a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2004 ELECTRONIC 

GOVERNMENT

Federal Agencies Have 

Made Progress 

Implementing the 

E-Government Act of 

2002

GAO-05-12
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-12.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Linda D. 

Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or 

koontzl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-12, a report to 

congressional requesters 

December 2004

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT 

Federal Agencies Have Made Progress 

Implementing the E-Government Act of 

2002 

The E-Government Act (E-Gov Act) 

of 2002 was enacted to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to 

improve government services for 

citizens, internal government 

operations, and opportunities for 

citizen participation in government. 

The act directs the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

and federal agencies to take 

specific actions to promote 

electronic government. GAO was 

asked to review the 

implementation status of major 

provisions from Titles I and II of 

the act, which include provisions 

covering a wide range of activities 

across the federal government. 

GAO is making recommendations 

to OMB regarding implementation 

of the act in the areas of 

e-government approaches to crisis 

preparedness, contractor 

innovation, and federally funded 

research and development, to help 

ensure that the act’s objectives are 

achieved. 

In commenting on a draft of this 

report, officials from the 

Department of Homeland Security, 

General Services Administration, 

and OMB generally agreed with its 

content and recommendations. 

In most cases, OMB and federal agencies have taken positive steps toward 

implementing provisions of Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act that GAO 

reviewed. For example, OMB established the Office of E-Government, 

designated its Assistant Director for Information Technology (IT) and 

E-Government as the office’s Administrator in April 2003, and published 

guidance to federal agencies on implementing the act in August 2003. Apart 

from general requirements applicable to all agencies (which GAO did not 

review), in most cases, OMB and designated federal agencies have taken 

action to address the act’s requirements within stipulated time frames. For 

example, OMB established the Interagency Committee on Government 

Information in June 2003, within the deadline prescribed by the act. The 

committee is to develop recommendations on the categorization of 

government information and public access to electronic information. 

Similarly, in most cases where deadlines are not specified, OMB and 

designated federal agencies have either fully implemented the provisions or 

demonstrated positive action toward implementation. For example, in May 

2003, the E-Government Administrator issued a memorandum detailing 

procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund, although the 

act did not specify a deadline for this action. As stipulated by the act, the 

E-Government Fund is to be used to support projects that enable the federal 

government to expand its ability to conduct activities electronically. 

Although the government has made progress in implementing the act, the 

act’s requirements have not always been fully addressed. In several cases, 

actions taken do not satisfy the requirements of the act or no significant 

action has been taken. In particular, OMB has not ensured that specified 

activities have taken place regarding e-government approaches to crisis 

preparedness (a study and follow-up response), contractor innovation 

(establishment of a program), and federally funded research and 

development (support of an information repository and Web site). In these 

cases, either the actions OMB has taken do not fully address the act’s 

provisions, or OMB has not yet made key decisions that would allow actions 

to take place. Until these issues are addressed, the government may be at 

risk of not fully achieving the objective of the E-Government Act to promote 

better use of the Internet and other information technologies to improve 

government services and enhance opportunities for citizen participation in 

government. 
Page i GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

OMB and Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing Major 

Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002 6

Conclusions 12

Recommendations for Executive Action 13

Agency Comments 13

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology 15

Appendix II: Federal Information and IT Management Statutory 

Framework 18

Appendix III: Implementation Status of Major Provisions from Titles I and 

II of the E-Government Act of 2002 20

Office of Electronic Government: Title I, Section 101

(44 U.S.C. 3602) 20

Chief Information Officers Council: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 

3603) 22

Administration of the E-Government Fund: Title I, Section 101 (44 

U.S.C. 3604) 23

Program to Encourage Innovative Solutions: Title I, Section 101 (44 

U.S.C. 3605) 25

E-Government Report: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3606) 27

Electronic Signatures: Title II, Section 203 28

Federal Internet Portal: Title II, Section 204 29

Federal Courts: Title II, Section 205 31

Regulatory Agencies: Title II, Section 206 33

Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation of Government 

Information: Title II, Section 207 35

Privacy Provisions: Title II, Section 208 38

IT Workforce Development: Title II, Section 209 39

State and Local Government Use of Federal Supply Schedules: Title 

II, Section 211 41

Integrated Reporting Study and Pilot Projects: Title II,

Section 212 42

Community Technology Centers: Title II, Section 213 44

Enhancing Crisis Management through Advanced Information 

Technology: Title II, Section 214 45
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Disparities in Access to the Internet: Title II, Section 215 46

Common Protocols for Geographic Information Systems: Title II, 

Section 216 48

Tables Table 1: Summary Implementation Status of Major Sections from 

Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act 7

Table 2: Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3604 24

Table 3: Summary of E-Government Fund Usage, Fiscal Years 

2002–2005 25

Table 4: Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3605 26

Table 5: Action Required under 44 U.S.C. 3606 27

Table 6: Action Required under Section 203 of the E-Government 

Act 28

Table 7: Actions Required under Section 204 of the E-Government 

Act 30

Table 8: Usage Statistics for FirstGov.gov, Fiscal Years 

2002–2004 31

Table 9: Actions Required under Section 205 of the E-Government 

Act 32

Table 10: Actions Required under Section 206 of the E-Government 

Act 34

Table 11: Actions Required under Section 207 of the E-Government 

Act 35

Table 12: Actions Required under Section 208 of the E-Government 

Act 38

Table 13: Actions Required under Section 209 of the E-Government 

Act 39

Table 14: Actions Required under Section 211 of the E-Government 

Act 42

Table 15: Actions Required under Section 212 of the E-Government 

Act 43

Table 16: Actions Required under Section 213 of the E-Government 

Act 44

Table 17: Actions Required under Section 214 of the E-Government 

Act 45

Table 18: Actions Required under Section 215 of the E-Government 

Act 47

Table 19: Action Required under Section 216 of the E-Government 

Act 48

Figure Figure 1: CIO Council Organization Chart 23
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security

GSA General Services Administration

ICGI Interagency Committee on Government Information

IPT Information Policy and Technology 

IRM information resources management

IT information technology

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PIA privacy impact assessment

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RFI request for information

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately.
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security

GSA General Services Administration

ICGI Interagency Committee on Government Information

IPT Information Policy and Technology 

IRM information resources management

IT information technology

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PIA privacy impact assessment

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RFI request for information

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 10, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairman

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Candice S. Miller

House of Representatives

The E-Government Act (E-Gov Act) of 2002 was enacted with the general 

purpose of promoting better use of the Internet and other information 

technologies to improve government services for citizens, internal 

government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in 

government. Among other things, the act specifically requires the 

establishment of the Office of Electronic Government within the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee implementation of the act’s 

provisions and mandates a number of specific actions, such as the 

establishment of interagency committees, completion of several studies, 

submission of reports with recommendations, issuance of a variety of 

guidance documents, establishment of new policies, and initiation of pilot 

projects. Further, the act requires federal agencies to take a number of 

actions, such as conducting privacy impact assessments, providing public 

access to agency information, and allowing for electronic access to 

rulemaking proceedings. OMB has linked several of the act’s provisions to 

ongoing e-government initiatives that it has sponsored.1

 While some 

deadlines specified in the act have passed, many required actions do not 

have statutory deadlines or have deadlines that have not yet passed.

1

For detailed information on the progress of the 25 initiatives sponsored by OMB, see GAO, 

Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget 

Have Made Mixed Progress, GAO-04-0561T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004).
Page 2 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

This report responds to your request that we review the implementation 

status of major provisions from Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act. To address 

this objective, we analyzed the act, reviewed OMB’s fiscal year 2003 report 

to Congress on the implementation status of the act, and interviewed 

officials from OMB, the General Services Administration (GSA), and other 

agencies that have specific responsibilities under Title II. We included the 

major e-government sections of the act in this review, except for two 

sections,2

 as agreed upon with your staff. Within the sections we included, 

we did not address general requirements applicable to all agencies.3 Details 

of our objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I. Our 

work was conducted in Washington, D.C., from April 2004 to August 2004, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief In most cases, OMB and federal agencies have taken positive steps toward 

implementing the provisions of Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act. For 

example, OMB established the Office of E-Government, designated its 

Assistant Director for Information Technology (IT) and E-Government as 

the office’s Administrator in April 2003, and published guidance to federal 

agencies on implementing the act in August 2003. In most cases, OMB and 

federal agencies have taken action to address the act’s requirements within 

stipulated time frames. For example, OMB established the Interagency 

Committee on Government Information in June 2003, within the deadline 

prescribed by the act. The committee is to develop recommendations on 

the categorization of government information and public access to 

electronic information. Even when deadlines have not yet passed, in all but 

one case OMB and agencies have taken action to implement the act. For 

example, federal courts have established informational Web sites in 

2

We did not include section 202, which prescribes general requirements applying to all major 

federal agencies. Further, we did not review section 210, which concerns share-in-savings 

contracts, since this section mandates a separate, more in-depth GAO review on the 

implementation and effects of this provision at a future date.

3

Examples include 203(b), which addresses agency implementation of electronic signatures; 

207(e)(4), which requires annual agency reporting on accessibility, usability, and 

preservation of government information; 207(f)(2), stipulating agency requirements for 

making government information available on the Internet or by other means; 207(g)(2), 

requiring agencies to provide information for the repository on federal research and 

development; 208(b)(1), which stipulates agency requirements related to privacy impact 

assessments; and 209(b)(2) and (4), stipulating requirements for agency information 

technology training programs. For section 206, we assessed governmentwide 

implementation by reviewing the status of the e-Rulemaking initiative.
Page 3 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

advance of the April 2005 deadline specified by the act, and court officials 

are taking steps to ensure that the Web sites fully meet the criteria 

stipulated by the act.

Similarly, in most cases where deadlines are not specified, OMB and federal 

agencies have either fully implemented the provisions or demonstrated 

positive action toward implementation. For example, in May 2003, the 

E-Government Administrator issued a memorandum detailing procedures 

for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund,4

 although the act did 

not specify a deadline for this action. 

Although the government has made progress in implementing the act, the 

act’s requirements have not always been fully addressed. Specifically, OMB 

has not

• ensured that a study on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and 

response has been conducted that addresses the content specified by 

the act,

• established a required program to encourage contractor innovation and 

excellence in facilitating the development and enhancement of 

electronic government services and processes, or

• ensured the development and maintenance of a required repository and 

Web site of information about research and development funded by the 

federal government.

Further, GSA has not contracted with the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) to conduct a required study on disparities in Internet access for 

online government services.

In the first three cases, OMB has either taken actions that are related to the 

act’s provisions but do not fully address them (in the first and second 

cases) or has not yet made key decisions that would allow actions to take 

place (in the third case). In the last case, GSA is seeking funding for the 

required study in fiscal year 2006. Until these issues are addressed, the 

government may be at risk of not fully achieving the objective of the 

E-Government Act to promote better use of the Internet and other 

4

As stipulated by the act, the E-Government Fund is to be used to support projects that 

enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities electronically.
Page 4 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

information technologies to improve government services and enhance 

opportunities for citizen participation in government.

To ensure the successful implementation of the E-Government Act and 

achievement of its goals, we are recommending that the Administrator of 

the Office of E-Government take action to address those instances where 

the act’s requirements have not been fully addressed. In commenting on a 

draft of this report, officials from the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), GSA, and OMB generally agreed with its content and 

recommendations.

Background The E-Gov Act was enacted into law on December 17, 2002. The act’s 

provisions add to a variety of previously established statutory requirements 

regarding federal information and IT management, such as the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, which also prescribes responsibilities within OMB for 

overseeing information and IT management in the federal government.5

Appendix II provides further details on the statutory framework for federal 

information and IT management.

Even before passage of the E-Gov Act, OMB was working on e-government 

issues, primarily through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) and through the activities of the Associate Director for Information 

Technology and E-Government (the predecessor position to the current 

Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government). In February 2002, 

OMB issued its first E-Government Strategy6

 and designated 24 high-profile 

initiatives7 to lead the government’s transformation to e-government.8

5

P.L. 96-511 (Dec. 11, 1980) and P.L. 104-13 (May 22, 1995). For more detailed information 

regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act and its relationship to the E-Government Act of 

2002, see appendix II.

6

Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 

2002).

7

Based on analysis by the E-Government Task Force, 23 initiatives were originally selected 

in September 2001. A 24th, e-Payroll, was then added by the President’s Management 

Council. In 2002, a decision was made to separate the e-Clearance initiative from the 

Integrated Human Resources initiative, resulting in the current count of 25 projects. 

8

For more information about the selection of the initiatives, see GAO, Electronic 

Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s 24 

Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
Page 5 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Title I of the E-Government Act established the Office of Electronic 

Government within OMB, to be headed by an Administrator. The 

Administrator’s responsibilities include

• assisting the Director in carrying out the act and other e-government 

initiatives, including promoting innovative use of IT by agencies, 

overseeing the E-Government Fund, and leading the activities of the 

federal Chief Information Officers Council;

• working with the OIRA Administrator in setting strategic direction for 

e-government under relevant laws, including the Paperwork Reduction 

Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act; and

• working with the OIRA Administrator and other OMB offices to oversee 

implementation of e-government under the act and other laws, including 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, relating to IT management, enterprise 

architecture, information security, privacy, access, dissemination, 

preservation, accessibility of IT for persons with disabilities, and other 

areas of e-government.

Title II of the E-Gov Act contains 16 sections that include a range of 

provisions aimed at promoting electronic government services and 

increasing citizen access to and participation in government. The sections 

of Title II address such topics as maintaining and promoting a federal 

Internet portal to make government information more accessible to the 

public, protecting the privacy of personal information, establishing a 

framework for use of electronic signatures for secure transactions with 

government, and providing online access to documents filed electronically 

with federal courts. Appendix I contains a complete list of the Title II 

sections included in our review.
Page 6 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

OMB and Agencies 

Have Made Progress 

Implementing Major 

Provisions of the 

E-Government Act of 

2002

Overall, OMB and federal agencies have made progress implementing Titles 

I and II of the E-Gov Act. In April 2003, OMB established the Office of 

E-Government (also known as the Office of E-Government and Information 

Technology) and designated its Assistant Director for IT and E-Government 

as its Administrator. Also in April 2003, OMB issued its second 

E-Government Strategy,9

 which laid out its approach to implementing the 

E-Gov Act. In August 2003, OMB issued guidance to agencies on 

implementing the act, and in March 2004, it issued its first annual report to 

Congress on implementation of the act.10 In its report to Congress, OMB 

summarized individual agency e-gov reports, described actions taken to 

address the act’s provisions, and provided details of the operation of the 

E-Government Fund.

As shown in table 1, OMB and designated federal agencies have taken steps 

to implement the provisions of most of the major sections of Titles I and II 

of the E-Gov Act that we reviewed.11 Specifically, apart from general 

requirements applicable to all agencies, OMB and designated agencies have 

already implemented the provisions of 7 of the 18 major sections, have 

actions in progress to address provisions of another 7 sections, and have 

not fully addressed provisions of the remaining 4 sections. Each of these 18 

sections includes many specific provisions, such as developing and issuing 

guidance and policies, conducting studies, initiating pilot projects, and 

establishing specific programs and working groups. Appendix III contains 

details of the specific provisions in each of these sections and their current 

implementation status. 

9

Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).

10Office of Management and Budget, FY 2003 Report to Congress on Implementation of the 

E-Government Act (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2004).

11Appendix I contains details of how we assessed the overall implementation status for each 

section.
Page 7 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 1: Summary Implementation Status of Major Sections from Titles I and II of the 

E-Gov Act

Source: GAO.

a

The E-Government Fund, E-Government Report, and Federal Internet Portal provisions of the act, 

while considered implemented, require ongoing and future activities (i.e., annual reports and 

maintenance of the federal Internet portal).

b

For section 206, we assessed governmentwide implementation by reviewing the status of the 

e-Rulemaking initiative.

OMB and designated federal agencies are taking actions to implement the 

provisions of the act in most cases; however, the act’s requirements have 

not always been fully addressed. In several cases, actions taken do not 

satisfy the requirements of the act, or no significant action has been taken.

Section reviewed Status a 

101: Office of Electronic Government Implemented

Chief Information Officers Council Implemented

E-Government Fund Implemented 

Program to Encourage Innovative Solutions Not fully addressed

E-Government Report Implemented

203: Electronic Signatures (excluding 203(b)) In progress

204: Federal Internet Portal Implemented

205: Federal Courts In progress

206: Regulatory Agenciesb In progress

207: Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation of 

Government Information (excluding 207(e)(4), (f)(2) and 

g(2))

Not fully addressed 

208: Privacy Provisions (excluding 208(b)(1)) Implemented

209: IT Workforce Development (excluding 209(b)(2) and 

(b)(4))

In progress

211: State and Local Government Use of Federal Supply 

Schedules

Implemented

212: Integrated Reporting Study and Pilot Projects In progress

213: Community Technology Centers In progress

214: Enhancing Crisis Management through Advanced 

Information Technology

Not fully addressed

215: Disparities in Access to the Internet Not fully addressed

216: Common Protocols for Geographic Information 

Systems

In progress
Page 8 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Progress in Implementing 

Provisions with Statutory 

Deadlines

In most cases, OMB and designated federal agencies have taken responsive 

action to address the act’s requirements with statutory deadlines, although 

these have not always been completed within stipulated time frames. For 

example, OMB established the Interagency Committee on Government 

Information in June 2003, within the deadline prescribed by the act. The 

committee is to develop recommendations on the categorization of 

government information and public access to electronic information. In 

another example, as required by section 211, GSA developed and issued 

procedures for the acquisition of IT by state and local governments through 

Federal Supply Schedules, which previously had been available only to 

federal agencies. Although the act required that the procedures be issued 

by January 17, 2003, GSA did not finalize the new procedures until May 

2004. The agency had issued a proposed rule to implement the procedures 

on January 23, 2003, and an interim rule on May 7, 2003.

In one case, OMB has not taken fully responsive action to address the 

requirements of the act. Specifically, OMB did not ensure that a study on 

using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and response was conducted that 

addresses the content specified by the act. Section 214 of the act required, 

within 90 days of enactment, that OMB ensure that this study is conducted, 

and it specifies the content of the study. For example, the study was 

required to address a research and implementation strategy for the 

effective use of IT in crisis response and consequence management. OMB 

was further required to report on findings and recommendations from this 

study within 2 years of the study’s initiation. According to DHS officials, a 

study conducted by the MITRE Corporation for Project SAFECOM12 fulfills 

this requirement. However, the MITRE study—which was chiefly an 

assessment of a Web tool for disseminating information about solutions to 

the problem of interoperability among first responders’ communications 

systems—did not address the content specified by the act. For example, 

the study did not include research regarding use of IT to enhance crisis 

preparedness, nor did it include a research and implementation strategy for 

more effective use of IT in crisis response and consequence management. 

Until the required elements of the study are addressed, OMB may not be 

able to make a fully informed response to the act’s requirement that it 

report on findings and recommendations for improving the use of IT in 

12For more information about Project SAFECOM, see GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key CrossAgency Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).
Page 9 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

coordinating and facilitating information on disaster preparedness, 

response, and recovery.

In another case, GSA has not taken fully responsive action to address the 

requirements of the act. Specifically, Section 215 required the 

Administrator of GSA to contract with NAS by March 17, 2003, to conduct a 

study on disparities in Internet access for online government services. GSA 

was to submit a report to Congress on the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations of the study by December 2004. GSA officials reported 

that they were unable to request funds as part of the fiscal year 2003 or 

2004 budget cycles because the act passed in December 2002, after fiscal 

year 2003 had begun and the deadline for fiscal year 2004 agency budget 

submissions (August 2002) had passed. Although GSA officials did not 

provide any information regarding their actions for fiscal year 2005, they 

reported that the agency had requested the funds authorized in the act for 

the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle and was working on compiling an interim 

study based on existing research on disparities in access to the Internet. 

This compilation report is expected to be completed by December 2004 and 

submitted to Congress in OMB’s annual report on implementation of the 

act.

For those provisions with future deadlines, OMB and agencies have taken 

action to implement the act. For example, under section 207 of the act, by 

December 2004, the Interagency Committee on Government Information 

must submit recommendations to OMB and to the Archivist of the United 

States on the categorization of government information and how to apply 

the Federal Records Act to information on the Internet and other electronic 

records. The committee structure, work plans, and interim products show 

progress toward meeting this deadline. As another example, under section 

205 of the act, federal courts are required to establish Web sites by April 

2005 that provide information such as location, contact information, and 

local and individual rules. By April 2007, these sites must also provide 

access to documents that are filed electronically. In June 2004, officials 

from the Administrative Office of the Courts reported that all 198 federal 

courts had established Web sites, 10 months before the April 2005 deadline. 

Court officials also reported that the individual court Web sites were 

making progress providing the information stipulated in the act and that 

128 of the courts already allowed access to documents filed electronically, 

in advance of the April 2007 deadline.
Page 10 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Progress in Implementing 

Provisions without 

Statutory Deadlines

As with the provisions specifying deadlines, in most cases where deadlines 

are not specified, OMB and federal agencies have either fully implemented 

the provisions or demonstrated positive action toward implementation. For 

example, in May 2003, the E-Gov Administrator issued a memorandum 

detailing procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund, 

although the act did not specify a deadline for this action. As stipulated by 

the act, the E-Government Fund is to be used to support projects that 

enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities 

electronically. Similarly, section 208 requires the Director of OMB to 

develop policies and guidelines for agencies on the conduct of privacy 

impact assessments but does not stipulate a deadline. In September 2003, 

OMB issued guidance for implementing the privacy provisions of the 

E-Government Act, including guidance on conducting privacy impact 

assessments.

In two instances in which statutory deadlines were not specified, OMB’s 

actions have not yet fully addressed the act’s requirements. Specifically:
Page 11 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

• OMB has not established a program to satisfy the requirements in 

section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3605), which requires the Administrator to 

establish and promote a governmentwide program to encourage 

contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development 

and enhancement of electronic government services and processes. 

OMB officials reported that no program had been established 

specifically to satisfy the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3605. The OIRA 

Information Policy and Technology (IPT) Branch Chief and other OMB 

officials stated that they believed the mandated program was not 

necessary because the functions of such a program were being 

accomplished through other ongoing OMB initiatives, such as the 

SmartBuy initiative,13 the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) 

Web portal,14 and the recently inaugurated “lines of business” 

initiatives.15 Specifically, the officials stated that a recently issued 

request for information16 (RFI) for several of the lines of business 

initiatives addressed the act’s requirement that, under the stipulated 

program, announcements be issued seeking unique and innovative 

solutions. However, while OMB’s recent RFI represents one example of 

an announcement seeking innovative solutions, it does not represent a 

commitment to issuing such announcements and promoting innovative 

solutions on an ongoing basis. In contrast, establishing a dedicated 

program—as stipulated by the act—would represent such a 

commitment. Until OMB establishes such a program, it is at risk of not 

fully meeting the objective of this section to encourage contractor 

innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and 

enhancement of electronic government services and processes.

13The SmartBuy initiative, managed by GSA, is aimed at reducing costs and improving 

quality in federal purchases of commercial software through the use of enterprise licenses.

14The FedBizOpps portal, also managed by GSA, serves as a single government point of entry 

for federal government procurement opportunities over $25,000. Government buyers are 

able to publicize their business opportunities by posting information directly to 

FedBizOpps. Through one portal, commercial vendors seeking federal markets for their 

services and products can search, monitor, and retrieve opportunities solicited by the 

federal contracting community.

15In March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine five government 

lines of business: case management, federal health architecture, grants management, human 

resources management, and financial management. 

16In April 2004, OMB issued an RFI to provide industry and government service providers 

with an opportunity to describe solutions and implementation approaches for achieving the 

goals of three of the lines of business (financial management, human resources, and grants 

management).
Page 12 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

• OMB has not yet taken sufficient action to ensure the development and 

maintenance of a repository and Web site of information about research 

and development funded by the federal government, as required by 

section 207 of the act. In its fiscal year 2003 report to Congress, OMB 

reported that an analysis had been conducted of the National Science 

Foundation’s “Research and Development in the United States” 

database system and that the system was closely aligned with the act’s 

requirements. However, OMB also said it had not yet determined 

whether the National Science Foundation’s system would serve as the 

repository required by the act. Until OMB decides on a specific course of 

action, it may not fully meet the objective of section 207 to improve the 

methods by which government information, including information on 

the Internet, is organized, preserved, and made accessible to the public.

Conclusions In most cases, OMB and designated federal agencies have made progress in 

addressing the specific requirements of the E-Government Act of 2002. 

OMB and federal agencies made efforts to implement provisions before the 

expiration of statutory deadlines that have now passed, and they are also 

taking positive steps toward implementing provisions without deadlines or 

with deadlines in the future.

Despite the overall progress, in several cases, actions taken do not satisfy 

the requirements of the act, or no significant action has been taken. In one 

case—the requirement to conduct a study in disparities in access to the 

Internet—the responsible agency, GSA, is taking steps to address the act’s 

requirements, even though a statutory deadline has already passed. In other 

cases, OMB has either taken actions that are related to the act’s provisions 

but do not fully address them, or it has not yet made key decisions that 

would allow actions to take place. Specifically, OMB has not ensured that a 

study on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and response has been 

conducted that addresses the content specified by the act, established a 

required program to encourage contractor innovation and excellence in 

facilitating the development and enhancement of electronic government 

services and processes, or ensured the development and maintenance of a 

required repository and Web site of information about research and 

development funded by the federal government. Until these issues are 

addressed, the government is at risk of not fully achieving the objective of 

the E-Government Act to promote better use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to improve government services to its citizens, 

internal government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation 

in government.
Page 13 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To ensure the successful implementation of the E-Government Act and its 

goal of promoting better use of the Internet and other information 

technologies to improve government services to citizens, internal 

government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in 

government, we recommend that the Director, OMB, direct the 

Administrator of the Office of E-Government to carry out the following 

three actions:

• ensure that the report to Congress regarding the study on enhancement 

of crisis response required under section 214 addresses the content 

specified by the act;

• establish and promote a governmentwide program, as prescribed by 44 

U.S.C. 3605, to encourage contractor innovation and excellence in 

facilitating the development and enhancement of electronic government 

services and processes; and

• ensure the development and maintenance of a governmentwide 

repository and Web site that integrates information about research and 

development funded by the federal government.

Agency Comments We received oral comments on a draft of this report from representatives of 

OMB’s Offices of Information and Regulatory Affairs, E-Government, and 

General Counsel. We also received oral comments from representatives of 

DHS’s Development Science and Technology Directorate and GSA’s Office 

of Governmentwide Policy. These representatives generally agreed with the 

content of our draft report and our recommendations and provided 

technical comments, which have been incorporated where appropriate. 

GSA officials also provided updated information regarding the status of the 

required actions under the community technology centers provision of the 

act (section 213), which has been incorporated in the report. 

Regarding our recommendation that OMB ensure that its report to 

Congress regarding the study on enhancement of crisis response addresses 

the content specified by the act (section 214), OMB officials agreed that the 

study conducted by Project SAFECOM did not address the requirements of 

the act. OMB officials stated that a new study would be initiated to meet 

the requirements of the act. 
Page 14 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Regarding our recommendation that OMB establish and promote a 

governmentwide program, as prescribed by 44 U.S.C. 3605, to encourage 

contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and 

enhancement of electronic government services and processes, OMB 

officials reiterated their position that OMB’s ongoing activities address the 

substance of the required program and that establishing a separate new 

program could introduce delay. The officials stated that a recently issued 

RFI for several of the recently inaugurated “lines of business” initiatives is 

an example of an announcement seeking innovative solutions, as required 

by the act. We made changes to the report to reflect that the RFI partially 

addressed the act’s requirements. However, while the RFI represents one 

example of an announcement seeking innovative solutions, it does not 

represent a commitment to issuing such announcements and promoting 

innovative solutions on an ongoing basis. In contrast, establishing a 

dedicated program—as stipulated by the act—would represent such a 

commitment. Until OMB establishes such a program, it is at risk of not fully 

meeting the objective of this section to encourage contractor innovation 

and excellence in facilitating the development and enhancement of 

electronic government services and processes.

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 

provide copies of this report to the Director of OMB, the GSA 

Administrator, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the 

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

http://www.gao.gov. Should you have any questions about this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, 

at (202) 512-6335. We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and 

deferrarij@gao.gov, respectively. Other key contributors to this report 

included Barbara Collier, Sandra Kerr, David F. Plocher, and Jamie 

Pressman.

Linda D. Koontz

Director, Information Management Issues
Page 15 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

Our objective was to assess the implementation status of major provisions 

of the E-Government Act of 2002, Titles I and II. 

Titles I and II of the act contain numerous provisions that cover a wide 

range of activities across the federal government aimed at promoting 

electronic government. Because it was not feasible to conduct in-depth 

assessments of all the provisions of Titles I and II for this engagement, we 

conducted a high-level review of the implementation status of major 

provisions of the act, determining whether actions have been taken or are 

under way to address their major provisions. Listed below are the sections 

included in this review, as agreed.

• Title I, Section 101—Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services

• Title II, Section 203—Compatibility of Executive Agency Methods for 

Use and Acceptance of Electronic Signatures

• Title II, Section 204—Federal Internet Portal

• Title II, Section 205—Federal Courts

• Title II, Section 206—Regulatory Agencies

• Title II, Section 207—Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation of 

Government Information

• Title II, Section 208—Privacy Provisions

• Title II, Section 209—Federal IT Workforce Development

• Title II, Section 211—Authorization for Acquisition of Information 

Technology by State and Local Governments through Federal Supply 

Schedules

• Title II, Section 212—Integrated Reporting Study and Pilot Projects

• Title II, Section 213—Community Technology Centers

• Title II, Section 214—Enhancing Crisis Management through Advanced 

Information Technology
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 16 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

• Title II, Section 215—Disparities in Access to the Internet

• Title II, Section 216—Common Protocols for Geographic Information 

Systems

We did not include section 201, which provides definitions, or section 202, 

which prescribes general requirements applying to all major federal 

agencies, in our review. Similarly, for the sections we reviewed, we did not 

assess the implementation of general requirements applying to all federal 

agencies, such as sections 203(b), which addresses agency implementation 

of electronic signatures; 207(e)(4), which requires annual agency reporting 

on accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information; 

207(f)(2), stipulating agency requirements for making government 

information available on the Internet or by other means; 207(g)(2), 

requiring agencies to provide information for the repository on federal 

research and development; 208(b)(1), which stipulates agency 

requirements related to privacy impact assessments; and 209(b)(2) and (4), 

stipulating requirements for agency information technology training 

programs. For section 206, we assessed governmentwide implementation 

by reviewing the status of the e-Rulemaking initiative. Finally, we did not 

assess Section 210, which concerns share-in-savings contracts, since this 

section mandates a separate, more in-depth GAO review on the 

implementation and effects of this provision at a future date.

To assess the implementation status of the major provisions, we 

interviewed cognizant officials from the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), the General Services Administration (GSA), and other agencies that 

have specific responsibilities under Title II. For several sections, the act 

requires specific actions, such as the initiation of pilot projects, 

establishment of interagency workgroups or committees, development and 

issuance of guidance/policies, conduct of a study, or issuance of reports. 

The majority of these actions include statutory deadlines for completion. 

For provisions with deadlines that have passed, we determined whether 

the requirement had been met. For provisions with deadlines that had not 

yet expired or that had no explicit deadline attached, we obtained 

information on actions taken and progress made to date. We analyzed 

relevant documentation, including OMB’s fiscal year 2003 report to 

Congress on implementation status of the E-Gov Act. We determined the 

implementation status of the major provisions by comparing the 

information we obtained to the requirements established in the act.
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 17 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

We assessed the overall status of the major sections according to the 

following three categories:

1. Implemented. A section was assessed as implemented if the 

responsible agency had completed responsive actions to address each 

of the section’s requirements that we reviewed.1

2. In progress. We assessed status as “in progress” if responsive action 

was under way to address each of the section’s requirements, even if 

statutory deadlines had not been fully met.

3. Not fully addressed. We assessed a section’s status as not fully 

addressed when an agency had taken actions that did not meet the 

requirements specified in the act or had not taken action on 

requirements with imminent or expired deadlines.

Our work was conducted from April 2004 to September 2004, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1

Some of the act’s sections require ongoing actions, such as annual reporting or the 

maintenance of a Web site. We did not consider such ongoing activities when assessing 

whether provisions had been implemented.
Page 18 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Appendix II

Federal Information and IT Management 

Statutory Framework ApendxiI

For more than 20 years before the enactment of the E-Government Act, the 

management of federal information and information technology (IT) was 

governed by a number of issue-specific laws and one law that coordinates 

across those issue areas. Examples of the issue-specific laws are the 

Privacy Act, which governs the protection of personal privacy in 

government records; the Freedom of Information Act, which provides for 

public access to government information; and the Clinger-Cohen Act, 

which applies investment control concepts to IT management. The 

coordinating law is the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Like the 

E-Government Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act gives management 

responsibilities to agencies and oversight responsibilities to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB).

The PRA, as first enacted in 1980 and as significantly revised in 1995, 

established the concept of “information resources management” (IRM) to 

coordinate information and IT management functions throughout the 

information life cycle, from collection through disposition.1

 The PRA 

established the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 

for governmentwide oversight and stated that the Administrator of OIRA 

should “serve as principal adviser to the Director [of OMB] on Federal 

information resources management policy.”2

 Under the PRA IRM umbrella, 

OIRA is responsible for overseeing

• information collection and the control of paperwork, including review 

of agency information collection proposals;

• information dissemination;

• statistical policy and coordination;

• records management, including oversight of compliance with the 

Federal Records Act;

• privacy, including oversight of compliance with the Privacy Act;

1

P.L. 96-511 (Dec. 11, 1980) and P.L. 104-13 (May 22, 1995). See Paperwork Reduction Act 

Amendments of 1984, Senate Report 98-576 (Aug. 6, 1984); Federal Management 

Reorganization and Cost Control Act of 1986, Senate Report 99-347 (July 31, 1986), pp. 12–

17 and 52–59; and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Senate Report 104-8 (Feb. 14, 1995). 

2

44 U.S.C. 3503. In addition to its responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA 

reviews agency regulations under the authority of presidential executive orders.
Appendix II

Federal Information and IT Management 

Statutory Framework

Page 19 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

• information security, including oversight of compliance with the Federal 

Information Security Management Act;

• information disclosure, including oversight of compliance with the 

Freedom of Information Act; and 

• information technology, including oversight of the Clinger-Cohen Act 

and promoting the use of information technology “to improve the 

productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs, 

including through dissemination of public information and the reduction 

of information collection burdens on the public.”3

The E-Government Act of 2002 added to OMB’s statutory PRA duties with 

requirements to promote “electronic government,” defined as government 

use of Web-based Internet applications and other information technologies 

to enhance access to and delivery of government information and services 

and to improve government operations.4

 To oversee these electronic 

government activities, the E-Government Act created the OMB Office of 

Electronic Government, to be headed by an Administrator.5

 The E-Gov 

Administrator’s responsibilities include assisting the Director in carrying 

out the act and other e-government initiatives and working with the OIRA 

Administrator and other OMB offices to oversee implementation of 

e-government under the E-Government Act and other laws, including the 

PRA.6

Both the OIRA Administrator and the E-Government Administrator report 

to the OMB Deputy Director for Management, who exercises all functions 

of the OMB Director with regard to information policy and other 

management functions under 31 U.S.C. 503(b), as enacted by the Chief 

Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-576, Nov. 15, 1990).

3

44 U.S.C. 3504(h)(5).

4

44 U.S.C. 3601(3).

5

44 U.S.C. 3602(a) and (b).

6

44 U.S.C. 3602(c)–(f).
Page 20 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act of 

2002 ApendxiI

Titles I and II of the E-Government Act of 2002 include provisions covering 

a wide range of activities across the federal government aimed at 

promoting electronic government. The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and other federal agencies likewise have a variety of activities 

under way that address these provisions. This appendix summarizes the 

status of implementation of the act’s requirements that we reviewed. As 

noted in appendix I, we did not review all sections of Titles I and II, nor did 

we review the implementation of general requirements applying to all 

federal agencies.

Office of Electronic 

Government: Title I, 

Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 

3602)

Section 3602 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code1 establishes the Office of 

Electronic Government (E-Government) within OMB, which is to be 

headed by a presidentially appointed Administrator. The Administrator is 

required to assist both the OMB Director and the Deputy Director for 

Management, as well as work with the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in setting strategic direction for 

and assisting in implementing electronic government. In addition, the 

Director is to ensure that there are adequate resources in OMB to carry out 

its functions under the act.

OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this 

section. The Office of E-Government was established on April 17, 2003, 

with an Administrator appointed on the same day. OMB officials stated that 

this office, working closely with the OIRA Administrator and OIRA’s IPT 

Branch, has taken steps to carry out the functions specified in the act. For 

example, to set strategic direction for electronic government, OMB issued 

an E-Government Strategy in April 2003.2

 OMB officials said they plan to 

issue an update to the E-Government Strategy during the fall of 2004. 

1

In referring to specific provisions of Title I, section 101, of the E-Government Act, we refer 

to Title 44 of the U.S. Code, because section 101 of the act amends the U.S. Code. In 

discussing Title II, which does not amend the U.S. Code, we refer to the relevant sections of 

the E-Government Act: sections 203 to 216.

2

Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 21 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

OMB had been working on electronic government issues before the E-Gov 

Act was passed and the Office of E-Government officially established. For 

example, OMB issued its first E-Government Strategy in February 2002,3

which designated a number of high-profile initiatives to lead the 

government’s transformation to e-government.4

 This work was performed 

through OIRA’s IPT Branch and supervised by the Associate Director for 

Information Technology and E-Government (a position that was the 

predecessor to the current E-Government Administrator position).5

OMB officials reported that under the current organizational structure, the 

E-Government Administrator works collaboratively with the OIRA 

Administrator (primarily through working with OIRA’s IPT Branch) to carry 

out the requirements of the act. Along with its E-Government Strategies, 

OMB officials cited its oversight of the e-government initiatives as 

examples of setting strategic direction for e-government.

Regarding resources for carrying out the functions of the act, OMB officials 

reported that as of June 14, 2004, the Office of E-Government consisted of 

eight full-time positions, including the Administrator, Deputy 

Administrator, Special Assistant, Chief Architect, and four Portfolio 

Managers. In addition, four employees on detail from other agencies 

provide further assistance. Finally, there are 12 employees in OIRA’s IPT 

Branch who also support the activities of the Office of E-Gov. Accordingly, 

the IPT Branch chief reports both to the Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government and to the Administrator of OIRA. 

3

Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 

2002).

4

GAO, Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of Management 

and Budget’s 24 Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). These initiatives 

currently number 25; in 2002, a decision was made to separate the e-Clearance initiative 

from the Integrated Human Resources initiative.

5

In June 2001, OMB established the position of Associate Director for Information 

Technology and E-Government to oversee IT policy, the CIO Council, and the 

Administration’s proposed E-Government Fund.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 22 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Chief Information 

Officers Council: Title 

I, Section 101 (44 

U.S.C. 3603)

Section 3603 of Title 44 codifies the establishment, structure, and 

responsibilities of the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, which was 

established on July 16, 1996, by Executive Order 13011. The CIO Council’s 

responsibilities include developing recommendations for information and 

information technology (IT) management policies, procedures, and 

standards; sharing management best practices; and assessing and 

addressing the needs of the federal government’s IT workforce.

The CIO Council has taken responsive action to address the requirements 

of this section of the act. Membership on the CIO Council includes CIOs 

from federal executive agencies, the OMB Deputy Director for 

Management, the E-Government Administrator, and the OIRA 

Administrator. The E-Government Administrator is to lead the council on 

behalf of the Deputy Director for Management, who serves as the council 

chair. According to its strategic plan for fiscal year 2004, the CIO Council’s 

structure and activities are aligned with the applicable provisions of the 

E-Gov Act. (Fig. 1 shows the organization of the CIO Council.) For 

example, the Best Practices Committee has published recommendations 

and experiences on the CIO Council’s Web site (www.cio.gov) and 

contributed to the development of resources such as its report on Lessons 

Learned on Information Technology Performance Management, which is 

also available on the Web site. In addition, the Architecture and 

Infrastructure Committee has provided models for a component-based 

architecture, which assists agencies in identifying opportunities to share 

information resources. Furthermore, the Workforce and Human Capital for 

IT Committee is working with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

to address issues regarding recruitment and development of the federal IT 

workforce. 
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 23 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Figure 1: CIO Council Organization Chart

Administration of the 

E-Government Fund: 

Title I, Section 101 (44 

U.S.C. 3604)

Section 3604 of Title 44 establishes the E-Government Fund, which is to be 

used to support projects that enable the federal government to expand its 

ability to conduct activities electronically. The Director of OMB, assisted by 

the E-Government Administrator, approves which projects will receive 

support from the E-Government Fund. The E-Government Administrator is 

required to establish procedures for accepting and reviewing proposals for 

funding. In addition, the Director of OMB is required to report on the 

operation of the fund in OMB’s annual report to Congress on the 

implementation status of the E-Government Act. GSA is responsible for 

administration of the fund and is required to submit to Congress a 

notification of how the funds are to be allocated to projects approved by 

OMB. Table 2 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Executive Committee

Director, Administrator of the Office of e-Government (OMB)

Chair, Deputy Director for Management (OMB)

Vice Chair (Agency CIO)

Architecture

and Infrastructure

Workforce and Human

Capital for IT

Best Practices

Source: CIO Council.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 24 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 2: Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3604 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this 

section. In May 2003, the agency issued a memorandum detailing 

procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund. The 

memorandum establishes a process for submitting proposals and details 

the process by which OMB will review proposals. 

In March 2004, OMB submitted its first annual report to Congress on 

implementation of the E-Government Act. As required by 44 U.S.C. 3604, 

this report detailed the operations of the E-Government Fund for fiscal 

years 2002 to 2003. Also, in accordance with its responsibilities in 

administering the fund, GSA submitted notifications and descriptions to 

Congress on how the e-gov funds were to be allocated and spent for the 

approved projects. Table 3 summarizes the projects funded for fiscal years 

2002 to 2004, as reported by GSA’s notifications to Congress.

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Develop procedures for 

accepting and reviewing 

proposals for funding 

Administrator of the Office

of E-Government

No deadline given

Submit a report on operation 

of the E-Government Fund in 

the annual E-Government 

Act Report required under 

section 3606

Director of OMB Not later than March 1 of 

each year

Submit a notification and 

description of how the 

e-government funds are to 

be allocated and how the 

funds will further the 

purposes of section 3604

GSA Administrator Funds provided from the 

E-Government Fund cannot 

be transferred to any 

agency until 15 days after 

the notifications and 

descriptions are provided to 

Congress
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 25 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 3: Summary of E-Government Fund Usage, Fiscal Years 2002–2005

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

a

Of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, $100,000 was not allocated to e-gov projects. The fiscal year 

2003 appropriation of $5 million was reduced by the rescission of 0.65 percent under Pub. L. 108-7. 

The unallocated $100,000 from fiscal year 2002 was then added to the remaining $4.967 million, for a 

total of $5.067 million available for allocation to e-gov projects in fiscal year 2003.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the amount requested by OMB for the fund 

was close to the amount authorized by the act, yet in the fiscal year 2005 

budget, $5 million was requested although $100 million was authorized. An 

OMB official stated that OMB requested significantly less than what was 

authorized by the act because it was seeking authority in fiscal year 2005 to 

allow surplus receipts in the General Supply Fund6

 to be spent on 

e-government projects.

Program to Encourage 

Innovative Solutions: 

Title I, Section 101 (44 

U.S.C. 3605)

Section 3605 of Title 44 requires the Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government to establish and promote a governmentwide program to 

encourage contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the 

development and enhancement of e-government services and processes. 

Under this program, the E-Government Administrator is required to issue 

announcements seeking innovative solutions as well as convene a 

multiagency technical assistance team to screen proposals. The 

E-Government Administrator is to either consider the screened proposals 

for funding from the E-Government Fund or forward the proposals to the 

appropriate executive agencies. Table 4 summarizes the actions required 

by this provision.

Fiscal

year

Authorized by the 

E-Gov Act Appropriation

Allocated to 

projects

2002 N/A $5 million a $4.89 million

2003 $45 million $4.967 million $5.067 million

2004 $50 million $3 million $3 million

2005 $100 million N/A N/A

6

This fund, which is managed by GSA, is supplied by a 0.75 percent fee paid by federal 

agencies that buy IT goods and services using governmentwide acquisition contracts.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 26 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 4: Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3605

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB has not fully addressed the requirements of this section of the act. 

OMB officials reported that no program had been established specifically 

to satisfy the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3605. The OIRA IPT Branch Chief 

and other OMB officials stated that they believed the mandated program 

was not necessary because the functions of such a program were being 

accomplished through other ongoing OMB initiatives, such as the 

SmartBuy initiative,7

 the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) 

Web portal,8 and the recently inaugurated “lines of business” initiatives.9

Specifically, the officials stated that a recently issued request for 

information10 (RFI) for several of the lines of business initiatives addressed 

the act’s requirement that, under the stipulated program, announcements 

Action Responsibility

Statutory 

deadline

Establish a program to encourage 

contractor innovation and 

excellence

Administrator of the Office

of E-Government

No deadline given

Issue announcements seeking 

innovative solutions

Administrator of the Office

of E-Government

No deadline given

Convene a multiagency technical 

assistance team to screen 

proposals submitted in response to 

announcements 

Administrator of the Office

of E-Government

No deadline given

7

The SmartBuy initiative, managed by GSA, is aimed at reducing costs and improving quality 

in federal purchases of commercial software through use of enterprise licenses.

8

The FedBizOpps portal, also managed by GSA, serves as a single government point of entry 

for federal government procurement opportunities over $25,000. Government buyers are 

able to publicize their business opportunities by posting information directly to 

FedBizOpps. Through one portal, commercial vendors seeking federal markets for their 

services and products can search, monitor, and retrieve opportunities solicited by the 

federal contracting community.

9

In March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine five government lines 

of business: case management, federal health architecture, grants management, human 

resources management, and financial management. 

10In April 2004, OMB issued an RFI to provide industry and government service providers 

with an opportunity to describe solutions and implementation approaches for achieving the 

goals of three of the lines of business (financial management, human resources, and grants 

management).
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 27 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

be issued seeking unique and innovative solutions. However, while OMB’s 

recent RFI represents one example of an announcement seeking innovative 

solutions, it does not represent a commitment to issuing such 

announcements and promoting innovative solutions on an ongoing basis. In 

contrast, establishing a dedicated program—as stipulated by the act—

would represent such a commitment. Until OMB establishes such a 

program, it is at risk of not fully meeting the objective of this section to 

encourage contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the 

development and enhancement of electronic government services and 

processes.

E-Government Report: 

Title I, Section 101 (44 

U.S.C. 3606)

Section 3606 of Title 44 requires the Director of OMB to develop an annual 

e-government status report and submit it to Congress (see table 5). The 

report is required to summarize information reported by agencies,11

describe compliance with other goals and provisions of the act, and detail 

the operation of the E-Government Fund. 

Table 5: Action Required under 44 U.S.C. 3606

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this 

section. The agency submitted its first annual E-Government Act status 

report to Congress in March 2004. The report was based on individual 

agency e-government reports submitted to OMB in December 2003 and 

supplemented by fiscal year 2005 agency budget submissions, as 

appropriate. OMB’s e-government status report contained the required 

elements described above. 

11Section 202(g) of the E-Government Act of 2002 requires agencies to submit annual reports 

to OMB that address the status of e-government initiatives relevant to the agency. On 

November 21, 2003, OMB issued reporting instructions to the agencies and required 

submission of reports by December 15, 2003.

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Submit an 

e-government status 

report to Congress 

Director of OMB March 1 of each 

year
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 28 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Electronic Signatures: 

Title II, Section 203

Section 203 of the E-Government Act addresses implementation of 

electronic signatures to enable secure electronic transactions with the 

government. The provision in this section that we reviewed12 directs the 

GSA Administrator, supported by the Director of OMB, to establish a 

framework that allows for efficient interoperability among executive 

agencies when using electronic signatures, including processing of digital 

signatures. Table 6 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Table 6: Action Required under Section 203 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

GSA, with the assistance of OMB and the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST), has responsive actions under way to address the 

requirements of this section. In December 2003, the Director of OMB issued 

guidance on electronic authentication13 to assist agencies in determining 

their authentication needs for electronic transactions, including the use of 

electronic signatures. The guidance directs agencies to conduct 

e-authentication risk assessments on electronic transactions to ensure a 

consistent approach across government. As a follow-up to OMB’s guidance, 

in June 2004, NIST issued technical guidance on requirements for 

electronic transactions requiring authentication.14

12Section 203 (b), which we did not review, directs executive agencies to ensure that their 

methods for use and acceptance of electronic signatures are compatible with the relevant 

policies and procedures issued by the Director of OMB. The Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (section 1703 of Pub. L. 105-277, 44 U.S.C. 3501 note) requires the Director 

of OMB to develop procedures for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures. 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Establish a framework to allow 

interoperability when using 

electronic signatures, including 

processing of digital signatures

GSA Administrator, 

supported by the Director

of OMB

No deadline given

13Office of Management and Budget, Electronic Authentication Guidance for Federal 

Agencies, Memorandum M-04-04 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2003).

14National Institute of Standards and Technology, Electronic Authentication Guideline, 

Special Publication 800-63 (Gaithersburg, Md.: June 2004).
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 29 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

OMB reported in its fiscal year 2003 e-government report to Congress that 

the activities of the e-Authentication initiative, managed by GSA, begin to 

meet the requirements of section 203 in establishing a framework to allow 

interoperability. The e-Authentication initiative is intended to minimize the 

burden on businesses, the public, and government when obtaining Internet 

services by providing a secure infrastructure for online transactions. The 

initiative is currently focused on setting a framework of policies and 

standards for agencies to use in procuring commercial products to meet 

their authentication needs. In July 2004, the initiative released 

documentation on its technical approach, which is based on an 

architectural framework that allows multiple protocols and federation 

schemes to be supported over time.15 The technical approach includes 

provisions for the use of electronic signatures when conducting electronic 

transactions.

Federal Internet Portal: 

Title II, Section 204

Section 204 of the E-Government Act requires the Director of OMB to work 

with the GSA Administrator to maintain and promote an integrated 

Internet-based system that provides the public with access to government 

information and services (see table 7). To the extent practicable, the 

federal Internet portal is to be designed and operated according to specific 

criteria; for example, the portal is to provide information and services 

directed to key groups (e.g., citizens, businesses, other governments), 

endeavor to make Internet-based services relevant to a given citizen 

activity available from a single point, integrate information according to 

function or topic, and consolidate access to federal information with 

Internet-based information and services provided by state, local, and tribal 

governments. 

15General Services Administration, Technical Approach for the Authentication Service 

Component Version 1.0 .0 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004).
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 30 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 7: Actions Required under Section 204 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

GSA has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this 

section. As indicated in OMB’s fiscal year 2003 report to Congress, 

FirstGov.gov serves as the federal Internet portal prescribed under section 

204. FirstGov.gov was launched in September 2000 as an interagency 

initiative, managed by GSA and supported and assisted by OMB and federal 

agencies. With this support and assistance, GSA established the portal to 

provide the public with access to U.S. government information and 

services, and GSA has maintained and promoted it since that time.

The portal’s design and operation generally adhere to the criteria 

established by section 204. For example, one of the ways the portal 

organizes its content is by key group, including citizens, businesses, 

nonprofits, federal employees, and other governments (state, local, and 

tribal). FirstGov.gov also organizes content according to online services 

rather than organization; this allows the public to conduct business with 

the government via the Internet without having to know how the 

government is organized. According to the FirstGov.gov program manager, 

many citizens do not know what services are federal versus state or local, 

and so FirstGov.gov searches not only federal Web sites, but also state 

sites. In addition, through its browse feature, FirstGov.gov links to state, 

tribal, and local government home pages, as well as state services such as 

departments of motor vehicles and state lottery pages. Table 8 provides 

usage statistics for Firstgov.gov.

Action Responsibility

Statutory 

deadline

Maintain and promote an 

integrated Internet-based 

system that provides the public 

with access to government 

information and services 

Director of OMB working with

the GSA Administrator 

No deadline given
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 31 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 8: Usage Statistics for FirstGov.gov, Fiscal Years 2002–2004

Source: GAO compilation of GSA-provided data.

a

Usage statistics for 2004 are projected.

GSA has several activities under way to promote the portal, including a 

nationwide television public service advertising campaign that began in 

June 2003 to educate citizens on how to find and use the information on 

FirstGov.gov. GSA officials estimate that the campaign has been used in 62 

percent of the nation’s television markets. In June 2004, GSA’s Office of 

Citizen Services and Communications launched a public service advertising 

campaign to encourage citizens to take advantage of federal information 

and services through FirstGov.gov and 1-800-FED-INFO. The campaign 

includes a television public service announcement, prerecorded radio 

messages, and print advertisements for magazines and newspapers. 

Federal Courts: Title II, 

Section 205

Section 205 of the E-Government Act promotes public Internet access to 

federal court information. By April 2005, individual courts are required to 

establish and maintain Web sites to provide public access to specific types 

of information, such as location and contact information, court rules, case 

docket information, and opinions. In addition, the courts are required to 

make any documents filed electronically available to the public by April 

2007. Privacy and security rules are to be established by the Supreme Court 

to protect electronically filed documents; however, the Judicial Conference 

may issue interim rules until the Supreme Court issues final rules. Finally, 

individual courts may defer compliance with the requirements of section 

205 by submitting a notification to the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

Table 9 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Fiscal year Unique visitors Page views Sites that link to FirstGov

2002 33 million 91 million 77,000

2003 63 million 176 million 129,000

2004a 70 million 200 million 209,000
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 32 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 9: Actions Required under Section 205 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

The federal courts have made progress establishing individual Web sites for 

the circuit, district, appellate, and bankruptcy courts, as required by this 

section of the act. Officials from the Administrative Office of the Courts 

reported that as of June 2004, all 198 courts had established individual Web 

sites, 10 months before the April 2005 deadline. Court officials further 

reported that individual courts were making progress providing the 

information stipulated in the act on their Web sites.

Court officials reported that as of August 2004, 128 of the 198 courts had 

provided public Internet access to their electronic filings, in advance of the 

April 2007 deadline. In addition, court officials reported that district and 

bankruptcy courts will provide public Internet access to electronic filings 

by September 2005, and appellate courts will provide such access by 2006.

To address privacy and security concerns, in September 2003, the Judicial 

Conference adopted a policy permitting remote public access to criminal 

case file documents to be the same as public access at courthouses, with a 

requirement that filers remove personal data identifiers from documents 

filed electronically or on paper. While the act does not specify a deadline 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Establish a Web site Individual courts April 17, 2005

Provide access to electronic 

filings

Individual courts April 17, 2007

Issue interim rules to address 

privacy and security relating to 

electronic filing and public 

availability of documents

Judicial Conference No deadline given

Issue final rules to address

privacy and security relating to 

electronic filing and public 

availability of documents

The Supreme Court No deadline given

Report to Congress on the 

adequacy of the Supreme 

Court’s final rules to protect 

privacy and security

Judicial Conference 1 year after Supreme Court’s 

rules take effect; every 2 years 

thereafter

Report to Congress on 

notifications submitted to defer 

compliance with any 

requirements from section 205

Judicial Conference April 17, 2004; every year 

thereafter
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 33 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

for the Supreme Court to issue final rules to protect privacy and security, 

federal court officials expect the Supreme Court to prescribe such rules by 

2007. As required by the act, 1 year after the final rules take effect, and then 

every 2 years thereafter, the Judicial Conference will be responsible for 

submitting a report to Congress on the adequacy of the final rules to 

protect privacy and security.

To date, no notifications deferring compliance with the requirements of 

section 205 have been submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

However, the Judicial Conference submitted a report to Congress, dated 

April 2, 2004, noting that because the statutory deadlines for the 

establishment of the individual courts’ Web sites and access to electronic 

filings (April 2005 and April 2007, respectively) have not passed, there are 

no notifications to report. 

Regulatory Agencies: 

Title II, Section 206

Section 206 of the E-Government Act is aimed at enhancing public 

participation in government by electronic means and improving 

performance in the development and issuance of agency regulations 

through the use of information technology. This section, in part, calls for 

agencies, to the extent practicable, to accept submissions electronically 

(e.g., comments submitted on proposed rules) and to make electronic 

dockets—the full set of material related to a rule—publicly available 

online. The Director of OMB is charged with establishing a timetable for 

agencies to implement these requirements in its first annual report to 

Congress on implementation of the act. Table 10 summarizes the actions 

required by this provision.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 34 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 10: Actions Required under Section 206 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have actions under 

way to address the rulemaking requirements of this section. OMB 

designated the e-Rulemaking initiative, managed by EPA, as the vehicle for 

addressing these requirements of section 206. In January 2003,

www.regulations.gov was launched, which enables citizens and businesses 

to search for and respond electronically16 to proposed rules open for 

comment in the Federal Register.

17 The ability to search full rulemaking 

dockets—the complete set of publicly available material (i.e., economic 

analyses, models, etc.) associated with a proposed rule—is not yet 

available; its availability is contingent on the development of a 

governmentwide electronic docket system. 

In its fiscal year 2003 report to Congress, OMB established a goal of 

completing migrations to the common federal docket management system 

by September 2005, with agencies beginning migrations to the central 

system in September 2004. According to the e-Rulemaking director, this 

timetable is contingent on funding. The director stated that an operational 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

In rulemaking proceedings, to 

the extent practicable, provide 

for

• electronic submission of 

comments

• electronic dockets to be made 

publicly available online

Federal agencies Timetable for agency 

compliance to be established by 

the Director of OMB

Establish a timetable for agency 

compliance with section 206

Director of OMB By the first annual report to 

Congress required under 44 

U.S.C. 3606 

16In cases where agencies accept only paper submissions, www.regulations.gov allows a 

user to fill out a Web form and print comments, and it provides a mailing address to the user 

for mailing the comments directly to the agency. Even if an agency accepts electronic 

submissions, a user has the option to fill out the Web form and mail the comment directly to 

the agency.

17For a more detailed examination of the first phase of this initiative, see GAO, Electronic 

Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation Can Be Improved, GAO-03-901

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2003).
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 35 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

version of the electronic docketing application would be ready by 

September 2005.

Accessibility, Usability, 

and Preservation of 

Government 

Information: Title II, 

Section 207

Section 207 of the E-Government Act requires the Director of OMB to 

establish an Interagency Committee on Government Information (ICGI) to 

develop recommendations on the categorization of government 

information and public access to electronic information. The Director of 

OMB is to issue guidance for agency Web sites and establish a public 

domain directory of federal government Web sites. Further, OMB is 

required to ensure the development and maintenance of a governmentwide 

repository and Web site that integrates information about research and 

development funded by the federal government. The ICGI is to submit 

recommendations to the Director of OMB on policies to improve reporting 

and dissemination of information related to research performed by federal 

agencies and federally funded development centers. Table 11 summarizes 

the actions required by this provision.

Table 11: Actions Required under Section 207 of the E-Government Act 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Establish an Interagency Committee on 

Government Information (ICGI)

Director of OMB June 17, 2003

Submit recommendations to OMB on the 

adoption of standards for categorizing 

and indexing government information

ICGI December 17, 2004

Issue policies based on the above ICGI 

recommendation

Director of OMB December 17, 2005

Submit recommendations to the Director 

of OMB and the Archivist on the adoption 

of policies and procedures for applying 

the Federal Records Act to government 

information on the Internet and other 

electronic records

ICGI December 17, 2004

Issue policies based on the ICGI’s 

recommendation for the above

Archivist December 17, 2005

Develop guidance for agency Web sites Director of OMB December 17, 2004

Establish a public domain directory of 

public federal government Web sites

Director of OMB December 17, 2004
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 36 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

Although OMB and the ICGI have taken steps toward complying with many 

of the provisions of this section, no significant action has been taken on 

one of them. Among the steps toward compliance is OMB’s establishment 

of the ICGI on June 17, 2003; the committee consists of representatives 

from the National Archives and Records Administration, representatives of 

agency CIOs, and other relevant officers from the executive branch. The 

ICGI consists of an Executive Committee under the auspices of the CIO 

Council, as well as four working groups: Categorization of Government 

Information, Electronic Records Policy, Web Content Management, and 

E-Gov Act Access. The E-Gov Act Access working group was tasked with 

addressing the requirements of section 213 (community technology 

centers) and section 215 (disparities in access to the Internet). The 

Executive Committee is co-chaired by OIRA’s IPT Branch Chief and the 

Department of Commerce CIO.

Develop and maintain a governmentwide 

repository and Web site of research and 

development funded by the federal 

government

Director of OMB, in 

consultation with the 

Director of the Office 

of Science and 

Technology Policy

No deadline given

Submit recommendations to the Director 

of OMB on policies to improve reporting 

and dissemination of information related 

to research performed by federal 

agencies and federally funded 

development centers

ICGI, working with 

the Director of the 

Office of Science 

and Technology 

Policy

June 17, 2004

(Continued From Previous Page)

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 37 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

ICGI’s working groups have made progress toward meeting the deadlines 

for developing the various recommendations prescribed in section 207. In 

August 2004, the Categorization of Government Information working group 

published for public comment a recommendation for search 

interoperability, in preparation for the required December 2004 submission 

of recommendations to OMB. In June 2004, the Electronic Records Policy 

working group, tasked with developing recommendations on the 

application of the Federal Records Act to government information on the 

Internet and other electronic records, released a report on barriers to 

effective management of government information on the Internet and other 

electronic records.18 The Web Content Management working group is 

assisting OMB with its responsibilities to issue guidance on standards for 

agency Web sites and establish a public domain directory of federal 

government Web sites. In June 2004, this working group submitted a report 

to OMB on recommended policies and guidelines for federal public Web 

sites.19 As for establishment of the public domain directory and subject 

taxonomies, the working group intends to build on the existing directory 

and taxonomies of the federal Internet portal prescribed under section 204.

OMB has not yet taken significant action to ensure the development and 

maintenance of a repository and Web site of information about research 

and development funded by the federal government, as required by the act. 

In its fiscal year 2003 report to Congress, OMB reported that an analysis 

had been conducted of the National Science Foundation’s Research and 

Development in the United States (RaDiUS) database system and that the 

system was closely aligned with the act’s requirements. However, OMB also 

said it had not yet determined whether RaDiUS would serve as the 

repository required by the act. Until OMB decides on a specific course of 

action, it may not fully meet the objective of section 207 to improve the 

methods by which government information, including information on the 

Internet, is organized, preserved, and made accessible to the public.

According to the executive sponsor of the Web Content Standards working 

group, the ICGI has addressed the requirement to make recommendations 

on policies to improve reporting and dissemination of federal research 

18Electronic Records Policy Working Group, Interagency Committee on Government 

Information, Barriers to the Effective Management of Government Information on the 

Internet and Other Electronic Records (Washington, D.C.: June 2004).

19Interagency Committee on Government Information, Recommended Policies and 

Guidelines for Federal Public Websites (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2004). 
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 38 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

results in its June 2004 report on recommended policies and guidelines for 

federal public Web sites.

Privacy Provisions: 

Title II, Section 208

Section 208 of the E-Government Act is aimed at ensuring sufficient 

protection for the privacy of personal information as agencies implement 

electronic government. Section 208 requires the agencies to prepare a

privacy impact assessment (PIA), which is an analysis of how information 

is handled in order to determine risks and examine protections for systems 

that collect information in a personally identifiable form (that is, 

information that could identify a particular person). Also, the act requires 

the Director of OMB to develop and issue guidance for completing the PIA. 

In addition, the Director of OMB is to develop guidance for privacy notices 

on agency Web sites accessed by the public. Finally, section 208 states that 

the Director of OMB is to issue guidance requiring agencies to translate 

privacy policies into a standardized machine-readable format. Table 12 

summarizes the deliverables required by this provision.

Table 12: Actions Required under Section 208 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this 

section. In September 2003, OMB issued guidance on implementing the 

privacy provisions of Section 208 that included requirements for PIAs as 

well as privacy policies for Web sites. OMB requires that agencies report 

compliance with the PIA and Web site privacy policy requirements in their 

agency-specific annual e-gov reports. In addition, OMB has built privacy 

compliance requirements into the budget process by requiring agencies to 

conduct a PIA for each major information technology system. Other efforts 

made by OMB to oversee agency PIA development include speaking 

engagements, agency-specific meetings, and workshops. Rules for agency 

Web site privacy policies including notices were also outlined in OMB’s 

Action Responsibility

Statutory 

deadline

Develop PIA guidance Director of OMB No deadline given

Develop guidance for privacy notices on 

agency Web sites used by the public

Director of OMB No deadline given

Develop guidance for machine-readable 

privacy policies

Director of OMB No deadline given
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 39 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

privacy implementation guidance and took effect on December 15, 2003. 

Finally, the guidance document included requirements for translating Web 

site privacy policies into standardized machine-readable format. 

IT Workforce 

Development: Title II, 

Section 209

Section 209 of the E-Government Act requires the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), in consultation with OMB, GSA, and the CIO Council, 

to conduct activities aimed at improving the skills of the federal IT 

workforce. OPM is required to develop governmentwide policies so that 

executive agencies can promote the development of performance 

standards for training as well as uniform implementation of workforce 

development requirements. OPM is also required to submit a report to 

Congress on the establishment of an IT training program. Additionally, 

OPM is required to establish procedures for administration of an IT 

Exchange Program, report to Congress on existing IT Exchange Programs, 

and submit biennial reports to Congress on the operation of such 

programs. Table 13 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Table 13: Actions Required under Section 209 of the E-Government Act 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Conduct activities aimed at 

improving the skills of the federal IT 

workforce (i.e., analyze the 

personnel needs of the federal 

government related to IT and 

identify where current training does 

not satisfy the needs of the federal 

workforce)

OPM, in consultation with 

OMB, the CIO Council, and 

Administrator of GSA

No deadline given

Issue governmentwide policies to 

promote the development of 

performance standards and 

uniform implementation of IT 

workforce development by 

executive agencies

OPM, in coordination with 

OMB

No deadline given

Submit report to Congress on 

establishment of a governmentwide 

IT training program

OPM, in consultation with 

the CIO Council and the 

Administrator of GSA

January 1, 2003

Prescribe regulations for the 

administration of the IT Exchange 

Program

OPM No deadline given

Submit report to Congress on 

existing exchange programs

OPM December 17, 2003
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 40 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OPM, GSA, and the CIO Council all have efforts under way in IT workforce 

development that address the requirements of this section of the act. These 

efforts include baseline activities such as surveying the personnel needs of 

the federal government related to IT as well as information resources 

management. In a June 2004 report,

20 we highlighted that the CIO Council’s 

Workforce and Human Capital for IT Committee, in consultation with OPM 

and OMB, developed the Clinger-Cohen Assessment (CCA) survey.21 This 

survey was conducted via the Internet in September 2003 to collect 

information regarding federal employee IT competencies, skills, 

certifications, and specialized job activities. The data collected by the CCA 

survey provided agencies with an “as is” IT workforce baseline for use in 

developing IT training programs that would close the gap between the 

current and necessary federal IT skills. OPM officials reported that the 

survey would be performed every year to give agencies a measure of their 

progress in closing skills gaps.

As we reported in June 2004,22 OPM has not yet issued policies that 

encourage the executive agencies to promote the development of 

performance standards for workforce training. However, OPM has 

established milestones for the development and issuance of such policies 

and estimates that guidance will be communicated via the CIO Council and 

OPM’s Human Capital Officers in November 2004.

In August 2004, OPM issued its report on the establishment of a 

governmentwide IT training program. The report establishes an IT 

framework based on the Clinger-Cohen “Core Competencies” developed by 

the CIO Council. The E-Government Act was enacted on December 17, 

Submit report to Congress on the 

status of the IT Exchange Program

OPM Not later than April 30 

and October 31 of 

each year

20GAO, Information Technology: Training Can Be Enhanced by Greater Use of Leading 

Practices, GAO-04-791 (Washington, D.C.: June 2004). This report also provides more 

detailed information on governmentwide IT workforce development efforts.

21For more detailed information on the survey results, see CIO Council, Clinger-Cohen 

Assessment Survey (2003) Analysis of Survey Results (Washington, D.C.: May 2004). 

22GAO-04-791.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 41 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

2002, leaving OPM approximately 2 weeks to prepare the required report. 

Consequently, OPM officials instead provided an interim report to Congress 

in June 2003 that provided a descriptive view of existing governmentwide 

IT training programs, noting that a more comprehensive report would be 

provided at a later date.

In January 2004, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on 

the establishment of an IT Exchange Program. OPM officials reported that 

they reviewed public comments and drafted a final rule but could not give 

an estimate as to when the final rule would be published. As required by the 

act, OPM provided Congress with a report on existing exchange programs 

in December 2003. In addition, OPM submitted reports to Congress in April 

2003 and April 2004, both of which stated that the IT Exchange Program 

had not yet been established.

State and Local 

Government Use of 

Federal Supply 

Schedules: Title II, 

Section 211

Section 211 of the E-Government Act provides for the use of Federal 

Supply Schedules23 by state and local governments for the acquisition of IT. 

The GSA Administrator is charged with establishing procedures to govern 

the use of Federal Supply Schedules by state and local governments. The 

E-Government Administrator is required to report to Congress on the 

implementation and effects of state and local government use of these 

schedules. Table 14 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

23The Federal Supply Schedule Program, which is directed and managed by GSA, is designed 

to provide federal agencies with a simplified process for acquiring commonly used 

commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 42 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 14: Actions Required under Section 211 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

GSA has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this 

section. On May 18, 2004, GSA issued its final rule authorizing acquisition 

of IT by state and local governments through Federal Supply Schedules.24

Although the act required that the procedures be issued by January 17, 

2003, GSA did not finalize the new procedures until May 2004. The agency 

had issued a proposed rule to implement the procedures on January 23, 

2003, and an interim rule on May 7, 2003. GSA officials noted that the use of 

these schedules on the part of vendors as well as state and local 

governments is voluntary. The deadline for the required implementation 

report has not yet passed; OMB officials reported that they plan to report to 

Congress in December 2004. 

Integrated Reporting 

Study and Pilot 

Projects: Title II, 

Section 212

Section 212 of the E-Government Act requires the Director of OMB to 

oversee a study and report to Congress on progress toward integrating 

federal information systems across agencies. In addition, in order to 

provide input to the study, the Director of OMB is required to designate up 

to five pilot projects to encourage integrated collection and management of 

data and interoperability of federal information systems. Table 15 

summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Establish procedures to govern 

the use of Federal Supply 

Schedules for the acquisition of 

IT by state or local 

governments 

Administrator of GSA January 17, 2003

Report to Congress on the 

implementation and effects of 

the use of Federal Supply 

Schedules for the acquisition of 

IT by state or local 

governments

Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government

December 31, 2004

24Federal Register, Volume 69, No. 96 (Tuesday, May 18, 2004), 28,063–28,066.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 43 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Table 15: Actions Required under Section 212 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB has actions under way to address the requirements of this section. In 

March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine five 

government lines of business: case management, federal health 

architecture, grants management, human resource management, and 

financial management. OMB officials stated that the lines of business 

initiatives also serve as the pilot projects required under section 212. 

Similar to the management of the 25 e-government initiatives, the lines of 

business initiatives are to be led by agencies designated as managing 

partners. The managing partners for all five initiatives are to submit 

business cases in September 2004 for the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle. 

OMB officials also reported that the study they are required to conduct 

under section 212 is ongoing; the deadline for this report has not yet 

passed. OMB officials stated that their study will address the lines of 

business initiatives, as well as the Federal Enterprise Architecture.25 OMB 

officials said they plan to report on the results of the study via the annual 

E-Government Act implementation report to Congress.

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Designate no more than five 

pilot projects to encourage 

integrated collection and 

management of data and 

interoperability of federal 

information systems

Director of OMB, in consultation 

with agencies

No deadline given

Submit a study and report to 

Congress on the progress 

toward integrating federal 

information systems across 

agencies

Director of OMB, in consultation 

with agencies

December 17, 2005

25According to OMB, the purpose of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, among other 

things, is to provide a common frame of reference or taxonomy for agencies’ individual 

enterprise architecture efforts and their planned and ongoing investment activities.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 44 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Community 

Technology Centers: 

Title II, Section 213

Section 213 of the E-Government Act requires the Administrator of the 

Office of E-Government to ensure that a study is conducted to evaluate the 

best practices of community technology centers, which provide Internet 

access to the public, and submit a report to Congress on the findings of this 

study by April 2005. In addition, this section requires the E-Government 

Administrator, in consultation with other agencies, to develop an online 

tutorial that explains how to access government information and services 

on the Internet. Table 16 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Table 16: Actions Required under Section 213 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB and other agencies have actions under way to address the 

requirements of this section of the act. According to a GSA official, OMB 

assigned the responsibility for section 213 to a newly created E-Gov Act 

Access working group established under the Interagency Committee on 

Government Information. The E-Gov Act Access working group consists of 

a cross section of agencies with an interest in access issues and includes 

representation from agencies such as the Department of Education, the 

Government Printing Office, and the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. According to the working group’s co-chair, the group plans 

to meet the April 2005 statutory deadline for the required study evaluating 

the best practices of community technology centers. Additionally, the 

group plans to consider options for developing an online tutorial in 

December 2004.

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Conduct a study and submit a 

report to Congress evaluating 

the best practices of community 

technology centers 

Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government

April 17, 2005

Develop an online tutorial that 

explains how to access 

government information and 

services on the Internet and 

provides a guide to available 

online resources

Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government, in consultation 

with the Department of 

Education and the Institute of 

Museum and Library Services

No deadline given
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 45 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Enhancing Crisis 

Management through 

Advanced Information 

Technology: Title II, 

Section 214

Section 214 of the E-Government Act addresses the coordination and 

availability of information across multiple access channels and improving 

the use of IT in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. A study is 

required to evaluate the use of IT for the enhancement of crisis 

preparedness, response, and consequence management of natural and 

manmade disasters. Also required is a report to Congress on the findings of 

the study as well as recommendations. Finally, the Administrator of the 

Office of E-Government is to initiate pilot projects in cooperation with the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or report other activities 

to Congress that involve maximizing the use of IT in disaster management. 

Table 17 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Table 17: Actions Required under Section 214 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

OMB and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have not yet taken 

actions that are fully responsive to the requirements of this section of the 

act. A study provided by DHS officials to address enhancement of crisis 

and response did not contain the required contents as stipulated in section 

214. The study was conducted by the MITRE Corporation for Project 

SAFECOM26 in December 2002 and completed in March 2003. DHS officials 

stated that the study addresses the section 214 requirement to conduct a 

study on enhancement of crisis response. However, our analysis indicates 

that the study in general did not address the use of IT to enhance crisis 

preparedness, response, and consequence management of natural and 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Conduct a study on the 

enhancement of crisis 

response

Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government in 

consultation with FEMA

March 17, 2003

Submit a report on the study 

including findings and 

recommendations

Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government

2 years after contract 

entered into for the study 

Initiate pilot projects or 

report to Congress on other 

activities

Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government in 

consultation with FEMA

No deadline given

26For additional information, refer to GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency 

Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 46 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

man-made disasters, as required by section 214. Specifically, the study did 

not include a research and implementation strategy for effective use of IT 

in crisis response and consequence management. The act states that this 

strategy should include the more effective use of technologies; 

management of IT research initiatives; and incorporation of research 

advances into the information communication systems of FEMA and other 

federal, state, and local agencies responsible for crisis preparedness, 

response, and consequence management. Furthermore, the study did not 

discuss opportunities for research and development on enhanced 

technologies for potential improvement as determined during the course of 

the study. OMB officials agreed that the study conducted by Project 

SAFECOM did not address the requirements of the act. OMB officials 

stated that a new study would be conducted to meet these requirements. 

Until the required elements of the study are addressed, OMB may not be 

able to make a fully informed response to the act’s requirement that it 

report on findings and recommendations for improving the use of IT in 

coordinating and facilitating information on disaster preparedness, 

response, and recovery.

According to OMB officials, pilot projects expected to enhance the goal of 

maximizing the use of IT are not planned. Instead, the focus of OMB’s 

efforts has been on other activities, such as the Disaster Management27 and 

SAFECOM programs, which work with industry communities to improve 

the requirements and develop standards for information sharing and 

coordination of responsiveness. OMB officials stated that they would 

determine at a future time whether initiation of pilot projects is necessary. 

Disparities in Access to 

the Internet: Title II, 

Section 215

Section 215 of the E-Government Act requires the GSA Administrator to 

contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study 

on disparities in Internet access for online government services. GSA is to 

submit a report to Congress on the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations of the study by December 2004. The report is required to 

address (1) how disparities in Internet access influence the effectiveness of 

online government services, (2) how the increase in online government 

services is influencing the disparities in Internet access and how 

technology development or diffusion trends may offset such adverse 

27Disaster Management is a program managed by the Department of Homeland Security that 

provides federal, state, and local emergency managers with online access to disaster 

management-related information, as well as planning and response tools.
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 47 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

influences, and (3) related societal effects arising from the interplay of 

disparities in Internet access and the increase in online government 

services. Table 18 summarizes the actions required by this provision.

Table 18: Actions Required under Section 215 of the E-Government Act

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

GSA has not fully addressed the requirements of this section, because it has 

not yet commissioned the required NAS study on disparities in Internet 

access for online government services. Although the act authorizes 

$950,000 to be spent on the study and report, a GSA official stated that no 

money had yet been appropriated. GSA officials reported that they were 

unable to request funds as part of the fiscal year 2003 or 2004 budget cycles 

because the act passed in December 2002, after fiscal year 2003 had begun 

and the deadline for fiscal year 2004 agency budget submissions (August 

2002) had passed. Although GSA officials did not provide any information 

regarding their actions for fiscal year 2005, they reported that the agency 

had requested the funds authorized in the act for the fiscal year 2006 budget 

cycle. Pending appropriation of the requested funds, GSA plans to enter 

into a contract with NAS for the study, but notes that the report on the 

study will not be completed within the statutory deadline of December 

2004.

In keeping with the purpose of this section, GSA officials and the 

Interagency Committee on Government Information’s E-Gov Act Access 

working group are working on compiling an interim study based on 

existing research on disparities in access to the Internet. The existing 

research includes, for example, Hart-Teeter poll results and Pew Internet 

and American Life Project studies. This compilation report is expected to 

be completed by December 2004 and submitted to Congress in OMB’s 

annual report to Congress on the implementation status of the act. 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Conduct a study with NAS via the 

National Research Council on 

disparities in Internet access for 

online government services

GSA Administrator March 17, 2003

Report to Congress on the study 

setting forth the findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations 

of the National Research Council

GSA Administrator December 17, 2004
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 48 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

Common Protocols for 

Geographic 

Information Systems: 

Title II, Section 216 

The purpose of section 216 of the E-Government Act is to reduce redundant 

data collection and information and promote collaboration and use of 

standards for government geographic information (see table 19). An 

interagency group is to establish common protocols that maximize the 

degree to which unclassified geographic information from various sources 

can be made electronically compatible and accessible, as well as promote 

the development of interoperable geographic information systems 

technologies. 

Table 19: Action Required under Section 216 of the E-Government Act 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

A variety of actions are under way to address the requirements of this 

section of the act. According to OMB, the interagency group referred to in 

the act is the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), which was 

organized in 1990 under OMB Circular A-16. The FGDC is intended to 

promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data 

on a national basis. The FGDC is chaired by the Secretary of the 

Department of Interior, with the Deputy Director for Management at OMB 

serving as Vice-Chair, and is made up of representatives from 19 cabinetlevel and independent federal agencies.28

OMB also established the Geospatial One-Stop29 initiative in 2002 to 

facilitate the development of common protocols for geographic 

information systems by bringing together various stakeholders to 

Action Responsibility Statutory deadline

Facilitate the development of 

common protocols for the 

development, acquisition, 

maintenance, distribution, and 

application of geographic 

information

Administrator of the Office of 

E-Government, in consultation 

with the Secretary of the 

Interior, and working with the 

Director of OMB through an 

interagency group 

No deadline given

28The E-Government Act requires that NIST have representation within the interagency 

group. However, NIST is not directly involved in the interagency group, but representatives 

are able to participate via the Department of Commerce, which houses NIST.

29For more information regarding Geospatial One-Stop, refer to GAO, Geospatial 

Information: Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help Reduce Duplicative 

Investments, GAO-04-824T (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004).
Appendix III

Implementation Status of Major Provisions 

from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act 

of 2002

Page 49 GAO-05-12 E-Gov Act Implementation

coordinate effective and efficient ways to align geographic information. In 

addition, the purpose of the Geospatial One-Stop is to make it faster, easier, 

and less expensive for all levels of government to obtain necessary 

geospatial data in order to make programmatic decisions.

Actions taken by FGDC to promote collaboration include creating a 

standards working group made up of federal and state agencies, academia, 

and the private sector. The working group has developed, and FGDC has 

endorsed, a number of different geospatial standards, including metadata 

standards, and it is currently developing additional standards. The 

committee’s working group also coordinates with national and 

international standards bodies to ensure that potential users support its 

work.

(310709)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548