TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

GSA Has Made Progress in 

Planning Governmentwide 

Program but Challenges 

Remain 

Statement of Linda D. Koontz, 

Director, Information Management Issues 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at time 10 a.m. EDT 

September 15, 2004 

GAO-04-1085T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1085T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Linda D. 

Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or 

koontzl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-1085T, a testimony

before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

September 15, 2004

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

GSA Has Made Progress in Planning 

Governmentwide Program but Challenges 

Remain 

GSA has addressed several of the significant challenges facing the Networx 

program. Work is either planned or underway on other challenges, but 

additional efforts will be necessary to fully address them. Specifically: 

• GSA has addressed concerns about the structure and scheduling of 

the two acquisitions, now known as Universal and Enterprise. 

Instead of a 9-month lag between acquisitions that might complicate 

agency decision-making, GSA now plans to issue the requests for 

proposal (RFP) for the contracts simultaneously (See figure below). 

In addition, the Universal contracts will now require that offerors 

provide services only where federal agencies are located, rather 

than in the entire country, to allow more potential industry 

participants to compete—a concern raised in prior comments. 

• GSA has solicited for contractor support to assist with the 

development of plans to transition to the Networx contracts. 

However, GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that 

lessons from past transitions are applied, or established a transition 

strategy. 

• GSA worked with agencies to develop a service-level inventory as 

input into the requirements for the new contracts. In addition, it 

plans to work with agencies to build a more detailed inventory of 

currently-used telecommunications services for use during 

transition. 

• GSA plans to implement performance measures that evaluate 

progress against the program’s goals. However, some of the 

measures are still under development, and it does not have a 

strategy for using the measures to monitor ongoing program 

performance. 

• GSA has reduced the number of billing elements it will track and 

has begun a study designed to identify potential improvements in 

the billing process, but it lacks a strategy for addressing agency 

concerns about the usability of billing data. 

Until GSA develops and applies strategies for addressing the outstanding 

challenges facing Networx, it risks not being able to deliver all of the 

operations and cost improvements outlined in the program’s goals. 

GSA’s original and revised key contract dates 

 Original Universal 

contract schedule 

Original Select 

contract schedule1

Current schedule 

(both contracts) 

Draft RFP release Spring 2004 Winter 2005 November 2004 

Final RFP release Fall 2004 Summer 2005 April 2005 

Contract award Winter 2005 Fall 2006 April 2006 

1

In its RFI, GSA previously used the name Select to describe the contract now known as Enterprise.

Source: GSA 

The General Services 

Administration (GSA) has begun 

planning for a governmentwide 

telecommunications program 

known as Networx. GSA issued a 

request for information in October 

2003 that proposed two 

acquisitions: Networx Universal, 

which was to provide a full range 

of national and international 

network services across the United 

States, and Networx Select, which 

was to provide agencies with 

leading-edge services with less 

extensive geographic coverage. 

Contracts under the Select 

acquisition were to be awarded 9 

months after the Universal 

contracts. 

In February, we testified on GSA’s 

initial plans and identified four key 

challenges GSA faced in ensuring a 

successful outcome for the 

program: structure and scheduling, 

transition planning, service 

inventories, and performance 

measures. At the committee’s 

request, GAO assessed GSA’s 

progress in addressing the 

challenges identified as well as 

GSA’s efforts to address longstanding issues related to billing. 

WHAT WE RECOMMEND 

To prevent unresolved challenges 

from hampering GSA’s efforts to 

provide agencies with the services 

they need, we recommend that it 

finalize and implement processes 

for managing transition efforts, 

measuring program performance, 

and resolving agency concerns over 

the usability of billing data. 
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-04-1085T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to participate in the Committee’s hearing on the 

General Services Administration’s (GSA) next generation 

governmentwide telecommunications acquisition program, known 

as Networx. As you know, GSA’s planning for this program is taking 

place within an environment of tremendous change—in the 

telecommunications industry, in underlying services and 

technology, and potentially in the regulatory environment. In this 

context, the Networx initiative can be viewed as a significant 

opportunity for federal agencies—GSA’s customers—to flexibly 

acquire and apply innovative telecommunications services offered 

by industry to improve their operations. 

As you know, GSA issued a request for information (RFI) in October 

2003 describing the strategy of the proposed Networx program. At 

that time, GSA proposed two acquisitions. Networx Universal was to 

provide a full range of national and international network services; 

offerors were to provide ubiquitous service across the United States. 

