a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

August 2004 ARCHITECT OF THE 

CAPITOL

Midyear Status Report 

on Implementation of 

Management Review 

Recommendations

GAO-04-966
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-966.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact J. Christopher 

Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-966, a report to 

Congressional committees. 

August 2004

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Midyear Status Report on Implementation 

of Management Review 

Recommendations 

The Conference Report on the 

Consolidated Appropriations 

Resolution, 2003, directed GAO to 

monitor AOC’s progress in 

implementing recommendations 

contained in GAO’s management 

review of AOC’s operations, issued 

in January 2003. This is the second 

status report in which GAO 

examines the actions taken by AOC 

to implement selected GAO 

recommendations. Additionally, the

Consolidated Appropriations 

Resolution, 2003, mandated GAO to 

assess AOC’s Chief Operating 

Officer’s (COO) action plan. This 

report provides that assessment. 

GAO makes 13 additional 

recommendations to assist AOC in 

its management control efforts—

such as stakeholder involvement, 

auditable financial statements and 

related internal controls, financial 

reporting for operating units and 

cost accounting, and Capitol 

complex master planning—and to 

enhance the COO action plan. The 

Architect noted his agreement with 

each of our recommendations, 

except for three that addressed 

worker safety performance 

measures, Capitol complex master 

planning, and the process for 

prioritizing projects. GAO 

continues to believe that additional 

efforts are needed, but revised two 

of the three recommendations—

master planning and project 

prioritization—to address the 

Architect’s concerns and provide 

greater clarity. 

AOC has made progress on key management control issues, but substantial 

work remains to achieve sustained, long-term management improvements 

and organizational transformation. These key issues include (1) stakeholder 

involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable financial 

statements and related internal controls, (4) financial reporting for operating 

units and cost accounting, (5) information security management, (6) worker 

safety performance measures, (7) Capitol complex master planning, and 

(8) strategic management of recycling. 

For example, AOC has not fully engaged its congressional and other 

stakeholders in developing a clear, transparent, and documented 

understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how progress will be 

assessed. AOC has taken some steps to involve its stakeholders by delivering 

planning documents and responding to requests for information. AOC has 

made progress addressing employee communications issues and can 

maintain momentum by fully and effectively implementing its planned 

initiatives. AOC has made progress in preparing auditable agencywide 

financial statements; however, it has deferred the audit of a complete set of 

financial statements from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. Also, 

substantial work remains before AOC can provide its managers with the 

meaningful financial, cost, and performance information needed to enhance 

their management of operating units. AOC has continued to make some 

progress establishing the management foundation for effective information 

security management, but much remains to be accomplished, such as 

completing system risk assessments and monitoring and evaluating its 

security policies and controls. Additionally, AOC has developed performance 

measures to track worker safety, but work remains to ensure successful 

implementation of these measures. In regard to project management, AOC 

has taken steps to develop a Capitol complex master plan and expects it to 

be available for stakeholder comment in February 2006. Given the 

importance of the master plan, stakeholder involvement early in and 

throughout its development is key to the plan’s ultimate acceptance and 

value. Similarly, AOC has made progress developing a mission statement and 

goals for its recycling program as part of its broader Environmental Program 

Plan, although AOC does not expect to obtain congressional input until after 

the plan has been completed—an important omission. 

The Architect and the COO need to work with Congress to determine 

Congress’ information needs—with a specific focus on AOC’s project 

management—and the timing and format of delivery of that information that 

will best meet Congress’ needs. The COO Action Plan was submitted to 

Congress on December 22, 2003—59 days late. Overall, the plan’s high-level 

description of action items assumes that Congress and other users have a 

deep and detailed knowledge of AOC’s goals, internal operations, and 

management functions—a level of knowledge that is not reasonable to 

expect. 
Page i GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 11

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 13

AOC Has Yet to Fully Engage Congressional and Other

Stakeholders 14

AOC Has Made Progress toward Implementing an Employee 

Communications Strategy 17

Progress Made in Preparing Auditable Financial Statements and 

Establishing Related Internal Controls 21

Substantial Work Remains on Providing Financial Reporting for 

Operating Units and Implementing Cost Accounting Processes 

and Procedures 23

AOC Has Continued to Make Progress Implementing Its Information 

Security Program 27

AOC Has Made Progress in Developing Safety Performance 

Measures, but Implementation of Measures Are a Work in 

Progress 29

AOC Has Taken Steps to Develop a Capitol Complex Master Plan, 

but Lack of Congressional and Other Stakeholder Involvement 

and Delays Hamper Additional Progress 33

AOC Made Progress Toward Adopting a More Strategic Approach to 

its Recycling Program 35

COO Action Plan Addresses Six Business Areas, but Lacks Sufficient 

Details to Guide and Communicate the COO’s Performance and 

Progress 37

Concluding Observations 40

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 40

Appendixes

Appendix I: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol 44

Appendix II: Staff Acknowledgments 56

Table Table 1: Key Issue and Corresponding Prior Recommendations 3
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.

Abbreviations

AE Architect/Engineer

AOC Architect of the Capitol

CFO Chief Financial Officer

COO Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer

EA Enterprise Architecture

EAC Employee Advisory Council

FCA Facility Condition Assessments

HRMD Human Resources Management Division

IT Information Technology

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

SHEC Safety, Health, and Environment Council

Contents

Page ii GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Page 1 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

August 31, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jack Kingston

Chairman

The Honorable James P. Moran

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Trent Lott

Chairman

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Rules and Administration

United States Senate

This is our second semiannual report on the Office of the Architect of the 

Capitol (AOC), as required by the Conference Report on the Consolidated 

Appropriations Resolution, 2003.1

 This report evaluates AOC’s progress 

since December 1, 2003, in establishing select elements of a strategic 

management and accountability framework, including strong management 

infrastructure and controls, to drive its agency transformation efforts and 

to address long-standing program issues. In January 2004, we completed 

the first semiannual review and issued a report on AOC’s progress from 

January 18, 2003, through November 30, 2003, in implementing 

recommendations outlined in our January 2003 report.2

 

1

 H.R. Rep. No. 108-10, accompanying Pub. L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003).

2

 GAO, Architect of the Capitol: Status Report on Implementation of Management Review 

Recommendations, GAO-04-299 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004); and Architect of the 

Capitol: Management and Accountability Framework Needed for Organizational 

Transformation, GAO-03-231 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2003). 
Page 2 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Based on our past reviews of AOC’s progress implementing our 

recommendations, this report focuses on eight key management control 

issues that deserve near-term attention. These are (1) stakeholder 

involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable financial 

statements and related internal controls, (4) financial reporting for 

operating units and cost accounting, (5) information security management, 

(6) worker safety performance measures, (7) Capitol complex master 

planning,3

 and (8) strategic management of recycling. Each key issue is 

linked to one or more of our prior recommendations. As mandated by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, this report also assesses the 

Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer (COO) Action Plan that was 

issued in December 2003. We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., 

from April 2004 through July 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

Results in Brief During the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress on all eight key 

management control issues, but substantial work remains to achieve 

sustained, long-term management improvements and organizational 

transformation. These key issues, as well as our corresponding prior 

recommendations, are listed in table 1. 

3

 In previous GAO reports, we used the phrase Capitol Hill complex master plan. In his 

written comments, the Architect requested that the term “Hill” be omitted to ensure 

consistency with the AOC strategic plan, the master plan contract, and other related 

documentation. We have made this change throughout the report.
Page 3 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Table 1: Key Issue and Corresponding Prior Recommendations

Key Issue—Stakeholder Involvement

Corresponding Prior Recommendations:

(1) Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC’s 

strategic planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from these efforts.

(2) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external communications by completing the development of 

congressional protocols by involving stakeholders.

(3) Conduct a pilot of its congressional protocols in one or more of its jurisdictions to determine how well its protocols would work in 

addressing customer requests for service, while balancing the needs of multiple requests with the strategic plan and corresponding 

project priorities of the agency.

(4) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external communications by improving annual accountability reporting 

through annual performance planning and reporting.

Key Issue—Employee Communications

Corresponding Prior Recommendations:

(5) Strengthen AOC’s human capital policies, procedures, and processes by assessing ways in which AOC management could better 

gather and analyze data from the various employee relations offices and employee advisory council while maintaining employee 

confidentiality.

(6) Establish a direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson and the Architect consistent with professional standards.

(7) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external communications by providing opportunities for routine 

employee input and feedback.

(8) Gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is

taking actions to address any identified employee concerns.

Key Issue—Auditable Financial Statements and Related Internal Controls, and 

Key Issue—Financial Reporting for Operating Units and Cost Accounting

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(9) Continue to improve AOC’s approach to financial management by developing strategies to institutionalize financial management 

practices that will support budgeting, financial, and program management at AOC.

Key Issue—Information Security Management

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(10) Establish and implement an information security program. Specifically, the Architect should establish an information security 

program by taking the following steps:

• designate a security officer and provide him or her with the authority and resources to implement an agencywide security program,

• develop and implement policy and guidance to perform risk assessments continually,

• use the results of the risk assessments to develop and implement appropriate controls,

• develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the training, and

• monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.

Key Issue—Worker Safety Performance Measures

Corresponding Prior Recommendations:

(11) Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives, including measures for how AOC will implement 43 specialized 

safety programs and how superintendents and employees will be held accountable for achieving results. 

(12) Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the goals of the safety program and further evaluate the

effectiveness of the training provided.
Page 4 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Source: GAO

Stakeholder Involvement: AOC has not yet fully engaged its 

congressional and other stakeholders and has not effectively worked with 

Congress to develop a clear, transparent, and documented understanding 

of how AOC sets project priorities and how progress will be assessed. In 

addition, as detailed in other sections of this report, AOC needs to expand 

Congress’ involvement in the development of the Capitol complex master 

plan and the mission and goals for the agency’s recycling program. AOC 

did, however, take some steps to involve congressional and other 

stakeholders during the 6 months reviewed by attending monthly or 

biweekly meetings with congressional stakeholders, delivering planning 

documents to congressional stakeholders, and responding to requests for 

information. AOC can strengthen its stakeholder relationships by 

informing congressional and other stakeholders of AOC’s progress and 

activities, as well as more effectively consulting with these stakeholders to 

build a mutual understanding of each other’s project priorities. AOC also 

recognizes that a next step in the strategic planning process is to more fully 

incorporate outcome- and performance-based measures into the agency’s 

strategic and performance plans, and it plans to seek assistance in 

developing these measures. Given the importance of stakeholder 

involvement, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO to 

(1) actively consult with Congress on the design and implementation of 

meaningful outcome- and performance-based measures, (2) expedite the 

release of the 2003 building services customer satisfaction survey as a 

transparency and accountability mechanism, and (3) work with Congress 

on the design and implementation of a transparent process to facilitate an 

understanding between AOC and its congressional stakeholders about how 

(13) Establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss workers’ compensation cases and costs, and develop 

strategies to reduce these injuries and costs.

