asset Management and New Construction are rated 

“Effective.” Improvement plans were developed based on 

recommendations from OMB. The plan to study the PBS fee 

structure and incorporate it in the FY 2008 rent estimate 

submission was completed and a reduction in the PBS fee 

is scheduled to commence in FY 2008. An independent 

evaluation process to assess program performance and 

its effectiveness in achieving results has begun and will be 

concluded in FY 2007.

The paragraphs below summarize FY 2006 PBS major 

performance results by business line activity.

NEW CONSTRUCTION: 

PBS is involved in an $11 billion, multi-year program to 

build new Federal courthouses, border stations, and 

Federal buildings; and to renovate and modernize 

existing Federal facilities, including courthouses, 

agency headquarters, office buildings, laboratories, and 

infrastructure. The program includes over 200 active 

capital projects in the various phases of pre-planning, 

site acquisition and design, and construction stages. 

In FY 2006, PBS completed three new courthouse 

projects (Brooklyn, NY; Fresno, CA; and Eugene, OR); 

a new annex to the Prettyman Courthouse in Washington, 

D.C.; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Satellite Operations facility; and several 

buildings at the U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters, in 

Suitland, MD and at the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) campus in White Oak, MD. PBS also completed 

two new border station projects (Sault Ste. Marie, MI and 

Phase 1 of Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, MI). PBS awarded 

a design contract for a new Border Station (Warroad, MN) 

and one new Federal building (Washington, D.C. U.S. Coast 

Guard Headquarters). PBS also awarded construction 

contracts for one new courthouse project in El Paso, 

TX and three new border station projects (Phase 3 of 

Champlain, NY; Phase 2 of Ambassador Bridge in Detroit; 

and Del Rio, TX). 

In addition, PBS continues to develop and implement 

business process improvements to enhance the 

performance of the capital construction program. In 

FY 2006 PBS launched an initiative to develop and 

implement standard scope of work and contract template 

tools and guidelines for use in the delivery of major capital 

construction projects. The goal of this effort is to achieve 

national consistency in the development of scopes of work 

for architect/engineer (A/E) contracts and construction 

services; as well as construction management services, 

feasibility studies, prospectus development studies, and 

to capitalize on best practices, lessons learned, institutional knowledge and collective project expertise. 

The PBS Office of the Chief Architect (OCA) provided 

national peer professionals for 23 A/E Design Excellence 

selections, 29 Design Peer Reviews of ongoing projects, 

22 Art-in-Architecture Peer Reviews, and arranged nine 

Design Concept Presentations for capital projects to the 

PBS commissioner. In addition the OCA conducted over 

25 construction peer reviews on major construction 

projects at 15 percent, 65 percent, or 95 percent 

construction completion. The OCA also developed a 

National Building Information (BIM) Guide in support of 

PBS’s mission to improve delivery. The OCA developed 

and produced two videos, “Design and Construction 

Excellence: A Year in Review,” highlighting 100+ projects 

in design and construction in 2006; and “Creating the 

Contemporary Federal Courthouse: Collaboration and 

Team Work,” illustrating the important and successful 

partnership between PBS and its judicial clients in the 

design and construction of new courthouses. 

GSA LEASING: 

PBS has also introduced new efficiencies to its Leasing 

program making PBS a more customer-driven organization. PBS enhanced 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, reasonable-priced 

workplace solutions to its customers. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

58 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

PBS

Concurrently, eLease, a Web-based process tool, allows 

both PBS realty specialists and PBS contractors to navigate 

through each transaction in a consistent and highly 

efficient manner, contributing a significant productivity 

gain that is passed on to PBS customers. 

In response to the success of these initiatives as stated above, 

PBS is lowering 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. 

ASSET MANAGEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY: 

Sound asset management remains a priority for PBS. 

Through the continuation of the Portfolio Restructuring 

Initiative, PBS is progressing toward 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 government-owned assets. In FY 2006, 

73.9 percent of GSA’s government-owned assets had an 

ROE of six percent or greater, which exceeded its target 

of 71 percent. 

PBS is also progressing toward meeting its long-term energy 

goal of reducing energy consumption in GSA Federal 

buildings by two percent (as measured by Btu/GSF) per 

year for a cumulative reduction of 20 percent by FY 2015. 

GSA surpassed its FY 2006 goal of a two percent reduction 

and is working on continuing this trend for future years. 

Currently, there are $58 million of energy efficiency 

investments underway in GSA buildings nationwide. These 

investments are expected to save an additional 689 million 

Btus and $9.5 million each year. These achievements 

underscore PBS’s commitment to energy management and 

the resulting savings of taxpayer dollars. 

Previously dispersed among 20 buildings, the Census Bureau has been consolidated into a sweeping 1.5 million-squarefoot office complex within the Suitland Federal Center, a 226-acre tract outside Washington, DC.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 59

PBS

REAL PROPERTY DISPOSAL: 

Non-GSA Properties:

As the service provider of choice for real property disposal, 

an additional 266 properties valued at approximately 

$687 million were disposed of for other Federal agencies. 

In its mission of assisting other agencies PBS also 

provided 24 targeted asset reviews to help agencies in 

their compliance with Executive Order 13327.

GSA Properties: 

In FY 2006, the Office of Real Property Disposal 

disposed of 38 GSA properties valued at approximately 

$63.2 million. These disposals resulted in sales of 

$33.9 million of which $5.2 million has already been 

received in the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) with the 

remaining $28.7 million forthcoming in FY 2007. 

PBS Performance By GSA-Wide Goal 

GSA-Wide Goal 1: Provide BestValue for Customer Agencies and Taxpayers

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

PBS (Leasing) Award leases at an average rental rate of not less then 8.5% 

below industry averages for comparable office space by FY 2006. 

Met

PBS (Leasing)

Performance Goal

Award leases at an average rental rate of not less then 8.5 percent below industry averages for comparable office space by 

FY 2006.

Measure

Cost of leased space relative to industry market rates.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

-7.4% -10.6% -9.2% -8.5% -9.2%

DESCRIPTION OF THE 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 (System for Tracking and Administering Real Property)—primary tool used by PBS to track and manage the 

government’s real property assets and to store inventory data, billing data, building data, customer data, and lease information. 

SIOR (Society of Industrial and Office Realtors)—publications to determine current trends and market rates from which GSA 

establishes benchmarks.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: PBS’s success at exceeding the FY 2006 target for lease cost relative to market is 

in part due to its very successful negotiation of competitive rates on some large leases and of new follow-on leases at existing 

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

60 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

PBS

GSA-wide Goal 2: Achieve Responsible Asset Management

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Decrease vacant (available and committed) space to 7% of the 

owned inventory by FY 2006 and maintain thereafter.

Met

PBS (Real Property 

Disposal)

Award 90% of utilization and donation (U&D) property within 

240 days for FY 2006.

Met

PBS (Real Property 

Disposal)

Award 95% of public sales within 170 days for FY 2006. Met

PBS (Asset Management)

Performance Goal

Decrease the vacant (available and committed) space to seven percent of the owned inventory by FY 2006 and maintain 

thereafter.

Measure

Percent of vacant and committed space in the government-owned inventory.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

8.3% 7.9% 6.8% 7.0% 7.0%

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 STAR.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. PBS continues to maintain a low seven percent vacancy rate in 

government-owned inventory. PBS concentrated on reducing vacant space due to the significant savings to the taxpayer which 

can be realized through maintaining a high asset utilization rate. GSA maintained this high utilization rate in FY 2006 through 

various strategies, 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 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 61

PBS

PBS (Real Property Disposal)

Performance Goal

Award 90 percent of utilization and donation (U&D) property within 240 days for FY 2006.

Measure

Percent of U&D property awarded within 240 days.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

52% 75% 39% 90% 97%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: This performance measure looks at the percentage of U&D property that is awarded within the 

maximum time line of 240 days. This 240 day time period is comprised of 30 days for Federal screenings, 60 days for homeless 

screenings, 90 days for homeless application and approval process, and 60 days for negotiated sales with Congressional approval. 

DATA SOURCE: NETREAL database, the system used by PBS to track real property sales.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: PBS streamlined its processes in order to meet its objective. Through streamlining 

and using a consistent approach for disposal, PBS realty specialists were able to accomplish their designated duties within the 

targeted days, more than 95 percent of the time in FY 2006.

PBS (Real Property Disposal)

Performance Goal

Award 95 percent of public sales within 170 days for FY 2006.

Measure

The percent of public sales awarded within 170 days. 

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

67% 73% 92% 95% 100%

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 show the commercial sales sector averages about 

170 days to complete a sale. 

DATA SOURCE: NETREAL database, the system used by PBS to track real property sales.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: PBS orchestrated its processes to meet the FY 2006 objective by conducting some 

processes simultaneously, when appropriate. PBS has been successful in reducing the time required to take properties to sale. 

In addition, PBS increased use of e-government tools such as online auctions which resulted in reduced cycle times.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

62 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

PBS

GSA-wide Goal 3: Operate Efficiently And Effectively

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Maintain operating service costs in office and similarly serviced 

space at 3% or more below private sector benchmarks by FY 2006.

Met

PBS (New 

Construction)

Verify 30% of newly constructed buildings for achievement of 

established operational requirements by FY 2006 (commissioning).

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 2006.

Measure

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

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

-14.8% -14.5% -10.5% -3.0% -4.2%

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.

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

Pegasys, and STAR.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. 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 operations of GSA makes comparisons difficult. The Agency lost confidence in some of the industry data reported 

by BOMA and previously used for benchmarking operating costs. Based on these concerns, OMB approved a restructuring of 

this measure in FY 2006 to more accurately reflect the performance of the Agency. 

The methodology of calculating the measure was changed to include only those assets which 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. 

This measure was restructured and the FY 2006 target for operations and maintenance was adjusted to a more realistic target of 

three percent below industry. The target was achieved through a series of efforts to leverage the government’s buying power 

and by concentrating on achieving cost efficient operations. GSA continues to work with OMB to further refine its operating 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 63

PBS

costs measure and target to more accurately reflect the performance of the Agency. PBS will continue its commitment to 

providing cost savings to the U.S. taxpayer without compromising its service to its client agencies. 

Nationally GSA operated at 4.2 percent below industry for FY 2006, exceeding the three percent below industry target. Seven 

of the 11 regions met or exceeded their target of three percent below industry. 

PBS (New Construction)

Performance Goal

Verify 30 percent of newly constructed buildings for achievement of established operational requirements by FY 2006 

(commissioning).

Measure

Percent of newly constructed buildings independently verified for achievement of established operational requirements 

(commissioning).

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

17% 14% 22% 30% 100%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: For the New Construction program, PBS adopted a quality assurance process to achieve, 

validate, and document that the performance of each building and its systems met the design intent and owner requirements. 

This process, called commissioning, enables GSA to assure the facilities it is developing meet or exceed program requirements 

and expectations for performance, efficiency, safety, sustainability, security, and occupant satisfaction. This independently 

verified process leads to reductions in building operation costs, enhanced energy efficiency, improved environmental/health 

conditions, increased maintainability of building systems, and significant extension of equipment/systems life cycle.

DATA SOURCE: GSA uses construction contract documentation and regional data as the source for this measure.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: PBS exceeded its commissioning goal for FY 2006. Five new construction projects 

(Erie Courthouse Complex, Laredo Federal building—Courthouse, Oroville Border Station, the World War II Memorial in 

Washington, D.C., and White Oak FDA—CDER Federal Office Building) are included in the FY 2006 measure, having achieved 

substantial construction completion 18 months prior to the end of FY 2006. For these projects, equipment start-up and turnover, 

as well as functional performance testing, were performed upon project completion and met performance expectations. 

Each of these projects performed limited commissioning in accordance with the Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings 

Service (PBS P-100) in effect at the time of project inception. Current commissioning standards, developed and issued in April 

2005, were not in effect at the time and therefore could not be applied to these projects. 

Note: If the above projects are held to the current commissioning standards that went into effect in April 2005, the result would 

be zero percent. PBS is evaluating projects with regard to commissioning based on the standards that were in place at the 

time of project inception and execution. It will take several years before projects are evaluated against the current April 2005 

standards. This is a long-term outcome goal. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

64 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

PBS

GSA-wide Goal 6: Carry Out Social, Environmental, And Other Responsibilities

As A Federal Agency

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Reduce energy consumption in GSA Federal buildings by 2% 

(as measured in Btu/GSF) over the FY 2003 baseline by FY 2006.

Met

PBS (Asset Management)

Performance Goal

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

by FY 2006.

Measure

Percent reduction in energy consumption over the FY 2003 baseline.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

Not Measured Not Measured Not Measured -2% -4.4%

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 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: A number of factors contributed to PBS meeting its target. GSA continues to 

install energy efficient technologies when it retrofits and modernizes existing buildings. Additionally, there has been renewed 

focus on efficient building operations in response to a Presidential Directive dated September 2005 for Federal agencies 

to curtail energy consumption demand on a Gulf Coast energy infrastructure damaged by hurricane activity. GSA led the 

Federal government’s response through a comprehensive plan to curtail energy at all buildings nationwide. In addition, GSA 

encourages its building tenants to contribute to that effort in their office work practices. However, continuing to reduce energy 

consumption at an annual rate of two percent will present GSA with a significant challenge.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 65

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); the 

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 corps 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 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 (e.g., 

Travel Service Schedule, DomEx, City Pairs Program 

[CPP], Vehicle Acquisition, SmartPay)

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 recent years, as GSA addressed internal problems with 

the proper use of contracting vehicles and the speed with 

which GSA awards Government Wide Acquisition Contracts 

(GWAC) task orders, agencies reduced their use of these 

services. In FY 2006, business volume, net sales for GWACs 

totaled $2.2 billion, up from $2.1 billion in FY 2005. FAS has 

been working with other Federal agencies, particularly the 

Department of Defense (DoD), to identify actions necessary 

FEDERAL AC QUI S ITION SERVI CE

“La Tormenta” (The Storm) was commissioned through GSA’s Art in Architecture 

program for the renovation of the South Clark Federal Building in Chicago, IL.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

66 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

FAS

to ensure proper use of GSA contracting vehicles by customer 

agencies. FAS continues to work with the GSA Inspector 

General (IG) to enhance the value of FAS contracting practices 

and improve the reliability of assisted service support. 

Performance Highlights

FAS has completed ten PART reviews of its major programs: 

(1) Global Supply, (2) Vehicle Acquisition, (3) Vehicle Leasing 

(Fleet), (4) Personal Property Management, (5)Transportation, 

(6)Travel, (7) Card Services (SmartPay), (8) National Furniture Center, (9) Regional IT Solutions, and (10) National 

IT Solutions. The Global Supply program and the Vehicle 

Acquisition program are rated “Adequate” by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and Vehicle Leasing and 

Personal Property are rated “Moderately Effective.” OMB 

rated Travel, Transportation, National Furniture Center, and 

Charge Card Services “Results Not Demonstrated” (RND) in 

previous years. OMB rescored these programs in FY 2006 

and FAS achieved successful ratings; OMB rated Travel, 

Transportation, and National Furniture “Moderately Effective” 

and Charge Card Services “Effective.” GSA implemented the 

improvements recommended by OMB for those programs 

rated “Adequate.” GSA instituted partnership initiatives 

with customers. GSA designed these initiatives to find ways 

to benefit customers and improve program performance. 

GSA will implement the recommendations presented by 

the working groups in FY 2007. In addition, GSA began 

an independent evaluation process to assess program 

performance and its effectiveness in achieving results. GSA 

will complete these assessments in FY 2007.

The paragraphs below summarize FY 2006 FAS major 

performance results for its seven business line activities.

GLOBAL SUPPLY: 

In FY 2006, GSA Office of Global Supply continued 

the partnership established in 2005 with the Defense 

Logistics Agency (DLA) to forward position product 

at the Mina Abdullah distribution center in Kuwait 

to support the war in Iraq. The distribution facility is 

strategically positioned in Kuwait to improve customer 

wait time, increase readiness, and reduce transportation 

costs. DLA reports that improved theater inventory 

at the Kuwait depot saved DoD nearly 50 percent in 

airlift and shipping costs. Additionally, GSA reduced 

distribution time to 10 days from a high of 30 days in 

FY 2003. Total sales for FY 2006 are $34.1 million and 

overall, GSA generated $47.2 million in sales since the 

depot’s inception in 2005. 

In FY 2006, Global Supply and DLA committed to 

establishing an ongoing customer support partnership. 

The partnership includes three working groups which 

were established—Customer Engagement, Distribution, 

and Acquisition/Supply. GSA and DLA are working to 

target additional areas for future collaboration. These 

groups have identified specific activities for collaborative 

improvement to generate cost savings and other positive 

synergies. Some of the areas of future collaboration 

currently under analysis include a pilot training project at 

Fort Bragg, GSA use of DLA dedicated trucks at Fort Hood, 

joint inventory strategies at DLA forward stocking points, 

and joint strategies on contingency support contracts. 

The end result will be a more positive and complete 

experience for customers.

Global Supply continues to expand its product offerings 

and distribution channels without incurring major 

expenses by utilizing prime contractor-like arrangements 

through the Expanded Direct Delivery (EDD) program. 

FAS awarded the current EDD contracts for office supplies 

and tools below MAS prices. In addition to providing the 

product, Global Supply is able to assure compliance with 

all acquisition policies and socioeconomic regulations 

as well as handle the government-to-government billing, 

discrepancy resolution, and delivery. Global Supply also 

performs all contracting services required to obtain any 

of these products, relieving the agencies from doing this 

contracting work. In FY 2006, GSA further expanded the 

Global Supply product line with the award of another 

EDD contract to PC Mall for information technology 

(IT) products in several categories: desktops, notebooks, 

servers, printers, accessories, memory, modems, monitors, 

network products, scanners, and storage devices. Products 

will be available for customers in early FY 2007.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 67

FAS

Following Hurricane Katrina, Global Supply provided 

more than $2 million in stock and direct delivery support 

(shelters, vehicles, diapers, temporary housing, bedding, 

medical supplies, portable showers, etc.) to the Gulf Coast. 

In addition, Global Supply personnel from all acquisition 

centers aided the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) in relief efforts. 

COMMERCIAL ACQUISITION: 

MAS business volume increased by three percent from 

$34.8 billion to $35.3 billion. Services represented 

64 percent, products—27 percent, and combined services 

and products—nine percent of total sales. Management 

and business consulting, engineering, and logistics 

services saw significant increases. MAS IT sales, which 

saw impressive growth in prior years, were up only one 

percent ($17.2 billion) during FY 2006. State and local 

government sales (Cooperative Purchasing), however, 

increased from $126 million to more than $236 million 

during this time period. 

Special Order Program (SOP) furniture sales were down 

from $180 million in FY 2005 to $149 million in FY 2006. 

SmartPay revenues increased from $5.3 to $5.7 million 

during the last fiscal year. 

In FY 2006, 4,929 contract offers and 22,783 contract 

modifications were processed with average cycle times 

of 88 and 23 days, respectively. Because MAS processing 

time affects customer and vendor satisfaction with 

acquisitions, contracting offices are reviewing administrative processes to streamline activities and reduce 

processing time in FY 2007.

VEHICLE ACQUISITION AND GSA VEHICLE 

LEASING (FLEET): 

GSA Automotive, the vehicle acquisition service, is a 

mandatory source and leverages the buying power of 

the Federal government to obtain significant discounts 

for Federal agencies. In FY 2006, almost 60,000 vehicles 

were procured, averaging 38 percent below commercial 

pricing for the top ten models. 

Since 1985, Fleet consolidations have been a smart solution 

for the Federal government, with FY 2006 savings to 

taxpayers exceeding $1.1 billion dollars. Savings through 

vehicle consolidations into the GSA Fleet will continue 

to reduce costs to customer agencies, eliminating their 

capital requirements for vehicles, and decreasing their 

need for personnel to manage fleets. GSA Fleet services 

traditionally cost at least 27 percent less than the private 

sector and continue to provide the best value to the 

Federal government. The majority of vehicles consolidated 

into GSA’s Fleet save customers and taxpayers over 

$810 per vehicle per year.

Beginning in FY 2006, GSA Fleet offered several 

new management tools for its customers including: 

NetworkCar (vehicle operational data); short term rentals; 

Drive Cam (for vehicle monitoring); fuel, maintenance, 

and accident management; driver safety program; and 

management tools for agency-owned vehicles.

The Army and GSA Fleet partnered to provide non-tactical 

vehicles to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. GSA Fleet 

leased the Army 520 vehicles for use in the Green Zone 

in Baghdad. The vehicles are four wheel drive SUVs and 

crew cab pickup trucks specially equipped for desert use 

with tinted glass, heavy duty oil coolers and radiators, and 

special suspension packages. GSA Fleet representatives 

met the vehicles upon arrival in Kuwait, managed the 

offloading of the vehicles, assisted the process through 

customs, and arranged for shipping to Baghdad. GSA Fleet 

FAS, Office of Travel, Motor Vehicle, and Card Services 

provides customers with the best value and lowest 

price for their vehicle acquisitions through leveraged 

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

68 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

FAS

continues to provide assistance with warranty repairs and 

replacement parts for the vehicles. GSA Fleet replaced 

commercially leased vehicles at a savings of $19,842 per 

vehicle, saving the Army $10.3 million annually. 

TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION: 

The shared services model of the E-Gov Travel Service 

integrates traditional offline travel agency support with 

travel authorization and vouchering solutions into a 

single Web-based service platform. E-Gov Travel Service 

is commercially hosted to minimize technology costs to 

the government and guarantee refreshed functionality. 

From travel planning and authorization to reimbursement, 

this end-to-end service streamlines travel management 

and enables the government to capture visibility into the 

buying choices of travelers. It assists agencies in optimizing 

their travel budgets while saving taxpayers money through 

leveraged buying. 

E-Gov Travel Service will save an estimated $361 million 

in civilian agency travel management costs and provide a 

Net Return on Investment of 367 percent over the next 

10 years.

E-Gov Travel Service is an important component of GSA’s 

goal for world-class travel management. It maximizes 

the utilization of all GSA travel programs, including the 

airline City Pairs Program (CPP), the FedRooms lodging 

program, and other travel services available through the 

Travel Services Solution (TSS) schedule, while supporting 

government-wide travel policy. 

In FY 2006, the E-Gov Travel Service initiative continued 

to achieve government-wide utilization. By the end of 

FY 2006, over 70 executive branch agencies had placed 

E-Gov Travel Service task orders, the majority of which 

began deployment of E-Gov Travel Service. As of the end 

of FY 2006, 28 agencies were completely processing 

all of their travel transactions through E-Gov Travel 

Service. In addition, online booking exceeded original 

projections, with multiple agencies exceeding 70 percent 

of all transactions being booked online. This represents 

millions of dollars in government-wide savings.

PERSONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT:

The Property Management division is focused on reducing 

cycle time while still providing the full range of disposal 

support that agencies need and expect. Innovations such 

as XcessXpress reduced screening time by 50 percent, 

and GSA Auctions®, which decreased the time to process 

sales, have provided significant reductions in this measure. 

Since 2001, GSA reduced cycle time from approximately 

132 days to complete disposal actions down to 52 days 

in FY 2006. This greatly reduces the cost for agencies to 

hold property as it undergoes disposal action. 

GSA Auctions® offers the public the opportunity to bid 

electronically on a wide array of Federal assets. At year-end 

FY 2006, GSA completed 90 percent of the public sales 

of personal property online via GSA Auctions®, up from 

56 percent in FY 2002. GSA Auctions® provided national 

exposure and access to Federal sales and reduced the 

time it takes GSA and Federal agencies to sell property. 

In conjunction with the Department of Education and 

DoD, GSA began the Furniture for Schools (F4S) program 

to make excess and surplus property available to help 

rebuild and reestablish schools in the areas devastated 

by Hurricane Katrina. For F4S, FAS coordinated transportation of equipment to these schools. During 

FY 2006, the F4S program provided almost 13,000 pieces 

of furniture and computers, totaling $5,199,175 in 

original acquisition value to schools. The F4S initiative 

was recognized as the winner of the 2006 Miles Romney 

Achievement Award for Innovation in Personal Property 

Management for its outstanding efforts to help rebuild the 

Gulf Coast schools.

NETWORK SERVICES: 

FAS Network Services provides low cost/high quality voice, 

telecommunications services, solutions, and support to 

Federal agencies from its headquarters office and 11 

regional offices. Network Services provides a complete 

telecommunications service portfolio ranging from 

commodity equipment to complete enterprise network 

solutions, through a single national point of contact (POC). 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 69

FAS

FAS Network Services delivered services valued at more than 

$1.5 billion in FY 2006 to users at 135 Federal agencies and 

entities at 15,000 locations in more than 190 countries around 

the globe. FAS delivered these services to customers at prices 

that generated approximately $620 million in savings.

Throughout FY 2006, Network Services continued its focused 

efforts on delivering quality services to its customers today, 

while pressing forward with competitive acquisitions to 

better meet their future needs. For example:

FAS Network Services continued work on its major 

next-generation Networx acquisition, while taking steps 

to ensure continued quality service and support to 

its customers and preparing them for their successful 

transition to the future suite of contracts. The Networx 

Universal and Networx Enterprise contracts—scheduled 

for award in March and May, 2007, respectively—will 

offer customers an expanded portfolio of quality voice, 

data, video communications solutions, and emerging 

network services. During FY 2006 FAS negotiated 

“bridge” contracts to continue to provide support to 

customers of the expiring FTS2001 contracts pending 

the award and implementation of the Networx contracts. 

In addition, FAS held a major planning conference in 

September to help customers get the most value from 

these new contracts and manage their successful service 

transitions. 

In the regions, Network Services continues to actively 

compete local requirements, while preparing transition 

requirements and supporting implementation of the new 

Networx contracts. For example, the National Capital 

Region (NCR) is planning its major replacement acquisition for Federal intercity telecommunications services 

used throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan 

area, known as WITS-3. In FY 2007, NCR plans contract 

awards to replace the very successful, expiring WITS 

2001 contract. In addition, FAS awarded new competitive 

regional telecommunications contracts replacing one 

non-competitive rate stabilization agreement, and 11 

tariff service arrangements resulting in improved rates for 

services to customers in those areas. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SOLUTIONS: 

The IT Solutions program provides assisted acquisition services through regional and national client support centers 

(CSC) to help Federal agencies acquire and manage IT 

products and services, primarily through contracts with industry partners. Throughout FY 2006, IT Solutions took major 

steps to ensure customer needs were satisfied timely, at a fair 

price, and in compliance with applicable regulations. Some of 

the major achievements during FY 2006 are listed below:

IT Solutions played a significant role in acquisitions 

supporting improved operating efficiency and facility 

security in the Federal government. For example, IT 

Solutions managed and awarded a major $421 million 

acquisition with DoD in support of its worldwide 

Smart Card program for secure personnel identification 

credentialing. This was the largest contract award of its 

kind in government to date. In addition, IT Solutions 

supported implementation of the Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive (HSPD)-12 with the timely award 

of a Shared Services Provider contract providing critical 

infrastructure support to agencies across the government. 

This award directly and efficiently supports the ability of 

Federal agencies to acquire and use common, standards 

compliant, and interoperable identification credentialing 

products and services to improve secure access to 

government facilities around the globe. 

The IT Solutions SmartBuy initiative leverages the 

government’s buying power to negotiate bulk user pricing for numerous common-use commercial software 

programs. The SmartBuy Office completed two new 

agreements in FY 2006, bringing the SmartBuy portfolio 

to a total of eight agreements. These purchasing agreements saved Federal agency customers over $100 million 

in FY 2006 on sales of approximately $500 million in 

commercial software. 

IT Solutions staff improved the cost-effectiveness of 

Federal acquisition workforce training programs in 

FY 2006. Specifically, IT Solutions played a lead role in 

developing online acquisition workforce courseware for 

worldwide use by students at the Defense Acquisition 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

70 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

FAS

University (DAU). DAU is one of the government’s flagship 

acquisition workforce training centers whose students are 

responsible for awarding and managing billions of dollars 

in government contracts. The online training developed 

has resulted in substantial reductions in training costs. 

FAS Performance By GSA-Wide Goal 

GSA-wide Goal 1: Provide BestValue For Customer Agencies And Taxpayers

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

FAS (Vehicle 

Acquisition)

Maintain 28% or better discount from manufacturer’s 

invoice price.

Met

FAS (Fleet) Maintain the gap between GSA Fleet rates and commercial 

rates at 29% or more.

Met

FAS (Travel & 

Transportation)

Provide policy compliant, consolidated, and fully integrated 

end-to-end travel services government-wide.

Not Met

FAS (Network 

Services)

Provide substantially lower cost service to customer 

agencies.

Met

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Manage acquisitions to ensure industry provides solutions 

that meet client agencies mission needs.

Met

FAS (IT Solutions 

—National)

Improve performance against business performance metrics, 

including timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency to 

verify best value and effective acquisition management are 

achieved.

Not Met

FAS (Vehicle Acquisition)

Performance Goal

Maintain 28 percent or better discount from manufacturer’s invoice price.