Networx Select was to provide agencies with leading edge services 

and solutions with less extensive geographic and service coverage 

than required by Universal. Contracts under the Select acquisition 

were to be awarded 9 months after the Universal contracts. Last 

February, we testified on GSA’s initial planning efforts and 

identified four challenges GSA faced in ensuring a successful 

outcome for the program. These challenges related to the structure 

and timing of the proposed contracts, and the need for transition 

plans, an inventory of current services, and effective measures of 

performance.1

In April, you requested that we assess GSA’s progress in addressing 

the challenges that we identified, as well as GSA’s efforts to address 

long-standing issues related to billing. My testimony today presents 

our results to date on these topics. 

 1

 GAO, Telecommunications: GSA Faces Challenges in Planning for New 

Governmentwide Program, GAO-04-486T, (Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2004). 
Page 2 GAO-04-1085T 

Results in Brief 

In brief, GSA has taken steps to address several of the significant 

challenges facing the Networx program. Work is either planned or 

underway on other challenges, but additional efforts will be 

necessary to fully address these challenges. Specifically: 

● GSA has addressed concerns about the time period between 

contracts by planning to award all contracts simultaneously. In 

addition, the Universal contracts will now require that offerors 

provide services where federal agencies are currently located, 

rather than across the entire country, to potentially allow more 

industry participants to compete. 

● GSA has solicited quotations for contractor support to assist with 

the development of plans to transition to the Networx contracts. 

However, GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that 

lessons from past transitions are applied, nor has it established a 

transition timeline. 

● GSA worked with agencies to develop a service-level inventory as 

input into the requirements for the new contracts. In addition, 

GSA plans to work with agencies to build a more detailed 

inventory of currently-used telecommunications services for use 

during transition. 

● GSA plans to implement performance measures that evaluate 

progress against the program’s goals. However, some of the 

measures are still under development, and it does not have a 

strategy for using the measures to monitor ongoing program 

performance. 

● GSA has reduced the number of billing elements it will track, and 

has begun a study designed to identify potential improvements in 

the billing process and associated administrative costs. However, 

it lacks a strategy for addressing agency concerns about the 

usability of billing data. 

To prevent unresolved challenges from hampering GSA’s efforts to 

provide agencies with the services they need, we recommend that it 

finalize and implement processes for managing transition efforts, 

measuring program performance, and resolving agency concerns 

over the usability of billing data. 
Page 3 GAO-04-1085T 

My remarks today are based on audit work conducted at GSA 

headquarters, where we reviewed program planning documents and 

public presentations, interviewed program officials, and attended a 

public industry forum on August 11, 2004. We also reviewed 

analyses conducted by GSA and its contractors as well as our 

previous work on the Federal Telecommunications System 2001 

(FTS2001) and related contracts. We conducted our work between 

May and September 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

Background 

GSA’s Federal Technology Service is responsible for ensuring that 

federal agencies have access to the telecommunications services 

and solutions needed to meet mission requirements. Currently, GSA 

uses a series of contracts intended to meet agency needs for various 

services. Specifically, it awarded two large, governmentwide 

contracts for long-distance services—one to Sprint in December 

1998 and one to MCI WorldCom in January 1999. Under the terms of 

these contracts, known together as FTS2001, each firm was 

guaranteed minimum revenues of $750 million over the life of the 

contracts, which run for four base years and have four 1-year 

extension options. If all contract options are exercised, those 

contracts will expire in December 2006 and January 2007, 

respectively. According to GSA, federal agencies spent 

approximately $614 million on FTS2001 services during fiscal year 

2003. 

Related governmentwide telecommunications services are provided 

through other additional GSA contracts: the Federal Wireless 

Telecommunications Service contract and the FTS Satellite Service 

contracts. The wireless contract was awarded in 1996 to provide 

wireless telecommunications products and services to all federal 

agencies, authorized federal contractors, and other users. It is 

scheduled to expire in November of this year. Satellite services are 

provided through a series of contracts for a variety of commercial 

off-the-shelf satellite communications products and services, 
Page 4 GAO-04-1085T 

including mobile, fixed, and broadcast services. These contracts will 

expire in 2007. 

We have periodically reviewed the development and implementation 

of the FTS2001 program and assessed its progress. In March 2001 

we reported to you on the delays encountered during the 

government’s efforts to transition from the previous FTS2000 to the 

FTS2001 contracts, the reasons for those delays, and the effects of 

the delays on meeting FTS2001 program goals of maximizing 

competition for services and ensuring best service and price.2

 We 

recommended that GSA take numerous actions to facilitate those 

transition efforts. In April 2001 testimony before you, we reiterated 

those recommendations and noted that the process of planning and 

managing future telecommunications service acquisition would 

benefit from an accurate and robust inventory of existing 

telecommunications services.3 Ultimately, GSA acted on our 

recommendations and the transitions were successfully completed. 

GSA is now planning its Networx acquisition to replace the 

contracts that are expiring. GSA has worked with representatives of 

federal agencies, the telecommunications industry, and other 

interested parties to lay the groundwork for the new program. 

Agencies work directly with GSA and through the Interagency 

Management Council (IMC), a group of senior federal information 

resource officials who advise GSA on issues related to 

telecommunications contracts. GSA and the IMC proposed eight 

goals for the Networx program, including an emphasis on ongoing 

support and performance-based contracts. The table lists each of 

the program goals. 

 2

GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-01-289

(Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001). 

3

GAO, FTS2001: Contract Transition Delays and Their Impact on Program Goals, GAO01-544T (Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2001).
Page 5 GAO-04-1085T 

Program Goals Proposed for Networx 

Service Continuity: Contracts should include all services currently available under 

FTS2001 to facilitate a smooth transition.

Competitive prices: Prices should be better than those available elsewhere in the 

telecommunications marketplace. 

High quality services: Contracts should ensure a high quality of service throughout the 

life of the contracts. 

Full service vendors: Vendors should be capable of providing a broad array of services 

to avoid duplication of administrative and contracting costs. 

Alternate sources: Agencies should be able to choose from a greater number of 

vendors and have access to emerging technologies. 

Operations Support: GSA should provide fully integrated ordering, billing, and inventory 

management. 

Transition assistance and support: Contracts should include provisions for transition 

support. 

Performance-based contracts: Contracts should be performance based and include 

service level agreements where possible. 

Source: GSA. 

In October 2003, GSA released a RFI describing its initial strategy 

for the Networx program. In the RFI, GSA proposed two 

acquisitions—Networx Universal and Networx Select. The Universal 

acquisition was expected to satisfy requirements for a full range of 

national and international network services. According to GSA, this 

acquisition was intended to ensure the continuity of services and 

prices found under expiring contracts that provide broad-ranging 

service with global geographic coverage. Universal offerors were to 

provide a full range of voice and data network services, managed 

networking services and solutions, and network access, wireless, 

and satellite communications services. In addition, offerors were to 

provide these services at all locations across the United States. 

Consequently, this acquisition was expected to result in multiple 

contract awards to relatively few offerors because few were 

expected to be able to satisfy the geographic coverage and 

comprehensive service requirements. 

By contrast, GSA planned to award multiple contracts for a more 

geographically limited set of services under the Select acquisition. 

These contracts were to provide agencies with leading edge services 

and solutions with less extensive geographic and service coverage 

than that required by Universal. Awards under the Universal and 
Page 6 GAO-04-1085T 

Select acquisitions were to be staggered; the Select contracts were 

to be awarded 9 months after the Universal contracts. 

In February 2004, we testified on GSA’s initial planning efforts in 

support of FTS Networx.4 After reviewing the RFI and the comments 

submitted in response, we identified four major challenges that GSA 

was likely to face as it proceeded: 

● structuring and scheduling the Networx contracts to ensure that 

federal agencies have available to them the competitively priced 

telecommunications services they need to support their mission 

objectives; 

● initiating the implementation planning actions needed to ensure a 

smooth transition from current contracts to Networx; 

● ensuring that adequate inventory information is available to 

planners to provide an informed understanding of 

governmentwide requirements; and 

● establishing measures of success to aid acquisition decision 

making and enable effective program management. 

We noted that addressing these challenges would take solid 

leadership from GSA and stakeholder commitment. Without such 

actions, we concluded, the potential of Networx may not be 

realized. 

