INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

REFORM

Agencies Need to 

Increase Their Use of 

Incremental 

Development 

Practices

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2016

GAO-16-469

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-469, a report to 

congressional requesters

August 2016

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REFORM

Agencies Need to Increase Their Use of Incremental 

Development Practices

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies plan to spend more 

than $89 billion on IT in fiscal year 

2017. Historically, long-term system 

development projects have often 

produced disappointing results. To 

help address these issues, OMB now 

requires agencies to deliver useable 

functionality every 6 months to reduce 

risk and deliver capabilities more 

quickly. GAO’s objectives were to (1) 

describe the number of major IT 

investments primarily in development

identified on the IT Dashboard as 

reporting the delivery of functionality 

every 6 months; (2) assess selected 

departments’ and investments’ delivery 

of incremental functionality and 

determine the factors affecting delivery 

rates; and (3) assess the quality and 

completeness of selected departments’ 

plans to employ incremental 

development practices. GAO analyzed 

information on the IT Dashboard, 

analyzed reported project data and 

policies of 7 selected departments with 

the most investments primarily in 

development, and interviewed OMB 

and department officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 12 recommendations 

to 8 agencies to improve reporting of 

incremental data on the IT Dashboard 

and policies for CIO certification of 

adequate incremental development.

Five departments agreed with our 

recommendations, the Department of 

Defense partially agreed with one and 

disagreed with another, OMB did not 

agree or disagree, and the Department 

of the Treasury did not comment on 

the recommendations. GAO continues 

to believe its recommendations are 

appropriate.

What GAO Found

For fiscal year 2016, 22 agencies reported 64 percent of their software 

development projects would deliver useable functionality every 6 months on the 

Information Technology (IT) Dashboard, as required by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). However, shortcomings with OMB’s

guidance—the lack of clarity regarding the types of projects where incremental 

development would not apply and how the status of these non-software projects

should be reported—have affected the accuracy of the data on the IT Dashboard. 

GAO reviewed 7 departments’ software projects and found approximately half of 

these projects reported delivery of functionality every 6 months. However, there 

are significant differences in the data reported to GAO and on the IT Dashboard 

(see figure below) due to inconsistencies in reporting non-software projects, the 

timing of reporting, and a lack of support for reported delivery, which affects the 

accuracy of reported rates. Department officials also reported that management 

and organizational challenges and project complexity and uniqueness impact 

their ability to deliver incrementally. It is critical that departments continue to 

improve their use of incremental development to deliver functionality and reduce 

the risk that these projects will not meet cost, schedule, and performance goals.

Comparison of Software Development Projects’ Percentage of Planned Delivery Every Six 

Months Reported on IT Dashboard and to GAO for Fiscal Year 2016

a

Defense did not provide the requested information in time to verify the information reported to GAO.

Although OMB’s requirement has been in place since June 2015, only three

departments (Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, and 

the Department of Transportation) had policies and processes to ensure that the 

chief information officer would certify IT investments are adequately 

implementing incremental development. Officials from three departments

reported they were updating their existing policies to address certification, but 

had not yet finalized these efforts, and one department stated its current 

processes were sufficient.

View GAO-16-469. For more information, 

contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Letter 1

Background 4

Federal Agencies Reported Sixty-Four Percent of Projects Are to 

Deliver Functionality Every Six Months for Fiscal Year 2016 11

Approximately Half of Selected Projects Reported Delivery of 

Functionality Every Six Months and Slightly More Than ThreeQuarters Every Year 16

Selected Departments Have Not Fully Implemented a Statutorily 

Required Incremental Practice 26

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36

Appendix II Federal Agency Major IT Investment Projects Reported Plans to 

Deliver Functionality on the IT Dashboard for Fiscal Year 2016 41

Appendix III Assessment of Selected Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development 43

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Commerce 62

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense 64

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Education 67

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 68

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 71

Tables

Table 1: Federal Agency Software Development Project Plans to 

Deliver Functionality Every 6 Months for Fiscal Year 2016, 

as Reported on the IT Dashboard 12

Table 2: Selected Departments’ Software Development Projects 

and Reported Percent Delivering Functionality in Fiscal 

Year 2015, as Reported to GAO 17

Table 3: Selected Departments’ Software Development Projects 

and Reported Percent of Planned Delivery of Functionality 

in Fiscal Year 2016, as Reported to GAO 18

Table 4: Comparison of Software Development Projects Planning 

to Deliver a Release Every Six Months Reported on IT 

Dashboard and to GAO for Fiscal Year 2016 19

Table 5: Federal Agency Software Development Project Plans to 

Deliver Functionality Every 6 Months for Fiscal Year 2016, 

as Reported on the IT Dashboard 41

Table 6: Status of Department of Commerce Major IT Software 

Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality in 

Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO 44

Table 7: Status of Department of Defense Major IT Software 

Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality for 

Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO 47

Table 8: Status of Department of Education Major IT Software 

Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality for 

Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO 50

Table 9: Status of Department of Health and Human Services 

Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of 

Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as 

Reported to GAO 52

Table 10: Status of Department of Homeland Security Major IT 

Software Development Investments’ Delivery of 

Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as 

Reported to GAO 56

Table 11: Status of Department of Transportation Major IT 

Software Development Investments’ Delivery of 

Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as 

Reported to GAO 58
Page iii GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 12: Status of Department of the Treasury Major IT Software 

Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality for 

Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO 61

Figures

Figure 1: Comparison of Software Development Projects’ 

Percentage of Planned Delivery Every Six Months 

Reported on IT Dashboard and to GAO for Fiscal Year 

2016 20

Figure 2: Department of Commerce Budget and Investment 

Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 

and 2016 43

Figure 3: Department of Defense Budget and Investment 

Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 

and 2016 46

Figure 4: Department of Education Budget and Investment 

Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 

and 2016 49

Figure 5: Department of Health and Human Services Budget and 

Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software 

Development Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal 

Years 2015 and 2016 51

Figure 6: Department of Homeland Security Budget and 

Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software 

Development Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal 

Years 2015 and 2016 55

Figure 7: Department of Transportation Budget and Investment 

Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 

and 2016 57

Figure 8: Department of the Treasury Budget and Investment 

Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 

and 2016 60
Page iv GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer

Commerce Department of Commerce

Defense Department of Defense 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

Education Department of Education 

FITARA Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform 

Act

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

IT information technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Transportation Department of Transportation 

Treasury Department of the Treasury

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

August 16, 2016

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz

Chairman

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

Federal agencies rely on information technology (IT) systems to provide 

essential services affecting the health, economy, and defense of the 

nation. In fiscal year 2017, agencies plan to spend more than $89 billion 

on IT, and in fiscal year 2016, plan to spend at least $82 billion, including 

more than $43 billion on 752 major IT investments.1 With 169 of these 

major IT investments in a development phase, it is important to ensure 

that agencies are making the most efficient use of their financial 

resources through effective management practices. However, as we have 

previously testified, IT projects often fail—that is, even after exceeding 

their budget by millions of dollars and delaying the schedule by years, the 

result does not meet requirements.

2

Recognizing the severity of issues related to government-wide 

management of IT, in December 2014, Congress enacted federal IT 

acquisition reform legislation (commonly referred to as the Federal 

 1

A “major IT investment” is a system or an acquisition that requires special management 

attention because it has significant importance to the mission or function of the

government; significant program or policy implications; high executive visibility; high 

development, operating, or maintenance costs; an unusual funding mechanism; or is 

defined as major by the agency’s capital planning and investment control process.

2

GAO, Information Technology: Additional Actions and Oversight Urgently Needed to 

Reduce Waste and Improve Performance in Acquisitions and Operations, GAO-15-675T 

(Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA),3 which 

states that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to require in 

its annual IT capital planning guidance that each covered agency4 chief 

information officer (CIO) certify that IT investments are adequately 

implementing incremental development, which OMB defines as the 

planned and actual delivery of new or modified technical functionality to 

users that occurs at least every 6 months for development of software or 

services.5

Further, in February 2015, we added improving the management of IT 

acquisitions and operations to our High Risk list—a list of agencies and 

program areas that are high risk due to their vulnerability to fraud, waste, 

abuse, and mismanagement, or are in need of transformation.6 In 

introducing this risk area, we specifically noted that agencies’ 

implementation of incremental development was low and called on 

agencies to improve their delivery of functionality.

This report responds to your request that we review agencies’ use of 

incremental development in managing major IT investment projects. Our 

objectives were to (1) describe the number of major IT investments 

primarily in development identified on the IT Dashboard7 as reporting the 

delivery of functionality every 6 months; (2) assess selected departments’ 

and investments’ delivery of incremental functionality and determine the 

factors affecting delivery rates; and (3) assess the quality and 

completeness of selected departments’ plans to employ incremental 

development practices.

 3

Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform provisions of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. 

L. No. 113-291, div. A, title VIII, subtitle D, 128 Stat. 3292, 3438-3450 (Dec. 19, 2014). 

4

The term “covered agency” refers to the 24 major agencies listed in the Chief Financial 

Officers Act of 1990. 31 U.S.C. § 901(b). 

5

Office of Management and Budget, Management and Oversight of Federal Information 

Technology, Memorandum M-15-14 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015). 

6

GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015).

7

In June 2009, OMB established a public website (referred to as the IT Dashboard) that

provides detailed information on major IT investments at 27 federal agencies. 

https://itdashboard.gov/
Page 3 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

To address our first objective, we analyzed the data for major IT 

investments reported on the IT Dashboard as being 50 percent or more in 

development, modernization, and enhancement as of August 31, 2015, 

and determined the number of investments and associated projects that 

reported planned delivery of functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 

2016.8

To address our second objective, we selected the seven departments 

with at least 12 investments that were reported as being 50 percent or 

more in development for fiscal year 2015. These were the Departments of 

Commerce (Commerce), Defense (Defense), Education (Education), 

Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), 

Transportation (Transportation), and the Treasury (Treasury). We then 

analyzed the departments’ delivery and planned delivery of useable 

functionality of major IT investments and associated software 

development-related projects for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 using a data 

collection instrument. For each project, we determined what time frames 

useable functionality was being delivered or planned to be delivered, the 

definition of useable functionality being used, and the department’s 

reason if functionality was not being delivered or planned to be delivered 

every 6 months. We also conducted a random sample of department 

projects to verify the reported delivery rates and found that the data is 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.

To address our third objective, we analyzed the seven selected 

departments’ policies and plans for implementing CIO certification of 

adequate incremental development to determine whether the policies are 

consistent with OMB guidance on FITARA. We also interviewed staff from 

OMB’s Office of E-Government and Information Technology regarding 

OMB guidance in this area. Details of our objectives, scope, and 

methodology are contained in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2015 to August 2016, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

 8

We made the decision to select August 31, 2015 because it was the final day updated 

data would be publicly available before OMB discontinued updates of the IT Dashboard 

until the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2017 was released in February 2016. 
Page 4 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Investments in IT have the potential to make agencies more efficient in 

fulfilling their mission. However, as we have previously reported, 

investments in federal IT too often result in failed projects that incur cost 

overruns and schedule slippages while contributing little to the missionrelated outcome. For example:

• Defense’s Expeditionary Combat Support System was canceled in 

December 2012, after spending more than a billion dollars and failing 

to deploy within 5 years of initially obligating funds.9

• The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Financial and Logistics 

Integrated Technology Enterprise program was intended to be 

delivered by 2014 at a total estimated cost of $609 million, but was 

terminated in October 2011 due to challenges in managing the 

program.10

• The Office of Personnel Management’s Retirement Systems 

Modernization program was canceled in February 2011, after 

spending approximately $231 million on the agency’s third attempt to 

automate the processing of federal employee retirement claims.11

• DHS’s Secure Border Initiative Network program was ended in 

January 2011, after the department obligated more than $1 billion to 

 9

GAO, DOD Financial Management: Implementation Weaknesses in Army and Air Force 

Business Systems Could Jeopardize DOD’s Auditability Goals, GAO-12-134 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012) and DOD Business Transformation: Improved Management 

Oversight of Business System Modernization Efforts Needed, GAO-11-53 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010). 