Measure

Percentage discount from invoice price.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

26.3% 33.1% 40.6% ≥28% 39%

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 20 percent discount 

below invoice continues to be a reasonable long-term outcome goal for this business line.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 71

FAS

DATA SOURCE: The Requisitioning, Ordering, and Documentation System (ROADS) contains contract pricing for vehicles.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. GSA Automotive tracks the discount from invoice for the top 

seven 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.

FAS (Fleet)

Performance Goal

Maintain the gap between GSA Fleet rates and commercial rates at 29 percent or more.

Measure

Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates below commercial rates on the GSA Vehicle Leasing Schedule.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

36.9% 31.7% 43.1% ≥29% 39%

DESCRIPTION OF THE 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 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: 

The target was met. GSA Fleet had limited 

rate increases for customer agencies 

and controlled costs through numerous 

initiatives. GSA tracks performance towards 

program goals 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 (FMC) 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. 

Physically located in Arlington, VA, FAS brings products and services to its 

Federal customers worldwide via the Internet.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

72 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

FAS

FAS (Travel & Transportation)

Performance Goal

Provide policy compliant, consolidated, and fully integrated end-to-end travel services government-wide.

Measure

Percentage of vouchers serviced through the E-Gov Travel System (percent of total voucher population).

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

Not Measured .02% 1.1% 12.9% 6.7%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: Number of vouchers serviced through E-Gov Travel System divided by the total voucher 

population. 

DATA SOURCE: Information provided by vendors.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: While GSA Travel did not meet this ambitious target, the program did successfully 

increase the percentage of vouchers serviced through the E-Gov Travel System in prior years. This is a result of several 

agencies more aggressively deploying the E-Gov solution within their respective agency. These agencies include the Department of 

Transportation (DOT), Department of Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of Labor (DOL). 

In addition, the program surpassed its target set forth in the 2006 PART, 5.25 percent, and will continue to expand its efforts 

in FY 2007.

FAS (Network Services)

Performance Goal

Provide substantially lower cost service to customer agencies.

Measure

Savings provided to customers.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

$574M $705M $633M $550M $620M

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: Indicates the savings in millions of dollars the government realizes by utilizing FAS Network 

Services offerings in lieu of commercial industry services. 

DATA SOURCE: Internal financial reports and third party vendor reports. 

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. Value shown is based on projected year-end results based on 

actual results through July 2006 and estimated results for the last two months of the fiscal year. Results through July 2006 are 

$515 million. Actual year-end value will not be available until December 2006. However, Network Services is on track to meet 

and exceed the target. The variance from the target reflects the customers’ greater than expected use of commodity telecommunications services, such as switched voice, private lines, and traditional data services. This resulted in larger estimated 

savings when compared to more customized managed network solutions and other value-added services because the price 

advantage is greatest for more traditional commodity services. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 73

FAS

FAS (Regional Telecommunications)

Performance Goal

Manage acquisitions to ensure industry provides solutions that meet client agencies’ mission needs.

Measure

Percentage (by dollar value) of eligible service orders awarded with performance-based statements of work.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

Not Measured 47% 72% 50% 89%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: Clients obtain best value solutions through performance-based contracting, which allows the 

client to define intended objective(s) rather than developing specification requirements. In addition, performance-based 

contracting uses positive and negative incentives to ensure timely and cost-effective delivery of solutions.

DATA SOURCE: Business Objects and Acquisition e-Tools.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. To ensure customers obtain best value solutions, efforts to 

utilize performance-based contracting methods were stressed throughout the year. Contracting efforts focused on following 

performance-based contracting best practices resulted in better than expected progress.

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 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

95% 92% 87% >95% 89%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: To improve customer communications concerning task order requirements and service 

expectation, CSCs 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: Business Objects and Acquisition e-Tools.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was not met; however, IT Solutions (National) shows progress towards 

the long-term goal and improvement over FY 2005 results. The purpose of measuring whether actual task order award 

dates against the dates negotiated with customers is to ensure the program is correctly setting customer expectations and 

delivering promised service. It is difficult to predict the completion of contracting actions as many factors affect the program’s 

ability to make a contract award, including several outside of its control. In order to improve upon this measure in FY 2007, 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

74 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

FAS

processes are being streamlined and IT solutions will place more emphasis on employee training and certification in the areas 

of project management and acquisition strategy. 

GSA-wide Goal 3: Operate Efficiently And Effectively

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

FAS (Global 

Supply)

Reduce Global Supply mark-up on stocked items. Not Met

FAS (Personal 

Property 

Management)

Decrease the time it takes to complete disposal action for excess 

property to 56 days by FY 2006.

Met

FAS (IT Solutions 

—Professional 

Services

Provide quality services through appropriate consistency in 

the acquisition management process from pre-award through 

closeout.

Met

FAS (Global Supply) 

Performance Goal

Reduce Global Supply mark-up on stocked items. 

Measure

Percentage of Global Supply mark-up on stocked items.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

45.9% 42.8% 42.9% 40.1% 44.23%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: Mark-up is the additional fee that GSA Global Supply charges customers to cover its costs and is 

reflected in this measure as the average percentage. Stocked items are stored in GSA’s Supply Distribution Centers. The longterm goal is to reduce mark-up from 45.9 percent in FY 2003 to 40.1 percent—toward goal of 33.5 percent in FY 2010. This 

measure tracks the progress towards achieving this goal.

DATA SOURCE: Transportation Accounts Receivable and Payable Systems (TARPS).

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was not met. Global Supply mark-up on stocked items was not reduced 

in FY 2006; however management made great strides to contain costs. GSA Global Supply increased the mark-up by two 

percent in the middle of FY 2006 in order to cover the rising cost of fuel and freight transportation. Direct operating expenses 

declined six percent from FY 2005, which is the second consecutive year for cost reduction. Global Supply’s business model 

is currently being reviewed—Global Supply will focus on moving products out of the depots to lower mark-up on the Direct 

Delivery model. As a result, it is anticipated that effective changes will be made that will enable Global Supply to reduce markup. Additionally, Global Supply will closely monitor the blended/composite mark-up as this figure is more aligned with the 

direction of the new business model and a better indicator of performance. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 75

FAS

FAS (Personal Property Management)

Performance Goal

Decrease the time it takes to complete disposal action for excess property to 56 days by FY 2006.

Measure

Cycle time for disposal process (days).

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

83 72 56 56 52

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: The time from receipt of excess to disposition. 

DATA SOURCE: GSAXcess® and Sales Automation System (SASy) reports.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. The Personal Property Program has continued to reduce cycle 

time by streamlining processes in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Program emphasis was placed on acquiring pictures at 

the time of excess reporting to help further reduce the sales preparation effort. This initiative has begun to affect the overall 

disposal program cycle time which is a key component of GSA’s customer satisfaction. 

FAS (IT Solutions—Professional Services)

Performance Goal

Provide quality services through appropriate consistency in the acquisition management process from pre-award 

through closeout.

Measure

Percentage of schedule task orders solicited using e-Buy. 

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

Not Measured Not Measured 78% 90% 93%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: As an executive agent, GSA is authorized to award and administer task and delivery orders on 

behalf of other Federal agencies. Using the e-Buy system, Federal purchasers may prepare and post an RFQ/RFP (request for 

quote/request for proposal) for specific products and services for a specified period of time. Once posted, all contractors may 

review the request and post a response. This performance metric tracks the percentage of all Schedule task orders solicited by 

Professional Services using e-Buy. 

DATA SOURCE: e-Buy system and manual collection.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. Professional Services utilizes GSA Schedules to fulfill contracting 

needs. Using e-Buy to solicit vendors ensures fair opportunity and competition. For this reason, e-Buy is utilized to the greatest 

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

76 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

FAS

GSA-wide Goal 4: Ensure Financial Accountability

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

FAS (Travel & 

Transportation)*

Reduce program operating costs. Met

FAS (Travel & Transportation) 

Performance Goal

Reduce program operating costs.

Measure

Direct cost as a percent of revenue.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

40% 57% 56% 52% 48%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: Direct cost divided by transportation revenue.

DATA SOURCE: Internal financial reports. 

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. GSA Travel and Transportation achieved the goal of reducing 

program operating expenses by realizing improvements in the direct costs as a percent of revenue. In FY 2006 the program 

successfully increased revenue while reducing program operating costs. The significant increase in revenue is due to revenue 

generated from services provided in support of Hurricane Katrina. Direct costs have remained under control as a result of 

cost-cutting measures currently in place, such as hiring freeze.

* Travel and Transportation was previously one program. Direct costs as a percent of revenue in FY 2003 through FY 2005 

is for the Travel and Transportation program. Beginning in FY 2006, these programs were separated and results shown 

hereafter are for the Transportation program.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 77

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, the Presidential E-Gov initiative 

and one of the 21 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. To achieve this mission, 

it provides citizens direct information about and from all 

levels of their government through an array of integrated 

information channels, including FirstGov.gov and other Web 

sites, government-wide Web-based search, 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. The following 

paragraphs summarize USA Services major performance 

results during FY 2006.

Performance Highlights

OCSC USA Services achieved the rating of “Effective” in 

FY 2006 during Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

PART process. The rating of “Effective” is the highest ranking 

that can be achieved by a program. Programs rated at this 

level are deemed to be programs that set ambitious goals, 

achieve results, are well-managed, and improve efficiency. 

Only 15 percent of the programs evaluated under the PART 

process have achieved a rating of “Effective.” Through 

this process it is noted that independent evaluations to 

access the program performance for effective results 

have not been conducted and will be conducted in 

FY 2007. For purposes of this review, USA Services was 

defined as consisting of the following divisions of the 

OCSC: the Federal Citizen Information Center, FirstGov 

Technologies, and Intergovernmental Solutions.

The paragraphs below summarize OCSC USA Services’ major 

performance results during FY 2006. 

Achieved 235 million public contacts by providing 

accurate, consistent, and timely information to citizens 

through a variety of channels in both English and Spanish. 

These include online information via FirstGov.gov (the 

official portal of the U.S. government), telephone response 

via 1-800 FED INFO, e-mail, and print publications from 

Pueblo, CO.

Dramatically improved FirstGov.gov by launching 

enhanced search capability and upgrading its hosting 

environment. The new product searches over 50 million 

Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government documents, and returns search results clustered by category. 

Industry and media reviews were excellent and traffic 

increased by one-third after launch of the new product. 

Using GSA’s Millennia Government Wide Acquisition 

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

78 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

OCSC

Contract (GWAC), FirstGov.gov now has available flexible 

Web development, hosting, and professional services, and 

has made these services available to other citizen-facing 

E-Gov initiatives. 

During FY 2006, Brown University designated FirstGov.

gov as the number one Web site in the Federal government. 

The United Nations also rated FirstGov.gov as the number 

one Web site for quality and e-government readiness.

Provided customer agencies with contact center solutions 

through its FirstContact contract, and through service by 

1-800 FED INFO. Through 2006, USA Services has awarded 

11 task orders under its FirstContact IDIQ Contract 

surpassing the FY 2006 goal. FirstContact was developed 

by USA Services to provide an expedient, cost-effective 

way for agencies to procure contact center solutions. 

Four of the task orders were for hurricane recovery 

support efforts to Katrina, Wilma, and Rita. USA Services 

responded to 1.5 million calls and e-mails from the public 

relating to disaster assistance. As a result of lessons 

learned from its involvement in hurricane recovery, USA 

Services created the FirstContact Procurement Tool Kit 

(http://www.usaservices.qov/toolkit.htm) to clarify and 

to expedite the process for FirstContact procurements. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) found the tool kit 

invaluable when it used FirstContact to handle calls and 

e-mails from the public as a result of a stolen VA laptop 

containing sensitive information about 26.5 million 

veterans. During FY 2006, USA Services also assisted the 

State Department by providing a 24/7 Citizen Services 

Hotline during the evacuation of U.S. citizens during the 

Lebanon-Israel Conflict.

During FY 2006, USA Services provided successful 

government-wide leadership to improve the government’s 

response to citizens. USA Services leads a variety of forums 

to share ideas, best practices, and lessons learned and to 

help establish benchmarks for development of responsive 

citizen service. Among its FY 2006 achievements as a 

government-wide leader, USA Services implemented the 

following:

best practices (www.webcontent.gov, DotGovBuzz, 

search, intergovernmental newsletters, international 

and intergovernmental forums)

market research (citizen expectations, focus groups, 

usability testing)

performance standards and guidelines (Web standards 

and service level recommendations)

communities of practice (Citizen Service Level Interagency Committee (CSLIC), USA Services Partners, 

intergovernmental officials, Web Managers Forum)

educational activities (Web Manager University trained 

over 500 Web managers from 47 agencies on Web best 

practices).

USA Services achieved the rating of “Effective” in FY 2006 

during the OMB’s PART process. The rating of “Effective” 

is the highest ranking that can be achieved by a program. 

Programs rated at this level are deemed to be programs 

that set ambitious goals, achieve results, are well-managed, 

and improve efficiency. Only 15 percent of the programs 

evaluated under the PART process have achieved a rating 

of “Effective.” For purposes of this review, USA Services 

was defined as consisting of all the divisions of the 

OCSC: the Federal Citizen Information Center, FirstGov 

Technologies, and Intergovernmental Solutions.

USA Services enabled its customer agencies to improve 

their customer service performance at reduced costs 

through use of its FirstContact IDIQ contract that provides 

contact center solutions. FirstContact task orders and USA 

Services Tier 1 services save agencies time, money, and 

improves citizen/customer services. USA Services Citizen 

Services Cost Calculator provides cost comparison between 

FirstContact and agency internal contact centers. In 

FY 2006 FirstContact saved participating task order 

agencies approximately $17 million in contact center costs 

through a combination of cost savings and cost avoidance. 

Included in this savings is an average procurement and 

administrative savings of approximately $200,000 per 

task order. This was recently demonstrated through cost 

calculations performed for the VA Benefits Educational 

Services, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 

and Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Program Support 

Center. Eleven task orders have been issued in the last two 

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 79

OCSC

Through USA Services Tier 1 program approximately 

eight partner agencies saved over $880,000 by decreasing 

the burden on their employees who were handling Tier 1 

telephone and e-mail inquiries. An additional $3,018,000 

was saved by taking advantage of economies of scale 

through the NCC’s 1-800 FED INFO number. The NCC 

answers inquiries for the Federal government avoiding 

more costly agency citizen services. 

A recent FirstContact and Tier 1 Customer Satisfaction 

Survey reported a 93 percent satisfaction rating with the 

service both programs provide to agencies. Both programs 

utilize contact center service performance standards that 

are equal to or above industry averages. 

OCSC Performance By GSA-Wide Goal 

GSA-wide Goal 1: Provide BestValue for Customer Agencies and Taxpayers

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

OCSC 

(USA Services)

Help the Federal government become more citizen-centric by 

increasing the magnitude, quality, and outreach of Federal 

information via various channels; and enable Federal agencies 

to become more citizen-centric by providing answers to citizens 

that are timely, accurate, and responsive via the channel of 

their choice.

Met

OCSC (USA Services) 

Performance Goal

Help the Federal government become more citizen-centric by increasing the magnitude, quality, and outreach of Federal 

information via various channels; and enable Federal agencies to become more citizen-centric by providing answers to 

citizens that are timely, accurate, and responsive via the channels of their choice.

Measure

Public contact data derived as a result of citizen interaction with the USA Services channels.

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

209.7M 241.9M 230.5M 235M 235.1M

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: USA Services operates a variety of channels to provide citizens with Federal infomation. These channels include the FirstGov.gov Web site, several other Web sites (including pueblo.gsa.gov, kids.gov, 

consumeraction.gov, etc.), 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. 

The sum of all of these citizen contacts is reported as a measure of program performance. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

80 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

OCSC

USA Services received a rating of “Effective” in the FY 2006 OMB PART review. One result of this review was that USA Services 

would revise the way it calculates the public contacts measure to focus more on citizens by counting Web site visits instead 

of page views in calculating overall citizen touchpoints. The FY 2006 target for citizen touchpoints is 128.8 million and USA 

Services is on target to exceed this amount.

DATA SOURCE: WebTrends Tracking Reports, NCC and FirstContact Contractor reports, Automated Reports, Automated 

Inventory System, Online Tracking Systems.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: USA Services met and exceeded its FY 2006 target goal of 235 million public 

contacts. Particularly strong activity occurred in the publication distribution Pueblo, CO program with a 70 percent 

increase in FY 2005. Good showings were also made in the following channels: subscriber e-mailings (+82 percent), 

assisted telephone calls (+39 percent), and FirstContact task order work (+40 percent). Although there was a drop of four 

percent in FirstGov.gov page views which can be attributed to reduced affiliate search activity during the year, as well 

as changing search engine support in February 2006. USA Services’ other Web sites recorded a strong increase of 

14 percent over FY 2005 activity. No external evaluations were conducted on the USA Services program in FY 2006. However, 

as a result of the PART evaluation, GSA made arrangements to have an independent third party conduct an evaluation and 

program validation in FY 2007 of the USA Services program management, strategies, plans, etc. 

OCSC interacts with media, Federal agencies, the general public, and with GSA internal audiences 

to provide information on the activities of GSA. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 81

The Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer‘s (OCFO) mission is to 

provide 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 non-financial 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

The OCFO and the financial community at GSA have 

undertaken a substantial revision to its financial and 

management internal control program during FY 2006. The 

financial community took these actions (1) to address and 

resolve the material weaknesses identified by GSA’s external 

auditors that resulted in a disclaimer of opinion; and (2) to 

improve its policies, operations, and management oversight of 

GSA’s financial activities for the future. The OCFO employed 

a two-prong approach to address restoring GSA’s unqualified 

opinion on the GSA financial operations: (1) address and 

clean up old residual balances; and (2) implement the 

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

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Controls. This 

approach helped the OCFO to clear out and remove old 

budgetary balances in its financial systems, while implementing stronger internal controls and using the documenting, 

testing, and reporting to ensure that changes enacted during 

FY 2006 for policies, processes, and procedures remain strong 

and in the forefront of Agency managers’ daily activities. 

The critical, specific actions that were taken during FY 2006 

include: 

Led a successful full implementation of OMB Circular 

A-123, Appendix A by promoting and ensuring Agencywide responsibility for management and internal controls. 

This effort included documenting, evaluating, and testing 

significant financial controls. 

Closed out major open audits and findings from FY 2005 

and achieved compliance with significant cleanup of 

obligations and unfilled orders. 

Developed “Aging” Financial Reports to monitor the age of 

Unfilled Orders and Obligations to ensure non-valid data 

is not being reported in GSA’s financial systems. 

Improved the reconciliation of intergovernmental balances with GSA’s Federal clients, from $12.8 billion in 

June 2004 to $4.3 billion in October 2006. 

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

82 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

OCFO

Issued a new Internal Control guidelines handbook, “Internal 

Controls at the GSA,” for both executives and employees. The 

OCFO coupled this handbook with a new risk assessment 

methodology used in the Federal Management Financial 

Integrity Act (FMFIA) assurance process. 

The OCFO was able to deliver, within budget, a successful 

upgrade to GSA’s core financial system, Pegasys. This upgrade 

ensures GSA’s financial system is of the latest technology for 

the client and that GSA can continue to support its mission 

of offering comprehensive and technologically progressive 

practices in Federal financial management and strengthening 

of systems security to meet or exceed Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance. 

The OCFO continues to focus on achieving its financial 

performance metrics. It measures both payable and receivable 

functions, including a critical performance measure of 

increasing the percentage of vendor invoices received 

electronically by the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or 

through the Internet. 

OCFO Performance By GSA-Wide Goal 

GSA-wide Goal 4: Ensure Financial Accountability

Program PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

OCFO Increase the percentage of vendor invoices received electronically by 

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or through the Internet. 

Met

OCFO

Performance Goal

Increase the percentage of vendor invoices received electronically by Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or through 

the Internet.

Measure

Percentage of invoices received electronically. 

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

44% 56% 64% 68% 71%

DESCRIPTION OF THE 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 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The target was met. At year end, 71.4 percent of GSA’s invoices were received 

electronically. GSA continues to market Internet invoicing to vendors at conferences and the GSA EXPO. They also inform 

vendors of this option when they call OCFO offices. The OCFO continues to encourage 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 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 83

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). 

Organizationally, the OCHCO is divided into five major 

components: the Office of Human Capital Management, the 

Office of Human Resources Services, the Office of Information 

Management, the Office of Executive Resources, and the 

Office of Program Performance. In addition, the OCHCO 

provides guidance and policy direction to GSA’s regional 

human resources (HR) offices in the following locations:

Boston, MA

New York, NY

Philadelphia, PA

Atlanta, GA

Chicago, IL

Kansas City, MO

Ft. Worth, TX

San Francisco, CA

Washington, DC

Through the OCHCO Office of Information Management, 

HR information technology (IT) system support, solutions, 

and services are provided to a number of external clients, 

including the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the 

Railroad Retirement Board, the National Archives and Records 

Administration, the National Credit Union Administration, and 

the Export-Import Bank.

At GSA, human capital is integral to the Agency’s ability to 

achieve its mission. Recognizing the strategic importance of 

human capital, the agency has devoted one of its five strategic 

goals to maintaining “a world-class workforce and a worldclass workplace.” 

GSA’s HCSP established seven goals to support GSA’s business 

and performance objectives and meet PMA requirements.

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

84 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

OCHCO

Executive Leadership: Within GSA, the 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 2006, 71 GSA employees participated in the 

ALDP and 29 participated in the LNS program. 

Workforce: In FY 2006, the OCHCO completed its 

skill gap analysis for mission critical workforces and is 

developing strategies to close gaps. This analysis used 

competency based models for target training, recruitment, and selection efforts to respond to current and 

emerging organizational needs. As a result of using the 

GSA model, hiring timeliness improved for both the 

General Schedule and Senior Executive Service (SES) 

positions. For instance, the GSA SES timeline decreased to 

78.5 days in FY 2006 from 120 days in FY 2005. 

Diversity: The OCHCO worked to establish a more 

robust liaison with community groups and organizations 

representing diverse backgrounds. During FY 2006, there 

was a slight increase in Hispanics in the GSA workforce. 

Additionally, there was an increase in the percent of 

minorities in the workforce at the higher General 

Schedule grades (GS13-15) from 29 percent to 31 percent. 

The OCHCO further developed plans to address underrepresentation of women and minorities in SES positions 

and will 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 more closely reinforce GSA’s 

business goals and strategies. The result has been 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 

GSA’s Human Capital Strategic Goals:

Ensure strategic and organizational alignment

Ensure continuity and quality of executive leadership

Compete for and retain a workforce that is talented and 

effectively deployed

Promote a diverse workforce

Create a culture that motivates associates for high 

performance

Promote a culture and climate of knowledge sharing and 

continuous learning and improvement

Provide a working environment where associates can be 

most productive. 

Performance Highlights

The following summarizes key OCHCO accomplishments in 

these areas during FY 2006.

Strategic and Organizational Alignment: During 

FY 2006, the OCHCO provided workforce information 

and discussed 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 preparing 

for the establishment of the Federal Acquisition Service 

(FAS). The OCHCO used strategies such as assessing and 

enhancing the skills of employees, hiring new talent, 

organizational realignment, succession planning, and 

competitive sourcing to assist with establishing the 

new FAS organization that consist of more than 4,000 

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 85

OCHCO

the Performance Management Process (PMP) allows 

employees to access their performance plans and 

completed appraisals through the Internet, and enables 

GSA HR offices to generate reports on activity at each 

stage, and use that information to drive behavior. 

Additionally, the OCHCO successfully migrated the 

desktop awards processing program from FEDdesk to 

CHRIS (Comprehensive Human Resources Integrated 

System). The new custom-built awards process is easy 

for managers and administrative staff to use and supports 

an increased level of accountability, data retention, and 

compliance. The new process includes built-in business 

rules that prevent approving officials from giving awards 

to associates that would be in violation of the Associate 

Performance Recognition System (APRS) and eliminates 

the coding errors that occurred in the previous system. 

This ensures fairness in the program and recognizes highperformance throughout the Agency.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing: The OCHCO continued to promote Online University (OLU) as a costeffective method to deliver training in FY 2006. The 

number of elective registrations increased from 12,629 

to 18,543. Also, over the past year the OCHCO has 

undertaken a Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) 

effort to improve the GSA hiring process. This effort has 

had the following benefits:

Improved the efficiency of the hiring process and 

improved the quality of candidates referred to hiring 

managers in the acquisition workforce.

Utilized marketing resources to target strategic 

applicant sources.

Upgraded the current hiring system to increase 

functionality for customers and decrease the workload 

of HR Specialists.

Utilized new technology to attract a larger applicant 

pool for acquisition positions.

Established a foundation to move to a shared service 

concept of operations for HR service delivery.

Workforce and Environment: Working cooperatively 

with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

and other organizations throughout GSA, the OCHCO 

staff addressed the needs of GSA employees affected by 

Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Rita and those deployed 

in the aftermath. This involved making sure that affected 

employees received salaries and other payments in a 

timely manner and ensured that affected employees 

were relocated and received correct travel benefits. In 

addition, the OCHCO coordinated the establishment 

of a special Federal Employee and Education Assistance 

Fund to provide financial assistance to GSA employees 

impacted by the hurricanes. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

86 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

OCHCO

OCHCO Performance By GSA-Wide Goal 

GSA-wide Goal 5: Maintain A World-Class Workforce And World-Class Workplace

PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

Enhance ability to attract talent to GSA. Met

Performance Goal

Enhance ability to attract talent to GSA.

Measure

Number of days to fill a vacancy. 

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

Not Measured Not Measured 26.3 45 30.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE 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 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: The OCHCO exceeded the FY 2006 target for this goal. The target of 45 days was 

established by OPM to measure how much time was needed to make a selection once a particular job announcement was 

posted. GSA was able to exceed this goal while simultaneously undergoing the BPR effort to improve the hiring process. 

Once the BPR is fully implemented, the OCHCO results should exceed the OPM target by a larger percentage.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 87

The Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP) 

consolidates all of GSA’s government-wide policymaking functions into a single organization. OGP’s 

policy-making authority cover the areas of personal and real 

property, travel and transportation, information technology 

(IT), regulatory information, and use of Federal advisory 

committees. OGP’s goal is to ensure that government-wide 

policies encourage agencies to develop and utilize the best 

and most cost effective practices when managing their 

programs. OGP is working to re-engineer the traditional 

policy development model to emphasize collaborative 

development.

Performance Highlights

OGP achieved the rating of “Moderately Effective” in the 

PART process for FY 2006. Originally rated “Results Not 

Demonstrated” (RND) in FY 2004, the arduous task of developing long-term outcome goals and efficiency measures for 

a policy-making organization was accomplished through a 

Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS). The 3PS measures 

and reports on the effectiveness of policy-related activities. 

The paragraphs below summarize OGP’s major performance 

results during FY 2006.

Since the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

established GSA as the Executive Agent for acquisition of 

products and services required to implement Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-12, OGP has 

continued to work closely with GSA and other agencies 

to ensure the requirements are being met and compliant 

products are available. Specifically, OGP established a 

structured evaluation program to evaluate and approve 

products and services against requirements contained 

in FIPS 201, the Personal Identity Standard. In FY 2006, 

OGP worked with FAS to establish a Special Item Number 

(SIN) 132-6x series on the Federal Supply Schedule 70 for 

authentication products and services. Qualified products 

and services are available for acquisition on these SINs. 

In addition, in August of 2006 OGP facilitated the award 

of a five-year $104 million contract to Bearing Point Inc. 

to provide turnkey solutions to help agencies meet the 

implementation of HSPD-12. The agencies that have 

signed up to use this contract will have significantly lower 

costs of implementation.

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

88 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

OGP

OGP is the project manager in developing the guidance 

for the Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB). 

In April 2006, OGP developed and released the exposure 

draft for the FMLoB’s Migration Planning Guidance. 

The guidance answers procedural questions and provides 

directions on conducting a successful migration to one 

of the FMLoB’s Shared Service Providers (SSP). It offers 

tools and templates that SSPs and agencies can use to 

manage the move to a SSP. The guidance also provides 

advice on implementing an in-house financial system 

and standard performance measures aimed at enhancing 

the transparency of agency financial performance. 

OGP has reconciled all 750 comments, recommendations, 

and policy issues and released the public version of the 

FMLoB’s Migration Planning Guidance in September 

2006. 

Working under the leadership of the Federal Real 

Property Council (FRPC), OGP developed and enhanced a 

government-wide real property inventory system, known 

as the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP). This system 

collects detailed building information at the constructed 

asset level; agencies can use the data to measure real 

property asset performance, compare and benchmark 

across various real property assets, and identify potential 

pieces of property for disposal. Serving as the only Federal 

centralized inventory system, the strongly enhanced 

database is invaluable to Federal agencies as they strive 

to improve asset management and meet the goals of 

Executive Order 13327 and the PMA. By disposing of 

assets and redirecting those savings to higher priority asset 

management needs, the FRPP is integral in supporting 

the Administration’s target of achieving $9 billion in 

savings by 2009.

The Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC) in 

OGP provides value to the Federal community in the 

management of a uniform, modern system that helps 

agencies comply with statutory and Executive order 

review requirements. In coordination with OMB’s Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), RISC placed 

in operation a new information system, known as the 

RISC/OIRA Consolidated Information System (ROCIS). 

ROCIS replaces two paper-based processes with direct 

online entry of information and submission to OIRA, 

improves OIRA’s ability to track agency submissions and 

manage its own workflow, and improves OIRA’s ability 

to communicate with agencies and the public about 

regulations and information collections under review. 

A public Web site portion of ROCIS will greatly expand 

public access to information on regulations and approved 

information collections. The total lifecycle benefits 

of ROCIS are expected to be more than $23 million; 

$1.62 million savings in full-time equivalents (FTE), 

$8.54 million from closing down the old system and using 

ROCIS, and $13.2 million in the value of public access to 

review regulatory information. 
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 89

OGP

OGP Performance By GSA-Wide Goal 

GSA-wide Goal 6: Carry out Social, Environmental, 

and Other responsibilities as a Federal Agency

PERFORMANCE GOAL Result

Improve the compliance with Section 508 government-wide by improving the 

compliance of GSA contracts and programs. 

Met

Performance Goal

Improve the compliance with Section 508 government-wide by improving the compliance of GSA contracts and programs.

Measure

Percentage of agencies whose work demonstrates the use of Section 508 tools. 

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

TARGET

FY 2006

Actual

Not Measured Not Measured 0% 30% 42%

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE: OGP is the government’s principal advocate and coordinator for Section 508 implementation, 

which requires agencies to make IT accessible for people with disabilities. OGP is recognized as the government-wide policy 

resource for promoting Section 508 compliance across government. OGP provides online tools and resources to guide Federal 

buyers through the acquisition of electronic and information technology (E&IT) while complying with the requirements 

of Section 508. The Buy Accessible Wizard (BAW) and the Section 508 Web site are two key resources Federal buyers can 

utilize. In FY 2006, OGP measured the percentage of Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies who have used OGP tools to 

ensure that their Web sites are accessible to people with disabilities and that they are acquisition compliant with Section 508 

requirements. 

DATA SOURCE: Help desk call logs, user/focus group membership, documentation in Agency guidance/procedure.

DISCUSSION OF FY 2006 TARGET VS. RESULTS: Of the 24 CFO Act agencies, all are monitoring Web site accessibility and 10 of the 

24 agencies are utilizing BAW as demonstrated by help desk calls and active feedback for new release features. The 10 agencies 

(42 percent) are as follows:

1. Department of Treasury (Treasury)

2. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

4. Department of the Interior (DOI)

5. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

6. Department of Justice (DOJ)

7. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

8. General Services Administration (GSA)

9. Health and Human Services (HHS)

10. Department of Labor (DOL)
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

90 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Linking Long-Term Outcome Goals to Budget

The results presented in the following table linking long-term outcome goals to the budget are preliminary. The final 

results will be presented in the FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) addendum to be available 

online by January 2007. 

Public Building Service (PBS)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Reduce average cycle time on new courthouse construction projects to 2,800 days or less by FY 2019. 

PBS (New 

Construction)

Average cycle time on new courthouse construction 

projects is 3,100 days or less by FY 2006.

Number of days to complete new courthouse 

construction projects.

≤3,100 $ 301,984

Total – $ 301,984

Register 100% of the New Construction program for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) in the same fiscal year design funding is authorized/appropriated and certify 75% of the New 

Construction program for LEED within 18 months of substantial construction completion.

PBS (New 

Construction)

Register 25% of the New Construction program 

for LEED in the same fiscal year design funding is 

authorized and appropriated by FY 2006.

Percent of New Construction program 

registered for LEED in the same fiscal year 

design funding is authorized and appropriated.

25% $ 17,346

Certify 20% of the New Construction program for 

LEED within 18 months of substantial construction 

completion by FY 2006.

Percent of New Construction program LEED 

certified within 18 months of substantial 

construction completion.

20% $ 11,564

Total – $ 28,910

Improve the operational and maintenance efficiency of GSA buildings by independently verifying newly 

constructed buildings for achievement of established operational requirements within 18 months of 

substantial construction completion. (Commissioning)

PBS (New 

Construction)

Verify 30% of newly constructed buildings 

for achievement of established operational 

requirements by FY 2006. (Commissioning)

Percent of newly constructed buildings 

independently verified for achievement 

of established operational requirements. 

(Commissioning)

30% $ 216,574

Total – $ 216,574

Execute the New Construction program on the schedule committed to our customers 90% of the time 

by FY 2010.

PBS (New 

Construction)

New construction projects on schedule 86% 

of the time by FY 2006.

Construction projects on schedule. 86% $ 477,915

Total – $ 477,915

By 2010 the Leasing program will deliver new leases at 9.5% below the industry average cost for office 

space, deliver the space when the customer needs it 90% of the time or better, and utilize the National 

Broker Contract for expiring leases 90% of the time. 

PBS (Leasing) Award leases at an average rental rate of not 

less than 8.5% below industry averages for 

comparable office space by FY 2006.

Cost of leased space relative to industry 

market rates.

-8.5% $ 267,878

Deliver leased space when the customer needs it 

82% of the time or better by FY 2006.

Percent of customers surveyed who say they 

received their leased space when needed.

82% $ 57,472

Use National Broker Contract for at least 60% of 

expiring leases by FY 2006.

Percent of expiring leases using the National 

Broker Contract.

60% $ –

Total – $ 325,350

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 91

Public Building Service (PBS) (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

By 2010 the Leasing program will receive satisfied tenant customer satisfaction scores (4’s and 5’s) 80% of 

the time and will incorporate the results of the Office of Real Property Asset Management’s annual review 

of existing leases (where market data is available) into customer strategic planning.

PBS (Leasing) Achieve a satisfied customer satisfaction rating 

(4’s and 5’s) 72% of the time by FY 2006.

Satisfied tenant customer satisfaction rating 

(4’s and 5’s responses) in leased space 

surveyed.

72% $ 45,732

Analyze 100% of leases expiring within 3 years for 

market opportunities to reduce rental payments 

(where market data is available).

Percent of existing lease inventory reviewed for 

beneficial opportunities.

100% $ –

Maintain percentage of vacant space in leased 

buildings at less than or equal to 1.5% by FY 2006.

Percent of vacant space in leased inventory. ≤1.5% $ 51,851

Manage the costs of administering leased space 

so that leased Funds From Operations (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% $ 3,925,020

Total – $ 4,022,603

Achieve a viable, self-sustaining inventory with an average return on equity (ROE) of at least 6% by 

FY 2010 for 80% of our government owned assets.

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Increase to 71% of the percentage of 

government-owned assets with an ROE of at 

least 6% by FY 2006.

Percentage of government-owned assets with 

an ROE of at least 6%.

71% $ 111,998 

Increase the percentage of government-owned 

assets with a positive FFO to 85% by FY 2006.

Percentage of government-owned assets 

achieving a positive FFO.

85% $ 2,665

88% of Repairs and Alterations (R&A) projects on 

schedule by FY 2006.

R&A projects on schedule. 88% $ 623,529

Obligate 75% of the minor R&A budget for planned 

projects by the end of FY 2006.

Percent of minor R&A budget obligated on 

planned projects by the end of the fiscal year.

75% $ 340,046

Decrease the vacant (available and committed) 

space to 7% of the owned inventory by FY 2006 

and maintain thereafter.

Percentage of vacant and committed space in 

government-owned inventory.

7% $ 43,270

Maintain the percent of escalations on R&A projects 

at less than or equal to 1% by FY 2006.

Percent of escalations on R&A projects. ≤1% $ 77,258

Total – $ 1,198,766

Reduce energy consumption 20% by FY 2015 over the FY 2003 baseline while maintaining overall 

operating costs at 3% below the private sector and customer satisfaction at or above 80%.

PBS (Asset 

Management)

Reduce energy consumption in GSA Federal 

buildings by 2% (as measured by Btu/GSF) over 

the FY 2003 baseline by FY 2006.

Percent reduction in energy consumption 

over the FY 2003 baseline.

-2% $ 35,941

Execute energy conservation goals while 

increasing GSA’s Customer Satisfaction 

scores to 73% by FY 2006.

Customer Satisfaction - tenants in owned space. 73% $ 773,988

Maintain operating service costs in office and 

similarly serviced space at 3% or more below 

private sector benchmarks by FY 2006.

Percent below private sector benchmarks for 

cleaning, maintenance, and utility costs in office 

and similarly serviced space.

-3% $ 877,203

Total – $ 1,687,132

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

92 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Public Building Service (PBS) (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

To help Federal landholding agencies realize maximum utilization and efficiencies from their real 

property holdings, and when appropriate, to redeploy their unneeded properties to benefit the 

Federal government and surrounding communities or to sell on the open market. 

PBS (Real Property 

Disposal)

Award 90% of utilization and donation (U&D) 

property within 240 days for FY 2006.

Percentage of U&D property awarded within 

240 days.

90% $ 22,305

Award 95% of public sales within 170 days for 

FY 2006.

The percent of public sales awarded within 

170 days.

95% $ 11,626

Maintain “highly satisfied” ratings of 93% or higher 

on the Customer Transactional Satisfaction Survey 

by FY 2006.

The percent of disposal transactions that 

“exceed” or “greatly exceed” customer 

expectations.

93% $ 275

Attain 1.08% cost of sales as a percentage of sales 

proceeds for reimbursable sales for FY 2006.

Cost of reimbursable sales as a percentage 

of sales proceeds.

1.08% $ 6,050

Total – $ 40,256

PBS Total – 8,299,490

1 The source of the FY 2006 actuals is the FY 2008 Budget Submission. Because the FY 2008 Budget Submission was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the 

actuals represent the projected FY 2006 numbers.

Continued

Artist’s rendering of the new Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) building in 

White Oak, MD. The four-level Central Shared Building serves as the “hub” of the 

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 93

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Provide telecommunications and information technology (IT) solutions that best meet the client 

agencies’ mission needs at competitive prices.

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Manage acquisitions to ensure industry 

provides solutions that meet client agencies 

mission needs.

Percentage (by dollar value) of eligible 

service orders awarded with performancebased statements of work. 

50% $ 7,591

Percentage of projects meeting agreed 

performance according to the Quality Assurance 

Surveillance Plan (QASP).

75% 5,313

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including timeliness, 

cost-effectiveness, and efficiency, to verify best 

value and effective acquisition management are 

achieved.

Percentage of negotiated award dates for 

commodities and services that are met or 

bettered.

76% 7,591

FAS (Network Services) Provide robust portfolio of telecommunications 

services and value added solutions to satisfy 

diverse customer requirements.

Percentage of solutions reviewed compliant 

with policy and regulations and internal 

policies and procedures.

100% 13,915

Customer satisfaction with value added 

solutions.2

80%

FAS (IT Solutions 

Professional Services)

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.

50% 5,704

Percentage of projects meeting agreed 

performance according to the QASP.2

N/A

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including timeliness, 

cost-effectiveness, and efficiency, to verify best 

value and effective acquisition management are 

achieved.

Percentage of negotiated award dates for 

commodities and services that are met or 

bettered.

>95% 6,695

FAS (IT Solutions 

National)

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.

>50% 12,966

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including timeliness, 

cost-effectiveness, 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% 15,201

FAS (IT Solutions 

Regional)

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including timeliness, 

cost-effectiveness, 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% 42,328

Total – $ 117,304

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

94 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Provide effective management of client agency telecommunications, network services, and IT 

acquisitions, including compliance with statues, policy, regulations, and internal procedures.

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Provide quality telecommunications 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.

80% $ 18,977

Percentage of schedule task orders solicited 

using e-Buy.

80% 18,218

FAS (Network Services) Provide effective management of Network 

Services acquisitions.

Networx Program Milestones planned versus 

actual.2

100% –

Completed Transition Planning Milestones 

planned versus actual.

N/A 5,482 

FAS (IT Solutions 

Professional Services)

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.

>86% 6,447

Percentage of schedule task orders solicited 

using e-Buy.

90% 5,208

FAS (IT Solutions 

National)

Provide quality IT solutions 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.

>95% 14,754

FAS (IT Solutions 

Regional)

Provide quality IT solutions 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.

>95% 41,214

Total – $ 110,300

Provide a high-quality, cost-effective source of assisted telecommunications, network, 

and IT acquisition services for client agencies.

FAS (Regional 

Telecommunications)

Improve financial condition of the Fund. Total regional telecommunications program 

expense as a percentage of gross margin.

66% $ 11,386 

Provide cost management for solutions delivery. Percentage of solutions that are met at or below 

initial cost estimates.

80% 6,832

FAS (Network Services) Improve the financial condition of the Fund. Total program expense as a percentage of gross 

margin.

55% 2,952

Provide substantially lower cost service to 

customer agencies.

Savings provided to customers. $550M 5,903

Percentage of Network Services prices are 

below best commercial prices.2

35% –

Grow customer base to increase market share 

and maximize savings to the government.

Percentage of agencies serviced by Network 

Services. 2

90% –

FAS (IT Solutions 

Professional Services)

Improve financial condition of the Fund. Total program expense as a percentage of gross 

margin.

66% 744

Provide cost management for solutions delivery. Percentage of solutions that are met at or below 

initial cost estimates. 2

90% –

FAS (IT Solutions 

National)

Improve financial condition of the Fund. Direct operating expense as a percentage of 

gross margin. 2

62% –

FAS (IT Solutions 

Regional)

Provide cost management for solutions delivery. Percent of dollar savings between independent 

government cost estimates (IGCEs) and award 

amounts.2

>8% –

Total – $ 27,817

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 95

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Provide supply chain solutions for the global needs of our customers (DoD, Homeland Security, 

USDA, et al.) by delivering dependable, reliable, and timely supplies at best value.

FAS (Global Supply) Reduce Global Supply mark-up on stocked 

items.

Percentage of Global Supply mark-up on 

stocked items.

40% $ 56,100

Achieve timely delivery for customer orders. Percent of domestic non-hazardous orders 

shipped within 24 hours.2

93% –

Increase program efficiency and value to Global 

Supply customers by minimizing programoperating costs.

Operating costs per $100 business volume. 2 $17.38 –

Increase customer satisfaction toward the 

75th percentile for customer satisfaction in 

government.

External customer satisfaction survey score. 79.9 30,999

Total – $ 87,099

Provide optimal property disposal solutions for Federal agencies to maximize cost avoidance (utilization 

and donation [U&D]) while efficiently and effectively managing the exchange/sale of surplus property.

FAS (Personal Property 

Management)

Decrease the time it takes to complete 

disposal action for excess property to 

56 days by FY 2006.

Cycle time for disposal process (days). 56 $ 7,217

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% 1,443

Operating cost per $100 business volume. $22.00 1,443 

Maintain a customer satisfaction score higher 

than the Federal Government American 

Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) reflecting 

customer satisfaction in government in FY 2006 

and each year thereafter.

External customer satisfaction survey score. 79 2,860

Total – $ 12,963

Continue to achieve leasing rates to customer agencies that offer 20% or more savings when 

compared to commercial rates.

FAS (Fleet) Maintain the gap between GSA Fleet rates 

and commercial rates at 29% or more.

Percentage GSA Fleet leasing rates below 

commercial rates on the GSA Vehicle Leasing 

Schedule.

≥29% $ 38,479

Program support and operational expenses per 

vehicle year of operation.

$504 19,188

Aggressively pursue consolidation opportunities 

to reduce overall government expenses.

Number of vehicles managed per onboard 

associate.

335 19,188

Maintain the Vehicle Leasing program’s current 

level of world-class customer satisfaction in 

government.

External customer satisfaction survey score. 83 10,730

Total – $ 87,585

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

96 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) (continued)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Achieve acquisition cost savings for customer agencies by providing vehicles at 28% or more 

below manufacturers’ invoice price. 

FAS (Vehicle 

Acquisition)

Maintain the 28% or better discount from 

manufacturer’s invoice price.

Percentage discount from invoice price. ≥28% $ 5,491

Manage program resources to meet its future 

needs while maximizing program efficiency.

Number of vehicles purchased per full-time 

equivalent (FTE).

1300 2,741

Increase the Vehicle Acquisition program’s 

customer satisfaction toward the 75th percentile 

for customer satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction survey score. 79 1,433

Total – $ 9,665

Provide an end-to-end and fully integrated travel management shared service that is policy compliant, 

cost-effective, and customer focused. An enabler for agencies to better manage their individual travel 

businesses. Fulfilling Agency’s needs as well as delivering the best value to agencies (at discounts 

unattainable by individual agencies) by leveraging the government’s purchasing power via strategic 

sourcing. 

FAS (Travel) Reduce program operating costs. Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 64% $ 933

Operating cost per $100 business volume. 2 $0.95 -

Increase the program’s customer satisfaction 

toward the 75th percentile for customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction survey score. 74 965

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).

12.9% 5,489

Percentage of Business Reference Model (BRM) 

agencies migrating to E-Gov Travel.

58% 4,476

Total – $ 11,863

Provide an end-to-end fully integrated management system/solutions to increase value for 

Agency customers.

FAS (Transportation) Increase the program’s customer satisfaction 

toward the 75th percentile for customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction score. 78 $ 725

Reduce program operating costs. Direct cost as a percent of revenue. 52% 2,616

Maximize customer savings through the use of 

GSA Transportation programs.

Freight savings. N/A 897

Household goods savings. N/A 897

Domestic delivery savings. N/A 897

By FY 2006, as part of overall automation 

and streamlining of transportation processes, 

attain and sustain percentage of electronic 

audits at 95%.

Percent of audits performed electronically. 95% 8,991

Percent of claims processed within 120 days. 52% 5,994

Total – $ 21,017

FAS Total – 485,613

1 The source of the FY 2006 actuals is the FY 2008 Budget Submission. Because the FY 2008 Budget Submission was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the 

actuals represent the projected FY 2006 numbers. 

2 These performance measures do not have numbers for FY 2006, because they have since been changed, but they are reflected in the FY 2007 Congressional 

Justification.

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 97

Office of Citizen Services and Communication (OCSC)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Help government become more citizen-centric, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal 

Consumer Information Center (FCIC) Services, and support the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) 

for expanding e-government.

OCSC Help the Federal government become more 

citizen-centric by increasing the magnitude, 

quality, and outreach of Federal information 

via various channels and enable Federal 

agencies to become more citizen-centric by 

providing answers to citizens that are timely, 

accurate, and responsive via the channel of 

their choice. 

Public contact data derived as a result 

of citizen interaction with USA Services 

channels. 

235M $ 16,364

Total – $ 16,364

Increase citizen usage and accessibility of OCSC products and services and help the government 

become more citizen-centric by enabling Americans’ interaction with the government via their 

preferred OCSC channel.

OCSC Enable a citizen-centric government by 

sharing the FirstGov infrastructure and 

e-government expertise with the President’s 

E-Gov initiatives.

Strategic Messages

 Favorable

 Neutral

 Unfavorable

30%

60%

10%

$ $ 2,299

–

–

Disseminate strategic information messages 

to all audiences by providing integrated 

and coordinated communications to GSA 

associates and news media.

ACSI Satisfaction Survey Index- Search only 74% 1,354

Total – $ 3,653

OCSC Total – $ 20,017

1 The source of the FY 2006 actuals is the FY 2008 Budget Submission. Because the FY 2008 Budget Submission was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the 

actuals represent the projected FY 2006 numbers.

Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Deliver timely and accurate financial and performance management policies and services needed 

for management decision-making and financial reporting.

OCFO Increase the percentage of vendor invoices 

received electronically by Electronic Data 

Interchange (EDI) or through the Internet.

Percentage of invoices received electronically. 68% $ –

Total – $ –

OCFO Total – $ –

1 The source of the FY 2006 actuals is the FY 2008 Budget Submission. Because the FY 2008 Budget Submission was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the 

actuals represent the projected FY 2006 numbers.

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

98 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Office of Chief human Capital Officer (OCHCO)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Goal Description

OCHCO Enhance ability to attract talent to GSA. Number of days to fill a vacancy. 45 $ –

Total – $ –

OCHCO Total – $ –

1 The source of the FY 2006 actuals is the FY 2008 Budget Submission. Because the FY 2008 Budget Submission was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the 

actuals represent the projected FY 2006 numbers.

Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP)

(Dollars in Thousands)

Long-Term Outcome Goal

Business Line 

Activity Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2006 Projected

Target Dollars1

Develop and issue administrative management policies on-schedule and within cost parameters.

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 Interagency Committee (IAC) 

registered at CORE.

25 $ –

Provide tools and incentives to improve 

the effectiveness of property management 

operations.

Percentage of agencies reporting real property 

performance measures tracked by OGP.

67% 700

Total – $ 700

Provide an effective policy framework and key enablers for e-government operational development and 

implementation.

OGP Develop and issue effective guidance and 

implementation policies in support of 

Federal Identity Credentials.

Percentage of major agencies adopting crossagency policy and uniform standards for 

Federal Identity Credentials.

75% $ 4,210

Total – $ 4,210

Engage and assist agencies in achieving compliance with Federal identity management policies.

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 3 or more providers to achieve 

competition.

50% $ 677 

Total – $ 677

Improve the accessibility of all electronic and information technology (E&IT) as a result 

of the widespread demand by government purchasers for accessible E&IT.

OGP Improve the compliance with Section 

508 government-wide by improving the 

compliance of GSA contracts and programs.

Percentage of agencies whose work 

demonstrates the use of Section 508 tools.

30% $ 1,600

Total – $ 1,600

OGP Total – $ 7,187

1 The source of the FY 2006 actuals is the FY 2008 Budget Submission. Because the FY 2008 Budget Submission was submitted to OMB prior to year-end, the 

actuals represent the projected FY 2006 numbers.
P e r f o r m a n c e S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 99

Performance Measurement 

Data Validation and Verification

The Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993 (GPRA) and the Reports Consolidation 

Act of 2000 require that each agency certify 

the completeness and reliability of performance data and 

describe the means used to verify and validate this data. 

GSA meets these legal requirements through a survey process 

that reviews its services and major Staff Offices. 

A schedule has been established to issue a survey to the 

Services and the major Staff Offices on a rotating basis. 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. 

The survey focuses on seven building blocks of sound data:

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 

report to Congress.

Ease of Use – measures how easily information is 

obtainable.

Independent Evaluations – were also reviewed to 

determine the accountability of the program. 

Data originates from major GSA systems that are certified 

and accredited. Manually inputted data undergoes a review 

process to search for inconsistencies. External data sources 

are reputable and backup data records are available. Periodic 

quality assurance reviews are conducted to ensure accuracy. 

The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) has established a 

Performance Management team in addition to planning 

champions that check for accuracy. The Public Buildings 

Service (PBS) has National and Regional points of contact 

(POC) that ensure the accuracy of the data. 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 is updated 

monthly, quarterly, and/or annually with current results along 

with expected targets.

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

100 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

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 2006 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 became GSA’s official 

accounting system of record in October 2002. A reliable, 

highly stable system, it currently processes 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 GSA Procurement Data System (GPDS) 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 (TARPS); Requisitioning, 

Ordering, and Documentation System (ROADS); Sales 

Automation System (SASy); Rent Estimate (RentEst); 

Telecommunications Ordering and Pricing System 

(TOPS); Office of Information Technology 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, initial reviews 

have been conducted for all Service and Staff Offices. A 

second review of measures has been conducted for PBS and 

FAS. 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.
Financial Section
Awards GSA Has Won in 2006

2

0

0 6 A W A R

D

S

Denver’s Byron Rogers Courthouse Receives AIA Award.

On September 8, the Denver Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) held its annual Design Awards Gala in Denver, CO. The Rocky Mountain Region’s (R8) Byron Rogers 

Courthouse, located in downtown Denver, was presented with an Honor Award and a Sustainability 

Award. The Honor Award was one of only three awarded out of 100 projects submitted. This building 

received a LEED Gold certification for Existing Buildings. This was the first time in managing R8 

Capital Construction projects that GSA returned $2.4 million in project funds to Central Office upon 

completion of the project.

E-Gov Receives Award for Excellence in Enterprise Architecture

E-Gov Institute selected the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Enterprise Architecture Modeling System (MEAMS) project to receive an award for Excellence in Enterprise Architecture jointly 

sponsored by the E-Gov Institute, FCW Events, and FEAC Institute. This award is an example of the 

effective solutions the integrated MDA, SRA, and Federal Systems Integration and Management 

Center (FEDSIM) team strive to provide across the MDA-Enterprise Information Management 

System (EIMS) project. 

Consumer Action Handbook Wins Consumer Education Award 

The Consumer Action Handbook has received the 2006 Achievement in Consumer Education award from the National Association of Consumer 

Agency Administrators at their annual conference. The Handbook, published by 

GSA’s Office of Citizen Services and Communications (OCSC), provides advice 

on making wise consumer purchases, getting the most for your money, avoiding 

fraud, and solving consumer problems. The 2006 edition was published in 

cooperation with seven other Federal agencies and 28 private sector partners. 

The Handbook is consistently the most popular publication in the Consumer 

Information Catalog.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 103

I

write this letter with a renewed sense 

of purpose and optimism. During 

fiscal year (FY) 2006, the General 

Services Administration’s (GSA) financial 

management community teamed with the 

GSA’s acquisition community to ensure 

we addressed the material weakness that 

contributed to a disclaimed audit opinion 

on the Bugetary Statements of our FY 2005 

financial statements. I am very pleased to 

report that we accomplished our objectives 

and achieved our goal: we received an 

unqualified “clean” opinion for FY 2006. Moreover, this 

demonstrates GSA’s commitment to customer satisfaction 

and ensuring sound financial management practices through 

transparency, accountability, and integrity. 

With the attainment of the independent auditor’s unqualified 

financial statement opinion, the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) is committed to moving forward vigorously 

during FY 2007 to continue improving our internal control 

processes and fulfill the financial management improvement 

goals of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). We 

fully implemented Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A-123, “Management’s Responsibility for Internal 

Controls,” Appendix A during 2006 which is a significant 

accomplishment for the OCFO. 

We embraced the A-123 circular requirements and fully 

implemented a management process for the documentation, 

assessment, testing, and reporting on internal controls over 

financial reporting. Based on the assessment as of June 30, 

2006, we identified the existence of one material weakness 

related to monitoring, accounting, and reporting of budgetary transactions. Subsequently, we implemented corrective 

actions and the material weakness was 

resolved as of September 30, 2006. With 

the A-123 review process, GSA continues to 

strengthen fiscal management transparency 

and accountability. 

We administered a strong and rigorous 

budget and financial reporting process and 

instituted a program that emphasizes solid 

internal controls to hold managers across 

GSA accountable for stewardship of taxpayer 

dollars. We continued our work in addressing 

these challenges and worked with management to improve 

Agency accountability. To improve GSA’s overall management 

control program, we embarked on an enhancement program 

for our internal evaluation and review process to provide 

improved assurance over the reliability of our management 

and financial controls. We instituted a process for managers 

to provide accountability of their programs to ensure that the 

mission of the Agency is carried out efficiently, effectively, and 

in compliance with laws and regulations. 

While our auditor’s disclaimed opinion on the Bugetary 

Statements last year ended a long string of unqualified 

opinions, that wake up call strengthened our determination 

to educate the Services, Regions, and Staff offices in the 

proper close out of completed projects and returning unused 

budgetary authority, regardless of whether it is expired or 

cancelled, and therefore no longer available. This effort and 

the tireless reconciliation work completed by the offices on 

the “front lines” enabled GSA to earn an unqualified opinion 

on our FY 2006 financial statements. 

We substantially addressed the material weakness identified 

last year by performing manual reconciliations and reviews. 

Letter from the Chief Financial Officer

Kathleen Turco
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

104 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

These actions have resulted in more accurate financial 

accounting and reporting and reduced the significance of 

the prior year material weakness. To further improve on 

GSA’s financial accounting and reporting processes, we will 

work with the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) to automate 

their systems’ reconciliation process by June 2007. 

During FY 2006, the OCFO upgraded GSA’s core financial 

system, Pegasys, to Momentum version 6.1.2, improving the 

delivery of timely, accurate, useful information to financial 

and program managers. We also participated in a number of 

government-wide financial initiatives, expanded the scope 

of transactions reviewed and reported, and worked with our 

intragovernmental trading agencies to resolve some of the 

most significant differences. GSA will continue to pursue 

improvements in the reporting process to increase efficiency 

and accuracy and further assist partner agencies in reconciling remaining differences. 

My office expanded the analysis of customer requirements 

through our internal Performance Management Process 

(PMP). The continual PMP cycle unites the GSA Strategic 

Plan, the PMA, the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA), and the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), with 

GSA’s business line and program offices performance goals 

and measures. The alignment of the processes under the PMP, 

along with staff attention to addressing the requirements of 

the Budget and Performance Integration scorecard, resulted in 

GSA achieving a “green” for this portion of the PMA scorecard 

for the first time in the fourth quarter of FY 2006. 