We have also previously reported on billing difficulties in GSA’s 

telecommunications programs. For example, during the transition to 

FTS2001, we found that several agencies were billed at improper 

rates. Several agencies delayed their transition to the new contract 

because resources planned for the transition were redirected to deal 

with the billing errors.5

 We recommended numerous actions to 

improve the transition process, which GSA successfully 

implemented. 

 4 GAO-04-486T. 

5

 GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-01-289,

(Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001). 
Page 7 GAO-04-1085T 

Structure and Timing of Contracts Have Been Revised in Response 

to Comments 

As we testified in February, the responses to the RFI identified a 

series of concerns about GSA’s proposed acquisition strategy. Some 

respondents commented that only the traditional long-distance 

companies would be able to meet the requirements of the larger 

contract. Others were concerned that the 9-month lag between 

contracts would complicate decision making by asking agencies to 

decide on a vendor for the more comprehensive contract before 

being able to review the options available under the more limited 

contracts. 

GSA recently revised its contracting strategy in response to these 

concerns. GSA still intends to meet the proposed program goals 

through two sets of contracts. The first, known as Networx 

Universal, requires offerors to provide 39 services everywhere a 

federal office is locate, as well as anywhere else the company offers 

those services commercially. Required services include toll-free 

telecommunications, Internet services, and cellular services. Ten 

other services, including satellite communications and paging 

services, can be offered but are not required. The second, now 

known as Networx Enterprise, requires offerors to provide nine 

mandatory services in nearly 300 locations nationwide specified by 

GSA; another 42 services can be offered at the option of the 

company. The services required under the Enterprise contracts 

focus on Internet-based offerings and related security and 

management services. GSA intends to structure the contracts so that 

the Universal offering meets the program goals of service continuity 

and full service vendors, while the Enterprise contracts meet the 

goal of providing alternative sources. Both sets of contracts are 

intended to meet the other five goals, and each is planned to run for 

4 years with three 2-year options. 

The main difference between its current strategy and the plan 

outlined in the RFI is that the geographic coverage requirements for 

the Universal contracts are less stringent. Instead of having to offer 

services in the entire country, service providers need only offer 

service where federal offices are located (as well as where the 
Page 8 GAO-04-1085T 

provider offers the service commercially) to qualify to compete for 

the contracts. This change resulted in a 76 percent reduction in the 

locations carriers must serve to be eligible to compete for the 

contracts. In turn, this increased the percentage of the anticipated 

service area that carriers could reach with their own networks. 

According to program officials, they discussed the changes with 

industry representatives, who are satisfied with the changes. In 

addition, industry representatives did not raise any questions about 

the new structure at the August industry forum. 

GSA has also addressed the concern over the time between 

contracts, by changing the proposed 9-month lag between the two 

types of contracts. GSA currently plans to issue the requests for 

proposal (RFP) for both the Universal and the Enterprise contracts 

simultaneously. This table lists the key dates from the old and new 

contract schedules. 

GSA’s original and revised key contract dates 

Original Universal 

contract schedule 

Original Select 

contract schedule1

Current schedule 

(both contracts) 

Draft RFP release Spring 2004 Winter 2005 November 2004 

Final RFP release Fall 2004 Summer 2005 April 2005 

Contract award Winter 2005 Fall 2006 April 2006 

1

In its RFI, GSA previously used the name Select to describe the contract now known as Enterprise. 

Source: GSA 

Transition Planning is Just Beginning 

As we reported to you in March 2001, the current FTS2001 contracts 

got off to a rocky start as significant delays in transitioning to the 

new contracts hindered timely achievement of program goals.6

Factors contributing to delays in that transition included a lack of 

data needed to accurately measure and effectively manage the 

transitions, inadequate resources, and other process and procedural 

issues. In testimony before you in April 2001 we stated that the value 

 6 GAO-01-289. 
Page 9 GAO-04-1085T 

of that critical program to customer agencies would be improved 

through the application of identified lessons learned. Those in 

industry who commented on the Networx RFI also noted the need 

for strong and comprehensive program management to ensure a 

successful transition, including issues such as the availability of 

accurate inventories and well-defined contractor and government 

responsibilities. 

The IMC has established various subgroups to assist it in carrying 

out its responsibilities. One of these subgroups—the Transition 

Working Group—looked at transition issues from past transitions, 

and in April 2003 identified 22 lessons learned. Some of the lessons 

identified include the need for accurate inventory information and 

the need to be flexible in transition planning. The group also drafted 

a document intended to clearly define the responsibilities of GSA 

and the agencies for transition-related costs, with the goal of 

eliminating some of the confusion experienced in the past 

transition. 

However, GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that 

lessons from past transitions are applied, nor has it established a 

timeline of actions needed during the transition process. GSA 

released a request for quotations on August 16 to solicit contract 

help with developing a transition plan, including procedures 

intended to prevent the types of errors that happened in the 

previous transition. GSA expects to award a contract to the selected 

contractor by October. According to program officials, GSA will be 

able to make more progress on this issue when the contractor 

begins. They also agree that a transition timeline is an important 

management tool, and that they will begin developing such a 

timeline soon. GSA believes that with almost 2 years until agencies 

are scheduled to choose carriers under the new contracts, there is 

still time to plan for an effective transition. However, until GSA 

completes these planned actions, it risks repeating the transition 

problems experienced in the past. To prevent such an occurrence, 

and to ensure that transition plans are developed with adequate time 

to be implemented, we are recommending that GSA develop a 

transition timeline and procedures to prevent the reoccurrence of 

identified difficulties from previous transitions. 
Page 10 GAO-04-1085T 

GSA Has Developed an Inventory of Current Services, and Has 

Begun Planning for a More Detailed Inventory 

We testified in February that it is important that GSA and its 

customer agencies have a clear understanding of agency service 

requirements in order to make properly informed acquisition 

planning decisions. According to our ongoing research on best 

practices in telecommunications acquisition and management, clear 

understanding comes at least in part from having an accurate 

baseline inventory of existing services and assets. More specifically, 

an inventory allows planners to make informed judgments based on 

an accurate analysis of current requirements and capabilities, 

emerging needs that must be considered, and the current cost of 

services. In addition, the FTS2001 transition lessons learned 

document identified the lack of a good starting inventory as the 

cause of problems in a number of areas and a contributor to the 

slow start on the FTS2001 transition. Specifically, the IMC’s 

Transition Working Group identified accurate inventories as a 

requirement for conducting an efficient transition. 

GSA is addressing the need for inventory information in two ways. 

First, GSA developed an inventory of the services currently used by 

its customers by reviewing the existing contracts, modifications to 

them, and billing information. Agencies then verified this 

information to ensure the listed services meet their current and 

anticipated future needs. According to GSA officials, this inventory 

was used in acquisition planning, for example, to justify its decision 

on which services to include in the proposed Networx contracts and 

which to make mandatory. Second, GSA is planning to work with its 

customer agencies to develop more detailed inventories for 

transition purposes. For example, the transition inventory would not 

only identify which services are used, but it would also identify 

where those services are used and how much. According to program 

officials, GSA plans to provide agencies with initial information 

based on billing and ordering data in November. Agencies will then 

verify the GSA data using their own data sources. Because service 

changes are expected to continue to occur, GSA expects this 

process to continue until January 2006. Program officials also told 
Page 11 GAO-04-1085T 

us that once it is in place, the inventory process could be used as an 

ongoing management tool. 

GSA Is Developing Performance Measures, but not a Strategy for 

Applying Them 

Our research into recommended program and project measurement 

practices highlights the importance of establishing clear measures 

of success to aid acquisition decision making as well as to provide 

the foundation for accountable program management. As we 

testified earlier in the year, such internal measures define what must 

be done for a project to be acceptable to the stakeholders and users 

affected by it; these internal measures enable measurement of 

progress and effectiveness in meeting objectives. Further, in 

keeping with the principles of the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA), programs can be more effectively measured if 

their goals and objectives are outcome-oriented (i.e., focused on 

results or impact) rather than output-oriented (i.e., focused on 

activities and processes). 

According to agency officials, GSA plans to measure its 

performance against each of the program’s goals. For some of these 

goals, GSA has already determined how it will measure progress. 

For example, GSA will measure progress towards the goal of 

competitive prices using the same process it currently uses—a 

direct comparison of contract rates to market rates. For other goals, 

GSA officials stated that performance will be evident from the 

contract selections. For example, the outcome of the goal of using 

full-service providers will be known when the providers are 

selected. However, for some goals, GSA has not yet determined how 

it will measure progress. For the goals of high quality service and 

operations support, GSA officials stated that specific metrics are 
Page 12 GAO-04-1085T 

still in development as part of their efforts to develop service level 

agreements for vendors.7

While the approach described by program officials seems 

reasonable, GSA has not determined when it will finalize the 

measures still under development. In addition, GSA has not 

developed a strategy outlining how it will use key measures to 

monitor ongoing program performance. Until GSA develops a firm 

strategy, it lacks assurance that the required program measures will 

be in place at the appropriate time. As a result, its measures may 

have limited effect as a program management tool. We therefore 

recommend that GSA finalize its efforts to identify measures to 

evaluate progress towards program goals and develop a strategy for 

using those measures for ongoing program management. 

Number of Billing Elements Has Been Reduced, but Other Billing 

Issues Are Unresolved 

Clear, accurate, and complete billing records are an important 

internal control: they record the detail of each telecommunications 

transaction for later verification and management oversight. 

However, bills and billing systems have been a problem in the 

current generation of FTS programs and thus continue to be a 

concern for their proposed replacement. In addition to the previous 

experiences discussed earlier, both the telecommunications carriers 

and GSA’s customer agencies have more recently raised concerns 

about billing. Carriers asked GSA to address inconsistent and 

sometimes conflicting billing requirements in different regions. 

Some also questioned whether the number of billing elements—the 

data fields tracked in the billing system—was excessive. Agencies 

commented that the way in which they currently receive billing 

information hampers their efforts to reconcile invoices and 

produces inaccurate and incomplete bills. A few agencies 

 7

 These are agreements between suppliers and customers to provide business services 

under specific terms. 
Page 13 GAO-04-1085T 

commented that billing difficulties have cost them hundreds of 

thousands of dollars. 

In response to industry’s concern about the number of billing 

elements, GSA reduced the number of elements required under the 

Networx contracts. In its RFI, GSA proposed the use of 513 billing 

elements. Working in collaboration with the IMC and the Industry 

Advisory Council, GSA reduced the number of billing data elements 

to 196 (a reduction of 62 percent), with 54 elements being 

government specific. In response to the concerns about the 

accuracy of billing information, GSA plans to introduce service level 

agreements with the carriers to hold the carriers accountable for the 

accuracy of the billing data they provide. 

GSA has also begun examining potential alternatives to the way it 

currently consolidates carrier billing data and provides it to some 

agencies. The study is considering several options, including the 

option of contracting out bill consolidation, and the potential costs 

and benefits of the options. According to program officials, one of 

the goals of the study is to identify potential savings in 

administrative costs. 

However, GSA has not undertaken any similar efforts to identify the 

causes of agency difficulties in billing and address them. GSA 

officials attributed part of the uncertainty over future billing 

procedures to a lack of consensus among industry on how to 

improve the process. Regardless of the plans of industry, if GSA 

does not develop a billing process that better meets the needs of its 

customers, the agencies are likely to continue to experience 

difficulties in managing their telecommunications costs. To better 

address this challenge, we are recommending that GSA develop and 

implement a strategy for addressing the billing data issues raised by 

its customer agencies. 

Summary 

Mr. Chairman, the Networx program represents a significant 

opportunity for GSA and the federal government to both expand the 

menu of telecommunications services available to 
Page 14 GAO-04-1085T 

agencies and continue to provide quality and value in the services 

that agencies select. The size and scope of the planned contracts 

present a formidable management challenge, and GSA is to be 

commended for working with its customers and industry to 

collaboratively address concerns about the structure and timing of 

the contracts and the need for a current service inventory for use in 

identifying contract requirements. GSA has begun efforts to address 

other challenges, such as the need for transition plans, the use of 

performance measures, and an effective billing system, but it lacks 

strategies for ensuring that each of these issues is adequately 

addressed. As the planned release of RFPs approaches, GSA will 

have less time to finalize those decisions still outstanding and 

implement the resulting actions. To demonstrate the appropriate 

level of planning and commitment necessary to ensure that agencies 

have access to necessary telecommunications services, we are 

recommending that GSA take additional steps to resolve these 

issues in a timely manner. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee 

may have at this time. 

Contacts and Acknowledgements 

Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact 

me by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov or James Sweetman at 

sweetmanj@gao.gov. We can also be reached at (202) 512-6240 and

(202) 512-3347, respectively. Other major contributors to this 

testimony were Jamey Collins, Samuel Garman, and Nancy Glover. 

(310713) 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER