INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Sustained Management 

Attention to the 

Implementation of FITARA 

Is Needed to Better 

Manage Acquisitions and 

Operations

Statement of David A. Powner, Director 

Information Technology Management Issues

Testimony before the Subcommittees on 

Government Operations and Information 

Technology, Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. ET

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

GAO-17-686T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-686T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittees on Government 

Operations and Information Technology, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

June 13, 2017

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Sustained Management Attention to the 

Implementation of FITARA Is Needed to Better 

Manage Acquisitions and Operations

What GAO Found

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies have taken 

steps to improve information technology (IT) through a series of initiatives, and 

as of May 2017, had fully implemented about 47 percent of the approximately 

800 related GAO recommendations. However, additional actions are needed.

• Consolidating data centers. OMB launched an initiative in 2010 to reduce 

data centers, which was reinforced by the Federal Information Technology 

Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) in 2014. GAO reported in May 2017 that 

agencies had closed 4,388 of the 9,995 total data centers, and had plans to 

close a total of 5,597 through fiscal year 2019. As a result, agencies 

reportedly saved or avoided about $2.3 billion through August 2016. 

However, out of the 23 agencies that submitted required strategic plans, only 

7 had addressed all required elements. GAO recommended that agencies 

complete their plans to optimize their data centers and achieve cost savings

and ensure reported cost savings are consistent across reporting 

mechanisms. Most agencies agreed with the recommendations.

• Enhancing transparency. OMB’s IT Dashboard provides information on 

major investments at federal agencies, including ratings from Chief 

Information Officers that should reflect the level of risk facing an investment. 

GAO reported in June 2016 that agencies had not fully considered risks 

when rating their investments on the Dashboard. In particular, of the 95 

investments reviewed, GAO’s assessments of risks matched the ratings 22 

times, showed more risk 60 times, and showed less risk 13 times. GAO 

recommended that agencies improve the quality and frequency of their 

ratings. Most agencies generally agreed with or did not comment on the 

recommendations.

• Implementing incremental development. OMB has emphasized the need 

for agencies to deliver investments in smaller parts, or increments, in order to 

reduce risk and deliver capabilities more quickly. Since 2012, OMB has 

required investments to deliver functionality every 6 months. In August 2016, 

GAO reported that while 22 agencies had reported that about 64 percent of 

469 active software development projects planned to deliver usable 

functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 2016, the other 36 percent of the 

projects did not. Further, for 7 selected agencies, GAO identified differences 

in the percentages of software projects reported to GAO as delivering 

functionality every 6 months, compared to what was reported on the 

Dashboard. GAO made recommendations to agencies and OMB to improve 

the reporting of incremental data on the Dashboard. Most agencies agreed or 

did not comment on the recommendations. 

• Managing software licenses. Effective management of software licenses 

can help avoid purchasing too many licenses that result in unused software. 

In May 2014, GAO reported that better management of licenses was needed 

to achieve savings. Specifically, only two agencies had comprehensive 

license inventories. GAO recommended that agencies regularly track and 

maintain a comprehensive inventory and analyze that data to identify 

opportunities to reduce costs and better inform decision making. Most 

agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no comments; 

as of May 2017, 4 agencies had made progress in implementing them.

View GAO-17-686T. For more information, 

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

pow nerd@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government plans to invest 

almost $96 billion on IT in fiscal year 

2018. Historically, these investments 

have too often failed, incurred cost 

overruns and schedule slippages, or 

contributed little to mission-related 

outcomes. Accordingly, in December 

2014, Congress enacted FITARA, 

aimed at improving agencies’ 

acquisitions of IT. Further, in February 

2015, GAO added improving the 

management of IT acquisitions and 

operations to its high-risk list. 

This statement summarizes agencies’ 

progress in improving the management 

of IT acquisitions and operations. This 

statement is based on GAO prior and 

recently published reports on (1) data 

center consolidation, (2) risk levels of 

major investments as reported on 

OMB’s IT Dashboard, (3) 

implementation of incremental 

development practices, and (4) 

management of software licenses. 

What GAO Recommends

From fiscal years 2010 through 2015, 

GAO made about 800 

recommendations to OMB and federal 

agencies to address shortcomings in IT 

acquisitions and operations, and 

included recommendations to improve 

the oversight and execution of the data 

center consolidation initiative, the 

accuracy and reliability of the 

Dashboard, incremental development 

policies, and software license 

management. Most agencies agreed 

with GAO’s recommendations or had 

no comments. In addition, in fiscal year 

2016, GAO made about 200 new 

recommendations in this area. GAO 

will continue to monitor agencies’ 

implementation of these 

recommendations.
Page 1 GAO-17-686T 

Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, 

and Members of the Subcommittees:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss opportunities for federal 

agencies to improve the acquisition of information technology (IT). As you 

know, the effective and efficient acquisition of IT has been a longstanding challenge in the federal government. In particular, the federal 

government has spent billions of dollars on failed and poorly performing 

IT investments, which often suffered from ineffective management. 

Recognizing the importance of government-wide acquisition of IT, in 

December 2014, Congress enacted federal IT acquisition reform 

legislation (commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology 

Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA).1

In addition, in February 2015, we added improving the management of IT 

acquisitions and operations to our list of high-risk areas for the federal 

government.2 We recently issued an update to our high-risk report and 

determined that, while progress has been made in addressing the highrisk area of IT acquisitions and operations, significant work remains to be 

completed.3 For example, as of May 2017, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and agencies had implemented 380 (or about 47 percent) 

of the 803 open recommendations that we had made from fiscal years 

2010 through 2015 related to IT acquisitions and operations.

My statement today discusses agencies’ progress in improving the 

management of IT acquisitions and operations. This statement is based 

on our prior and recently published reports that discuss (1) data center 

consolidation, (2) risk levels of major investments as reported on OMB’s 

IT Dashboard, (3) implementation of incremental development practices, 

and (4) and management of software licenses. A more detailed 

discussion of the objectives, scope, and methodology for this work is 

 1Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, div. A, title VIII, subtitle D, 128 Stat. 3292, 3438-3450 

(Dec. 19, 2014).

2GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015). 

GAO maintains a high-risk program to focus attention on government operations that it 

identifies as high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement or the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or 

effectiveness challenges. 

3GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts 

Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017).
Page 2 GAO-17-686T 

included in each of the reports that are cited throughout this statement. In 

addition, related to the current status of federal agencies’ CIO position, 

we reviewed publically available data and verified that data with agencies.

We conducted the work upon which this statement is based in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

According to the President’s budget, the federal government plans to 

invest more than $96 billion on IT in fiscal year 2018—the largest amount 

ever. However, as we have previously reported, investments in federal IT 

too often result in failed projects that incur cost overruns and schedule 

slippages, while contributing little to the desired mission-related 

outcomes. For example:

• The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Scheduling Replacement Project 

was terminated in September 2009 after spending an estimated $127 

million over 9 years.4

• The tri-agency5 National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System was halted in February 2010 by the White House’s 

Office of Science and Technology Policy after the program spent 16 

years and almost $5 billion.6

 4GAO, Information Technology: Management Improvements Are Essential to VA’s Second 

Effort to Replace Its Outpatient Scheduling System, GAO-10-579 (Washington, D.C.: May 

27, 2010). 

5The weather satellite program was managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration.

6See, for example, GAO, Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites: With Costs Increasing 

and Data Continuity at Risk, Improvements Needed in Tri-agency Decision Making, 

GAO-09-564 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2009) and Environmental Satellites: PolarOrbiting Satellite Acquisition Faces Delays; Decisions Needed on Whether and How to 

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

Background
Page 3 GAO-17-686T 

• The Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative 

Network program was ended in January 2011, after the department 

obligated more than $1 billion for the program.7

• The Office of Personnel Management’s Retirement Systems 

Modernization program was canceled in February 2011, after 

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

automate the processing of federal employee retirement claims.8

• The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Financial and Logistics 

Integrated Technology Enterprise program was intended to be 

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

terminated in October 2011.9

• The Department of Defense’s Expeditionary Combat Support System 

was canceled in December 2012 after spending more than a billion 

dollars and failing to deploy within 5 years of initially obligating 

funds.10

Our past work found that these and other failed IT projects often suffered 

from a lack of disciplined and effective management, such as project 

planning, requirements definition, and program oversight and 

governance. In many instances, agencies had not consistently applied 

best practices that are critical to successfully acquiring IT.

 7See, for example, GAO, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Strengthen Management 

and Oversight of Its Prime Contractor, GAO-11-6 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2010); 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its Proposed Investment in Key 

Technology Program, GAO-10-340 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010); and Secure Border 

Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Testing and Performance Limitations That Place Key 

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

8See, for example, GAO, Office of Personnel Management: Retirement Modernization 

Planning and Management Shortcomings Need to Be Addressed, GAO-09-529 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2009) and Office of Personnel Management: Improvements 

Needed to Ensure Successful Retirement Systems Modernization, GAO-08-345 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2008). 

9GAO, Information Technology: Actions Needed to Fully Establish Program Management 

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

26, 2009). 

10GAO, DOD Financial Management: Implementation Weaknesses in Army and Air Force 

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

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

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

D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010). 
Page 4 GAO-17-686T 

Federal IT projects have also failed due to a lack of oversight and 

governance. Executive-level governance and oversight across the 

government has often been ineffective, specifically from chief information 

officers (CIO). For example, we have reported that some CIOs’ authority 

was limited because they did not have the authority to review and 

approve the entire agency IT portfolio.11

Recognizing the severity of issues related to the government-wide 

management of IT, FITARA was enacted in December 2014. The law was 

intended to improve agencies’ acquisitions of IT and enable Congress to 

monitor agencies’ progress and hold them accountable for reducing 

duplication and achieving cost savings. FITARA includes specific 

requirements related to seven areas.12

• Federal data center consolidation initiative (FDCCI). Agencies are 

required to provide OMB with a data center inventory, a strategy for 

consolidating and optimizing their data centers (to include planned 

cost savings), and quarterly updates on progress made. The law also 

requires OMB to develop a goal for how much is to be saved through 

this initiative, and provide annual reports on cost savings achieved.

• Enhanced transparency and improved risk management. OMB 

and covered agencies are to make detailed information on federal IT 

investments publicly available, and agency CIOs are to categorize 

their IT investments by level of risk. Additionally, in the case of major 

IT investments 13 rated as high risk for 4 consecutive quarters, the law 

 11GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Role in 

Information Technology Management, GAO-11-634 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2011). 

12The provisions apply to the agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 

1990, 31 U.S.C. § 901(b). These agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, the Interior, the 

Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, 

General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National 

Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, 

Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Agency for 

International Development. However, FITARA has generally limited application to the 

Department of Defense.

13Major IT investment means a system or an acquisition requiring special management 

attention because it has significant program or policy implications; high executive visibility; 

high development, operating, or maintenance costs; an usual funding mechanism; or is 

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

FITARA Can Improve 

Agencies’Management of 

IT
Page 5 GAO-17-686T 

requires that the agency CIO and the investment’s program manager 

conduct a review aimed at identifying and addressing the causes of 

the risk.

• Agency CIO authority enhancements. CIOs at covered agencies 

are required to (1) approve the IT budget requests of their respective 

agencies, (2) certify that OMB’s incremental development guidance is 

being adequately implemented for IT investments, (3) review and 

approve contracts for IT, and (4) approve the appointment of other 

agency employees with the title of CIO. See appendix I for details on 

the current status of federal CIOs.

• Portfolio review. Agencies are to annually review IT investment 

portfolios in order to, among other things, increase efficiency and 

effectiveness and identify potential waste and duplication. In 

establishing the process associated with such portfolio reviews, the 

law requires OMB to develop standardized performance metrics, to 

include cost savings, and to submit quarterly reports to Congress on 

cost savings.

• Expansion of training and use of IT acquisition cadres. Agencies 

are to update their acquisition human capital plans to address 

supporting the timely and effective acquisition of IT. In doing so, the 

law calls for agencies to consider, among other things, establishing IT 

acquisition cadres or developing agreements with other agencies that 

have such cadres.

• Government-wide software purchasing program. The General 

Services Administration is to develop a strategic sourcing initiative to 

enhance government-wide acquisition and management of software. 

In doing so, the law requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, 

the General Services Administration should allow for the purchase of 

a software license agreement that is available for use by all executive 

branch agencies as a single user.14

• Maximizing the benefit of the Federal Strategic Sourcing 

Initiative.15 Federal agencies are required to compare their 

 14The Making Electronic Government Accountable by Yielding Tangible Efficiencies Act of 

2016, or the “MEGABYTE Act” further enhances CIOs management of software licenses 

by requiring agency CIOs to establish an agency software licensing policy and a 

comprehensive software license inventory to track and maintain licenses, among other 

requirements. Pub. L. No. 114-210 (July 29, 2016); 130 Stat. 824.

15The Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative is a program established by the General 

Services Administration and the Department of the Treasury to address government-wide 

opportunities to strategically source commonly purchased goods and services and 

eliminate duplication of efforts across agencies. 
Page 6 GAO-17-686T 

purchases of services and supplies to what is offered under the 

Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative. OMB is also required to issue 

regulations related to the initiative.

In June 2015, OMB released guidance describing how agencies are to 

implement FITARA.16 This guidance is intended to, among other things:

• assist agencies in aligning their IT resources with statutory 

requirements;

• establish government-wide IT management controls that will meet the 

law’s requirements, while providing agencies with flexibility to adapt to 

unique agency processes and requirements;

• clarify the CIO’s role and strengthen the relationship between agency 

CIOs and bureau CIOs; and

• strengthen CIO accountability for IT costs, schedules, performance, 

and security.

The guidance identified several actions that agencies were to take to 

establish a basic set of roles and responsibilities (referred to as the 

common baseline) for CIOs and other senior agency officials, which were 

needed to implement the authorities described in the law. For example, 

agencies were required to conduct a self-assessment and submit a plan 

describing the changes they intended to make to ensure that common 

baseline responsibilities were implemented. Agencies were to submit their 

plans to OMB’s Office of E-Government and Information Technology by 

August 15, 2015, and make portions of the plans publicly available on 

agency websites no later than 30 days after OMB approval. As of 

November 2016, all agencies had made their plans publicly available.

In addition, in August 2016, OMB released guidance intended to, among 

other things, define a framework for achieving the data center 

consolidation and optimization requirements of FITARA.17 The guidance 

includes requirements for agencies to:

 16OMB, Management and Oversight of Federal Information Technology, Memorandum M15-14 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015). 

17OMB, Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI), Memorandum M-16-19 (Washington 

D.C.: Aug. 1, 2016).
Page 7 GAO-17-686T 

• maintain complete inventories of all data center facilities owned, 

operated, or maintained by or on behalf of the agency;

• develop cost savings targets for fiscal years 2016 through 2018 and 

report any actual realized cost savings; and

• measure progress toward meeting optimization metrics on a quarterly 

basis.

The guidance also directs agencies to develop a data center 

consolidation and optimization strategic plan that defines the agency’s 

data center strategy for fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018. This strategy 

is to include, among other things, a statement from the agency CIO 

stating whether the agency has complied with all data center reporting 

requirements in FITARA. Further, the guidance indicates that OMB is to 

maintain a public dashboard that will display consolidation-related costs 

savings and optimization performance information for the agencies.

In February 2015, we introduced a new government-wide high-risk area, 

Improving the Management of IT Acquisitions and Operations.18 This area 

highlighted several critical IT initiatives in need of additional congressional 

oversight, including (1) reviews of troubled projects; (2) efforts to increase 

the use of incremental development; (3) efforts to provide transparency 

relative to the cost, schedule, and risk levels for major IT investments; (4) 

reviews of agencies’ operational investments; (5) data center 

consolidation; and (6) efforts to streamline agencies’ portfolios of IT 

investments. We noted that implementation of these initiatives was 

inconsistent and more work remained to demonstrate progress in 

achieving IT acquisition and operation outcomes.

Further, our February 2015 high-risk report stated that, beyond 

implementing FITARA, OMB and agencies needed to continue to 

implement our prior recommendations in order to improve their ability to 

effectively and efficiently invest in IT. Specifically, from fiscal years 2010 

through 2015, we made 803 recommendations to OMB and federal 

agencies to address shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations. 

These recommendations included many to improve the implementation of 

the aforementioned six critical IT initiatives and other government-wide, 

cross-cutting efforts. We stressed that OMB and agencies should 

demonstrate government-wide progress in the management of IT 

 18GAO-15-290. 

IT Acquisitions and 

Operations Identified by 

GAO as a High-Risk Area
Page 8 GAO-17-686T 

investments by, among other things, implementing at least 80 percent of 

our recommendations related to managing IT acquisitions and operations 

within 4 years.

In February 2017, we issued an update to our high-risk series and 

reported that, while progress had been made in improving the 

management of IT acquisitions and operations, significant work still 

remained to be completed.19 For example, as of May 2017, OMB and the 

agencies had fully implemented 380 (or about 47 percent) of the 803 

recommendations. This was a 24 percent increase compared to the 

percentage we reported as being fully implemented in 2015. Figure 1 

summarizes the progress that OMB and the agencies had made in 

addressing our recommendations, as compared to the 80 percent target, 

as of May 2017.

Figure 1: Summary of the Office of Management and Budget’s and Federal 

Agencies’ Progress in Addressing GAO’s Recommendations, as of May 2017

In addition, in fiscal year 2016, we made 202 new recommendations, thus 

further reinforcing the need for OMB and agencies to address the 

shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations. Also, beyond addressing 

our prior recommendations, our 2017 high-risk update noted the 

importance of OMB and federal agencies continuing to expeditiously 

implement the requirements of FITARA.

To further explore the challenges and opportunities to improve federal IT 

acquisitions and operations, we convened a forum on September 14, 

2016, to explore challenges and opportunities for CIOs to improve federal 

IT acquisitions and operations—with the goal of better informing 

policymakers and government leadership.20 Forum participants, which 

 19GAO-17-317.

20GAO, Information Technology: Opportunities for Improving Acquisitions and Operations, 

GAO-17-251SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2017).
Page 9 GAO-17-686T 

included 13 current and former federal agency CIOs, members of 

Congress, and private sector IT executives, identified key actions related 

to seven topics: (1) strengthening FITARA, (2) improving CIO authorities, 

(3) budget formulation, (4) governance, (5) workforce, (6) operations, and 

(7) transition planning. A summary of the key actions, by topic area, 

identified during the forum is provided in figure 2.
Page 10 GAO-17-686T 

Figure 2: Key Actions, by Topic Area, Identified by Forum Participants to Improve Information Technology Acquisitions and 

Operations

In addition, in January 2017, the Federal CIO Council concluded that 

differing levels of authority over IT-related investments and spending 
Page 11 GAO-17-686T 

have led to inconsistencies in how IT is executed from agency to agency. 

According to the Council, for those agencies where the CIO has broad 

authority to manage all IT investments, great progress has been made to 

streamline and modernize the federal agency’s footprint. For the others, 

where agency CIOs are only able to control pieces of the total IT footprint, 

it has been harder to achieve improvements.21

The administration has initiated two efforts aimed at improving federal IT. 

Specifically, in March 2017, it established the Office of American 

Innovation to, among other things, improve federal government 

operations and services, and modernize federal IT. The office is to 

consult with both OMB and the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

on policies and plans intended to improve government operations and 

services, improve the quality of life for Americans, and spur job creation.22

In May 2017, the administration also established the American 

Technology Council to help transform and modernize federal IT and how 

the government uses and delivers digital services. The President is the 

chairman of this council, and the Federal CIO and the United States 

Digital Service23 administrator are members.

Agencies have taken steps to improve the management of IT acquisitions 

and operations by implementing key FITARA initiatives. However, 

agencies would be better positioned to fully implement the law and, thus, 

realize additional management improvements, if they addressed the 

numerous recommendations we have made aimed at improving data 

center consolidation, increasing transparency via OMB’s IT Dashboard, 

implementing incremental development, and managing software licenses.

 21CIO Council, State of Federal Information Technology (Washington, D.C.: January 

2017).

22The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy provides the President and 

others within the Executive office of the President with advice on the scientific, 

engineering, and technological aspects of the economy, national security, homeland 

security, health, foreign relations, the environment, and the technological recovery and 

use of resources, among other topics. 

23The United States Digital Service is an office within OMB which aims to improve the 

most important public-facing federal digital services. 

The Federal Government 

Has Current Efforts to 

Improve IT

Agencies Have Taken 

Steps to Improve IT 

Management, but Full 

Implementation of 

FITARA Is Needed
Page 12 GAO-17-686T 

One of the key initiatives to implement FITARA is data center 

consolidation. OMB established FDCCI in February 2010 to improve the 

efficiency, performance, and environmental footprint of federal data 

center activities and the enactment of FITARA reinforced the initiative. 

However, in a series of reports that we issued over the past 6 years, we 

noted that, while data center consolidation could potentially save the 

federal government billions of dollars, weaknesses existed in several 

areas, including agencies’ data center consolidation plans and OMB’s 

tracking and reporting on related cost savings.24 In these reports, we 

made a total of 141 recommendations to OMB and 24 agencies to 

improve the execution and oversight of the initiative. Most agencies and 

OMB agreed with our recommendations or had no comments. As of May 

2017, 75 of our recommendations remained open.

Also, in May 2017, we reported25 that the 24 agencies 26 participating in 

FDCCI collectively had made progress on their data center closure 

efforts. Specifically, as of August 2016, these agencies had identified a 

total of 9,995 data centers, of which they reported having closed 4,388, 

and having plans to close a total of 5,597 data centers through fiscal year 

2019. Notably, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and 

the Treasury accounted for 84 percent of the completed closures.

 24GAO, Data Center Optimization: Agencies Need to Complete Plans to Address 

Inconsistencies in Reported Savings, GAO-17-388 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2017); 

Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress, but Planned Savings Goals Need 

to Be Established [Reissued on March 4, 2016], GAO-16-323 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 

2016); Data Center Consolidation: Reporting Can Be Improved to Reflect Substantial 

Planned Savings, GAO-14-713 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2014); Data Center 

Consolidation: Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Cost Savings Goal, 

GAO-13-378 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2013); Data Center Consolidation: Agencies 

Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed, 

GAO-12-742 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2012); and Data Center Consolidation: Agencies 

Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings, GAO-11-565 

(Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2011).

25GAO-17-388.

26The 24 agencies that FITARA requires to participate in FDCCI are the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency;

General Services Administration;National Aeronautics and Space Administration;National 

Science Foundation;Nuclear Regulatory Commission;Office of Personnel Management;

Small Business Administration;Social Security Administration; and U.S. Agency for 

International Development.

Agencies Have Made 

Progress in Consolidating 

Data Centers, but Need to 

Take Action to Achieve 

Planned Cost Savings
Page 13 GAO-17-686T 

In addition, 18 of the 24 agencies reported achieving about $2.3 billion 

collectively in cost savings and avoidances from their data center 

consolidation and optimization efforts from fiscal year 2012 through 

August 2016. The Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland 

Security, and the Treasury accounted for approximately $2.0 billion (or 87 

percent) of the total.

Further, 23 agencies reported about $656 million collectively in planned 

savings for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. This is about $3.3 billion less 

than the estimated $4.0 billion in planned savings for fiscal years 2016 

through 2018 that agencies reported to us in November 2015. Figure 3 

presents a comparison of the amounts of cost savings and avoidances 

reported by agencies to OMB and the amounts the agencies reported to 

us.

Figure 3: Comparison of Fiscal Years 2016-2018 Planned Cost Savings and 

Avoidances Reported to GAO in November 2015 versus Those Reported to the 

Office of Management and Budget in April 2017

As mentioned previously, FITARA required agencies to submit multi-year 

strategies to achieve the consolidation and optimization of their data 

centers no later than the end of fiscal year 2016. Among other things, this 

strategy was to include such information as data center consolidation and 

optimization metrics, and year-by-year calculations of investments and 

cost savings through October 1, 2018.

Further, OMB’s August 2016 guidance on data center optimization 

contained additional information for how agencies are to implement the 
Page 14 GAO-17-686T 

strategic plan requirements of FITARA.27 Specifically, the guidance stated 

that agency data center consolidation and optimization strategic plans are 

to include, among other things, planned and achieved performance levels 

for each optimization metric; calculations of target and actual agencywide spending and cost savings on data centers; and historical cost 

savings and cost avoidances due to data center consolidation and 

optimization. OMB’s guidance also stated that agencies were required to 

publicly post their strategic plans to their agency-owned digital strategy 

websites by September 30, 2016.

As of April 2017, only 7 of the 23 agencies that submitted their strategic 

plans—the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, 

and Housing and Urban Development; the General Services 

Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of 

Personnel Management—had addressed all five elements required by the 

OMB memorandum implementing FITARA. The remaining 16 agencies 

either partially met or did not meet the requirements. For example, most 

agencies partially met or did not meet the requirements to provide 

information related to data center closures and cost savings metrics. The 

Department of Defense did not submit a plan and was rated as not 

meeting any of the requirements.

To better ensure that federal data center consolidation and optimization 

efforts improve governmental efficiency and achieve cost savings, in our 

May 2017 report, we recommended that 11 of the 24 agencies take action 

to ensure that the amounts of achieved data center cost savings and 

avoidances are consistent across all reporting mechanisms. We also 

recommended that 17 of the 24 agencies each take action to complete 

missing elements in their strategic plans and submit their plans to OMB in 

order to optimize their data centers and achieve cost savings. Twelve 

agencies agreed with our recommendations, 2 did not agree, and 10 

agencies and OMB did not state whether they agreed or disagreed.

 27OMB, Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI), Memorandum M-16-19 (Washington,

D.C.: Aug. 1, 2016).
Page 15 GAO-17-686T 

To facilitate transparency across the government in acquiring and 

managing IT investments, OMB established a public website—the IT 

Dashboard—to provide detailed information on major investments at 26 

agencies, including ratings of their performance against cost and 

schedule targets. Among other things, agencies are to submit ratings 

from their CIOs, which, according to OMB’s instructions, should reflect the 

level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment’s ability to 

accomplish its goals. In this regard, FITARA includes a requirement for 

CIOs to categorize their major IT investment risks in accordance with 

OMB guidance.28

Over the past 6 years, we have issued a series of reports about the 

Dashboard that noted both significant steps OMB has taken to enhance 

the oversight, transparency, and accountability of federal IT investments 

by creating its Dashboard, as well as concerns about the accuracy and 

reliability of the data.29 In total, we have made 47 recommendations to 

OMB and federal agencies to help improve the accuracy and reliability of 

the information on the Dashboard and to increase its availability. Most 

agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no comments. As of 

May 2017, 17 of these recommendations have been implemented.

In June 2016, we determined that 13 of the 15 agencies selected for indepth review had not fully considered risks when rating their major 

investments on the Dashboard. Specifically, our assessments of risk for 

95 investments at the 15 selected agencies 30 matched the CIO ratings 

posted on the Dashboard 22 times, showed more risk 60 times, and 

 2840 U.S.C. § 11302(c)(3)(C). 

29GAO, IT Dashboard: Agencies Need to Fully Consider Risks When Rating Their Major 

Investments, GAO-16-494 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2016); IT Dashboard: Agencies Are 

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

GAO-14-64 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2013); IT Dashboard: Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Transparency and Oversight of Investment Risk at Select Agencies, GAO-13-98 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2012); IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and Additional 

Efforts Are under Way to Better Inform Decision Making, GAO-12-210 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 7, 2011); Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, 

but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, 

GAO-11-262 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); and Information Technology: OMB’s 

Dashboard Has Increased Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, 

GAO-10-701 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2010).

30The 15 selected agencies were the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; 

General Services Administration; and Social Security Administration.

Risks Need to Be Fully 

Considered When 

Agencies Rate Their Major 

Investments on OMB’s IT 

Dashboard
Page 16 GAO-17-686T 

showed less risk 13 times. Figure 4 summarizes how our assessments 

compared to the selected investments’ CIO ratings.

Figure 4: Comparison of Selected Investments’ April 2015 Chief Information Officer Ratings to GAO’s Assessments

Aside from the inherently judgmental nature of risk ratings, we identified 

three factors which contributed to differences between our assessments 

and the CIO ratings:

• Forty of the 95 CIO ratings were not updated during April 2015 (the 

month we conducted our review), which led to differences between 

our assessments and the CIOs’ ratings. This underscores the 

importance of frequent rating updates, which help to ensure that the 

information on the Dashboard is timely and accurately reflects recent 

changes to investment status.

• Three agencies’ rating processes spanned longer than 1 month. 

Longer processes mean that CIO ratings are based on older data, and 

may not reflect the current level of investment risk.

• Seven agencies’ rating processes did not focus on active risks. 

According to OMB’s guidance, CIO ratings should reflect the CIO’s 

assessment of the risk and the investment’s ability to accomplish its 

goals. CIO ratings that do no incorporate active risks increase the 

chance that ratings overstate the likelihood of investment success.

As a result, we concluded that the associated risk rating processes used 

by the 15 agencies were generally understating the level of an 

investment’s risk, raising the likelihood that critical federal investments in 

IT are not receiving the appropriate levels of oversight.
Page 17 GAO-17-686T 

To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, 

we recommended that the 15 agencies take actions to improve the quality 

and frequency of their CIO ratings. Twelve agencies generally agreed 

with or did not comment on the recommendations and three agencies 

disagreed, stating that their CIO ratings were adequate. However, we 

noted that weaknesses in these three agencies’ processes still existed 

and that we continued to believe our recommendations were appropriate. 

As of May 2017, these recommendations have not yet been fully 

implemented.

OMB has emphasized the need to deliver investments in smaller parts, or 

increments, in order to reduce risk, deliver capabilities more quickly, and 

facilitate the adoption of emerging technologies. In 2010, it called for 

agencies’ major investments to deliver functionality every 12 months and, 

since 2012, every 6 months. Subsequently, FITARA codified a 

requirement that agency CIOs certify that IT investments are adequately 

implementing OMB’s incremental development guidance.31

However, in May 2014, we reported32 that 66 of 89 selected investments 

at five major agencies 33 did not plan to deliver capabilities in 6-month 

cycles, and less than half of these investments planned to deliver 

functionality in 12-month cycles. We also reported that only one of the five 

agencies had complete incremental development policies. Accordingly, 

we recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on incremental 

development and that the selected agencies update their associated 

policies to comply with OMB’s revised guidance (once made available), 

and consider the factors identified in our report when doing so.

Four of the six agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no 

comments, one agency partially agreed, and the remaining agency 

disagreed with the recommendations. The agency that disagreed did not 

believe that its recommendations should be dependent upon OMB taking 

action to update guidance. In response, we noted that only one of the 

 3140 U.S.C. § 11319(b)(1)(B)(ii).

32GAO, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish and Implement Incremental 

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

33These five agencies are the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security,Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.

Agencies Need to 

Increase Their Use of 

Incremental Development 

Practices
Page 18 GAO-17-686T 

recommendations to that agency depended upon OMB action, and we 

maintained that the action was warranted and could be implemented.

Subsequently, in August 2016, we reported34 that agencies had not fully 

implemented incremental development practices for their software 

development projects. Specifically, we noted that, as of August 31, 2015, 

22 federal agencies 35 had reported on the Dashboard that 300 of 469 

active software development projects (approximately 64 percent) were 

planning to deliver usable functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 

2016, as required by OMB guidance. Table 1 lists the total number and 

percent of federal software development projects for which agencies 

reported plans to deliver functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 2016.

 34GAO, Information Technology Reform: Agencies Need to Increase Their Use of 

Incremental Development Practices, GAO-16-469 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 2016).

35These 22 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, 

National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Small 

Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Agency for International 

Development.
Page 19 GAO-17-686T 

Table 1: Federal Agency Software Development Projects that Planned to Deliver Functionality Every 6 Months for Fiscal Year 

2016, as Reported on the Office of Management and Budget’s Information Technology (IT) Dashboard

Agency

Number of 

major IT 

investments 

Number of projects 

associated with 

investments

Number of projects 

planning delivery of 

release every 6 months

Percent

planning release

every 6 months

Department of Veterans Affairs 10 95 95 100%

Department of Commerce 9 84 78 93%

Department of Health and Human Services 18 48 42 88%

Department of Education 12 14 11 79%

Department of the Treasury 12 28 18 64%

Department of Homeland Security 13 23 13 57%

Social Security Administration 9 24 12 50%

Department of Transportation 20 60 5 8%

Department of Defense 36 51 4 8%

All other federal agenciesa 30 42 22 52%

Total 169 469 300 64%

Source: GAO analysis of Dashboard data as of August 31, 2015. I GAO-17-686T

a

Thirteen additional agencies each reported having at least one major IT investment and a total of 20 

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

functionality delivered for each agency’s small number of projects w ould not provide a reliable figure.

Regarding the remaining 169 projects (or 36 percent) that were reported 

as not planning to deliver functionality every 6 months, agencies provided 

a variety of explanations for not achieving that goal. These included 

project complexity, the lack of an established project release schedule, or 

that the project was not a software development project.

Further, in conducting an in-depth review of seven selected agencies’

software development projects,36 we determined that 45 percent of the 

projects delivered functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 2015 and 55 

percent planned to do so in fiscal year 2016. However, significant 

differences existed between the delivery rates that the agencies reported 

to us and what they reported on the Dashboard. For example, for four 

agencies (the Departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human 

Services, and Treasury), the percentage of delivery reported to us was at 

least 10 percentage points lower than what was reported on the 

 36These seven agencies are the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Health 

and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, and the Treasury. These 

agencies were chosen because they reported a minimum of 12 investments that were at 

least 50 percent or more in development on the Dashboard for fiscal year 2015.
Page 20 GAO-17-686T 

Dashboard. These differences were due to (1) our identification of fewer 

software development projects than agencies reported on the Dashboard 

and (2) the fact that information reported to us was generally more current 

than the information reported on the Dashboard.

We concluded that, by not having up-to-date information on the 

Dashboard about whether the project is a software development project 

and about the extent to which projects are delivering functionality, these 

seven agencies were at risk that OMB and key stakeholders may make 

decisions regarding the agencies’ investments without the most current 

and accurate information. As such, we recommended that the seven 

selected agencies review major IT investment project data reported on 

the Dashboard and update the information as appropriate, ensuring that 

these data are consistent across all reporting channels.

Finally, while OMB has issued guidance requiring agency CIOs to certify 

that each major IT investment’s plan for the current year adequately 

implements incremental development, only three agencies (the 

Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation) had 

defined processes and policies intended to ensure that the CIOs certify 

that major IT investments are adequately implementing incremental 

development.37 Accordingly, we recommended that the remaining four 

agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human 

Services, and the Treasury—establish policies and processes for 

certifying that major IT investments adequately use incremental 

development.

The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services agreed 

with our recommendation, while the Department of Defense disagreed 

and stated that its existing policies address the use of incremental 

development. However, we noted that the department’s policies did not 

comply with OMB’s guidance and that we continued to believe our 

recommendation was appropriate. The Department of the Treasury did 

not comment on its recommendation.

In total, we have made 23 recommendations to OMB and agencies to 

improve their implementation of incremental development. As of May 

2017, 17 of our recommendations remained open.

 37Office of Management and Budget, FY2017 IT Budget – Capital Planning Guidance.
Page 21 GAO-17-686T 

Federal agencies engage in thousands of software licensing agreements 

annually. The objective of software license management is to manage, 

control, and protect an organization’s software assets. Effective 

management of these licenses can help avoid purchasing too many 

licenses, which can result in unused software, as well as too few licenses, 

which can result in noncompliance with license terms and cause the 

imposition of additional fees.

As part of its PortfolioStat initiative, OMB has developed policy that 

addresses software licenses. This policy requires agencies to conduct an 

annual, agency-wide IT portfolio review to, among other things, reduce 

commodity IT spending. Such areas of spending could include software 

licenses.

In May 2014, we reported on federal agencies’ management of software 

licenses and determined that better management was needed to achieve 

significant savings government-wide.38 In particular, 22 of the 24 major 

agencies did not have comprehensive license policies and only 2 had 

comprehensive license inventories. In addition, we identified five leading 

software license management practices, and the agencies’

implementation of these practices varied.

As a result of agencies’ mixed management of software licensing, 

agencies’ oversight of software license spending was limited or lacking, 

thus, potentially leading to missed savings. However, the potential 

savings could be significant considering that, in fiscal year 2012, 1 major 

federal agency reported saving approximately $181 million by 

consolidating its enterprise license agreements, even when its oversight 

process was ad hoc. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB issue 

needed guidance to agencies; we also made 135 recommendations to 

the 24 agencies to improve their policies and practices for managing 

licenses. Among other things, we recommended that the agencies 

regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software 

licenses and analyze the inventory to identify opportunities to reduce 

costs and better inform investment decision making.

Most agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no 

comments. As of May 2017, 123 of the recommendations had not been 

 38GAO, Federal Software Licenses: Better Management Needed to Achieve Significant 

Savings Government-Wide, GAO-14-413 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2014).

Agencies Need to Better 

Manage Software 

Licenses to Achieve 

Savings
Page 22 GAO-17-686T 

implemented, but 4 agencies had made progress. For example, three 

agencies—the Department of Education, General Services 

Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development—regularly 

track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software licenses. In 

addition, two of these agencies also analyze agency-wide software 

licensing data to identify opportunities to reduce costs and better inform 

investment decision making. The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration uses its inventory to make decisions and reduce costs, but 

does not regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory. While 

the other agencies had not completed the actions associated with these 

recommendations, they had plans in place to do so. Table 2 reflects the 

extent to which agencies implemented recommendations in these areas.
Page 23 GAO-17-686T 

Table 2: Agencies’ Implementation of Software License Management 

Recommendations

Agency

Tracks and 

maintains a 

comprehensive 

inventory

Uses inventory to 

make decisions 

and reduce costs

Department of Agriculture 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Commerce 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Defense 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Education 🌑🌑 🌓🌓

Department of Energy 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Health and Human Services 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Homeland Security 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Justice 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Labor 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of State 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of the Interior 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of the Treasury 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Transportation 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Department of Veterans Affairs 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Environmental Protection Agency 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

General Services Administration 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 🌓🌓 🌑🌑

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

National Science Foundation 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Office of Personnel Management 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Small Business Administration 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

Social Security Administration 🌓🌓 🌓🌓

U.S. Agency for International Development 🌑🌑 🌑🌑

Key:

🌑🌑 Fully—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed this recommendation

🌓🌓 Partially—the agency had plans to address this recommendation

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-17-686T

In conclusion, with the enactment of FITARA, the federal government has 

an opportunity to improve the transparency and management of IT 

acquisitions and operations, and to strengthen the authority of CIOs to 
Page 24 GAO-17-686T 

provide needed direction and oversight. The forum we held also 

recommended that CIOs be given more authority, and noted the 

important role played by the Federal CIO.

Most agencies have taken steps to improve the management of IT 

acquisitions and operations by implementing key FITARA initiatives, 

including data center consolidation, efforts to increase transparency via 

OMB’s IT Dashboard, incremental development, and management of 

software licenses; and they have continued to address recommendations 

we have made over the past several years. However, additional 

improvements are needed, and further efforts by OMB and federal 

agencies to implement our previous recommendations would better 

position them to fully implement FITARA.

To help ensure that these efforts succeed, OMB’s and agencies’

continued implementation of FITARA is essential. In addition, we will 

continue to monitor agencies’ implementation of our previous 

recommendations.

Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, 

and Members of the Subcommittees, this completes my prepared 

statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may 

have at this time.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who 

made key contributions to this testimony are Kevin Walsh (Assistant 

Director), Chris Businsky, Rebecca Eyler, and Jessica Waselkow (Analyst 

in Charge).

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Page 25 GAO-17-686T 

As of May 2017, 9 of the 25 federal CIO positions were filled by acting 

CIOs that do not permanently hold the position. Of the 9, 2 were career 

positions and the remaining positions require some form of appointment. 

Table 3 summarizes the status of the CIO position at the federal level.

Table 3: Status of Federal Chief Information Officer Positions, as of May 2017

Organization Position type Status

Federal government Presidential appointment Acting

Department of Agriculture Career Permanent

Department of Commerce Appointment Acting

Department of Defense Career Acting

Department of Education Career Permanent

Department of Energy Appointment Acting

Department of Health and Human Services Career Permanent

Department of Homeland Security Presidential appointment Permanent

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Appointment Acting

Department of Justice Career Permanent

Department of Labor Career Permanent

Department of State Career Permanent

Department of the Interior Career Permanent

Department of the Treasury Career Permanent

Department of Transportation Appointment Acting

Department of Veterans Affairs Presidential appointment 

with Senate confirmation

Acting

Environmental Protection Agency Appointment Acting

General Services Administration Career Permanent

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

Career Permanent

National Science Foundation Career Acting

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Career Permanent

Office of Personnel Management Career Permanent

Small Business Administration Career Permanent

Social Security Administration Appointment Permanent

U.S. Agency for International Development Career Permanent

Key:

Presidential appointment w ith Senate confirmation = a political appointment made by the President 

w ith Senate confirmation

Presidential appointment = a political appointment made by the President, w ithout Senate 

confirmation

Appendix I: Status of Federal Chief 

Information Officers
Page 26 GAO-17-686T 

Appointment = a political appointment generally made by the administration

Career = a non-political appointment made by the agency

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation and the Government Publishing Office’s “United States Government Policy and 

Supporting Positions (Plum Book).” I GAO-17-686T

(102094)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.