10GAO, Information Technology: Actions Needed to Fully Establish Program Management 

Capability for VA’s Financial and Logistics Initiative, GAO-10-40 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

26, 2009). 

11GAO, Office of Personnel Management: Retirement Modernization Planning and 

Management Shortcomings Need to Be Addressed, GAO-09-529 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 

21, 2009); and Office of Personnel Management: Improvements Needed to Ensure 

Successful Retirement Systems Modernization, GAO-08-345 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 

2008). 

Background
Page 5 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

the program, because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability 

standards.12

• The tri-agency’s (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

was a weather satellite program that was cancelled by the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy in February 2010 

after the program spent 16 years and almost $5 billion.13

• The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Scheduling Replacement Project 

was terminated in September 2009 after spending an estimated $127 

million over 9 years.14

One approach to reducing the risks from broadly-scoped, multiyear 

projects is to divide investments into smaller parts—an incremental 

development technique recognized in prior law since 1996 and OMB 

guidance.15 By following this approach, agencies have the potential to

• deliver capabilities to their users more rapidly, giving them more 

flexibility to respond to changing agency priorities;

• increase the likelihood that each project will achieve its cost, 

schedule, and performance goals;

 12GAO, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Strengthen Management and Oversight of 

Its Prime Contractor, GAO-11-6 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2010); Secure Border 

Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its Proposed Investment in Key Technology Program, 

GAO-10-340 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010); and Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs 

to Address Testing and Performance Limitations That Place Key Technology Program at 

Risk, GAO-10-158 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2010). 

13GAO, Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites: With Costs Increasing and Data 

Continuity at Risk, Improvements Needed in Tri-agency Decision Making, GAO-09-564 

(Washington, D.C.: Jun 17, 2009) and Environmental Satellites: Polar-orbiting Satellite 

Acquisition Faces Delays; Decisions Needed on Whether and How to Ensure Climate 

Data Continuity, GAO-08-518 (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2008). 

14GAO, Information Technology: Management Improvements Are Essential to VA’s 

Second Effort to Replace Its Outpatient Scheduling System, GAO-10-579 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 27, 2010). 

15See Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106 § 5202(a), 110 Stat. 690 (1996), 

codified at 41 U.S.C. § 2308; see also 48 C.F.R. § 39.103 (Federal Acquisition 

Regulation); Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information 

Resources, Circular No. A-130 Revised.
Page 6 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

• obtain additional feedback from users, increasing the probability that 

each successive increment and project will meet user needs;

• more easily incorporate emerging technologies; and

• terminate a poorly performing investment, with fewer sunk costs.

Since 2000, OMB Circular A-130 has directed agencies to incorporate an 

incremental development approach into their policies and ensure that 

investments implement them.16 And, since 2012, OMB has required that 

functionality be delivered at least every 6 months.17

In May 2014, OMB issued its fiscal year 2016 capital planning guidance, 

which required agencies to report whether each major IT investment 

project18 produced useable functionality in their exhibit 300 for fiscal year 

2016 by asking agencies to report on the status of a release every 6 

months.19 An exhibit 300 provides a business case for each major IT 

investment within the federal government, including cost, schedule, and 

performance information on each investment’s projects. OMB uses the 

exhibit 300s to monitor these investments once they are funded. 

Performance information on each major IT investment, including the 

status of incremental delivery, is also publicly reported on the IT 

Dashboard. OMB uses the IT Dashboard to provide transparency and 

oversight into these agencies’ investments. This public display of data is 

also intended to allow Congress and government oversight bodies, as 

well as the general public, to hold agencies accountable for the results 

and progress of the investments.

 16Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information Resources, 

Circular No. A-130 Revised. OMB’s 2012 and 2013 guidance reaffirmed and strengthened 

these requirements. Executive Office of the President of the United States, OMB, Fiscal 

Year 2014 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, 354; and OMB, 

Contracting Guidance to Support Modular Development (June 14, 2012).

17Office of Management and Budget, FY2016 IT Budget–Capital Planning Guidance 

(Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2014); Guidance on Exhibits 53 and 300—Information 

Technology and E-Government (2013); Guidance on Exhibits 53 and 300—Information 

Technology and E-Government (2012).

18An IT investment may include one or more projects that are to develop, modernize, 

enhance, or maintain a single IT asset or group of IT assets with related functionality. 

19Office of Management and Budget, FY2016 IT Budget – Capital Planning Guidance.
Page 7 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

As noted earlier, in December 2014, FITARA was enacted, which states 

that OMB is to require in its annual IT capital planning guidance that 

covered agency CIOs certify that IT investments are adequately 

implementing OMB’s incremental development guidance.20 Accordingly, 

in June 2015, OMB released guidance that requires agencies to conduct 

a self-assessment and submit a plan describing the changes they will 

make to ensure that they meet the requirements under FITARA, including 

defining IT processes and policies for their department that ensure that 

the CIO certifies that IT resources are adequately implementing 

incremental development.21 After the plans were approved by OMB, the

agencies posted these plans on their websites. 

Further, OMB also issued its fiscal year 2017 capital planning guidance in 

June 2015. This guidance requires agency CIOs to certify in each major 

IT investment exhibit 300 whether the investment’s plan for the current 

year adequately implements incremental development.22

During the past several years, we have reported on a variety of issues 

related to improving IT acquisitions throughout the federal government 

through the use of modular or incremental development. For example, in 

2011, we identified seven successful investment acquisitions and nine 

common factors critical to their success.23 Specifically, we reported that 

department officials had identified seven successful investment 

acquisitions that best achieved their respective cost, schedule, scope, 

 2040 U.S.C. § 11319(b)(1)(B)(ii).

21Office of Management and Budget, Management and Oversight of Federal Information 

Technology, Memorandum M-15-14.

22Office of Management and Budget, FY2017 IT Budget–Capital Planning Guidance 

(Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2015). 

23GAO, Information Technology: Critical Factors Underlying Successful Major 

Acquisitions, GAO-12-7 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2011).

GAO Has Reported on 

Efforts to Improve IT 

Acquisitions Using 

Incremental Development
Page 8 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

and performance goals.24 Notably, all of these were smaller increments, 

phases, or releases of larger projects. For example, the Defense 

investment in our sample was the seventh increment of an ongoing 

investment; the Department of Energy’s system was the first of two 

phases; the DHS investment was rolled out to two locations prior to 

deployment to 37 additional locations; and Transportation’s investment 

had been part of a prototype deployed to four airports.

Common factors critical to the success of three or more of the seven 

investments were (1) program officials were actively engaged with 

stakeholders, (2) program staff had the necessary knowledge and skills, 

(3) senior department and agency executives supported the programs, (4) 

end users and stakeholders were involved in the development of 

requirements, (5) end users participated in testing system functionality 

prior to formal end user acceptance testing, (6) government and 

contractor staff were stable and consistent, (7) program staff prioritized 

requirements, (8) program officials maintained regular communication 

with the prime contractor, and (9) programs received sufficient funding. 

These critical factors support OMB’s objective of improving the 

management of large-scale IT acquisitions across the federal

government, and wide dissemination of these factors could complement 

OMB’s efforts.

 24The seven investments were (1) Department of Commerce Decennial Response 

Integration System; (2) Defense Global Combat Support System Joint (Increment 7); (3) 

Department of Energy Manufacturing Operations Management Project; (4) the 

Department of Homeland Security Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative; (5) the 

Department of Transportation Integrated Terminal Weather System; (6) Treasury 

Customer Account Data Engine 2; and (7) the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Occupational Health Record-keeping System.
Page 9 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Subsequently, in 2012, we identified 32 practices and approaches as 

being effective for applying incremental (Agile) software development 

methods25 to IT projects.26 Officials from five agencies who had used 

Agile methods on federal projects cited beneficial practices, such as 

obtaining stakeholder and customer feedback frequently, managing 

requirements, and ensuring staff had the proper knowledge and 

experience. We also identified 14 challenges with adapting and applying 

Agile in the federal environment, including agencies having difficulty with 

committing staff to projects, procurement practices that did not support 

Agile projects, and compliance reviews that were difficult to execute 

within an iterative time frame. We noted that the effective practices and 

approaches identified in the report, as well as input from others with 

broad Agile experience, could help agencies in the initial stages of 

adopting Agile.

In addition, in April 2012, we reported on OMB’s efforts to implement the 

actions called for in its 25 Point Implementation Plan27 and found that it 

had partially completed work on two key action items relating to 

incremental development—issuing contracting guidance and templates to 

support incremental development and working with Congress to create IT 

budget models that align with incremental development.28 With respect to 

the contracting guidance and templates, we found that, although OMB 

had worked with the IT and acquisition community to develop guidance, it 

 25Agile development calls for the delivery of software in small, short increments rather 

than in the typically long, sequential phases of a traditional waterfall approach. More a 

philosophy than a methodology, Agile emphasizes early and continuous software delivery, 

as well as using collaborative teams and measuring progress with working software, and 

promotes these four values: (1) individuals and interactions over processes and tools, (2) 

working software over comprehensive documentation, (3) customer collaboration over 

contract negotiation, and (4) responding to change over following a plan.

26GAO, Software Development: Effective Practices and Federal Challenges in Applying 

Agile Methods, GAO-12-681 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2012).

27In December 2010,the Office of Management and Budget released its 25-point plan 

which called for federal IT programs to deploy functionality in release cycles no longer 

than 12 months, and ideally, less than 6 months. The plan also identified key actions that 

can help agencies implement this incremental development guidance, such as working 

with Congress to develop IT budget models that align with incremental development, and 

issuing contracting guidance and templates to support incremental development.

28GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to Be Done to 

Complete Actions and Measure Results, GAO-12-461 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2012).
Page 10 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

had not yet issued this guidance or the templates. Regarding the IT 

budget models, we found that, although OMB had worked to promote 

ideas for IT budget flexibility (such as revolving funds) with congressional 

committees, there had not yet been any new legislation to create 

additional budget flexibilities, and OMB had not identified options to 

increase transparency for programs that would fall under these budgetary 

flexibilities. We recommended that the Director of OMB ensure that all 

action items called for in the plan be completed. OMB agreed with this 

recommendation and issued contracting guidance for incremental 

development.

In May 2014, we reported on the status of incremental development at 

five agencies (Defense, HHS, DHS, Transportation, and Department of 

Veterans Affairs) and found that these agencies planned to deliver 

functionality in fewer than half of the investments in 12-month cycles and 

only about one-fourth of these investments would deliver in 6-month 

increments, as required by OMB.29 Additionally, OMB staff reported to us 

that they did not expect that many investments would meet the 6-month 

requirement. We, therefore, questioned whether a 6-month delivery 

requirement was an appropriate government-wide goal and whether OMB 

should instead consider a 12-month time frame, as called for in its IT 

Reform Plan. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB require projects to 

deliver functionality at least every 12 months. OMB disagreed with our 

recommendation, asserting that changing the requirement from 6 to 12 

months would reduce the emphasis on incremental development that it 

had been advocating and that 6 months was an appropriate goal.

