Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Science and Technology, House of 

Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT 

NASA’s Goal of 

Increasing Equipment 

Reutilization May Fall 

Short without Further 

Efforts 

January 2009 

GAO-09-187 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2009

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 

NASA's Goal of Increasing Equipment Reutilization 

May Fall Short without Further Efforts

Highlights of GAO-09-187, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Science and 

Technology, House of Representatives 

In 2010, the planned retirement of 

the space shuttle will require the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) to make 

disposal and reutilization decisions 

regarding over 1.2 million types of 

equipment. To facilitate these and 

other equipment management 

decisions, NASA recently invested 

$29 million in a new program: the 

Plant, Property, and Equipment 

(PP&E) Module—a component of 

NASA’s Integrated Enterprise 

Management Program. GAO was 

asked to assess the effectiveness of 

NASA’s processes, systems, and 

controls for managing its PP&E. 

This report addresses whether 

NASA (1) effectively designed 

controls over steps NASA identified 

as key to its controlled equipment 

reutilization process, including 

sending equipment to disposal, and 

(2) implemented policies, controls, 

and processes to enhance 

equipment reutilization. To answer 

these questions, GAO reviewed 

NASA equipment reutilization 

policy and conducted on-site visits 

at five NASA centers. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending five actions 

for improving the effectiveness of 

NASA’s equipment reutilization 

efforts, including actions directed 

at obtaining accurate information 

on equipment descriptions, 

condition, and availability. NASA 

agreed with four recommendations, 

but disagreed with GAO’s 

recommendation to improve 

equipment availability data. GAO 

continues to believe additional 

actions are warranted in this area. 

Inconsistent descriptions and inaccurate information on the condition of 

equipment hamper the PP&E Module’s ability to produce equipment matches 

and enhance reutilization. Although descriptions of equipment items are 

crucial for the new module to succeed in identifying equipment for 

reutilization, NASA has not provided detailed guidance on what should be 

included in the description field, leading to widely varying descriptions. For 

example, the same type of computer server equipment was described as a 

“disk array,” “disk drive unit,” and “storage array unit.” GAO’s physical 

inspections at two centers found that 83 of the 84 equipment items inspected 

were incorrectly coded as new and unused in the PP&E Module. These 

problems may lead to reutilization opportunities being overlooked. 

Further hampering equipment reutilization is the PP&E Module’s lack of 

detailed equipment availability information. The module does not identify the 

extent to which each piece of equipment is in use, necessitating a potentially 

lengthy search process. For example, an end user searching for an 

oscilloscope could currently have to contact up to 1,700 other end users to 

determine the availability status of these equipment items. 

These conditions contribute to inadequate end user utilization of the NASA 

Property Web interface (N-PROP), the PP&E Module’s automated component. 

N-PROP allows end users to perform online equipment management 

functions, which NASA anticipated would generate cost savings by facilitating 

equipment reutilization and eliminating manual processes. However, 98 of the 

121 end users who were responsible for equipment selected from a NASAwide statistical sample stated that they had never used either N-PROP or the 

prior systems, limiting the potential savings from implementing the new PP&E 

Module. 

NASA’s existing policies and procedures regarding equipment screenings and 

annual walk-through inspections—both key controls in the equipment 

reutilization process—were carried out inconsistently, if at all, at the five 

centers GAO visited. Without specific guidance on how to implement NASA’s 

equipment screening policy, centers failed to ensure that screenings occurred 

prior to purchasing new equipment, undermining the purpose of the 

screenings. Further, NASA does not require users to justify the need to 

purchase new equipment when a screening has identified equipment available 

for reutilization. In addition, required walk-through inspections intended to 

identify idle equipment were not conducted at one center and were ineffective 

at the other four. Equipment managers did not always follow up to ensure that 

the PP&E Module was updated and GAO’s testing estimated that about 16 

percent of NASA’s controlled equipment (with a value of at least $230 million) 

was improperly listed as being actively in use and had been overlooked during 

annual walk-through inspections. To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-09-187. 

For more information, contact Susan Ragland 

at (202) 512-9095 or raglands@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6 

Ineffective Controls Hindered Equipment Reutilization 13 

NASA Has Not Implemented Effective Policies and Detailed 

Procedures to Enhance Equipment Reutilization 20 

Conclusions 24 

Recommendations for Executive Action 25 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28 

Appendix II Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 33 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38 

 

Tables 

Table 1: Examples of NASA Equipment That Walk-Through 

Inspections Did Not Identify as Excess or Underutilized 

(as of September 30, 2007) 23 

Table 2: Description of the Populations and Sample Transactions 30 

Figures 

Figure 1: NASA Equipment Reutilization Process 11 

Figure 2: NASA’s Equipment Screening Process 13 

Figure 3: Equipment End User Screening Process in PP&E Module 16 

Page i GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Abbreviations 

ARC Ames Research Center 

DFRC Dryden Flight Research Center 

DLIS Department of Defense Logistics Information System 

EMR Equipment Master Record 

GRC John Glenn Research Center 

GSA General Services Administration 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

HQ Headquarters 

IEMP Integrated Enterprise Management Program 

JFMIP Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 

JSC Johnson Space Center 

KSC Kennedy Space Center 

LARC Langley Research Center 

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEMS NASA Equipment Management System 

NPD NASA Policy Directive 

NPDMS NASA Property Disposal Management System 

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PP&E Property, Plant, and Equipment 

SSC Stennis Space Center 

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

January 30, 2009 

The Honorable Bart Gordon 

Chairman 

Committee on Science and Technology 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stands at one 

of the most important crossroads it has faced since its inception in 1958. 

The implementation of its new space exploration policy—A Renewed 

Spirit of Discovery: The President’s Vision for U.S. Space Exploration1

—

and the planned retirement of the space shuttle in 2010 will require NASA 

to move into a period of major transition. The planned retirement of the 

shuttle will require the agency to make disposal and reutilization decisions 

regarding over 1.2 million types of equipment, including “controlled 

equipment,” which is the focus of this report.2

 During this transition 

period, it will be crucial that NASA have the processes, systems, and 

controls in place to ensure maximum reutilization and effective 

management and control of its equipment. 

In response to your request, this report addresses whether NASA has 

effectively (1) designed controls over steps NASA identified as key to its 

controlled equipment reutilization process, including equipment sent to 

disposal, and (2) implemented policies, controls, and processes to 

enhance equipment reutilization. During our review, NASA implemented 

its new Integrated Asset Management Property, Plant, and Equipment 

 

1

The new space exploration policy includes returning humans to the moon by 2020, which 

is intended ultimately to enable future exploration of Mars and other destinations. To 

accomplish this, NASA initially plans to (1) complete its work on the International Space 

Station by 2010; (2) begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to replace the 

space shuttle; and (3) return to the moon in preparation for future, more ambitious 

missions. NASA estimates that it will spend nearly $230 billion implementing this new 

exploration policy. 

2

NASA defines controlled equipment as (1) equipment costing $5,000 or more that has a 

service life of 2 years or more, which will not be consumed or expended as part of an 

experiment, and (2) items that are pilferable or possibly hazardous with acquisition cost of 

$500 or more—such as laptop computers, cameras, and cell phones—and weapons and 

hazardous devices, regardless of acquisition cost. In this report, we refer to controlled 

equipment as equipment. 

Page 1 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

(PP&E) Module on May 19, 2008, and we examined the initial 

implementation of this module. However, we did not review or assess 

whether NASA followed best practices in customizing and implementing 

the PP&E Module, which NASA designed to enhance visibility, 

accountability, and management of PP&E. 

