a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2006 INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Status and Challenges 

of Employee 

Exchange Program

GAO-07-216
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2006

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Status and Challenges of Employee 

Highlights of GAO-07-216, a report to Exchange Program 

congressional committees 

Recognizing the importance of 

human capital to information 

technology (IT) and the need to

improve the skills of federal IT 

workers, Congress created the

Information Technology Exchange 

Program (ITEP) as part of the 

E-Government Act of 2002. ITEP 

aims to improve federal IT skills 

through exchanges of staff between 

the government and the private 

sector. The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) was required 

to issue implementing regulations, 

which it did in September 2005, and 

to report semiannually to the 

Congress. OPM’s regulations 

require that each participating

agency develop an ITEP plan 

before proceeding with exchanges. 

Agencies’ opportunity to begin

exchanges ends in December 2007. 

GAO is required to evaluate the 

program by December 2006. As 

agreed, GAO’s objectives were to 

determine (1) the status of the 

program and (2) challenges facing

agencies. To address these

objectives, GAO analyzed key 

documents and interviewed OPM,

participating agencies, and others.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the 

Director of OPM include in its 

upcoming semiannual reports the 

number of exchanges that have 

occurred and the status of efforts 

to address challenges facing

agencies in implementing ITEP. In 

comments on a draft of the report, 

OPM agreed to report on 

exchanges but not on challenges. 

With only 1 year remaining to begin exchanges under the ITEP program, the 

seven agencies that volunteered to participate are still initiating their 

programs, and no exchanges have taken place. All participating agencies

have drafted plans, but only three—Department of Homeland Security, 

Department of Defense, and Department of Commerce—have finalized 

them. Further, only Homeland Security has attempted to negotiate an 

exchange, but it was unsuccessful. In its last two semiannual reports, OPM 

has reported on the status of agency plans, but has not reported that no 

exchanges have taken place to date. 

OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will confront 

agencies as they finish their plans and begin to implement ITEP programs: 

• Employees with desired skills are in short supply in both the federal 

government and the private sector, particularly in enterprise 

architecture, project management, and information security, 

according to industry representatives. 

• Companies are concerned that employee exchanges could hinder 

future business, since a company with an employee at an agency 

might be seen as having an unfair advantage in bidding on agency

procurements. 

• Federal ethics requirements, especially financial disclosure, could 

discourage private-sector employees from participating. 

• Federal agencies’ current marketing through a Web site has not been 

productive, according to participating agencies; suggested 

improvements include using the media and making personal contacts 

with companies. 

OPM and the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and 

acknowledge that they need to be addressed. However, given the short time 

remaining before authority to begin new exchanges ends (see figure), it will

be essential to expeditiously address the challenges to enable a significant 

number of successful exchanges. 

OPM and Participating Agencies’ ITEP Actions 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

E-Government Act 

of 2002; 

start of ITEP OPM regulations issued

First agency plan approved

Second agency plan approved

Third agency plan approved Last date for 

exchanges

to start

OPM develops ITEP regulations

Seven 

agencies

developing 

plans

Time 

remaining for 

completing 

plans and 

beginning 

exchanges www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-216.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David A. 

Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Seven Agencies Are Initiating Programs, but No Exchanges Have 

Taken Place 5

Agencies Face Implementation Challenges 8

Conclusions 10

Recommendations for Executive Action 10

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 10

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 12

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 13

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 14

Table Table 1: Agency ITEP Plan Status and Skills as of November 2006 7

Figure Figure 1: OPM and Participating Agencies’ ITEP Actions 6
Contents

Page ii GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

Abbreviations

CIO Federal Chief Information Officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

E-Gov Act E-Government Act of 2002

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IAC Industry Advisory Council

IT information technology

ITEP Information Technology Exchange Program

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 15, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairman

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Recently, assessments of the federal information technology (IT) 

workforce, as called for in the Clinger Cohen Act,1

 have resulted in the 

identification of skills gaps in key areas such as project management. 