Key Issue—Capitol Complex Master Planning

Corresponding Prior Recommendations:

(14) Develop a Capitol complex master plan and complete condition assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of 

AOC.

(15) Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on clearly defined, well-documented, consistently applied, and 

transparent criteria. 

Key Issue—Strategic Management of Recycling

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(16) Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC’s recycling program with input from key congressional stakeholders as part of its 

proposed environmental master plan. AOC may want to establish reasonable goals based on the total waste stream—information it 

plans to obtain as part of its long-term environmental management plan—that could potentially be recycled.

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 5 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

AOC targets its efforts and resources at the highest project priorities and 

how strategic and tactical decisions and trade-offs are made. 

Employee Communications: Gathering accurate and timely information 

from employees about their concerns is critical to the development of 

meaningful human capital policies. Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC 

has made progress addressing employee communications by developing a 

number of policies and procedures, such as a strategic communications 

plan, a draft employee feedback manual, a customer satisfaction survey 

manual, and a focus group guide. AOC can maintain momentum in this 

area by fully and effectively implementing its planned initiatives. The 

ombudsperson’s position, which was initially created to help address 

employee relations problems, however, has remained vacant since 

September 30, 2003, and AOC does not currently plan to fill the position. 

An ombudsperson serves as an independent provider of advice and counsel 

to nonunion employees on employment policies, practices, or other 

employment-related matters. A decision by AOC management to leave this 

position vacant should be made only after a thorough analysis of AOC’s and 

employees’ needs, as well as the capacity of other offices to fulfill those 

needs. Accordingly, we are recommending that the Architect of the Capitol 

direct the COO to (1) fully and effectively implement the basic framework 

as defined in its communications plan and process manuals, and finalize its 

draft employee feedback manual, and (2) conduct an analysis of AOC’s and 

employees’ needs with respect to resolving employee concerns, as well as 

assessing the capacity of existing offices to fulfill those needs.

Auditable Financial Statements and Related Internal Controls: The 

ability to prepare agencywide financial statements that, along with related 

internal controls, can be independently audited represents a key 

component of an organization’s ability to institutionalize financial 

management best practices and establish a sound foundation of 

accountability and control. AOC has made progress in preparing 

agencywide financial statements; supporting an audit of its September 30, 

2003, balance sheet; and establishing related internal control policies and 

procedures. As part of its efforts to prepare agencywide financial 

statements, AOC put in place internal control policies and procedures 

related to funds control, financial reporting, and inventory management, 

and is starting work on other actions to further enhance financial control 

and accountability. The auditor is expected shortly to report on the results 

of the first-ever audit of AOC’s balance sheet, which is a key step in AOC’s 

efforts to build a foundation of financial control and accountability. The 

auditor’s reporting will include the results of internal control work that it 
Page 6 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

performed, which will provide AOC with additional valuable information as 

it further strengthens accountability and internal control. The audit of the 

fiscal year 2003 balance sheet has taken longer and required more effort to 

support than initially planned. As a result, AOC plans to defer its plans for 

an audit of a complete set of AOC’s financial statements from fiscal year 

2004 to fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2004, AOC plans to have its 

September 30, 2004, balance sheet audited and to have its auditor perform 

some additional procedures designed to help AOC to better prepare for a 

successful audit of a complete set of its financial statements for fiscal year 

2005. AOC deferred the audit of a complete set of financial statements to 

fiscal year 2005 to provide sufficient time to prepare for and support a full 

scope audit and to enable AOC staff to deal with issues that came to light 

during the fiscal year 2003 balance sheet audit. We recommend that the 

Architect of the Capitol, COO, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and other 

senior management provide strong and visible support for efforts to 

prepare auditable financial statements and implement an effective internal 

control framework by monitoring the implementation and related 

milestones for each effort, ensuring the commitment to and support for 

each effort by participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any 

impediments that may arise.

Financial Reporting for Operating Units and Cost Accounting:

Developing useful financial reports by major operating units and 

implementing effective cost accounting processes and procedures can 

enhance efforts to institutionalize financial management best practices by 

providing managers with the information needed to effectively manage 

operations and helping to extend responsibility for financial accountability 

and control throughout an organization’s operations. Over the 6 months we 

reviewed, AOC progressed in developing financial reports for its major 

operating units, but it has not begun the process of providing the reports to 

the operating units and training managers on how the reports may help in 

managing their operations. With regard to cost accounting, AOC plans for 

only limited work to be done through the end of fiscal year 2005, with the 

major work scheduled for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2007 that will 

identify and implement system and procedural changes needed to have a 

cost accounting system operational in fiscal year 2008. According to AOC 

officials, the primary reason for deferring the start of substantive work on 

implementing cost accounting is AOC’s need to develop appropriate and 

consistent performance metrics across major operating units. As a result, 

substantial work remains to be done before AOC can provide managers 

with the meaningful financial, cost, and performance information needed 

to enhance their management of operating units and extend responsibility 
Page 7 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

for financial accountability and control to the units. We recommend that 

the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO and the CFO to (1) work with 

operating managers to assess the usefulness of financial-statement-level 

information; take an active role in AOC near-term efforts to develop 

agencywide performance measures; and review all available options to 

determine whether substantial work can begin, prior to fiscal year 2006, on 

the analyses needed to identify changes necessary to implement useful cost 

accounting at AOC, and (2) have senior management visibly demonstrate 

its continuing commitment to and support for making AOC-wide system, 

procedural, and cultural changes necessary to provide managers with 

timely financial, cost, and performance information by monitoring the 

efforts’ implementation and related milestones, ensuring the commitment 

to and support for the efforts by participating AOC units, and acting to 

resolve any impediments that may arise.

Information Security Management: Information security is critical to 

AOC’s ability to ensure the reliability, availability, and confidentiality of its 

information and technology assets. Accordingly, our January 2003 report 

provided AOC with recommendations for establishing and implementing an 

effective information security program. In our January 2004 report, we 

noted that AOC had made progress toward implementing these 

recommendations. Since then, AOC has continued to make progress in 

implementing our recommendations. For example, it has brought on 

contractor staff to support security operations, developed employee 

awareness and security training policies and begun implementing them, 

and developed policy and guidance on system risk assessments. Over the 

next 8 months, AOC plans to complete employee awareness activities, 

complete system risk assessments on major applications and systems, and 

complete the initial data gathering on security policy and control metrics 

and issue its first report on their effectiveness. Although much important 

work remains in the basic areas of information security management, if 

AOC follows through on its plans and actions it should have the 

management foundation in place for effective information security 

management. Until it does, it will remain challenged in its ability to 

effectively secure its information and technology assets.

Worker Safety Performance Measures: Although AOC has made 

progress in developing performance measures to track worker safety, the 

implementation of these measures is a work in progress. AOC has 

developed several broad performance measures, including a measure of 

the extent to which unsafe conditions exist within AOC and a measure to 

assess employees’ perceptions of safety. In addition, AOC has developed 
Page 8 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

several specific performance measures to track worker safety, including 

performance measures for several of the 34 safety policies and measures to 

assess the impacts of workers’ compensation injuries and costs. 

Nonetheless, work remains to ensure successful implementation of these 

measures. For example, AOC views the safety perception survey as a 

communications tool that provided useful information about employees’ 

perceptions about safety in their environment. However, AOC does not 

view the survey as a strategic measure of its performance. Although there 

were weaknesses with the survey design, it holds promise as a measure of 

how employees believe safety is valued at AOC. To enhance worker safety 

performance measures at AOC, we recommend that the Architect of the 

Capitol direct the COO to expand upon the safety perception survey by 

developing a more rigorous methodological approach and collecting such 

information on a more regular basis. 

Capitol Complex Master Planning: AOC has taken steps to improve 

construction project management by developing a Capitol complex master 

plan, but more needs to be done to ensure the successful completion of the 

plan in a timely manner. AOC expects to award a contract for the 

development of the Capitol complex master plan in August 2004. However, 

the expected completion date for the plan has twice been changed to a later 

date. Currently, a draft plan is to be available for stakeholder comment in 

February 2006, and the final version published June 2007. Given the 

importance and sensitivity of the master plan and the condition of the 

Capitol complex, as well as the difficult trade-offs that the current budget 

environment demands, congressional and other stakeholder involvement 

early and throughout the development of the master plan is key to the 

plan’s ultimate acceptance and value. Facility condition assessments 

(FCA), which are key components of a master plan, are also being carried 

out at the House and Senate office buildings as well as the Capitol 

building.4

 Senior agency officials reported that AOC intends to define the 

scope of work for the remaining jurisdictions after they complete lessons 

learned from the first round of FCAs to identify areas that may improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the process. This is an appropriate step if it 

does not delay the start of future FCAs. Although AOC has created a clear, 

well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing 

4

 In previous GAO reports, we used the phrase building condition assessments. In his 

written comments, the Architect requested that the term “building” be replaced with 

“facility” to ensure consistency with the AOC strategic plan. We have made this change 

throughout the report.
Page 9 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

projects internally, the process does not address the underlying need to get 

agreement from and inform congressional and other stakeholders on how 

AOC sets priorities. In order to improve Capitol complex master planning 

efforts, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from 

the COO, lead efforts to ensure that congressional and other stakeholders 

are engaged early and throughout the development of the master plan. In 

order to improve the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend that 

the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the COO, lead efforts to 

ensure that AOC informs and obtains agreement from congressional and 

other stakeholders on how and why specific projects are submitted for 

funding.

Strategic Management of Recycling: The mission statement and goals 

for the agency’s recycling program are being developed as part of AOC’s 

broader Environmental Program Plan. During the 6 months we reviewed, 

AOC completed a baseline assessment that evaluated the compliance of 

AOC facilities and operations with federal, state, and local environmental 

regulations, as well as a waste stream analysis, which identified the types 

of and amounts of waste created at AOC facilities and possible pollution 

prevention opportunities. AOC’s current waste stream analysis, which is 

being expanded to include electronic waste, such as outdated computer 

equipment, is to be used to develop pollution prevention plans. Although 

AOC received valuable input from internal stakeholders on its 

environmental plan in May 2004, it does not plan to obtain congressional 

stakeholder input until after the plan is completed—an important omission 

in our view. Accordingly, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol 

direct the COO to obtain preliminary input from congressional 

stakeholders on its environmental program plan—particularly as the plan 

relates to the mission and goals of AOC’s recycling program—prior to 

completion of the plan. 