In conducting this review, we 

• evaluated the design of key steps in NASA’s reutilization process by 

reviewing and comparing NASA’s equipment management policies and 

procedural guidance for equipment management and reutilization with 

federal property management regulations and other property management 

standards, including GAO’s standards for internal control, and assessed 

key aspects of PP&E Module controls;3

• reviewed information regarding the equipment reutilization process at five 

centers,4

 interviewed relevant NASA personnel to obtain their views on the 

equipment reutilization process and the design and implementation of the 

PP&E Module in facilitating equipment reutilization, and observed NASA 

employees as they demonstrated the PP&E Module’s equipment 

management, search, and disposal capabilities;5

 and 

• selected a statistical random sample of equipment recorded in NASA’s 

legacy NASA Equipment Management System (NEMS) and visited five 

centers to determine whether equipment recorded as actively being used 

 

3

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

4

NASA’s space exploration, discovery, and research programs are performed largely at its 

nine centers. Based on our sample selection, we visited the following five centers: Goddard 

Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Langley Research 

Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. These five centers accounted for 78 percent of 

the total number of equipment items recorded in the NASA Equipment Management 

System—NASA’s legacy equipment management system—as of September 30, 2007. 

5

We interviewed a total of 220 end users and property custodians to obtain their views on 

the equipment reutilization process and the impact of the PP&E Module on facilitating and 

increasing equipment reutilization. We interviewed 121 end users and 99 property 

custodians who were responsible for the items selected in our statistical sample. 

Page 2 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

was accurately recorded and transferred to the PP&E Module for reuse or 

disposal.6

We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 through 

January 2009 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. Additional details of our 

scope and methodology are provided in appendix I. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the NASA 

Administrator or his designee. Written comments from the Deputy 

Administrator are presented and evaluated in the Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation section of this report and are reprinted in their entirety in 

appendix II. 

Inconsistent descriptions and inaccurate information on the condition of 

equipment hamper the PP&E Module’s ability to produce equipment 

matches. Descriptions should focus on equipment features and capabilities 

that accurately reflect users’ needs based upon performance criteria. 

Although descriptions of equipment items are crucial for the new module 

to succeed in identifying equipment for reutilization, NASA has not 

provided adequate oversight and detailed guidance on what type of 

information should be included in the description field, leading to widely 

varying equipment descriptions among the five centers we visited. For 

example, the same type of computer server equipment was described as a 

“disk array,” “disk drive unit,” and “storage array unit.” These differences 

in descriptions may lead to reutilization opportunities being overlooked. 

Inaccurate information regarding the physical condition—or usability—of 

equipment in the PP&E Module creates another barrier to reutilization. At 

two centers, we determined that 83 of 84 equipment items we physically 

inspected that had been transferred to disposal were incorrectly coded as 

new and unused in the PP&E Module. These problems discourage use of 

Results in Brief 

 

6

The sample was randomly selected prior to the NASA-wide rollout of the new PP&E 

Module. We traced our sample items to the PP&E Module to confirm that the items were 

transferred and recorded in the new system. We did not verify whether records related to 

all items from NEMS were transferred to the new PP&E Module. 

Page 3 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

the PP&E Module, and several end users told us that they do not have 

confidence in the equipment’s condition as reported in the PP&E Module. 

Another potential barrier to equipment reutilization is the limited amount 

of information in the PP&E Module on the availability of equipment. 

According to NASA officials, the PP&E Module was intended to facilitate 

temporary transfers of equipment among end users so they could share, 

and more fully utilize, equipment. Although the module provides visibility 

to these types of equipment in use at NASA, it does not identify the extent 

to which each piece of equipment is being used. Without more specific 

information on the availability status of equipment, end users must 

perform a potentially lengthy search by contacting other equipment end 

users individually to determine if their equipment is available for 

utilization. An end user searching for an oscilloscope, for example, could 

currently have to contact up to 1,700 other end users to determine the 

availability status of their oscilloscopes. 

These conditions contribute to inadequate end user utilization of the 

NASA Property Web interface (N-PROP), the PP&E Module’s automated 

component, limiting potential cost savings. N-PROP allows end users to 

perform online equipment management functions, such as screening 

NASA’s existing inventory for equipment to reutilize. NASA anticipated 

that this would generate operational cost savings by facilitating equipment 

reutilization and eliminating manual processes. However, 98 of the 121 end 

users we interviewed stated that they had never used N-PROP (or the prior 

systems) to identify equipment they could reutilize. So, although this lack 

of use of N-PROP may be due in part to the timing of our review, which 

coincided with initial implementation of the PP&E Module, these 

responses also reflect a lack of end user familiarity with and use of 

equipment management functions in the prior systems. Among the reasons 

that some end users gave for not using N-PROP were that they preferred 

new equipment, viewed existing equipment as undesirable, did not 

consider the PP&E Module equipment information to be reliable, or were 

unfamiliar with the module. Because most end users we spoke with had 

not used the PP&E Module at the time of our visits, property custodians 

had assumed many equipment management responsibilities, lessening the 

impact of automating this process through N-PROP. 

NASA’s existing policies and procedures related to equipment 

reutilization—required equipment screenings and annual walk-through 

inspections—were carried out inconsistently at the five centers we visited, 

if at all. Although 92 percent of equipment in the PP&E Module consisted 

of items costing less than $25,000, NASA’s policy does not require end 

Page 4 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

users to screen for such equipment. Because NASA has not provided 

specific guidance on how to implement its screening policy, the centers 

have failed to implement effective controls to ensure that required 

screenings occur before new equipment is purchased. One problem was 

that the five centers we visited were not following up to see if end users 

were purchasing new equipment in lieu of reutilizing equipment items 

identified during screening. For example, when one screener notified a 

requester of a potential equipment match, the screener was told that new 

equipment had already been purchased, undermining the purpose of the 

screening. Further, NASA policy does not require that requesters utilize 

such equipment or justify their need for new equipment. NASA also lacked 

the oversight to ensure that required screenings occurred. 

Required annual walk-through inspections—intended to identify idle 

equipment and ensure that it is fully utilized—were not conducted at one 

center and were conducted to varying degrees at the other four centers. In 

addition, the four center equipment managers told us that they did not 

follow up to ensure that the equipment management system—neither the 

legacy system nor the PP&E Module—was updated to reflect the changes 

identified by the inspections. Because of these inconsistencies, NASA was 

unable to demonstrate whether the annual walk-through inspections met 

their objectives. Since many end users we interviewed were not using the 

PP&E Module to update information on their equipment, it is even more 

critical to perform walk-through inspections correctly and use them as a 

mitigating control. Our testing of equipment in NASA’s legacy NEMS (as of 

September 30, 2007) estimated that about 16 percent of NASA’s controlled 

equipment (with a value of at least $230 million) was improperly listed as 

being actively in use in an ongoing program, and had been overlooked 

during annual walk-through inspections. 

We are recommending five actions for improving the effectiveness of 

NASA’s equipment reutilization efforts. These recommendations relate to 

actions needed to ensure that the PP&E Module contains accurate 

information on equipment descriptions, condition, and availability; the 

importance of providing incentives to end users to reutilize equipment; 

enhancing NASA policy for screening for available equipment; and 

improving procedures for and oversight of walk-through equipment 

inspections. NASA concurred with four of our five recommendations. 

NASA did not concur with our recommendation to modify the PP&E 

Module to capture information on the anticipated and actual usage 

(availability) of equipment assigned to end users. NASA stated that 

because NASA’s equipment listed as “active” is now visible NASA-wide, 

there is no need to design and implement a separate additional status 

Page 5 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

category in the PP&E Module. NASA further commented that the current 

visibility of “active” equipment provides the opportunity for programmatic, 

technical, and scientific experts to discuss possible reuse through loans or 

borrowing, coordinating through their property custodians or equipment 

managers. 

We continue to believe that not including information in the PP&E Module 

on the availability of equipment (the extent to which “active” equipment is 

actually or anticipated to be used) presents a barrier to equipment 

reutilization. Specifically, because the module does not provide status 

information on the extent to which each piece of “active” equipment is 

being (or is likely to be) used, such as on a weekly or monthly basis, 

potential end users must perform a potentially lengthy labor-intensive 

search by contacting other equipment end users, and discussing actual and 

intended use, to determine the extent to which the equipment listed as 

“active” is actually available for utilization. In addition, the Financial 

Systems Integration Office’s property management systems requirements 

initially published by the Joint Financial Management Improvement 

Program (JFMIP) directs that property management systems capture an 

equipment item’s current use status, which includes identifying whether an 

equipment item is currently in use. 

NASA’s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific 

discovery, and aeronautics research. To accomplish its mission, NASA 

procures, fabricates, and maintains significant amounts of equipment. For 

example, as of September 30, 2008, NASA reported that it had 

approximately 307,000 controlled equipment items, costing $11.5 billion.7

In April 2000, NASA launched the Integrated Enterprise Management 

Program (IEMP), which is expected to improve the efficiency of many of 

its financial and management functions. The IEMP system is intended to 

promote standardization and integration of business processes and 

systems across the agency, and various components have been designed 

and implemented since its launch in 2000. On May 19, 2008, NASA 

implemented the PP&E Module agencywide, which cost about $29 million, 

and is designed to improve its management of and provide accountability 

over the entire life cycle of controlled equipment. 

Background 

 

7

Of this amount, $10.5 billion was controlled equipment costing $25,000 or more. 

Page 6 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

The PP&E Module replaced NASA’s legacy equipment management 

systems—NEMS and the NASA Property Disposal Management System 

(NPDMS). The module was intended to allow end users to perform such 

tasks as equipment searches—to identify equipment that may be available 

for reutilization—acceptance, rejection, and transfer. The module was 

designed, among other things, to allow equipment end users to compare 

their equipment needs with equipment located anywhere within NASA 

through two critical reutilization subcomponents, N-PROP and DSPL. NPROP is a Web-based interface that allows end users to directly access the 

module and view equipment located at all NASA centers, while DSPL is the 

new disposal interface, which allows users to view equipment located in 

disposal warehouses agencywide. Prior to the implementation of the 

PP&E Module, NASA employees and contractors were limited to viewing 

underutilized or excess equipment physically located at their local 

centers.8

NASA anticipates annual operational cost savings as a result of 

implementing the PP&E Module. As part of the President’s fiscal year 2009 

budget submission, NASA reported that the implementation of the PP&E 

Module would result in annual operational cost savings of approximately 

$19.6 million by eliminating manual processes and increasing the 

reutilization of equipment. 

According to NASA’s equipment management policy and procedural 

guidance, property management and equipment reutilization at NASA 

involves several key players:9

NASA’s Property 

Management 

Organizational 

Responsibilities • The Logistics Management Division, located at NASA headquarters in 

Washington, D.C., is part of NASA’s Office of Infrastructure and 

Administration and is responsible for establishing policies and procedures 

that govern the agency’s equipment management activities. The Logistics 

Management Division is also responsible for (1) assisting NASA centers in 

the development and operation of internal processes, procedures, and 

 

8

NASA defines excess and underutilized equipment as equipment that is no longer required 

for the performance of specific NASA requirements. 

9

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Equipment Management, NASA Policy 

Directive (NPD) 4200.1B (rev. Jan. 23, 2006); Equipment Management Procedural 

Requirements, NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 4200.1F (rev. May 19, 2008); NASA 

Personal Property Disposal Policy, NPD 4300.1B (rev. Jan. 31, 2006); and NASA Personal 

Property Disposal Procedural Requirements, NPR 4300.1A (rev. Feb. 17, 2006). 

Page 7 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

systems to ensure their compatibility with agency programs; 

(2) establishing necessary agency performance measures and reports on 

the overall implementation of equipment management programs; 

(3) conducting reviews and overseeing the implementation of equipment 

management activities; and (4) defining training requirements to ensure 

properly trained property personnel across the agency. 

• Individual end users, such as scientists or engineers, have a duty to protect 

and conserve government property assigned to them and should not use 

such property, or allow its use, for other than authorized purposes. Each 

piece of equipment is assigned to an end user, who is responsible for 

ensuring that the equipment is used only in approved NASA programs and 

projects and notifying the property custodian when the equipment is no 

longer being actively used. 

• Property custodians are designated by the director or chief for each 

property management area or program. Their responsibilities include 

maintaining records for all controlled equipment assigned to them, 

identifying controlled equipment no longer needed for NASA programs or 

projects, and coordinating its disposition with the end users. 

• NASA division directors (or equivalent organization heads) are the primary 

officials responsible for equipment assigned to their organizations. This 

responsibility includes performing annual walk-through inspections to 

identify inactive equipment and ensuring that equipment no longer 

required for the performance of a specific NASA program or project is 

made available to others or properly disposed of. 

• Supply equipment management officers are responsible for managing each 

centers’ equipment program, including implementing the necessary 

equipment control procedures to ensure proper accountability for center 

equipment; establishing a process to ensure that all personnel associated 

with the utilization of government equipment receive documented, up-todate property end user training; ensuring that end users are aware of the 

requirement to identify inactive equipment and ensure its reuse or 

disposal; and designating property disposal officers and center equipment 

managers to perform screenings for equipment estimated to cost $25,000 

or more. 

• Property disposal officers are responsible for managing and screening 

NASA’s excess equipment inventory—equipment recorded in DSPL—prior 

to a NASA or contractor employee initiating a purchase request for new 

equipment costing $25,000 or more. 

Page 8 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

• The center equipment managers are responsible for ensuring each center’s 

compliance with the federal property management regulations to 

maximize equipment reutilization and to minimize procurement of new 

equipment. New purchase requests costing more than $25,000 are to be 

routed through the center equipment manager, or designee, to perform a 

second screening of excess equipment recorded in the PP&E Module. In 

addition, the center equipment manager is responsible for ensuring that 

equipment records are adjusted to reflect the results of all equipment 

inspections. 

To reduce the unnecessary procurement of new equipment, federal 

property management regulations require each executive agency to make 

underutilized and excess equipment available for reutilization within the 

agency and, if not needed, to other agencies.10 NASA equipment 

management policy and procedural guidance require centers to 

continuously inspect equipment under their control to ensure maximum 

utilization.11 Excess and underutilized equipment that is available for 

reutilization should be identified in the PP&E Module through ongoing 

review by equipment end users, annual walk-through inspections, and 

each center’s periodic physical inventories.12

Once a piece of equipment is determined to be excess or underutilized, 

NASA end users have the option to decide whether to transfer it to 

disposal—through the property disposal officer—or make it available to 

others through a transfer. If the end user elects to send the equipment to 

disposal, the equipment is physically transferred to the center’s disposal 

warehouse and made available—through DSPL—to all NASA centers for 

21 days. If the equipment is not claimed by any NASA projects or programs 

within this time period, it is transferred to the General Services 

Overview of Reutilization 

Process at NASA Centers 

 

10Federal Property Management Regulations, codified at 41 C.F.R. pt. 102-36, Disposition 

of Excess Personal Property. 

11National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Equipment Management Procedural 

Requirements. 

12NASA’s equipment management policy and procedural guidance require NASA to perform 

physical inventories at least on a triennial basis, but they can be conducted more often. 

Physical inventories are one method used by NASA to identify excess, unused, or 

underutilized equipment for reutilization. However, we did not assess the impact of the 

physical inventory process on equipment reutilization or the effectiveness of physical 

inventories in identifying equipment for reutilization as part our review. 

Page 9 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

Administration (GSA) and made available to other federal and state 

agencies for 21 days and is donated or sold to other institutions thereafter. 

The PP&E Module was designed to facilitate the process of transferring 

excess and underutilized equipment among end users by providing 

transparency on all NASA-wide equipment and allowing end users to 

directly make excess equipment available to other end users. End users, 

who are not currently using a certain equipment item, may decide not to 

transfer it to disposal because it is still in good working condition, 

continues to have technological relevance, or has potential for future use 

within the user’s project or program area. Upon using the module to find 

existing equipment that may suit their needs, end users are to contact 

other end users to whom that equipment is assigned to determine if it is 

available for reutilization. If available, a direct end user to end user 

transfer can take place. Figure 1 shows the key steps involved in NASA’s 

equipment reutilization process. 

