THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS

RESULTS-ORIENTED

A Report to Federal Employees

August 2004 
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

IS RESULTS-ORIENTED

A Report to Federal Employees1

The Federal Government is results-oriented, with the help of new 

disciplines and habits departments and agencies are adopting through 

the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). 

Federal employees want their departments to be as effective as possible, 

and the American people expect the Government to achieve results. To

be results-oriented managers must ask themselves if the programs they 

administer are achieving the desired result at an acceptable cost. If the 

answer is “no” or “we don’t know,” they must do something about it, 

such as clearly define the desired outcomes, determine the causes of 

unsatisfactory performance, construct plans to remedy any problems, 

develop aggressive timeframes for taking action, and ensure that actions 

are implemented. 

Skeptics certainly question the assertion that the Federal Government is 

results-oriented, citing a long list of challenges faced by our Nation. But 

being results-oriented is about delivering results AND also about our 

having an expectation that costs will be managed, the government will 

spend the people’s money wisely, and that managers will be held 

accountable for achieving results. It is about having a systematic and 

deliberate approach to using resources to achieve intended goals. While 

there are many cases where significant work needs to be done to achieve 

the results expected by our citizens, there are many other cases where 

the focus on, or delivery of, results is producing what the American 

people expect. For example:

 

• The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) delivers safe, effective, 

and convenient care comparable to private sector health care to 

over five million patients annually, using state-of-the-art 

information technology and care coordination practices. The 

electronic health record system analyzes past data to generate 

automatic physician reminders for preventive and follow-up 

 

1 This report to all Federal employees summarizes how the Federal Government is focusing on 

results, the role of the President’s Management Agenda, and the keys to future success. 

1 
measures. It also enables patients to interact with physicians from 

home, improving tracking of patient symptoms. Quality, access to 

care, satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness data are tracked in realtime and evaluated on a monthly basis. As a result, more than 74 

percent of in-patient and out-patient care recipients express 

satisfaction with their VHA experiences, equal to the satisfaction 

level of private sector patients with their hospitals. 

• The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Health 

Centers program provides grants to health centers to provide 

medical care to uninsured, underserved, and vulnerable

populations in rural and urban areas. From 2000 to 2003, the 

program increased the number of people served by 30 percent. The 

program has a goal to serve 13.2 million people this year, up from 

12.4 million in 2003. The long-term goal is to create 1,200 new 

and expanded health center sites to serve an additional 6.1 million 

people by 2006. 

• The purpose of the National Weather Service is to provide warnings 

and forecasts in order to protect lives and property. The Service 

measures the improvement in accuracy of, and lead times for, 

weather warnings. In 2002, the National Weather Service 

increased its tornado warning lead time from 10 minutes to 12 

minutes and improved its flash flood warning accuracy from 86 

percent to 89 percent. It has set goals to improve these and other 

key indicators of its ability to protect lives and property from 

destruction as a result of natural disasters. 

• Federal Student Aid (FSA) in the Department of Education (ED) 

makes available more than $70 billion in grants, loans, and work

study each year to help more than nine million postsecondary 

students pay for college. FSA also manages a portfolio of more

than $320 billion in outstanding direct loans and loan guarantees. 

Each year, FSA answers 34 million customer service calls, 

processes over 9.1 million electronic loan applications, and receives 

over 20 billion hits to its websites. Despite this significant volume, 

FSA is still able to process web-based student aid applications 

within 24 hours, and answer calls to 1-800-4FED-AID in less than 

5 seconds. A leading survey shows customer satisfaction rates are 

higher than those of other service companies and financial 

institutions, including Wells Fargo, Wachovia Bank, and Wal-Mart. 

In these instances Federal managers defined the result they desired and 

then worked aggressively to achieve it. This focus on results is not new, 

2 
but what is new is a greater expectation than ever before that managers, 

line employees, indeed entire agencies, will be held accountable for 

meeting the goals they set. More than ever before, managers are 

challenged to clearly define what has to be done, identify who is 

responsible and who needs to participate, set aggressive yet realistic 

timeframes to accomplish goals, and then follow up to ensure that plans 

are executed as promised. 

This model was the key to success when in December 2003, the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) earned the first clean audit opinion in 

the Department’s 140-year history. USDA overcame this longstanding 

challenge by setting tangible goals, identifying responsible officials to 

lead each part of the effort, setting an aggressive schedule for achieving 

their goals, and monitoring performance to ensure the results were 

achieved. (See http://results.gov/agenda/howtheydidit-usda.html) 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) used the same approach to 

improve the management of its Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

program which for years has had problems with overpayments and poor 

recovery of overpayments. Through the use of very detailed goals, action 

plans, and assignments of responsibility, SSA conducted more financial 

reviews, sought legislative authority to verify information about 

applicants, and established investigative teams. These efforts support 

SSA’s work to minimize improper payments and led to the General 

Accounting Office taking the SSI program off its high-risk list in 2003. 

New Disciplines and the President’s Management Agenda 

The President’s Management Agenda was launched in August 2001 as a 

strategy for improving the management and performance of the Federal 

Government. It focuses on the areas where deficiencies were most 

apparent and where the Government could begin to deliver concrete, 

measurable results. The PMA includes five Government-wide initiatives 

and 10 program-specific initiatives that apply to a subset of Federal 

agencies. The PMA is helping departments and agencies adopt new 

disciplines to ensure their focus on results is effective and enduring. 

The five key Government-wide areas are: 

• Strategic Management of Human Capital—having processes in 

place to ensure the right person is in the right job, at the right 

time, and is not only performing, but performing well; 

3 
• Competitive Sourcing—regularly examining commercial activities 

performed by the government to determine whether it is more 

efficient to obtain such services from Federal employees or from the 

private sector; 

• Improved Financial Performance—accurately accounting for the 

taxpayers’ money and giving managers timely and accurate 

program cost information to inform management decisions and 

control costs; 

• Expanded Electronic Government—ensuring that the Federal 

Government’s $60 billion annual investment in information 

technology (IT) significantly improves the government’s ability to 

serve citizens, and that IT systems are secure, and delivered on 

time and on budget; and 

• Budget and Performance Integration—ensuring that 

performance is routinely considered in funding and management 

decisions, and that programs achieve expected results and work 

toward continual improvement. 

For each initiative, the PMA established clear, Government-wide goals or 

Standards for Success (http://results.gov/agenda/standards.pdf). 

Agencies then developed and implemented detailed, aggressive action 

plans to achieve those goals. Most importantly, agencies have been held 

publicly accountable for adopting these disciplines. To that end, a 

simple grading system of red, yellow, and green was developed. Each 

quarter, agencies are rated on their status in achieving the overall goals 

for each initiative and on their progress in implementing their action 

plans. The Government-wide scorecard reporting on individual agency 

progress is published quarterly at 

http://results.gov/agenda/scorecard.html. The most recent scorecard 

follows. 

4 
Human Competitive Financial E-Gov Budget/Perf. Human Competitive Financial E-Gov Budget/Perf.

Capital Sourcing Perf. Integration Capital Sourcing Perf. Integration

AGRICULTURE

COMMERCE

DEFENSE

EDUCATION

ENERGY

EPA

HHS

HOMELAND

HUD

INTERIOR

JUSTICE

LABOR

STATE

DOT

TREASURY

VA

AID

CORPS 

GSA

NASA

NSF

OMB

OPM

SBA

SMITHSONIAN

SSA

Executive Branch Management Scorecard

Current Status as of June 30, 2004

Progress in Implementing the President's 

Management Agenda

Arrows indicate change in status since 

evaluation on March 31, 2004.

5 
Explanation of Status Scores 

Green—Agency meets all the Standards for Success. 

Yellow—Agency has achieved intermediate levels of performance in all the criteria. 

Red—Agency has any one of a number of serious flaws. 

Explanation of Progress Scores 

Green—Implementation is proceeding according to plans agreed upon with agencies.

Yellow —Slippage in implementation schedule, quality of deliverables, or other issues 

requiring adjustment by agency in order to achieve initiative on a timely basis. 

Red—Initiative is in serious jeopardy. It is unlikely to realize objectives absent significant 

management intervention. 

Federal departments have made significant progress in adopting the new 

disciplines of the PMA and meeting its goals. Three years ago, almost 

none of the agencies was satisfactorily managing their people, programs, 

costs, and investments in information technology: 110 of the 130 

“scores” (26 agencies each working on five separate initiatives) were red. 

Only two scores were green, reflecting that the overall goals had been 

achieved in those areas. Today only 49 of the 130 scores remain red, 

while 27 are green, or desired, and 54 are yellow, or significantly 

improved. 

As of June 30, 2004, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has earned 

four green status scores and three agencies have each earned three green 

status scores: the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), and SSA. ED, DOE, the Department of Labor (DOL), 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OPM, and SSA do not have 

any red scores. These agencies’ accomplishments demonstrate that all 

the goals of the PMA can be achieved with the commitment and 

sustained effort of management and employees. 

The improvement in scores reflects significant changes in the basic ways 

that departments and agencies operate. Below is a summary of the 

accomplishments to date in each area: 

• Strategic Management of Human Capital (Attachment A): 

Federal agencies have put in place the key tools for managing their 

workforces. Ninety-two percent of the agencies have strategies for 

ensuring that they are developing future leaders. Ninety-two 

6 
percent have identified skills gaps in critical occupations and 77 

percent are working to reduce or eliminate them. In addition, 65 

percent of agencies have performance evaluation systems that more 

clearly define what is expected of each employee and how they are 

performing relative to those expectations. 

DOE, DOL, Department of State, DOT, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

OPM, and SSA have established the desired human 

capital processes to earn them green status scores. 

• Competitive Sourcing (Attachment B): Agencies spent $88 million 

in out-of-pocket costs in FY 2003 to study their commercial 

activities. These same agencies project that the more than 660 

assessments completed last year will yield $1.1 billion in savings 

over the next 3 to 5 years. This translates to annualized savings of 

roughly $12,000 for every position studied, regardless of whether 

the work is being performed by the Government or by the private 

sector. Agencies are working to apply competition in the most 

strategic manner possible, such as by reorganizing inefficient inhouse operations, grouping related activities to generate private 

sector interest, and aligning competitive sourcing and human 

capital efforts to close competency and skills gaps. With 

experience, the return on investment will only get better. For more 

detail, the complete report can be found at 

http://results.gov/cs_omb_647_report_final.pdf. 

DOD, DOE, HHS, DOT, and OPM have established 

desired competitive sourcing capabilities necessary 

to earn green status scores. 

• Improved Financial Performance (Attachment C): With new 

financial management disciplines, departments are preparing their 

audited financial statements sooner after the end of the fiscal year 

than anyone would have thought possible a few years ago. The 

number of auditor-identified material weaknesses, which represent 

significant risks to financial reporting, has been reduced, and 

USDA and the US Agency for International Development received 

clean audit opinions for the first time in their history. A complete 

report on overall cost management can be found at 

http://results.gov/agenda/ManagingCostReport.pdf. 

7 
ED, DOE, EPA, National Science Foundation (NSF), 

and SSA have established the desired financial 

management disciplines to earn green status 

scores. 

• Expanded E-Government (Attachment D): The Federal 

Government is managing its IT more professionally as a resource 

for improving results. Seventy percent of the Federal Government’s 

IT systems are secure, versus 26 percent three years ago; so there 

is greater integrity in the data housed in these systems. Seventytwo percent of agencies have mechanisms in place to validate 

performance relative to cost, schedule and performance goals for

their IT investments; about half of those agencies meet at least 90 

percent of their cost and schedule goals. The Federal Government 

has also made great strides in expanding the availability and use of 

electronic services for citizens. For more information about the 24 

E-Government projects see http://whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/. 

EPA, DOT, NSF, OPM, and Small Business

Administration (SBA) have achieved the desired IT

goals and earned green scores. 

• Budget and Performance Integration (Attachment E): The 

Federal Government is systematically assessing its programs to 

identify opportunities for improving program effectiveness. To date, 

more than 600 Federal programs have been assessed 

(approximately 60 percent of the total). Of those assessed, 65 

percent have defined and are tracking clear outcome goals to 

measure their results and 67 percent have efficiency measures in 

place to manage costs. For each program assessed, agencies are 

identifying areas where performance could be improved and taking 

the necessary actions to achieve better results. 

DOL, DOT, NASA, SBA, and SSA have achieved the 

goals in this area and earned a green score. 

A disciplined focus on results is also being applied to program initiatives. 

In these areas, an agency or group of agencies is working to improve the 

management and delivery of services in a particular program area. Clear

8 
expectations, detailed action plans, and accountability for performance 

are being used to: 

• Ensure that faith-based and community organizations have the same 

access to Federal grants as other organizations—Agencies have 

identified the barriers to participation in Federal programs and are 

working to eliminate them. They are increasing outreach to faithbased and community organizations and testing innovative ways to 

improve program services by involving faith-based and community 

organizations. 

• Accelerate the refurbishment of military housing through 

partnerships with the private sector—The Department of Defense 

(DOD) is on track to eliminate its inventory of inadequate housing 

by 2007. To date DOD in its efforts to improve the quality of family 

housing has awarded 32 public-private projects involving 61,642 

units. 

• Enhance the quality, performance, and relevance demonstrated 

by Federal programs in research and development—Agencies are 

now applying objective criteria to all their research and 

development investments to increase the effectiveness of applied 

research and the overall impact of the research portfolio. 

• Eliminate fraud and error in student aid programs—The Department 

of Education (ED) is administering student aid more efficiently and 

effectively by better accounting for program dollars, pursuing 

legislation to allow for income verification, and strengthening 

oversight of schools, lenders and other financial partners. Last 

year, ED re-negotiated its loan servicing contract in order to 

improve service and reduce taxpayer costs; this new contract has 

the potential to save $1 billion over the next 10 years. 

• Strengthen the overall management of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD)—HUD is working to reduce 

erroneous payments, assure tenants have acceptable living 

conditions, and combat abusive lending practices. For instance,

through enhanced monitoring, assistance, and enforcement 

actions, HUD increased the percentage of public housing units that 

meet acceptable housing quality standards from 70 percent in FY 

2000 to 87.1 in FY 2002. 

• Encourage innovation in States’ use of their Medicaid funding to

provide health insurance coverage to more people—To date, HHS has 

9 
approved 19 State demonstration projects that explore alternative 

methods to leverage Federal and private health insurance to reduce 

the number of uninsured people. 

• Ensure that Federal overseas staffing is based on current needs and 

is efficiently deployed—Agencies are annually reviewing their 

overseas staffing and associated costs to ensure that they 

appropriately support foreign policy priorities and that they are 

cost-justified. 

• Improve service delivery to members of the military and veterans

through improved coordination between the Departments of Veterans

Affairs’ (VA) and DOD’s programs and systems—VA and DOD are 

coordinating to share medical records, medical facilities and staff, 

IT systems, and the purchasing of pharmaceutical and medical

supplies so that services are provided in a seamless and costeffective manner. 

• Strengthen real property management and optimize the use of

Federal property—To ensure that the $300 billion in real property 

that the Federal Government owns is used efficiently to support

agency missions, each department has designated a Senior Real 

Property Officer to be responsible for the agency’s real property 

assets. A Federal Real Property Council was created to develop 

Government-wide standards for how properties should be 

inventoried, maintained, secured, operated, and assessed for 

relevance to the agency’s mission. The Council will then ensure 

that asset management plans are implemented and property is 

managed professionally. 

• Eliminate improper payments—Based on recent audit estimates, 

Federal agencies make more than $35 billion in improper payments 

each year. This new initiative will have agencies measure their 

improper payments on an annual basis, develop improvement 

targets and corrective actions, and track the results annually to 

ensure the corrective actions are effective. 

The Focus on Results 

All departments and agencies are embracing the PMA’s disciplines as 

regular management practices, which help them better focus on program 

results and costs. This greater focus on results is also good for the 

agencies’ employees. Agency-specific reports on these changes and how 

10 
they are affecting the agencies and their employees can be found at the 

websites for the departments and agencies listed below. 

• Department of Agriculture 

• Department of Commerce 

• Department of Defense 

• Department of Education 

• Department of Energy 

• Environmental Protection 

 Agency 

• Department of Health and 

 Human Services 

• Department of Homeland 

 Security 

• Department of Housing and 

 Urban Development 

• Department of the Interior 

• Department of Justice 

• Department of Labor 

• Department of State 

• Department of Transportation 

• Department of the Treasury 

• Department of Veterans Affairs 

• United States Agency for 

 International Development 

• Army Corps of Engineers 

• General Services Administration 

• National Aeronautics and Space 

 Administration 

• National Science Foundation 

• Office of Personnel Management 

• Small Business Administration 

• Social Security Administration 

The Keys to Future Success 

The Federal Government is working to adopt all the PMA disciplines 

within the next few years. At that point agencies will be able to ensure 

that Federal managers have the resources necessary to achieve their 

goals: a high quality workforce; accurate and timely financial and 

performance data; and tools to increase effectiveness and efficiency. 

Departments and agencies understand that a greater focus on results 

can help them deliver more services during a time of budget constraints, 

and can help them redirect funding from less productive activities to 

higher priority programs and activities. For instance, the projected 

savings associated with competitive sourcing, fully implemented, are over 

$5 billion per year. Eliminating the over $35 billion in improper 

payments could produce substantial savings and benefits to the taxpayer 

while ensuring that government payments are made as intended. In a 

$2.4 trillion Federal budget, each percentage point of overall increased 

effectiveness and efficiency has a value of $24 billion per year in savings 

to the taxpayer. An important key to success is making these 

performance improvements and efficiencies real so that employees see 

these new disciplines “pay off” in the form of greater service to citizens 

and available monies being stretched and/or redirected to address high 

priority needs. 

 

11 
12 

 

Departments and agencies also understand that their employees are the 

key to the Federal Government being results-oriented. In focus groups 

conducted in several agencies,2 managers have suggested several key 

factors to their agencies’ continued, successful focus on results: 

• Continue to make achieving results a top priority. Clearly define 

success, the action plan to achieve success, the person responsible, 

and a due date for each required action; and ensure aggressive 

follow-through. 

• Understand that changing the way departments operate is about 

managing risk. Help employees perform smarter and better and 

understand that they may make mistakes. Provide employees and 

their managers with better performance and cost information so 

that the risks they take are appropriate. Use performance 

information to help individual employees and work groups be more 

productive by giving them data to better understand why they have 

or have not been successful. 

• Keep employees informed. Give them frequent status reports. 

Explain better the PMA focus on results to all levels of employees, 

including line employees. 

• Managers and line employees alike must be engaged, and equally 

important, must be provided clear expectations and the resources 

necessary to meet those expectations. Giving employees a chance to 

be heard will help maximize the chances of success. Recognize 

that most Federal employees are not afraid to have goals and be 

held accountable. Also note the pride they have in their 

departments and their desire to be part of something important. 

Do it “with them” instead of “to them.” 

• Expect and help managers be better managers of people and 

projects. Don’t expect managers to do the job themselves. Instead 

expect them to manage the resources—people, IT, and other 

resources—to get the job done. 

• Recognize good performance with better feedback, rewards, and 

recognition. Critical to this is the ability of managers to better 

distinguish between good and poor performance.

2 USDA, DOE, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, DOT, HHS, VA, EPA, General 

Services Administration, and SBA. 
13 

• Use performance measures intelligently. Ensure that employees and 

Congress agree with the measures, and regularly review the 

measures to ensure they lead us toward the right results rather 

than promoting unintended consequences. 

• Minimize the changes in rules and resource levels. Develop a plan 

and stick with it. 

• Make sure the reporting requirements are what is needed and not 

excessive.

Department and agency leadership are committed to these operating 

principles, as is indicated in the current and future activities described 

in the specific agency reports referred to in the previous section. 

Leadership understands that they can only adopt the new disciplines 

and habits, and better focus on results, with their employees’ full 

engagement. 

Conclusions, especially for Federal employees 

Each Federal department and agency is focused on results, with the 

assistance of the President’s Management Agenda’s new disciplines and 

practices. The PMA now is really the sum of department and agency 

results agendas—it is Interior’s Results Agenda, HHS’ Results Agenda, 

and so forth. Departments and agencies are producing greater results. 

They are working more productively. They are increasing their focus on 

desired outcomes using the tools first set forth in the PMA so that they 

can provide better value for the American taxpayers. 

It is not surprising that Federal employees want their departments to be 

as effective as possible. They want to do a good job, but they need to 

know what a “good job” is, i.e., what is expected of them. They want and 

deserve to have information about how they fit in to the pursuit of their 

agency’s mission. They want their programs focused on the right 

outcomes and they want to maximize the results that their programs aim 

to achieve. They want to be productive, accountable, and challenged. 

They want to serve their country and also want to grow professionally. 

Federal employees are results-oriented. They are making sure their 

agencies are result-oriented, too. 
Department/Agency

Identified Reduced or Eliminated

AGRICULTURE............ Yes Yes In Progress Yes Yes

COMMERCE............... Yes Yes Yes Yes No

DEFENSE.................. Yes Yes No No No

EDUCATION............... Yes Yes In Progress No Yes

ENERGY..................... Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EPA........................... Yes Yes In Progress Yes Yes

HHS........................... Yes Yes In Progress Yes Yes

DHS........................... No Yes No No No

HUD........................... Yes Yes No Yes Yes

INTERIOR.................. Yes Yes In Progress Yes No

JUSTICE..................... Yes Yes No Yes No

LABOR........................ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

STATE........................ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOT........................... Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

TREASURY............... Yes Yes In Progress No No

VA.............................. Yes Yes In Progress Yes Yes

AID........................... Yes No No Yes Yes

CORPS..................... Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

GSA........................... Yes Yes In Progress Yes No

NASA........................ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NSF........................... Yes Yes In Progress Yes No

OMB........................... Yes Yes In Progress Yes Yes

OPM........................... Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

SBA........................... Yes Yes In Progress Yes Yes

SMITHSONIAN............ No No No No No

SSA........................... Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

"In Progress" indicates agencies are implementing programs to reduce gaps.

Attachment A. AGENCIES ARE USING KEY WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Critical Talent Gaps in 

Mission Critical Occupations

Leadership 

Succession 

Plans in Place

SES Appraisal 

Plans Linked to 

Mission Goals

Agencies Provide Clear 

Indications that Appraisal 

Systems Make 

Meaningful Distinctions

14 
Number of

Competitions

Completed

Number of 

FTEs

Assessed

In-House 

Provider 

Selected

(Based on FTEs)

Incremental 

Costs of

Conducting 

Studies

(in millions)

3–5 Year Net

Anticipated 

Savings

(in millions)

AGRICULTURE............... 400 3,589 100% $4.7 -$3.6

COMMERCE..................... 5 315 100% $1.5 $10.0

DEFENSE........................ 78 9,253 81% $67.9 $732.7

EDUCATION..................... 0 0 NA NA NA

ENERGY........................ 3 180 96% $1.4 $35.4

EPA................................. 3 38 100% $0.0 2 $0.0 2

HHS.............................. 52 2,333 99% $6.0 $246.0

DHS.............................. 0 0 NA NA NA

HUD.............................. 0 0 NA NA NA

INTERIOR........................ 84 502 99% $1.0 $3.3

JUSTICE........................ 1 153 100% $1.0 $10.5

LABOR........................... 0 0 NA $0.0 NA

STATE........................... 1 9 0% $0.0 $0.3

DOT.............................. 6 213 100% $1.0 $8.1

TREASURY..................... 17 164 91% $0.7 $0.3

VA................................. 1 276 0% $1.7 $45.3

AID................................. 0 0 NA NA NA

CORPS........................... 0 0 NA NA NA

GSA.............................. 5 168 100% $0.3 $6.2

NASA.............................. 1 7 100% $0.0 $0.0

NSF................................. 0 0 NA NA NA

OMB.............................. 0 0 NA NA NA

OPM.............................. 1 180 100% $0.3 $10.1

SBA................................. 3 190 58% $0.0 2 $1.2

SMITHSONIAN.................. 0 0 NA NA NA

SSA................................. 1 25 100% $0.1 -$0.1

GOVERNMENT-WIDE...... 662 17,595 89% $87.6 $1,105.6

1

2

NA = indicates not applicable as no competitions were reported.

Value of less than $100,000.

Attachment B. COMPETITIVE SOURCING HELPS AGENCIES REDUCE COST OF THEIR

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Department/Agency

Summary of FY 2003 Competitive Sourcing Activity1

Data developed by PMA agencies in response to section 647(b) of the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, FY 2004 (Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199). These data reflect only

streamlined and standard competitions completed in FY2003. For additional information on competitions conducted under

Circular A-76, see OMB's Report on Competitive Sourcing Results, Fiscal Year 2003, at 

http://www.results.gov/agenda/cs_omb_647_report_final.pdf.

15 
Department/Agency

2001 2003 2001 2003 2001 2003 2001 2003

AGRICULTURE......... 150 121 Disclaimer Unqualified 7 3 32 8

COMMERCE............ 150 76 Unqualified Unqualified 1 0 3 1 9

DEFENSE............... 150 84 Disclaimer Disclaimer 15 11 268 41

EDUCATION............ 150 45 Qualified Unqualified 1 0 7 0 9

ENERGY.................. 149 76 Unqualified Unqualified 0 0 13 0

EPA........................ 150 52 Unqualified Unqualified 0 0 4 0

HHS........................ 149 46 Unqualified Unqualified 2 2 3 1

DHS........................ n/a 136 n/a Disclaimer n/a 7 n/a 15

HUD........................ 150 80 Unqualified Unqualified 5 2 3 2

INTERIOR............... 150 64 Unqualified Unqualified 6 4 18 11

JUSTICE.................. 150 122 Unqualified Unqualified 3 1 12 4

LABOR..................... 150 91 Unqualified Unqualified 0 0 0 0

STATE..................... 150 90 Unqualified Unqualified 1 0 4 0 9

DOT........................ 150 122 Unqualified Unqualified 2 4 2 4 9

TREASURY............... 150 45 Unqualified Unqualified 2 2 29 9

VA........................... 150 51 Unqualified Unqualified 6 2 6 3

AID........................... 150 45 Disclaimer Unqualified 3 3 4 3

CORPS..................... 150 84 Disclaimer Disclaimer 3 3 3 3

GSA........................ 150 79 Unqualified Unqualified 0 1 5 3 9

NASA..................... 150 122 Disclaimer Disclaimer 1 4 1 2 9

NSF........................ 150 48 Unqualified Unqualified 0 0 0 0

OPM........................ 150 92 Unqualified Unqualified 0 0 2 0

SBA........................ 150 122 Disclaimer Disclaimer 1 2 0 3 9

SMITHSONIAN......... n/a n/a Unqualified Unqualified 0 0 0 0 9

SSA........................ 81 45 Unqualified Unqualified 0 0 1 0 9

AVERAGE DAYS...... 147 81

TOTAL WEAKNESSES..................................................................... 59 51 420 113

1

2

3

An auditor-identified material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of the internal control fails to adequately reduce the risk of error, fraud or

noncompliance and such failure materially affects the integrity or trustworthiness of the financial statements.

An integrity act weakness is a material weakness in the agency’s systems of internal accounting and administrative control that the head of an agency reports to the

President and the Congress. These material weaknesses may or may not be the same as those reported by the independent auditor.

New financial systems are indicators of agency compliance with relevant financial management system requirements and an agency's enhanced capability for utilizing

accurate and timely financial information to manage operations. In addition to those agencies that have recently updated new systems, 11 agencies are currently

implementing new systems or upgrades and should be completed within the next three years.

Attachment C. AGENCIES ARE STRENGTHENING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Information on Recent Audits and Financial System Implementation

Days to

Issue Audited 

Financial Report Audit Opinion

Auditor-Identified

Material

Weaknesses1

Integrity Act

Weaknesses2

New

Financial

System 

Since 

20013

16 
IT Funding in

FY 2005 Budget

(in millions)

Percent of Major IT

Investments with

Acceptable

Justifications1

Cost/Schedule/

Performance Variance2

Percent of IT

Systems Secure3

AGRICULTURE............ $1,790 greater than 50% 4 4%

COMMERCE............... $1,495 100% less than 10% 93%

DEFENSE.................. $27,687 greater than 50% less than 30% 77%e

EDUCATION............... $581 100% less than 30% 92%

ENERGY..................... $2,703 100% less than 30% 92%

EPA........................... $462 100% less than 10% 94%

HHS........................... $5,117 greater than 50% 4 93%

DHS........................... $4,428 greater than 50% 4 50%

HUD........................... $335 less than 50% less than 30% 0%

INTERIOR.................. $799 greater than 50% less than 30% 21%

JUSTICE..................... $2,199 greater than 50% less than 30% 80%

LABOR........................ $407 greater than 50% less than 30% 90%

STATE........................ $831 100%5 less than 30%5 83%

DOT........................... $2,727 100% less than 10% 97%

TREASURY.................. $2,583 greater than 50% 4 79%

VA.............................. $1,610 100% less than 10% 14%

AID........................... $126 100%e less than 30%e 80%

CORPS........................ $277 0% 4 6

GSA........................... $506 100% 4 77%

NASA........................ $1,904 100% less than 10% 99%

NSF........................... $84 100% less than 10% 95%

OPM........................... $132 100% less than 10% 98%

SBA........................... $36 100% less than 10% 97%

SMITHSONIAN............ $69 0% 4 25%

SSA........................... $809 100% less than 30% 100%

GOVERNMENT-WIDE... $59,697 70%

1

2

3

4

5

6

Attachment D. AGENCIES ARE ACHIEVING RESULTS THROUGH IMPROVED IT PORTFOLIO 

MANAGEMENT

Estimates as of March 31, 2004.

The Corps reports IT security status through the Department of Defense.

As with all capital assets, IT investments must be supported by sound justifications. Criteria for acceptable justifications for major IT investments is

available in circular A-11, Section 300 and includes 10 elements such as Risk Management, Security, Project Management, etc. Estimates as of June 30,

2004.

IT investment justifications include cost, schedule, and performance goals; this measures variance from these goals. Tracking cost/schedule/ performance 

variance is a method for measuring project performance. Also called Earned Value Management, it compares the value of work that was planned with

what was actually accomplished to determine if cost and schedule performance is as planned. Estimates as of June 30, 2004.

Secure IT systems are operational systems that have been certified and accredited. Appropriate security and privacy controls have been identified,

implemented, and tested. This data was taken from the quarterly FISMA update.

Information provided by agencies was insufficent for analysis. Generally, either no baseline or a variance greater than 30 percent. 

Department/Agency

17 
Department/Agency

Percent of Total

Program Dollars

Percent of

Programs with 

Acceptable 

Performance 

Measures

Percent of

Programs with

Efficiency

Measures

AGRICULTURE.................. 75% 45% 58%

COMMERCE..................... 72% 80% 57%

DEFENSE........................ 60% 80% 55%

EDUCATION..................... 79% 48% 63%

ENERGY........................... 81% 100% 87%

EPA................................. 62% 83% 72%

HHS................................. 60% 70% 50%

DHS................................. 62% 44% 64%

HUD................................. 81% 65% 15%

INTERIOR........................ 37% 59% 49%

JUSTICE........................... 58%2 83% 61%

LABOR........................... 85% 90% 100%

STATE........................... 35% 76% 100%

DOT................................. 97% 100% 100%

TREASURY..................... 42% 53% 79%

VA................................. 97% 43% 71%

AID................................. 56% 67% 100%

CORPS........................... 83% 67% 83%

GSA................................. 84% 33% 42%

NASA.............................. 81% 77% 100%

NSF................................. 47% 100% 100%

OPM.............................. 99% 100% 100%

SBA................................. 70% 88% 100%

SMITHSONIAN3

............... 0% 0% 0%

SSA................................. 21% 100% 100%

GOVERNMENT-WIDE......... 60% 65% 67%

1

2

3 No program assessments have been undertaken.

Percentage calculated off the number of programs instead of program dollars.

Estimates as of June 30, 2004.

Attachment E. AGENCIES ARE ESTABLISHING CLEAR PROGRAM

GOALS AND MEASURING EFFICIENCY

Information on Programs Reviewed Using the Performance 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART)1

18