The COO’s Action Plan: The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 

2003, required the COO of AOC to prepare an action plan describing the 

policies, procedures, and actions to carry out his responsibilities, which we 

were mandated to assess. The action plan, which was submitted to 

congressional committees on December 22, 2003—59 days after it was 

required to have been submitted—listed 31 action items across six business 

areas. The plan assumes Congress and other users of the plan have a deep 

and detailed knowledge of AOC’s goals, internal operations, and 

management functions—a level of knowledge that is not reasonable to 

expect. The plan also does not clearly describe how the COO would fulfill 

his legislated responsibilities or help lead transformational change at AOC. 
Page 10 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

For example, while the plan and its accompanying report acknowledge the 

need for organizational changes and highlight expected improvements, 

they do not describe what specific changes the COO envisions or how 

those changes would be accomplished. To enhance the usefulness of the 

COO action plan, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol and the 

COO consult with members of Congress and key committees on specific 

information about AOC’s plans, policies, procedures, actions, and proposed 

organizational changes. As part of this effort, the Architect and the COO 

should work with Congress to determine Congress’ information needs and 

the timing and format of delivery of that information that will best meet 

Congress’ needs. Furthermore, consistent with our findings and 

recommendations in regard to congressional and other stakeholder 

involvement in general and the Capitol complex master plan in particular, 

as well as our original January 2003 management review, specific emphasis 

should be placed on AOC’s project management. Subsequent COO action 

plans and status reports will likely be most helpful to Congress to the 

extent that they are rigorously specific as to the problem or issue that 

needs to be addressed, the actions that are being taken in response, the 

progress to date, and milestones for additional actions. 

On July 26, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to the Architect for 

review and comment. We received written comments August 13, 2004, 

which are reprinted in appendix I. In his comments, the Architect generally 

agreed with our findings and conclusions. He suggested technical changes 

and provided additional information related to information security, safety 

performance measures, and Capitol complex master planning that were 

incorporated into our report where appropriate. The Architect also noted 

his agreement with each new recommendation, except for those regarding 

worker safety performance measures, Capitol complex master planning, 

and the process for prioritizing projects. 

Regarding worker safety performance measures, we recommended that 

AOC expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more 

rigorous methodological approach. In response, the Architect stated AOC’s 

response rate was 68 percent and that the survey used a number of 

benchmark questions that have previously been used in other surveys. 

Nonetheless, as frontline employees (e.g., carpenters, plumbers, and 

custodial workers) are most at risk of work-related injuries, their low 

response rate of 49 percent makes it difficult for AOC to draw meaningful 

conclusions about this at risk group’s attitudes towards safety. In addition, 

the lack of a pretest of the survey does not give AOC assurance that 

employees interpreted the questions in the manner AOC had expected. 
Page 11 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Thus, we believe that AOC’s safety perception survey would still benefit 

from a more rigorous methodological approach. 

In our draft report, we also recommended that the Architect direct the COO 

to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts and the process to 

prioritize projects by (1) ensuring that congressional and other 

stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the 

Capitol complex master plan and (2) ensuring that AOC informs and 

obtains agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and 

why specific projects are submitted for funding. According to the 

Architect, he has and will continue to lead the Capitol complex master plan 

initiative and he plans to meet with stakeholders at the beginning and 

throughout the development of the master plan. The Architect’s personal 

involvement is critical to success of the Capitol complex master plan, and 

his plan to engage stakeholders is consistent with our recommendation. 

However, the COO should also be involved in the master planning process, 

project prioritization, and communication with stakeholders because the 

COO position was created to serve as a central leadership point at AOC. As 

such, we made revisions to the two recommendations so that the Architect, 

with support from the COO, leads efforts to implement the 

recommendations. The Architect also questioned the direct link between 

the master plan and the prioritization process. Although we continue to 

believe that the Capitol complex master plan and the prioritization process 

should be linked because the master plan could help guide day-to-day 

project prioritization, we now address them separately for the sake of 

clarity. 

Background AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new construction 

of the buildings and grounds primarily located within the Capitol Hill 

complex. Organizationally, AOC consists of a centralized staff that 

performs administrative functions and separate “jurisdictions” responsible 

for the day-to-day operations at the U.S. Capitol Building, the Senate Office 

Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the Library of Congress Buildings 

and Grounds, the Supreme Court Buildings and Grounds, the Capitol 

Grounds, the Capitol Power Plant, and the Botanic Garden. The historic 

nature and high profile of many of these buildings creates a complex 

environment in which to carry out AOC’s mission. AOC must perform its 

duties in an environment that requires balancing the divergent needs of 

congressional leadership, committees, individual members of Congress, 

congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The challenges of operating in 
Page 12 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

this environment were complicated by the events of September 11, 2001, 

and the resulting need for increased security.

We issued a report in January 2003 that contained 35 recommendations to 

assist AOC in establishing a strategic management and accountability 

framework, including strong management infrastructure and controls, to 

drive its agency transformation effort, and to address long-standing 

program issues. As a part of ongoing work to monitor AOC’s efforts to 

implement the recommendations, we issued a report in January 2004 that 

covered the agency’s progress from January 18, 2003, through November 

30, 2003.

In our January 2004 report, we reiterated that many of AOC’s management 

problems are long-standing and that organizational transformation would 

take time to accomplish. Not surprisingly, AOC’s efforts to address the 35 

recommendations were, at that time, very much a work in progress. We 

highlighted the agency’s first steps to develop a management and 

accountability framework, including the issuance of a draft strategic plan 

and efforts to strengthen individual accountability for goals. We noted, 

however, that additional steps were needed to enhance communications 

with congressional and other stakeholders and employees. In addition, we 

found that AOC began to draft new human capital policies and procedures 

and developed three broad-based action plans to help institutionalize 

financial management best practices, although many of the actions were 

not scheduled for completion until 2007. 

We also reported that AOC was making progress developing an agencywide 

approach to information technology (IT) management, although additional 

steps were needed to ensure that, for example, mature information security 

management, investment management, and enterprise architecture (EA) 

management processes are implemented. In addition, we found that AOC 

was beginning to address worker safety concerns by developing a hazard 

assessment and control policy, although it is not expected to be fully 

implemented until May 2006; was taking steps to establish a project 

prioritization framework for better management and accountability; and 

was progressing toward adopting a more strategic approach to recycling. 

Overall, we concluded that AOC fulfilled three recommendations, and we 

made four additional recommendations—which brought to 36 the number 

of open recommendations. 
Page 13 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

This report is part of our effort under a congressional mandate to monitor 

AOC’s progress to establish a strategic management and accountability 

framework, improve its management infrastructure and internal control, 

and address long-standing areas of concern. Our first objective was to 

assess AOC’s progress over the 6-month period from December 1, 2003, 

through May 31, 2004, on eight key issues that deserve near-term attention 

and focus: (1) stakeholder involvement, (2) employee communications, 

(3) auditable financial statements and related internal controls, 

(4) financial reporting for operating units and cost accounting, 

(5) information security management, (6) worker safety performance 

measures, (7) Capitol complex master planning, and (8) strategic 

management of recycling. Our second objective, which was mandated by 

the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), was 

to assess AOC’s COO action plan that was issued in December 2003. 

To address our first objective, we collected documentation to determine 

AOC’s progress on addressing each key issue and the 16 corresponding 

prior recommendations. For example, we reviewed documents such as 

AOC’s 5-year strategic and annual performance plans; strategic 

communications plan; process manuals; funds control administration 

order; policy for inventory management; security risk management policy; 

information security training, education, and awareness policy; IT security 

metrics policy; inspection, audit, and evaluation policy; and updated 

occupational safety and health program plan. We also interviewed AOC 

officials responsible for implementing the 16 recommendations and other 

related improvement efforts under way at AOC. 

To address our second objective, we reviewed and analyzed several 

documents, including (1) the requirements of the Deputy Architect/Chief 

Operating Officer Action Plan described in the legislation; (2) the Report 

to the Congress from the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, dated 

December 22, 2003; (3) the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer 

Action Plan, dated December 22, 2003; and (4) the Architect of the Capitol 

Strategic Plan, dated December 15, 2003. 

We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from April 2004 through July 

2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.
Page 14 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

AOC Has Yet to Fully 

Engage Congressional 

and Other 

Stakeholders

AOC must perform its duties in an environment that requires balancing the 

divergent needs of congressional leadership, committees, individual 

members of Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The 

challenges of operating in this environment were complicated by the events 

of September 11, 2001, and the resulting need for increased security. As we 

stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, it is critical for AOC to 

engage Congress and other stakeholders to ensure that its strategic and 

other planning efforts fully consider the interests and expectations of these 

stakeholders. Successful stakeholder involvement requires continuously 

engaging Congress and other stakeholders to obtain their input and 

feedback for organizational or operational changes at AOC, ensuring that 

AOC’s finite resources are efficiently targeted at the highest project 

priorities, and fostering a basic understanding with Congress and other 

stakeholders of how to balance competing demands. Successful 

stakeholder involvement also includes improving AOC’s accountability 

reporting, which helps communicate what AOC has accomplished and its 

plan for continued progress. 

In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that would 

help AOC improve its relations with Congress and other stakeholders:

• Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving 

key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC’s strategic 

planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from 

these efforts.

• Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 

communications by improving annual accountability reporting through 

annual performance planning and reporting.

• Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 

communications by completing the development of congressional 

protocols by involving stakeholders.

As noted in our January 2004 report, AOC improved its strategic planning 

process and provided more specificity to its strategic goals and objectives, 

as well as developed milestone dates and actions to assist AOC in 

monitoring its progress. AOC also made progress in improving annual 

accountability reporting by implementing a strategic management 

framework, which includes issuing a strategic plan every 2 years, 

developing an annual performance plan, and developing an annual 
Page 15 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

performance report that discusses how AOC is progressing on meeting its 

goals, as well as holding midyear status briefings. An AOC official stated 

the agency recognizes that the next step in the strategic planning process is 

to more fully incorporate outcome- and performance-based measures into 

the agency’s strategic and performance plans, and AOC has recently 

developed a statement of work to seek assistance in developing both 

quantitative and qualitative performance measures to demonstrate 

progress toward its strategic goals and objectives. In addition, we noted 

that AOC was partially addressing the development of congressional 

protocols. To further assist these efforts, we made an additional 

recommendation for AOC to conduct a pilot of its congressional protocols 

in one or more of its jurisdictions to determine how well its protocols 

would work in addressing customer requests for service while balancing 

the needs of multiple requests with the requirements of the strategic plan 

and corresponding project priorities of the agency.