Recognizing the importance of human capital to IT and the need to improve 

the skills of the federal IT workforce, the Congress created the Information 

Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) as part of the E-Government Act of 

2002 (E-Gov Act).2

 The program is envisioned as a vehicle to promote the 

interchange of IT employees between federal executive agencies and the 

private sector and to develop, supplement, and modernize IT skills while 

improving overall competencies in the federal IT workforce. 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is required under the act to 

issue implementing regulations for the program and to report semiannually 

to the Congress on the operation of the program. OPM issued the required 

implementing regulations in September 2005. OPM’s regulations require 

that each participating agency develop an ITEP plan, approved by the 

agency head, before proceeding with exchanges. Agencies’ opportunity to 

begin exchanges ends in December 2007.

The act required GAO to provide an evaluation of the program by 

December 17, 2006. As agreed with your offices, we determined (1) the 

1

40 U.S.C. 11101 - 11703 [P.L. 104-106, Div. E, sec. 5001 - 5703 (Feb. 10, 1996)].

2

5 U.S.C. Chapter 37 [P.L. 107-347, sec. 209(c) (Dec. 17, 2002)].
Page 2 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

status of the ITEP program and (2) challenges facing agencies in 

implementing ITEP. To conduct our work, we analyzed ITEP regulations 

and guidance, agencies’ ITEP plans, and OPM status reports. We also 

conducted interviews with ITEP officials at the seven participating 

agencies—Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD), 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of the Treasury, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Health and Human 

Services, and OPM—and with the Industry Advisory Council (IAC), which 

includes about 500 companies as members. We performed our work from 

July 2006 to November 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Details of our objectives, scope, and 

methodology are included in appendix I.

Results in Brief With only 1 year remaining to begin exchanges under the ITEP program, 

the seven agencies that volunteered to participate are still initiating their 

programs, and no exchanges have taken place. The participating agencies 

all have drafted plans, but only three—DHS, DOD, and Commerce—have 

finalized them. Only DHS has attempted to negotiate an exchange, but it 

was unsuccessful in exchanging staff with a potential private-sector 

partner. In its last two semiannual reports OPM has reported on the status 

of agency plans, but has not reported that no exchanges have taken place 

to date.

OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will confront 

agencies as they finish their plans and implement ITEP programs:

• Employees with desired skills are in short supply in both the federal 

government and the private sector, particularly in enterprise 

architecture, project management, and information security, according 

to industry representatives.

• Companies are concerned the employee exchanges could hinder future 

business, since a company with an employee at an agency might be seen 

as having an unfair advantage in bidding on agency procurements.

• Federal ethics requirements, especially financial disclosure 

requirements, could discourage private-sector employees from 

participating.

• Federal agencies’ current marketing through a Web site has not been 

productive, according to participating agencies; suggested 
Page 3 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

improvements include using the media and making personal contacts 

with companies.

OPM and the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and 

acknowledge that they need to be addressed. However, in the short time 

remaining before the authority to begin exchanges ends, it will be essential 

to expeditiously address the challenges to enable a significant number of 

successful exchanges. Given this, we are recommending that the Director 

of OPM include in its upcoming semiannual reports to the Congress the 

status of efforts to address challenges and whether these efforts are leading 

to exchanges, and the number of exchanges that have occurred.

In written comments on a draft of this report, OPM said that it supports the 

ITEP and will continue to promote it as a tool available to agencies in the 

training and development of the Federal IT workforce. OPM agreed with 

our recommendation that future semi-annual reports to Congress include 

the number of exchanges that have occurred or a statement that no 

exchanges have occurred. However, it disagreed with our recommendation 

that it include in the semiannual reports the status of efforts to address 

challenges facing agencies in implementing the program and whether these 

efforts are leading to exchanges. OPM said that current reporting to 

Congress fully meets its statutory obligation to report on the operations of 

the ITEP. However, we continue to believe that it should include in the 

semiannual reports to Congress the status of efforts to address challenges 

facing agencies in implementing the program. Confronting these challenges 

is key to determining whether the program will be successful and whether 

it should continue beyond 2007. OPM also provided technical comments 

that we have incorporated as appropriate. 