We also recommended that OMB develop and issue clearer guidance on 

incremental development to ensure that OMB has the necessary 

information to oversee the extent to which projects and investments are 

implementing its guidance. OMB took action to address this second 

recommendation and issued capital planning guidance in fiscal year 2016 

that requires agencies to report on whether each of its projects has 

delivered a production release every 6 months and provide a rationale if 

functionality is not being delivered. In addition, we recommended that 

selected agencies update and implement their associated policies. Most 

 29GAO, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish and Implement Incremental 

Development Policies, GAO-14-361 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2014).
Page 11 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no comment but as of 

August 2016, only the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Transportation, and Veterans Affairs have addressed our 

recommendations.

Most recently, in February 2015, we added improving the management of 

IT acquisitions and operations to our High Risk list,30 citing a lack of 

disciplined and effective management and inconsistent application of best 

practices to the successful acquisition of IT projects throughout the 

federal government. In particular, we noted the critical importance of 

implementing incremental development in order to reduce investment risk 

and called on federal agencies to ensure that a minimum of 80 percent of 

the government’s major acquisitions should deliver functionality at least 

every 12 months.

OMB’s fiscal year 2016 capital planning guidance requires all projects for 

major IT investments to produce useable functionality at least every 6 

months.31 In addition, all federal departments and agencies that have a 

major IT investment are required to provide information on the investment 

on the IT Dashboard, including: the CIO’s assessment of the current 

investment risk level; the number of projects for the investment; each 

project’s current status; the amount of current year fiscal funding 

allocated to development, modernization, and enhancement or operations 

and maintenance activities; and whether the project produces useable 

functionality. Specifically, all departments and agencies are required to 

indicate either a “yes,” “no,” or “not applicable” regarding whether the 

project has delivered a release (i.e. delivered functionality) every 6 

months and provide a rationale if functionality is not being delivered. This 

is generally applicable to software development projects only, according 

to OMB’s definition of useable functionality issued in fiscal year 2016 

guidance, which defines it as any change to an IT system that primarily 

provides new or improved capability to the end user, not including 

 30GAO-15-290. 

31Office of Management and Budget, FY2016 IT Budget–Capital Planning Guidance.

Federal Agencies 

Reported Sixty-Four 

Percent of Projects 

Are to Deliver 

Functionality Every 

Six Months for Fiscal 

Year 2016
Page 12 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

modifications such as security patching or strengthened backup 

processes.32

As of August 31, 2015 on the IT Dashboard, 22 federal departments and 

agencies reported a total of 169 major IT investments that were planned 

to be primarily in development33 for fiscal year 2016.34 These 169 

investments were comprised of 469 active software development 

projects; 300 of these projects (approximately 64 percent) reported plans 

to deliver useable functionality every 6 months. Table 1 lists the total 

number and percent of federal department and agency software 

development projects that reported plans to deliver functionality for fiscal 

year 2016, from highest to lowest.

Table 1: Federal Agency Software Development Project Plans to Deliver 

Functionality Every 6 Months for Fiscal Year 2016, as Reported on the IT Dashboard

Department/agency 

Number of 

major IT 

investments 

Number of 

projects 

associated 

with 

investments

Number of 

projects 

planning 

delivery of 

release every 6 

months

Percent 

planning 

release 

every 6 

months

Department of Veterans 

Affairs 10 95 95 100%

Department of Commerce 9 84 78 93%

Department of Health and 

Human Services 18 48 42 88%

Department of Education 12 14 11 79%

Department of the 

Treasury 12 28 18 64%

Department of Homeland 

Security 13 23 13 57%

 32Office of Management and Budget, FY16 Capital Planning Guidance Addendum: IDC 

Common Definitions (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2014).

33An investment is considered to be primarily in development if at least 50 percent of fiscal 

year funding is allocated to development, modernization, and enhancement.

34We made the decision to select August 31, 2015 because it was the final day updated 

data would be publicly available before OMB discontinued updates of the IT Dashboard 

until the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2017 was released in February 2016.
Page 13 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Department/agency 

Number of 

major IT 

investments 

Number of 

projects 

associated 

with 

investments

Number of 

projects 

planning 

delivery of 

release every 6 

months

Percent 

planning 

release 

every 6 

months

Social Security 

Administration 9 24 12 50%

Department of 

Transportation 20 60 5 8%

Department of Defense 36 51 4 8%

All other federal agenciesa 30 42 22 52%

Total 169 469 300 64%

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data as of August 31, 2015. I GAO-16-469

a

Thirteen additional departments and agencies had at least one major IT investment and a total of 20 

or fewer projects. These agencies have been totaled together because calculating a percent of 

functionality delivered for a small number of projects does not provide a reliable figure.

The total governmentwide percentage of delivered functionality was 

significantly different across the federal agencies. In particular, 5 

agencies have 338 (approximately 72 percent) of the 469 software 

development projects that we examined. Three of these agencies have 

some of the highest percentages of functionality delivered among the 

federal government (over 75 percent), while the other 2 agencies have 

the lowest percentage of reported delivery (under 20 percent). Combined, 

these 5 agencies’ reported delivery largely determines the total 

governmentwide percentage. See appendix II for the status of 

incremental delivery as reported by the 22 federal departments and 

agencies.

Regarding the 169 projects (or 36 percent) that federal departments and 

agencies reported were not planning delivery of functionality every 6 

months, agencies provided a variety of explanations for not meeting that 

requirement, including project complexity, the lack of an established 

project release schedule, or that the project was not a software 

development project. For example,35

 35These numbers do not add up to 169 because the explanations given could fit into one 

or more of these examples. 
Page 14 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

• “No” or “not applicable” was reported for 65 projects, with the 

explanation that the project delivered functionality according to an 

approved acquisition schedule.

• “No” was reported for 34 projects with the rationale that the project 

was not a software development project or just included hardware 

upgrades or maintenance updates.

• “No” was reported for 22 projects with the explanation that, due to the 

project’s complexity, requirements, scope, or other factors, delivering 

every 6 months was not feasible.

• “No” or “not applicable” was reported for 20 projects indicating that the 

project was in the planning stage or not yet operational.

• “No” was reported for 15 projects with the explanation that the project 

only provided support or assistance for another project.

• “No” was reported for 7 projects with the rationale that a project 

release schedule or delivery date had not yet been determined.

• “Not applicable” was reported for 76 projects and 43 of those did not 

provide a rationale for why this rating was selected.

• 10 projects did not provide any response as to whether or not the 

project delivered functionality, even though OMB guidance requires 

agencies to respond to the question in the business case.

While OMB’s guidance states that all federal department and agency 

projects for major IT investments are required to deliver functionality at 

least every 6 months, staff from the OMB Office of E-Government and 

Information Technology noted that not all projects would benefit or fit into 

an incremental delivery model. According to the staff, this is because the 

CIOs require discretion in choosing the best software solution for agency 

needs. The staff further stated that OMB’s strategy was to ensure 

transparency by requiring agencies to make this information available 

online to enable the public to hold them accountable. The staff confirmed 

that language had not been included in its guidance related to what would 

be considered acceptable for not delivering functionality because each 

investment is unique and agencies have unique requirements. However, 

OMB staff said a “not applicable” response would be acceptable if the 

project is not a software project, but that it would prefer departments be 

more explicit with their response and state whether it is or is not a 

software development project. In addition, staff also said that there were 

no other reasons that would be acceptable for a “not applicable” 

response, with an exception for a project not being software development.
Page 15 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

While we acknowledge the issues OMB staff have raised, what OMB staff 

have cited as acceptable deviations from the use of incremental 

development do not align with OMB policy that incremental must be used 

for all major IT investments. In particular, OMB policy does not clearly 

outline the types of projects where the use of incremental development 

would not be appropriate and how departments and agencies should 

report the status of these non-software development projects.

Going forward, staff from the OMB Office of E-Government and 

Information Technology reported that departments and agencies will be 

required to use the previously-mentioned Agile software development 

framework for projects, which will be outlined in guidance being 

developed by OMB. According to the staff, as part of this guidance, 

agency CIOs will need to review each software development project to be 

certain that an Agile approach was considered. OMB staff stated that, as 

of August 2016, the Agile guidance was currently under review but did not 

know when it would be finalized. This new guidance, once finalized, has 

the potential to address agency confusion about non-software 

development projects and increase the use of incremental development 

practices across the federal government. However, until clear guidance is 

issued on how non-software development projects should be reported, 

the IT Dashboard may continue to contain inconsistent department and 

agency data on incremental delivery.
Page 16 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

A review of seven selected departments’ current software development 

projects found that the rate at which those departments reported their 

projects to us as having delivered functionality every 6 months was 45 

percent for fiscal year 2015, and 55 percent for planned delivery in fiscal 

year 2016. However, there are significant differences between the 

delivery rates these departments reported to us and what they reported 

on the IT Dashboard. This was due to inconsistencies in reporting nonsoftware development projects, the timing of reporting data, and a lack of 

support from four departments for reported delivery rates based on a 

review of sampled projects, particularly Defense.36 As a result of this lack 

of support, the percentage of useable functionality delivered for these 

departments may be lower than reported. Lastly, two factors continue to 

impact the delivery of functionality— management and organizational 

challenges that affected 6-month delivery time frames, and department 

projects where 6-month incremental development may not be 

appropriate.

The seven departments we reviewed reported that the percentage of 

software development projects that delivered functionality every 6 months 

was 45 percent for fiscal year 2015 and 55 percent for planned delivery in 

fiscal year 2016. However, reported delivery of functionality every 12 

months was significantly higher. Specifically, the seven departments we 

reviewed reported that more than 75 percent of their projects delivered 

functionality at least once a year for fiscal year 2015 and planned to 

deliver similar results for fiscal year 2016. For more details on the seven 

departments’ delivery of functionality, see appendix III.

The seven departments in our review reported to us that 129 active 

software development projects (45 percent), out of a total of 287, 

delivered functionality every 6 months, as required by OMB. Of the 287 

projects, 221 (77 percent) reported delivering useable functionality every 

12 months. Table 2 shows departments’ software development delivery 

by number and percentage for fiscal year 2015, as reported to us.

 36Defense did not provide all the requested information in time to be included in our 

review, and so we could not verify the department’s reported delivery rates for a sample of 

projects. 

Approximately Half of 

Selected Projects 

Reported Delivery of 

Functionality Every 

Six Months and 

Slightly More Than 

Three-Quarters Every 

Year

Projects Reported 

Delivering Functionality 

Every Six Months Less 

Than Half the Time

Fewer than half of selected 

projects delivered functionality 

every six months in fiscal year 

2015
Page 17 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 2: Selected Departments’ Software Development Projects and Reported 

Percent Delivering Functionality in Fiscal Year 2015, as Reported to GAO

Department

Total 

number of 

projects

Number 

every 6 

months 

Percent 

every 6 

months 

Number 

every 12 

months 

Percent 

every 12 

months 

Commerce 84 25 30% 56 67%

Defense 41 24 59% 35 85%

Education 19 9 47% 14 74%

Health and Human 

Services 58 43 74% 55 95%

Homeland Security 21 9 43% 13 62%

Transportation 27 8 30% 15 56%

Treasury 37 11 30% 33 89%

Total 287 129 45% 221 77%

Source: GAO analysis of department data. | GAO-16-469

Overall, the departments in our review reported to us that 113 (55 

percent) out of 206 software projects will deliver functionality every 6 

months in fiscal year 2016, an increase of 10 percentage points from 

fiscal year 2015. The total number of projects changed from 287 in fiscal 

year 2015 to 206 for fiscal year 2016 because 86 projects were 

completed in fiscal year 2015 and 5 projects were started in fiscal year 

2016. In addition, six of the seven departments (Commerce, Defense, 

Education, HHS, DHS, and Treasury) reported an increased rate of 6-

month functionality delivery from fiscal years 2015 to 2016, while 

Transportation reported a small decrease in delivered functionality. There 

was also a small increase of 5 percentage points from fiscal year 2015 in 

the number of projects that will deliver functionality every 12 months. 

Table 3 shows a breakdown of departments’ software development 

delivery rate by number and percentage for fiscal year 2016, as reported 

to us.

Slightly more than half of 

selected projects are to deliver 

functionality every six months 

during fiscal year 2016
Page 18 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 3: Selected Departments’ Software Development Projects and Reported 

Percent of Planned Delivery of Functionality in Fiscal Year 2016, as Reported to 

GAO

Department

Total 

number of 

projects

Number 

every 6 

months 

Percent 

every 6 

months 

Number 

every 12 

months

Percent 

every 12 

months

Commerce 67 34 51% 56 84%

Defense 38 24 63% 30 79%

Education 6 4 67% 6 100%

Health and Human 

Services 36 28 78% 36 100%

Homeland Security 18 11 61% 16 89%

Transportation 24 6 25% 14 58%

Treasury 17 6 35% 10 59%

Total 206 113 55% 168 82%

Source: GAO analysis of department data. | GAO-16-469

The number of software development projects and delivery of functionality 

reported by the seven departments on the IT Dashboard for fiscal year 

2016 was significantly different than what the departments reported to us. 

Specifically, the subset of the 7 departments in our review reported a total 

of 308 active projects on the IT Dashboard. However, these departments 

reported to us that they only had 206 active software projects. Table 4 

ranks the seven departments’ reported plans to deliver functionality on 

the IT Dashboard from highest to lowest, and compares those plans with 

the delivery plans they reported to us.

Information Reported by 

Selected Departments on 

the IT Dashboard Varied 

Significantly from Data 

Reported to Us
Page 19 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 4: Comparison of Software Development Projects Planning to Deliver a 

Release Every Six Months Reported on IT Dashboard and to GAO for Fiscal Year 

2016

Reported on IT Dashboard Reported to GAO

Department

Number of 

projects 

Number of 

projects 

planning to 

deliver

a release 

Number of 

projects 

Number of 

projects 

planning to 

deliver

a release 

Commerce 84 78 67 34

Health and 

Human Services 48 42 36 28

Education 14 11 6 4

Treasury 28 18 17 6

Homeland 

Security 23 13 18 11

Transportation 60 5 24 6

Defense 51 4 38 24

Total 308 171 206 113

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data as of August 31, 2015 and department data. | GAO-16-469

Each of the seven departments also reported a different percent of 

planned 6-month delivery of functionality than what was reported on the 

IT Dashboard. In four cases (Commerce, Education, HHS, and Treasury), 

the percentage of delivery reported to us decreased by at least 10 

percentage points from what was reported on the IT Dashboard. This was 

most notable for Commerce, where there was about a 42 percentage 

point decrease. The other three departments (Defense, DHS, and 

Transportation) reported an increase of at least 4 percentage points, 

though Defense reported a 55 percentage point increase from what was 

reported on the IT Dashboard. Figure 1 compares what the seven 

departments reported on the IT Dashboard from highest to lowest and the 

percentages they reported to us.
Page 20 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Figure 1: Comparison of Software Development Projects’ Percentage of Planned Delivery Every Six Months Reported on IT 

Dashboard and to GAO for Fiscal Year 2016

a

Defense did not provide the requested information in time to verify the information reported for a 

sample of projects.

One reason for the discrepancy between the reported delivery rates on 

the IT Dashboard and the delivery rates reported by the departments to 

us can be partly attributed to a difference in the number of software 

projects. Specifically, we identified fewer software development projects 

than were identified on the IT Dashboard. All seven departments reported 

to us that some projects were actually for project administration, 

architectural reviews, contractor support, information assurance, or other 

support activities, and did not include software development. In addition, 

Education, Defense, and Transportation reported that several projects 

involved the acquisition and deployment of hardware and other 

infrastructure like servers, data centers, radios, or runway lights. 

However, as we noted earlier, our review of projects reported on the 

Dashboard found that departments and agencies did not always 

consistently report whether the project was a software development 

project or not due to unclear OMB guidance, resulting in data that were 

not always accurate.
Page 21 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Another reason for the discrepancy is that information reported to us was 

generally more current than the information reported on the IT 

Dashboard. In particular, officials from the Office of the CIO from four of 

the seven departments in our review (Defense, Education, DHS, and 

HHS) stated that the departments were required to report this information 

on the IT Dashboard in September 2014, while the information provided 

to us was more current (i.e., reported between July and December 2015). 

One department official from Defense’s Office of the CIO stated that our 

review led the department to identify projects that were delivering 

functionality every 6 months that had not been included on the IT 

Dashboard. Another department official from HHS’s Office of the CIO 

stated that there could be a delay in reporting of project information to the 

IT Dashboard and that projects might have been completed but not 

reported as completed or had finalized their project data but not yet 

reported this to the IT Dashboard.

In addition, three departments (DHS, HHS, and Treasury) reported that 

certain projects were terminated or cancelled during the period of our 

review and so did not deliver functionality. DHS officials in the Office of 

the CIO reported that one project had been terminated because the 

scope and requirements of the project were too large and complex for the 

contractor. Officials from HHS’s Office of the CIO reported that two of its 

projects had been terminated due to lack of funding and two projects 

were being rolled into another project. Officials from the Office of the CIO 

at Treasury reported that two of its projects had been cancelled because 

they were merging with another project, which had related activities.

Lastly, not all departments in our review provided documentation to 

support what they reported to us regarding the delivery of functionality for 

their projects that we sampled.37 While three departments (Education, 

DHS, and Transportation) had documentation that useable functionality 

had been delivered for all sampled projects, three departments 

(Commerce, HHS and Treasury) only provided support for some of the 

projects. Defense did not provide the requested information in time to be 

included in our review, and so we could not verify the department’s 

 37We selected a stratified random sample of 54 active software development projects to 

determine whether there was documentation to support the departments’ reported 

definition of useable functionality and delivery of project functionality. More details 

regarding our sampling and methodology are provided in appendix I. 
Page 22 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

reported delivery rates for a sample of projects.38 Further, two projects 

(out of five sampled) at Treasury that reported delivering functionality 

every 6 months included the initial design and development of the 

software project components as well as the development and testing of 

the components as delivered functionality. However, Treasury reported 

that the department was using OMB’s definition of functionality, which 

recognizes only the rollout of new or improved capability to the end user 

as delivering functionality. Therefore, based on the definition, these 

projects were not delivering useable functionality every 6 months as the 

department had stated.

Officials from the Treasury Office of the CIO acknowledged this issue, but 

were unable to provide any additional information. Officials from the 

Commerce Office of the CIO confirmed that supporting documentation 

was not available in all cases because certain projects were internal 

department projects that did not have this documentation. Officials from 

the HHS Office of the CIO provided additional documentation but the 

documents did not support reported time frames for a few projects. As a 

result, it is not clear whether the departments actually delivered useable 

functionality, as they reported. Consequently, the percent of useable 

functionality delivered for these departments may be lower than reported.

As we have noted previously in this report, having accurate and reliable 

data on the status of major IT investment projects’ delivery of functionality 

is crucial for OMB and lawmakers, as well as the public, to make 

decisions regarding these investments and hold departments accountable 

for these projects and their related IT expenditures. However, there are 

inconsistencies in the major IT investment project information that each of 

the departments reported to us versus the information provided on the IT 

Dashboard. By not having up-to-date project information on whether the 

project is a software development project and the status of delivered 

functionality on the IT Dashboard, these seven departments are at risk 

that OMB and key stakeholders may make decisions regarding 

 38We did not review a sample of projects at Defense because the department was unable 

to provide information on 34 of 119 projects in time to be included in our review. 

Information on all an agency’s selected projects was necessary in order to perform a 

random sample. However, the other measures taken to ensure the reliability of the data 

Defense was able to provide, as discussed in appendix I, help to ensure those data are 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. 
Page 23 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

department investments without the most current and accurate 

information.

Department officials from the seven departments in our review reported 

that two factors continue to impact efforts to maximize the use of 

incremental development and deliver functionality every 6 months: (1) 

management and organizational challenges that affect 6-month delivery 

time frames, and (2) department projects where 6-month incremental 

development may not be appropriate.

Six of the seven departments (Commerce, Defense, HHS, DHS, 

Transportation, and Treasury) reported that various management and 

organizational issues such as project holds, delays, and contractor 

schedules had affected delivery time frames and created challenges for 

delivering functionality every 6 months. Specifically,

• Four departments (Commerce, Defense, DHS, and Treasury) 

reported that certain projects were currently on hold or in the process 

of developing a revised schedule with deliverables. Commerce Office 

of the CIO officials reported that one project had been placed on hold 

while the agency worked to determine next steps. Defense Office of 

the CIO officials reported that one project was currently being 

reassessed to ensure the IT solution was cost effective and could be 

delivered in shorter periods of time. Officials in DHS’s Office of the 

CIO reported that one project had been stopped in order to address 

technical issues and was in the process of rebaselining its schedule 

and that a new schedule for project deliverables would not be 

developed until after the end of our review. Treasury officials in the 

Office of the CIO reported that one project has been on hold since 

February 2014.

• Commerce officials reported that five projects couldn’t deliver 

functionality because the deliverable for another related project had 

not been completed.

• HHS officials from the Office of the CIO reported that two projects 

were enhancements or interfaces for particular systems and delivery 

time frames were therefore dependent on integration with those 

systems. The delivered functionality was being coordinated with the 

system release schedules and so would not deliver every 6 months.

• Transportation officials from the Office of the CIO reported that two 

projects would not always produce deliverables every 6 months 

Two Factors Impact 

Departments’ Delivery of 

Functionality

Management and 

organizational issues create 

challenges for delivering 

functionality every six months
Page 24 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

because the contractor determined the schedule of deliverables due 

to the complexity and size of the project.

• Treasury officials from the Office of the CIO reported that a few 

projects had experienced delays that led to functionality being 

delivered longer than 6-month increments.

The management and organizational challenges that the departments 

identified were similar to those identified in our prior work on incremental 

development,39 in which we noted that development schedules could be 

impeded by procurement schedules with contractors, or that making 

changes to requirements and project priorities affected delivery 

schedules. Although the departments in this review have made significant 

efforts to apply incremental development practices for their major IT 

investment projects, additional attention to and focus on delivering in 

smaller increments can help ensure that projects deliver capabilities to 

their users more rapidly, and reduce the risk of cost overruns and 

schedule slippages.

Six of the seven departments (Commerce, Education, Defense, HHS, 

Transportation, and Treasury) reported that they had certain types of 

investments or complex projects where they believed incremental 

development and a 6-month delivery schedule would not work. In 

particular,

• Three departments (Defense, HHS, and Treasury) reported that 

certain projects were transitioning to production or operations and 

maintenance during the period of our review and so would not deliver 

functionality.

• Officials from the Office of the CIO at Commerce reported that they 

had projects that were focused on research and prototyping and were 

not intended to deliver useable functionality to the end user.

• Defense officials from the Office of the CIO reported that several 

projects were not required to adhere to a 6-month delivery schedule 

due to department policy that allowed complex projects with hardware 

and software components to determine their own schedule for 

deliverables.

 39GAO-14-361. 

Six-month delivery time frames 

may not be appropriate for 

certain types of investments 

and complex projects
Page 25 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

• Education officials from the Office of the CIO reported that purchases, 

downloads, and renewals of software licenses, support systems 

including infrastructure, minor applications, and IT components in the 

production environment would not be appropriate for incremental 

development.

• Transportation officials from the Office of the CIO noted that certain 

projects, particularly for the Federal Aviation Administration, like those 

for the Next Generation Air Transportation System which is 

modernizing the national airspace, were unique to the federal 

government and could not meet a 6-month delivery schedule. In 

addition, investments that depend on non-IT related deliverables that 

can negatively impact the schedule would not be appropriate.

• Treasury officials from the Office of the CIO reported that most 

infrastructure projects such as tech refresh or modernization, new 

operating system upgrades, and follow-on projects for modernizing 

applications associated with an upgrade would not be appropriate for 

incremental delivery.

While some of these challenges were consistent with findings in our prior 

incremental work40—specifically, that infrastructure and research-oriented 

investments could have unique circumstances under which a 6-month 

schedule might not be appropriate—these types of situations should not 

exclude utilizing incremental practices. Using an incremental approach 

helps to reduce the risk of project failure and provides benefits to users in 

terms of faster delivered capabilities and easier incorporation of emerging 

technologies. To maximize the benefits of incremental development, it 

remains critical that federal departments continue to improve their use of 

this approach and deliver functionality to reduce the risk that these multimillion dollar projects will fail to meet their stated goals.

 40GAO-14-361. 
Page 26 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Provisions in FITARA, enacted in December 2014, state that in its annual 

IT capital planning guidance, OMB shall require covered agency CIOs to 

certify that IT investments are adequately implementing incremental 

development, as defined in the annual capital planning guidance issued 

by OMB.41 Subsequent OMB guidance on FITARA implementation issued 

in June 2015 directs each agency CIO to define IT processes and policies 

for their agency that ensure that the CIO certifies that IT resources are 

adequately implementing incremental development, which OMB defined 

in the guidance.42 In addition, OMB’s fiscal year 2017 capital planning 

guidance, issued in June 2015, requires agency CIOs to certify that each 

major IT investment’s plan for the current year adequately implements 

incremental development, which will be publicly reported on the IT 

Dashboard.43

However, although OMB’s requirement has been in place since June 

2015, of the seven departments we reviewed, only three departments 

(Commerce, DHS, and Transportation) have defined processes and 

policies to ensure that the department CIO will certify major IT 

investments are adequately implementing incremental development. 

Specifically, Commerce’s guidance requires bureau CIOs or other 

accountable officials44 to certify in writing confirming successful delivery of 

each incremental development activity while DHS’s policy requires each 

investment to undergo a technical review process, which includes a step 

for the CIO to certify whether the project is implementing incremental 

delivery at least every 6 months. In addition, Transportation’s policy 

includes the review and certification of adequate incremental 

development as part of the investment’s review by the department’s 

investment review board, which includes the department CIO.

 4140 U.S.C. § 11319(b)(1)(B)(ii).

42Office of Management and Budget, Management and Oversight of Federal Information 

Technology, M-15-14.

43Office of Management and Budget, FY2017 IT Budget – Capital Planning Guidance.

44OMB staff reported that, although it is acceptable for CIOs to delegate certification 

responsibility, the CIO is ultimately the person responsible for certification at the 

department. 

Selected 

Departments Have 

Not Fully 

Implemented a 

Statutorily Required 

Incremental Practice
Page 27 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Officials from three departments (Education, HHS and Treasury) reported 

that they were in the process of updating their existing incremental 

development policy to address certification. Specifically,

• Officials from the Office of the CIO at Education reported the

department has amended its Life Cycle Management Framework 

Guide to provide CIO certification as to whether or not IT resources 

are adequately implementing incremental development, and the guide 

is currently undergoing final review. The department expects this 

process to be finalized by September 2016.

• Officials from HHS’s Office of the CIO acknowledged that their current 

policy does not include certification but the department was in the 

process of finalizing new enterprise performance life cycle guidance

that would include a process for certification. The department however 

didn’t have a timeframe for when the formal review would be 

completed.

• Treasury officials from the Office of the CIO reported the department 

is in the process of updating its incremental development guidance, 

the Information System Life Cycle Manual, but that the document is 

still in draft and will not be implemented until mid-2017. In addition, 

the Treasury CIO reported that he had issued a department memo 

regarding CIO authority under FITARA and that additional guidance 

would be issued, but did not provide a time frame for when this would 

be accomplished.

Lastly, Defense’s policies that address incremental development did not 

include information on CIO certification. Specifically, officials from the 

Office of the CIO at Defense reported that its acquisition policies 

(Defense Directive 5000.01 and Instruction 5000.02) included information 

about incremental development and CIO certification. However, a review 

of the policies found that they do not explicitly indicate that the CIO will 

review all major IT investments to determine if the project applies 

adequate incremental development principles. Department officials stated 

that the department did not intend to institute a separate process for the 

CIO to certify incremental investments because the department believed 

that its existing processes were sufficient to ensure that investments were 

appropriately implementing incremental strategies. Defense officials 

further stated that their current processes were adequate for certification 

even if certification was not explicitly mentioned in the policies.

While OMB’s FITARA guidance requires covered agency CIOs to certify 

whether an investment uses adequate incremental development, the 

guidance is not specific on how CIOs should conduct this certification. 

According to OMB staff from the Office of E-Government and Information 
Page 28 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Technology, department CIOs should follow internal governance and IT 

capital planning for certification and should also use their best judgment 

as to whether the major IT investment current year plans should include 

incremental development and how the department should define 

“adequate” incremental development. OMB staff did note, however, that 

OMB was working with individual departments and agencies to increase 

their use of incremental development practices.

In addition, OMB staff reported that, although it is acceptable for CIOs to 

delegate certification responsibility, the CIO is ultimately the person 

responsible for certification at the department. Lastly, OMB staff noted 

that, while all major IT investments require CIO certification, certain 

investments do not lend themselves to incremental development, such as 

investments related to infrastructure or technology refreshment of 

equipment, and so the CIO should certify that incremental development is 

not applicable in those cases.

CIO certification of the use of adequate incremental development in a 

department’s IT investments is critical to ensuring that covered agency 

CIOs not only have the proper authority and oversight over major IT 

investments, but also to ensuring that OMB and lawmakers can hold 

CIOs accountable for the performance of major IT investments and their 

deliverables. However, until all the departments we reviewed define 

processes and policies for the certification of the adequate use of 

incremental development, they will not be able to fully ensure adequate 

implementation of, or benefit from, incremental development practices.

For the last 16 years, OMB has required agencies to implement an 

incremental development approach for their major IT investments—and 

for the last 4 years, has required these major investments to deliver 

functionality every 6 months—in order to deliver capabilities to users 

more rapidly and to reduce the risk that these multi-million dollar projects 

will fail. While federal departments and agencies report that 64 percent of 

investment projects plan to deliver functionality every 6 months for fiscal 

year 2016 on the IT Dashboard, shortcomings with OMB guidance—

specifically, the lack of clarity regarding the types of projects that should 

not use incremental development and how this information should be 

reported— has affected the accuracy of incremental data on the IT 

Dashboard. Forthcoming OMB guidance on Agile for software 

development projects may resolve this confusion for departments and 

agencies, but OMB has not determined when this new guidance will be 

finalized.

Conclusions
Page 29 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

While approximately half of the software projects that we reviewed 

reported delivering (or planning to deliver) functionality every 6 months 

and slightly more than three-quarters every year, departments are not 

using incremental approaches to the greatest extent possible. The 

significant differences we identified in the data reported to us versus what 

is on the IT Dashboard result from inconsistencies in reporting nonsoftware development projects, the timing of reporting data, and a lack of 

support for reported delivery rates, all of which affect the accuracy of 

reported delivery rates. It will be critical for the departments we reviewed 

to take action to address the consistency of their reporting. Additionally, 

the departments in our review reported that management and 

organizational challenges and the complexity and the uniqueness of 

projects impact their ability to deliver incrementally. While our prior work 

has concluded that a 6-month delivery schedule is not always suitable for 

an incremental approach—and OMB has confirmed not all projects fit this 

approach—it is still the responsibility of the departments to utilize 

incremental development as required by law. Delivering functionality on 

an incremental basis will also increase the likelihood these multi-million 

dollar projects will not fail.

Finally, provisions in FITARA requiring CIO certification of adequate 

incremental development will help to strengthen the use of incremental 

development practices throughout the federal government. However, four

of the seven departments in our review still need to take action to finalize 

policies to address OMB guidance in this area. It will be critical that OMB 

guidance is implemented to ensure CIOs exercise the proper authority 

and oversight over major IT investments and OMB and Congress can 

hold them accountable for major IT investment performance.

In order to improve the accuracy of IT Dashboard incremental 

development data, we recommend that the Director of OMB direct the 

Federal CIO to take the following action.

• Clarify existing guidance regarding what IT investments are and are 

not subject to requirements on the use of incremental development 

and how CIOs should report the status of projects that are not subject 

to these requirements.

To improve the quality of the seven departments’ information on project 

incremental delivery reported to the IT Dashboard, we recommend that 

the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 30 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, and the Treasury direct 

their CIOs to

• review major IT investment project data reported on the IT Dashboard 

and update the information as appropriate in the following areas: (1) 

whether the project is in-progress or complete; (2) whether the project 

is a software development project or not; and (3) the status of the 

delivery of functionality every 6 months, ensuring that these data are 

consistent across all reporting channels.

To improve the certification of adequate incremental development, we 

recommend that the Secretaries of Defense, Education, Health and 

Human Services, and the Treasury direct their CIOs to

• establish a department policy and process for the certification of major 

IT investments’ adequate use of incremental development, in 

accordance with OMB’s guidance on the implementation of FITARA.

We received comments on a draft of this report from OMB and the seven 

departments to which we made recommendations. Specifically, five 

departments agreed with our recommendations, Defense partially agreed 

with one and did not agree with another, OMB did not agree or disagree, 

and Treasury did not comment on our recommendations. Multiple 

departments also provided technical comments, which we incorporated 

as appropriate. The following is a detailed summary of each agency’s 

comments.

• In comments provided via e-mail on June 23, 2016, an OMB staff 

member from the Office of General Counsel did not specifically agree 

or disagree with our recommendation, but stated that OMB generally 

agreed with our report. The staff member also noted that, while OMB 

encourages CIOs to review investments for applicability of 

incremental development, it would not be in the best interest of the 

government to prescribe what specific criteria are needed to adopt an 

incremental approach given the nature of some complex systems and 

investments. However, we have previously reported that OMB’s policy 

does not clearly outline the types of projects where the use of 

incremental development would not be appropriate, such as 

infrastructure or research and development investments, nor does this 

policy detail how departments and agencies should report the status 

of these non-software development projects. As a result, incremental 

project data on the IT Dashboard are not always accurate. Until OMB 

issues guidance that explicitly details what investments are and are 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 31 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

not subject to incremental development requirements, agencies will 

continue to be unclear about how non-software development project

data are to be reported on the Dashboard. Based on this need for 

clarification, we believe our recommendation to OMB is appropriate.

• In written comments, Commerce concurred with our recommendation, 

and stated that the department would incorporate the 

recommendation into its CIO dashboard reporting. Commerce also 

provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as 

appropriate. Commerce’s comments are provided in appendix IV.

Our draft report provided to Commerce for comment included a 

recommendation that it establish a department policy and process for 

the certification of major IT investments’ adequate use of incremental 

development, in accordance with OMB’s guidance on the 

implementation of FITARA. In its written comments, Commerce stated 

that in response to our recommendation, the department had updated 

guidance in its Capital Planning and Investment Control Handbook on 

the use, definition, and certification of incremental development in 

accordance with guidance issued by OMB and on the implementation 

of FITARA. We reviewed a copy of this guidance, dated May 16, 

2016, and, as a result of Commerce’s action, we have removed the 

recommendation from our final report.

• In written comments, Defense partially concurred with our 

recommendation to review major IT investment project data reported 

on the IT Dashboard data and to update: project status; whether the 

project is software development or not; and whether the project is 

delivering functionality every 6 months. Defense noted that it was 

taking action to update IT Dashboard data as appropriate, but the 

department asserted that it considers other factors and information 

from key department stakeholders in rating investments on the IT 

Dashboard. However, our analysis shows a significant discrepancy in 

the incremental data reported on the Dashboard versus the data 

reported to us. In particular, on the Dashboard, Defense reported that 

only 8 percent of its projects delivered functionality in fiscal year 2016. 

However, the projects that we reviewed reported a 63 percent delivery 

rate to us—a 55 percentage point difference. Further, the department 

stated that it does not require that each investment be developed 

incrementally and provide capability every 6 months. OMB’s 

guidance, however, clearly states that all projects, regardless of 

whether they use incremental development principles, must produce 

usable functionality at least every 6 months. As such, it remains 

critical that Defense continue to improve the quality of its incremental 

data on the Dashboard and report the status of project compliance 
Page 32 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

with OMB guidance. Consequently, we believe our recommendation is 

appropriate.

In addition, the department did not concur with our recommendation to 

establish a department policy and process for certification of adequate 

incremental development in accordance with OMB’s guidance on the 

implementation of FITARA. Specifically, the department stated that its 

existing acquisition system includes policy and processes defined in 

Defense Directive 5000.01 and Defense Instruction 5000.02 regarding 

the use of incremental development, which was documented in the 

department’s approved FITARA implementation plan. However, 

OMB’s guidance dated June 10, 2015, clearly states that each 

department should define processes and policies to ensure that the 

CIO certifies the use of adequate incremental development for its IT 

investments. Both policies the department refers to, DoD Directive 

5000.01 and DoD Instruction 5000.02 (issued November 20, 2007,

and January 7, 2015, respectively) were issued prior to OMB’s 

guidance on FITARA (dated June 10, 2015). As we noted earlier, the

department’s policies do not require that the CIO review all major IT 

investments regarding the status of incremental development. It is 

important for agencies to comply with OMB’s June 2015 guidance, 

which sets forth the CIO’s roles and responsibilities in implementing a 

key aspect of the FITARA IT acquisition reforms regarding the 

certification of adequate incremental development. As we have 

previously noted, ensuring that CIOs appropriately consider the use of 

incremental development can help reduce the risk of investments 

delivering capabilities late and over-budget. Because Defense’s

policies do not address OMB’s guidance in this area, we believe our 

recommendation is appropriate. 

In its letter, the department also expressed the concern that agencies 

are required to report on measures and metrics via the IT Dashboard 

and other mechanisms that are not producing improvements in IT 

delivery or capability and that the time spent collecting and reporting 

this information could be spent conducting deeper analysis of a lesser 

number of key metrics. The department further calls for the 

government to adapt metrics from industry that are suitable and meet 

the government’s requirements. We believe the measurement of 

incremental development to be a key indicator of investment 

performance. We have repeatedly reported and testified on the 

importance of using incremental development to help ensure IT 

investments are delivered on time and provide the required capability. 

Given the importance of incremental development as a key enabler of 

project success, OMB’s requirement for investments to deliver 

incrementally and to publicly report compliance with this policy on the 
Page 33 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Dashboard holds agencies accountable for the success of their 

investments. Further, oversight of these data remains critical given 

that our work found significant discrepancies between what agencies 

reported on the Dashboard versus what was reported to us, as 

detailed earlier. As such, we continue to believe such metrics and 

data help to improve the transparency and management of federal IT 

investments.

The department also did not concur with a footnote that stated that the 

department did not provide requested information in time to be 

included in our review. Specifically, the department noted that some 

data was delivered on time and suggested alternate language 

recognizing this. We have incorporated technical changes to the draft, 

as appropriate, to address this comment. 

Finally, the department did not concur with a statement made in the 

draft regarding Defense officials’ intention to not develop a separate 

process for CIO certification of adequate incremental development 

principles. Specifically, the department noted that a separate process 

was unnecessary and not cost effective, and that existing processes 

would meet OMB’s requirement. However, as we noted previously, 

the existing guidance that the department refers to was issued before

OMB’s guidance on the implementation of FITARA and, based upon 

our review, does not address OMB’s guidance in this area. We have 

incorporated technical changes to the draft, as appropriate, to address 

this comment. Defense’s comments are provided in appendix V.

• In written comments, Education concurred with our recommendations, 

and stated that the department would ensure the information on the IT 

Dashboard is kept current and would also finalize and implement a 

policy for CIO certification by September 2016. Education’s comments 

are provided in appendix VI.

• In comments provided via e-mail on June 9, 2016, a management 

analyst from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Legislation stated that the department 

concurred with our recommendation and had no other comments. 

HHS also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated 

as appropriate.

• In written comments, DHS concurred with our recommendation and 

stated that a component of the department’s Office of the CIO would 

validate each DHS investment on the IT Dashboard and work to 

ensure that program data is appropriately updated. DHS also provided 

technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

DHS’s written comments are provided in appendix VII.
Page 34 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

• In comments provided via e-mail on June 3, 2016, Transportation’s 

Director of Audit Relations and Program Improvement in the Office of 

the Secretary stated that the department concurred with the findings 

and recommendations in our report.

Our draft report provided to Transportation for comment included a 

recommendation that Transportation establish a department policy 

and process for the certification of major IT investments’ adequate 

use of incremental development, in accordance with OMB’s guidance 

on the implementation of FITARA. In addition to comments on the 

draft, the department provided a copy of Transportation’s Investment 

Management Process Guidance, finalized in June 2016. The 

guidance includes information on the department’s process for CIO 

certification of adequate incremental development in accordance with 

guidance issued by OMB and on the implementation of FITARA. We 

reviewed a copy of this guidance and, as a result of Transportation’s 

action, we have removed the recommendation from our final report.

• In comments provided via e-mail on June 16, 2016, a GAO liaison 

from Treasury’s Office of the CIO stated that the department did not 

have comments on the draft and did not comment on our 

recommendations. Treasury also provided technical comments, which 

we have incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed to with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested 

congressional committees; the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, 

Homeland Security, Education, Health and Human Services, 

Transportation, and the Treasury; and the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget and other interested parties. This report will 

also be available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov.
Page 35 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VIII.

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology

 Management Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Our objectives for this engagement were to (1) describe the number of 

major information technology (IT) investments identified on the IT 

Dashboard as primarily in development and reporting the delivery of 

functionality every 6 months; (2) assess selected departments’ and 

investments’ delivery of incremental functionality and determine the 

factors affecting delivery rates; and (3) assess the quality and 

completeness of selected departments’ plans to employ incremental 

development practices.

To address our first objective, we obtained and analyzed major IT 

investment project data reported on the IT Dashboard as of August 31, 

2015. We chose this date because it was the final day updated data 

would be publicly available before OMB discontinued its updates of the IT 

Dashboard until the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2017 was 

released.1 The IT Dashboard updates resumed on February 25, 2016, 

which would have been too late to allow us to complete this analysis in 

time to be published in this report.

Initially, we analyzed the data of major IT investment projects that were 

planning to allocate 50 percent or more to development, modernization, 

and enhancement activities for fiscal year 2016, which was the first year 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) required agencies to report 

this information. We then determined the total number of investment 

projects for each agency reporting a production release every 6 months, 

identifying a total of 169 major IT investments and 545 active projects. 

We then excluded 76 projects from the total count where an agency 

reported that a production release was not applicable because it was not 

a software development project. We also reviewed and summarized 

agency responses reported on the IT Dashboard for projects that did not 

deliver functionality every 6 months.

For our second objective, we selected the seven departments reporting a 

minimum of 12 investments at least 50 percent or more in development 

 1

We have previously reported that because OMB does not update the IT Dashboard 

during the formulation of the President’s budget request (normally from September to 

February), OMB has decreased the utility of the Dashboard as a tool for oversight and 

transparency of major IT investments. See GAO, IT Dashboard: Agencies Are Managing 

Investment Risk, but Related Ratings Need to Be More Accurate and Reliable, 

GAO-14-64 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2013) for more details.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

on the IT Dashboard for fiscal year 2015: the Departments of Commerce 

(Commerce), Defense (Defense), Education, Health and Human Services 

(HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation, and the Treasury. We 

compiled a list of each department’s major IT investment projects that 

were in progress as of October 1, 2014, (fiscal year 2015) using data 

obtained from the IT Dashboard as of April 1, 2015. We asked each 

department’s Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to confirm the 

accuracy and completeness of the list of projects for fiscal years 2015 

and 2016 and to make corrections where needed, including identifying 

any projects that were not software development or had been completed 

prior to October 1, 2014. We excluded: (1) 206 non-software development 

projects because the delivery of useable functionality2 would generally not 

be applicable to non-software development projects and (2) 114 projects 

which departments confirmed were outside the scope of our review.

We then administered a data collection instrument to each of the seven 

departments from June to August 2015 to obtain information on the 

departments’ delivery and planned delivery of useable functionality during 

fiscal years 2015 and 2016. We prepopulated these instruments with 

each department’s verified list of projects and asked officials to indicate 

for each project either a “yes,” “no,” or “not applicable” regarding whether 

they planned to deliver functionality in the first half and second half of 

fiscal years 2015 and 2016.3 We also asked each of the projects to 

provide a rationale for a “no” or “not applicable” response and to identify 

what definition of useable functionality the project was using (i.e., OMB’s 

definition, an agency definition, an operating level definition, an 

investment definition, a project definition, or not defined).

Using the information obtained through the data collection instruments, 

we determined the extent to which each major IT investment project 

 2

The Office of Management and Budget defines useable functionality as any changes to 

an IT system that primarily provides new or improved capability to the end user. This may 

include interface changes or improved user experience. Modifications that only improve a 

non-user-facing element (such as security patching or strengthened backup processes) 

should not be included. 

3

Departments were asked to confirm whether each project delivered functionality during 

the following four time periods: (1) the first half of fiscal year 2015 (i.e. from October 1, 

2014, to March 31, 2015); (2) the second half of fiscal year 2015 (i.e. April 1, 2015, to 

September 30, 2015); (3) the first half of fiscal year 2016; and (4) the second half of fiscal 

year 2016. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

planned to meet OMB’s guidance on incremental development. To 

assess whether projects planned to deliver functionality every 6 months, 

we analyzed the responses for each of the four time periods and totaled 

the number of projects reporting “yes” for both time periods in fiscal year 

2015 and both time periods in fiscal year 2016. We also assessed 

whether the projects planned to deliver functionality every 12 months 

because our prior work on incremental development noted that a 6-month 

delivery time frame may not be appropriate for all types of investments 

and a 12-month time frame might be more appropriate as a starting 

point.4 For this assessment, we totaled the number of projects reporting a 

“yes” at least once in either half of fiscal year 2015 and at least once in 

either half of fiscal year 2016.

To minimize errors that might occur from respondents interpreting our 

instrument differently from our intended purpose, we pretested the data 

collection instrument in person and by phone in three rounds of testing 

with officials from the Office of the CIO at three departments (Commerce, 

HHS, and DHS). The selection of the departments for pretesting was 

based on department availability to assist us with pretesting and variation 

in the number of investment projects among the departments. During 

these pretests, we asked department officials to complete the instrument 

as we observed the process. We then interviewed the respondents to 

ascertain whether the instructions and column labels were applicable, 

clear, unambiguous, and easy to understand.

All departments completed the data collection instrument by August 2015 

except Defense.5 Once all department responses were received, we 

reviewed the responses and followed up with department officials to 

clarify the responses as needed. We also interviewed officials in the 

Office of the CIO at each selected department to obtain information on 

department policies and other guidance related to incremental 

development. We presented our results to each department and solicited 

their input and explanations for the results in March 2016. Six

departments (Commerce, Defense, Education, HHS, DHS, and 

 4

GAO, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish and Implement Incremental 

Development Policies, GAO-14-361 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2014). 

5

Defense provided data on 42 projects in December 2015, 43 projects in January 2016, 

and 34 projects in April 2016. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Transportation) asserted that additional projects were not software 

development projects or provided updated information on the status of 

delivered functionality, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

To help determine the reliability of the data provided in the data collection 

instrument, we selected a stratified random sample6 of 54 projects at six 

of the seven departments and collected supporting documentation for the 

responses given. However, we did not review a sample of projects at 

Defense because the department was unable to provide the requested 

information for 34 projects until April 2016, which was too late to be 

included in our report. We therefore could not verify its reported delivery 

rates for a sample of projects since our methodology required that we 

have information on all of a department’s projects in order to perform a 

random sample. For the six departments that we did sample, we grouped 

each of the projects reported in the instruments into two categories, either 

“yes” if the project had reported the delivery of functionality in at least one 

time period or “no/not applicable” if the project did not report the delivery 

of functionality in at least one time period.

For each of the sampled projects, we obtained and analyzed project 

documentation, including project delivery schedules or other artifacts that 

identified delivered or planned-to-be-delivered functionality and 

department or bureau-level guidance that included a definition of useable 

functionality. In five instances for the sample of “yes” projects, the 

department reported that the status of delivered or planned functionality 

was incorrect and we updated the “yes” response in the data collection 

instrument to either a “no” or “not applicable,” as appropriate. Due to 

these changes and the inability to sample projects at Defense, the 

percentage of useable functionality may be lower than reported. However, 

our other measures to ensure the reliability of the data reported by the 

departments ensure the data is sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this 

report.

To address our third objective, we analyzed the seven selected 

departments’ policies and plans for implementing CIO certification of 

adequate incremental development to determine whether they were 

 6

A stratified random sample is a sample design by first classifying the population into 

several strata (or subdivisions of a population) and then taking a random sample from 

each stratum. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

consistent with provisions of the Federal Information Technology 

Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) 7 that states that OMB is to require in its 

annual IT capital planning guidance that covered agency CIOs certify that 

IT investments are adequately implementing incremental development. 

To do so, we reviewed the guidance that OMB subsequently issued and 

the status of the selected departments’ plans to implement the guidance. 

In addition, we interviewed staff from OMB’s Office of E-Government and 

Information Technology regarding OMB guidance related to incremental 

development and FITARA.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2015 to August 2016, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 7

40 U.S.C. § 11319(b)(1)(B)(ii). Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform 

provisions of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, div. A, title VIII, subtitle D, 128 Stat. 3292, 

3438-3450 (Dec. 19, 2014). 
Appendix II: Federal Agency Major IT 

Investment Projects Reported Plans to Deliver 

Functionality on the IT Dashboard for Fiscal 

Year 2016

Page 41 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 5 lists the total number of federal department and agency software 

development projects primarily in development that reported plans to 

deliver functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 2016 on the IT 

Dashboard as of August 31, 2015.

Table 5: Federal Agency Software Development Project Plans to Deliver 

Functionality Every 6 Months for Fiscal Year 2016, as Reported on the IT Dashboard

Department/agency

Number of 

major 

investments 

Number of 

projects 

associated with 

investments

Number of 

projects planning 

delivery of release 

every 6 months

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 4 11 8

Department of Commerce 9 84 78

Department of Defense 36 51 4

Department of Education 12 14 11

Department of Energy 2 1 1

Department of Health and 

Human Services 18 48 42

Department of Homeland 

Security 13 23 13

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 1 3 0

Department of the Interior 3 0 0

Department of Justice 1 1 0

Department Labor 3 5 3

Department of State 5 6 2

Department of Transportation 20 60 5

Department of the Treasury 12 28 18

Department of Veterans 

Affairs 10 95 95

Environmental Protection 

Agency 3 6 1

General Services 

Administration 4 5 5

National Archives and 

Records Administration 1 4 2

Office of Personnel 

Management 1 0 0

Small Business 

Administration 1 0 0

Social Security Administration 9 24 12

Appendix II: Federal Agency Major IT 

Investment Projects Reported Plans to 

Deliver Functionality on the IT Dashboard for 

Fiscal Year 2016
Appendix II: Federal Agency Major IT 

Investment Projects Reported Plans to Deliver 

Functionality on the IT Dashboard for Fiscal 

Year 2016

Page 42 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Department/agency

Number of 

major 

investments 

Number of 

projects 

associated with 

investments

Number of 

projects planning 

delivery of release 

every 6 months

U.S. Agency for International 

Development 1 0 0

Total 169 469 300

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data. I GAO-16-469
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 43 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

For each of the seven departments in our review, the following sections 

provide a brief summary of the discretionary budget and IT investment 

information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 and the status of incremental 

development for software development investments primarily in 

development for these fiscal years as reported to us by the departments.

In some cases, the totals noted in the breakdown of IT spending may not 

add up to the total IT spending reported on the IT Dashboard due to 

rounding.

Figure 2 and table 6 highlight the status of incremental development at 

the Department of Commerce for software development investments 

primarily in development for fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

Figure 2: Department of Commerce Budget and Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software Development Projects 

Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Department of Commerce
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 44 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 6: Status of Department of Commerce Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality in Fiscal 

Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016 

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal 

year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality in 

fiscal year

Census - 2020 

Decennial Census 

Research and Testing, 

Operational 

Development, and 

Systems Testing, Fiscal

Year 2015 – Fiscal 

Year 2018 $74.13 17 6 9 $199.29 17 11 11

Census - Census 

Enterprise Data 

Collection and 

Processing $66.17 11 9 10 $77.62 11 11 11

Commerce Business 

Application Solutions $40.93 1 0 0 $44.09 1 0 0

Commerce Enterprise 

Security Operations 

Center $5.02 1 1 1 $5.18 1 1 1

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration/National 

Weather Service/ 

Integrated 

Dissemination Program $44.77 3 3 3 $0 3 3 3

United States Patent 

and Trademark Office 

Fee Processing Next 

Generation $17.86 13 0 2 $11.98 10 6 7

United States Patent 

and Trademark Office 

Patent End-to-End 2 $116.82 14 1 12 $117.31 15 2 14

United States Patent 

and Trademark Office 

Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board End to End $12.68 2 1 2 $11.46 1 0 1

United States Patent 

and Trademark Office 

Patents End-to-End: 

Software Engineering $13.70 10 1 6 $0 0 0 0
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 45 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016 

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal 

year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality in 

fiscal year

United States Patent 

and Trademark Office 

Trademark Next 

Generation External $11.28 6 2 5 $4.62 3 0 3

United States Patent 

and Trademark Office 

Trademark Next 

Generation 2 $29.84 6 1 6 $21.17 5 0 5

Total $433.20 84 25 56 $492.72 67 34 56

Sources: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and department data. | GAO-16-469

Note: Department budget and investment spending information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 was 

obtained from the IT Dashboard on August 31, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively. The 

department provided updated project information in March 2016. Fiscal year 2016 represents 

department-reported planned spending as we are currently in the fiscal year.
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 46 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Figure 3 and table 7 highlight the status of incremental development at 

the Department of Defense for software development investments 

primarily in development for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 as reported to us.

Figure 3: Department of Defense Budget and Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software Development Projects 

Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 47 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 7: Status of Department of Defense Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality for Fiscal 

Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment Name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality in 

fiscal year

Advanced Field Artillery 

Tactical Data System $40.14 2 1 2 $30.20 1 0 0

Air Force Integrated 

Personnel and Pay 

System $68.64 1 0 0 $45.20 1 0 0

Aviation Tactical 

Communication 

Systems $53.11 1 0 1 $29.87 1 0 0

Common Aviation 

Command and Control 

System Increment 1 $53.88 1 1 1 $51.45 1 1 1

Consolidated Afloat 

Network Enterprise 

Services $395.45 1 1 1 $364.37 1 1 1

Defense Agencies 

Initiative Increment 2 $72.28 2 1 2 $69.62 2 0 0

Defense Enterprise 

Accounting and 

Management SystemIncrement 1 $128.46 1 0 1 $171.11 1 1 1

Distributed Common 

Ground System – Army 

Increment 1 $212.48 1 0 1 $0.00 1 0 1

Global Broadcast 

Service $60.94 1 0 0 $30.78 1 1 1

Installation Information 

Infrastructure 

Modernization Program $71.33 1 1 1 $69.22 1 1 1

Integrated Electronic 

Health Record 

Increment 1 $94.86 2 1 2 $18.30 2 0 1

Integrated Personnel 

and Pay System- Army 

Increment 2 $85.40 1 1 1 $140.46 1 0 0

Joint Battle CommandPlatform $92.32 2 2 2 $136.07 2 2 2

Joint Space Operations 

Center Mission System 

Increment 1 $.16 1 0 0 $0.00 1 0 0
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 48 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment Name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality in 

fiscal year

Joint Space Operations 

Center Mission System 

Increment 2 $73.93 1 0 0 $69.29 1 1 1

Logistics Modernization 

Program Increment 2 $125.56 1 0 1 $93.81 1 1 1

Multifunctional 

Information Distribution 

System $94.49 5 5 5 $106.60 5 5 5

Next Generation 

Operational Control 

System $238.40 1 0 1 $294.24 1 0 1

Tactical Mission 

Command $141.16 1 0 0 $141.73 1 0 1

Theater Battle

Management Core 

System $41.11 3 0 2 $28.43 2 0 2

Theater Medical 

Information Program 

Joint Increment 2 $86.66 6 6 6 $62.17 6 6 6

Warfighter Information 

Network Tactical 

Increment 1 $349.85 1 1 1 $221.22 1 1 1

Warfighter Information 

Network Tactical 

Increment 2 $421.26 3 2 3 $501.21 2 2 2

Warfighter Information 

Network Tactical 

Increment 3 $113.16 1 1 1 $39.70 1 1 1

Total $3.12 

billion 41 24 35

$2.72 

billion 38 24 30

Sources: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and department data. | GAO-16-469

Note: Department budget and investment spending information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 was 

obtained from the IT Dashboard on August 31, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively. The 

department provided updated project information in April 2016. Fiscal year 2016 represents 

department-reported planned spending as we are currently in the fiscal year.
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 49 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Figure 4 and table 8 highlight the status of incremental development at 

the Department of Education for software development investments

primarily in development for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 as reported to us.

Figure 4: Department of Education Budget and Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software Development Projects 

Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

Department of Education
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 50 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 8: Status of Department of Education Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality for Fiscal 

Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality in 

fiscal year

Contracts and 

Purchasing Support 

System $4.35 4 0 4 $3.58 3 3 3

Educational 

Assessment $13.64 2 2 2 $23.68 0 0 0

Enterprise Trusted 

Internet Connection $1.45 2 2 2 $1.77 1 0 1

Institute of Educational 

Sciences Knowledge 

Utilization $10.48 5 3 4 $14.93 1 1 1

Integrated Student 

Experience $2.25 3 2 2 $2.64 1 0 1

National Center for 

Education Statistics 

Administrative Data $8.73 3 0 0 $4.57 0 0 0

Total $40.90 19 9 14 $51.17 6 4 6

Sources: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and department data. | GAO-16-469

Note: Department budget and investment spending information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 was 

obtained from the IT Dashboard on August 31, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively. The 

department provided updated project information in March 2016. Fiscal year 2016 represents 

department-reported planned spending as we are currently in the fiscal year.
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 51 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Figure 5 and table 9 highlight the status of incremental development at 

the Department of Health and Human Services for software development 

investments primarily in development for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 as 

reported to us.

Figure 5: Department of Health and Human Services Budget and Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software 

Development Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

Department of Health and 

Human Services
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 52 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 9: Status of Department of Health and Human Services Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of 

Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Centers for Disease 

Control and 

Prevention National 

Select Agent 

Platform $ 5.70 1 0a 1 $3.21 0 0 0

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services 

Accountable Care 

Organizations $ 22.35 1 1 1 $20.58 1 1 1

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services Federally 

Facilitated 

Marketplace $ 373.51 3 3 3 $365.24 2 2 2

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services Fraud 

Prevention System $ 27.80 1 1 1 $25.42 1 0a 1

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services Healthcare 

Quality End Stage 

Renal Disease 

Systems $ 40.43 2 2 2 $0.00 2 2 2

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services 

International 

Classification of 

Diseases-10 Initiative $ 20.29 1 1 1 $18.21 1 0 1

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services Medicaid & 

Children’s Health 

Insurance Program 

Business Information 

and Solutions $ 12.04 2 2 2 $46.34 2 2 2
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 53 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services Master 

Data Management $16.74 1 1 1 $15.60 1 1 1

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services MedicareMedicaid Financial 

Alignment $ 13.12 3 2a 3 $13.82 2 2 2

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Services Physician 

Feedback Program $ 14.18 1 1 1 $10.16 0 0 0

Federal Health 

Architecture $ 3.52 1 1 1 $1.20 1 1 1

Food and Drug 

Administration 

Center for Drug 

Evaluation and 

Research Integrated 

Data Management $ 19.50 3 2 2 $20.55 3 3 3

Food and Drug 

Administration Office 

of Regulatory Affairs 

Automated 

Laboratory 

Management $ 15.40 8 8 8 $14.52 5 4 5

Food and Drug 

Administration Office 

of Regulatory Affairs 

Mission 

Accomplishments 

and Regulatory 

Compliance Services $ 23.92 13 2 12 $22.36 8 4 8

Food and Drug 

Administration Office 

of Regulatory Affairs 

Regulatory Business 

Information Services $ 13.60 4 4 4 $14.33 4 4 4

Health and Human 

Services Unified 

Financial 

Management System 

Investment $ 71.26 2 2 2 $20.01 2 2 2
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 54 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Health Resources 

and Services 

Administration -

Bureau of Primary 

Health Care 

Management 

Information System $ 24.50 10 10 10 $26.20 0 0 0

Office of the 

Secretary Office of 

Medicare Hearings 

and Appeals 

Electronic Case 

Adjudication 

Processing 

Environment 

(Investment) $ 8.48 1 0 0 $15.09 1 0 1

Total $ 726.34 58 43 55 $652.84 36 28 36

Sources: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and department data. | GAO-16-469

a

Project(s) within this investment were completed during the fiscal year and were therefore not 

counted as delivering every 6 months in both applicable time periods.

Note: Department budget and investment spending information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 was 

obtained from the IT Dashboard on August 31, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively. Fiscal year 

2016 represents department-reported planned spending as we are currently in the fiscal year.
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 55 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Figure 6 and table 10 highlight the status of incremental development at 

the Department of Homeland Security for software development 

investments primarily in development for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 as 

reported to us.

Figure 6: Department of Homeland Security Budget and Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

Department of Homeland 

Security
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 56 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 10: Status of Department of Homeland Security Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality 

for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency -

Non-Disaster Grants $8.50 3 0 1 $8.51 4 0 4

Transportation Security 

Administration –

Security Technology 

Integrated Program $14.25 5 5 5 $14.58 5 5 5

Transportation Security 

Administration -

Technology 

Infrastructure 

Modernization Program $42.71 3 1 1 $41.94a 3 1 1

United States Coast 

Guard - Command, 

Control, 

Communications, 

Computers, Intelligence, 

Surveillance and 

Reconnaissance $36.30 3 0 2 $36.60 1 1 1

United States 

Citizenship and 

Immigration Services –

Transformation $177.27 5 1 2 $175.78 3 2 3

United States Secret 

Service - Information 

Integration and 

Technology 

Transformation $45.59 2 2 2 $46.29 2 2 3

Total $324.62 21 9 13 $323.70 18 11 16

Sources: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and department data. | GAO-16-469

a

The Technology Infrastructure Modernization Program’s fiscal year 2016 spending amount reflects 

the amount included in DHS’s budget justification.

Note: Department budget and investment spending information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 was 

obtained from the IT Dashboard on August 31, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively. The 

department provided updated project information in March 2016. Fiscal year 2016 represents 

department-reported planned spending as we are currently in the fiscal year. In addition, the 

Transportation Security Administration’s Technology Infrastructure Modernization Program is a single 

IT development effort divided into 3 sequential projects, and delivery on the second and third projects 

cannot begin until the first project is complete. While each of the project delivery time frames were 

staggered so delivery of functionality occurred for the investment every 3 months, the projects could 

not be counted as delivering every 6 months since there was only one deliverable.
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 57 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Figure 7 and table 11 highlight the status of incremental development at 

the Department of Transportation for software development investments 

primarily in development for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 as reported to us.

Figure 7: Department of Transportation Budget and Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

Department of 

Transportation
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 58 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 11: Status of Department of Transportation Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality for 

Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment Name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX102: 

Terminal Flight Data 

Manager $41.08 1 0 0 $16.48 1 0 0

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX115: 

Terminal Automation 

Modernization and 

Replacement 

Program $350.65 3 1 3 $445.85 3 2 2

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX169: 

Wide Area 

Augmentation 

System $120.54 2 0 0 $129.81 2 0 2

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX505: 

En Route Automation 

Modernization 

System 

Enhancements and 

Tech Refresh $46.93 1 1 1 $81.50 1 0 1

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX610: 

Aviation Safety 

Knowledge 

Management $14.91 2 0 0 $12.67 2 0 1

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX612: 

System Approach for 

Safety Oversight $37.86 1 1 1 $30.22 1 1 1

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX703: 

System Wide 

Information 

Management $40.79 3 1 3 $35.17 3 1 1
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 59 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment Name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal year

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX704: 

Automatic 

Dependent 

SurveillanceBroadcast $264.16 6 4 6 $202.12 3 2 2

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX711: 

Data 

Communications 

Next Generation 

Support $152.88 2 0 1 $237.75 2 0 1

Federal Aviation 

AdministrationXX713: 

Next Generation 

National Airspace 

System Voice 

System $25.30 1 0 0 $58.90 1 0 0

Federal Highway 

AdministrationX031: 

Fiscal Management 

Information System 

5.0 $4.05 1 0 0 $1.92 1 0 1

Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety 

Administration100: 

Unified Registration 

System $3.19 4 0 0 $3.83 4 0 2

Total $1.10 

billion 27 8 15 $1.25 billion 24 6 14

Sources: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and department data. | GAO-16-469

Note: Department budget and investment spending information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 was 

obtained from the IT Dashboard on August 31, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively. The 

department provided updated project information in March 2016. Fiscal year 2016 represents 

department-reported planned spending as we are currently in the fiscal year.
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 60 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Figure 8 and table 12 highlight the status of incremental development at 

the Department of the Treasury for software development investments 

primarily in development for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 as reported to us.

Figure 8: Department of the Treasury Budget and Investment Information and Status of Major IT Software Development 

Projects Delivering Functionality for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

Department of the 

Treasury
Appendix III: Assessment of Selected 

Departments’ Status of Incremental 

Development

Page 61 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Table 12: Status of Department of the Treasury Major IT Software Development Investments’ Delivery of Functionality for 

Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, as Reported to GAO

Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016

Investment name

Spending 

(millions)

Number 

of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal 

year

Spending 

( millions)

Number of 

projects 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

every 6 

months 

Number 

delivering 

functionality 

in fiscal 

year

Affordable Care Act 

Administration $373.00 6 2 5 $303.20 3 0a 3

Customer Account 

Data Engine 2 $130.93 3 0 3 $135.34 0 0 0

FedDebt $21.39 4 3 4 $32.11 0 0 0

Foreign Account Tax 

Compliance Act $62.61 7 0 5 $89.09 7 0 1

Over the Counter 

Channel Application $21.70 3 0 3 $21.11 0 0 0

Payment Application 

Modernization $ 8.53 3 1 3 $0.00 0 0 0

Post Payment 

System $15.74 4 0 4 $0.00 0 0 0

Return Review 

Program (Previously 

Implement Return 

Review Program -

Replaces Electronic 

Fraud Detection 

System) $63.60 2 1 1 $91.90 2 1 1

Treasury Enterprise 

Identity, Credential 

and Access 

Management $54.90 5 4 5 $20.88 5 5 5

Total $752.40 37 11 33 $693.63 17 6 10

Sources: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and department data. | GAO-16-469

a

Project(s) within this investment were completed during the fiscal year and were therefore not 

counted as delivering every 6 months in both applicable time periods.

Note: Department budget and investment spending information for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 was 

obtained from the IT Dashboard on August 31, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively. Fiscal year 

2016 represents department-reported planned spending as we are currently in the fiscal year.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 62 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 63 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 64 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 65 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 66 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 67 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Education
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security

Page 68 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security

Page 69 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security

Page 70 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 71 GAO-16-469 Incremental Development

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

In addition to the individual named above, the following staff made key 

contributions to this report: Dave Hinchman (Assistant Director), Valerie 

Hopkins (Analyst in Charge), Gerard Aflague, Jim Ashley (Assistant 

Director), Chris Businsky, Neil Doherty, Mary Evans, Nancy Glover, Angel 

Ip, Stuart Kaufman, Lori Martinez, Carl Ramirez (Assistant Director), 

Bradley Roach, and Andrew Stavisky.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100089)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.