During the 6-month review period, AOC did not fully engage its 

congressional and other stakeholders. For example, AOC has not reached 

agreement with Congress on how best to develop a clear, transparent, and 

documented understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how 

progress will be assessed. In addition, as detailed in other sections of this 

report, AOC needs to expand Congress’ involvement in the development of 

the Capitol complex master plan and the mission and goals for the agency’s 

recycling program. AOC did take some steps to inform these stakeholders 

by delivering planning documents to Congress, responding to requests for 

information, and attending monthly or biweekly meetings with 

congressional stakeholders. AOC officials stated that they delivered AOC’s 

final strategic plan, performance plan, and COO action plan to 

congressional stakeholders in December 2003 to inform them of planned 

activities. (See our assessment of the COO action plan below.) AOC also 

generated a detailed report, at the request of its congressional 

stakeholders, that outlined AOC’s progress in implementing our 

recommendations. Furthermore, AOC did take some steps to 

communicate with congressional and other stakeholders by attending 

monthly meetings held by House leadership; biweekly meetings with other 

House stakeholders, such as the House Clerk and Sergeant At Arms; 

monthly meetings with the Senate Rules Committee; and bimonthly 

meetings with the Senate Sergeant At Arms. AOC is also preparing to issue 

its third building services customer satisfaction survey in June 2004 to 

measure the agency’s performance. However, it has yet to release the 

results of the 2003 survey, which was originally scheduled for December 

2003, because it has yet to be approved by several AOC jurisdictions. 
Page 16 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

As we reported in January 2003, AOC drafted an initial set of congressional 

protocols to help AOC work with its congressional customers using clearly 

defined, consistently applied, and transparent policies and procedures. 

Since then, AOC completed draft congressional protocols and submitted 

them to key congressional stakeholders. An AOC official stated that, based 

on stakeholder feedback, the protocols are not viable because 

congressional stakeholders do not believe they are applicable to the 

operation of and services conducted by AOC. Based on this feedback, an 

AOC official said that the agency may not pursue implementing the 

congressional protocols. 

As a legislative branch agency, we have found congressional protocols to 

be a successful vehicle in helping us work with Congress. Successful 

development and implementation of these protocols first required us to 

reach out to and solicit feedback from congressional and other 

stakeholders to develop an understanding of congressional customer needs 

and identify concerns before we developed an initial draft. Further, we 

continuously engaged our congressional and other stakeholders 

throughout pilot testing and implementation. Thus, if AOC decides not to 

further pursue the congressional protocols or some other vehicle, neither 

AOC nor congressional stakeholders can be assured that agency efforts and 

resources are targeted at their highest project priorities and transparency 

exists for strategic and tactical decisions and trade-offs. 

AOC has taken some steps to involve congressional and other 

stakeholders; however, it has yet to fully engage these stakeholders. AOC 

can strengthen its stakeholder relationships by informing congressional 

and other stakeholders of AOC’s progress and activities, as well as more 

effectively consulting with these stakeholders to build a mutual 

understanding of each other’s priorities. 

Recommendations for 

Agency Action

To strengthen the relationship between AOC and its congressional and 

other stakeholders, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol direct the 

Chief Operating Officer to

• actively consult with Congress on the design and implementation of 

meaningful outcome- and performance-based measures that are useful 

to both AOC and Congress and thereby enable AOC and Congress to 

assess AOC’s progress; 
Page 17 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

• expedite the release of the 2003 building services customer satisfaction 

survey, as a transparency and accountability mechanism and to provide 

Congress and other stakeholders assurance that actions are being taken 

in response to their feedback; and 

• work with Congress on the design and implementation of a transparent 

process to facilitate an understanding between AOC and its 

congressional stakeholders about how AOC targets its efforts and 

resources at the highest project priorities and how strategic and tactical 

decisions and trade-offs are made. 

AOC Has Made 

Progress toward 

Implementing an 

Employee 

Communications 

Strategy

Strong internal communication with employees is vital to any 

organizational transformation by helping employees understand their 

contribution to overall agency goals and facilitate feedback that helps an 

organization develop strategies for improvement. Strong employee 

communications would also help AOC address its history of employee 

relations problems and complaints. Effective communication efforts 

include receiving employee input, which can be obtained from existing 

offices that interact directly with employees, or via other methods, 

including employee surveys or focus groups. Regardless of the source, 

systematically collecting and analyzing employee data are important for 

identifying agencywide issues affecting employee relations and improving 

human capital policies and procedures. Another useful practice for dealing 

with issues affecting employee relations and collecting employee data is to 

establish an ombudsperson position. 

In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations to improve 

AOC’s ability to communicate with employees: 

• Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 

communications by providing opportunities for routine employee input 

and feedback. 

• Strengthen AOC’s human capital policies, procedures, and processes by 

assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and 

analyze data from the various employee relations offices and employee 

advisory council while maintaining employee confidentiality.

• Establish a direct reporting relationship between the ombudsperson and 

the Architect consistent with professional standards. 
Page 18 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was partially addressing the 

development of a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 

communications. As such, we made an additional recommendation for 

AOC to gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or 

surveys before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking 

actions to address any identified employee concerns. 

Over the 6-month period reviewed, AOC continued to make progress 

addressing employee communications by obtaining employee input and 

providing employees with feedback, as well as assessing the data gathered 

during these efforts. To help implement these steps, AOC management 

issued a communications plan, a draft employee feedback manual, a 

customer satisfaction survey manual, and a focus group guide. Specifically, 

AOC’s Employee Feedback Process Manual stated that it is AOC’s policy 

“to periodically and systematically obtain and report employee feedback, 

to assess satisfaction levels on activity-related topics, and to use this 

feedback in improvement actions.”5

 

To obtain employee input and provide employee feedback, AOC developed 

a guide that outlines procedures for conducting focus groups and discusses 

AOC’s intent to contract out the facilitation of focus groups. AOC 

management also prepared a statement of work that provides requirements 

a contractor must follow when conducting focus groups, including a 

requirement for providing a written report containing general conclusions 

and findings. AOC officials stated that they awarded the contract on June 

28, 2003, to facilitate AOC’s focus groups, so they may begin no later than 

August 1, 2004.

AOC also obtains employee input by requiring key managers to document 

and track employees’ concerns or issues each month. Key AOC officials 

from AOC’s Employee Assistance Programs, Labor Relations, Employment 

Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity, Employee Advisory Council 

(EAC), senior management, and Human Resources Management Division 

(HRMD) meet monthly to assess employee concerns and identify 

systematic concerns. Agency officials stated that at each of the meetings, 

all attendees are reminded that employee confidentiality must be 

maintained. In May 2004, the attendees agreed to pursue a number of 

actions in response to employee concerns discussed at the monthly 

5

 Architect of the Capitol, Employee Feedback Process Manual, AOC-SP1.4 (Washington, 

D.C., June 2004), 1.
Page 19 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

meetings. Furthermore, AOC has included as an objective in its Human 

Capital Plan to solicit feedback from its EAC. AOC also plans to use exit 

interviews to collect employees’ views upon leaving AOC as well as 

regularly obtain input from employees through its customer satisfaction 

surveys, to gauge AOC’s internal customers’, including employees’, 

perceptions of AOC’s performance. 

To provide feedback to its employees, AOC continues to publish its weekly 

and quarterly agencywide newsletters (AOC This Week and Shop Talk) and 

issues HR Bulletins that provide updates on changes in human resource 

practices and highlight information regarding issues such as employee 

benefits. AOC also published a pamphlet that summarizes the agency’s 

strategic plan. According to agency officials, every AOC employee has 

received a copy of the pamphlet, while “town hall” briefings have been held 

with over 400 employees to further discuss the strategic plan.

Regarding the use of an ombudsperson, AOC officials agreed with the 

recommendation in our January 2004 report to adhere to the standard of 

independence for the office of an ombudsperson. Agency officials also 

noted that direct meetings between the Ombudsperson and the Architect 

were planned, but they never took place because the Ombudsperson’s 

contract expired on September 30, 2003, and the position has not been 

filled. AOC does not have plans to fill the position of ombudsperson. 

According to AOC officials, the ombudsperson was to serve as an 

independent provider of advice and counsel to nonunion employees on 

employment policies, practices, and other employment-related matters. 

The ombudsperson’s duties and responsibilities focused on resolving 

employee issues that may have not been resolved by other offices, 

according to AOC officials. 

AOC has made progress in addressing employee communications issues by 

creating the basic framework in its communications plan and process 

manuals by which AOC will regularly obtain employee input, systematically 

analyze those data, and provide feedback to employees on improvement 

actions that results from those efforts. For instance, AOC has committed 

itself to initiating employee focus groups not later than August 1, 2004. 

AOC also needs to issue and implement its draft Employee Feedback 

Manual. AOC can maintain momentum in this area by fully implementing 

the policies and procedures that it drafted or issued as part of its employee 

communication efforts. As we noted in our October 2003 report on the 
Page 20 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Government Printing Office’s transformation,6 developing a comprehensive 

communications strategy that reaches out to employees and seeks to 

engage them in a two-way exchange helps to build trust and cultivate 

stronger working relationships. Most important, AOC’s top leadership 

must make visible and timely adjustments as appropriate in policy or 

procedures in response to employee concerns. 

AOC’s decision to not fill the vacant ombudsperson position raises 

questions as to whether the services previously provided by the 

ombudsperson are being met by other offices or are no longer needed. 

Given the history of employee relations issues at AOC, a critical component 

of such a management decision would be to conduct a thorough analysis of 

the agency’s and employees’ needs, as well as an assessment of the 

capacity of existing offices, both internal and external to AOC, to fulfill 

those needs. Without a thorough analysis AOC cannot be assured that the 

need for an ombudsperson no longer exists, or that AOC units are prepared 

to fulfill the responsibilities an ombudsperson would have performed.

Recommendations for 

Agency Action

To improve communications with employees, we recommend that the 

Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to

• fully and effectively implement the basic framework as defined in its 

communications plan and process manuals, and finalize its draft 

employee feedback manual to assure that the current progress already 

made is maintained and 

• conduct an analysis of both AOC management and employee needs with 

respect to resolving employee concerns and issues, as well as assessing 

the capacity of existing offices to fulfill those needs.

6

 GAO, Government Printing Office: Advancing GPO’s Transformation Effort through 

Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-04-85 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2003).
Page 21 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Progress Made in 

Preparing Auditable 

Financial Statements 

and Establishing 

Related Internal 

Controls

Preparing auditable financial statements and establishing related internal 

controls are fundamental components of a foundation of control and 

accountability. In our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, we discussed 

the value of a system of checks and balances over assets and financial 

reporting. These steps are a key foundation for implementing our January 

2003 recommendation that AOC continue to improve its approach to 

financial management by institutionalizing practices that will support 

budgeting, financial, and program management.7

 AOC’s goals of preparing 

auditable financial statements and establishing effective internal controls 

are significant components of AOC’s plan to build a foundation of financial 

control and accountability—one of the three broad-based action plans 

established by AOC’s Office of Chief Financial Officer to respond to our 

recommendation. 

In preparing for an audit of its September 30, 2003, balance sheet, AOC 

prepared a full set of agencywide financial statements for fiscal year 2003 

and has, in fiscal year 2004, begun preparing quarterly agencywide financial 

statements. This first-ever audit of AOC’s balance sheet is nearing 

completion and AOC officials expect the auditor’s report to be issued in the 

near future. Completing the first agencywide balance sheet audit 

represents a key step in AOC’s efforts to build a foundation of financial 

control and accountability. As we reported in January 2004, AOC planned 

to begin issuing a complete set of audited financial statements for fiscal 

year 2004. However, according to AOC officials, the fiscal year 2003 audit 

has taken longer and required more effort to support than initially planned 

and, as a result, management has now modified its plan for the fiscal year 

2004 audit. In particular, AOC officials noted that establishing the 

historical cost for AOC building and improvement assets and values for 

AOC liabilities took longer and required more work than initially expected. 

AOC has decided to forgo an audit of a complete set of financial statements 

for fiscal year 2004 and instead will have its September 30, 2004, balance 

sheet audited. According to AOC officials, after consulting with AOC’s 

audit committee and its auditor, AOC decided to defer the audit of a full set 

of statements to fiscal year 2005 because of the limited time and CFO staff 

resources available to begin preparing for an audit of a complete set of 

7

 In response to our recommendation to institutionalize financial management best 

practices, AOC’s CFO developed three broad-based action plans—each of which contains 

several individual planned actions. In focusing on the financial management issues we 

considered key for this report, we reviewed AOC’s reported progress on those planned 

actions that directly relate to each key financial management issue we identified.
Page 22 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

statements for fiscal year 2004 and the need to work on strengthening 

internal controls, including ongoing efforts to address issues identified 

during the fiscal year 2003 audit. In conjunction with the audit of the 

September 30, 2004, balance sheet, AOC officials plan to ask the external 

auditor to perform additional procedures, which will be designed to help 

AOC better prepare for the audit of a complete set of AOC financial 

statements for fiscal year 2005. However, even though the auditor’s work 

for fiscal year 2004 will be limited to a balance sheet audit and some 

additional procedures, AOC has not revised its stated goal of receiving an 

unqualified opinion on a complete set of fiscal year 2005 financial 

statements. 

Regarding progress on internal controls during the 6-month period, AOC 

has adopted and implemented key policies and procedures in the areas of 

account reconciliations and funds control administration, and 

institutionalized its policies on inventory management and control. In 

addition, during this period, AOC’s external auditor has, as part of the 

balance sheet audit, been reviewing relevant internal controls. Account 

reconciliations, such as those adopted by AOC for accounts receivable and 

fund balance with Treasury, are a fundamental control over financial 

reporting. Funds control administration is a group of control processes 

that provide a means of establishing responsibilities and delegating 

authority to the managers who are to be accountable for the use and 

control of appropriated funds. In addition, AOC has made progress in 

institutionalizing its policies on inventory management and control. AOC 

finalized an inventory management policy in January 2004 and, shortly 

thereafter, initiated a major effort to train all inventory personnel on 

related procedures and controls. According to AOC officials, 

implementation of these policies and procedures came about as part of 

efforts to prepare the fiscal year 2003 agencywide financial statements. 

Finally, as we discussed, AOC expects the auditor to report on the results 

of the audit, including its internal control work, in the near future. The 

results of the auditor’s internal control work will provide AOC with 

valuable information as it pursues other efforts to strengthen internal 

controls and enhance financial control and accountability.

We reported in January 2004 that AOC plans to issue a policy statement on 

internal controls by September 30, 2004. In this regard, AOC has begun the 

process of obtaining contractor support to assist management in 

developing an internal control framework, a related policy statement on 

internal controls, and related training. To speed their efforts and enhance 

its acceptance within the agency, AOC officials hope to model their internal 
Page 23 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

control framework and related guidance after ones that are currently in use 

elsewhere in the legislative branch. As AOC prepares to implement an 

internal control framework, AOC needs to realize that establishing 

appropriate and effective accounting, compliance, and operational 

controls, which potentially may affect all aspects of AOC operations and 

activities, represents a significant agencywide challenge—one that will 

require senior management attention and support. 

During the 6-month review period, AOC made progress in preparing 

agencywide financial statements; supporting the audit of its September 30, 

2003, balance sheet; and establishing related internal control policies and 

procedures. This progress provides a valuable baseline from which to 

further leverage the audit process through related efforts to improve 

internal controls over financial reporting and institutionalize financial 

management best practices. In addition, as plans move forward for a full 

scope audit of a complete set of financial statements for fiscal year 2005, 

AOC needs to provide strong and visible support for these efforts. 

Recommendation for 

Agency Action 

To help strengthen and sustain AOC’s emerging foundation of financial 

accountability and control, we recommend that the Architect of the 

Capitol, the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and other 

senior management provide strong and visible support for efforts to 

prepare auditable financial statements and implement an effective internal 

control framework by monitoring the implementation and related 

milestones for each effort, ensuring the commitment to and support for 

each effort by participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any 

impediments that may arise.

Substantial Work 

Remains on Providing 

Financial Reporting for 

Operating Units and 

Implementing Cost 

Accounting Processes 

and Procedures

Developing and using meaningful financial reports by major operating units 

and implementing effective cost accounting processes and procedures can 

help extend responsibility for financial accountability and control to AOC’s 

operating units. An important aspect of having meaningful financial 

information available to managers in operating units is the ability to 

implement an appropriate level of cost accounting processes and 

procedures that can provide the kind of cost information needed to 

effectively manage operations. Using financial information at the major 

operating unit level that incorporates effective cost accounting processes 

and procedures can be a key component of AOC’s ongoing efforts to 
Page 24 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

institutionalize financial management best practices in support of 

budgeting, financial, and program management at AOC.8

AOC has made progress in developing the capacity to produce automated 

financial reports for its major operating units (jurisdictions). The financial 

reports, which currently consist of financial statements for each major 

operating unit, are developed with the same basic processes and data used 

to produce AOC’s agencywide financial statements. AOC officials said that 

operating unit financial reports have not yet been provided to managers 

because CFO staff need to conduct an initial review and analysis of their 

content and operational managers need to receive some training on the 

content of the reported information and how it might be useful to them. 

AOC officials expect to begin distributing the financial reports and 

providing related training to operating unit managers by the end of March 

2005. AOC officials acknowledged that providing managers with financialstatement-level information for their major operating units is only an initial 

step in developing financial and cost-related information that managers can 

use to enhance their operations. 

AOC’s December 2003 performance plan makes provisions for a multiyear 

plan for establishing AOC’s cost accounting goals and objectives and 

identifying and implementing system and procedural changes needed to 

accomplish them. However, the plan calls for only limited work to be 

completed through the end of fiscal year 2005, with major work scheduled 

for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2007 to identify and implement 

system and procedural changes needed to have a cost accounting system 

operational in fiscal year 2008.

In explaining the limited near-term progress planned for implementing cost 

accounting, AOC officials noted that successfully implementing cost 

accounting depends on an organization’s strategic goals, objectives, and 

related performance measures, which tend to drive the categories of costs 

and how the related data should be collected and reported. However, AOC 

officials noted that a recent AOC effort to study the potential for 

developing performance-based budgets indicated that AOC’s current 

strategic and performance plans do not define either the expected level of 

8

 In response to our recommendation to institutionalize financial management best 

practices, AOC’s CFO developed three broad-based action plans—each of which contains 

several individual planned actions. In focusing on the financial management issues we 

considered key for this report, we reviewed AOC’s reported progress on those planned 

actions that directly relate to each key financial management issue we identified.
Page 25 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

program performance or the actual results that should be achieved. 

Recognizing these limitations, AOC’s recently issued Cost Accounting 

Feasibility Study noted that AOC staff working on strategic planning are 

developing an agencywide approach that will identify appropriate and 

consistent performance metrics across major operating units. The effort is 

scheduled for completion some time in fiscal year 2005. The December 

2003 performance plan indicates that the CFO staff plan to begin 

substantive work on the underlying studies and analyses needed to support 

recommendations on implementing cost accounting at AOC in fiscal year 

2006. In explaining the schedule for implementing cost accounting, AOC 

officials said that it made more sense to defer substantive work on 

implementing cost accounting until agencywide performance measures 

and metrics are established, especially in light of the other ongoing tasks 

and priorities that the CFO’s office is responsible for leading. 

While AOC can now generate financial reports for major operating units 

annually and quarterly, substantial work remains to be done to conduct an 

initial review and analyze the form and content of the recently developed 

reports and to train operating managers on the information’s content and 

its potential use in managing and overseeing operating units. Also, while it 

may now be relatively easy and efficient to generate quarterly and annual 

financial reports for major operating units consisting of financialstatement-level information, it is not clear at this time how useful operating 

managers will find the information they contain. In addition, AOC does not 

have outcome and performance-based measures and metrics that can be 

used by operating managers to link financial information to outcomes and 

performance. As a result, substantial work remains to be done before AOC 

can provide managers with the meaningful financial, cost, and performance 

information needed to enhance their management of operating units and 

extend responsibility for financial accountability and control to the units. 

We consider AOC’s ongoing efforts to provide managers with operating unit 

financial information and training on the meaning and potential use of such 

information to be good initial steps in orienting AOC’s managers on the use 

of financial data to enhance operational management. However, once the 

managers are provided with timely financial statements for major operating 

units and the related training, AOC officials need to work with operating 

managers to assess the usefulness of the financial-statement-level 

information and to identify opportunities to expand or otherwise enhance 

the nature and type of information (e.g., detailed cost accounting 

information for specific projects and operating activities) made available to 

managers. 
Page 26 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

With regard to cost accounting, AOC does not have the cost accounting 

processes and procedures needed to produce operation-specific cost 

information that can be used by managers to enhance their management of 

major operating units. Furthermore, AOC officials noted that they do not 

expect to begin substantive work on a multiyear effort to develop and 

implement system and procedural changes necessary to implement 

appropriate cost accounting at AOC until fiscal year 2006. The officials 

anticipate completing the needed system and procedural changes in fiscal 

year 2007 and having a cost accounting system operational in fiscal year 

2008.