Background The E-Gov Act created ITEP to improve the skills of the federal workforce 

in using information technology. The act authorizes federal executive 

agencies that volunteer to participate to temporarily detail IT staff to 

private-sector companies and to accept individuals from the private sector.3

Assignments can last up to a year and are extendable for another year. 

Federal employees could be exposed to private industry best management 

3

To participate in the program, an individual must work in the field of information 

technology management, must be considered an exceptional employee by his or her current 

employer, and must be expected to assume increased IT management responsibilities in the 

future. Only individuals at grade GS-11 (or equivalent) and above are eligible. 
Page 4 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

practices, while private-sector employees could gain a greater 

understanding of federal information management practices and of how 

the government does its work. The opportunity to begin exchanges is due 

to end in December 2007.

OPM was required to issue implementing regulations for ITEP and to report 

semiannually to the Congress on the number of individuals assigned to and 

from each agency, including a brief description of each assignment and 

other information as appropriate.

Between 2003 and 2005, OPM developed implementing regulations for the 

program, including soliciting public comments. OMB reviewed and 

approved OPM’s draft regulations as part of its normal regulatory process.

The final ITEP regulations were not issued until August 2005, and became 

effective in September 2005, almost 3 years into the program. OPM 

reported to the Congress that the delay in the issuance of the regulations 

was due to the complexity of the issues involved, including various ethics 

and standard of conduct issues that could complicate exchanges, 

especially from private industry to the federal government. In addition to 

OMB, OPM worked with the Department of Justice and the Office of 

Government Ethics to finalize the regulations. 

In the ITEP regulations, OPM established a requirement that each 

participating agency develop an ITEP plan. These plans are to be approved 

by the head of each agency before beginning exchanges. Agencies, 

companies, and individual participants are also required to sign a written 

agreement before any exchanges can begin. Each participating agency has 

primary responsibility for planning and directing its own ITEP program but 

must adhere to the act and OPM regulations in implementing exchanges.

In December 2005, 3 months after the ITEP regulations went into effect, 

OPM issued additional guidance to assist agencies in implementing their 

programs and in drafting plans. The guidance included an overview of the 

program, templates for ITEP plans and written agreements, and answers to 

frequently asked questions and is available to agencies through the 

OPM.gov Web site.
Page 5 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

To help promote the program, OPM partnered with the Federal Chief 

Information Officers Council and with the Industry Advisory Council4

 and 

conducted outreach with several other IT professional organizations to 

reach private-sector companies. OPM assists the agencies in marketing 

their ITEP programs through its USAJOBS Web site. To facilitate the 

exchange of information, OPM has been conducting weekly 

teleconferences with participating agencies and the IAC. Additionally, the 

CIO of OPM co-chairs the CIO Council’s Information Technology 

Workforce Committee, which helps to promote the program and shares 

status updates during monthly meetings. 

The E-Gov Act specifically addresses ethics and reimbursement issues. The 

law states that private-sector employees assigned to a federal agency under 

ITEP are deemed to be employees of the federal agency in terms of Title 5, 

U.S.C., Chapter 73 (Suitability, Security, and Conduct) as well as various 

other laws. For example, federal employees detailed to the private sector 

would remain subject to all federal ethics rules and would continue to be 

paid by their agencies. Private-sector employees detailed to a federal 

agency would become subject to federal ethics rules, such as those 

involving conflict of interest and financial disclosure, and would continue 

to be paid by their companies. The act permits the federal government to 

reimburse some expenses, such as travel and per diem and leaves open the 

possibility that agencies might reimburse the company for some of its 

employees’ salaries, but it specifically prohibits companies from charging 

the government for an employee’s salary or benefits as a direct or indirect 

cost under a federal contract.