We are committed to using our resources to improve on the 

delivery of GSA’s mission and continue to strive for excellence 

in financial management. These significant accomplishments 

are a testament to the dedication and commitment of GSA’s 

financial and acquisition professionals. While mindful of the 

challenges we face, I am confident that GSA has a bright 

financial future, and I look forward to meeting our financial 

management objectives in FY 2007. 

Kathleen M. Turco

Chief Financial Officer

November 10, 2006
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 105

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Major Accomplishments for 2006

GSA associates’ time, efforts, and dedication are reflected in GSA’s success.

OMB Circular A-123, Management Responsibility for 

Internal Control

GSA successfully implemented the new requirements under OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A, Internal Control 

Over Financial Reporting. The requirements are similar in 

nature to those for publicly-traded companies contained in 

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The effort took significant 

planning and implementation support to document, assess, 

test, and report on internal controls over financial reporting. 

GSA’s OCFO established an aggressive timeframe and a Senior 

Assessment Team (SAT) in order to complete the assessment 

by the June 30, 2006 deadline. 

The A-123 implementation effort was led primarily by an 

OCFO team of associates who reported directly to the SAT. 

However, it could not have succeeded without the resources 

and support received from each of the Services’ controller/

chief financial offices and regional personnel. The financial 

managers in the Services assisted the OCFO in obtaining 

necessary documentation, including business processes, 

key controls, populations of data for sample selection, 

identification of systems to be tested, Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA) assessments, Certification 

and Accreditation (C&A) Reports, and Statement on Auditing 

Standards (SAS) 70 audit reports for external financial services 

clients. Regional personnel played an important role in 

providing logistical support to conduct the tests and access 

to necessary documents, systems, and personnel. 

The cooperation extended to the Central Team was truly 

outstanding and enabled management to complete the 

assessment within the established timeframe. During 

FY 2006, internal controls were tested in six regions. Testing 

will be rotated throughout the other regions over the 

next two years to ensure that all regions are tested within 

a three-year time period. The only exceptions are the GSA 

Finance Centers, which will be tested each year. Planning 

is underway to conduct next year’s assessment, including 

identifying efficiencies in management’s approach, improving 

communications, and incorporating any new test requirements to improve internal controls over financial reporting. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

106 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Program Assessment Rating Tool 

FY 2006 was the most successful year ever for GSA’s execution 

of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Two new 

programs and four rescores were completed, all having 

acceptable long term outcome goals and efficiency measures 

and all demonstrating results. National Furniture Center and 

USA Services were the two new programs. National Furniture 

Center was rated “Moderately Effective” and USA Services was 

rated “Effective,” which is the highest possible rating. USA 

Services was the first GSA program ever to be rated “Effective” 

in its initial evaluation.

Travel Management, Transportation Management, Charge Card 

Services, and the Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP) 

were all successful “rescores”—Travel Management, Transportation Management, and OGP were all rated ‘Moderately 

Effective,” and Charge Card Services was rated “Effective.” 

Achievement of the PART results was a cooperative effort 

among OMB, the OCFO, and the Services and the Staff Offices. 

This year’s performance has set a new baseline for future 

improvements during FY 2007.

Core Financial Systems (Pegasys) Upgrade

In July 2006, the OCFO upgraded its core financial systems 

software package—Momentum Financials—from release 

5.1.6 to release 6.1.2. This upgrade ensures GSA’s financial 

system, known as Pegasys, is current with Momentum baseline 

software releases, and that GSA can continue to support 

its mission of offering comprehensive and technologically 

progressive practices in Federal financial management.

This effort took significant planning, development (database 

conversion, interfaces), testing (systems, acceptance, regression, and performance), training (change management), and 

implementation support. The OCFO developed rigorous 

testing methodologies and procedures for all functional and 

technical areas to ensure a smooth transition. 

The new software is entirely Web-based, requiring no 

additional software installations on users’ machines. In 

addition, the upgraded software improves document workflow, introduced new cost allocation functionality, and 

enhanced external reporting and user querying capabilities. 

The hardware platform for Pegasys was relocated to a new data 

center hosting site in Arizona. The hardware platform move, 

also known as the Momentum Platform Migration (MPM), 

was successfully completed without any adverse impact 

to Pegasys production operations. Systems security and 

configuration management procedures have also improved, 

as well as has technical support of the Pegasys 6.1.2 

application. The MPM project provides a more secure, stable, 

reliable, and cost-effective infrastructure platform that not 

only supports the Pegasys 6.1.2 upgrade, but enhances 

GSA’s ability to be a credible Shared Service Provider (SSP) 

in the Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB) 

marketplace. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 107

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 107
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

108 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

108 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 109

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 109
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

110 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

110 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report

1

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Suite 900 

1800 Tysons Blvd 

McLean, VA 22102 

Telephone (703) 918-3000 

Facsimile (703) 918-3100 

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 three primary revolving funds, 

the Federal Buildings Fund (the FBF), the General Supply Fund (the GSF), and the Information Technology Fund 

(the ITF), we found: 

x The balance sheets of GSA, the GSF, and the ITF, as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the related 

consolidated and individual statements of net cost, and of changes in net position for the years then 

ended, and the statement of budgetary resources and the statement of financing for the year ended 

September 30, 2006, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting 

principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We were unable to express an opinion on 

the combined and individual statements of budgetary resources, and the consolidated and individual 

statements of financing of GSA, the GSF, and the ITF for the year ended September 30, 2005. 

x The balance sheets of FBF as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the related statements of net cost, of 

changes in net position and of financing, and the 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. 

x GSA, the FBF, the GSF, and the ITF had no material weaknesses in internal control over financial 

reporting (including safeguarding of assets). 

x No reportable instances of noncompliance with the applicable laws and regulations, we tested, specified 

in Appendix E of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 06-03, Audit Requirements 

for Federal Financial Statements. However, management has reported possible infractions on the part of 

GSA related to the Anti-Deficiency Act and Purpose Statute, resolution of which has yet to be 

determined. 

1
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 111

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 111 2

Report on the Financial Statements of GSA, the GSF, and the ITF 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of GSA and the individual balance sheets of the 

GSF and the ITF, as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated and individual statements of 

net cost and of changes in net position for the years then ended, and the statement of budgetary resources and 

statement of financing for the year ended September 30, 2006. We have also audited the individual financial 

statements of the FBF included in GSA’s consolidated and combined financial statements, and our report on 

those financial statements is included below under the heading “Report on the Financial Statements of the FBF”. 

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. 

Except as explained in the following paragraphs, 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; except for the 

provisions of paragraph 6.10 relating to internal control over performance measures, Office of Management and 

Budget Bulletin No. 06-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. The work required by the 

provisions of paragraph 6.10 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. 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 report dated November 14, 2005, we did not express an opinion on the fiscal year 2005 combined and 

individual statements of budgetary resources and statements of financing for the GSA, the GSF, and the ITF, as 

they did not present fairly the status of budgetary resources in conformity with accounting principles generally 

accepted in the United States of America due to the following reasons: 

x Management identified material unfilled customer order and undelivered order balances of the ITF that 

were invalid or cancelled as of September 30, 2005. It was unknown if the adjustments that may 

ultimately be determined to be necessary may materially impact reported balances and activity reported 

in the ITF’s fiscal year 2005, statement of budgetary resources and statement of financing; 

x Management discovered that it had failed to identify and adjust certain unfilled customer orders 

recorded by the ITF that should be reported by the GSF. Adjustments to correct these known errors 

were recorded to ITF and GSF budgetary accounts. However, management was unable to determine the 

amounts of potentially material errors in unfilled customer orders of the ITF and the GSF, and continued 

to review current balances on an ongoing basis. As of September 30, 2005, we were unable to obtain 

sufficient evidence to support any adjustments that might be required to correct the reported amounts. 

2
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

112 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

112 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report

3

Because of the matters discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the scope of our work was not sufficient to enable 

us to express, and we do not express, an opinion on the statements of budgetary resources and statements of 

financing of GSA, the GSF, and the ITF for the year ended September 30, 2005. 

In our opinion, the balance sheets of GSA, the GSF, and the ITF as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the 

related consolidated and individual statements of net cost and of changes in net position for the years then ended, 

and the statement of budgetary resources and statement of financing for the year ended September 30, 2006, are 

presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the 

United States of America. 

Report on the Financial Statements of the FBF 

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the FBF as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the 

related statements of net cost, of changes in net position and of financing, and the 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. 

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, except for the provisions of paragraph 6.10 relating to internal 

control over performance measures, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 06-03, Audit 

Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. The work required by the provisions of paragraph 6.10 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. 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 opinions. 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above, present fairly, in all material respects, the financial 

position of the FBF as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and its net cost of operations, changes in net position, 

budgetary resources and financing 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 audits, we considered GSA’s, the FBF’s, the GSF’s, and the ITF’s internal 

control over financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of GSA’s, the FBF’s, the GSF’s, and the ITF’s 

internal control, determined whether internal controls had been placed in operation, assessed control risk, and 

3
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 113

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 113

4

performed tests of 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. We limited our control testing to those controls necessary to achieve the 

following OMB control objectives, except for the provisions of paragraph 6.10 of OMB Bulletin No. 06-03, Audit 

Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, 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 accordance 

with laws governing the use of budget authority and any other laws, regulations, and government-wide policies 

identified in Appendix E of OMB Bulletin No. 06-03 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 6.10 relating to internal control over performance measures was performed by the GSA Office of 

Inspector General. We did not test all internal controls relevant to the operating objectives broadly defined by the 

Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982. Our purpose was not to provide an opinion on GSA’s, the 

FBF’s, the GSF’s, and the ITF’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on internal control. 

Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the 

internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. Under standards issued by the 

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and OMB, reportable conditions are matters coming to our 

attention that, in our judgment, should be communicated because they represent significant deficiencies in the 

design or operation of the internal control that could adversely affect GSA’s, the FBF’s, the GSF’s, and the ITF’s 

ability to meet the internal control objectives related to the reliability of financial reporting, compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations, and the reliability of performance reporting previously noted. Material 

weaknesses are reportable conditions in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control 

components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors, fraud or non-compliance in amounts that 

would be material in relation to the consolidated and combined financial statements being audited, may occur and 

not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. 

We noted certain matters involving the internal control and its operation that we consider to be reportable 

conditions. However, none of the reportable conditions is believed to be a material weakness. 

* * * 

 Controls over monitoring, accounting, and reporting of budgetary transactions need improvement 

Reportable Condition

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s (PwC’s) November 14, 2005, Report of Independent Auditors on Internal 

Control, noted a material weakness in GSA's financial management systems, surrounding processes, substantial 

4
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

114 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

114 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report

5

transaction errors resulting from insufficient monitoring controls, and controls related to reporting of budgetary 

resources arising from the primary GSA service of customer agency order processing. These control weaknesses 

along with several uncertainties inhibited GSA management's timely prevention and detection of budgetary 

accounting and reporting misstatements, and as a result, we were unable to obtain reasonable assurance that 

certain budgetary balances reported on the fiscal year 2005 statement of budgetary resources and statement of 

financing of GSA, the GSF, and the ITF were reliable. Accordingly, we did not express an opinion on those 

fiscal year 2005 financial statements. 

In fiscal year 2006, GSA and PBS, FSS, and FTS management undertook remedial actions to design and 

implement changes to their control and business processes around the reporting of budgetary transactions. These 

actions included the development of service line corrective action plans to address the fiscal year 2005 material 

weakness we reported in this area, and included a detailed approach to review fiscal year 2006 and prior year 

transactions. GSA management undertook efforts to: track and monitor the aging of unfilled customer orders 

(UFCO) and obligations; perform reconciliations of subsystems and business systems to the general ledger; 

develop policies and procedures to identify invalid contracts based on procurement regulations; perform reviews 

of budgetary entries at the transaction level; maintain inventories of budgetary transactions; assess the variance 

between the actual details of contracts and the statistical estimates made in the fiscal year 2005 balances; and 

confirm the unassigned UFCO balances allocated between the GSF and the ITF. 

While tangible progress was made by management as noted above, we observed the following weaknesses during 

fiscal year 2006. 

PwC performed control tests of the FBF, the GSF, and the ITF related to the processing, recording, and reporting 

of budgetary transactions. Controls either failed or were not in place at the time of our testing. The types of 

underlying transaction level errors observed by PwC during our control tests included instances of both 

overstatements and understatements of undelivered orders (UDOs), UFCOs, and recoveries of prior year 

obligations (PYRs), indicating weaknesses in the control procedures. These control weaknesses were related to: 

1. UDOs, which represent GSA's commitments under obligations to vendors for goods and services 

ordered on behalf of customer agencies. During fiscal year 2006, we found instances where the FBF 

and the GSF management were unable to properly identify and record obligations as valid and complete. 

2. UFCOs, which represent spending authority that customer agencies have obligated to GSA. During the 

fiscal year 2006 period, we noted that the FBF, the GSF, and the ITF management were unable to 

properly identify, classify, and record its UFCOs. 

3. PYRs, which represent deobligations or downward adjustments to obligations incurred in prior years. 

GSA’s business feeder systems for the GSF and the ITF 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 financial system limitations. 

5
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 115

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 115 6

According to OMB Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control:

x 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 designed to ensure that 

transactions are properly authorized and processed accurately and that the data is valid and complete. 

x 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 the agency’s operations. If an 

effective continuous monitoring program is in place, it can level the resources needed to maintain 

effective internal controls throughout the year. 

x 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. 

The 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. 

We understand GSA operations are characterized by a highly decentralized environment. Each of GSA’s three 

services (PBS, FSS, and FTS) operates as an autonomous unit, with each maintaining its own separate computer 

environments. Each is headed by a commissioner and assisted by a chief financial officer for PBS and a 

controller for FSS and FTS, who reports directly to the commissioner of that service. GSA's agency-level 

financial community consists of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). The agency-level CFO 

reports directly to the Administrator and oversees all agency-wide financial management activities. 

Many operating processes and personnel involved in transaction initiation, processing and monitoring -- which 

ultimately affect the reliability of financial reporting -- do not fall within the direct control of the finance function 

at the OCFO level. For example, while the OCFO is responsible for compiling GSA’s financial statements, it 

relies upon information that is submitted by the regions and service lines. Appropriate classification of the status 

of orders and obligations within the financial systems, budgetary accounts, and financial reports is largely 

dependent upon routine transaction-level review and ongoing, pro-active financial management performed by 

service line finance and operations management. Accordingly, GSA's success in designing, implementing and 

achieving effective internal controls over financial reporting is dependent upon effective interactions and shared 

accountabilities among finance and operations managers and staff across the enterprise. 

6
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

116 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

116 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report

7

PwC's control evaluation demonstrated that improvements in processes have been implemented and that 

improved monitoring oversight of down-stream control processes was performed by GSA’s financial 

management community and the OCFO. The OCFO has made significant progress in driving financial 

management and reporting initiatives and improvements throughout the service line communities. 

Recommendation:

We recommend that GSA with OCFO oversight: 

x 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. 

x Enhance service line business system capabilities to enable the timely and accurate transmission of 

budgetary reporting requirements to Pegasys. 

x 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. 

x 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 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. 

GSA needs to strengthen system access, separation of duties, and monitoring controls 

Reportable Condition

In prior fiscal years, GSA had a reportable condition regarding security weaknesses across GSA, the FBF, the 

GSF, and the ITF. During fiscal year 2006, GSA undertook corrective actions by implementing new policies and 

procedures to resolve a majority of the issues raised in the prior years. However, current year testing evidenced 

further control deficiencies that indicate weaknesses within GSA's logical access controls, separation of duties, 

and monitoring of user actions. We noted the following: 

7
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 117

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 117 8

1. Inadequate procedures for granting access and maintaining completed access authorizations: 

x Access authorizations were not completed and maintained for logical access to Pegasys and the 

System for Tracking and Administering Real Property (STAR). 

x Policies and procedures did not exist for performing periodic user recertification and monitoring of 

inactive accounts for the RWA Entry and Tracking Application (RETA). 

x A uniform procedure for requesting, authorizing, and granting access to the Office of Information 

Technology Management Information System (OMIS) was not implemented across all regions that 

use the application. 

2. Weak separation of user and administrator duties: 

x Administrator accounts with access to the Oracle and Windows 2000 environments in OMIS were 

shared by multiple individuals with little accountability for user actions. 

x The access role structures for the Tracking and Ordering System (TOS) and OMIS were not setup in 

compliance with separation of duties and least privilege policies. 

3. Weak monitoring of application audit trails and violation reports: 

x Policies and procedures for review of OMIS Windows 2000 security logs were not in place. 

x The logging capability and review process for STAR logs needs enhancement. 

x Monitoring of RETA user security logs and violation reports by a Security Administrator was not 

documented. 

These weaknesses expose GSA’s financial management systems and resources to the following risks: 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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. 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. 

x 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. 

8
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

118 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

118 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report

9

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:

GSA management should strengthen general and application security controls by taking actions to improve: 

x Completion and maintenance of access authorizations; 

x Procedures for performing user access recertification; 

x Procedures for requesting and granting access to applications; 

x Access role structures to ensure compliance with separation of duties and least privilege policies; and 

x Monitoring and review of user security logs and violation reports. 

Controls over accounting, reporting, and monitoring of construction in process 

projects continue to need improvement 

Reportable Condition

Since fiscal year 2001, PBS has experienced problems related to cost transfers of construction and major and 

minor repair 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, cancelled, or when the item does not meet the definition of a capital asset. The 

classification of projects as CIP or Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E) is difficult and subjective, especially 

for multi-phased projects which, in some cases, may require the knowledge of an experienced Project Manager or 

specialist to make the determination. Furthermore, the terms “substantial completion” and “multi-phased 

projects” were not clearly defined throughout the year, which resulted in different interpretations for similar 

projects amongst regions. 

In our previous reports, we recommended management address the reported control weaknesses to ensure 

accurate and timely financial reporting. Management’s corrective action plan was twofold: 1) enforcing its 

control procedures at the project level through communication with regional offices; and 2) continuing to 

implement its mitigating controls through a 100% quarterly review of all CIP projects over $7 million and a semiannual statistical sample review on the remaining population of CIP projects. However, as of September 30, 

2006, the magnitude of errors identified by management during their reviews and our audit testing continues to 

indicate that the underlying detail transactions are not accurate, weaknesses exist in execution of control 

activities, and systems enhancements are necessary. Specifically, the following conditions were noted: 

9
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 119

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 119 10

1. Controls over manual input of actual substantial completion dates, timely transfer of assets to the 

appropriate asset account, and validation of incorrectly capitalized, cancelled, or abandoned CIP projects 

are not effective. 

2. Corrections of errors noted during management’s mitigating control procedures are not made to the 

financial systems at the detail transaction level. 

3. PBS’ work item inventory system, Inventory Reporting Information System (IRIS), generates and 

maintains project information at the ASID level, which is equivalent to a project number in RPADS and 

Pegasys. However, it cannot manage the accounting treatment at the individual asset level. 

4. IRIS feeds project data to RPADS, which is developed, maintained, and operated by the GSA Office of 

the CFO. RPADS interfaces with Pegasys to update the related general ledger accounts. However, 

current system limitations in RPADS inhibit the processing of multiple CIP completion dates within a 

multiphase project. Therefore, data is only read at the project level resulting in incorrect project 

completion dates in Pegasys, upon which incorrect depreciation activities are based. 

5. The general ledger accounts related to CIP, PP&E, and depreciation are materially misstated throughout, 

and at the end of, the fiscal year. These accounts are not corrected or updated for errors noted during 

management’s reviews. Errors in amounts in CIP, PP&E, and depreciation balances are maintained in 

separate manual spreadsheets, which are then used to record adjustments at the summary level for 

financial statement reporting purposes only, as opposed to recording in the system of record. As of 

September 30, 2006, PBS recorded $1.4 billion in summary adjustments to transfer construction costs 

from the CIP account to the PP&E account. This amount was derived based on the periodic reviews 

spanning multiple years of all CIP projects over $7 million and a statistical sample of the remaining 

unadjusted CIP projects. 

6. We reviewed a sample of 45 Minor Repair and Alteration (Budget Activity PG54) and 45 Major 

Projects (Budget Activity PG51/PG55) project files from three Regions to evaluate whether substantially 

completed projects were properly transferred from CIP to the appropriate asset general ledger account 

timely. We noted the following errors which indicate substantially completed CIP projects were not 

transferred timely to the proper asset account, not transferred at all, or incorrectly transferred, indicating 

continued weaknesses in the underlying controls. 

Region Sample Size Errors Noted 

Region 3 – Mid Atlantic 30 1/30 

Region 4 – Southeast Sunbelt 30 3/30 

Region 11 – National Capital Region 30 2/30 

7. The results of FBF management’s August 2006, statistical sample and 100% review of all CIP projects 

over $7 million indicated that 24% of the CIP projects reviewed were incorrectly classified as CIP, 

10
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

120 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

120 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report

11

either because they were substantially complete or did not meet PBS’ policy for capitalization and 

should be expensed, and resulted in a downward adjustment to the CIP year-end balance of over $147 

million. 

According to OMB Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control:

1. 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 designed to ensure that 

transactions are properly authorized and processed accurately and that the data is valid and complete. 

2. 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 the agency’s operations. If an 

effective continuous monitoring program is in place, it can level the resources needed to maintain 

effective internal controls throughout the year. 

3. 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. 

The goal of the 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 (USSGL) at the transaction level. 

PBS should enforce effective internal controls which prevent errors in individual transactions and balances from 

occurring in the future. Maintaining accurate data in IRIS and enhancing the system capabilities of RPADS for 

CIP projects is necessary for PBS to generate accurate financial information on a routine basis. We believe such 

preventative controls would be more effective and efficient than the compensating quarterly high dollar reviews 

and semi-annual statistical sampling controls. 

11
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 121

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 121 12

Recommendation

We recommend that PBS management: 

x 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. 

x Enhance the capabilities of IRIS to include budgetary and proprietary accounting related information at 

the asset level within an ASID. 

x Continue its efforts to communicate the definition of “substantial completion” to its Regional offices. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x As enhancements are implemented, management should perform compensating detective controls aimed 

at resolving potential financial reporting errors. 

We also noted other less significant matters involving GSA’s, the FBF’s, the GSF’s, and the ITF’s internal 

control that we will communicate to management in a separate letter. 

Report on Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations 

The management of GSA is responsible for compliance with laws and regulations. As part of obtaining 

reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests 

of compliance that transactions are executed in accordance with laws governing the use of budget authority and 

any other laws, regulations, and government-wide policies identified in Appendix E of OMB Bulletin No. 06-03 

that could have a direct and material effect on the consolidated and combined financial statements, including the 

requirements referred to in FFMIA. We limited our tests of compliance to these provisions and we did not test 

compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to GSA, the FBF, the GSF and the ITF. However, 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. 06-03. 

FTS contracting practices 

As a follow-up to their June 2005 report that cited instances in which FTS officials did not comply with all 

applicable procurement regulations and possible infractions of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 

12
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

122 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

122 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report

13

1341(a), the OIG issued a report on September 29, 2006, titled, “Compendium of Audits of FTS Client Support 

Center Controls”. In this report, they noted the Client Support Centers (CSCs) generally met the relevant 

regulations contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and GSA guidance, and that eleven of the twelve 

regional CSCs reviewed that were previously determined to be "not compliant with procurement regulations but 

making significant progress toward becoming compliant" are now compliant with procurement regulations. The 

remaining one CSC had been determined to be compliant by the OIG in their June 2005 report. 

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 ADA and Purpose 

Statute. Of the 14, the GSA OGC determined that nine of the cases can be fixed provided that the Department of 

Defense (DoD) can supply corrective funding. Of the remaining five matters, GSA continues to work with the 

DoD to determine if corrective funding can be supplied. 

Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether GSA’s, the FBF’s, the GSF’s, and the ITF’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 section 803(a) requirements. 

The results of our tests disclosed no instances in which GSA’s, the FBF’s, the GSF’s and the ITF’s financial 

management systems did not substantially comply with the three requirements discussed in the preceding 

paragraph. 

Other Information 

The Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and Required Supplementary Information (RSI) are not 

required parts of the financial statements but are supplementary information required by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board and OMB Circular No. 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. 

The other accompanying information included in this performance and accountability report is presented for 

purposes of additional analysis and is 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 it. 

* * * 

13
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 123

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 123 14

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, and should not, be used by 

anyone other than these specified parties. 

November 9, 2006 

14
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

124 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

124 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Independent Auditor’s Report
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 125

F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 125

2
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

126 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Consolidating Statements of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2006 and 2005

(Dollars in Millions)

2006 2005

Federal Buildings Fund:

Revenues:.

Building Operations - Government-Owned $3,740 $	 3,662

Building Operations - Leased 4,769 4,583

Expenses:

Building Operations - Government-Owned 3,188 2,830

Building Operations - Leased 4,714 4,441

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations 607 	 974

General Supply Fund:

Revenues:

Global Supply Operations 1,029 1,028

Vehicle Acquisition and Leasing 1,527 1,454

Commercial Acquisition 424 452

Professional Services 661 732

Other Programs 62 68

Expenses:

Global Supply Operations 1,005 1,056

Vehicle Acquisition and Leasing 1,466 1,403

Commercial Acquisition 368 395

Professional Services 675 729

Other Programs 66 66

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations 123 	 85

Information Technology Fund:

Revenues:

Network Services 1,210 1,247

IT Solutions 3,704 5,473

Expenses:

Network Services 1,169 1,206

IT Solutions 3,856 5,525

Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations (111) 	 (11)

Principal Financial Statements
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 127

Continued from previous page

2006 2005

Other Funds:

Revenues:

Working Capital Fund 367 378

GSA OE and OGP Funds 20 7

Other Funds 13 12

Expenses:

Working Capital Fund 372 360

GSA OE and OGP Funds 160 171

 Other Funds 110 103

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations (242) 	 (237)

Less: Intra-GSA Eliminations (Note 1-B):

Revenues 586 581

Expenses 618 608

GSA Consolidated:

Revenues 16,940 18,515

Expenses 16,531 17,677

 Net Revenues From (Cost of) Operations $409 $	 838

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

128 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Principal Financial Statements

Consolidating Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2006 and 2005

(Dollars in Millions)

Federal 

Buildings Fund

General 

Supply Fund

2006 2005 2006 2005 

ASSETS

Intragovernmental Assets:

Funds with U.S. Treasury (Note 1-D,2) $ 5,606 $ 5,449 $ 490 $ 492 

Accounts Receivable - Federal, Net (Note 4) 295 314 377 398 

Prepaid Expenses and Advances - Federal 6 1 4 6 

 Total Intragovernmental 5,907 5,764 871 896 

Inventories (Note 1-E) 6 5 246 224 

Accounts Receivable - Public, Net (Note 4) 11 11 87 78 

Prepaid Expenses and Advances - Public 20 18 - - 

Other Assets 12 14 4 6 

Property and Equipment (Notes 1-F,5):

Buildings 25,764 24,053 - - 

Leasehold Improvements 207 304 24 15 

Telecommunications and ADP Equipment - - - - 

Motor Vehicles - - 3,935 3,880 

Other Equipment and Software 76 68 134 140 

 Less: Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization (12,760) (11,991) (1,314) (1,307) 

 Subtotal 13,287 12,434 2,779 2,728 

Land 1,438 1,273 - - 

Construction in Process and Software in Development 2,118 2,309 16 9 

Total Property and Equipment 16,843 16,016 2,795 2,737 

Total Assets $ 22,799 $ 21,828 $ 4,003 $ 3,941 

LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION

Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses - Federal $ 75 $ 67 $ 21 $ 29 

Deferred Revenue and Advances - Federal 13 28 85 81 

Intragovernmental Debt (Note 6) 2,192 2,201 - - 

Other Intragovernmental Liabilities (Note 9) 259 266 7 4 

 Total Intragovernmental 2,539 2,562 113 114 

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses - Public 944 796 272 278 

Deferred Revenue and Advances - Public 4 3 1 1 

Environmental and Disposals Liabilities (Notes 5,10) 94 93 - - 

Obligations Under Capital Leases (Note 8) 285 296 - - 

Workers’ Compensation Actuarial Liability (Note 7) 106 109 37 36 

Annual Leave Liability (Note 1-G) 43 41 19 19 

Deposit Fund Liability - - - - 

Earnings Payable to U.S. Treasury - - 157 84 

Other Liabilities (Note 9) 232 190 - - 

Total Liabilities 4,247 4,090 599 532 

Net Position (Note 14):

Cumulative Results of Operations 18,552 17,738 3,404 3,409 

Unexpended Appropriations - - - - 

Total Net Position 18,552 17,738 3,404 3,409 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 22,799 $ 21,828 $ 4,003 $ 3,941 

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 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 129

Information 

Technology Fund Other Funds

LESS: INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

$ 188 $ 231 $ 595 $ 606 $ - $ - $ 6,879 $ 6,778 

831 1,083 3 3 24 28 1,482 1,770

- - 2 1 4 1 8 7

1,019 1,314 600 610 28 29 8,369 8,555

- - - - - - 252 229

3 10 26 16 - - 127 115

- - - - - - 20 18

6 7 1 1 20 26 3 2

- - - - - - 25,764 24,053

- - - - - - 231 319

104 159 - - - - 104 159

- - - - - - 3,935 3,880

23 94 80 78 - - 313 380

(107) (222) (40) (32) - - (14,221) (13,552)