AOC officials acknowledged that, in the interim, some opportunity exists to 

develop and apply selected high-level cost allocations that would 

allocate—over some reasonable basis—selected categories of overhead 

costs (e.g., the costs associated with operating functional activities such as 

human resources, finance, and budget) to major operating units. However, 

the officials also noted that the value or usefulness of such information is 

limited by the lack of specific cost accounting data on performance 

measures and metrics. The officials noted that the allocations would be, by 

their nature, done after the fact and operating unit managers would likely 

have little to no reasonable frame of reference or perspective on the level 

of overhead costs allocated to their operating unit or how those costs relate 

to their unit.

While each of the reasons cited by AOC officials to support the anticipated 

time frame for implementing the needed cost accounting system has merit, 

we think it is reasonable to determine whether, prior to fiscal year 2006, 

substantial work can begin on the underlying studies and analyses that will 

be needed to identify options and develop tentative recommendations for 

implementing a cost accounting system at AOC. In addition, it is important 

for the CFO’s office to actively support and facilitate AOC’s efforts to 

develop organizational performance measures and metrics, which along 

with cost accounting information can be tracked and used to improve the 

operations and management of AOC’s major operating units. As we noted 

in our January 2003 report, it is also important for management to 

demonstrate its commitment to making and supporting needed changes, 

which include implementing operating unit financial reports and cost 

accounting throughout the organization.
Page 27 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Recommendations for 

Agency Actions

To enhance the successful development of useful financial, cost, and 

performance reporting for major operating units and appropriate cost 

accounting, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol direct the 

Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to 

• work with operating managers to assess the usefulness of financialstatement-level information, take an active role in AOC near-term efforts 

to develop agencywide performance measures, and review all available 

options to determine whether substantial work can begin, prior to fiscal 

year 2006, on the analyses needed to identify changes necessary to 

implement useful cost accounting at AOC, and

• have senior management visibly demonstrate its continuing 

commitment to and support for making AOC-wide system, procedural, 

and cultural changes necessary to provide managers with timely 

financial, cost, and performance information by monitoring the efforts’ 

implementation and related milestones, ensuring the commitment to 

and support for the efforts by participating AOC units, and acting to 

resolve any impediments that may arise.

AOC Has Continued to 

Make Progress 

Implementing Its 

Information Security 

Program

Information security is an important consideration for any organization 

that depends on information technology to carry out its mission. Without 

the proper safeguards, unauthorized access to systems can result in 

disclosure of sensitive information, fraud, disruption to operations, or 

attacks against other organizations’ sites.

In our January 2003 report, we stated that effective information security 

management is critical to AOC’s ability to ensure the reliability, availability, 

and confidentiality of its information technology assets. Such AOC assets 

include the Computer-Aided Facilities Management system that is used to 

request and fulfill work orders for maintenance of the Capitol and the 

surrounding grounds, and the Records Management system that is used to 

archive architectural drawings pertaining to the U.S. Capitol, Library of 

Congress, Botanic Garden, and other buildings. We also reported that AOC 

took important steps to establish an effective information security 

program, but that much remained to be done before the agency would be in 

a position to effectively safeguard its information and technology assets. 

Accordingly, we recommended that the agency establish and implement an 

information security program. More specifically, we recommended that 

AOC (1) designate a security officer and provide him or her with the 
Page 28 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

authority and resources to implement an agencywide security program, 

(2) develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the 

associated training, (3) develop and implement policies and guidance to 

perform risk assessments continually, (4) use the results of the risk 

assessments to develop and implement appropriate controls, and 

(5) monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness. 

In our January 2004 report, we stated that AOC laid some of the foundation 

for establishing an effective security program, such as designating an 

information security officer, giving this official the authority and 

responsibility to implement an agencywide security program, and 

beginning to draft information security policies. We also reported that AOC 

partially allocated the resources needed to begin to implement its security 

program, although more work remained to define and then execute the 

program. For example, we reported that AOC needed to follow through on 

its stated commitments to provide needed program resources, finalize its 

security policies, define processes for implementing the policies, and 

implement them. 

Since then, AOC has continued to make progress in implementing our 

recommendations, but important work remains in five basic areas of 

information security management. First, AOC has contracted to conduct 

security operations, risk management, policy assessment, and metrics 

activities, but it still needs to provide resources to its security program, 

including hiring two security specialists to conduct system risk 

assessments. Second, AOC has developed security training and awareness 

policies and began implementing them, but it still needs to provide the 

training and awareness to all employees who use information technology 

assets. Third, AOC has developed policies and guidance to perform system 

risk assessments and conducted risk assessments on agency missioncritical support systems, but it still needs to complete assessments on 4 

mission-critical major applications and 34 other agency systems. Fourth, 

AOC has developed guidance that for resolving identified risks and begun 

implementing it on those support systems that it has assessed, but it still 

needs to develop and implement controls to address any risks that may be 

identified by the yet-to-be-completed assessments. Fifth, AOC has defined 

a metrics policy and a plan for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness 

of its controls and begun measuring its support systems controls, and it 

plans to complete initial data gathering on defined metrics by December 

2004 and report on them by March 2005. However, the agency still needs to 

do the same for any controls assessments implemented as a result of any 

yet-to-be compiled risks. 
Page 29 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

AOC plans to complete work in most of these areas over the next 8 months. 

Specifically, it plans to (1) expedite the modification of an existing contract 

to hire two security specialists by August 2, 2004; (2) complete security 

awareness activities for all AOC employees between July and the end of 

November 2004, develop role-based security training and begin 

implementing it in fiscal year 2006; (3) complete the risk assessments on its 

mission-critical major applications by September 30, 2004; (4) subsequently 

develop and implement controls to address any risks identified by the yet 

to be completed assessments; and (5) complete the initial data gathering on 

security policy and control metrics by December 2004 and issue its first 

report on their effectiveness by March 2005. 

As we reported in January 2003, successfully completing these plans 

depends in large part on the commitment and leadership of AOC senior 

managers. Such commitment and leadership will require the timely 

allocation and application of needed resources and close oversight of plan 

execution. Without such support and the resultant improvements to AOC’s 

information security management capabilities, the agency will be 

challenged in its ability to effectively safeguard its data and information 

assets.

AOC Has Made 

Progress in Developing 

Safety Performance 

Measures, but 

Implementation of 

Measures Are a Work 

in Progress

Worker safety has been a long-standing concern at AOC because it has had 

higher injury and illness rates than many other federal agencies. As we 

stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, identifying, 

developing, and implementing performance measures is important for 

holding employees and management accountable, evaluating the 

effectiveness of the safety training curriculum, and reducing workers’ 

compensation injuries and costs. These performance measures are an 

important link between the achievement of AOC’s safety plan goals and the 

organizations’ strategic goals. Moreover, meaningful, transparent, and 

timely performance measures are critical to worker safety efforts because 

they help organizations gather feedback on performance, evaluate the 

effectiveness of policies, and make worker safety the cultural norm. 

In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that relate to 

AOC developing performance measures to track worker safety across the 

organization:

• Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives, 

including measures for how AOC will implement the 43 specialized 
Page 30 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

safety programs9 and how superintendents and employees will be held 

accountable for achieving results.

• Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the goals 

of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness of the 

training provided.

• Establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss 

workers’ compensation cases and costs and develop strategies to 

reduce these injuries and costs.

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress in 

addressing all three of these recommendations. 

Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in developing 

performance measures to track the agency’s worker safety efforts, but the 

implementation of these measures is a work in progress. AOC developed 

several broad performance measures to judge the success of its safety and 

health program. First, AOC developed a measure of the number and 

severity of safety and health deficiencies that exist at AOC (a baseline 

assessment was completed). Second, AOC developed a measure to assess 

employees’ attitudes and beliefs about safety within their organization—a 

gauge of employees’ perceptions of safety at AOC.10 The initial survey was 

administered between December 2003 and January 2004. In February 2004, 

AOC completed analysis of the survey responses and developed 

recommendations to improve worker perceptions about safety. Finally, 

AOC uses the rate at which employees suffer a job-related injury and illness 

to monitor workplace safety as established by the Department of Labor’s 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). AOC discussed its 

injury and illness rate in public testimony to demonstrate its commitment 

to a safe and healthy work environment. 

AOC is also developing specific performance measures related to worker 

safety. First, AOC senior management, through quarterly council meetings 

known as the Safety, Health and Environmental Council (SHEC), has 

9

 AOC now refers to the safety programs as safety policies and has reduced the number of 

policies to 34.

10 The measure—a safety perception survey—was part of a safety communications 

assessment that included focus group meetings designed to validate and expand on the 

survey results.
Page 31 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

developed measures to assess and control workers’ compensation costs 

including (1) the number and severity of injuries and illnesses, (2) the 

number and cost of workers’ compensation injuries and illnesses, (3) the 

number of lost production days associated with workers’ compensation 

cases, and (4) the number of modified work assignments. In addition, 

SHEC has developed several tools aimed at raising employee awareness of 

safety and the link between safety and workers’ compensation. Second, 

AOC has developed performance measures for several of the 34 safety 

policies. The purpose of the safety policies is to establish consistent 

requirements for AOC with agencies such as OSHA and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. These safety policy measures include (1) the number of 

safety inspections and audits performed, (2) the number of safety 

deficiencies, and (3) the number of employees trained. Finally, AOC has 

continued to assess training performance by asking participants to evaluate 

training courses; having subject matter experts from the Safety, Fire, and 

Environmental Program Office audit the courses; and soliciting informal 

feedback from participants’ supervisors. Moreover, AOC has begun to 

notice that safety training participants are applying lessons learned from 

training. For example, AOC officials reported that training on blood-borne 

pathogens resulted in employees applying the principles learned during a 

recent event. In addition, AOC plans to assess employee knowledge and 

behavior to ensure compliance with the policy, including interviewing 

employees on the requirements of a jurisdictional standard operating 

procedure. However, AOC has made little progress on developing tools 

necessary for more complex assessments of its training and development 

efforts, such as measuring their impact on overall program or 

organizational results, or comparing the benefits of training efforts against 

their costs. We have previously reported on the potential value—and 

challenges—associated with these more complex approaches of assessing 

training and development.11 When deciding on an evaluation strategy, 

agencies (such as AOC) should select an appropriate analytical approach 

that will best measure the effect of their programs while also considering 

what is realistic and reasonable given the broader context and fiscal 

constraints. 

AOC has made progress in its safety performance measures. However, 

AOC can strengthen its efforts to evaluate workplace safety. First, while 

AOC’s measure of the number and severity of safety and health deficiencies 

11 See GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 

Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
Page 32 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

is a positive step, time frames to correct these deficiencies still need to be 

established. Although AOC has plans to develop a measure of the timeline 

in which hazards and deficiencies are corrected, it has yet to complete this 

measure. Second, while the safety perception survey provided information 

on how employees’ perceive safety in their work environment, the full 

potential of this tool has not been fully recognized. AOC officials stated 

that the survey should not be considered a measure of safety performance 

and have no plans to administer the survey on a recurring basis. However, 

the survey is a valuable performance measure of employees’ perceptions 

about workplace safety and could prove useful if conducted in the future. 

For any future use, AOC would need to first address design and 

implementation weaknesses. For example, pretests of the survey were not 

conducted, survey instructions were poorly worded, the questions allowed 

for a biased response, and the design did not allow for a non-response 

analysis. Moreover, given the low response rate of frontline employees, 

AOC should be hesitant to represent findings as reflective of the employee 

population.

AOC has fulfilled our third worker safety recommendation listed above by 

developing performance measures to assess the long-term impacts and 

trends of workers’ compensation injuries and costs. Through SHEC, safety 

officials working with HRMD are coordinating an exchange of information 

and data in order to control workers’ compensation injuries and costs. 

HRMD, through its Workers’ Compensation Program Unit, gathers workrelated injury and illness data. In addition, the increased emphasis on 

safety and its relationship to workers’ compensation injuries and illnesses 

is being promoted at SHEC meetings.

Recommendation for 

Agency Action

To enhance worker safety performance measures at AOC, we recommend 

that the Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to 

expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more rigorous 

methodological approach and collecting such information on a more 

regular basis.
Page 33 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

AOC Has Taken Steps 

to Develop a Capitol 

Complex Master Plan, 

but Lack of 

Congressional and 

Other Stakeholder 

Involvement and 

Delays Hamper 

Additional Progress

Developing a Capitol complex master plan is critical to strategic project 

management because it would help facilitate consistent management and 

oversight of projects and establish long-term priorities. A key component 

of a master plan is conducting facility condition assessments (FCA), which 

are systematic evaluations of an organization’s capital assets. Such 

evaluations would help AOC to “compare conditions between facilities; 

provide accurate and supportable information for planning and justifying 

budgets; facilitate the establishment of funding priorities; and develop 

budget and funding analyses and strategies.”12 FCAs also help to assure 

that the Capitol complex’s preventative maintenance needs are fully 

documented and provide data for an overall plan with which to address 

those needs. Further, a Capitol complex master plan could help guide dayto-day prioritization by being the basis for communicating, both internally 

and externally, the trade-offs that result from prioritizing one project over 

another, or how individual projects fit within a broader AOC framework. 

In our January 2003 report, we identified two recommendations that would 

help AOC facilitate consistent management and oversight of projects and 

establish long-term priorities:

• Develop a Capitol complex master plan and complete condition 

assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of AOC.

• Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on 

clearly-defined, well-documented, consistently-applied, and transparent 

criteria.

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress 

initiating the Capitol complex master planning process, although the 

expected completion date had already been pushed back 8 months to 

December 2006. FCAs for the three largest jurisdictions were also behind 

the original schedule because all the contracts were not to be awarded until 

December 2003. AOC was also making progress creating a clearly defined, 

well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing 

projects by developing criteria to managers for scoring projects across five 

12 National Research Council, Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A Proactive Strategy for 

Managing the Nation’s Public Assets (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), p. 

43.
Page 34 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

rating areas—preservation, impact on mission, economic impact, safety, 

and security. 

During the 6-month review period, AOC took steps to develop the Capitol 

complex master plan. For example, senior AOC officials reported that the 

contract for the Capitol complex master plan would be awarded in August 

2004. These officials also stated that work has been initiated on a facilities 

plan for the House office buildings, which will be incorporated into the 

Capitol complex master plan. FCAs for the three largest jurisdictions—the 

House, Capitol, and Senate—are under way and scheduled to be completed 

in October 2004. While AOC’s fiscal year 2004 annual performance plan 

established November 2005 as the target to publish a draft Capitol complex 

master plan, and December 2006 as the target to publish the final version of 

the plan, senior AOC officials reported that they now intend to publish a 

draft of the Capitol complex master plan in February 2006, with the final 

version published in June 2007.

With respect to project prioritization, AOC reported that the process of 

scoring projects in 2004 went smoothly. Specifically, agency officials noted 

that there were very few scoring discrepancies between jurisdictional 

superintendents and senior AOC officials. AOC officials also noted that the 

scoring process will be used to determine what projects will be submitted 

for funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget.

While AOC has taken steps to develop the Capitol complex master plan, 

AOC officials noted that 12–16 months were added to incorporate 

comments and finalize the plan. This is the second time target completion 

dates have been changed to a later date. In addition, AOC officials need to 

involve their stakeholders early and throughout the Capitol complex 

master planning process. Given the importance and sensitivity of the 

master plan and the condition of the Capitol complex, as well as the 

difficult trade-offs that the current budget environment demands, 

congressional and other stakeholder involvement early and throughout the 

development of the master plan is key to its ultimate acceptance and value, 

which did not occur during the development of a similar plan in 1981. 

Senior agency officials reported that AOC intends to define the scope of 

work for the remaining jurisdictions after they complete lessons learned 

from the first round of FCAs to identify areas that may improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the process. This is an appropriate step if it 

does not delay the start of future FCAs. Furthermore, completion of the 

FCAs for the remaining jurisdictions will depend on when funding is 

received. While FCAs are a key component of the master plan, and 
Page 35 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

ultimately need to be integrated into the plan, AOC’s master planning 

efforts can begin before FCAs are completed. Further, once the FCAs are 

completed it is critical that they are updated regularly. 

With regard to project prioritization, AOC has created a clearly-defined, 

well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing 

projects. The evaluation criteria will be used to determine which projects 

will be submitted for funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle. In 

addition, although the project prioritization process is a useful tool 

internally, the process does not address the underlying need to inform and 

get agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why 

AOC submits specific projects for funding. 

Recommendations for 

Agency Action

In order to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts, we 

recommend that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the Chief 

Operating Officer, lead efforts to ensure that congressional and other 

stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the 

Capitol complex master plan. 

In order to improve the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend 

that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the Chief Operating 

Officer, lead efforts to ensure that AOC informs and obtains agreement 

from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why specific 

projects are submitted for funding. 

AOC Made Progress 

Toward Adopting a 

More Strategic 

Approach to its 

Recycling Program

It is estimated that recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 3.3 cubic 

yards of landfill space, 7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil, 4,100 

kilowatt hours of energy, and 60 pounds of air pollutants. Over 12,000 tons 

of waste is created annually within the Capitol Hill complex.13 Much of the 

waste generated is from office, construction, and maintenance activities 

and includes such materials as paper, wood, plastic, and metal. AOC is 

responsible for implementing recycling programs for much of the Capitol 

Hill complex and has taken steps both centrally, and at the jurisdiction 

level, to improve the overall effectiveness of its recycling programs.

13 Waste tonnage does not include hazardous and non-hazardous chemical waste.
Page 36 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

In our January 2003 report, we recommended that AOC take a more 

strategic approach to improve the effectiveness of its recycling programs. 

Specifically, we recommended that AOC develop a clear mission and goals 

for AOC’s recycling programs with input from key congressional 

stakeholders as part of its proposed environmental program plan. We 

further recommended that AOC establish reasonable goals based on the 

total waste stream that could potentially be recycled—information it plans 

to obtain as part of its long-term environmental program plan.

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC had begun taking the first 

steps toward a more strategic approach for its recycling programs. In 

accordance with our recommendation, and as part of its broader 

environmental program plan, AOC began collecting information on its 

facilities and operations through a baseline assessment and waste stream 

analysis. The baseline assessment evaluated the compliance of AOC 

facilities and operations with federal, state, and local environmental 

regulations; the waste stream analysis identified the types of waste created 

at AOC facilities and possible pollution prevention opportunities, such as 

waste elimination, reuse, or recycling. AOC will clarify the mission, goals, 

and measures of its recycling programs as a component of pollution 

prevention. According to AOC officials, the results of the assessment and 

analysis will provide a basis for establishing program priorities and 

measuring future progress. We further noted in our January 2004 report, 

that AOC was planning to obtain stakeholder input on the environmental 

program plan beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, after 

completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis. 

Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in the development of 

its environmental program plan and its movement toward a more strategic 

approach. In particular, AOC has completed the baseline assessment as 

well as the waste stream analysis for its facilities and operations.14 

Moreover, AOC is expanding its waste stream analysis—which currently 

covers office, construction, and maintenance waste—to include electronic 

waste (e-waste), such as outdated computer equipment. AOC is also 

developing pollution prevention plans based on the results of the waste 

steam analysis. In May 2004, AOC received input from internal 

stakeholders on the draft environmental plan and expects to complete the 

14 The baseline assessment for AOC facilities and operations was actually completed in 

November 2003.
Page 37 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

environmental plan in October 2004 as well as receive congressional input 

early next year.

AOC has made progress toward developing a mission and goals for its 

recycling programs in accordance with our January 2003 recommendation. 

The completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis are 

good first steps toward developing a more comprehensive environmental 

program plan and should provide a sound basis for establishing program 

priorities and measuring future progress. The results from these efforts 

should also help AOC develop targeted pollution prevention plans. Finally, 

the input received from internal stakeholders on the environmental plan, as 

well as the expected input from congressional stakeholders early next year, 

should prove to be invaluable in keeping AOC moving forward strategically. 

It is critical, however, that at least preliminary congressional input be 

obtained prior to the environmental plan’s completion to help ensure that 

the plan is consistent with the interests and expectations of congressional 

stakeholders and that AOC’s efforts and resources are targeted at the 

highest priorities. 

Recommendation for 

Agency Action

To further assist AOC in developing a more strategic approach for its 

recycling programs and to ensure that congressional input is obtained 

when it would be most useful, we recommend that the Architect of the 

Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to obtain preliminary input from 

congressional stakeholders on its environmental program plan—

particularly as the plan relates to the mission and goals of AOC’s recycling 

programs—prior to the completion of the plan. 

COO Action Plan 

Addresses Six Business 

Areas, but Lacks 

Sufficient Details to 

Guide and 

Communicate the 

COO’s Performance 

and Progress

One of the most important issues raised in our January 2003 report was the 

need for Congress to create a Chief Operating Officer (COO) position to 

serve as the central leadership point to improve AOC’s executive decisionmaking capacity and accountability. The Consolidated Appropriations 

Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7) established, in section 1203 of Division 

H, the new position of Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer within the 

Office of the Architect of the Capitol. Subsection 1203(e) required that the 

COO prepare an action plan describing “the policies, procedures, and 

actions the [COO] will implement and time frames for carrying out the 

responsibilities under this section.” The responsibilities described include 

implementing AOC’s mission and goals, providing overall organization 
Page 38 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

management, assisting the Architect in promoting reform, and measuring 

results. 

The action plan was to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

and Administration of the Senate not later than 90 days after appointment 

of the COO, which occurred on July 28, 2003. The COO Action Plan, 

however, was not submitted to the committees until December 22, 2003—

59 days late. 

The COO Action Plan and the Report to the Congress from Deputy 

Architect/Chief Operating Officer provide a list of 31 action items and their 

expected completion dates across six business areas: 

1. Organizational Management and Structure – 12 action items,

2. Project Management – 6 action items,

3. Customer Service – 3 action items, 

4. Strategic Planning – 5 action items, 

5. Communications – 3 action items, and 

6. GAO Management Review Recommendations – 2 action items.

Overall, the plan’s high-level description of the action items assumes that 

Congress and other users have a deep and detailed knowledge of AOC’s 

goals, internal operations, and management functions—a level of 

knowledge that is not reasonable to expect. The plan’s action items are 

described at such a high-level that it does not make clear how the COO 

would carry out his legislated responsibilities or help lead transformational 

change at AOC. For example, the legislation states that the COO is 

responsible for proposing organizational changes and staffing needed to 

carry out AOC’s mission and goals. While the COO’s report expresses the 

need for organizational changes and highlights expected improvements, it 

does not describe what specific changes the COO envisions or how 

changes would be accomplished. However, AOC included proposed 

organizational changes in its fiscal year 2005 budget justification. The 

House Appropriations committee did not approve those changes because, 

in the committee’s view, the AOC proposal does not reflect Congress’ intent 
Page 39 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

to assign the COO the responsibility for AOC’s overall direction, operation, 

and management to improve AOC’s performance.15 

The COO action plan also does not detail how the individual action items 

would be accomplished or how performance would be measured. For 

example, the first item listed in the action plan is to “review/update AOC’s 

organizational structure to better align with the strategic plan and 

operational mandates,” yet the plan lacks necessary details, including how 

such a review would be conducted, the time frame in which it would be 

completed, who would be involved in the review, or how progress would be 

measured. While the plan does list action items according to broad subject 

areas, for example “organizational management and structure,” the plan 

does not prioritize items that appear to be related nor does it identify the 

required resources or organizational units that are being delegated those 

action items. The plan could also better communicate whether the action 

items are standalone or dependent upon each other to accomplish the 

COO’s responsibilities. Finally, even though the legislation required that 

the COO action plan be developed concurrently and consistently with the 

strategic plan,16 the plan did not include a direct crosswalk to the AOC 

strategic plan, which was released on December 15, 2003, nor did it provide 

a clear picture of how the action items will help accomplish the agency’s 

mission and goals.

Recommendation for 

Agency Action

To enhance the usefulness of the COO action plan, we recommend the 

Architect of the Capitol and the Chief Operating Officer consult with 

members of Congress and key committees on the specific information 

regarding AOC’s plans, policies, procedures, actions, and proposed 

organizational changes. As part of this effort, the Architect and the COO 

should work with Congress to determine Congress’ information needs and 

the timing and format of delivery of that information that will best meet 

Congress’ needs. Furthermore, consistent with our findings and 

recommendations with respect to congressional and other stakeholder 

involvement in general and the Capitol complex master plan in particular, 

as well as our original January 2003 management review, specific emphasis 

should be placed on AOC’s project management. Particular issues to be 

discussed could include how

15 H.R. Rep. No. 108-577, accompanying H.R. 4755 (Jul. 1, 2004).

16 Pub. L. No. 108-7, §1203(e)(2)(B).
Page 40 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

• AOC’s projects’ priorities are determined, 

• AOC monitors and controls project cost, quality, and timeliness, 

• AOC uses lessons learned from projects and seeks to incorporate best 

practices,

• project management accountability is assigned and managed, and

• AOC determines the best mix of in-house and contractor support when 

designing projects. 

Subsequent COO action plans and status reports will likely be most helpful 

to Congress to the extent that they are rigorously specific as to the problem 

or issue that needs to be addressed, the actions that are being taken in 

response, the progress to-date, and milestones for additional actions.

Concluding 

Observations

As we noted in our two previous reviews, organizational transformation 

does not come quickly or easily and the changes under way at AOC require 

a long-term concerted effort. AOC has made progress in addressing the 

eight key management control issues and the corresponding 

recommendations outlined in this report; however, AOC management will 

need to build on its efforts to date and more fully engage congressional and 

other stakeholders to ensure that their interests and expectations are 

incorporated into AOC’s organizational transformation. For example, 

involving stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive strategy to 

improve internal and external communications, the formulation of a 

Capitol complex master plan, and the establishment of a recycling mission 

and goals will be critical in successfully addressing these key issues. As 

AOC works to establish its strategic management and accountability 

framework and address long-standing areas of concern, it must continue to 

demonstrate progress on each of these eight key issues to help it sustain 

the momentum needed to accomplish its organizational transformation, 

particularly in engaging its congressional and other stakeholders.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided the Architect of the Capitol a draft of this report on 

July 26, 2004, for review and comment. We received written comments 

from the Architect on August 13, 2004, and they are reprinted in appendix I. 

In his comments, the Architect generally agreed with our findings and 
Page 41 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

conclusions. He suggested technical changes and provided additional 

information related to information security, safety performance measures, 

and Capitol complex master planning that were incorporated into our 

report where appropriate. The Architect also noted his agreement with 

each new recommendation, except for those regarding worker safety 

performance measures, Capitol complex master planning, and the process 

for prioritizing projects. 

Regarding worker safety performance measures, we reported that AOC’s 

safety perception survey had design and implementation weaknesses and, 

therefore, we recommended a more rigorous methodological approach to 

the survey. In response, the Architect stated that they found AOC’s 

employee response rate to be 68 percent. While this rate is approaching the 

70 percent cut-off that is considered minimally acceptable for this type of 

survey, only 49 percent of the subgroup of frontline employees (e.g., 

carpenters, plumbers, and custodial workers) returned a completed survey, 

according to AOC’s summary report. As frontline employees are most at 

risk of work-related injuries, their low response rate makes it difficult for 

AOC to draw meaningful conclusions about these employees’ attitudes and 

beliefs towards safety. The Architect also noted that the survey used a 

number of benchmark questions that have previously been used in other 

surveys. Nonetheless, AOC’s lack of a pre-test of the entire instrument 

does not give AOC assurance that employees interpreted the questions in 

the manner AOC had expected. In fact, officials in one AOC jurisdiction 

were concerned that some questions could be misinterpreted and therefore 

had employees complete their individual survey in a group like setting. 

Thus, we believe that AOC’s safety perception survey would still benefit 

from a more rigorous methodological approach.

In our draft report, we also recommended that the Architect direct the COO 

to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts and the process to 

prioritize projects by (1) ensuring that congressional and other 

stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the 

Capitol complex master plan, and (2) ensuring that AOC informs and 

obtains agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and 

why specific projects are submitted for funding. According to the 

Architect, he has and will continue to lead the Capitol complex master plan 

initiative. In addition, the Architect noted his plan to get an 

Architect/Engineer (AE) onboard so that they can jointly meet with and 

ensure that stakeholders are engaged at the beginning and throughout the 

development of the master plan. We agree that the Architect’s personal 

involvement in the development of the Capitol complex master plan will be 
Page 42 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

critical to its success and the Architect’s commitment to engage 

stakeholders is consistent with our recommendation. However, because 

the COO position was created to serve as the central leadership point to 

improve AOC’s executive decision-making capacity and accountability, the 

COO should also be involved in the master planning process, project 

prioritization, and communication with stakeholders. As such, we made 

revisions to the two recommendations to address the Architect’s concerns 

so that the Architect, with support from the COO, leads efforts to 

implement the recommendations. In addition, the Architect questioned the 

direct link between the master plan and the prioritization process. We 

continue to believe that the Capitol complex master plan and project 

prioritization should be linked because a master plan could help guide dayto-day prioritization by being the basis for communicating, both internally 

and externally, the trade-offs that result from prioritizing one project over 

another, or how individual projects fit within a broader AOC framework. 

We made revisions to the two recommendations to provide greater clarity 

by addressing the master plan and the prioritization process separately. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional parties. 

We are also sending a copy to the Architect of the Capitol. This report is 

also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have general questions concerning this report, or 

specific questions concerning strategic management or human capital 

issues, please contact J. Christopher Mihm or Steven Lozano at (202) 512-

6806 or by e-mail at mihmj@gao.gov or lozanos@gao.gov. In addition, if you 

have specific questions concerning financial management issues, please 

contact Jeanette Franzel or John Reilly at (202) 512-9471 or by e-mail at 

franzelj@gao.gov or reillyj@gao.gov. If you have specific questions 

concerning information technology issues, please contact Randolph Hite or 

Carl Higginbotham at (202) 512-3439 or by e-mail at hiter@gao.gov or 
Page 43 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

higginbothamc@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix II.

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues

Jeanette M. Franzel

Director, Financial Management and Assurance

Randolph C. Hite

Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues
Page 44 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol ApApenednxidexiIs
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 45 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 46 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 47 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 48 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 49 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 50 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 51 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 52 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 53 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 54 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I

Comments from the Architect of the Capitol

Page 55 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol
Page 56 GAO-04-966 Architect of the Capitol

Appendix II

Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

Individuals making key contributions to this report included Kevin J. 

Conway, Jeffery Bass, Thomas Beall, Justin Booth, Terrell Dorn, Andrew 

Edelson, Steven Elstein, Brett Fallavollita, Joel Grossman, Carl 

Higginbotham, Dan Hoy, John Johnson, Steven Lozano, Mamesho 

Macaulay, Jeff McDermott, David Merrill, John Reilly, Kris Trueblood, Carl 

Urie, Michael Volpe, and Daniel Wexler.

(450321)
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 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
United States

Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00