Seven Agencies Are 

Initiating Programs, 

but No Exchanges 

Have Taken Place 

With only 1 year to go before the opportunity to begin exchanges ends, the 

seven agencies participating are still initiating their programs, and no 

exchanges have taken place. All seven agencies have drafted plans, but 

only three—DHS, DOD, and Commerce—have finalized them. Only one 

agency, DHS’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,5 has attempted to 

4

The Industry Advisory Council is a nonprofit educational organization established in 1989 

to assist the government in acquiring and using information technology resources 

effectively and efficiently. Its members include about 500 companies. IAC is part of the 

American Council for Technology.

5

DHS has decentralized ITEP implementation to its components because of appropriations 

issues. 
Page 6 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

negotiate an exchange, but it was not able to reach an agreement with a 

potential private-sector partner.

Agencies Are Establishing 

ITEP Plans 

When the CIO Council called for agencies to volunteer for ITEP, nine 

agencies volunteered to participate; seven agencies—the Department of 

Commerce, DOD, DHS, Department of the Treasury, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Health and Human Services, and OPM—committed to 

implementing programs. Participating agencies began developing their 

ITEP plans after OPM issued regulations in August 2005. Agency officials 

told us that the OPM guidance was useful and that they worked closely 

with their agencies’ human resources and general counsel staffs to develop 

their plans. 

Of those seven, DHS, DOD, and Commerce have approved plans as 

required by OPM regulations, and the other four agencies have draft plans 

that are awaiting agency head approval. DHS’s plan was approved in March 

2006; DOD’s plan was approved in August 2006; and Commerce’s plan was 

approved in October 2006 (see fig. 1). Officials from the agencies with draft 

plans estimated that additional time required for review and approval of 

these draft plans could range from a few days to an indefinite amount of 

time. 

Figure 1: OPM and Participating Agencies’ ITEP Actions

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

E-Government Act of 2002; 

start of ITEP OPM regulations issued

First agency plan approved

Second agency plan approved

Third agency plan approved Last date for 

exchanges to start

OPM develops ITEP regulations

Seven agencies

developing plans

Time remaining 

for completing 

plans and 

beginning 

exchanges
Page 7 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

OPM requires that plans address how the program will be carried out (e.g., 

processes and procedures); how many exchanges the agency plans to have; 

how employees are selected; which officials may approve exchanges; and 

employee rights to return to the agency. Agencies are given the flexibility to 

tailor their ITEP plans to meet their individual needs and the workforce 

skills they want to reinforce. 

In addition, agencies have identified key skills they would like to 

strengthen through ITEP exchanges. The skills most frequently identified 

by agency officials were enterprise architecture, project management, and 

information security. Table 1 shows the status of agencies’ plans and the 

specific skills agencies have identified.

Table 1: Agency ITEP Plan Status and Skills as of November 2006

Source: GAO analysis of agency ITEP plans and interviews. 

No ITEP Exchanges Have 

Occurred 

As of November 2006, no exchanges have occurred. Officials from the 

participating agencies stated that they have had few inquiries and little 

interest from private-sector companies regarding the ITEP program. DHS, 

the first agency to have an approved plan, has attempted to implement an 

exchange with a private-sector partner; however, the company did not go 

ahead with the exchange because, as prohibited by the act, it could not 

charge the government for its employee’s salary as an indirect cost on its 

government contracts. DOD recently finalized its ITEP plan in August 2006

Agency 

Plan 

approved 

Plan 

drafted Skills identified 

Commerce ✔ Enterprise architecture, project management, 

information security 

DHS (FLETC) ✔ Enterprise architecture, information security 

DOD ✔ To be determined at the component level 

FBI ✔ Enterprise architecture, project management, 

systems engineering, continuity of operations 

planning 

HHS ✔ To be determined 

OPM ✔ Enterprise architecture, information security, IT 

policy, capital planning and investment control 

Treasury ✔ Enterprise architecture, project management, 

cyber security, counterfeiting protection 
Page 8 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

and is proceeding with program implementation, but has not begun 

negotiating agreements. 

OPM has reported to the Congress on the status of its development of the 

regulations and activities to promote the program. In its last two 

semiannual reports, in April and October 2006, OPM has reported on the 

status of agency plans but has not reported that no exchanges have taken 

place.

Agencies Face 

Implementation 

Challenges

OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will confront 

agencies as they finish their plans and implement ITEP programs, including 

limited availability of private-sector employees with the skills agencies 

want, concern that sending employees to agencies may hinder companies’ 

ability to bid on future contracts, possible reluctance of private-sector 

employees to be subject to federal ethics rules, and more effectively 

marketing the program. These challenges will make it difficult to find 

willing and qualified participants and negotiate agreements with 

companies. OPM and participating agencies’ officials are aware of the 

challenges and acknowledge that they need to be addressed, but these 

challenges have not been reported to the Congress in the semiannual 

reports. 

Desired Skills Are in Short 

Supply in Both the Federal 

Government and the Private 

Sector

Federal agencies face a challenge in finding employees from the private 

sector with the skills they are most interested in pursuing. Although 

agencies have identified their target skills—enterprise architecture, project 

management, and information security—these skills are also in short 

supply in the private sector. According to the IAC, which represents about 

500 companies, companies would be reluctant to give up the services of 

staff members with these valuable skills. The IAC believes the federal 

government is more likely to attract staff from private-sector companies if 

the agencies focus on other skill areas where the government is a leader, 

such as electronic learning.

Companies Are Concerned 

That Employee Exchanges 

Could Hinder Future 

Business

Both the IAC, representing its member companies, and agencies told us of 

their reluctance to undertake exchanges because of a risk that an exchange 

could interfere with future federal contracting opportunities. Although the 

act specifically prohibits private-sector employees from having access to 

any nonpublic information of commercial value to their company, they
Page 9 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

might still obtain or appear to obtain information that would give them an 

unfair competitive advantage, and their companies might then be 

disqualified from bidding on future contracts. According to the IAC, this is 

a major issue with the program, because it is not easy to determine what 

information is appropriate for private-sector employees. FBI program 

officials also told us that this issue was a particular concern to them. The 

Human Resource Manager for DHS’s Office of the CIO told us that DHS 

components were not interested in accepting an employee from a DHS 

contractor, because they did not want to risk damaging their relationship 

with the company.

Federal Ethics 

Requirements Could 

Discourage Private-Sector 

Employees from 

Participating

Another challenge identified by federal agencies and IAC is that privatesector employees considering an assignment to a government agency could 

be discouraged by the numerous federal ethics rules they would need to 

comply with to participate in the program. The regulations specified by the 

act, such as those governing claims against the government, political 

contributions, post-employment activities, disclosure of confidential 

information, and, especially, financial disclosure could make a detail to a 

federal agency unattractive. For example, although this has not yet 

occurred, agencies and IAC agreed that the need to file a financial 

disclosure statement could discourage some potential private company 

participants.

Effectively Marketing the 

Program

Federal agencies face a challenge in determining how to effectively 

promote ITEP to the private sector. IAC has actively marketed ITEP to its 

member companies and other federal IT associations; however, marketing 

efforts through OPM’s USAJOBS Web site, have not been productive, 

according to federal agencies. OPM has reported 23,000 hits on USAJOBS, 

but participating agencies told us that contacts they received from the Web 

site were almost all looking for permanent federal positions and were 

unrelated to ITEP.

Several sources told us that a more proactive approach in reaching out to 

private companies was needed to get companies to participate. For 

example, IAC said that OPM and the participating agencies should promote 

the program repeatedly through the media. The director of a similar 

employee exchange program at the Department of Energy told us that 

personal contact with companies was essential to recruiting companies 

into the program. To attract companies, agencies will need to convince 

them of the value of exchanges. However, only two of the seven 
Page 10 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

participating agencies had initiated direct contacts with private-sector 

companies.

Conclusions Four years into ITEP, agencies are still initiating and planning their 

programs and, accordingly, no exchanges have taken place. Agencies will 

face several challenges in making exchanges, including shortages of 

employees with key skills and concerns that exchanges could hinder 

companies’ ability to do future business with the government. OPM and the 

participating agencies are aware of the challenges and acknowledge that 

they need to be addressed. However, given the short time remaining for 

beginning exchanges, it will be essential to expeditiously address the 

challenges to enable a significant number of successful exchanges. 

Reporting to the Congress on these challenges and the number of 

exchanges that have occurred is key to determining the viability of the 

program and whether it should continue beyond 2007. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that, as part of OPM’s responsibilities under the E-Gov Act, 

the Director of OPM include in its semiannual reports to the Congress (1) 

the number of exchanges that have occurred, as required by law, and (2) 

the status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing 

ITEP exchanges and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, OPM’s Director said that 

OPM supports the ITEP and will continue to promote it as a tool available 

to agencies in the training and development of the Federal IT workforce. 

OPM agreed with our recommendation that future semiannual reports to 

Congress include the number of exchanges that have occurred or a 

statement that no exchanges have occurred. However, it disagreed with our 

recommendation that it include in the semiannual reports the status of 

efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing the program 

and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges. Further, OPM said that 

current reporting to Congress fully meets its statutory obligation to report 

on the operations of the ITEP. However, we continue to believe that it 

should include in the semiannual reports the status of efforts to address 

challenges facing agencies in implementing the program. Confronting these 

challenges is key to determining whether the program will be successful 

and whether it should continue beyond 2007. OPM also provided technical 
Page 11 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. OPM’s comments are 

reprinted in appendix II. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees. We also will make copies available to others on request. In 

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

http://www.gao.gov.

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

contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology Management Issues
Page 12 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Our objectives were to determine the (1) status of the Information 

Technology Exchange Program and (2) challenges facing the program.

To address our first objective, we reviewed the E-Government Act of 2002, 

regulations, and guidance to understand program requirements. We 

analyzed approved plans for the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Defense, and Commerce and draft plans for the Departments of Treasury 

and Health and Human Services. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) did not provide us with copies of 

their draft plans. We reviewed these plans to determine details about 

administering the exchanges and assessed whether agencies followed OPM 

guidance in developing them. We reviewed OPM’s semiannual reports to 

the Congress to assess progress reported on the status of federal agencies’ 

exchanges with the private sector. We interviewed program staff at the 

seven participating federal agencies, including federal Chief Information 

Officers (CIO) and human resource officials, OPM, and Office of 

Management and Budget officials on program activities. We also met with 

members of the Federal CIO Council Workforce Committee and the 

Industry Advisory Council (IAC) to discuss their roles in promoting the 

program to federal agencies and private-sector companies.

To address our second objective, we interviewed program staff at OPM and 

the seven participating federal agencies and analyzed their responses to 

identify future challenges they face in administering the program. We 

contacted IAC officials—representing 500 member companies—to 

determine challenges to participating in the program identified by 

companies. We also conducted research on the Department of Energy’s 

Acquisition Career Development Program.

We conducted our work from July through November 2006 in the 

Washington, D.C., area in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.
Page 13 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

Appendix II

Comments from the Office of Personnel 

Management ApendxiI
Page 14 GAO-07-216 Information Technology Exchange Program

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

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

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Neil Doherty, Nancy Glover, 

Cynthia Scott, Teresa Smith, and Glenn Spiegel made key contributions to 

this report.

(310818)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548