20 31 40 46 - - 16,126 15,239

- - - - - - 1,438 1,273

- 85 1 - - - 2,135 2,403

20 116 41 46 - - 19,699 18,915

$ 1,048 $ 1,447 $ 668 $ 673 $ 48 $ 55 $ 28,470 $ 27,834

$ 2 $ 36 $ 6 $ 13 $ 24 $ 28 $ 80 $ 117

27 44 39 52 24 27 140 178

- - - - - - 2,192 2,201

- 1 24 58 - - 290 329

29 81 69 123 48 55 2,702 2,825

805 1,049 29 29 - - 2,050 2,152

- 2 - - - - 5 6

- - 31 21 - - 125 114

- - - - - - 285 296

2 5 20 20 - - 165 170

11 13 19 19 - - 92 92

- - 65 54 - - 65 54

- - 32 22 - - 189 106

- - 49 49 - - 281 239

847 1,150 314 337 48 55 5,959 6,054

201 297 243 231 - - 22,400 21,675

- - 111 105 - - 111 105

201 297 354 336 - - 22,511 21,780

$ 1,048 $ 1,447 $ 668 $ 673 $ 48 $ 55 $ 28,470 $ 27,834
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

130 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Principal Financial Statements

Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2006 and 2005

(Dollars in Millions)

Federal 

Buildings Fund

General 

Supply Fund

2006 2005 2006 2005 

Beginning Balance of Net Position:

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 17,738 $ 16,686 $ 3,409 $ 3,275 

Unexpended Appropriations - 30 - - 

Net Position Beginning Balance 17,738 16,716 3,409 3,275 

Results of Operations:

Net Revenue From (Cost of) Operations 607 974 123 85 

Appropriations Used (Note 1-C) 75 30 - - 

Non-Exchange Revenue (Notes 1-C, 1-G) 2 - - - 

Imputed Financing Provided By Others 57 55 30 28 

Transfer of Earnings Paid and Payable to U.S. Treasury - - - - 

Transfers of Net Assets and Liabilities

(To) From Other Federal Agencies 73 (7) (159) 20 

Receipts Paid and Reclassified as Payable From

(To) the Land and Water Conservation Fund - - - - 

Other - - 1 1 

Net Results of Operations 814 1,052 (5) 134 

Changes in Unexpended Appropriations:

Appropriations Received 75 - - - 

Appropriations Used (75) (30) - - 

Appropriations Adjustments and Transfers From 

Other Agencies or Funds - - - - 

Other - - - - 

Net Change in Unexpended Appropriations - (30) - - 

Ending Balance of Net Position:

Cumulative Results of Operations 18,552 17,738 3,404 3,409 

Unexpended Appropriations - - - - 

Net Position Ending Balance $ 18,552 $ 17,738 $ 3,404 $ 3,409 

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

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 131

Information 

Technology Fund Other Funds

LESS: INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

$ 297 $ 293 $ 231 $ 179 $ - $ - $ 21,675 $ 20,433

- - 105 110 - - 105 140

297 293 336 289 - - 21,780 20,573

(111) (11) (242) (237) (32) (27) 409 838

- - 197 215 - - 272 245

- - 94 57 - - 96 57

15 15 26 44 32 27 96 115

- - (68) (28) - - (68) (28)

- - 11 6 - - (75) 19

- - (6) (5) - - (6) (5)

- - - - - - 1 1

(96) 4 12 52 - - 725 1,242

- - 217 218 - - 292 218

- - (197) (215) - - (272) (245)

- - (14) (8) - - (14) (8)

- - - - - - - -

- - 6 (5) - - 6 (35)

201 297 243 231 - - 22,400 21,675

- - 111 105 - - 111 105

$ 201 $ 297 $ 354 $ 336 $ - $ - $ 22,511 $ 21,780
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

132 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Principal Financial Statements

COMBINING Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2006 and 2005

(Dollars in Millions)

Federal 

Buildings Fund

2006 2005 

Budgetary Resources:

Unobligated Balance, Net - Beginning Balance $ 3,834 $ 4,293 

Prior Year Recoveries 65 274 

Budget Authority

Appropriations 75 - 

Spending Authority:

 Earned Revenue 8,546 8,263 

 Change in Unfilled Customer Orders 165 (222) 

 Previously Unavailable 515 - 

Resources Temporarily Not Available (56) (515) 

Transfers (41) (40) 

Total Budgetary Resources 13,103 12,053 

Status of Budgetary Resources: 

Obligations Incurred

Direct - - 

Reimbursable 9,075 8,219 

Unobligated Balance - Available

Apportioned 4,028 3,737 

Exempt from Apportionment - - 

Unobligated Balance - Not Available - 97 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources 13,103 12,053 

CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE:

Obligated Balance, Net - Beginning Balance

Unpaid Obligations, Oct 1 2,942 3,095 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments, Oct 1 (1,731) (1,879) 

Obligations Incurred 9,075 8,219 

Less: Gross Outlays (8,476) (8,099) 

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (65) (274) 

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments (Increase)/Decrease (156) 149 

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period: 

Unpaid Obligations 3,476 2,942 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments (1,887) (1,731) 

NET OUTLAYS

Gross Outlays 8,476 8,099 

Less: Offsetting Collections (8,555) (8,190) 

Less: Offsetting Receipts - - 

Net Outlays $ (79) $ (91) 

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 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 133

General 

Supply Fund

Information 

Technology Fund Other Funds

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

$ 714 $ 594 $ 1,769 2,331 $ 194 $ 155 $ 6,511 7,373

83 98 367 989 25 26 540 1,387

- - - - 260 238 335 238

4,628 4,720 4,946 6,747 396 425 18,516 20,155

(121) (121) (861) (2,073) (17) (4) (834) (2,420)

- - - - - - 515 -

- - - - - - (56) (515)

(92) - - - (13) (5) (146) (45)

5,212 5,291 6,221 7,994 845 835 25,381 26,173

- - - - 206 216 206 216

4,624 4,577 4,987 6,225 404 425 19,090 19,446

588 614 - - 108 69 4,724 4,420

- - 1,234 1,769 - - 1,234 1,769

- 100 - - 127 125 127 322

5,212 5,291 6,221 7,994 845 835 25,381 26,173

1,134 1,288 3,177 4,887 195 177 7,448 9,447 

(1,356) (1,459) (4,714) (6,930) (16) (6) (7,817) (10,274)

4,624 4,577 4,987 6,225 610 641 19,296 19,662

(4,559) (4,633) (5,190) (6,945) (614) (597) (18,839) (20,274)

(83) (98) (367) (989) (25) (26) (540) (1,387)

143 103 1,062 2,215 11 (10) 1,060 2,457 

1,115 1,134 2,607 3,177 166 195 7,364 7,448 

(1,212) (1,356) (3,652) (4,714) (5) (16) (6,756) (7,817)

4,559 4,633 5,190 6,945 614 597 18,839 20,274

(4,650) (4,702) (5,147) (6,889) (390) (411) (18,742) (20,192)

- - - - (76) (21) (76) (21)

$ (91) $ (69) $ 43 $ 56 $ 148 $ 165 $ 21 $ 61
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

134 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Principal Financial Statements

Consolidating StatementS of Financing

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2006 and 2005

(Dollars in Millions)

Federal 

Buildings Fund

General 

Supply Fund

2006 2005 2006 2005 

Resources Used to Finance Activities:

Obligations Incurred $ 9,075 $ 8,219 $ 4,624 $ 4,577 

Less: Spending Authority From Offsetting Collections

and Adjustments (8,776) (8,315) (4,590) (4,697) 

Financing Imputed for Cost Subsidies 57 55 30 28 

Other (82) 5 74 (29) 

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 274 (36) 138 (121) 

Resources Used That Are Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations:

(Increase)/Decrease in Goods and Services Ordered But

Not Yet Received (394) 144 7 173 

Increase/(Decrease) in Unfilled Customer Orders 165 (222) (121) (121) 

Costs Capitalized on the Balance Sheet (1,655) (1,634) (749) (752) 

Financing Sources Funding Prior Year Costs 48 (33) (84) - 

Other - 2 77 24 

Total Resources Used That Are Not Part of 

 the Net Cost of Operations (1,836) (1,743) (870) (676) 

Costs Financed by Resources Received in Prior Periods:

Depreciation and Amortization 940 788 394 385 

Net Book Value of Property Sold 12 - 285 312 

Other 22 41 (74) 9 

Total Costs Financed by Resources Received

 in Prior Periods 974 829 605 706 

Costs Requiring Resources in Future Periods:

Unfunded Capitalized Costs (33) (19) - - 

Unfunded Current Expenses 14 (5) 4 6 

 Total Costs Requiring Resources in Future Periods (19) (24) 4 6 

Net (Income From) Cost of Operations $ (607) $ (974) $ (123) $ (85) 

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 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 135

Information 

Technology Fund Other Funds

LESS: INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

$ 4,987 $ 6,225 $ 610 $ 641 $ - $ - $ 19,296 $ 19,662

 (4,452) (5,663) (404) (447) - - (18,222) (19,122)

15 15 26 44 32 27 96 115

7 - (76) (3) - - (77) (27)

557 577 156 235 32 27 1,093 628

322 1,523 20 (21) - - (45) 1,819

(861) (2,073) (17) (4) - - (834) (2,420)

- (27) (9) (13) - - (2,413) (2,426)

- - - - - - (36) (33)

(4) - 69 33 - - 142 59

(543) (577) 63 (5) - - (3,186) (3,001)

13 17 14 12 - - 1,361 1,202

- - - - - - 297 312

85 - - - - - 33 50

98 17 14 12 - - 1,691 1,564 

- - - - - - (33) (19)

(1) (6) 9 (5) - 26 (10)

(1) (6) 9 (5) - - (7) (29)

$ 111 $ 11 $ 242 $ 237 $ 32 $ 27 $ (409) $ (838)
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

136 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Notes to the Financial Statements

For the Fiscal Years Ended 

September 30, 2006 and 2005

Organization

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) was 

created by the U.S. Federal Property and Administrative 

Services Act of 1949, as amended. The U.S. 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 three largest revolving 

funds: the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), General Supply Fund 

(GSF), and Information Technology Fund (ITF). 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 GSF and the ITF are the 

primary funds used to record activities of the former Federal 

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

respectively. The FSS and FTS organizations were combined 

into one Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) in the fourth 

quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2005. 

In association with some of the primary purposes that 

led to the creation of FAS (to modify GSA’s operational 

and management structure to better serve the Federal 

community’s procurement needs and gain efficiencies within 

those operations), GSA submitted proposed legislation that 

would merge the GSF and ITF to create 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 structure and 

authorities of GSF and ITF required segregation of technology 

from non-technology procurements, which can significantly 

hinder efficient management of procurements. 

From GSA’s proposed legislation, Congressional action was 

taken, resulting in development of the General Services 

Administration Modernization Act, which was signed into law 

on October 6, 2006, combining GSF and ITF into one new 

fund, the Acquisition Services Fund, with an effective date of 

December 5, 2006. Accordingly, there is no retroactive impact 

for financial statements reporting purposes.

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 the U.S. 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)
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 137

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 (OIG)

Operating Expenses, GSA

Operating Expenses, Government-wide Policy

Real Property Relocation

Special Funds 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 the 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 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 

Intra-Governmental 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
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

138 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

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 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 

Statements of Net Cost present the operating results of GSA 

by major programs and responsibilities. The Balance Sheets 

present the financial position of GSA using a format clearly 

segregating intra-governmental balances. The Statements 

of Changes in Net Position display the changes in equity 

accounts. The Statements of Budgetary Resources present the 

sources, status, and uses of GSA’s budgetary resources. Lastly, 

the Statements of Financing bridge the gap between the uses 

of budgetary resources with the operating results reported on 

the Statements of Net Cost.

GSA reconciles all intragovernmental fiduciary transactions 

activity, and worked with agency partners to reduce 

significant or material differences reported by other agencies 

in conformance with Department of the 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 Statements of Net Cost, Balance Sheets, Statements 

of Changes in Net Position, and Statements of Financing, all 

significant intra-agency balances and transactions have been 

eliminated in consolidation. No such eliminations have been 

made on the Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources. 

Certain amounts of expenses eliminated on the 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 Statements of Changes 

in Net Position. Accordingly, on the Statements of Net Cost 

the revenues and expense eliminations do not match. The 

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 

Statements of Net Cost are generated from intra-governmental 

sales of goods and services, with the exception of GSF 

Schedules program revenues noted below. GSA earns 99 

percent of revenues from other Federal customers. Expenses 

are primarily incurred with non-Federal entities supplying 

the underlying goods and services being provided to GSA’s 

Federal customers with only one percent of operating 

expenses resulting from purchases from other 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 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 139

accordance with Congressional guidance or other authorized 

purposes. Most agencies using funding from Trust Funds have 

rent rates set to recover full cost. Revenue under nonrecurring 

reimbursable building repairs and alterations (R&A) projects 

is recognized under the percentage-of-completion method. In 

the GSF, 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 $276 million in fees, constituting 

7.5 percent of GSF revenues in FY 2006, and $269 million 

(7.2 percent of GSF revenues) in FY 2005. Professional 

Services revenues are recognized when goods and services 

are provided. In the ITF, 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 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 Balance Sheets.

D. Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury 

This total represents all unexpended balances for GSA’s 

accounts with the U.S. Treasury. Amounts in Fund Balance 

with U.S. 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 U.S. Department of the Interior.

E. Inventories

Operating supplies, which will be consumed in operations, 

are valued at the lower of cost, determined principally on 

the first-in, first-out method, or market. In the FBF, inventory 

balances consist of operating supplies. 

Inventories held for sale to other Federal agencies consist 

primarily of GSF inventories, which are valued at the lower 

of cost, generally determined on a moving average basis, or 

market. The recorded values are adjusted for the results of 

physical inventories taken periodically in accordance with a 

cyclical counting plan. In the GSF, $3.5 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

140 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Notes to the Financial Statements

F. Property and Equipment (See Note 5)

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 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 are 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.

2 Fund Balance With U.S. 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, 2006 and 2005. 

B. Balances by Fund Type

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury are primarily components 

of revolving funds such as the FBF, GSF, and ITF. Within the 

Other Funds category, Special Receipt and Special 

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):
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 141

2006 2005

Revolving Funds $ 218 $ 216

Appropriated and General Funds 181 185

Special Receipt Funds 113 126

Special Expenditure Funds 45 28

Deposit Funds 38 51

Total Other Funds $ 595 $ 606

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 U.S. Treasury 

as of September 30, 2006, and 2005, 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 Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources (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 2B,which 

are not reportable for purposes of the CSBR The following 

schedule presents elements of the Fund Balance with U.S. 

Treasury, (dollars in millions):

Obligated

Balance, Net

Unobligated Balance

available Unavailable TOTAL

FY 2006

FBF $ 1,560 $ 3,990 $ 56 $5,606

GSF (98) 588 - 490

ITF (1,046) 1,234 - 188

Others 161 108 326 595

Total $ 577 $ 5,920 $ 382 $6,879

FY 2005

FBF $ 1,153 $ 3,684 $ 612 $5,449

GSF (222) 614 100 492

ITF (1,538) 1,769 - 231

Others 179 69 358 606

Total $ (428) $ 6,136 $ 1,070 $6,778

D. Availability of Funds

In GSA’s earmarked Special Receipt Funds, included in balances of Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury, are certain amounts 

that may be transferred to either the U.S. Treasury (Treasury) or 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund (see Note 1.D). These 

amounts, related to the Transportation Audits 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 $113 million and 

$118 million at September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively, 

of which $32 million and $21 million, respectively, were 

recorded as liabilities in the Consolidating Balance Sheets. 

At September 30, 2006 and 2005, the amounts in Fund Balance

with Treasury that were no longer available for expenditure 

and authorities cancelled totaled $4 million and $3 million, 

respectively. 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. 

The Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury balances 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 $38 million and $31 million at September 30, 2006 and 

2005, 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 $56 million and 

$515 million at September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively, 

and will not be available for expenditure except as authorized 

in future appropriation acts.

For the GSF and ITF, legislative authorities set certain 

limitations on the amount of earnings that may be retained 

in those funds. Amounts in excess of such limitations are 

returned to the Treasury General Fund. At the end of FYs 2006 

and 2005, only the GSF had estimated balances in this regard, 

totaling $157 million and $84 million, respectively, of excess 

amounts that are classified as Earnings Payable to Treasury.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

142 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Notes to the Financial Statements

Federal 

Buildings Fund

General 

Supply Fund

2006 2005 2006 2005 

Current:

Accounts Receivable - Billed $ 110 $ 119 $ 79 $ 91 

Accounts Receivable - Unbilled 200 218 388 389 

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts (4) (12) (3) (4) 

 Subtotal Current Receivables 306 325 464 476 

Noncurrent Notes Receivable

(Net of Allowance of $51 million and 

$45 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively) - - - - 

 Total Accounts and Notes Receivable $ 306 $ 325 $ 464 $ 476 

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 zero percent to 12.6 percent.

A summary of Accounts and Notes Receivable is as follows (dollars in millions):

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 and 2005, this fund contains $41 million of balances 

being retained to liquidate any claims related to that 

Commission and its responsibilities. After settlement of all 

litigations, any balances not needed to liquidate claims will be 

returned to the government of Panama.

3 Non-Entity Assets

As of September 30, 2006 and 2005, 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):

2006 2005

Funds with U.S. Treasury $ 85 $ 106

Accounts Receivable - Public 1 1

Prepaid Expenses - Federal - 1

Total $ 86 $ 108
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 143

Information 

Technology Fund Other Funds

LESS: INTRA-GSA

ELIMINATIONS

GSA Consolidated 

Totals

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

$ 36 $ 69 $ 30 $ 21 $ - $ - $ 255 $ 300

799 1,024 3 3 24 28 1,366 1,606

(1) - (4) (5) - - (12) (21)

834 1,093 29 19 24 28 1,609 1,885

- - - - - - - -

$ 834 $ 1,093 $ 29 $ 19 $ 24 $ 28 $ 1,609 $ 1,885
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

144 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Notes to the Financial Statements

5 	 Property and Equipment

A. Summary of Balances

In FY 2006, GSA recorded capitalized interest costs of $6.7 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 2005 amounted 

to $2.6 million. Balances in GSA’s Property and Equipment accounts subject to depreciation as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, 

are summarized below (dollars in millions).

2006 2005

Cost

Accumulated

Depreciation

Net Book 

Value Cost

Accumulated

Depreciation

Net Book 

Value

Buildings $ 25,764 $ 12,534 $ 13,230 $ 24,053 $ 11,682 $ 12,371

Leasehold Improvements 231 197 34 319 285 34

Telecom and ADP Equipment 104 88 16 159 136 23

Motor Vehicles 3,935 1,224 2,711 3,880 1,219 2,661

Other Equipment 313 178 135 380 230 150

Total $ 30,347 $ 14,221 $ 16,126 $ 28,791 $ 13,552 $ 15,239

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’s SFFAS Numbers 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 Number 2 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 $94 million 

and $93 million for Environmental and Disposals costs as of 

September 30, 2006 and 2005, 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 and $25 million in FYs 2006 and 2005, respectively, 

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-yearsold, 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. In accordance with SSFAS 

No. 29, Heritage Assets and Stewardship Land, these 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 145

buildings meet the definition of Multi-use Heritage Assets, and 

are reportable within general property, plant, and equipment 

on the Balance Sheets. 

GSA defines 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 243 buildings on the National 

Register, of which 64 are designated as National Historical 

Landmarks. An additional 108 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 the U.S. Department of the Interior.

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 2006 and 2005, 

the FFB made advance payments on behalf of GSA totaling 

$44 million and $43 million, respectively. As of September 

30, 2006 and 2005, $67 million and $111 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): 2007 - $41; 2008 - $43; 2009 - $46; 

2010 - $49; 2011 - $53; 2012 and beyond - $1,257.

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): 2007 - $17; 2008 - $18; 2009 - $19; 2010 

- $20; 2011 - $21; 2012 and beyond - $608.

C. Schedules of Debt Arrangements

GSA’s outstanding debt arrangements in the FBF at September 

30, 2006 and 2005 were as follows (dollars in millions):

2006 2005

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 $ 1,489 $ 1,483

Pennsylvania Avenue Debt:

Ronald Reagan Building, mortgage loans due November 2, 2026, 

at interest rates ranging from 4.004 percent to 8.323 percent 703 718

TOTAL GSA DEBT $ 2,192 $ 2,201
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

146 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Notes to the Financial Statements

8 Leasing Arrangements

As of September 30, 2006, GSA was committed to various non-cancellable 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 GSF 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

FISCALYEAR TOTAL

2007 $ 3,844

2008 3,181

2009 2,812

2010 2,470

2011 2,178

2012 and thereafter 8,415

Total future minimum lease payments $ 22,900

Capital Leases

FISCALYEAR TOTAL

2007 $ 32

2008 32

2009 31

2010 31

2011 31

2012 and thereafter 304

Total future minimum lease payments 461

Less: Amounts representing Interest 173

Executory Costs 3

Total obligations under capital leases $ 285

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 U.S. 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 2006 was calculated by DOL using a 

discount rate of 5.170 percent for FY 2006 and 5.313 percent for FY 2007 and thereafter. At the end of FY 2005, the discount 

rate used was 4.528 percent for FY 2005 and 5.020 percent for FY 2006 and thereafter. The actuarial liability recorded by GSA 

totaled $165 million and $170 million as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.

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 $4.4 billion and $4.2 billion for the fiscal years ended September 

30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Rent expense under all operating leases, including short-term non-cancellable leases, was 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 147

9 Other Liabilities

As of September 30, 2006 and 2005, amounts reported on the balance sheet as Other Intragovernmental Liabilities and Other 

Liabilities, which are substantially all long-term in nature, consisted of the following (dollars in millions):

FBF GSF ITF Others

TOTAL GSA

Consolidated

2006

Other Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Workers’ Compensation Due to DOL $ 21 $ 7 $ - $ 4 $ 32

Deposits Held in Suspense - - - 20 20

Payments Due to the Judgment Fund (Note 10) 238 - - - 238

Total $ 259 $ 7 $ - $ 24 $ 290

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

2005

Other Intragovernmental Liabilities:

Workers’ Compensation Due to DOL $ 22 $ 4 $ 1 $ 6 $ 33

Deposits Held in Suspense - - - 52 52

Payments Due to the Judgment Fund (Note 10) 244 - - - 244

Total $ 266 $ 4 $ 1 $ 58 $ 329

Other Liabilities:

Contingencies $ 5 $ - $ - $ - $ 5

Installment Purchase Liabilities 149 - - - 149

Pensions for Former Presidents - - - 8 8

Liabilities of the Panama Canal Commission - - - 41 41

Unamortized Rent Abatements 36 - - - 36

Total $ 190 $ - $ - $ 49 $ 239

approximately $4.1 billion and $3.9 billion in FYs 2006 and 2005, respectively. The Consolidating Balance Sheets as of 

September 30, 2006 and 2005 include capital lease assets of $363 million in both years for buildings. Aggregate accumulated 

amortization on such structures totaled $129 million and $116 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.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

148 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

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, 2006 and 2005 were as 

follows (dollars in millions):

2006 2005

FBF $ 2,459 $ 2,063

GSF 811 816

ITF 1,799 2,122

Other Funds 132 154

Total Undelivered Orders $ 5,201 $ 5,155

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, 2006 and 2005, GSA recorded liabilities 

in total of $119 million and $89 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, $88 million and 

$84 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 $130 million and $180 million in 

contingencies at September 30, 2006 and 2005, 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 U.S. Department of Justice and any amounts 

necessary for resolution are obtained from a special Judgment 

Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury. In accordance with 

FASAB’s Interpretation Number 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 $31 million and $22 

million in FYs 2006 and 2005, respectively, of Environmental 

and Disposals and Other Liabilities for contingencies which 

will require funding exclusively through the Judgment Fund. 

Of those amounts, almost $31 million and $21 million result 

from several environmental cases outstanding at the end of 

FYs 2006 and 2005, 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 of 

the Federal Government. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 149

Additional contingencies subject to ultimate funding from the 

Judgment Fund where the risk of loss is reasonably possible 

but not probable ranged from $149 million to $3.5 billion 

at September 20, 2006, and ranged from $171 million to 

$3.5 billion at September 30, 2005. 

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 $12 million and $47 million in FYs 2006 and 2005, 

respectively. Of these amounts $5 million and $23 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, 2006 and 2005, budgetary resources 

were not yet available to fund certain liabilities reported on 

the balance sheet. 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 consist of the following 

(dollars in millions):

2006 2005

Intragovernmental Debt $ 48 $ 58

Other Intragovernmental 

Liabilities 270 277

Obligations Under Capital 

Lease 263 273

Workers’ Compensation 

Actuarial Liabilities 165 170

Environmental and Disposal 125 114

Annual Leave Liability 92 92

Other Liabilities 281 239

Total Liabilities Not Covered

 By Budgetary Resources $ 1,244 $ 1,223

In addition, all balances reported in the Consolidating 

Balance Sheets under the captions: Deposit Fund Liability, 

and Earnings Payable to Treasury, as well as amounts shown 

as Other Intragovernmental Liabilities - Deposits Held in 

Suspense 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 verses 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 2007 President’s Budget, which contains FY 2005 

financial statement results. The FY 2008 President’s Budget, 

containing FY 2006 actual results is expected to be released 

in February, 2007. 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

150 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Notes to the Financial Statements

FBF GSF ITF Others TOTAL

CSBR President’s

Budget

CSBR President’s

Budget

CSBR President’s

Budget

CSBR President’s

Budget

CSBR President’s

Budget

Difference

Budgetary 

Resources $12,568 $12,808 $5,291 $ 5,291 $ 7,994 $ 7,995 $ 835 $ 798 $26,688 $26,892 $ (204) 

Obligations 

Incurred 8,219 8,260 4,577 4,577 6,225 6,225 641 641 19,662 19,703 (41)

Unobligated 

Balances 4,349 4,548 714 714 1,769 1,770 194 162 7,026 7,194 (168) 

Balance of 

Obligations 1,211 1,014 (222) (222) (1,537) (1,538) 179 183 (369) (563) 194

Outlays (91) (92) (69) (69) 56 56 165 191 61 86 (25)

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, 2005. 

The basis of the CSBR is data reported to the U.S. Treasury on 

the Reports on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources 

(SF 133). However, as the CSBR is being developed, items may 

be identified that require adjustment to the data originally 

submitted on the SF 133s, 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 2005, the only significant differences were due to the 

effect of adjustments recorded on the CSBR of the FBF, based 

on statistical sampling techniques which were not sufficiently 

detailed for SF 133 reporting. Such amounts recorded in the FBF 

resulted in decreases to budgetary resources of $239 million, 

decreases to obligations incurred of $41 million, decreases in 

unobligated balances of $200 million, and increases in the net 

Balances of Obligations totaling $200 million. 

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 appropriated funds, but which are 

appropriately included in the CSBR in the Other Funds group. 

Such amounts totaled $34 million, $3 million, and $31 million, 

respectively, in FY 2005. 

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.

The most significant comparable amounts reported in the 

FY 2005 CSBR and FY 2007 President’s Budget, and the total 

differences where the CSBR contains balances greater or 

(less) than amounts reported in the President’s Budget are as 

follows (dollars in millions):
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 151

13 	 Statement Of Budgetary Resources

The CSBR present GSA’s budgetary results in accordance 

with reporting requirements prescribed in OMB Circular 

No. 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, all ITF balances 

are classified as exempt from apportionment, while all other 

significant balances in 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 level that the 

obligation was changed to. 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 133s. However, as the CSBR is being developed, 

items may be identified that require adjustment to the data 

originally submitted on the SF 133s. 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 2006, 

the most significant differences were due to the effect of 

adjustments made to the CSBR at the end of FY 2005, as a result 

of statistical samples used to validate balances reportable as 

Undelivered Orders, Unfilled Customer 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. Those FY 2005 differences 

are also discussed above in Note 12. As actual transactions 

were recorded in FY 2006 to address improper balances, 

such activity was wreported on the SF 133s. The FY 2006 

CSBR results exclude the impacts of such activity previously 

reported in FY 2005. Accordingly, the following differences 

existed between the CSBR and SF 133s for FY 2006 due to 

increases (decreases) to the CSBR (dollars in millions): 

Unobligated Balance, Net – Beginning Balance $ (200)

Prior Year Recoveries $ (111)

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders $ 303

Obligated Balance – Beginning $ 200

14 	 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

152 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Notes to the Financial Statements

GSA’s FBF, GSF, ITF, 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 GSF, earnings are retained to cover the cost 

of replacing the motor vehicle fleet and supply inventory. The 

ITF retains cumulative results 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 

Consolidated 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, 2006 and 

2005, balances reported as unexpended appropriations were 

as follows (dollars in millions):

2006 2005

Unobligated Balances:

Available $ 35 $ 24

Unavailable 26 22

Undelivered Orders 68 80

Unfilled Customer Orders, Net (18) (21)

Total Unexpended Appropriations $ 111 $ 105

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 SFFAS No. 5, Accounting for Liabilities 

of the Federal Government, GSA recognizes the normal 

cost of pension programs and the normal cost of other postemployment 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 government-wide costs 

incurred as a result of GSA’s operations.

B. Civil Service Retirement System

At the end of FY 2006, 30.4 percent (down from 32.8 percent 

in FY 2005) of GSA employees were covered by the CSRS, 

a defined benefit plan. Total GSA (employer) contributions 

(9.01 percent of base pay for law enforcement employees, 

and 8.51 percent for all others) to CSRS for all employees in 

FYs 2006 and 2005 amounted to $22 million and $25 million, 

respectively.

C. Federal Employees Retirement System

On January 1, 1987, the FERS, a defined contribution plan, 

went into effect pursuant to Public Law 99-335. Employees 

hired after December 31, 1983 were automatically covered 

by FERS and Social Security while employees hired prior to 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 153

January 1, 1984 elected to either join FERS and Social Security 

or remain in CSRS. As of September 30, 2006, 69.1 percent 

(up from 66.9 percent in FY 2005) 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 2006 and 

2005, GSA (employer) contributions to FERS (23.3 percent of 

base pay for law enforcement employees and 10.7 percent for 

all others) totaled $64 million and $65 million, respectively. 

Additional GSA contributions to the TSP totaled $25 million 

in both years.

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 $94,200 in calendar year 2006, and 

$90,000 in calendar year 2005) to SSA’s Old-Age, Survivors, 

and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in calendar year 

2006. Additionally, GSA makes matching contributions for 

all employees of 1.45 percent of gross pay to the Medicare 

Hospital Insurance program in calendar year 2006. Only 

0.5 percent (up from .03 percent in FY 2005) of GSA’s 

employees are covered exclusively by these FICA programs. 

Payments to these programs in FYs 2006 and 2005 amounted 

to $49 million and $50 million, respectively.

E. Schedule of Unfunded Benefit Costs

Amounts recorded in FYs 2006 and 2005, in accordance with 

SFFAS Number 5 for imputed post-employment benefits are as 

follows (dollars in millions):

PENSION

BENEFITS

Health/Life

INSURANCE TOTAL

2006

FBF $ 13 $ 25 $ 38

GSF 8 12 20

ITF 4 6 10

Other Funds 8 9 17

Total $ 33 $ 52 $ 85 

2005

FBF $ 15 $ 26 $ 41

GSF 9 12 21

ITF 5 6 11

Other Funds 9 10 19

Total $ 38 $ 54 $ 92 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

154 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Required Supplementary Information

Deferred Maintenance 

As of the end of FY 2006, 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 $6.6 billion has not 

yet been addressed by an ongoing PBS R&A project. As this 

backlog is related to capitalizable improvements and 

modernization, it is not considered deferred maintenance 

in accordance with 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. For FY 2006, GSA has requested 

new obligational authority of approximately $866 million for 

the R&A program.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 155

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

Office of Inspector General’s Updated Assessment 

of GSA’s Major Management Challenges

October 2006

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

On October 6, 2006, the President signed the General 

Services Administration Modernization Act, which 

authorizes the creation of the Federal Acquisition 

Service (FAS). On October 12, 2006, the Administrator signed 

the order finalizing the FAS organizational structure, merging 

the Federal Supply Service (FSS) and Federal Technology 

Service (FTS) into the new Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). 

The goal of the reorganization is to streamline organizational 

structures 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. FAS will 

operate on a cost recovery basis and will provide clear lines 

of accountability for business lines. The approximately 2,900 

full-time equivalent employees from FSS and 1,300 from FTS 

will staff FAS. The annual value of contract actions is between 

$40 - $50 billion with revenues exceeding $11 billion. The 

two Services have had their own fee structures, information 

systems, policies, procedures, and management controls. 

Combining FSS and FTS operations into a new organization 

will create management challenges in these areas. 

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.

As part of the reorganization, the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) is merging 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. Throughout the FTS/

FSS reorganization process, GSA has relied on Steering Teams 

to promote a seamless merger. The OCFO Steering Team has 

been addressing the requirements for merging the ITF and the 

GSF utilizing a team comprised of employees with expertise in 

the areas of financial policy, financial systems, and budgetary 

policy. A discussion of the more significant issues follows. 

ISSUE: GSA provides Federal agencies with products and 

services valued in the billions of dollars through various 

types of contracts it establishes and administers. Among 

other contracting programs and vehicles, GSA is responsible 

for the Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program, a 

significant number of Multiple Award Contracts (MACs), 

Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs), and the 

Airline City Pairs Program. Although our specific concerns 

vary somewhat depending on the contracting program or 

vehicle, 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) implementation of statutory or regulatory compliance-type 

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 the same generic types 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

156 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

of items or services at varying 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 

purchase. GSA administers 43 schedules that produced sales 

of $33 billion in FY 2005, 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, which are set out by regulation, 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 preaward 

audits to assist in negotiating contracts. 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. 

Preaward audits are the main tool by which a contracting 

officer can be assured that a vendor’s pricing is appropriate. 

Such audits also provide contracting officers with additional 

details regarding a vendor’s pricing and sales practices in 

anticipation of negotiations. 

In past reviews, we reported that FSS was not consistently 

negotiating 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. Contracting officials have 

expressed concern that because of an extremely heavy 

workload they often feel pressure to award contracts even 

though price analysis has not been done. In a February 2005 

report, the Government Accountability Office, (GAO) found 

that, although FSS had developed a postaward quality review 

of contracts-- a process that has identified deficiencies in 

contract file documentation--the underlying causes of these 

deficiencies and the actions needed to address them have 

not been determined. GAO concluded that as a result, GSA 

cannot be assured that fair and reasonable prices have been 

negotiated for its MAS contracts. 

In past years, with the support and endorsement of OMB, GSA 

has provided to us additional financial support enabling us to 

markedly increase the number of preaward contract reviews 

we perform. Acquisition officials have agreed to support the 

efforts of the OIG auditors by ensuring that vendors submit 

the data necessary for adequate evaluation so that our results 

can be reported timely. An MAS Working Group, comprised 

of Agency and OIG representatives, has developed guidance 

for contracting officers regarding the performance and use of 

preaward MAS contract reviews. 

The Administrator’s explicit effort to discontinue funding for 

OIG-performed MAS preaward audits out of GSA funds, in FY 

2007, is a matter of great concern to us. In comments to our 

2007 draft Audit Plan, the Administrator stated that she plans 

to utilize third party auditors to perform preaward surveys 

of contracts awarded by GSA. The OIG has been performing 

preaward audits for the past 20 years and has an extensive 

staff of auditors experienced in this work. Over the past two 

years, the OIG has found material flaws in 65% of the proposals 

audited that amounted to over $2 billion in proposed contract 

price reductions, and tens of millions in recoveries, such as a 

recent $98.5 million settlement with Oracle Corporation for 

PeopleSoft’s defective pricing of sales. We have found that 

vendors can go to great lengths to conceal their actual selling 

prices, making it difficult for auditors lacking experience in 

this work to identify the misstatements. 

The Agency has established a program for pre-negotiation 

clearances to ensure the quality of its most significant contract 

negotiations. In this process, the contract negotiator presents 

to a panel a summary of his or her actions in developing 

negotiation objectives including market research, contractor 

responsibilities, and price analysis. The panel may include 

individuals with substantial contracting experience, auditors, 

product or service experts, legal counsel, and other acquisition 

staff, and will provide comments or suggestions as necessary. 

MACs are appropriate when the Government cannot 

predetermine, above a specified minimum, the precise 

quantities of supplies or specific services that will be 

required during the contract period. Using source selection 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 157

procedures, GSA competitively awards multiple contracts 

covering the same scope of work and then, as needs are 

identified for specific tasks and products, agencies compete 

the task/delivery orders among the contract holders. The 

use of multiple award contracts is encouraged by the Federal 

Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 to promote best value 

and the fair opportunity for contract awardees to compete 

among themselves. The competition is intended to lower 

prices, obtain better quality, reduce delivery time, and improve 

customer service. However, at times the opportunity to be 

considered for task orders has been unnecessarily limited.

GWACs are multiple award contracts for information 

technology. GSA is preparing to award 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 drain on its acquisition resources. These 

contracts are coming into existence at the same time that 

GSA is reorganizing its acquisition services and responding 

to the deficiencies identified in our Client Support Center 

audits, with special emphasis on ‘Get It Right’. GWACs are 

awarded to a limited number of vendors. Once the contract 

is awarded, solicitation of proposals for task orders are limited 

to those vendors. 

Airline City Pairs Program contracts are awarded annually. 

The $1.9 billion program provides Federal travelers with 

below market fares and provides advantages over commercial 

restricted coach fares, including unrestricted and fully 

refundable fares, no penalties for cancellations or schedule 

changes, and stable fare prices. 

Client Support Centers In recent years, we have identified 

improper contracting practices at the FTS Client Support 

Centers (CSCs) in several regions. In making these contract 

awards, 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. 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. Several factors contributed to these problems—an 

ineffective system of internal management controls, personnel 

sacrificing adherence to proper procurement procedures in 

order to accommodate customers’ preferences, and a culture 

that emphasized revenue growth. Our reports have received 

the attention of senior management, several congressional 

committees, OMB, and the media. In addition, other Federal 

agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, have 

initiated analyses of contract actions since these questionable 

procurement actions were done on behalf of work requests 

from other agencies. 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. We reported in our June 2005 reviews that GSA 

had made significant progress toward becoming compliant 

with procurement regulations, although more needed to be 

done. In our 2006 review of the CSCs, while we did find some 

minor procurement deficiencies in several of the CSCs, they 

were isolated cases, were not pervasive, and did not indicate a 

pattern of non-compliance. Thus we determined the CSCs are 

now compliant with procurement regulations. We note that 

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. 

Other Issues: Ensuring competition under the GWACs will 

be a challenge. During the reviews of the CSCs, we concluded 

that often bids are received from only one vendor, although 

the solicitation was sent to all the contract holders. This could 

occur because the incumbent has a competitive advantage in 

its knowledge of the task. GSA needs to focus on ensuring 

that the government receives competition and best value on 

its procurements. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

158 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

Another challenge is ensuring that MAS, GWACs and other 

contract vehicles are used for their intended purposes. Our 

review of the depot modernization showed that service 

contracts were also being used to procure large quantities of 

products/materials. However, the price of products/materials 

is not pre-established and must be determined on a caseby-case basis. As a result, there is little assurance that the 

government receives best value for products/materials.

In addition, the broad scope of the FAR definition of a 

commercial item is a management challenge for GSA. 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. The MAS Policy 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” (fair and reasonable prices); and 

(3) GSA COs could use market prices as a starting point in 

negotiations to establish a government price that was equal 

to a like buyer in the private sector.

Based on this expanded definition of a commercial item, it 

has been our experience that many MAS vendors have only 

Federal Government sales and sometimes only MAS sales. 

There are also vendors who have commercial sales but who 

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. An 

example is 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 mainly doing business on a time and materials basis. 

All of these scenarios present difficult challenges in terms of 

comparability and impact a contracting officer’s ability to do 

valid price analyses. 

Procurement Team Expertise: During audits of procurements made by GSA’s Customer Service Centers, we found 

that frequently, neither GSA nor its customer agencies had 

the expertise to prepare statements of work, evaluate vendor 

proposals, or prepare independent government cost estimates 

for many service task orders. 

The ordering contracting officers (OCOs) who place orders 

for “commercial” items against the MAS, MACs, and GWACs 

are, in many cases at an even greater disadvantage than the 

COs awarding MASs, MACs, 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.

In addition, OCOs frequently have to negotiate costs for items 

that are not included in a MAS, a MAC, or a GWAC but are 

ancillary to accomplishing the purpose of the task/delivery 

order. Unfortunately, the OCOs often do not know if they 

are paying twice for some costs – costs that may already be 

included in a fully burdened labor rate. 

COs usually establish commercial item prices and rates by 

comparing proposed prices and rates to those previously 

negotiated for other MAS vendors’ contracts, which can 

result in price and rate creep. The FAR discourages COs from 

analyzing vendor cost data underlying prices for commercial 

products and services.

e-Travel contracts GSA has awarded e-Travel contracts 

worth an estimated $450 million to three vendors. All civilian 

agencies were expected to complete migration to e-Travel 

by September 30, 2006. In a recent review, we reported that 

although the Program Management Office (PMO) has achieved 

some success in their oversight and management of the E-Gov 

Travel Initiative, cost, schedule, and performance risks exist. 

The PMO has faced challenges in supporting agencies to 

meet established milestones and timeframes. Many agencies 

have experienced significant deployment schedule slippage, 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 159

resulting in GSA fee revenue shortfalls and the inability to 

meet E-Gov Travel Initiative performance measures. Various 

factors affecting the ability of e-Travel vendors and agencies to 

remain on schedule have impacted the PMO’s effectiveness in 

managing the initiative. In order for the PMO to successfully 

provide adequate management and oversight, realistic GSA 

revenue estimates with a contingency plan to address revenue 

shortfalls, better estimation and substantiation of deployment 

timeframes, and more effective issue resolution are needed to 

help mitigate cost, schedule, and performance risks.

AGENCY ACTIONS: 

The President’s Management Agenda calls on Federal agencies 

to meet twin goals of reducing government spending and 

improving performance. With these outcomes in mind, GSA’s 

Administrator announced the Agency’s plan to restructure 

some of its primary functions. Many factors led to the planned 

reorganization, including shifting customer needs, an evolution 

in how agencies acquire technology products and services, 

and a greater emphasis on GSA’s role in Federal procurement. 

The FAS Acquisition Management team, led by GSA’s Chief 

Acquisition Officer (CAO), has been working to create an 

organization that will partner with the CAO’s office 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. 

On July 13, 2004, GSA unveiled a comprehensive plan designed 

to ensure improved contracting operations and proper use 

of GSA’s contracting vehicles. The “Get It Right” plan aims to 

make acquisition policies, regulations, and procedures clear 

and explicit and improve the education/training of the Federal 

acquisition workforce on the proper use of GSA contracting 

vehicles and services. GSA continues to work closely with 

other Federal agencies, particularly the Department of 

Defense, in identifying actions necessary to clarify guidance 

and ensure proper use of GSA contracting vehicles by GSA 

and other agencies. 

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 is also challenged with ensuring its 

overall contracts are properly used by OCOs. GWAC centers 

have been incorporating OCO, vendor, and user agency 

requirements into their GWACs. In addition, the GWAC 

centers will train OCOs, delegate procurement authority to 

OCOs, and monitor use of the GWACs.

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 

Acquisition Policy, General Counsel, FAS acquisition, and the 

Office of Inspector General. 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 PIB should help 

contracting officers take better advantage of the assistance 

that can be provided by the OIG. 

FAS is supporting Federal Acquisition Regulation changes 

that will require agencies acquiring services using the MAS 

services schedules to attempt to obtain better-than-negotiated 

pricing on large procurements. On June 18, 2004, the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Council issued a final ruling regarding 

ordering procedures under GSA’s MAS contracting program. 

Among other things, the final rule requires ordering agencies 

to seek competition among MAS vendors, document their 

award decisions, and seek additional price reductions under 

Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs). 

GSA worked with an interagency committee to develop a 

best practices guide, “Seven Steps to Performance-Based 

Services Acquisition.” Additionally, a Center of Expertise has 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

160 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

been established to gather sample statements of work and 

develop a template for performance-based service contracting 

solicitations.

In June 2004, GSA established a new Office of the Chief 

Acquisition Officer (CAO), aimed at ensuring compliance with 

Federal contracting rules, fostering full and open competition 

for contracts, and strengthening accountability in contracting. 

The office absorbed many of the functions formerly in the 

Office of Governmentwide Policy. On May 5, 2005, the CAO 

issued policy guidance to the CSCs based on information 

gleaned from the CSC audits.

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 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.

In the aftermath, GSA 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.

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

ISSUE: GSA increasingly accomplishes its mission by using 

contractors to provide client services and products. In recent 

years, GSA added over $13 billion in new procurements to 

its active contract inventory. In October 2004, GSA awarded 

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 over $4.1 billion in 

direct revenue. While GSA gains tremendous advantage by 

leveraging its human capital to manage and arrange for work 

to be performed by 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:

Weak selection criteria permit 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 personnel issued some 

task orders. In addition, contracts were awarded without 

appropriate clauses to hold contractors responsible for 

protecting sensitive data from unauthorized release.

Use of contract formats that offer no incentives to keep 

projects moving or control costs. Contractors neglect to 

establish required quality control programs, or do not 

submit firm construction schedules meaning that delays 

are unknown until they become significant.

GSA personnel providing limited project oversight, acting 

too slowly in making project-critical decisions, and at 

times not inspecting 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.

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 ensuring required services 

are provided. We also noted a lack of documentation 

supporting whether identified fire and other safety 

conditions in leased facilities were corrected.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 161

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 efforts 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 Contract 

to provide leasing services for up to 3.2 million square feet 

of space throughout the country. GSA predicts that much 

of the real property contracting process will be done by 

personnel from one of four national commercial property 

management firms, which will handle about 50% 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 is shrinking while the amount of 

space they are responsible for is growing. Turning over such 

a large part of the workload will create a new demand on PBS 

realty specialists who will 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 allow for 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 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 very dependent on post award 

oversight, which has been a weakness at GSA in the past. 

AGENCY ACTIONS:

GSA has provided training in source selection and related 

procurement issues for property development personnel. 

It has also established an on-line 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. 

In developing the new National Broker 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 PBS realty personnel involved with the Broker Contract. 

Key personnel will be required to hold a Leasing Warrant. 

PBS has put in place processes and procedures to ensure tight 

monitoring and control is administered over the contractor’s 

negotiations and properties. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ISSUE: Designing, building, and implementing cost-effective, 

customer-focused, and secure information technology (IT) in 

support of GSA’s evolving business lines and various missions 

has never been more important. GSA faces management 

challenges related to systems’ requirements and performance 

at all phases of development, implementation, and operation. 

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 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

162 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

all IT security risks. Additionally, GSA is the lead agency 

for five E-Government initiatives; two of the initiatives 

address Government to Business or Government to Citizen 

services and three initiatives are to provide services to other 

government departments and agencies. These IT applications, 

developed to better manage operations and interface with 

the public, also give rise to complex integration and security 

issues that must be addressed. Success is dependent upon 

breaking development into short-term manageable segments 

with performance-based deliverables consistent with system 

objectives. 

Systems Development: GSA is in the process of replacing 

a number of its old systems, in keeping with technological 

advances and to meet current regulations. Many of the IT 

projects are designed to go beyond automating current 

business functions and create real change in the way that 

GSA does business. However, GSA has experienced recurring 

difficulty in deploying and maintaining structured system 

development practices that ensure the proper development 

of requirements as well as implementation of prescribed 

system processes. As a result, 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. 

COTS solutions offer agencies the ability to forgo lengthy 

development of core system functionality and the ability to 

adhere to industry information processing standards. However, 

changing business processes before the Agency invests in a 

COTS product has been a challenge for GSA. The majority of 

COTS solutions require modifications to meet unique Federal 

requirements. Moreover, new systems require interfaces with 

existing systems that are difficult to implement. Reviews by 

our office have shown this to be the case with GSA’s new 

accounting system, Pegasys, and with GSA Preferred (GSAP), 

both of which are based on COTS products. On October 1, 

2002, Pegasys became the Agency’s official system for 

accounting records. While this is a key accomplishment, 

numerous challenges remain before completing full 

implementation of an integrated financial management 

system, and completely replacing the aging legacy National 

Electronic Accounting and Reporting (NEAR) system. 

Pegasys also faces high risks due to its high annual maintenance costs and reported security weaknesses. During 

FY 2004, the Federal Technology Service (FTS) attempted 

implementation of GSAP in two regions to replace four 

legacy systems and provide “cradle to grave” activities for a 

more efficient and effective process to identify and deliver 

technology solutions and services. GSA expected this system 

to provide FTS 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 has now been 

terminated, and FTS is reverting to the legacy systems GSAP 

was intended to replace. Two of these systems, Tracking 

and Ordering System (TOS) and the Order Management 

Information System (OMIS), lack a number of important 

controls. 

GSA faces another critical challenge to change its business 

processes and system capabilities to better enable the 

Agency to focus on and make improvements in providing 

for its customers. A recent high–risk project to develop an 

enterprise-wide Customer Relationship Management system, 

a system crucial to help the Agency with its mission of helping 

Federal agencies better serve their public by offering best 

value workplaces, expert solutions, and acquisition services, 

was halted July 2006. It remains critical for GSA to have a 

strong focus on information systems that provide insight into 

customer needs to improve services the Agency provides, 

generate revenue, and improve customer satisfaction.

GSA also faces systems development challenges in aligning 

its applications, IT infrastructure, and services to governmentwide goals and new Lines of Business. GSA is the lead agency 

for the E-Authentication initiative to provide online identity 

verification and authentication services that serve as the 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 163

foundation for secure E-Government under the President’s 

Management Agenda. GSA faces technical and management 

challenges in building the infrastructure necessary for 

successful rollout of E-Authentication, such as developing 

system interfaces that allow for sharing of authentication 

credentials, developing trust and business models that include 

common business rules that define roles and responsibilities, 

working with the private sector to recruit credential service 

providers, and implementing privacy requirements for 

Personally Identifiable Information (PII). While the Agency has 

developed an E-Authentication risk assessment tool to model 

transaction risk, it is important to ensure that transaction 

risks have been consistently assessed. Once users have been 

authenticated by the E-Authentication service, meaning that 

they have had their identity proven, GSA system owners face 

challenges in ensuring proper authorization, which refers to 

the appropriate level of access to grant to users. 

GSA’s first implementation of E-Authentication is through 

the eOffer/eMod web-based application that allows vendors 

to electronically prepare and submit their Multiple Award 

Schedule contract proposals. It is important that this system 

creates an interactive, secure electronic environment that 

simplifies the contracting process from submission of 

proposal to awards and enables a seamless transmission of 

data from the vendor community to contracting offices. 

While E-Authentication provides more rigor in verifying users 

are who they say they are it does not provide application 

security to ensure that users have appropriate access to 

system functionality or data. An overall risk-based approach 

to security is important to ensure both authentication and 

authorization controls are in place. 

Information Technology Security: The Federal 

Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires 

Federal agencies to develop, document, and implement an 

agency wide information security program to secure Federal 

information systems. 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. Effective implementation of GSA’s IT Security 

Program is dependent upon accountability, with a focus on 

standardized performance goals and measures for system 

security officials. The GSA-CIO needs to provide more specific 

guidance and direction in fulfilling those IT security roles and 

responsibilities as a basis for measuring the effectiveness of 

security officials. GSA’s IT Security Program would also benefit 

from a more proactive approach to addressing emerging risks. 

More consistent implementation of GSA’s IT Security Program 

and increased system monitoring is needed to adequately 

secure GSA’s systems and data. Attention must also be placed 

on securing small components of larger major applications and 

general support systems to ensure that all applications within 

defined system boundaries are secured. Greater emphasis is 

also required for security of privacy information and the use of 

unencrypted data stored outside GSA’s secured facilities. 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. Completion of 

required background checks before contractors are granted 

access to GSA systems remains a challenge.

The importance of web application security is increasing as 

applications move to this expanded form of connectivity. Over 

70 percent of attacks against web sites or web applications 

come at the application layer, not the network or system 

layer. Attacks on web applications, both internal and external, 

bypass traditional network firewall and password access 

controls and may not be monitored. Attackers are increasingly 

targeting web applications, which have traditionally not been 

secured as well as network perimeters. As part of the annual 

FY 2006 FISMA technical control review, we tested technical 

controls for several of GSA’s public facing and intranet web 

applications, and found two significant areas of risk that need 

to be more comprehensively addressed. There is a critical 

need to sufficiently validate data fields input into GSA’s webbased applications, and several GSA public facing web servers 

were running unpatched or unsupported software versions. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

164 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

AGENCY ACTIONS:

The GSA-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 (IL) 

05-03, containing training requirements for persons with 

significant security responsibilities was issued on April 21, 

2005. The GSA-CIO also updated a number of technical and 

procedural guides and added the Oracle technical guide. The 

CIO is maintaining contractor support for:

Procedural and Technical Guide development and 

maintenance

Vulnerability scanning of over 1,800 devices each 

quarter

Incident handling response and investigation

E-authentication risk assessment preparation

Security training for persons with significant security 

responsibilities

Certification and Accreditation and Plans of Actions and 

Milestones reviews for consistency with procedural and 

technical guides

Annual FISMA reporting

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

ISSUE: Multiple management controls have been replaced, 

through reinvention initiatives, by fewer and broader 

controls, making it essential that the remaining controls be 

emphasized and consistently followed. The matter of weak 

internal controls underlies several of the other management 

challenges discussed elsewhere in this paper. 

Many agencies have availed themselves of the services available 

under GSA’s governmentwide 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 development of effective charge card program 

controls across the government. Within GSA, steps taken to 

strengthen controls over vehicle and travel cards appear to 

be effective since we seldom find instances of misuse by GSA 

cardholders. Although the key control over purchase cards, 

supervisory review of cardholders’ transactions, is now more 

consistently followed, we do occasionally identify problems. 

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. 

In the past year, GSA provided us additional funding support 

to markedly increase the number of reviews of questionable 

Voyager charge card transactions, and the amount of 

inappropriate charges we identified more than covered the 

funding provided. 

Many of the problems identified in the Client Support Center 

(CSC) audits related to Ordering Contracting Officer (OCO), 

vendor, and user agency misuse of GSA contract vehicles. As a 

result, GSA is also challenged with ensuring its overall contracts 

are properly used. GWAC centers have tried to develop OCO, 

vendor, and user agency requirements in their GWACs. In 

addition, these centers will train OCOs, delegate procurement 

authority to OCOs, and monitor use of the GWACs. 

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 the non-compliance 

with existing controls has resulted in poor quality data at the 

operational levels of many GSA programs.

In FY 2006, PBS was challenged with the data integrity of 

its rental rates. According to PBS’ pricing policy, the rental 

rates for GSA-owned buildings are supposed to be based 

on independent appraisals of the buildings. However, we 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 165

identified a problem with courthouse appraisals, which 

was confirmed in a subsequent PBS review, where it was 

found that GSA personnel were extensively modifying some 

appraisals and as a result, the rental rates were being called 

into question. 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.

Security of data: The GSA SmartPay® program provides 

Federal agencies with a streamlined approach to pay 

for commercial goods and services, as well as travel and 

fleet-related expenses. The program supports more than 

$24 billion in Federal spending. 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, FSS has worked with the service providers 

to identify their security controls. 

In FY2006 several incidents of loss of privacy data were 

reported across the government. This has resulted in a 

spotlight on the issue of protecting personally identifiable 

information. Poor physical security and a lack of training 

and enforcement of current security policies and procedures 

caused most of the reported incidents.

Section 522 of the 2005 Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act 

required each agency to designate a Chief Privacy Officer 

responsible for establishing and implementing privacy and 

data protection procedures for personally identifiable data. 

This law was put in place to assign responsibility for a privacy 

program at a high level in all agencies. This position is usually 

assigned to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) but, in GSA, 

has been assigned to the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), 

formerly the Chief People Officer. It is imperative that the 

CHCO work closely with the CIO, the Chief Acquisition 

Officer (CAO), the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and 

the Office of Communication (OC) to successfully manage 

privacy data. Some examples of the types of roles these other 

offices need to play are:

CIO can provide technical reviews to ensure system data 

is properly protected 

CAO could review contracts for the appropriate FAR 

clauses related to privacy 

OGC could review policies to ensure they meet the 

spirit of the privacy laws while not violating any other 

relevant laws 

OC could develop a plan to handle the media in case 

there was an inadvertent leak of privacy data 

A critical dual role the GSA CHCO plays is in the formulation 

of telework procedures as they relate to the protection of 

personally identifiable information. This is an area of concern 

that has been repeatedly highlighted in the press. 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. 

Identity theft continues to be a rapidly growing category of 

crime facilitated by use of the Internet to obtain personal 

information without the consent of the individual. As such, 

additional controls for electronic files, including those that may 

contain sensitive personnel information, should be carefully 

considered to help manage increasing risks in this area. 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. Additionally, 

a review of the Agency’s privacy controls is required with 

the General Government Appropriations Act. OMB has also 

recommended Federal agencies take specific actions to 

improve awareness and overall controls for sensitive data, 

including personally identifiable information. We will continue 

to review risks in this area in FY 2007.

During fiscal year 2005, OMB issued the revised Circular No. 

A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control. 

The revised Circular became effective in Fiscal Year 2006 and 

requires Federal agencies and individual managers to develop 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

166 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

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 their 

resources on internal controls, particularly in its efforts to 

assess and document these controls. 

AGENCY ACTIONS:

GSA’s Chief Financial Officer (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. In addition, the CFO periodically issues 

E-mail reminders to cardholders stressing their responsibilities for proper use of the cards. As a result, we have seen 

a substantial reduction of fraud stemming from card use. 

GSA is also a key participant in an OMB sponsored Federal 

committee on identifying ways to improve the overall charge 

card control systems governmentwide.

The PBS Commissioner has taken action to improve the 

integrity of the data in the Inventory Reporting Information 

System (IRIS). Because this system is used to manage the 

Repair and Alterations Program, it is imperative that data in 

IRIS be reliable since PBS management decisions regarding the 

investment, repair, or disposal of assets could be significantly 

impaired. An IRIS-based measure for the basic Repair and 

Alteration Program has been put in place and a contract 

was awarded for system modification to import key financial 

project data from the Financial Management System.

In an effort to rein in the cost growth and bid busts on new 

construction projects, the Commissioner has directed the 

national office to expand and strengthen its participation in 

the oversight of major projects and the development of the 

project teams working on them; develop a comprehensive 

project management manual; require senior management 

involvement where technical evaluation of project plans 

find unresolved deficiencies and missing requirements, 

before projects are advanced to OMB; and establish a design 

management evaluation process that includes an independent 

cost estimate at various design phase submissions.

PBS, to address customer concerns regarding the accuracy 

and consistency of the rent bills, in May 2006 began a national 

review to verify that the rates on the customers’ rent bills 

are supported by the appropriate source document, such 

as a Lease for leased space or an Appraisal for owned space. 

The intent of the review is to identify financial inaccuracies 

on rent bills as well as administrative issues related to the 

Occupancy Agreements PBS has with its customers. As a 

result of concerns expressed to us by the Courts regarding 

rental rates, we have begun a review of this area.

Several steps have been taken within GSA 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 

OCFO 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.

Accelerated Reporting. In FY 2004, GSA met OMB’s 

accelerated financial reporting deadline of November 15. 

However, this deadline was only met through a resource 

intensive process for the preparation and audit of the Agency 

financial statements. Accelerated reporting, therefore, remains 

a significant challenge, requiring the OCFO to continue to 

take steps to implement changes to the financial statement 

preparation process that will support on-going financial 

management and timely and reliable financial reporting.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 167

In its efforts to address this challenge, the OCFO established, 

and continues to work with, its Accelerated Reporting 

Steering Committee. Additionally, the OCFO, OIG, and 

Independent Public Accounting firm hold regular status 

meetings throughout the financial statement audit process to 

ensure that the audit is meeting established time frames and is 

completed within OMB’s accelerated due dates. 

AGING FEDERAL BUILDINGS

ISSUE: GSA, as one of the core real estate agencies in the 

Federal Government, faces challenges in providing quality 

space to Federal agencies with an aging, deteriorating 

inventory of buildings and critical budgetary limitations. The 

average age of buildings in GSA’s portfolio is 44 years, and 

many are facing functional obsolescence due to changing 

agency mandates, new technology, and security requirements. 

With an average funding level of about $500 million in 

recent years for prospectus level repair and alteration and an 

estimated $6.5 billion in needed projects, GSA is challenged 

to reduce the growing workload. 

GSA’s funding for building repairs and alterations is made 

available from the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). The rent 

that is collected from customer agencies in GSA-owned 

space is used to replenish the FBF. However, 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 denied. If 

customer agencies succeed in reducing their rental payments 

significantly, the decrease in funding will impact the FBF by 

reducing the funds available to repair and restore Federal 

buildings.

To make the best use of the funds that are available, GSA 

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. GSA needs a comprehensive 

strategy to enable an evaluation of its building projects 

nationwide.

Prior reviews have shown a need for PBS to improve the 

administrative aspects of asbestos management, develop 

a more comprehensive fire safety management system that 

focuses on a national fire safety strategy, evaluate the formula 

used to measure a building’s net income, and improve profit 

and loss information to facilitate better property management 

decisions.

This problem exists governmentwide. 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.

AGENCY ACTIONS:

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 threetiered 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. GSA will consult with 

affected agencies on appropriate resolution strategies for each 

troubled asset. GSA has briefed congressional subcommittees 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

168 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

with jurisdiction over GSA, and they are very supportive 

of this effort, as are OMB and GAO. Since beginning this 

portfolio initiative, PBS has disposed of 99 assets valued at 

$70 million. An additional 50 assets have been demolished. 

Management has developed a PBS-wide environmental 

system to become more proactive in how it views and 

acts on environmental issues and to address issues such as 

property contamination, compliance with Federal and state 

environmental laws and regulations, and liability for tenant 

activities. PBS also developed a more comprehensive fire 

safety strategy, which endeavors to provide a functional, 

safe, and healthful work environment, protect property, and 

promote client agency mission continuity.

PBS redesigned its policy for charging rent to customer 

agencies in FY 1997. The largest source of income to 

the Federal Buildings Fund is the rent charged by PBS to 

its customer agencies for the space they occupy in GSA 

controlled space. In FY 2005 this amount was approximately 

$7.4 billion. 

On August 10, 2006, PBS announced that effective in FY 2008, 

it is reducing the fee it charges customer agencies to acquire 

and administer leased space. PBS credits the new efficiencies 

to implementation of the National Broker Contract, use of new 

web-based technology, such as an electronic lease system, and 

an enhanced role for reality specialists to be that of a project 

manager and strategic partner with the customer. 

The construction excellence program was established to help 

PBS improve the management of its construction program and 

to complete new construction and major repair and alteration 

projects timely and with minimal changes. 

HUMAN CAPITAL

ISSUE: Like many Federal agencies, GSA has an aging workforce and faces significant potential loss of institutional 

knowledge in the coming years. Since 1993, GSA has been 

downsizing and has focused on restructuring its financial 

and business efforts. The Agency workforce was reduced 

from 20,000 to 14,000 between 1993 and 1999. Much of 

the downsizing was accomplished through early retirement 

and buyout authority, and by filling job vacancies sparingly. 

In March 2003, a mass transfer of 1,268 employees to the 

Department of Homeland Security further reduced the 

workforce to approximately 12,800, and with early out and 

buyouts offered to FSS and FTS employees impacted by the 

new reorganization, the workforce now stands at about 

12,350. 

Since 1998, the OIG has consistently cited human capital 

management as one of the major management challenges 

facing GSA. GAO added this issue to its list of major 

management challenges facing Federal agencies. Human 

capital planning and organizational alignment, leadership 

continuity and succession planning, and recruitment and 

retention of staff with the right skills were identified as key 

areas needing attention. GSA has recently seen a significant 

loss of key management staff. Coupled with the FSS/FTS 

reorganization and the ripple effect of changes, many staff 

find themselves in unfamiliar positions and uncertain as to 

their reporting role in the organization. 

The President’s Management Agenda identifies competitive 

sourcing as a major Government-wide initiative. Procedures 

for conducting these competitive sourcing studies are 

contained in OMB Circular A-76. GSA faces a significant 

challenge in its efforts to determine the activities within 

the organization that should be studied to meet the goals of 

OMB. At the same time, GSA must maintain a stable work 

environment and address employees’ concerns inherent to 

the competitive sourcing process. GSA also needs to post 

its lessons learned or best practices to OMB’s SHARE A-76! 

Website for completed competitions, most of which were 

conducted by PBS. As the competitive sourcing process focus 

shifts from PBS to other parts of the Agency, GSA needs to 

ensure that the experienced PBS officials are available to 

share their expertise on future competitions. 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 169

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 

product knowledge, education, and negotiating skills to deal 

with the complex MAS contracts in place, especially service 

contracts pricing. A challenge is that many contracting 

officers 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. We are concerned that GSA is contracting out 

for temporary services to support the contracting effort and 

not developing from within a sufficient number of talented 

people who can eventually become contracting officers.

New top agency management presents a new category of 

management challenges. The tone that top management sets 

for an agency has an important impact on performance at all 

levels. We will 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 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 that were developed as part of the strategic plan in 

August 2002. The report will assist management in making 

informed human capital decisions. Identified mission critical 

occupations are particularly emphasized in recruitment and 

retention strategies. The Office of the Human Capital Officer 

selectively uses human resources flexibilities to compete 

for employees. It has developed recruitment and retention 

strategies with the help of the Office of Personnel Management 

and employee focus groups, and uses the “compelling job offer” 

technique to convince potential employees of the importance 

of the position.

GSA has a number of initiatives regarding employee orientation, engaging existing employees, and developing leaders 

within GSA. 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 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. 

In its efforts to more accurately and consistently inventory 

its activities under the FAIR Act, GSA’s competitive sourcing 

team oversees each Service’s inventory and reports on any 

discrepancies or variances, and established the Office of 

Performance Improvement that oversees the competitive 

sourcing initiatives for GSA.

In order to address the President’s Management Agenda and 

comply with OMB 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 1 million workers and visitors to about 8,900 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 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

170 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

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 

concern of GSA.

An additional concern relates to how to pay for the upgrades 

and replacement of the security countermeasure equipment 

that was initially obtained with $140 million in funds provided 

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. 

AGENCY ACTIONS:

Effective June 1, 2006, GSA and FPS entered into a new, more 

comprehensive, MOA that more clearly addresses the roles, 

responsibilities and operational relationships between FPS 

and GSA concerning the security of GSA-controlled space. 

FPS will continue 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 will include contract 

guards, security equipment and security fixtures. 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. 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 

reserving the right not to implement mandatory measures, 

after consulting with DHS. We are concerned about this MOA 

and will be monitoring it closely.

In addition, as part of the increased focus on security, GSA 

is adopting a nationwide uniform credential based on Smart 

Card technology. The credential with an embedded smart 

chip will identify each employee visually and electronically 

for both identification and physical access purposes. GSA is 

adopting this credential as part of the Federal Government’s 

implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 

–12 (HSPD-12), which mandates a common identification 

standard for Federal employees and contractors.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 171

MEMORANDUM FOR BRIAN D. MILLER

INSPECTOR GENERAL (J) 

FROM: LURITA DOAN

ADMINISTRATOR (A) 

SUBJECT: IG ASSESSMENT OF GSA’S MAJOR CHALLENGES

DATE: 6 NOVEMBER 2006

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review your assessment of the major challenges currently facing GSA, and 

the agency’s progress in addressing those challenges, so that I can append comments to the document before it is included 

in GSA’s Performance and Accountability Report. My comments refer to the revised assessment that you sent to me on 

October 28, 2006.

The leaders and employees of this agency have worked very hard over the past year to increase the effectiveness of management 

controls in longstanding business lines such as acquisition and real property management, and put in place new management 

controls over rapidly-evolving areas such as e-government, IT security and privacy. Although many business challenges remain, 

I think you will agree that GSA is in a better position today than it was at the end of FY2005, due, in part, to the complementary 

efforts of GSA leaders and your staff.

In light of that, I was surprised that this year’s assessment of major challenges was so similar – and in many cases identical 

– to the document that was prepared last year. This was true for the sections entitled “Issues” as well as the sections entitled 

“Agency Actions.” To ensure that appropriate recognition is given to some of the key actions that were not referenced in your 

assessment, I am including them as an attachment.

While I have the utmost respect for your opinion and the independent role of the IG, I recognize that there will be subjects on 

which we will disagree, so I am compelled to address two specific matters in this memorandum.

The section entitled “Acquisition Programs” implies that I am opposed to the use of pre-award audits. This is not the case; 

however, I believe that GSA can achieve more efficient and effective results through alternative methods. I have exercised 

my authority as the Administrator of GSA by introducing a robust, pre-award survey that is focused on accurate pricing 

determinations that can be resolved in a reasonable period of time, and that provides sufficient information for contracting 

officers to make sound and timely business decisions. In addition, by using the auditing services of small, minority, womenowned, HUBZone or Service Disabled Veteran businesses to perform these tasks, GSA will move closer to achieving its 

targets in these procurement categories. This initiative does not diminish the independent role of the Inspector General 

in performing pre-award audits where audit policy dictates it is appropriate. It does, however, remove the IG from the 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

172 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

business decision process, consistent with the limited mission of your organization. I firmly reject the suggestion that I am 

jeopardizing GSA’s procurement process, or that I am in any way interfering with your responsibilities.

The section entitled “Human Capital” identifies “new top agency management” as a “new category of management 

challenges.” Indeed, there are several new members of the GSA top management team. But, given their stellar qualifications 

and exemplary track records in previous positions, I consider GSA very fortunate to have attracted executives of such high 

caliber. 

Leadership matters. The tone that top management sets for GSA – including respect for the law, good stewardship of taxpayer 

funds, and recognition of the need for independent review -- will have an impact upon performance at all levels. In fact, I am 

counting on it, and will consider that an excellent indicator of success.

Attachment
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 173

Agency Management Comments on the 

Inspector General’s Updated Assessment 

of GSA’s Major Management Challenges

October 2006

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

The Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Program

Pre-award surveys, in addition to pre-award audits, are tools by 

which a contracting officer can determine whether a vendor’s 

pricing is appropriate. In many cases what is needed is to verify 

that systems of records exist in the vendors’ books, that the 

prices are recorded in those records, and that they match prices 

offered to the customer(s) most similar to the government.

The assessment suggest(s) that the Administrator is opposed 

to the use of pre-award audits. This is not the case. Most of 

the actions described as “pre-award audits” take place after 

a contract has been in place for at least five years, but prior 

to the exercise of options. Auditors require “cost build 

up information” that, in many cases, may be deceptive in 

terms of establishing market prices and the prices that the 

government should pay. Furthermore, the bulk of these 

audits are not completed within the period of time that 

would allow contracting officers to make determinations 

of price reasonableness and also meet business objectives. 

Accordingly, the Administrator has decided to exercise her 

authority as the Administrator of GSA to facilitate accurate 

pricing determinations by introducing a robust pre-award 

survey that is focused on pricing issues that can be resolved 

in a reasonable period of time, and that provides sufficient 

information for contracting officers to make sound and timely 

business decisions. This refocus does not diminish the role 

of the Inspector General (IG) in performing pre-award audits 

where audit policy dictates it is appropriate, but it does take 

the IG out of the business decision process. 

Multiple Award Contracts (MACs)

The statement that “opportunity to be considered for task 

orders has been unnecessarily limited” is unsupported by 

evidence. Competition cannot be measured solely by the 

number of offers received. If the statement addresses the 

number of offers received in response to fair opportunity 

under FAR Part 16, then GSA management and the Office 

of the Inspector General have a fundamental disagreement 

about the measure of compliance with fair opportunity, or 

what constitutes fair and open competition. If it addresses 

decisions to make logical follow-on awards under fair 

opportunity as specifically provided for under FAR Part 16, 

or the number of offers received where fair opportunity is 

used in accordance with FAR Part 16, then it should have 

been clarified to address that specific issue. 

Government Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs)

A bid can be received from only one vendor for a variety 

of reasons, and not necessarily because the incumbent has 

a competitive advantage. GSA management is unaware of 

any findings by the Inspector General or the Govrnment 

Accountability Office that GSA-managed GWACs have failed to 

comply with the requirements of fair opportunity under FAR 

Part 16.

FAR Definition of a Commercial Item

If the broad scope of the FAR definition of a commercial item is 

a management challenge for GSA,” then it is a similar challenge 
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

174 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

for the rest of the Federal government. The definition in the 

FAR of “commercial item” has been through the rulemaking 

process, and has been reviewed almost annually since it was first 

published in October 1995. This language has been reviewed 

by the 1423 panel, and will be reviewed again this year by the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Congress. The 

definition is intentionally broad in the area of services because 

services and goods are different, and almost all services are 

tailored to the buyer in the commercial marketplace. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Systems Development

GSA employs conventional project management processes, 

including earned value management systems for tracking 

cost and schedule, for all systems development activities. In 

September 2006 agency policy was revised by CIO Order 

2135.2A to require an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) after 

contract award to ensure contractor and GSA have a clear 

understanding of project goals, expectations, and scope. 

The basis for the following statement is not clear: “Pegasys 

also faces high risks due to its high annual maintenance 

costs and reported security weaknesses.” It has not, to our 

knowledge, been supported by recent audit findings and was 

not reflected in last year’s assessment. As to reported security 

weaknesses, during FY 2006 the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) devoted significant attention to improving 

systems change controls and security. FY2006 preliminary 

audit results from PwC indicate that OCFO has resolved or 

partially resolved all findings on systems security identified 

during the FY 2005 audit. 

Information Security

GSA is taking action to further strengthen Web application 

security to mitigate the risks inherent to exposure of 

business applications to the Internet. Web application 

hacking is becoming one of the biggest IT security threats 

worldwide today. Among many efforts to defend GSA Web 

applications, in March 2006 GSA updated the certification 

and accreditation process to include Web application 

security scanning. In May 2006, GSA trained 10 IT security 

professionals and developers in Web application security. 

And in July 2006, GSA awarded a contract to perform Web 

application vulnerability scanning across the agency. We 

believe that these activities will effectively mitigate Web 

application security risks across GSA.

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

Security of Controls

The designation of Chief Privacy Officer was given to GSA’s 

Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) because a large portion of 

personally identifiable information is contained in GSA human 

resource records, and also because many of these records 

continue to exist in paper form. The CHCO has worked closely 

with the Chief Information Officer, Chief Acquisition Officer, 

General Counsel and Office of Communications to publish 

and disseminate clear and unambiguous policy and procedures 

governing the protection of personally identifiable information. 

This information has been “pushed” to GSA managers and 

employees in GSA directives, email messages and the GSA 

Today electronic newsletter, and is available at all times on 

GSA’s InSite intranet. In addition, during the summer of 2006 

all employees and contractors were required to successfully 

complete mandatory online training entitled “Privacy 101.”

Accelerated Reporting

While the first year of accelerated reporting (FY2004) was 

a challenge, GSA is now in the third year of meeting the 

November 15th deadline, and it is now part of normal business. 

OCFO utilizes project planning tools to monitor the schedule 

and deliverables in order to ensure complete, timely and 

reliable reporting.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport 175

HUMAN CAPITAL

Acquisition Workforce

Attracting, developing and retaining a skilled and productive 

acquisition workforce, including but not limited to contracting 

officers, is one of GSA’s key human capital objectives. The 

acquisition workforce was designated as one of GSA’s 

four mission-critical occupations, along with information 

technology, realty, and financial management. The Chief 

Human Capital Officer partnered with the Chief Acquisition 

Officer and other GSA leaders to create an Acquisition 

Steering Committee, and this body is focused on guiding GSA 

in its achievement of this key objective.
F i n a n c i a l S e c t i o n

176 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nn u al P erformance and A cco u ntability R eport

Supplemental Information and 

Other Reporting Requirements

Debt Management

GSA reported $127 million of outstanding 

debt from non-Federal sources and 

$16.6 million of delinquent debt at the 

end of FY 2006. The amount of delinquent debt decreased 

from $29.7 million to $16.6 million for the same period. 

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 (Treasury) Financial Management 

Service (FMS) for collection cross-servicing. From October 1, 

2005 to September 30, 2006, the GSA Finance Centers referred 

approximately $34.6 million of delinquent non-Federal 

claims to the Treasury for cross-servicing collection activities. 

Collections on non-Federal claims during this period exceeded 

$275.6 million. Administrative offsets resulted in additional 

collections of $12.7 million. GSA also collects non-Federal 

claims using Pre-Authorized Debits (PAD). From October 1, 

2005 to September 30, 2006, 240 PADs totaling $95,326 were 

processed. Also, during this period, $4.1 million was received 

as a result of a fraud case against Office Depot. 

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 Supply Service (FSS), and Federal Technology Service 

(FTS) Accounts Payable Divisions. 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, if needed, its procedures 

continuously to ensure prompt payment utilizing EFT. The 

percentage of invoices paid on time increased slightly from 

FY 2005. GSA paid significantly less in interest penalties 

during FY 2006. The statistics for the current and preceding 

two fiscal years are as follows:

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006

Total Number of Invoices Paid 1,390,406 1,483,040 1,285,710

Total Dollars Disbursed $20.8 Billion $18.7 Billion $16.2 Billion

Total Dollars of Interest Penalties $779,835 $981,111 $575,461

Interest Paid per Million Disbursed $39.00 $44.87 $30.84

Percentage of Invoices Paid On Time 98% 98% 98.7%

Percentage of Invoices Paid Late 1% 2% 1.3%

Percentage of Invoices Paid Electronically 92% 91% 94%
Appendices
Awards GSA Has Won in 2006

2

0

0 6 A W A R

D

S

Seattle U.S. Federal Courthouse Nets Top National Engineering Award

The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) recognized the Seattle U.S. Federal Courthouse with its highest honor of engineering excellence, the Grand Conceptor Award. 

The ACEC selected the Courthouse as the best of 143 state qualifying entries. Projects were 

evaluated for original or innovative applications; future value to the engineering profession and 

public, social, and economic considerations; and client satisfaction. A structural steel-plate shear 

wall with super columns, progressive collapse prevention cables, and the open, but blast resistant 

atrium served as the key building innovations cited in the presentation.

Southeast Sunbelt Wins TOBY Award

The Southeast Sunbelt Region’s U.S. Courthouse in Fort Myers, FL, was honored with the Office Building of the Year (TOBY) Award by the Building Owners and Managers Association 

(BOMA). The award was made in the Government Building category. The courthouse first won the 

local and regional competitions. Additionally, the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center in Atlanta, GA 

and the U.S. Courthouse in Dublin, GA both won their local and regional competitions and competed 

for the international award against some of the finest buildings in the world. 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center Wins BOMA Earth Award

The ninth-largest Federal building in the country and the largest in the Southeast Sunbelt Region, the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center recently received the Earth Award from BOMA. 

The center was named an ENERGY STAR Building in 2005. It houses 5,000 employees for dozens 

of Federal agencies and combines four distinct structural elements in central downtown, equaling 

2,000,000 square feet. The center includes the Rich’s Building, the Midrise, the Bridge Building, and 

the Tower.
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 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 179

Appendix 1: Summary Chart of Goals and Measures

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 2006 and were reflected in the FY 2007 

Congressional Justifications. The 21 Key Performance Measures are highlighted below. Some of the results were not available 

at the time of publication, so the results for the remaining performance measures marked not available will be published on 

GSA’s Web site in December, 2006. A list of measures reported in the FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report 

(PAR) that are no longer reported externally can be found in Appendix II.

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

1: Provide Best Value for Customer Agencies and Taxpayers

PBS (Asset Management)

Execute energy conservation goals while 

increasing GSA’s Customer Satisfaction 

scores to 73% by FY 2006.

Customer Satisfaction - tenants 

in owned space.

67.6% 72% 78% 73% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing)

Award leases at an average rental rate 

of not less than 8.5% below industry 

averages for comparable office space 

by FY 2006.

Cost of leased space relative to 

industry market rates.

-7.4% -10.6% -9.2% -8.5% -9.2% Met

PBS (Leasing)

Achieve a satisfied customer satisfaction 

rating (4’s & 5’s) 72% of the time by 

FY 2006.

Satisfied tenant customer 

satisfaction rating (4 and 5 

responses) in leased spaced 

surveyed.

66% 70% 78% 72% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing)

Use National Broker Contract for at 

least 60% of expiring leases by FY 2006.

Percent of expiring leases using 

the National Broker Contract.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

60% Not 

Measured

PBS (Leasing)

Deliver leased space when the customer 

needs it 82% of the time or better by 

FY 2006.

Percent of customers surveyed 

who say they received their 

leased space when needed.

76% 87% 82% 82% Not 

Available

PBS (Real Property Disposal)

Maintain “highly satisfied” ratings 

of 93% or higher on the Customer 

Transaction Satisfaction Survey by 

FY 2006.

The percent of disposal 

transactions that “exceed” 

or “greatly exceed” customer 

expectations.

90% 94% 93% 93% Not 

Available

FAS (Vehicle Acquisition)

Increase the Vehicle Acquisition 

program’s customer satisfaction toward 

the 75th percentile for customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction 

score.

75.7 77 79.3 79 Not 

Available

FAS (Vehicle Acquisition)

Maintain 28% or better discount from 

manufacturer’s invoice price.

Percentage discount from 

invoice price.

26.3% 33.1% 40.6% ≥28% 39% Met

FAS (Fleet)

Maintain the Vehicle Leasing program’s 

current level of world-class customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer satisfaction 

survey score.

83.7 84.9 85.9 83 Not 

Available

FAS (Fleet)

Maintain the gap between GSA Fleet 

rates and commercial rates at 29% or 

more.

Percentage GSA Fleet leasing 

rates below commercial rates 

on the GSA Vehicle Leasing 

Schedule.

36.9 31.7% 43.1% ≥29% 39% Met
A p p e n d i c e s

180 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

1: Provide Best Value for Customer Agencies andTaxpayers (continued)

FAS (Travel)

Increase the program’s customer 

satisfaction toward the 75th percentile 

for customer satisfaction in government.

External customer 

satisfaction score.

69.5 71.1 73.6 74 Not 

Available

FAS (Travel )

Provide policy compliant, consolidated 

and fully integrated end-to-end travel 

services government-wide.

Number of vouchers serviced 

through the E-Gov Travel 

System (percent of total 

voucher population).

Not 

Measured

0.02% 1.1% 12.9% 6.7% Not Met

FAS (Transportation)

Increase the program’s customer 

satisfaction toward the 75th percentile 

for customer satisfaction in government.

External customer 

satisfaction score.

74.8 74.1 73.3 78 Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation)

Maximize customer savings through the 

use of GSA Transportation programs.

Freight and Household 

Goods Savings.

Not 

Measured

$103M $128M Tracking 

Only

Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation)

Maximize customer savings through the 

use of GSA Transportation programs.

Domestic Delivery Savings. Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

$515M Tracking 

Only

Not 

Available

FAS (Global Supply)

Increase customer satisfaction toward 

the 75th percentile for customer 

satisfaction in government.

External customer services 

satisfaction survey score.

79.6 79.0 77.3 79.9 Not 

Available

FAS (Personal Property Management)

Maintain a customer satisfaction score 

higher than the Federal government 

American Customer Satisfaction Index 

(ACSI) reflecting customer satisfaction 

in government in FY 06 and each year 

thereafter.

External customer satisfaction. 75.3 75.6 74.6 79 Not 

Available

FAS (Network Services)

Provide robust portfolio of 

telecommunications services and 

value added solutions to satisfy diverse 

customer requirements.

Customer satisfaction with 

value added solutions.

Not 

Measured

77% Not 

Measured

80% Not 

Available

FAS (Network Services)

Provide robust portfolio of 

telecommunications services and 

value added solutions to satisfy 

diverse customer requirements.

Percentage of solutions 

reviewed complaint with policy 

and regulations, internal polices 

and procedures.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

100% 100% Not 

Available

FAS (Network Services)

Provide substantially lower cost service 

to customer agencies.

Percentage of Network 

Service prices are below best 

commercial prices.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

41.5% 35% Not 

Available

FAS (Network Services)

Provide substantially lower cost 

service to customer agencies.

Savings provided to customers. $574M $705M $633M $550M $620M Met

FAS (Network Services)

Grow customer base to increase market 

share and maximize savings to the 

government.

Percentage of agencies serviced 

by Network Services.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

88.20% 90% Not 

Available

Appendix 1: Summary Chart of Goals and Measures
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport 181

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

1: Provide Best Value for Customer Agencies andTaxpayers (continued)

FAS (Regional Telecommunications)

Manage acquisitions to ensure industry 

provides solutions that meet client 

agencies mission needs.

Percentage (by dollar value )of 

eligible service orders awarded 

with performance-based 

statements of work.

Not 

Measured

47% 72% 50% 89% Met

FAS (Regional Telecommunications)

Manage acquisitions to ensure industry 

provides solutions that meet client 

agencies mission needs.

Percentage of projects meeting 

agreed performance according 

to the Quality Assurance 

Surveillance Plan (QASP).

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

75% Not 

Measured

FAS (Regional Telecommunications)

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including 

timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and 

efficiency to verify best value and 

effective acquisition management 

are achieved.

Percentage of negotiated award 

dates for commodities and 

service that are met or bettered.

Not 

Measured

89% 96% 76% Not 

Available

FAS (Regional Telecommunications)

Provide cost management for solutions 

delivery.

Percentage of solutions that 

are met or below initial cost 

estimates.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

80% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions- Professional

Services)

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.

Not 

Measured

43% 64% 50% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions- Professional

Services)

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including 

timeliness, cost-effectiveness, 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.

Not 

Measured

83% 88% >95% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions- Professional

Services)

Provide cost management for 

solutions delivery.

Percentage of solutions that 

are met or below initial cost 

estimates.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

90% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions-National)

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.

Not 

Measured

48% 26% >50% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions-National)

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including 

timeliness, cost-effectiveness, 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% 92% 87% >95% 89% Not Met

FAS (IT Solutions-Regional)

Improve performance against business 

performance metrics, including 

timeliness, cost-effectiveness, 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.

91% 88% 84% >95% Not 

Available
A p p e n d i c e s

182 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

1: Provide Best Value for Customer Agencies andTaxpayers (continued)

FAS (IT Solutions-Regional)

Provide cost management for 

solutions delivery.

Percent of dollar savings 

between independent 

government cost estimates 

(IGCEs) and award amounts.

12% 8% >8% Not 

Available

OGP

Develop and issue effective guidance and 

implementation policies in support of 

the Federal Identity Credentials.

Percentage of major agencies 

adopting cross-agency policy 

and uniform standards for 

Federal Identity Credentials.

Not 

Measured

54% 75% Not 

Available

OCSC

Help the Federal government become 

more citizen-centric by increasing the 

magnitude, quality and outreach of 

Federal information via various channels 

and enable Federal agencies to become 

more citizen-centric 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.

209.7M 241.9M 230.5M 235M 235.1M Met

OCSC

Enable a citizen-centric government by 

sharing the FirstGov infrastructure and 

e-Gov expertise with the President’s 

E-Gov initiatives.

ACSI Satisfaction Survey 

Index.

74 73 74 Not 

Available

2: Achieve Responsible Asset Management

PBS (Asset Management)

Increase to 71% the percentage of 

government-owned assets with a Return 

on Equity of at least 6% by FY 2006.

Percentage of governmentowned assets with an ROE 

of at least 6%.

64% 70% 74% 71% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset Management)

Increase the percentage of governmentowned assets with a positive FFO to 85% 

by FY 2006.

Percentage of governmentowned assets achieving a 

positive Funds from Operation.

73% 78% 80% 85% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset Management)

Decrease the vacant (available and 

committed) space to 7% of the owned 

inventory by FY 2006 and maintain 

thereafter.

Percentage of vacant and 

committed space in the 

government-owned inventory.

8.3% 7.9% 6.8% 7.0% 7.0% Met

PBS (Leasing)

Analyze 100% of leases expiring within 3 

years for market opportunities to reduce 

rental payments (where market data is 

available).

Percent of existing lease 

inventory reviewed for 

beneficial opportunities.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

100% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing)

Maintain the percent of vacant space in 

leased buildings at less than or equal to 

1.5% by FY 2006.

Percent of vacant space in 

leased inventory.

1.4% 1.2% 1.2% ≤1.5% Not 

Available

PBS (Leasing)

Manage the costs of administering 

leased space so that leased Funds From 

Operations (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.

1.2% 1.9% 2.2% 0% - 2% Not 

Available

Appendix 1: Summary Chart of Goals and Measures
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport 183

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

2: Achieve Responsible Asset Management (continued)

PBS (Real Property Disposal)

Award 90% of utilization and donation 

(U&D) property within 240 days for 

fiscal year 2006.

Percentage of U&D property 

awarded within 240 days.

52% 75% 39% 90% 97% Met

PBS (Real Property Disposal)

Award 95% of public sales within 170 

days for fiscal year 2006.

The percent of public sales 

awarded within 170 days.

67% 73% 92% 95% 100% Met

PBS (Real Property Disposal)

Attain 1.08% cost of sales as a percentage 

of sales proceeds for reimbursable sales 

for fiscal year 2006.

Cost of reimbursable sales as a 

percentage of sales proceeds.

0.52% 0.18% 0.13% 1.08% Not 

Available

OCIO

Provide a secure IT environment.

Percent of IT systems that 

have a current certification and 

accreditation.

61% 97% 100% 100% Not 

Available

3: Operate Efficiently and Effectively

PBS (Asset Management)

88% of R&A projects on schedule 

by FY 2006.

R&A projects on schedule. 78% 78% 95% 88% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset Management)

Maintain the percent of escalations on 

R&A projects at less than or equal to 

1% by FY 2006.

Percent of escalations on 

construction projects.

0.5% 0.5% 0.4% ≤1% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset Management)

Obligate 75% of the minor Repairs and 

Alterations budget for planned projects 

by the end of FY 2006.

Percent of minor R&A budget 

obligated on planned projects 

by the end of the fiscal year.

Not 

Measured

87% 87% 75% Not 

Available

PBS (Asset Management)

Maintain operating service costs in office 

and similarly serviced space at 3% or 

more below private sector benchmarks 

by FY 2006.

Percent below private sector 

benchmarks for cleaning, 

maintenance and utility costs 

in office and similarly serviced 

space.

-15% -15% -11% -3.0% -4.2% Met

PBS (New Construction)

Verify 30% of newly constructed 

buildings for achievement of established 

operational requirements by FY 2006 

(commissioning).

Percent of newly constructed 

buildings independently 

verified for achievement 

of established operational 

requirements (commissioning).

17% 14% 22% 30% 100% Met

PBS (New Construction)

New construction projects on schedule 

86% of the time by FY 2006.

Construction projects on 

schedule.

68% 80% 100% 86% Not 

Available

PBS (New Construction)

Average cycle time on new courthouse 

construction projects is 3,100 days or 

less by FY 2006.

Number of days to complete 

new courthouse construction 

projects.

2,853 2,988 2,928 3,100 Not 

Available

FAS (Vehicle Acquisition)

Manage program resources to meet its 

future needs while maximizing program 

efficiency.

Number of vehicles purchased 

per FTE.

1,191 1,350 1,498 1,300 Not 

Available

FAS (Fleet)

Aggressively pursue consolidation 

opportunities to reduce overall 

government expenses.

Number of vehicles managed 

per onboard associate.

271 275 329 335 Not 

Available
A p p e n d i c e s

184 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

3: Operate Efficiently and Effectively (continued)

FAS (Travel & Transportation)

Reduce program operating costs.

Operating cost per $100 

business volume.

$0.67 $0.80 $0.95 $0.95 Not 

Available

FAS (Travel)

Provide policy compliant, consolidated 

and fully integrated end-to-end travel 

services government-wide.

Percentage of agencies 

migrating to E-Gov Travel.

Not 

Measured

8% 29.2% 58.3% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation)

By FY 2006, as part of overall 

automation and streamlining of 

transportation processes, attain and 

sustain percentage of electronic 

audits at 95%.

Percent of audits performed 

electronically.

93.2% 92% 94% 95% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation)

By fiscal year 2006, as part of overall 

automation and streamlining of 

transportation processes, attain and 

sustain percentage of electronic 

audits at 52%.

Percent of claims processed 

within 120 days.

Not 

Measured

51.20% 69% 52% Not 

Available

FAS (Global Supply)

Reduce Global Supply mark-up 

on stocked items.

Percentage of Global Supply 

mark-up on stocked items.

45.9% 42.8% 42.9% 40.1% 44.2% Not Met

FAS (Global Supply)

Achieve timely delivery for all customer 

orders.

Percent of domestic, nonhazardous orders shipped 

within 24 hours.

86% 85% 83% 93% Not 

Available

FAS (Global Supply)

Increase program efficiency and value to 

Global Supply customers by minimizing 

program operating costs.

Operating costs per $100 

business volume.

$18.13 $17.58 $17.58 $17.38 Not 

Available

FAS (Personal Property Management)

Decrease the time it takes to complete 

disposal action for excess property to 

56 days by FY 2006.

Cycle time for disposal 

process (days).

83 72 56 56 52 Met

FAS (Personal Property Management)

Align program-operating costs relative to 

revenue generated by the Sales Program, 

and strive to maximize the return on 

these resources.

Operating cost per $100 

business volume.

$33.94 $24.88 $15.23 $22.00 Not 

Available

FAS (Network Services)

Provide effective management of 

Network Services acquisitions.

Network Program Milestones 

planned vs. actual.

Not 

Measured

100% 99.10% 100% Not 

Available

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.

Not 

Measured

96% 90.60% 80% Not 

Available

FAS (Regional Telecommunications)

Provide quality telecommunications 

services through appropriate consistency 

in the acquisition management process 

from pre-award through closeout.

Percentage of schedule task 

orders solicited using e-Buy.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

80% Not 

Available

Appendix 1: Summary Chart of Goals and Measures
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport 185

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

3: Operate Efficiently and Effectively (continued)

FAS (IT Solutions- Professional

Services)

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.

Not 

Measured

83% 81% >86% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions- Professional

Services)

Provide quality services through 

appropriate consistency in the 

acquisition management process from 

pre-award through closeout.

Percentage of schedule task 

orders solicited using e-Buy.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

78% 90% 93% Met

FAS (IT Solutions-National)

Provide quality IT solutions 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.

86% 98% 94% >95% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions-Regional)

Provide quality IT solutions 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.

86% 96% 92% >95% Not 

Available

OCIO

Improve IT Investment Control & 

Project Management.

Percentage of the IT Portfolios 

DM&E Projects that have a 

schedule variance within 10% 

of plan.

92% 100% 100% Not 

Available

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 

& Registration Environment 

(CORE) steering committee 

registered at CORE.

0 10 25 Not 

Available

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 3 or 

more providers to achieve 

competition. 

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

50% Not 

Available

OGP

Provide tools and incentives to 

improve the effectiveness of property 

management operations.

Percentage of agencies 

reporting real property 

performance measures tracked 

by OGP.

52% 61% 67% Not 

Available

4: Ensure Financial Accountability

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.

$507 $556 $508 $504 Not 

Available

FAS (Travel )

Reduce program operating costs.

Direct cost as a percent of 

revenue.

40% 57.0% 56.00% 64% Not 

Available

FAS (Transportation)

Reduce program operating costs.

Direct cost as a percent of 

revenue.

40% 56.5% 56.3% 52% 48% Met
A p p e n d i c e s

186 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport

Office

	 Performance Goals Performance Measures

FY 2003

Actual

FY 2004

Actual

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Target

FY 2006

Actual Results

4: Ensure Financial Accountability (continued)

FAS (Personal Property Management)

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.

61.5% 48.0% 34.7% 46% Not 

Available

FAS (Network Services)

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Total program expense as a 

percentage of gross margin.

95% 41% 41.3% 55% Not 

Available

FAS (Regional Telecommunications)

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Total program expenses as a 

percentage of gross margin.

59% 56% 52% 66% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions- Professional

Services)

Improve the financial condition 

of the Program.

Total program expenses as a 

percentage of gross margin.

Not 

Measured

64% 50% 66% Not 

Available

FAS (IT Solutions-National)

Improve the financial condition 

of the Fund.

Direct operating expense as a 

percentage of gross margin.

81% 78% 83% 62% Not 

Available

OCFO

Increase the percentage of vendor 

invoices received electronically by 

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) 

or through the Internet.

Percent of invoices received 

electronically.

44% 56% 64% 68% 71% Met

5: Maintain a World-Class Workforce and World-Class Workplace

OCHCO

Enhance ability to attract talent to GSA.

Number of days to fill a 

vacancy.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

26.3 45 30.1 Met

6: Carry Out Social, Environmental, and Other Responsibilities as a Federal Agency

PBS (Asset Management)

Reduce energy consumption in GSA 

Federal buildings by 2% (as measured by 

Btu/GSF) over the FY 2003 baseline by 

FY 2006.

Percent reduction in energy 

consumption over the FY 2003 

baseline.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

-2% -4.4% Met

PBS (New Construction)

Register 25% of the New Construction 

program for LEED in the same fiscal 

year design funding is authorized and 

appropriated by FY 2006.

Percent of New Construction 

program registered for LEED 

in the same fiscal year design 

funding is authorized and 

appropriated.

16% 0% 9% 25% Not 

Available

PBS (New Construction)

Certify 20% of the New Construction 

program for LEED within 18 months 

of substantial construction completion 

by FY 2006.

Percent of New Construction 

program LEED certified within 

18 months of substantial 

construction completion.

0% 0% 17% 20% Not 

Available

OGP

Improve the compliance with Section 

508 government-wide by improving 

the compliance of GSA contracts and 

programs.

Percentage of agencies whose 

work demonstrates the use of 

Section 508 tools.

Not 

Measured

Not 

Measured

0% 30% 42% Met

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).

29%

66%

5%

37%

56%

7%

27.54%

65.17%

7.29%

30%

60%

10%

Not 

Available

Appendix 1: Summary Chart of Goals and Measures
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport 187

Appendix 11: Performance goals and Measures no Longer Reported

Program Performance Goals Performance Measures

1: Provide Best Value for Customer Agencies andTaxpayers

PBS 

(Asset Management)

Achieve an overall “highly satisfied customer 

satisfaction rating of 73% on the ordering official 

survey by FY 2005. 

Percent of highly satisfied customers on the ordering official survey.

PBS 

(Leasing)

Maintain an overall customer satisfaction score of 85% 

for the lease transaction process

Overall customer satisfaction – Realty Transaction Survey.

PBS 

(Real Property 

Disposal)

Complete 80% of 49 Act disposals within 320 days 

by FY 2005.

Percentage of disposals completed within 320 days.

FAS 

(Commercial 

Acquisition)

Reduce operating costs per $100 of business volume to 

$0.58 by FY 2005.

Operating cost per $100 business volume.

FAS 

(Travel & 

Transportation)

Increase the number of Federal agency customers 

through TMSS. 

Number of TMSS users.

FAS 

(Travel & 

Transportation)

Expand the number of vendors and services under the 

TSS Schedule.

Number of vendors participating on TSS Schedule.

OGP Increase adoption of common business processes 

and/or key components enabling those processes.

Number of common business processes and/or key components 

adopted by Federal programs.

OCSC Enable government Web sites to become more 

citizen-centric and user-friendly.

FirstGov.gov page view/ year.

Number of agencies using FirstGov infrastructure (hosting).

Federal Web sites that use E-Gov Solutions’ infrastructure 

for hosting or search services.

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.

Increase agency Working Agreements regarding citizen inquiry/

responses.

FirstContact and Tier 1 telephone and e-mail services for agencies.

Web self-help options for citizen inquires.

OCSC Enable government Web sites to become more citizencentric and user-friendly.

Total number of search queries answered with results from 

E-Gov Solutions’ index (FirstGov).

Total number of search queries answered with results from 

E-Gov Solutions’ index (Other).

OCIO Align Business & IT Strategy using Enterprise 

Architecture & Capital Planning.

GSA Enterprise Architecture Assessment 

(score 3 on 1-5 scale on both maturity and degree of alignment).

2: Achieve Responsible Asset Management

FAS 

(IT Solutions)

Improve the financial condition of the IT Fund. Total program expense as a percentage of gross margin.

OGP Facilitate agencies’ compliance with Executive Order 

13327 through use of the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA) scorecard.

Number of agencies using Real Property Profile Internet 

application to report real property inventory.

OGP Improve software asset management in government. Percentage of agencies with software asset management plans.

OGP Develop new policies to optimize Federal asset 

management.

Percentage of agencies implementing process improvements prescribed 

in asset management guidelines, policies, and regulations.
A p p e n d i c e s

188 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport

Program Performance Goals Performance Measures

3: Operate Efficiently and Effectively

PBS 

(New Construction)

Reduce the percentage of escalations on construction 

projects to at or below 1% by FY 2005.

Percent of escalations on construction projects.

FAS 

(Commercial 

Acquisition)

Reduce the time associated with processing contract 

offers to 92 days by FY 2005.

Cycle time to process offers (days).

FAS 

(Commercial 

Acquisition)

Reduce the time associated with processing contract 

modifications to 13 days by FY 2005.

Cycle time to process modifications (days).

FAS 

(Personal Property 

Management)

Increase the usage of on-line systems for reporting of 

surplus property by Federal civilian agencies.

Percent of property reported electronically by civilian agencies 

through FEDS.

FAS 

(Travel & 

Transportation)

Maximize percentage discount savings from the 

City Pairs Program (CPP). 

Percentage discount from walk-up fare.

FAS 

(IT Solutions)

Provide quality IT solutions services through 

appropriate consistency in the acquisition management 

process from pre-award through closeout.

Percentage of schedule task orders solicited using e-Buy.

OGP Reduce redundant data collections and redundant 

electronic forms systems.

Percentage of agencies adopting Government-wide Forms 

Management guidance and implementation approach.

OCIO Improve IT Investment Control & Project 

Management.

Cost and schedule variances for major IT investments. The IT 

Portfolio’s Development, Modernization and Enhancement (DM&E) 

performance, as measured by earned value, should reflect actual cost 

and schedule variances that are within 10% of their planned cost and 

schedule.

4: Ensure Financial Accountability

OCFO Increase the percentage of vendor payments made 

by electronic media such as electronic funds transfer 

(EFT) and purchase cards. 

Percent of electronic invoices paid by electronic means such as 

EFT and purchase cards.

5: Maintain a World-Class Workforce and World-Class Workplace

OCPO Enhance training, recruitment, and placement/

outplacement programs to help GSA develop/acquire 

the needed skills/talents identified in organizationspecific human capital strategies. Specific focus will be 

place on improved diversity of workforce training/

learning.

Gallup Q12 Grand Mean Score.

OEM Support government-wide COOP in accordance with 

Federal Preparedness Circular #65.

OEM will conduct COOP training sessions for other Federal 

agencies.

Appendix 11: Performance goals and Measures no Longer Reported
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport 189

Appendix III: Improper Payments Improvement Act (IPIA) 

Reporting Details

GSA’s recovery audit contractor came on board in April 

2001 and began performing audits of disbursement records 

and vendor statement of accounts. In FY 2003 the recovery 

audit activities were expanded to include a review of GSA’s 

commodity and service contracts.

In FY 2005, a combined total of $46,721,741 in payment 

errors was discovered through internal reviews and recovery 

audit activities. Twenty million of that amount pertained to a 

one time system error that was discovered internally. During 

the initial three days following the rollout of system upgrade, 

multiple payments were erroneously disbursed to vendors 

as part of the nightly cycle processing due to a system error. 

GSA worked diligently to identify and recover the erroneous 

payments and to determine the process changes that were 

required to prevent a reoccurrence. The full amount of the 

$20 million was recovered in less than 60 days and internal 

controls were strengthened to prevent reoccurrence. 

GSA has also implemented several internal controls to 

mitigate potential duplicate payments. GSA systems have 

built-in controls that prevent paying a duplicate invoice 

number. Internal control policies have been developed 

that dictate when an invoice number can be altered and 

requires supervisory review and approval. In addition, 

GSA’s Disbursement Control Group reviews payments over 

$2,500 as a final control before payments are issued.

Agency

Component (if

applicable)

Amount Subject

to Review for CY

Reporting

Actual Amount

Reviewed and

Reported

Amounts

Identified for

Recovery

Amounts 

Identified /

Actual Amount

Reviewed

Amounts

Recovered CY

Amount

Recovered PY(s)

N/A $13.4B $1.07B $46.7M 4.37% $45.9M $22.9M

Most of GSA’s business dealings with vendors are of 

reoccurring nature; therefore, it is anticipated that the 

outstanding balance will be successfully collected. During 

the life of the contract, the contractor has identified the 

$39 million in improper payments and GSA has recovered 

$29 million of that amount.

The recovery audit contractor’s overall findings are down 

from the prior year. In FY 2005, over 91 percent of the 

recovery amount was from contract compliance. GSA has 

incorporated several past recommendations made by the 

recovery audit contractor, and controls are in place to detect 

common disbursement errors. An audit base of $1.07 billion 

in contracts was examined during this year.

Details regarding GSA’s recovery audit program for FY 2005 

are presented in the table below:

GSA’s FY 2005 Recovery

Audit Program Results

(in dollars)

Total Agency Costs $ 1,574,061

Agency Salaries & Expenses $ 175,135 

Total Contracted Expenses $ 1,398,926 

 Paid $ 1,385,828 

 Due $ 13,098 

Total Payment Errors Identified $ 46,721,742 

Discovered By Contractor $ 4,878,072 

 Amount Unrecoverable $ -

 Amount Recovered $ 4,773,280 

 Amount Outstanding $ 104,792 

Discovered Internally By GSA $ 41,843,670 

 Amount Unrecoverable $ -

 Amount Recovered $ 41,144,640 

 Amount Outstanding $ 699,030 
A p p e n d i c e s

190 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport

Appendix IV: Acronyms and Abbreviations

3PS	 Policy Portfolio Performance System

A/E	 Architect/engineer

A-123	 OMB Circular on Management’s Responsibility 

for Internal Control

A-127	 OMB Circular on Financial Management 

Systems

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

ANSI/EIA	 American National Standards Institute / 

Electronics Industry Alliance

APPAS	 Associate Performance Planning and Appraisal 

System

APRS	 Associate Performance Recognition System

BAW	 Buy Accessible Wizard

BIM	 National Building Information

BLM	 Bureau of Land Management

BOCA	 Board of Contract Appeals

BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association

BPA	 Blanket Purchase Agreement

BPR	 Business Process Review

BRM	 Business Reference Model

Btu	 British Thermal Unit

Btu/GSF	 British Thermal Units per Gross Square Foot

C&A	 Certification & Accreditation

CAO	 Chief Acquisition Officer

CCR	 Central Contractor Registration

CFL	 Computers For Learning

CFO	 Chief Financial Officer

CHRIS	 Comprehensive Human Resources Integrated 

System

CIO	 Chief Information Officer

CODB

CORE	 Component Organization & Registration 

Environment

COTS	 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf

CPI	 Consumer Price Index

CPP	 City Pairs Program

CSBR	 Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

CSC	 Client Support Center

CSLIC	 Citizen Service Level Interagency Committee

CSRS	 Civil Service Retirement System

DAU	 Defense Acquisition University

DFC	 Denver Federal Center

DHS	 Department of Homeland Security

DLA	 Defense Logistics Agency

DO	 Delivered Order

DOD	 Department of Defense

DOE	 Department of Energy

DOI	 Department of Interior

DOJ	 Department of Justice

DOL	 Department of Labor

DOT	 Department of Transportation

E&IT	 Electronic & Information Technology

EA	 Enterprise Architecture 

ECRM	 Enterprise CRM

EDD	 Expanded Direct Delivery

EDI	 Electronic Data Interchange

EEO	 Equal Employment Opportunity

EFT	 Electronic Funds Transfer

EPA	 Environmental Protection Agency

EUAS	 Energy Usage and Analysis System

EVM	 Earned Value Management
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport 191

F4S	 Furniture for Schools 

FAIR	 Federal Activities Inventory Reform

FAR	 Federal Acquisition Regulations

FAS	 Federal Asset Sales

FAS	 Federal Acquisition Service

FASAB	 Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

FBF	 Federal Buildings Fund

FBI	 Federal Bureau of Investigations

FCIC	 Federal Consumer Information Center

FCW	 Federal Computer Week

FDA	 Food & Drug Administration

FDA-CDER	 FDA-Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

FDIC	 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FEA/CORE	 Federal Enterprise Architecture / Component 

Organization & Registration Environment

FECA	 Federal Employees Compensation Act

FEDPAY	 FSS Payment Module

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

FISMA	 Federal Information Security Management Act

FIT	 FAIR Act Inventory Tool

FMFIA	 Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act

FM LOB	 Financial Management Line of Business

FMS	 Financial Management Service

FPS	 Federal Protective Service

FRPC	 Federal Real Property Council

FRPP	 Federal Real Property Profile

FSS	 Federal Supply Service

FTE	 Full-Time Equivalent

FTS	 Federal Technology Service

FY	 Fiscal Year

GAAP	 Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GAO	 Government Accountability Office

GM&A	 General Management and Administration

GPDS	 GSA Procurement Data System

GPRA	 Government Performance and Results Act

GS	 General Schedule

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

HHS	 Health and Human Services

HRMAS	 Human Resources Management Accountability 

System

HSPD	 Homeland Security Presidential Directive

HSSO’s	 Heads of Service and Staff Offices

HUBZone	 Historically Underutilized Business Zones

HUD	 Housing and Urban Development

IAC	 Interagency Committee

IDIQ	 Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

IG	 Inspector General

IGCE	 Independent Government Cost Estimates

IPIA	 Improper Payments Information Act

IRIS	 Inventory Reporting Information System

IRS	 Internal Revenue Service

IT	 Information Technology

ITF	 Information Technology Fund

ITOMS	 Integrated Task Order Management System

ITS	 Information Technology Solutions

ITSS	 IT Solutions Shop

JFMIP	 Joint Financial Management Improvement 

Program
A p p e n d i c e s

192 F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport

LEED	 Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design

LLP	 Limited Liability Partnership

LMI	 Logistics Management Institute

LNS	 Leadership for New Supervisors

LoB	 Line of Business

MAC	 Multiple Award Contract

MAS	 Multiple Award Schedule

MD&A	 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

MDA	 Missile Defense Agency

MEAMS	 Enterprise Architecture Modeling System

MEO	 Most Efficient Organization

MFC	 Most-Favored Customer

MOA	 Memorandum of Agreement

NABC	 Native American Business Center

NASA	 National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NCC	 National Contact Center

NCR	 National Capital Region

NEAR	 National Electronic Accounting and Reporting 

NIST	 National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOAA	 National Oceanic & Atmospheric 

Administration

NPC	 National Payroll Center

OASDI	 Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance

OCA	 Office of the Chief Architect

OCAO	 Office of Chief Acquisition Officer

OCFO	 Office of Chief Financial Officer

OCHCO	 Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer

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

OEM	 Office of Emergency Management

OGC	 Office of General Counsel

OGP	 Office of Governmentwide Policy

OIG	 Office of Inspector General

OIRA	 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OLU	 Online University

OMB	 Office of Management and Budget

OMIS	 Office of Information Technology Integration 

Management Information System

OPI	 Office of Performance Improvement

OPM	 Office of Personnel Management

OSBU	 Office of Small Business Utilization

PAD	 Pre-Authorized Debits

PADC	 Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation

PAR	 Performance and Accountability Report

PART	 Program Assessment Rating Tool

PBS	 Public Building Service

PIA	 Privacy Impact Assessments

PIB	 Procurement Information Bulletin

PMA	 President’s Management Agenda

PMP	 Performance Management Process

PMT	 Performance Measurement Tool

POA&M	 Plan of Action & Milestones

POC	 Point of Contact

PwC	 PricewaterhouseCoopers

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

RND	 Results Not Demonstrated

ROADS	 Requisitioning, Ordering and Documentation 

System

ROCIS	 RISC/OIRA Consolidated Information System

ROE	 Return on Equity

RRB Ronald Reagan Building

RSF	 Rentable Square Feet

RWA	 Reimbursable Work Authorizations

SAS	 Statement on Auditing Standards

Appendix IV: Acronyms and Abbreviations
A p p e n d i c e s

F Y 2 0 0 6 A nnual P erformance and A ccountability R eport 193

SASP	 State Agencies for Surplus Property

SASy	 Sales Automation System

SAT	 Senior Assessment Team

SBR	 Statement of Budgetary Resources

SES	 Senior Executive Service

SF133	 Standard Form 133: Statement of Budget 

Execution and Budgetary Resources

SFFAS	 Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 

Standards

SIN	 Special Item Number

SIOR	 Society of Industrial and Office Realtors

SOP	 Special Order Program

SSA	 Social Security Administration

SSP	 Shared Service Providers

STAR	 System for Tracking and Administering Real 

Property

SUVs	 Sport-Utility Vehicles

TARPS	 Transportation, Accounts Receivable and 

Payable Systems

TMVCS	 Travel, Motor Vehicles, and Card Services

TOS	 Tracking and Ordering System

Treasury	 Department of the Treasury

TSP	 Thrift Savings Plan

TSS	 Travel Services Solution

U&D	 Federal Personal Property Utilization, 

Donation, and Sales Program

UDO	 Un-Delivered Orders

USDA	 United States Department of Agriculture

USSGL	 United States Standard General Ledger

VA	 Veterans Administration

VETS	 Veterans Technology Service

WCF	 Working Capital Fund 
The FY 2006 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 2007 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) 501-1192

Other GSA Web pages of possible interest:

Firstgov.gov

GSA Homepage: www.gsa.gov

GSA Jobs : http://OCPO.gsa.gov/
Awards GSA Has Won in 2006

2

0

0 6 A W A R

D

S

Charles E. Bennett Federal Building Wins Federal Energy and Water Management Award 

The Charles E. Bennett Federal Building in Jacksonville, FL, received the Federal Energy and Water Management Award from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy 

Management Program. The government-wide awards recognize significant contributions toward 

increased energy efficiency and water conservation within the Federal government. GSA was cited 

for a holistic redesign effort with the architectural-engineering team working side-by-side with 

GSA staff to evaluate energy saving merits of various design strategies, including energy and 

climate-responsive heating and air-conditioning systems and Web-based automation systems. 

Post-renovation building energy consumption for FY 2005 dropped more than 60 percent as compared 

to its last year of operation prior to vacating it. Usage was reduced by 23,781 Million British 

Thermal Units (MMBtus) compared to 2002—enough energy to power 208 homes for one year. 

I

n addition to the earlier awards, as well as others too numerous to mention, GSA has received the 

following: Top Left: E-Gov Award for Enterprise Architecture. Top Center: Innovation in American 

Government Award; Top Right: Web Content Managers Best Practice Award; Bottom Left: Webby 

Award for the Office of Citizen Services Web site; Bottom Right: Chief Information Officers Council 

Award for USA Services CSCC Team
U.S. General Services Administration

1800 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20405

www.gsa.gov