Page 10 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

Figure 1: NASA Equipment Reutilization Process 

Source: GAO analysis based on NASA data.

Identify equipment Systems Screening Reutilization

End Users/

Property Custodians

Ongoing review of equipment

needs/ identification of excess

or underutilized equipment

Division

Directors

Annual walk-through

inspection

Supply Equipment

Management Officer

Periodic physical

inventory

Property Disposal

Officer

Enters excess or

underutilized equipment

information into

N-PROP

PP&E

Module

N-PROP Submodule

(property

management)

DSPL Submodule

(disposal system)

PP&E

Module

Internal NASA

screening

(21 days)

GSA and

federal

agencies

(21 days)

Donation or

sale

Ongoing NASA

program

reutilization

NASA

reutilization

Other federal

agency

reutilization

Nonfederal

reutilization

End users/property

custodians make

equipment available

for NASA reuse using

N-PROP

Equipment is reutilized

via equipment transfer

request

0098716

0098717

S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

DSPL

N-PROP

Overview of NASA’s 

Equipment Screening 

Process 

Equipment screening is a key part of NASA’s reutilization process and is 

critical to identifying controlled equipment that can be reutilized. Prior to 

purchasing new equipment, NASA equipment management policy and 

procedural guidance require NASA employees and contractors to evaluate 

alternative methods for meeting their equipment needs, such as utilizing 

existing equipment and leasing or borrowing equipment from other NASA 

projects or programs on a temporary basis. As such, equipment screening 

is a control that should prevent unnecessary new equipment purchases 

Page 11 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

when equipment is on hand and available to meet the purchaser’s needs. 

However, users are not required to reutilize equipment identified through 

the screening process or to provide any justification for purchasing new 

equipment instead. 

Prior to initiating a procurement request for controlled equipment that is 

expected to cost $25,000 or more, NASA equipment policy and procedural 

guidance require the requesting office to contact the center’s property 

disposal officer, or designee, and request a screening of NASA’s equipment 

that has been transferred to disposal to determine the availability of 

equipment that could satisfy the requirement. If a match is not identified, a 

purchase request can be prepared. All such purchase requests ($25,000 or 

more) are to be routed through the center equipment manager, or 

designee, who is required to conduct a second screening of NASA’s 

existing equipment recorded in the PP&E Module before processing the 

purchase requests. The center equipment manager, property disposal 

officer, or their designees are required to search based on the 

manufacturer model and, if no items are found, optionally on the item 

description. As an optional screening step, NASA guidance also permits 

the screening of non-NASA excess equipment sites—such as GSA’s XCESS 

(excess equipment depository) database. For controlled equipment 

purchases of less than $25,000, NASA’s policy and procedural guidance 

encourage, but do not require, end users to use the PP&E Module to 

search NASA-wide for excess equipment. Figure 2 illustrates NASA’s 

equipment screening process. 

Page 12 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

Figure 2: NASA’s Equipment Screening Process 

Is estimated

equipment

value more than

$25,000?

Equipment

need

NASA staff identifies

equipment need

Prescreening

Property disposal officer

conducts intitial

screening of NASA’s

disposal property

Equipment purchase

or optional screening

NASA employees may

purchase items less than

$25,000 or do optional

screening for suitable items

Is suitable

equipment

identified?

Purchase

request

Formal

screening

Center equipment

manager conducts

second screening of

NASA property using

PP&E Module

NASA employee

makes purchase

request

Equipment

purchase

Equipment

reuse

If suitable equipment is

identified, NASA staff have 

the option to obtain it using

equipment transfer request 

Optional Optional

>$25,000

equipment is

purchased

Is suitable

equipment

identified?

No

Yes No No

Yes Yes

Source: GAO analysis based on NASA data.

Identify equipment need

Screen equipment

Disposition

PURCHA

REQ

SE

UEST

$

Improvements in the design of key controls associated with the PP&E 

Module could help NASA increase equipment reutilization and better 

enable it to realize cost savings. Inconsistent and unreliable descriptive 

information and limited information about equipments’ availability hinder 

NASA’s ability to effectively identify and reutilize equipment. If end users 

Ineffective Controls 

Hindered Equipment 

Reutilization 

Page 13 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

lack confidence in the reliability of the PP&E Module’s information they 

will be less likely to use it, thereby limiting opportunities to identify 

equipment available for reutilization. 

Unclear Guidance on 

Equipment Descriptions 

and Usability Prevent 

Matches That Could 

Identify Equipment for 

Reuse 

Inconsistent descriptions, inaccurate information on physical condition, 

and limited information about the equipment’s availability hamper the 

PP&E Module’s ability to produce equipment matches. Though NASA 

equipment management policy and procedural guidance only require 

screeners to search by manufacturer model, screeners told us that they 

seldom used manufacturer model numbers, but immediately searched the 

description field and that the model numbers were not always available. 

When users ask for a new piece of equipment, such as a digital camera, 

they do not need to provide a preferred manufacturer or model number. 

The descriptions should focus on equipment features and capabilities that 

accurately reflect users’ needs based upon performance criteria, a basic 

component of the federal procurement process. The descriptions of 

equipment items, therefore, are crucial to the success of the new module 

in identifying equipment for reutilization. 

NASA has not provided adequate oversight and detailed guidance on what 

type of information should be included in the description field. We found 

that without detailed guidance, equipment descriptions varied widely 

among NASA centers. According to NASA officials, along with entering 

model number information, property management officials are responsible 

for entering the descriptions in the PP&E Module using the Department of 

Defense Logistics Information System (DLIS) cataloging system.13 For 

example, a digital phosphor oscilloscope, a color digital oscilloscope, an 

analog oscilloscope, and an infinium oscilloscope can all be described as 

an oscilloscope. Unfortunately, we found that this system does not ensure 

that equipment descriptions are consistently and accurately entered into 

the PP&E Module. For example, items that should have been listed as 

video frequency equipment racks were described as “disciplined frequency 

standard” and a camera lens cover as a “rear cover multicontrol.” In 

addition, the same type of computer server equipment was described as a 

“disk array,” “disk drive unit,” and “storage array unit.” Similarly, a 

generator was variously described as a “signal plug in generator,” 

 

13The DLIS cataloging system is a centralized and consolidated cataloging activity for all 

Department of Defense cataloging, which provides a centralized federal item name 

directory that provides approved names for equipment. 

Page 14 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

“modulator,” “plug in unit,” and “tuning unit.” These differences in 

descriptions may lead to reutilization opportunities being overlooked. 

Inaccurate information regarding the physical condition—or usability—of 

equipment in the PP&E Module creates another barrier to reutilization. 

The PP&E Module has a field where users can indicate the physical 

condition of equipment items. At two centers, our physical inspection of 

84 equipment items that were transferred to disposal determined that 83 of 

the items were incorrectly coded as new and unused in the PP&E Module. 

Based on our physical inspections of these items, none of the 83 

equipment items were in original packaging and all appeared used. Three 

of the 83 equipment items were computers with their hard drives removed, 

in accordance with NASA policy, and thus not in usable condition. 

Further, several end users we interviewed reported that they had retrieved 

excess computers described as new and unused (in the NASA legacy 

property disposal system NPDMS) only to find that the hard drives had 

been removed. As a result, these end users told us that they do not have 

confidence in the equipment’s condition as reported in the PP&E Module. 

Limited Information on 

Equipment Availability 

Impedes Reutilization 

Another potential barrier to equipment reutilization is the limited amount 

of information in the PP&E Module on the availability of equipment. All 

equipment listed in the PP&E Module is categorized as actively in use until 

a determination is made that it will no longer be needed and the applicable 

record is transferred to the DSPL submodule and classified as inactive. 

According to NASA officials, this “active” equipment includes equipment 

that is used daily as well as idle equipment that is still in working 

condition—and still technologically relevant—that may be needed at some 

future date by the end user to whom it is assigned. For example, 

equipment that is used on a daily basis; on a regular basis, such as 2 days a 

week or monthly; or episodically—2 months and then not again for 2 

months—or even equipment that is used once a year is all classified as 

“active” in the module. According to NASA officials, the PP&E Module was 

partially designed to facilitate temporary transfers of this idle equipment 

among end users. Although the PP&E Module provides visibility to these 

types of idle equipment, it does not identify the extent to which the 

individual equipment items are being used. Lacking more specific 

information on the availability status of equipment, end users must 

perform a potentially lengthy search process of calling or e-mailing other 

equipment end users individually to determine if the equipment identified 

through the PP&E Module is available for utilization, as shown in figure 3. 

As of September 30, 2008, NASA’s PP&E Module reported approximately 

60,000 computers, 38,000 display units, 10,000 printers, 10,000 computer 

Page 15 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

servers, 2,700 digital cameras, and 1,700 oscilloscopes. An end user 

searching for an oscilloscope, for example, would currently have to 

choose which of 1,700 other end users to contact to determine the 

availability status of their “active” oscilloscopes. Several equipment end 

users and property custodians we interviewed told us that information 

relating to the availability status of the equipment would be critical in 

deciding whether to search for existing equipment to reutilize. 

Figure 3: Equipment End User Screening Process in PP&E Module 

Source: GAO analysis based on NASA data.

Search for equipment Find matches Contact end users

End users or center equipment managers

screen for suitable equipment within the 

NASA property system using PP&E Module. 

Suitable equipment matches and assigned 

end users are identified in NASA property 

system.

Matches do not indicate that identified 

equipment is actually available.

Screening end user or center equipment 

manager must contact each potential match 

individually (via e-mail or phone) in order to 

determine if equipment is actually available.

!

Limits to communication:

Multiple attempts may be

necessary to contact potenial

match

Match may not respond to

inquiry in timely fashion

Contact made

via e-mail

or phone

According to IEMP program managers, a field indicating the availability 

status of equipment was not included in the PP&E Module because the 

information in NASA’s legacy NEMS, which included an equipment 

availability status field, was not accurate. Rather than taking the necessary 

steps to improve the accuracy of the information in NEMS, NASA elected 

to exclude this field from the PP&E Module. However, the Financial 

Systems Integration Office’s property management systems requirements 

Page 16 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

(initially published by JFMIP) directs property management systems to 

capture an equipment item’s current use status, which includes identifying 

whether an equipment item is currently in use.14

Because of unreliable equipment descriptions and limited information on 

availability, NASA did not require the PP&E Module to consistently 

identify available equipment that could satisfy the needs of equipment 

requesters. At the time of our visits to the five centers—occurring from 

May through July 2008—the equipment screeners told us that the searches 

that they performed up to that point in fiscal year 2008 had failed to 

identify any equipment matches that would satisfy the needs of equipment 

requesters.15 Because the NASA center screeners we interviewed did not 

maintain detailed documentation on the number of equipment searches 

performed during the fiscal year, we were unable to determine the number 

of screenings that had been made up to the time of our visit. 

Inadequate End User 

Participation May Limit 

Potential Cost Savings 

Unreliable equipment descriptions and limited information on availability 

contribute to inadequate end user utilization of N-PROP and limit potential 

cost savings that could be achieved through process automation and 

increased equipment reutilization. N-PROP is the window to the PP&E 

Module and the only automated component that provides direct access to 

the equipment database. It allows end users to perform online equipment 

management and accountability functions, such as accepting or rejecting 

new equipment from vendors, declaring equipment as excess, and 

screening for equipment to reutilize throughout the agency. According to a 

September 2008 NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, it was 

anticipated that these features would generate operational cost savings 

and reduce unnecessary procurements by facilitating equipment 

 

14Property Management Systems Requirements, Federal Financial Management System 

Requirements 4, Joint Financial Management Improvement Program, October 2000. See 

Financial Systems Integration Office Web site for system requirements documents at 

http://www.fsio.gov/fsio/fsiodata/docs_systemrequirements.shtml to find a copy of these 

requirements. 

15After our visit to one center, one equipment screener informed us that she had found 

equipment matches for three purchase requests from July through September 2008. 

However, for various reasons, none of the matches were used to satisfy the needs of the 

requester. One requester preferred to purchase new equipment, the second purchased new 

equipment prior to the screening process, and the third was unable to obtain the equipment 

because the end user was still actively using the equipment. 

Page 17 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

reutilization, promoting intercenter equipment transfers and loans, and 

eliminating manual processes.16

The majority of end users we interviewed—98 of 121—stated that they had 

never used N-PROP (or the prior systems) to screen equipment for 

reutilization. Although this lack of use of N-PROP may be due in part to 

the timing of our review, which coincided with initial implementation of 

the PP&E Module, these responses also reflect a lack of end user 

familiarity with and use of equipment management functions in the prior 

systems. In addition, as the NASA OIG reported in September 2008, NASA 

took steps to incorporate stakeholders in the requirements development 

process of the PP&E Module to ensure that their needs were met. 

Stakeholders identified and reviewed project requirements and, during 

system development, helped determine whether each portion of the 

system would meet their requirements. However, during our site visits we 

observed that few end users appeared to be interested in learning about 

the new module or taking a greater role in equipment reutilization. The 

reasons end users said that they had not used the PP&E Module included 

that they (1) had not taken the training NASA has made available on the 

new module, (2) were not familiar with the equipment management and 

screening features, or (3) had not obtained a password needed to use the 

module. Considering the key role that end users need to play in achieving 

cost savings through equipment management responsibilities, these facts 

indicate that steps taken by NASA to encourage end user participation 

may have been insufficient to change end users’ perceptions and 

expectations. 

Our interviews further disclosed that a substantial number of end users 

did not view equipment management as necessary or important, another 

factor that could limit the likelihood that they would use the new module. 

Among the reasons that some end users gave for not screening through NPROP before initiating a new procurement was that they preferred new 

equipment; others told us that they viewed existing equipment as 

undesirable and unlikely to meet their projects needs and they did not 

consider the equipment description and physical condition reported in the 

PP&E Module to be reliable, or that they were unfamiliar with the module. 

Furthermore, in addition to responding to our interview questions, 29 of 

 

16National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Inspector General, Final 

Memorandum on NASA’s Development of the Integrated Asset Management—Property, 

Plant, and Equipment Module to Provide Identified Benefits, IG-08-032 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 25, 2008). 

Page 18 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

the 121 end users we spoke with volunteered that they had more 

important tasks to perform than managing equipment, did not view 

property management as a key responsibility in their day-to-day duties, did 

not want to learn how to use the module for equipment management, or 

were not familiar with or had never heard of the new module.17

End users were not required to use the PP&E Module and most end users 

we spoke with had not used the PP&E Module at the time of our visits. 

Therefore, property custodians had assumed many equipment 

management responsibilities, perpetuating manual procedures that the 

new module sought to automate. Because property custodians cannot 

accept, receive, or transfer equipment for the end users, they must obtain 

the end users’ signatures and submit the documentation to the centers’ 

logistics property management officials. As we previously reported, the 

number of equipment items and end users assigned to each property 

custodian can vary widely—with some property custodians responsible 

for as many as 4,000 equipment items.18 According to NASA officials, one 

use envisioned for the PP&E Module includes end users negotiating with 

each other to work out when to share equipment. This is one of NASA’s 

approaches to enhance equipment reutilization, but if many end users are 

not using the system this is unlikely to occur. It is unrealistic to expect 

property custodians to keep up on the nuances of equipment usage, such 

as whether equipment that is used on an episodic basis is currently in use 

or not, and therefore they are not in a position to determine whether other 

uses could be negotiated. Continuing to rely upon property custodians 

rather than focusing efforts to encourage direct end user involvement will 

likely reduce the potential savings that NASA intended to achieve through 

the PP&E Module by automating manual processes. Therefore, it will be 

important that NASA take steps to enhance or provide additional 

incentives so that end users recognize the benefits of reutilizing equipment 

and encourage them to use the PP&E Module to identify potential matches 

and negotiate with other users to help NASA increase equipment 

reutilization. Steps to enhance end user participation could include setting 

performance expectations for end users, setting equipment reutilization 

goals by program or project, tracking agency performance measures on 

 

17We interviewed 220 equipment end users and property custodians—121 end users and 99 

property custodians—during our visits to the five centers. 

18GAO, Property Management: Lack of Accountability and Weak Internal Controls Leave 

NASA Equipment Vulnerable to Loss, Theft, and Misuse, GAO-07-432 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 25, 2007). 

Page 19 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

equipment reutilization, providing awards and recognition to highlight 

effective reutilization practices, emphasizing available N-PROP training, 

and including goals for equipment reutilization in Senior Executive Service 

contracts. 

NASA’s existing policies and procedures related to equipment reutilization 

were either not being carried out or were being carried out inconsistently 

at the five centers we visited. In addition, NASA’s equipment screening 

policy is not sufficiently detailed. Before purchasing equipment costing 

$25,000 or more, NASA equipment management policy requires centers to 

screen the agency’s property records to determine whether existing 

equipment could satisfy the request, but does not require that requesters 

utilize such equipment or justify their need for new equipment.19 NASA 

further requires that annual walk-through inspections be conducted to 

identify excess or underutilized equipment that may be reutilized 

elsewhere in the agency. These walk-through inspections provide a key 

control to help ensure that equipment is fully utilized. During our visits we 

found that not every center complies with these requirements and those 

that were doing the walk-through inspections had different processes and 

effectiveness, sometimes undermining NASA’s goal of equipment 

reutilization. As noted earlier, end users’ perception of the new module 

may limit the extent to which they use it for managing property, including 

equipment reutilization. 

Although NASA provides general screening policy for centers, it has not 

provided centers with specific guidance on how to implement this policy 

to conduct effective and consistent screenings. NASA encourages centers 

to customize their equipment management procedures to meet local 

requirements; however, none of the five centers we visited had developed 

local screening procedures despite the lack of reliable information in the 

PP&E Module that would help identify potential matches. The centers 

have failed to implement effective screening controls to ensure that 

existing equipment is screened before they purchase new equipment. 

NASA’s screening policies state that all center procurement requests for 

items of equipment with an estimated cost of $25,000 or more must be 

NASA Has Not 

Implemented 

Effective Policies and 

Detailed Procedures 

to Enhance 

Equipment 

Reutilization 

Equipment Screening 

Policies and Procedures 

Are Not Sufficient to 

Ensure Comprehensive 

and Consistent 

Implementation of NASA’s 

Equipment Reutilization 

Policy 

 

19NASA’s equipment purchases costing $25,000 or more for fiscal year 2008 make up about 

$748 million, or 90 percent, of the $831 million in equipment purchases recorded in NASA’s 

PP&E Module as of September 30, 2008. 

Page 20 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

routed through the center equipment manager for screening. However, as 

of September 30, 2008, 92 percent of NASA’s controlled equipment 

consisted of items costing less than $25,000. 

In addition, the policy does not require reuse nor does it ask for a 

justification for decisions not to reutilize available equipment. Further, the 

policy does not require users to provide support that they have a valid 

program need to purchase new equipment instead of reutilizing available 

equipment. Interviews with equipment screeners at the five centers we 

visited disclosed that the screening processes varied among the centers 

and none of the processes provided assurance that existing equipment was 

thoroughly screened on a consistent basis before new equipment was 

purchased. One problem was that NASA has not required uniform 

implementation of a PP&E Module feature that officials from two of the 

five centers we visited were unaware of, and thus were not using. This 

feature was designed to suspend new procurements until the screening 

process has been completed. Another problem was that the five centers 

we visited were not following up to see if end users were purchasing new 

equipment in lieu of reutilizing equipment items identified during 

screening. One center did not have a designated center equipment 

screener to conduct searches. Another center made equipment 

procurements regardless of the outcome of the screening process. For 

example, an equipment screener at one of the centers identified a digital 

oscilloscope—an instrument commonly used at NASA for testing—that 

was available at another center. However, upon notifying the purchaser 

that a potential equivalent oscilloscope was available, the screener was 

told that the requester preferred to purchase a new oscilloscope. In 

another case, upon notifying a purchaser who had requested a 

spectrometer—test equipment—that six equivalent spectrometers were 

located, the screener was told that new equipment had already been 

purchased. As a result, the screening process failed to prevent the 

procurement of new equipment when equivalent equipment was available. 

Although the other three centers were using the procurement suspension 

control function to ensure screening, the equipment screener for one 

center told us that only NASA contractor equipment requests were 

screened, rather than all new procurements. Furthermore, we found that 

NASA’s Logistics Management Division lacked the oversight to ensure that 

this required screening occurs. At the time of our visits, 124 of 220 

equipment end users and property custodians stated that they had never 

requested a screening through the property disposal officer or center 

equipment manager or used the PP&E Module or its predecessor—

Page 21 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

NEMS—to screen existing equipment before initiating and processing a 

request to purchase equipment.20

NASA-Wide Implementing 

Procedures for WalkThrough Inspections Are 

Not Sufficient to Ensure 

Consistent Performance 

At the time of our visits the five NASA centers were not conducting 

required annual walk-through inspections consistently, and sometimes not 

at all. According to NASA equipment management policy, the annual walkthrough inspections are intended to identify equipment that is not being 

used or is no longer needed for ongoing NASA programs or projects, and 

can be made available for utilization in another program or NASA center 

or transferred to disposal. At each NASA center, the division director or 

equivalent organization head is responsible for ensuring that his or her 

staff conduct annual walk-through inspections. After staff complete an 

annual walk-through inspection, the division director is required to 

prepare and send a written memorandum, documenting the results of the 

inspection, to the center’s supply equipment management officer. In 

addition, the center equipment manager is required to ensure that the 

PP&E Module is updated to reflect the results of the inspection. 

One of the five centers we visited did not conduct these required 

inspections and the other four did so in varying manners and to varying 

degrees. For example, none of the centers maintain sufficient 

documentation to determine whether the PP&E Module was updated to 

reflect the results of the walk-through inspections, thus offering no 

assurance that this control was effective. At two of these four centers, 

directors prepared memorandums to document the results of the annual 

walk-through inspections that outlined the equipment items’ names and 

equipment control numbers and what specific actions were needed. At the 

remaining two centers, directors documented that walk-through 

inspections were performed, but not the detailed results of the 

inspections. All four center equipment managers told us that they did not 

follow up to ensure that the equipment management system—either NEMS 

or the PP&E Module—was updated to reflect the changes identified by the 

inspections. And none of the centers maintained any evidence to show 

when the property system was updated, if it was updated at all. 

 

20We asked 220 equipment end users and property custodians—121 equipment end users 

and 99 property custodians—questions relating to their experience with screening existing 

equipment before purchasing new equipment. 

Page 22 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

Because of these inconsistencies, NASA was unable to demonstrate 

whether the annual walk-through inspections met their objectives. Our 

testing of equipment in NASA’s legacy NEMS (as of September 30, 2007) 

estimated that about 16 percent of NASA’s controlled equipment (with a 

value of at least $230 million21) was improperly listed as being actively in 

use in an ongoing program, and had been overlooked during annual walkthrough inspections. In accordance with NASA equipment management 

policy, this equipment should have been identified as excess or 

underutilized and made available for reutilization or disposal. We selected 

our sample in April 2008, before the PP&E Module’s implementation. All 

equipment in our sample was transferred from NEMS to the PP&E Module, 

including the sample items that were inaccurately described as actively in 

use. Table 1 contains examples of equipment that we identified during our 

visits to the five centers during the months of May through July 2008 that 

was inaccurately reported in NASA’s NEMS as actively used by a NASA 

program or project. 

Table 1: Examples of NASA Equipment That Walk-Through Inspections Did Not Identify as Excess or Underutilized (as of 

September 30, 2007) 

Equipment 

Initial 

cost 

Time elapsed 

since last use Comments 

Micro computer $2,509 About 10 years Annual walk-through inspections failed to identify the computer, along with 

other equipment, that remained unused after the project closed. 

Computer display unit 633 Over 3 years The unit was stored with other unused equipment. Another display unit costing 

$934 in storage had not been used in over 2 years. 

Oscilloscope 8,783 Over 2 years The end user had not used this oscilloscope, commonly used for testing at 

NASA, for over 2 years. The end user has no plans to use it in the near future.

Controller vacuum 

pump 

30,200 About 1 year The pump was assigned to an end user who passed away, and although the 

equipment was transferred to a new end user, it had never been used. 

Transmitter 13,137 About 6-8 months The transmitter had not been used for a year, and the end user did not 

anticipate using it on future projects. 

Video camera 3,523 Over 1 year The end user had not used the camera and did not anticipate using it on 

future projects. 

Printer 1,780 Over 18 months At the time of our visit, the printer was not connected and was stored in an 

empty cubicle. 

Power module 1,250 Over 18 months The end user did not anticipate using the module as part of any ongoing 

projects. 

Source: GAO analysis of NASA data. 

 

21This estimated value represents the 95 percent confidence lower bound of our random 

statistical sample projection. See app. I for more details. 

Page 23 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

We did not assess whether any of the above equipment could have been 

reutilized to avoid the purchase of new equipment because NASA could 

not provide this information. However, these items should have been 

identified during prior annual walk-through inspections and the property 

management systems should have been updated to reflect that this 

equipment was not being used. Correctly following NASA policy in this 

area would have increased the chance that the equipment could have been 

reutilized by other end users. In addition, NASA officials reported that in 

fiscal year 2008, the agency reinstituted performing compensating controls 

reviews, which are designed to evaluate the adequacy and consistency of 

NASA policy execution and procedural compliance with NASA guidance. 

NASA reported that it conducted four reviews in the third and fourth 

quarters of fiscal year 2008. 

NASA has attempted to more efficiently manage its controlled equipment. 

Given NASA’s current and projected budget constraints, cutting costs 

through equipment reutilization and improved equipment management 

efficiencies will be critical if it is to free up vital resources for other 

mission-related objectives. Unfortunately, ineffective controls over 

equipment reutilization and limited utilization of the new system may 

prevent the PP&E Module from fully delivering on its potential cost 

savings. These shortcomings may prevent the PP&E Module from 

providing NASA employees and contractors with the tools needed to make 

informed decisions regarding the disposal or reutilization of equipment, 

including over 1.2 million types of equipment if the space shuttle is retired 

in 2010 and NASA transitions to its new space exploration policy as 

planned. 

Conclusions 

Strong leadership will be critical to promoting and enforcing existing 

equipment reutilization requirements, emphasizing the need for better 

equipment accountability, and stressing the importance of reutilizing 

equipment. Strengthening NASA-wide oversight and monitoring controls 

and processes could help NASA managers more effectively oversee 

NASA’s compliance with its policies and procedures. Effectively managing 

the new PP&E Module could help NASA achieve increased savings from 

equipment reutilization and provide Congress and other stakeholders with 

more accurate and up-to-date information needed to make sound 

management decisions. 

Page 24 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

We recommend that the NASA Administrator direct the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Infrastructure and Administration to take 

the following five actions to enhance comprehensive and consistent 

equipment reutilization: 

• Develop and implement specific guidance, establish a mechanism to 

oversee implementation, and provide the necessary training to assist 

NASA employees and contractors in providing clear, consistent, and 

accurate equipment descriptions and key information in the PP&E 

Module, including the physical condition (usability). NASA management 

should determine the extent to which it is cost effective to apply this new 

guidance retroactively. 

• Modify the PP&E Module to capture information on the anticipated and 

actual usage (availability) of equipment assigned to end users at the time 

the equipment is accepted and provide a mechanism to ensure that this 

information is updated as appropriate. 

• Provide incentives so that end users recognize the benefits of reutilizing 

equipment and encourage them to fully use the PP&E Module to identify 

potential matches and negotiate with other users to help NASA increase 

equipment reutilization. 

• Revise NASA equipment management policy to require end users to justify 

any valid program needs to purchase new equipment instead of reutilizing 

available equipment and consider whether the $25,000 screening threshold 

adequately maximizes reutilization. Establish NASA-wide screening 

procedures across the centers and a process for monitoring 

implementation to maximize reutilization of controlled equipment. 

• Establish NASA-wide procedures for conducting and reporting the results 

of annual walk-through inspections to update the data in the PP&E Module 

to facilitate equipment reutilization and disposal, along with an oversight 

mechanism to ensure implementation. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in 

appendix II, NASA’s Deputy Administrator agreed with four of our five 

recommendations. NASA did not concur with our recommendation to 

modify the PP&E Module to capture information on the anticipated and 

actual usage (availability) of equipment assigned to end users at the time 

the equipment is accepted and provide a mechanism to ensure that this 

information is updated as appropriate. NASA stated that records for 

equipment in the PP&E Module reside within the Equipment Master 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 25 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

Record (EMR) module and are listed as “active.” NASA’s further stated 

that because NASA’s “active” equipment is now visible NASA-wide, there 

is no need to design and implement a separate status category for 

equipment listed in the EMR. Further, it stated that this current level of 

“active” equipment visibility provides the opportunity for programmatic, 

technical, and scientific experts to discuss possible reuse through loans or 

borrowing, coordinating through their property custodians or equipment 

managers. 

We continue to believe that not also including information in the PP&E 

Module on the availability of equipment (the extent to which “active” 

equipment is used, or is likely to be used) will present a barrier to effective 

and efficient equipment reutilization. Specifically, because the module 

does not identify the extent to which each piece of equipment is being, or 

is likely to be, used, such as on a weekly or monthly basis, potential end 

users must perform a potentially lengthy search by contacting other 

equipment end users to determine the extent to which their “active” 

equipment is available for utilization. For some types of equipment 

commonly used in NASA, the potential users one would need to contact to 

research actual availability of equipment listed as “active” could number in 

the hundreds. This potentially labor-intensive research may serve as a 

disincentive for users to try to identify when they could share equipment 

rather than purchase new equipment. 

Moreover, as discussed in our draft, our review identified some equipment 

in storage that NASA listed as actively in use. In addition, the Financial 

Systems Integration Office’s property management systems requirements 

direct property management systems to capture an equipment item’s 

current use status. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

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

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

committees, the NASA Administrator, and the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget. The report also will be available at no charge on 

the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 26 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-9095 or raglands@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Susan Ragland 

Acting Director, Financial Management and Assurance 

Page 27 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To address whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) has effectively (1) designed controls over steps NASA identified as 

key to its controlled equipment reutilization process, including equipment 

sent to disposal, and (2) implemented policies, controls, and processes to 

enhance equipment reutilization, we reviewed prior NASA’s Office of 

Inspector General reports and independent public accountants’ reports as 

well as our own prior reports and related recommendations. We also 

evaluated NASA management’s responsiveness to observations and 

recommendations made in prior audit reports related to NASA’s property 

management and utilization of equipment. 

We evaluated the design of NASA’s internal controls by reviewing and 

analyzing NASA equipment policy and procedural guidance1

 for equipment 

management, reutilization, and disposal2

 and comparing NASA’s 

equipment management policy and procedural guidance to federal 

property management regulations and other standards, including GAO’s 

standards for internal control.3

 We also obtained and reviewed NASA 

equipment management policy and procedural guidance for screening 

existing equipment inventory; performing annual walk-through 

inspections; and managing, reutilizing, and disposing of equipment. To 

enhance our understanding of NASA’s process for ensuring maximum 

utilization of equipment, we conducted walk-throughs at five NASA 

centers where our sample equipment items were assigned: Goddard Space 

Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Langley 

Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. We interviewed NASA 

officials responsible for equipment management and reutilization, 

including the Director of the Logistics Management Division, Logistics 

Management Division management analysts, asset managers, agency 

equipment program managers, and supply equipment management officers 

at headquarters and at each of the five NASA centers we visited and 

warehouse officials, property disposal officers, center equipment 

managers, center equipment screeners, property managers, property 

 

1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Equipment Management, NASA Policy 

Directive (NPD) 4200.1B (rev. Jan. 23, 2006), and Equipment Management Procedural 

Requirements, NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 4200.1F (rev. May 19, 2008). 

2

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Personal Property Disposal 

Policy, NPD 4300.1B (rev. Jan. 31, 2006), and Personal Property Disposal Procedural 

Requirements, NPR 4300.1A (rev. Feb. 17, 2006). 

3

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Page 28 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

custodians, procurement officials, equipment end users, and officials from 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

To determine the accuracy of the equipment recorded as “active”4

 in the 

NASA Equipment Management System (NEMS) database at the time we 

started our review, we selected a random probability sample of all 

equipment in NEMS, with an availability status code of “active.” We 

obtained data from NEMS as of September 30, 2007, and identified 299,386 

equipment items with availability status code “A” or “active,” representing 

the sample universe. Based on previous audit work regarding the 

reliability assessment of NASA’s accounting and property data,5

 we 

determined if inactive equipment was erroneously coded as active in 

NEMS. We tested the random probability sample of 160 transactions, from 

five NASA centers, from the population of transactions with the 

availability status code “A” to determine the accuracy of the recorded 

availability status code. NASA implemented its new Property, Plant, and 

Equipment (PP&E) Module on May 19, 2008. To ensure that the sample 

transactions we extracted from the legacy system were transferred and 

recorded in the PP&E Module, we traced each sample item to the PP&E 

Module, and verified that the sample transactions were transferred and 

recorded in the module. However, we did not determine whether all legacy 

system transactions were recorded in the PP&E Module, nor did we 

review or assess whether NASA followed best practices in designing and 

implementing the PP&E Module. 

We selected a two-stage cluster sample with probability proportional to 

size with replacement at the first stage of selection. At the first stage, we 

selected eight NASA centers (clusters) with the probabilities of selection 

being proportional to the number of pieces of equipment each center had 

in the database (i.e., the larger centers had a better chance of being 

selected in the sample). Each time a center was selected, it was returned 

to the sample universe and given an additional chance of being selected. 

Therefore, it was possible for a center to be selected more than one time 

in the sample. We sampled eight clusters that yielded five distinct NASA 

centers. 

 

4

Active equipment is defined as equipment used in the performance of and support of a 

specific requirement as part of an ongoing NASA program or project. 

5

GAO, Property Management: Lack of Accountability and Weak Internal Controls Leave 

NASA Equipment Vulnerable to Loss, Theft, and Misuse, GAO-07-432 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 25, 2007). 

Page 29 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

At the second stage, we selected a simple random sample of 20 pieces of 

equipment, independently for each time a center was selected at the first 

stage. The total sample size of items is 160 (8 clusters of 20 items per 

cluster). Table 2 shows the description of the sample population and total 

number of sample of transactions. 

Table 2: Description of the Populations and Sample Transactions 

NASA center

Number of 

equipment items

Number of times 

 center was selected 

in stage 1 

Number of equipment 

items selected 

in stage 2

KSC 80,428 2 40

JSC 43,145 1 20

MSFC 40,619 1 20

GSFC 40,088 3 60

LARC 30,112 1 20

ARC 22,760 0 0

GRC 17,544 0 0

SSC 13,266 0 0

DFRC 8,193 0 0

HQ 3,231 0 0

Total 299,386 8 160

Source GAO. 

Note: Kennedy Space Center (KSC); Johnson Space Center (JSC); Marshall Space Flight Center 

(MSFC); Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC); Langley Research Center (LARC); Ames Research 

Center (ARC); John Glenn Research Center (GRC); Stennis Space Center (SSC); Dryden Flight 

Research Center (DFRC); and Headquarters (HQ). 

Because we selected a sample of equipment, our results are estimates of 

the population and thus are subject to sample errors that are associated 

with samples of this size and type. Our confidence in the precision of the 

results from this sample is expressed in 95 percent confidence intervals, 

which are expected to include the actual results in 95 percent of the 

samples of this type. We used a ratio estimator to generate estimates of the 

proportion and the total dollar amounts associated with equipment that 

were inaccurate and calculated a one-sided 95 percent confidence lower 

bound. Based on our sample results we estimate that about 16 percent (the 

95 percent confidence interval ranges from 10 to 26 percent) of the 

equipment with availability status code “A” in the NEMS database as of 

September 30, 2007, was miscoded. Further, we are 95 percent confident 

that this miscoded equipment represents at least 2 percent of the total 

dollar amount of the equipment in NEMS with availability status code “A,” 

Page 30 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

or at least $230 million. We also traced each sample item to the PP&E 

Module to verify that the sample transactions were transferred and 

recorded in the module. However, we did not determine whether all legacy 

NEMS transactions were recorded in the PP&E Module. 

Incomplete and inaccurate data precluded us from examining the extent to 

which waste and inefficiencies exist in NASA’s reutilization of equipment. 

Lack of common data fields, missing information such as equipment’s 

model and manufacturer, and the lack of clear and consistent descriptions 

prevented us from comparing fiscal year 2007 equipment purchase 

transactions to NASA’s disposal activity; this prevented us from identifying 

instances and dollar values where NASA purchased new equipment rather 

than reutilizing available equipment. 

To determine the extent to which NASA’s planning and initial 

implementation of the new PP&E Module addressed problems and control 

weaknesses we identified in NASA’s reutilization of equipment, we 

reviewed and analyzed NASA equipment management policy and 

procedural guidance for the PP&E Module and module implementation 

and planning documents, including briefings and overviews of PP&E 

Module requirements. We reviewed and analyzed NASA equipment 

management policy and procedural guidance for equipment reutilization at 

the five centers we visited. We also interviewed the five visited centers’ 

PP&E Module project managers to obtain their views on the PP&E Module 

and its impact on equipment reutilization. 

We administered a data collection instrument to obtain end users’ and 

property custodians’ views on the PP&E Module and its impact on 

equipment reutilization. We interviewed a total of 220 end users and 

property custodians who are accountable for all government-owned 

equipment assigned to them. We interviewed 121 end users and 99 

property custodians who were responsible for the items selected in our 

statistical sample. We also observed equipment screeners and property 

disposal officials as they demonstrated the PP&E Module’s equipment 

search, disposal, and management capabilities. In addition, we conducted 

physical inspections of equipment at two of the five centers visited that 

reported new and unused equipment in the disposal system—DSPL—at 

the time of our visit. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 through 

January 2009 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 

Page 31 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

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. 

Page 32 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix II: Comments from the National Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 33 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

See the Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation section 

of this report. 

Page 34 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 35 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 36 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 37 GAO-09-187 NASA Equipment Management 
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 38 GAO-09-187 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Susan Ragland, (202) 512-9095 or raglands@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff members made 

key contributions to this report: Donald Neff, Assistant Director; James 

Ashley; Fannie Bivins; Yvonne Dorcas; Patrick Frey; Inna Livits; and Jean 

Mathew. 

 NASA Equipment Management 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(195117) 
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. 

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 afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs