DATA CENTER 

CONSOLIDATION

Agencies Making 

Progress on Efforts, 

but Inventories and 

Plans Need to Be 

Completed

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2012

GAO-12-742

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-742, a report to 

congressional requesters 

July 2012 

DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION 

Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but 

Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2010, as focal point for information 

technology management across the 

government, OMB’s Federal Chief 

Information Officer launched the 

Federal Data Center Consolidation 

Initiative—an effort to consolidate the 

growing number of federal data 

centers. In July 2011, GAO evaluated 

24 agencies’ progress on this effort 

and reported that most agencies had 

not yet completed data center 

inventories or consolidation plans and 

recommended that they do so.

In this subsequent review, GAO was 

asked to (1) evaluate the extent to 

which the 24 agencies updated and 

verified their data center inventories and 

plans, (2) evaluate the extent to which 

selected agencies have adequately 

completed key elements of their 

consolidation plans, and (3) identify 

agencies’ notable consolidation 

successes and challenges. To address 

these objectives, GAO assessed the 

completeness of agency inventories 

and plans, analyzed the schedule and 

cost estimates of 5 agencies previously 

reported to have completed one or both 

estimates, and interviewed officials from 

all 24 agencies about their consolidation 

successes and challenges.

What GAO Recommends

OMB’s Federal Chief Information 

Officer should ensure that agencies 

use a standardized cost model to 

improve consolidation planning, and 

the 5 selected agencies should 

implement recognized best practices 

when establishing schedules and cost 

estimates for their consolidation efforts. 

OMB and 3 agencies agreed with, and 

2 did not agree or disagree with, 

GAO’s recommendations. 

What GAO Found

As of the most recent agency data submitted in September 2011, 24 agencies 

identified almost 2,900 total centers, established plans to close 1,186 of them by 

2015, and estimated they would realize over $2.4 billion in cost savings in doing 

so. However, while the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) required 

agencies to complete missing elements in their data center inventories and plans 

by the end of September 2011, only 3 agencies submitted complete inventories 

and only 1 agency submitted a complete plan. For example, in their inventories, 

17 agencies do not provide full information on their information technology 

facilities and energy usage, and 8 provide only partial information on their 

servers. Further, in their consolidation plans, 13 agencies do not provide a full 

master program schedule and 21 agencies do not fully report their expected cost 

savings. Officials from several agencies reported that some of this information 

was unavailable at certain facilities or that the information was still being 

developed. In a prior report, GAO recommended that agencies complete the 

missing elements from their inventories and plans. Until these inventories and 

plans are complete, agencies will continue to be at risk of not realizing 

anticipated savings, improved infrastructure utilization, or energy efficiency. 

OMB requires a master program schedule and a cost-benefit analysis (a type of 

cost estimate) as key requirements of agencies’ consolidation plans, but none of 

the five agencies GAO reviewed had a schedule or cost estimate that was fully 

consistent with the four selected attributes of a properly sequenced schedule 

(such as having identified dependencies), or the four characteristics that form the 

basis of a reliable cost estimate (such as being comprehensive and welldocumented). For example, the Departments of Interior and Transportation did 

not have schedules and the Department of Agriculture’s schedule was consistent 

with three of four attributes. Additionally, cost estimates for the Departments of 

Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs were partially consistent with the four 

cost characteristics. In the absence of reliable schedules and estimates, these 

agencies are at risk of experiencing cost overruns, missed deadlines, and 

performance shortfalls. OMB has established a standardized cost model to aid 

agencies in their consolidation planning efforts, but use of the model is voluntary. 

Many federal agencies reported consolidation successes. Notably, 20 agencies 

identified 34 areas of success, although only 3 of those areas were reported by 

more than 1 agency. The two most-reported successes were focusing on the 

benefits of key technologies and the benefits of working with other agencies and 

components to identify consolidation opportunities. However, agencies have 

continued to report a number of the same challenges that GAO first described in 

2011, while other challenges are evolving. For example, 15 agencies reported 

continued issues with obtaining power usage information and 9 agencies 

reported that their organization continued to struggle with acquiring the funding 

required for consolidation. However, other challenges appear to be less 

prevalent, including challenges in identifying consolidation cost savings and 

meeting OMB’s deadlines. Overall, 25 challenges that were reported in 2011 

were no longer reported in 2012. In light of these successes and challenges, it is 

important for OMB to continue to provide leadership and guidance, such as—as 

GAO previously recommended—using the consolidation task force to monitor 

agencies’ consolidation efforts.

View GAO-12-742. For more information, 

contact David Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Letter 1 

Background 2

Agencies Updated Inventories and Plans, but Key Elements Are 

Still Missing 8

Selected Agencies Have Incomplete Schedules and Cost Estimates 25

Agencies Have Experienced Consolidation Successes and Continue 

to Report Challenges 34

Conclusions 44

Recommendations for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 51

Appendix II Assessment of Agencies’ Completion of Key Consolidation 

Planning Elements, Arranged by Agency 55

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Agriculture 103

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 104

Appendix V Comments from the Department of the Interior 106

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 108

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Commerce 110

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Energy 111

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 112

Appendix X Comments from the Department of Labor 114

Appendix XI Comments from the National Science Foundation 115

Appendix XII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 116

Tables

Table 1: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and 

Agencies Participating in FDCCI 4

Table 2: Comparison of Original and Revised Requirements for 

Agency Inventories and Plans 9

Table 3: Data Center Closures by Calendar Year, as of September 

2011 11

Table 4: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies’ Updated 

Data Center Inventories 13

Table 5: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies’ Updated 

Consolidation Plans 18

Table 6: Select Attributes of Properly Sequenced Schedule 

Activities 26

Table 7: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies’ Schedules with 

Attributes of a Properly Sequenced Schedule 27

Table 8: Characteristics of a High-quality and Reliable Cost 

Estimate 30

Table 9: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies’ Cost Estimates 

with Best Practices 31

Table 10: Agency Consolidation Successes 35

Table 11: Reported Savings from Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Virtualization 36

Table 12: Challenges Encountered by Agencies in 2011 and 2012, 

Including Those No Longer Reported 39

Table 13: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and 

Agencies Participating in FDCCI 51
Page iii GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 14: Assessment of Completeness of Agriculture’s Updated 

Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 

2011 56

Table 15: Assessment of Completeness of Commerce’s Updated 

Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 

2011 58

Table 16: Assessment of Completeness of Defense’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 60

Table 17: Assessment of Completeness of Education’s Updated 

Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 

2011 62

Table 18: Assessment of Completeness of Energy’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 64

Table 19: Assessment of Completeness of HHS’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 66

Table 20: Assessment of Completeness of DHS’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 68

Table 21: Assessment of Completeness of HUD’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 70

Table 22: Assessment of Completeness of Interior’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 72

Table 23: Assessment of Completeness of Justice’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 74

Table 24: Assessment of Completeness of Labor’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 76

Table 25: Assessment of Completeness of State’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 78

Table 26: Assessment of Completeness of Transportation’s Updated 

Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 80

Table 27: Assessment of Completeness of Treasury’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 82

Table 28: Assessment of Completeness of VA’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 84

Table 29: Assessment of Completeness of EPA’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 86

Table 30: Assessment of Completeness of GSA’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 88

Table 31: Assessment of Completeness of NASA’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 90

Table 32: Assessment of Completeness of NSF’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 92
Page iv GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 33: Assessment of Completeness of NRC’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 94

Table 34: Assessment of Completeness of OPM’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 96

Table 35: Assessment of Completeness of SBA’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 98

Table 36: Assessment of Completeness of SSA’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 100

Table 37: Assessment of Completeness of USAID’s Updated Data 

Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 102

Figures

Figure 1: Twenty-one Agencies’ Completion of Required 

Information for Data Center Inventory Key Elements, as 

of June 2011 15

Figure 2: Twenty-four Agencies’ Completion of Required 

Information for Data Center Consolidation Plan Key 

Elements, as of September 2011 19
Page v GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FDCCI Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IT information technology

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NSF National Science Foundation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SBA Small Business Administration

SSA Social Security Administration

TCO total cost of ownership

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

July 19, 2012

Congressional Requesters

The federal government’s demand for information technology (IT) is ever 

increasing. In recent years, as federal agencies modernized their 

operations, put more of their services online, and increased their 

information security profiles, they have demanded more computing power 

and data storage resources. Over time, this increasing demand has led to 

a dramatic rise in the number of federal data centers and a corresponding 

increase in operational costs. The Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) has recognized the 

significance of this increase and in 2010, launched the Federal Data 

Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI), a governmentwide effort to 

consolidate data centers. In July 2011, we reported on 24 participating 

departments’ and agencies’ (agencies) progress on this effort, noting that 

most agencies had not yet completed the data center inventories or 

consolidation plans needed to implement their consolidation initiatives.1

Given the importance of the consolidation initiative, this report responds 

to your request that we review the federal government’s ongoing efforts to 

consolidate data centers. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) evaluate 

the extent to which agencies have updated and verified their data center 

inventories and consolidation plans; (2) evaluate the extent to which 

selected agencies have adequately completed key elements of their 

consolidation plans; and (3) identify agencies’ notable consolidation 

successes and challenges.

We recommended agencies take steps to complete the missing elements 

from their inventories and plans.

To address our objectives, we once again assessed the 24 agencies that 

were identified by OMB and the Federal CIO to be included in the FDCCI 

initiative. We reviewed the 24 agencies’ most recent data center 

inventories and consolidation plans and assessed their completeness 

against key elements required by OMB. We selected 5 agencies that had 

previously reported completing cost and/or schedule estimates and 

 

1

GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to 

Achieve Expected Savings, GAO-11-565 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2011). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

compared these agencies’ program scheduling and cost estimating 

documentation to best practices in program scheduling and cost 

estimating.2

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to July 2012 

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. Appendix I contains further 

details about our objectives, scope, and methodology.

Finally, we reviewed all 24 agencies’ documentation and 

interviewed agency officials to determine what consolidation successes 

have been realized and what challenges continue to be faced.

While the term “data center” can be used to describe any room used for 

the purpose of processing or storing data, as defined by OMB in 2010, a 

data center was a room greater than 500 square feet, used for processing 

or storing data, and which met stringent availability requirements.3

Several factors led OMB to urge agencies to consolidate federal data 

centers. According to OMB, the federal government had 432 data centers 

in 1998; more than 1,100 in 2009; and 2,094 in July 2010. Operating such 

a large number of centers places costly demands on the government. 

While the total annual federal spending associated with data centers has 

not yet been determined, OMB has found that operating data centers is a 

significant cost to the federal government, including hardware, software, 

real estate, and cooling costs. For example, according to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the electricity cost to operate 

federal servers and data centers across the government is about $450 

Other 

facilities were classified as “server rooms,” which were typically less than 

500 square feet and “server closets,” which were typically less than 200 

square feet.

 

2

GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules 

(Exposure Draft), GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012) and GAO Cost Estimating 

and Assessment Guide, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

3

For more information on the classifications used to define availability requirements, see 

Uptime Institute, Industry Standard Tier Classifications Define Site Infrastructure 

Performance (Santa Fe, N.Mex.: 2005).

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

million annually. According to the Department of Energy (Energy), data 

center spaces can consume 100 to 200 times as much electricity as 

standard office spaces. Reported server utilization rates as low as 5 

percent and limited reuse of these data centers within or across agencies 

lends further credence to the need to restructure federal data center 

operations to improve efficiency and reduce costs. In 2010, the Federal 

CIO reported that operating and maintaining such redundant 

infrastructure investments was costly, inefficient, and unsustainable.

Concerned about the size of the federal data center inventory and the 

potential to improve the efficiency, performance, and environmental 

footprint of federal data center activities, in February 2010 OMB, under 

the direction of the Federal CIO, announced FDCCI. This initiative’s four 

high-level goals are to

• promote the use of “green IT”4

• reduce the cost of data center hardware, software, and operations;

by reducing the overall energy and real 

estate footprint of government data centers;

• increase the overall IT security posture of the government; and

• shift IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and 

technologies.

As part of FDCCI, OMB required 24 departments and agencies that 

participate on the Chief Information Officers Council (see table 1) to 

submit a series of documents that ultimately resulted in a data center 

consolidation plan.

 

4

“Green IT” refers to environmentally sound computing practices that can include a variety 

of efforts, such as using energy efficient data centers, purchasing computers that meet 

certain environmental standards, and recycling obsolete electronics.

OMB and the Federal CIO 

Established the Federal 

Data Center Consolidation 

Initiative
 

Page 4 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 1: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies Participating 

in FDCCI

Departments Agencies

Agriculture Environmental Protection Agency

Commerce General Services Administration

Defense National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Education National Science Foundation

Energy Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Health and Human Services Office of Personnel Management

Homeland Security Small Business Administration

Housing and Urban Development Social Security Administration

Interior U.S. Agency for International Development

Justice 

Labor

State

Transportation

Treasury

Veterans Affairs

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

In addition to an initial data center inventory and preliminary consolidation 

plan, the departments and agencies were to provide the following:

• An asset inventory baseline, which was to contain more detailed 

information and serve as the foundation for developing the final data 

center consolidation plans. The final inventory was also to identify the 

consolidation approach to be taken for each data center.

• A data center consolidation plan, which was to be incorporated into 

the agency’s fiscal year 2012 budget and was to include a technical 

roadmap and approach for achieving the targets for infrastructure 

utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency.

In October 2010, OMB reported that all of the agencies had submitted their 

plans. OMB also announced plans to monitor agencies’ consolidation 

activities on an ongoing basis as part of the annual budget process.

Further, starting in fiscal year 2011, agencies were required to provide an 

annual updated data center asset inventory at the end of every third 

quarter and an updated consolidation plan (including any missing 

elements) at the end of every fourth quarter. Agencies were further 

required to provide a consolidation progress report at the end of every 

quarter.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

To manage the initiative, OMB designated two agency CIOs as executive 

sponsors to lead the effort within the Chief Information Officers Council.5

Additionally, the General Services Administration (GSA) has established 

the FDCCI Program Management Office, whose role is to support OMB in 

the planning, execution, management, and communication for FDCCI. In 

this role, GSA collected the responses to OMB-mandated document 

deliveries and reviewed the submissions for completeness and 

reasonableness. GSA also sponsored three workshops on the initiative 

for agencies and facilitated a peer review of the initial and final data 

center consolidation plans.

OMB has utilized different definitions of a data center throughout the life 

of FDCCI. As discussed earlier, OMB originally defined these facilities as 

rooms that met certain size, purpose, and availability requirements. So, 

even though agencies included smaller facilities (such as server rooms 

and closets) in their inventories, these facilities were not included in the 

data center tallies. However, in October 2011, the Federal CIO 

announced an expansion of the definition to include facilities of any size. 

Using this broader definition, in December 2011, OMB reported that there 

were 3,133 federal data centers.6

“...a data center is...a closet, room, floor or building for the storage, management, and 

dissemination of data and information and [used to house] computer systems and 

associated components, such as database, application, and storage systems and data 

stores [excluding facilities exclusively devoted to communications and network 

equipment (e.g., telephone exchanges and telecommunications rooms)]. A data center 

generally includes redundant or backup power supplies, redundant data 

communications connections, environmental controls...and special security devices 

housed in leased,...owned, collocated, or stand-alone facilities.”

OMB further clarified its definition in 

March 2012 as follows:

7

 

5

As of May 2012, one of the CIOs was from the Department of the Interior (Interior). As of 

July 2012, OMB was currently working to fill the second position.

6

OMB’s reported tally of data centers differs from the number of data centers we found in 

reviewing agencies’ June 2011 inventories and September 2011 consolidation goals. The 

number of centers changes regularly as agencies identify new centers, but agencies are 

only required to provide updated inventories once a year, by the end of June.

7

OMB, Implementation Guidance for the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012).

With an Expanded 

Definition, OMB’s 

Reported Inventory of 

Federal Data Centers Has 

Grown
 

Page 6 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

In December 2010, OMB published its 25-Point Implementation Plan to 

Reform Federal Information Technology Management as a means of 

implementing IT reform in the areas of operational efficiency and large 

scale IT program management. Among the 25 initiatives, OMB has 

included two goals that relate to data center consolidation:

1. By June 2011, complete detailed implementation plans to consolidate 

at least 800 data centers by 2015.

2. By June 2012, create a governmentwide marketplace for data center 

availability.

To accomplish its first goal, OMB required each FDCCI agency to identify 

a senior, dedicated data center consolidation program manager. It also 

launched a Data Center Consolidation Task Force comprised of the data 

center consolidation program managers from each agency. OMB officials 

stated that this task force is critical to driving forward on individual agency 

consolidation goals and to meeting overall federal consolidation targets. 

OMB has also created a publicly available dashboard for observing 

agencies’ consolidation progress.

To accomplish its second goal, OMB and GSA launched a 

governmentwide data center availability marketplace in June 2012. This 

online marketplace is intended to match agencies that have extra 

capacity with agencies with increasing demand, thereby improving the 

utilization of existing facilities. The marketplace will help agencies with 

available capacity promote their available data center space. Once 

agencies have a clear sense of the existing capacity landscape, they can 

make more informed consolidation decisions.

We have previously reported on OMB’s efforts to consolidate federal data 

centers. In March 2011, we reported on the status of the FDCCI and 

noted that data center consolidation makes sense economically and is a 

way to achieve more efficient IT operations, but that challenges exist.8

 

8

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 

For example, agencies reported facing challenges in ensuring the 

accuracy of their inventories and plans, providing upfront funding for the 

GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).

OMB’s IT Reform Plan Sets 

Important Milestones for 

Data Center Consolidation

GAO Has Previously 

Reported on Federal Data 

Center Consolidation 

Efforts
 

Page 7 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

consolidation effort before any cost savings accrue, integrating 

consolidation plans into agency budget submissions (as required by 

OMB), establishing and implementing shared standards (for storage, 

systems, security, etc.), overcoming cultural resistance to such major 

organizational changes, and maintaining current operations during the 

transition to consolidated operations. We further reported that mitigating 

these and other challenges will require commitment from the agencies 

and continued oversight by OMB and the Federal CIO.

In July 2011, we reported that agency consolidation plans indicate that 

agencies anticipated closing about 650 data centers by fiscal year 2015 

and saving about $700 million in doing so.9

In response to our recommendations, OMB took several actions. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2011, in addition to the updated inventories due 

at the end of every third fiscal quarter, agencies are required to submit an 

updated consolidation plan by the end of every fourth fiscal quarter. Along 

However, we also found that 

only one of the 24 agencies submitted a complete inventory and no 

agency submitted complete plans. Further, OMB did not require agencies 

to document the steps they took, if any, to verify the inventory data. We 

noted the importance of having assurance as to the accuracy of collected 

data and specifically, the need for agencies to provide OMB with 

complete and accurate data and the possible negative impact of that data 

being missing or incomplete. We concluded that until these inventories 

and plans are complete, agencies may not be able to implement their 

consolidation activities and realize expected cost savings. Moreover, 

without an understanding of the validity of agencies’ consolidation data, 

OMB could not be assured that agencies are providing a sound baseline 

for estimating consolidation savings and measuring progress against 

those goals. Accordingly, we made several recommendations to OMB, 

including that the Federal CIO require that agencies, when updating their 

data center inventories, state what actions have been taken to verify the 

inventories and to identify any associated limitations on the data. We also 

recommended that the Federal CIO require that agencies complete the 

missing elements in their consolidation plans and in doing so, consider 

consolidation challenges and lessons learned. We also made 

recommendations to the heads of agencies to complete the information 

missing from their inventories and plans.

 

9

GAO-11-565. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

with the updated plan, agencies are required to submit a signed letter 

from their CIOs, attesting to the completeness of the plan, stating what 

actions were taken to verify the inventory, and noting any limitations of 

inventory or plan data. The inclusion of this performance information will 

continue to be important to OMB as it makes decisions on how best to 

oversee the ongoing federal data center consolidations. By gathering this 

understanding of the validity and limitation on agencies’ data, OMB will be 

better assured that agencies are providing a sound baseline for 

estimating savings and accurately reporting progress against their goals. 

The extent to which agencies have completed information missing from 

their inventories and plans is discussed in the following section.

More recently, in February 2012, we updated our March 2011 work and 

reported that although OMB had taken steps to ensure the completion of 

agencies’ consolidation plans, a preliminary analysis indicated that not all 

plans were complete.10 Also, in April 2012, we reported on the progress 

OMB and federal agencies made in implementing the IT Reform Plan, 

including one action item associated with data center consolidation.11 We 

reported that this goal was only partially completed, based on our 

conclusion that not all of the agencies’ updated data center consolidation 

plans included the required elements.

As discussed earlier, OMB required agencies to submit an updated data 

center inventory that included information on each center and its assets 

by the end of June 2011, and an updated consolidation plan that included 

key information on the agencies’ consolidation approach by the end of 

September 2011. OMB subsequently issued revised guidance on the 

mandatory content of the data center inventories and consolidation plans, 

in May 2011 and July 2011, respectively. While the revised inventory 

guidance asked for different information from what was requested in 

2010, it still required agencies to report on specific assets within individual 

data centers, as well as information about each specific data center. The 

revised guidance on consolidation plans was similar to the 2010 

 

10GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Address Duplication, 

Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-453SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

11GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to Be Done to 

Complete Actions and Measure Results, GAO-12-461 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2012).

Agencies Updated 

Inventories and Plans, 

but Key Elements Are 

Still Missing
 

Page 9 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

guidance, but included several additional requirements. Specifically, in 

addition to continuing to require information on key elements such as 

goals, approaches, schedules, cost-benefit calculations, and risk

management plans, the revised guidance also required agencies to 

address the data verification steps, consolidation progress, and cost 

savings. Table 2 compares the original and revised requirements for key 

elements to be included in agency inventories and plans.

Table 2: Comparison of Original and Revised Requirements for Agency Inventories 

and Plans 

2010 inventory elements 2011 inventory elements

IT software assets [Deleted]

IT hardware and utilization Physical serversa

Virtualizationb

IT facilities, energy, and storage IT facilities, energy

Network storage

Geographic location Data center information

2010 plan elements 2011 plan elements

Quantitative goals Quantitative goals

Qualitative impacts Qualitative impacts

Consolidation approach Consolidation approach

Consolidation scope Consolidation scope

High-level timeline High-level timeline

Performance metrics Performance metrics

Master program schedule Master program schedule

Cost-benefit analysis Cost-benefit analysis

Risk management Risk management

Communications plan Communications plan

Inventory/plan verification

Consolidation progress

Cost savings

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

a

The term “physical server” refers to a physical piece of hardware that can be used to run multiple 

software-based virtual machines with different operating systems in isolation and side-by-side. OMB 

captures information about such software-based virtual machines in the category called 

“virtualization.” 

b

“Virtualization” is a technology that allows multiple, software-based machines, with different 

operating systems, to run in isolation, side-by-side, on the same physical machine. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

While all agencies submitted updated inventories and plans in 2011, most 

of the agencies’ documents are still not complete. As required, all 24 

agencies12 submitted their inventories in June 2011 and all but 2 

submitted their updated consolidation plans in September 2011. The 

Social Security Administration (SSA) submitted its updated consolidation 

plan in October 2011 and the Department of Defense (Defense) 

submitted an updated consolidation plan in November 2011. However, of 

the 24 agencies’ submissions, only 3 of the inventories are complete and 

only 1 of the plans is complete. For example, while all 24 agencies report 

on their inventories to some extent, 8 agencies provide only partial 

information on the new category of physical servers and 17 provide only 

partial information on the new category of IT facilities and energy usage. 

Additionally, in their consolidation plans, 13 agencies do not provide a full 

master program schedule, 17 agencies do not provide full cost-benefit 

analysis results, and 21 agencies do not include all required cost savings 

information. In the absence of important information such as schedules 

and cost estimates, agencies are at risk of not realizing key FDCCI goals 

such as anticipated cost savings and improved infrastructure utilization.

While agencies’ inventories and goals have changed since we last 

reported on FDCCI, agencies continue to report plans to significantly 

reduce the number of their centers and to achieve cost savings. Last 

year, we reported that as of April 2011, 23 agencies identified 1,590 

centers (using the large data center definition) and established goals to 

reduce that number by 652. Our most recent analysis of 24 agencies’ 

documentation indicates that as of September 2011, agencies identified 

almost 2,900 total centers, and established plans to close over 1,185 of 

them by 2015. The new total number of data centers includes 648 large 

centers (500 square feet or more), 1,283 smaller centers (less than 500 

square feet), and 966 centers of undetermined size.13

 

12In 

The centers of 

undetermined size are primarily comprised of 936 Defense facilities, a list 

of which was provided in a format that did not allow for an analysis of the 

GAO-11-565, we reported that one agency, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), did not submit the required consolidation documentation. However, 

the department has now submitted both an inventory and plan. 

13As noted earlier, SSA and Defense did not meet the September deadline for their 

inventories. Thus, the SSA data are as of October 2011 and the Defense data are as of 

November 2011. 

Agencies Continue to 

Report Significant Planned 

Facility Reductions and 

Cost Savings
 

Page 11 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

size of the centers.14 An OMB official attributed the change in the number 

of large centers reported to agencies’ improvements in data quality.15

Table 3 contains a further breakdown of actual and planned closures by 

calendar year, for both large and smaller centers.

Table 3: Data Center Closures by Calendar Year, as of September 2011 

Closures by calendar year

Total 

centers 

Through 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Large centers

(≥500 square feet)

648 89 81 43 75 21 309

Smaller centers

(<500 square feet)

1,283 58 124 73 25 23 303

Centers of unknown 

classification 

966 139 141 96 116 82 574

Total 2,897 286 346 212 216 126 1,186

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Note: OMB required agencies to report planned closures by calendar year in both the June 2011 

inventory and September 2011 consolidation plan updates. However, several agencies reported 

planned closures on a fiscal year basis. We have attempted, where possible, to convert such 

information into the correct calendar year, but this was not always possible. As a result, the annual 

totals may differ slightly from the true targets. 

The number of facilities in agencies’ inventories has changed over time, 

and will likely continue to evolve. For example, in July 2011, we reported 

that agencies reported having 1,590 large centers in their inventories, 

whereas they now report only 648. There are multiple reasons for these 

fluctuations. Some agencies have reported confusion over the evolving 

definition of “data center,” while officials from other agencies told us that 

 

14In 2011, we reported that Defense had 772 large centers, but that number could not be 

confirmed in the department’s latest inventory. In May 2012, a Defense official reported 

that of the 936 reported Defense facilities, 645 fit our definition of “large data centers.” 

However, this number was not provided in time to be validated for this report and the 

official did not break the number down into closures by calendar year. As such, Defense’s 

data centers are only reported under the unknown classification category.

15In May 2012, the Energy Office of Inspector General reported that the department had 

not reported more than 520 data centers at contractor-operated locations. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Efforts by the Department of Energy to 

Ensure Energy-Efficient Management of Its Data Centers, DOE/IG-0865 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 25, 2012).
 

Page 12 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

some facilities have been reclassified or dropped from the inventory as 

more was learned about the facilities. Additionally, agencies have 

reported that their inventory totals are in a constant state of flux and 

changing on a regular basis as a result of their efforts to gather and refine 

information about data center inventories.

Most agencies also continued to report expected savings from FDCCI. 

Specifically,

• Nineteen agencies reported anticipating more than $2.4 billion in cost 

savings and more than $820 million in cost avoidances, between 2011 

and 2015.16 Additionally, as we also reported in 2011, actual savings 

may be even higher because 14 of these agencies’ projections were 

incomplete.17

• One agency does not expect to accrue net savings until 2017.

• One agency does not expect to attain net savings from its 

consolidation efforts.

• Three agencies did not provide estimated cost savings.

While we recognize that agencies’ planned savings of over $2.4 billion 

may grow as agencies complete their cost and savings assessments, the 

President’s budget for fiscal year 2013 states that FDCCI is expected to 

realize $3 billion in savings by 2015.18 This reflects a $600 million dollar 

disparity between what agencies are reporting and what OMB is 

expecting. Such a disparity highlights the need for agencies to continue to 

develop and refine their savings projections, in order to make clear an 

accurate picture of the goals to be realized by the governmentwide 

consolidation initiative.

 

16OMB defines cost savings as representing a reduction in actual expenditures to achieve 

a specific objective. The agency defines cost avoidances as results from an action taken 

in the immediate time frame that will decrease costs in the future.

17GAO-11-565. 

18OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2012). 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

In our July 2011 report, we recommended that agencies complete the 

missing elements from their inventories. Further, as part of FDCCI, OMB 

required agencies to update their data center inventories at the end of the 

third quarter of every fiscal year. In guidance provided to the agencies, 

the 2011 updated inventories were to address five key elements for each 

data center: (1) physical servers, (2) virtualization, (3) IT facilities and 

energy, (4) network storage, and (5) data center information. One 

information category from 2010, IT software assets, was no longer 

required. Table 4 provides a detailed description of each of the five key 

elements.

Table 4: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies’ Updated Data Center Inventories

Element Guidance

Physical servers The inventory should document the current rack counta and the number of mainframes and servers in 

each facility.

Virtualization The inventory should document the virtual host count and virtual operating system count for each 

facility.b

IT facilities and energy The inventory should document each facility’s power capacity, electricity usage, electricity cost, and 

whether the facility’s electricity is metered.

Network storage The inventory should document each facility’s total storage capacity and utilization.

Data center information The inventory should document each facility’s data center tier/type, size, cost (including whether 

electricity is included), consolidation status, and information on the number and cost of full-time 

employees at the facility.

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

a

A rack is a physical structure used to house computer servers. 

b

Virtual hosts and virtual operating systems are software-based machines and tools that can run in 

isolation, side-by-side, on the same physical machine. 

However, not all of the agencies used the revised format. Specifically, 21 

of the 24 agencies submitted inventories in OMB’s updated format and 3 

agencies (the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM), and the Small Business Administration 

(SBA)) used the former format.19

 

19Because the 2010 and 2011 formats differ to the extent that they cannot be 

appropriately compared, the status of those three inventories is not reported here. 

However, an assessment of their inventories can be found in the detailed agency 

discussions in app. II.

Officials from all 3 agencies stated that 

they thought they were using the correct format at the time. Further, these 

Asset Inventories Are Still 

Not Complete
 

Page 14 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

officials said they plan to submit information consistent with OMB’s 

revised inventory template in the future.

The confusion by selected agencies on which templates to use is due, in 

part, to a change in how OMB distributed its new guidance. While in prior 

years the Federal CIO wrote letters to agency CIOs and OMB posted its 

guidance on the FDCCI website, in conveying the direction to use a new 

template in spring 2011, the Federal CIO did not write letters to agency 

CIOs and OMB did not post its latest guidance online. Instead, the 

Federal CIO and OMB relied on more informal means, such as the 

FDCCI task force meetings, to disseminate the new guidance. Although 

the task force serves as an important communications conduit for FDCCI, 

the confusion we identified among agencies on which template to use 

demonstrates that the task force was not effective as the sole means of 

communication with the agencies. In providing guidance and direction, 

task force communications could be enhanced by leveraging other 

existing resources, such as sending letters from the Federal CIO to 

agency CIOs and posting the guidance on the initiative’s website.

In assessing agencies’ inventories, we rated an element as complete if 

the agency provided all of the information required for the element, partial 

if the agency provided some, but not all, of the information for the 

element, and incomplete if the agency did not provide the information 

required for the element. A partial rating could result if an agency did not 

provide any information for selected facilities or if the agency did not fill in 

selected fields for its facilities. For example, both an agency providing 

data on two of five facilities and an agency providing incomplete data on 

energy usage across facilities would receive partial ratings.

Of the 21 inventories in the new format, only 3 contain complete data for 

all five of the required elements. Additionally, while all agencies provide at 

least partial inventory data for all five elements,

• one agency provides complete information for four of the five 

elements,

• eight agencies provide complete information for three of the five 

elements,

• three agencies provide complete information for two of the five 

elements,
 

Page 15 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

• two agencies provide complete information for one of the five 

elements, and

• four agencies do not have any complete elements in their inventories.

Figure 1 provides an assessment of the completeness of agencies’ 

inventories, by key element, and a discussion of the analysis of each 

element follows the figure. In addition, a detailed summary of each 

agency’s completion of key elements is provided in appendix II.

Figure 1: Twenty-one Agencies’ Completion of Required Information for Data 

Center Inventory Key Elements, as of June 2011

• Physical servers. Thirteen agencies provide complete information on 

their physical servers and 8 agencies provide partial information. For 

example, the Department of Education (Education) provides complete 

information on its total rack count and counts of types of servers, 

while the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides 

complete counts of individual servers, but partial information on total 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

rack count. Additionally, the Department of Justice (Justice) provides 

partial information for both its total rack count and types of servers. 

• Virtualization. Seventeen agencies provide complete information on 

their virtualization and 4 agencies provide partial information. For 

example, HUD, the Departments of State (State) and Veterans Affairs 

(VA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), all provide 

complete information on their virtual host count and virtual operating 

system count. In contrast, the Departments of Defense, Homeland 

Security (DHS), Justice, and GSA provide partial information for both 

of those same elements.

• IT facilities and energy. Four agencies provide complete information 

on their IT facilities and energy, while 17 provide partial information. 

For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and SSA 

fully provide such information as total data center power capacity and 

average data center electricity usage. However, VA fully reports on 

total data center power capacity, but partially on average data center 

electricity usage and total IT data center power capacity. Further, the 

Department of Labor (Labor) partially reports on total data center IT 

power capacity and average data center electricity usage and does 

not report any information on total data center power capacity.

• Network storage. Fourteen agencies provide complete information 

on their network storage and 7 provide partial information. For 

example, the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and 

Transportation (Transportation), EPA, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) all fully report on their total and used network 

storage. Other agencies, such as Defense, HHS, and State partially 

report information in each of those two categories.

• Data center information. Three agencies provide complete 

information on their individual data centers, while 18 provide partial 

information. For example, HUD and SSA both fully report on data 

center-specific information such as data center type, gross floor area, 

and target date for closure. Other agencies, such as Energy and VA 

fully report on gross floor area and closure information, but partially 

report data center costs. Also, agencies such as Defense and DHS 

report partial information in all categories.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Part of the reason the agencies’ inventories remain incomplete stems 

from challenges in gathering data center power information, a key 

component of the IT facilities and energy component, and more broadly, 

problems providing good quality asset inventories, as OMB requires. 

These challenges are discussed in more detail later in this report. 

Because the continued progress of FDCCI is largely dependent on 

accomplishing goals built on the information provided by agency 

inventories, it will be important for agencies to continue to work on 

completing their inventories, thus providing a sound basis for their 

savings and utilization forecasts.

In addition to the agencies’ inventories, we previously recommended and 

OMB required agencies to update their consolidation plans to address 

any missing elements. OMB’s revised guidance on the contents of the 

consolidation plans retains key elements from its prior guidance and adds 

requirements to discuss steps taken to verify inventory and plan data, 

consolidation progress, and consolidation cost savings. OMB has 

previously reported on the importance of agencies’ consolidation plans in 

providing a technical road map and approach for achieving specified 

targets for infrastructure utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency. 

Table 5 provides a detailed description of each of these elements.

Agencies Updated 

Consolidation Plans, but 

Most Plans Are Not 

Complete
 

Page 18 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 5: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies’ Updated Consolidation Plans

Element Guidance

Quantitative goals The agency should define high-level asset reduction and IT infrastructure utilization improvement goals, 

which include agencywide savings and utilization forecasts through fiscal year 2015. These forecasts 

are to address projected reductions for data centers, aggregate gross floor area, total number of racks, 

total number of servers, and the corresponding utilization metrics (including server virtualization 

percentages).

Qualitative impacts Agency goals need to include qualitative impacts targeted by the agency (e.g., standardization, economies 

of scale, procurement improvements, security and operational efficiency improvements, etc.).

Summary of approach The agency needs to include a brief summary for each of the specific approaches that will be 

undertaken to achieve the stated goals.

Scope of consolidation The plan needs to include a clear, well-defined scope for implementing the FDCCI, by identifying the 

specific target agency/component/bureau data centers to be consolidated.

High-level timeline The plan needs to include a high-level timeline for data center consolidation.

Performance metrics The agency’s governance framework for data center consolidation needs to include specific metrics that 

will be used in performance measurement.

Master program schedule A master program schedule needs to be created for the entire agency, from the detailed implementation 

schedules provided by each of the data center managers as well as driven by related federal 

government activities (e.g., OMB reporting, budget submission, or beginning of a new fiscal year).

Cost-benefit analysis The plan is to include a cost-benefit analysis stating, for each fiscal year included as part of the 

agency’s final consolidation plan, aggregate year-by-year investment and cost savings calculations 

through fiscal year 2015.

Risk management plan A risk management plan needs to be developed and risks need to be tracked using templates.

Communications plan Depending on the scope and impact of the consolidation plan, the agency should consider developing a 

communications plan for the FDCCI implementation at the agency. Issues to consider in this 

communications plan include: key internal and external stakeholder needs/concerns; senior leadership 

briefing reports; and regular coordination with key parties involved in plan implementation.

Inventory/plan verification The plan should describe the steps taken to verify that inventory data and the consolidation plan are 

complete, accurate and consistent. Also the plan should identify any significant data limitations.

Consolidation progress The plan should document if the agency met data center consolidation targets through 9/30/11 and 

address whether the agency is prepared to meet calendar year 2012 targets. The plan should also 

highlight the agency’s successes and challenges experienced to date. The plan should also consider 

any consolidation lessons learned.

Cost savings The plan needs to address cost savings realized in calendar year 2011and how those savings related to 

established targets. The plan should also provide what future savings will be based on 2011 efforts, 

whether there were any unexpected costs, and whether the agency’s fiscal year 2011 enacted budget 

had any impact on consolidation efforts.

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

All 24 agencies submitted consolidation plans to OMB, but only 1 agency 

has a complete plan. For the remaining 23 agencies, selected elements 

are missing from each plan. For example, among the 24 agencies, all 

provide complete information on their qualitative impacts, but only 9 

provide complete information on their quantitative goals. Further, 23 

agencies specify their consolidation approach, but only 5 indicate that a 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

full cost-benefit analysis was performed for the consolidation initiative. In 

many cases, agencies submitted some, but not all, of the required 

information. Figure 2 provides an assessment of the completeness of 

agencies’ consolidation plans, by key element, and a discussion of each 

element follows the figure. In addition, a detailed summary of each 

agency’s completion of key elements is provided in appendix II.

Figure 2: Twenty-four Agencies’ Completion of Required Information for Data Center Consolidation Plan Key Elements, as of 

September 2011

• Quantitative goals. Nine agencies provide complete savings and 

utilization forecasts, 13 agencies provide partial forecasts, 1 agency 

does not provide any information, and an official from 1 agency said 

that this element did not apply. For example, Agriculture and Labor 

were rated as providing partial forecasts because they provide 

complete savings forecasts, but incomplete utilization forecasts. State 

and NRC were rated as providing partial forecasts because they both 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

provide incomplete savings and utilization forecasts. Some agencies 

identified reasons for not having completed these forecasts. 

Specifically, a Department of the Interior (Interior) official told us that it 

was not cost effective to gather the missing information, so it was not 

included. Officials from other agencies, such as Labor and NRC, told 

us of data quality problems or that their data centers lacked the ability 

to gather the required information. Further, a HUD official stated that 

the department did not have any quantitative goals because their 

consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

• Qualitative impacts. All 24 agencies fully describe the qualitative 

impacts of their consolidation initiatives. For example, Commerce’s 

plan describes goals such as controlling data center costs and shifting 

IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and 

technologies. Additionally, NASA reports that the consolidation effort 

will provide access to cost and power-efficient data centers that will 

meet all of the agency’s computing needs, as well as transform the 

data center environment, in part through virtualization and the use of 

cloud services. Further, SBA describes goals such as reducing the 

amount of physical resources consumed by technology systems and 

modernizing and updating agency systems.

• Summary of consolidation approach. Twenty-three agencies 

include a summary of the agencies’ consolidation approaches and an 

official from 1 agency said that this element did not apply. For 

example, Defense describes the department’s reference architecture 

for use in guiding the consolidation effort and also provides examples 

of how the Air Force and the Army are approaching aspects of their 

respective consolidations. Additionally, State’s plan details how the 

department will consolidate all domestic data centers into four 

enterprise data centers. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this 

element was not applicable because the department’s consolidation 

effort was completed in 2005.

• Scope of consolidation. Twenty-two agencies’ plans include a welldefined scope for data center consolidation, 1 provides partial 

information on the scope of their consolidation efforts, and 1 does not 

provide this information. Specifically, the agencies that provide this 

information list the data centers included in the consolidation effort 

and what consolidation approach will be taken for each center. For 

example, EPA lists the 25 facilities for which either the servers will be 

moved or the site will be decommissioned. Similarly, Justice lists the 

36 centers that will be either consolidated or decommissioned. 

However, Labor only partially addresses consolidation scope because 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

it only provides information on about half of its data centers. 

According to an agency official, the centers that have been addressed 

constitute the bulk of the agency’s computing power, but that the 

remaining facilities will be addressed in a later phase of the 

consolidation effort, the timing for which has not yet been determined. 

Additionally, Defense has not defined its consolidation scope. A 

Defense consolidation program official stated that the department was 

still working to better understand the full inventory for all departmental 

components.

• High-level timeline. Twenty-two agencies include a high-level 

timeline for consolidation efforts, 1 agency includes partial information 

on its timeline, and 1 does not provide a timeline. For example, 

Justice and EPA both provide the year for which action will be taken 

on their centers to be consolidated and NRC lists the years its three 

centers will be consolidated before they are replaced by NRC’s new 

data center. In contrast, Labor provides a timeline for about half of its 

data centers, and Defense does not provide a timeline because it has 

not fully defined the scope of its consolidation effort.

• Performance metrics. Eighteen agencies identify specific 

performance metrics for their consolidation programs, 1 agency 

provides partial information on its metrics, 4 agencies do not identify 

specific metrics, and an official from 1 agency said that this element 

did not apply. Specifically, Agriculture’s plan defines several key 

performance indicators such as the numbers of applications moved 

and physical servers eliminated. Additionally, several agencies, such 

as Commerce, Defense, and NSF, provide consolidation performance 

metrics based on quantitative savings and utilization goals. As an 

example of an agency with partial metrics, Education identifies metrics 

based on its savings goals, but is missing information on its progress 

in meeting utilization goals. Additionally, DHS and NRC do not identify 

any performance metrics. Officials from both DHS and NRC agreed 

that their agencies did not have such measures when their plans were 

published, but noted that the required metrics had since been 

developed or that they now have the resources to develop them. 

Further, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable 

because the department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

• Master program schedule. Nine agencies reference a completed 

master program schedule, 13 agencies do not reference such a 

schedule, and officials from 2 agencies said that this element did not 

apply. For example, HHS, VA, and GSA discuss their master program 

schedules, but other agencies, such as State and EPA do not 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

reference schedules in their plans. State officials noted that the 

department has a schedule, but that it was not included in their 

consolidation plan due to a miscommunication. They stated that it 

would be included in their next plan update. Some agencies, such as 

Defense and Labor, are working to develop their schedules or will 

develop them in the future. A Defense official told us that the 

department has drafted a combined data center consolidation and 

cloud computing master schedule that is expected to be approved by 

the end of September 2012. Officials from Energy told us that their 

consolidation schedule existed, but that it was part of a larger 

departmental effort and did not provide detail down to the individual 

data center level. Officials from OPM questioned the utility of a master 

program schedule for relatively limited consolidation efforts. Two 

agencies reported that this requirement was not applicable to their 

situation. Specifically, officials from Education stated that this 

requirement was not applicable because of the small scale of their 

agency’s consolidation efforts. Additionally, a HUD official stated that 

this element was not applicable because the department’s 

consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

• Cost-benefit analysis. Five agencies provide results from a complete 

cost-benefit analysis that encompasses their entire consolidation 

initiative, 10 agencies provide only selected elements of a cost-benefit 

analysis, and 7 agencies do not provide a cost-benefit analysis. This 

element did not apply to 2 agencies. For example, Commerce details 

full annualized cost and savings estimates through fiscal year 2015, 

while other agencies, such as HHS and Interior provide only partial 

information. Specifically, HHS addresses projected savings, but not 

costs, and Interior acknowledges that an analysis has not yet been 

completed. Some agencies, such as Defense and Energy, plan to 

complete a cost-benefit analysis in the future. Officials from 

Transportation told us that the department was working on a new 

cost-benefit analysis, as the department no longer felt comfortable 

with their original savings projections. An Education official noted that 

the department’s consolidation did not cost anything and that although 

data will be moved out of the department’s one server room to be 

consolidated by the end of 2012, the facility would still operate as a 

network center. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element 

was not applicable because the department’s consolidation effort was 

completed in 2005.

• Risk management plan. Eighteen agencies reference a 

consolidation risk management plan and require that risks be tracked, 

4 agencies partially address risk management, and 2 agencies do not 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

address risk management. For example, DHS describes its Data 

Center Services Project Risk Management Plan, including how risks 

are identified, assessed, and mitigated throughout the development 

life cycle. Additionally, Transportation addresses how its risk 

management plan identifies and tracks risks in three categories: 

people, process, and technology and administration. In contrast, 

agencies such as Energy and Interior are rated as partial because 

they are continuing to develop their risk management processes. An 

Interior official told us that the department’s plan is scheduled to be 

completed by June 2012. Officials from both OPM and SBA 

acknowledged that their consolidation plans did not address a risk 

management plan, but noted that risk was either being managed as 

part of individual projects or within a larger context within their 

respective organizations.

• Communications plan. Twenty-two agencies consider a 

communications plan for the agencies’ consolidation initiatives, 1 

agency does so partially, and 1 agency does not. For example, HHS 

describes a series of organizational responsibilities for gathering and 

reporting project information, as well as communicating with other 

departmental stakeholders. Additionally, GSA describes how its 

communications approach ensures that stakeholders both within and 

outside of the agency are kept informed as to consolidation progress. 

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) partially addresses its 

communications plan, noting that it is maintained as part of a larger 

departmental effort. OPM makes no such reference. Further, an 

official from OPM told us that a communications plan was not as 

critical for a small agency.

• Inventory and plan verification. Fifteen agencies fully describe the 

steps taken to ensure that inventories and plans were complete and 

accurate, and 9 agencies partially do so. For example, State 

describes how information was gathered and validated, addresses 

several limitations, and attests to the documents’ completeness. 

Additionally, EPA describes how information was validated, describes 

limitations on inventory data, and attests to the currency of the 

agency’s plans. However, other agencies, such as Agriculture, HUD, 

and SSA are rated as having partially completed this element 

because they note that information was validated, but do not address 

data limitations or the completeness of both the inventory and plan. A 

HUD official told us that the department was unaware of this 

requirement and agreed to consider what could be said in the next 

plan update. An SSA official acknowledged that this information was 

meant to be included, but was inadvertently omitted.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

• Consolidation progress. Eleven agencies fully report on progress 

meeting consolidation goals, 11 agencies do so partially, and this 

element does not apply to 2 agencies. Specifically, Justice addresses 

progress against consolidation goals, discusses consolidation 

challenges, and references consolidation successes, such as 

integrating lessons learned from other organizations. VA similarly 

describes progress against goals and challenges, and also notes the 

department’s reliance on commercial and public best practices while 

updating its consolidation plan. However, both Education and NASA 

are rated as partially completing this element because they discuss 

progress against goals, but do not present specific successes or 

challenges. A NASA official agreed that this information was not 

included, but stated that the agency was aware of situations that 

addressed both categories of information. Additionally, a HUD official 

stated that this element was not applicable because the department’s 

consolidation effort was completed in 2005. OPM officials stated that 

the agency followed OMB’s original guidance when completing their 

updated consolidation plan, which did not include a requirement for 

reporting on consolidation progress.

• Cost savings. Only 1 agency fully reports on consolidation cost 

savings, while 13 agencies do so partially, and 8 do not. This element 

does not apply to two other agencies. Specifically, Commerce 

discusses net savings, future savings, budgetary impacts, and that the 

consolidation effort did not incur any unexpected costs. In contrast, 

HHS and Justice address net and future savings, but not budgetary 

impacts or unexpected costs. Additionally, other agencies do not 

include this information for various reasons. Notably, a Defense 

official told us that it was challenging to gather savings information 

from all the department’s components. An NSF official told us the 

information was not included because the agency had not yet realized 

any cost savings and so, had nothing to report. However, the agency 

expected to have more to report in the future. Additionally, a HUD 

official stated that this element was not applicable because the 

department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005. Further, as 

with reporting on consolidation progress, OPM officials stated that 

they followed OMB’s original guidance, which did not include a 

requirement relating to cost savings.

In the continued absence of completed consolidation plans, agencies are 

at risk of implementing their respective initiatives without a clear 

understanding of their current state and proposed end state. For example, 

OMB intends for agencies’ master program schedules to provide an 

agencywide plan drawn from detailed implementation schedules for each 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

data center. However, only nine agencies have fully completed this 

activity. Further, OMB intends agencies’ cost-benefit analyses to assess 

planned investments and cost savings calculations on a year-by-year 

basis, thus capturing realistic estimates of funding needed or savings 

realized from the closing of facilities and associated reduction in energy 

use. Nonetheless, only five agencies have completed such a study. 

Without completing this information, agencies may not realize anticipated 

cost savings, improved infrastructure utilization, or energy efficiency. The 

importance of these two practices is further discussed in the following 

section.

OMB requires both a master program schedule and a cost-benefit 

analysis as key elements of agencies’ consolidation plans, but none of 

the agencies we evaluated had complete schedules or cost estimates. A 

comprehensive schedule is an important foundational element for 

initiative planning and provides a road map for systematic project 

execution. A credible cost-benefit analysis, which is one type of cost 

estimate, is a key tool for management to use in making informed 

decisions and includes information such as relative benefits and the effect 

and value of cost trade-offs. However, of five agencies (Agriculture, DHS, 

Interior, Transportation, and VA) selected for further analysis, none had a 

schedule or cost estimate that was fully consistent with best practices. Of 

the five agencies, two did not have schedules at all and one agency had 

previously completed a cost estimate but no longer had confidence in 

those calculations and therefore, planned to do a new cost-benefit 

analysis. OMB is sponsoring the development of a standardized cost 

model that could help agencies provide future estimates based on a 

common set of assumptions, estimates, and calculations.

The success of a program depends in part on having an integrated and 

reliable master schedule that defines when and how long work will occur 

and how one activity is related to another. A program schedule provides 

not only a road map for systematic project execution but also the means 

by which to gauge progress, identify and resolve potential problems, and 

promote accountability at all levels of the program. A schedule also 

provides a time sequence for the duration of a program’s activities and 

furthers an understanding of both the dates for major milestones and the 

activities that drive the schedule. Our research has identified four select 

Selected Agencies 

Have Incomplete 

Schedules and Cost 

Estimates

Selected Agencies’ Master 

Program Schedules Are 

Not Complete
 

Page 26 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

attributes of properly sequenced schedule activities that are essential for 

a reliable schedule network.20

Table 6: Select Attributes of Properly Sequenced Schedule Activities

Table 6 provides a detailed description of 

these attributes.

Attribute Definition

Identified dependencies Activities that are related within a schedule network are referred to as predecessors and successors (i.e.,

dependencies). The purpose of a dependency is to depict the sequence of occurrence between activities. 

Except for the start and finish milestones, every activity within the schedule should have at least one 

predecessor and at least one successor. Identifying all interdependencies between activities is necessary 

for the schedule to properly calculate dates and predict changes in the future. Without the right linkages, 

activities that slip early in the schedule do not transmit delays to activities that should depend on them. 

When this happens, the schedule will not provide a sufficient basis for understanding the program as a 

whole, and users of the schedule will lack confidence in the dates and the critical path.

No dangling activities Dangling activities have scheduling relationships that are not properly tied to an activity’s start or end 

date. Each activity’s start date—other than the start and finish milestones—must be driven by a 

predecessor activity, and each activity’s finish date must drive a successor activity’s start or finish. 

Dangling activities, a form of incomplete schedule logic, can interfere with the valid forecasting of 

scheduled activities.

No start-to-finish links A relationship linking a predecessor and successor activity can take one of three forms: finish-to-start, 

start-to-start, and finish-to-finish. A fourth combination, the start-to-finish link, has the effect of directing a 

successor activity not to finish until its predecessor activity starts, in effect reversing the expected flow of 

effort. (For example, instead of creating an activity sequence in which a system is developed and then 

deployed, the start-to-finish link would require that deployment cannot be completed until system 

development has begun.) Its use is widely discouraged because it is counterintuitive and it 

overcomplicates the schedule network.

No summary links Summary activities should not have relationships because their start and finish dates are derived from 

lower-level activities. Therefore, there is no need for relationships on a summary activity in a properly 

networked schedule.

Source: GAO.

Of the five agencies selected, three agencies (Agriculture, VA, and DHS) 

provided their consolidation master program schedules and two agencies 

(Interior and Transportation) did not provide a master program schedule 

that we could evaluate.21

 

20

Of the three agencies that provided schedules, 

Agriculture and VA provided a single master schedule and DHS provided 

4 schedules representing different aspects of the department’s future 

GAO-12-120G. 

21Interior provided a schedule, but not in time to be included in this evaluation. Similarly, 

Transportation officials told us that their FDCCI schedule was not in an electronic format 

that we could analyze and further, was only a task included in a much larger schedule for 

departmental IT projects. 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

consolidation plans. However, none of these agencies’ schedules is fully 

compliant with the four attributes, although each agency was at least 

partially consistent with these practices. Table 7 provides an assessment 

of the agencies’ consistency with the four attributes of properly 

sequenced schedule activities. A discussion of the analysis of each 

characteristic follows the table.

Table 7: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies’ Schedules with Attributes of a 

Properly Sequenced Schedule 

Attribute Agriculture DHS VA

Identified dependencies ◑ ◑ ◑

No dangling activities ● ◑ ●

No start-to-finish links ● ◑ ●

No summary links ● ◑ ○

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

● – the schedule(s) addresses all aspects of this practice. 

◑ – the schedule(s) addresses some, but not all, aspects of this practice. 

○ – the schedule(s) addresses no aspects of this practice. 

• Identified dependencies. None of the three agencies’ schedules is 

fully consistent with this practice. Specifically, two of DHS’s schedules 

have activities missing predecessors, successors, or both. 

Additionally, almost half of Agriculture’s activities, and almost 40 

percent of VA’s, have a similar condition.

• No dangling activities. Two of the three agencies are consistent with 

this practice and one agency is partially consistent. For example, 

neither schedule for Agriculture or VA has any dangling activities. In 

contrast, two of DHS’s four schedules do not have dangling activities, 

while the remaining two do have such activities.

• No start-to-finish links. Two of the three agencies’ schedules are 

consistent with this practice and one agency’s schedule is partially 

consistent. Both of Agriculture and VA’s schedules are consistent with 

this practice and have no start-to-finish links. However, while three of 

DHS’s schedules do not have start-to-finish links, one schedule does.

• No summary links. One of the three agencies was consistent with 

this practice, one agency was partially consistent, and one agency 

was not consistent. Specifically, Agriculture’s schedule does not have 

any summary links, while only one of DHS’s schedules meets the 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

same condition. Three of DHS’s schedules include summary links, as 

does VA’s schedule.

Department officials gave a variety of reasons why their respective 

department did not provide documentation of a completed master 

program schedule:

• An Agriculture official told us that the department had a detailed 

schedule for every individual closure, but that because those projects 

are not necessarily linked to one another, there was no need to link 

these activities in a master schedule. However, leading practices 

demonstrate that even a summary master schedule should be a rollup of lower-level schedules and reflect milestones that are 

automatically calculated through the established network logic 

between planned activities. A schedule with proper logic can predict 

impacts on the project’s planned finish date of, among other things, 

misallocated resources, delayed activities, external events, scope 

changes, and unrealistic deadlines.

• DHS’s consolidation program manager stated that the department 

provided separate schedules because schedules are developed for 

individual facilities when placed under contract for closure. However, 

leading practices show that a program schedule should include the 

entire required scope of effort, including the effort necessary from all 

government, contractors, and other key parties for a program’s 

successful execution from start to finish. The DHS consolidation 

program manager acknowledged that the schedules in question were 

developed by contractors and that the department plans to 

incorporate the suggested best practices as appropriate.

• A VA official told us that because some of the tasks in the 

department’s schedule are expected to start on particular dates to 

ensure funding is available for the project task, they do not have 

predecessor tasks. While this can be a permissible step when the 

schedule constraints are clearly identified, the VA official was able to 

provide some, but not all, of those constraints. The VA official further 

told us that unnecessary tasks and constraints have since been 

removed from the department’s schedule.

• Interior officials stated that the department’s master program schedule 

was not yet complete.

• Transportation’s consolidation program manager stated that the 

department does not have a master program schedule dedicated to 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

the FDCCI. Rather, the consolidation effort appears as a task on the 

department’s master IT projects schedule.

In the absence of program schedules constructed in accordance with 

scheduling best practices, the agencies we evaluated are at risk of 

moving forward with their consolidation efforts despite having incomplete 

information that defines when and how long work will occur and how 

activities are related to each other.

We have reported that the ability to generate a reliable cost estimate, 

such as a cost-benefit analysis, is a critical function necessary to support 

OMB’s capital programming process.22 Such estimates should also 

include information on the benefits of the project. Without such estimates, 

agencies are at risk of experiencing cost overruns, missed deadlines, and 

performance shortfalls. Our research has identified a number of best 

practices that are the basis of effective program cost estimating and 

should result in reliable and valid cost estimates that management can 

use for making informed decisions. Table 8 provides a detailed 

description of the four characteristics of a high-quality and reliable cost 

estimate.

 

22GAO-09-3SP. 

Selected Agencies’ Cost 

Estimates Are Not Reliable
 

Page 30 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 8: Characteristics of a High-quality and Reliable Cost Estimate

Characteristic Description

Comprehensive The cost estimate should include all life cycle costs, completely define the program, reflect the current 

schedule, and be technically reasonable. The cost estimate work breakdown structure should be productoriented, traceable to the statement of work/objective, and at an appropriate level of detail to ensure that cost 

elements are neither omitted nor double-counted. The estimate should document all cost-influencing ground 

rules and assumptions.

Well-documented The estimate documentation should capture the source data used, the reliability of the data, and how the data 

were normalized and should describe in sufficient detail the calculations performed and the estimating 

methodology used to derive each element’s cost. The documentation should describe step by step how the 

estimate was developed so that a cost analyst unfamiliar with the program could understand what was done 

and replicate it. The documentation should further discuss the technical baseline description and the data in 

the baseline should be consistent with the estimate, as well as provide evidence that the cost estimate was 

reviewed and accepted by management.

Accurate The cost estimate results should be unbiased, not overly conservative or optimistic and based on an 

assessment of most likely costs and the estimate should be adjusted properly for inflation. The estimate 

should contain few, if any, minor mistakes and be regularly updated to reflect significant changes in the 

program so that it always reflects current status. Variances between planned and actual costs should be 

documented, explained, and reviewed and the estimate should be based on a historical record of cost 

estimating and actual experiences from other comparable programs. 

Credible The cost estimate should include a sensitivity analysis that identifies a range of possible costs based on 

varying major assumptions, parameters, and data inputs. A risk and uncertainty analysis should be conducted 

that quantifies the imperfectly understood risks and identifies the effects of changing key cost driver 

assumptions and factors. Major cost elements should be crossed-checked to see whether results were 

similar. An independent cost estimate should be conducted by a group outside the acquiring organization to 

determine whether other estimating methods produce similar results.

Source: GAO.

Of the five agencies selected, four (Agriculture, DHS, Interior, and VA) 

provided supporting documentation used to calculate the cost estimates 

found in the agencies’ consolidation plans and one (Transportation) did 

not. Transportation officials explained that they were no longer confident 

in their prior estimates and they planned to undertake a new cost-benefit 

analysis in 2012. None of the four agencies’ estimates was fully compliant 

with best practices, although all of the estimates were at least minimally 

consistent with these practices. Table 9 provides an assessment of the 

estimates’ consistency with the characteristics of a reliable cost estimate. 

A discussion of the analysis of each characteristic follows the table.
 

Page 31 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 9: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies’ Cost Estimates with Best 

Practices

Characteristic Agriculture DHS Interior VA

Comprehensive ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑

Well-documented ◔ ◔ ◑ ◕

Accurate ◔ ◔ ◔ ◔

Credible ◔ ◔ ◑ ◔

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

● – the agency provides complete evidence that satisfies the entire criterion. 

◕ – the agency provides evidence that satisfies most of the criterion. 

◑ – the agency provides evidence that satisfies about half of the criterion. 

◔ – the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the criterion. 

○ – the agency provides no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion. 

• Comprehensive. None of the estimates are fully consistent with this 

practice, although all four estimates satisfy about half of the criterion 

for this practice. For example, Agriculture includes most related costs 

and estimate assumptions, but does not include a work breakdown 

structure. Similarly, Interior includes most related costs and estimate 

assumptions, but also does not include a work breakdown structure.

• Well-documented. None of the estimates fully satisfy this practice. 

Specifically, one estimate satisfies most, but not all, of the practice, 

one estimate satisfies about half of the criterion for the practice, and 

two estimates satisfy a few of the criterion for the practice. For 

example, Interior documents its technical baseline but does not fully 

document how the estimate was developed. VA describes how its 

calculations were performed and discusses the estimate’s technical 

baseline, but satisfied only half of the criteria describing how the 

estimate was performed.

• Accurate. None of the estimates fully satisfied this practice. One 

estimate satisfied about half of the practice and three estimates 

satisfied some of the practice. For example, Agriculture’s estimate is 

partially based on historical estimates, but has not been updated 

since March 2009. Additionally, while DHS updated its estimate in 

July 2011, it did not adjust for inflation or document variations 

between planned and actual costs.

• Credible. None of the estimates fully satisfied this practice. One 

estimate satisfied about half the practice and three estimates satisfied 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

some of the practice. For example, DHS addressed some aspects of 

a risk and uncertainty analysis, but did not conduct an estimate 

sensitivity analysis. Conversely, VA addressed some aspects of an 

estimate sensitivity analysis, but did not conduct a risk and uncertainty 

analysis. Neither agency conducted an independent cost estimate.

Agency officials gave a variety of reasons for why their cost estimates 

were not complete. For example, the Agriculture CIO indicated that the 

department’s estimate was performed several years ago by a contractor 

and additional documentation was difficult to acquire. Additionally, 

Interior’s consolidation program manager stated that the department was 

in the process of revising its cost estimate using OMB’s cost model, but 

the effort was not yet complete. Further, Interior’s consolidation plan 

describes several efforts to estimate costs that the department ultimately 

did not include in their plan and indicates that the department will address 

this in a future deliverable. In May 2012, Interior officials stated that they 

recently provided this information to OMB. VA officials stated that they did 

not provide previous cost estimate documentation because the 

department expected to revise its cost estimate using new information 

regarding cost assumptions and that this information would affect lifecycle cost estimates. The DHS consolidation program manager noted that 

the department is now taking a different approach towards cost estimates 

through the use of enterprisewide contracts. Regarding Transportation, 

although it reported FDCCI-related estimated savings of over $26 million 

in its 2010 plan, the department’s updated consolidation plan states that 

the original cost estimates were no longer relevant and the department is 

in the process of conducting a new estimating effort that was not 

completed in time for the plan’s submission. Further, in March 2012, a 

department official confirmed that Transportation no longer felt 

comfortable with the original savings estimate and that planned cost 

savings were being reevaluated. The official further stated the department 

intends to complete a new cost-benefit analysis.

Between the five agencies that we reviewed, there are plans to 

consolidate 375 data centers of all sizes. In the absence of reliable cost 

estimates, these five agencies are exposed to the types of risks that we 

have reported to be recurring problems in our program reviews—namely 

cost overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. Because of 

the importance of a high-quality cost estimate to consolidation efforts as 

significant as these, it will be important for these agencies to work to 

improve their cost estimates, thus providing information on which 

management can make well-informed decisions as the agencies move 

towards their 2015 targets.
 

Page 33 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

To assist agencies in their data center consolidation efforts, the FDCCI 

Data Center Consolidation Task Force developed a standard Total Cost 

of Ownership (TCO) model in order to provide a comprehensive tool to 

help to inform consolidation decision making, model consolidation paths, 

and assist with the development of cost savings figures and funding 

needs. OMB provided the model to agencies for voluntary use starting in 

January 2012, noting that it is intended to provide a uniform and 

consistent method to derive agency cost savings figures and a modeling 

and simulation tool to inform consolidation decisions.

At a high level, agencies load their raw agency inventory data into the 

spreadsheet-based model to develop three outputs:

• an “as is” view of current costs;

• a 5-year projection of costs based on maintaining current equipment 

and facilities at current growth rates; and

• a 5-year projection of costs, including equipment and facilities counts, 

based on the agency’s planned data center closure and efficiency 

targets.

The model relies on a number of built-in assumptions—based on best 

practices in the public and private sectors and grouped into categories 

such as facilities, hardware, and software—to provide its outputs. The 

model also recognizes some limitations, such as an inability to capture 

costing data for individual facilities and an inability to recognize individual 

costs for hardware and software. To compensate, the model applies 

universal values for such information, while recognizing the inaccuracies 

this may cause in some costing elements. The model further allows 

agencies to adjust specific variables to input costs that are atypical or not 

already anticipated by the model. According to an official from the GSA 

program management office that maintains the cost model, while not 

intended to capture comprehensive program costs, the model does 

provide agencies with the ability to customize the input information to 

make it as comprehensive as they need it to be. As a result, agencies 

could use this tool to provide more consistent and reliable cost estimates. 

Moreover, the model provides standardized cost calculations, adjustment 

for inflation, and a scenario-analysis tool that agencies can use to analyze 

alternatives and develop plans. Thus, it can be used as a tool to help 

agencies improve their consolidation planning.

OMB Developed a Model 

to Help Agencies Plan 

Consolidations, but Does 

Not Require Its Use
 

Page 34 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Officials from several agencies told us that they plan to use the TCO 

model in future cost estimating efforts. For example, a Transportation 

official told us that the department intends to use the model as it 

recalculates its cost-benefit estimate. Additionally, the Interior 

consolidation program manager stated that the department planned to 

use the model to determine power estimates. Officials from other 

agencies, such as SSA and EPA, told us that the model was being 

considered for future use.

Use of the TCO model could provide more consistent and reliable cost 

estimates, but using the model is currently voluntary. In light of the 

limitations identified above in our review of the five agencies’ cost 

estimates, the deployment of a standardized tool for planning 

consolidation efforts could help ensure that agencies develop consistent 

and uniform projections. Until OMB requires agencies to use the model, 

agencies will likely continue to use a variety of methodologies and 

assumptions in establishing consolidation estimates, and it will remain 

difficult to summarize projections across agencies.

Agencies reported experiencing multiple areas of success in their 

consolidation efforts. Specifically, 20 agencies identified 34 areas of 

success, with the number of agencies reporting a particular success 

ranging from 9 to 1. However, only 3 successes were identified by 

multiple agencies and, of those, 2 represent over 45 percent of the total 

reported successes. Four agencies—Justice, Transportation, NSF, and 

SSA—did not report any successes. Table 10 details the reported 

successes as well as the number of agencies identifying that area of 

success; the two most common areas are further discussed after the 

table.

Agencies Have 

Experienced 

Consolidation 

Successes and 

Continue to Report 

Challenges
 

Page 35 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 10: Agency Consolidation Successes 

Reported areas of success

Number of 

agencies

Focusing on virtualization and cloud services as consolidation solutions 9 

Working with other agencies and components to find consolidation 

opportunities

8 

Ensuring a more comprehensive asset inventory 2 

Overcoming internal politics 1 

Developing and using a “mobile data center” to migrate hardware and 

facilitate data transfer

1 

Implementing new services to expedite consolidation projects 1 

Transitioning end-user support to a hosting agency, enabling site closure 1 

Developing standardized templates for consolidation plan elements 1 

Consolidating multiple e-mail systems into one cloud-based provider 1 

Using Energy Performance Contracting to rehabilitate buildings 1 

Developing a profiling tool to allow local managers to directly enter 

inventory information

1 

Realizing savings and efficiencies from the migration to new enterprise 

data centers

1 

Increasing implementation of “as a service” offerings to reduce overall 

costs of operations

1 

Improving service levels 1 

Improving knowledge management 1 

Using the Data Center Consolidation Task Force as a forum for discussing 

challenges and identifying potential synergies between agencies

1 

Negotiating carefully with vendors 1 

Implementing shared services 1 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data and interviews with agency officials.

Virtualization is a technology that allows multiple, software-based 

machines with different operating systems, to run in isolation, side-byside, on the same physical machine. Cloud computing is an emerging 

form of computing that relies on Internet-based services and resources to 

provide computing services to customers, while freeing them from the 

burden and costs of maintaining the underlying infrastructure. OMB 

suggests both technologies as agency approaches, along with 

decommissioning and consolidation. Nine agencies reported that focusing 

on virtualization and cloud computing have proven successful for their 

consolidation efforts.

Agencies Report That 

Virtualization and Cloud 

Services Have Produced Cost 

Savings 
 

Page 36 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Interior consolidation program manager cited virtualization as the 

department’s greatest consolidation success, noting the efforts of the 

department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs as an example. Specifically, Interior 

has documented virtualization as a key enabler in the efforts of the 

bureau to close data centers. After closing 11 data centers in fiscal year 

2011, the bureau turned its attention to remote sites with more than three 

servers. Through virtualization, the bureau was able to reduce all remote 

sites to either one or two physical servers. Additionally, on a site-by-site 

basis, other application and database servers were either virtualized or 

migrated to one of two primary bureau data centers. In doing so, the 

bureau’s virtualization effort reportedly produced over $114,000 in cost 

avoidance savings for fiscal year 2011, is expected to produce over 

$66,000 in savings for fiscal year 2012, and is planned to produce further 

savings of $66,000 annually. Table 11 details reductions and savings that 

the bureau has already realized and plans for the future.

Table 11: Reported Savings from Bureau of Indian Affairs Virtualization

Category

4th quarter 

2010

4th quarter 

2011

4th quarter 

2012 

(planned)

Total data centers 14 3 1 

Percent change from 2010 data centers — -82.35% -88.23%

Total data center servers 367 460 71

Percent change from 2010 server count — +25.34% -80.65%

Aggregate data center energy usage 

(kWh/year)

1,405,454 1,199,682 127,020

Percent change from 2010 energy usage — -14.64% -90.96%

Aggregate data center energy costs per year $101,192 $86,377 $9,145

Energy cost reduction — $14,815 $77,231

Cost savings of virtualization — $114,240 $66,261

Source: Department of the Interior.

Other agencies also reported virtualization as a key factor in being able to 

realize resource reductions. For example, EPA officials told us that the 

agency was using virtualization to optimize their IT infrastructure. In 2011, 

the agency virtualized over 360 servers, increasing the agency’s 

virtualization by 6 percent. In 2012, the agency plans to consolidate and 

virtualize email hosting services, allowing the agency to decommission 14 

percent (or over 300) of its physical servers, and migrate the agency’s 

email gateways to cloud services. In one EPA facility, the agency will 

migrate over 100 servers from eight server rooms to one primary data 

center. Additionally, NRC reports that it used virtualization to exceed its 

2011 goals for Windows server reductions. Specifically, the agency was 
 

Page 37 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

able to exceed its goal of reducing 13 servers and actually reduced 33 

physical servers, a reduction of more than 10 percent from its baseline of 

288 servers. Further, OPM officials reported that within 15 months, the 

agency was able to increase the virtualization of its Windows servers from 

15 percent to 50 percent, resulting in cost savings for the agency.

Other agencies reported on the less tangible, but still significant, 

importance of virtualization to their efforts. An Education official told us 

that the department’s biggest success has come from focusing on 

virtualization, rather than physical consolidation. DHS reported that the 

increased implementation of virtualization will reduce the overall costs of 

the department’s migration and postmigration operations. Further, officials 

from Labor told us that they expect virtualization to have an impact on the 

results of their consolidation, but that they had not yet documented any of 

those results.

Officials from three agencies also shared with us the advantages of 

moving their organizations to cloud services. Specifically, a DHS official 

told us that the department’s cloud services technology was becoming 

operational and as a result, costs savings were becoming evident versus 

traditional consolidation. Whereas 2 years ago, the department had 

nothing in the cloud, a large percentage of services were now moving in 

that direction. The official specifically noted a DHS component that was 

originally only going to move to its own physical infrastructure, but was 

now joining with other components because of the benefits of moving 

services to the cloud. A HUD official stated that the department’s 

successes were related to higher efficiency and utilization of computing 

and storage resources. Essentially, HUD embarked on a cloud-like 

solution—by means of the department’s existing outsourcing contract—

before cloud computing really existed as a service. As a result, the official 

noted that the department has been receiving a number of benefits such 

as green IT, regular technology refreshes, and high utilization of 

resources. A second HUD official noted that the department has been 

rated across the government as having the third-highest computing 

utilization and the second-most efficient use of storage capacity. Further, 

and as mentioned earlier, an EPA official noted that the migration of 

EPA’s email gateways to cloud services will enable the agency to 

decommission 14 percent (over 300) of the agency’s physical servers.

Eight agencies reported consolidation successes that had been realized 

through agencies working together, both within and outside of their 

department, to identify consolidation opportunities. For example, several 

of the agencies that reported success with virtualization, as discussed 

Agencies and Components Are 

Working Together to Identify 

Consolidation Opportunities
 

Page 38 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

earlier, also reported working with other departmental components as a 

key enabler of resulting savings. Specifically, Interior reported that as part 

of the department’s closing of 11 Bureau of Indian Affairs data centers in 

fiscal year 2011, two facilities were consolidated with other Interior 

bureaus, resulting in a reduction of 43 of the bureau’s 65 servers and 

producing immediate cost avoidance savings of over $114,000. Defense 

noted the willingness of its components to adopt the departmental 

strategy of first looking to the Defense Information Systems Agency for 

application and data hosting before pursuing any other options. Further, a 

SBA official told us that one success from the consolidation effort was 

that agencies have been looking for ways to work together. Specifically, 

the official cited the SBA’s effort to reach out to another agency in order 

to craft an interagency agreement to work together and move part of their 

operations into the hosting agency’s systems. A second agency official 

noted that because of this, the hosting agency has contacted SBA to 

make sure that it included SBA’s needs in its planning and requests. 

Additionally, a DHS official told us that departmental components were 

joining together to move services to the cloud.

There were also reported successes in working with external agencies. 

For example, VA reported that the department was successful in working 

with the Defense Information Systems Agency on an agreement to 

consolidate mission critical enterprise IT systems into the agency’s 

Defense Enterprise Computing Centers. The department noted that 

considerable cost savings could be realized by entering into such an 

interagency agreement, as opposed to leasing from a commercial site, for 

mission critical health record systems. Additionally, a HHS official 

similarly reported that the department’s Indian Health Service, which has 

small data centers that cannot close because of communication 

difficulties in their locations, recognized that Interior’s Bureau of Indian 

Affairs had a data center in close proximity to an Indian Health Service 

facility. Consequently, the service was able to share space with the 

bureau and consolidate one of its data centers and the service is now 

looking for similar opportunities that will allow HHS to consolidate further. 

Further, Labor officials told us that the department was consolidating 

small server rooms in regional offices to co-located facilities and that this 

approach was expected to reduce costs.

The consolidation successes experienced by agencies indicate that 

aspects of FDCCI are moving forward as planned. Further, almost half of 

these reported accomplishments directly relate to key tenets of OMB’s 

plans for the initiative, demonstrating that OMB has developed a 
 

Page 39 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

consolidation road map that provides realistic means by which agencies 

can achieve their goals.

In 2011, we reported on the challenges that agencies were facing during 

data center consolidations. These included challenges related to FDCCI 

as well as those that were cultural, funding related, operational, and 

technical. In 2012, agencies have continued to report many of the same 

challenges, have reported new challenges, and have stopped reporting 

challenges they previously identified. As we found in 2011, some 

challenges are more common than others. Specifically, the number of 

agencies reporting a particular challenge range from 15 to 1. Additionally, 

25 challenges reported in 2011 were not reported in 2012. Two agencies, 

HUD and NSF, did not report any challenges. Table 12 details the 

reported challenges, the numbers of agencies experiencing that 

challenge, and identifies the challenges no longer being reported by 

agencies. The table is followed by a discussion of the most prevalent 

challenges.

Table 12: Challenges Encountered by Agencies in 2011 and 2012, Including Those No Longer Reported

Number of agencies 

reporting

Challenge type Challenge 2011 2012

Initiative-related Obtaining power usage information, as required by OMB 19 15

(33) Providing good quality asset inventories, as required by OMB 4 10

Adjusting as OMB modified its definition of “data center” 2 5 

Aligning data center consolidation with other initiatives 4 1 

Political interest in FDCCI consolidation target facilities 0 1 

Confusing or conflicting metrics specified in OMB templates 0 1 

Identifying and quantifying actual costs associated with data center facilities and 

operational support

0 1 

Meeting tight planning deadlines for OMB’s milestones 11 0 

Including consolidation information in middle of fiscal year 2012 budget cycle 4 0 

Working towards an undefined future state of the data center consolidation initiative 1 0 

Reporting savings in an already consolidated organization 1 0 

Applying same FDCCI targets to all agencies, regardless of situation 1 0 

Cultural Accepting cultural change that is part of consolidation 15 5 

(12) Obtaining enterprise buy-in to the consolidation effort 1 5 

Implementing FDCCI in an organizational structure, such as a decentralized enterprise, 

that is not geared towards consolidation

8 2 

Agencies Continue to 

Report Consolidation 

Challenges, but the Types 

of Challenges Are Evolving
 

Page 40 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Number of agencies 

reporting

Challenge type Challenge 2011 2012

Assuming significant new responsibilities as a result of consolidation 2 0 

Funding Acquiring funding required for consolidation and migration efforts 11 9 

(11) Identifying cost savings to be realized by consolidation 9 2 

Reimbursing external organizations for shared services/multi-tenancy 2 0 

Projecting cost information 1 0 

Accounting for costs in a flat fee lease 1 0 

Planning consolidation efforts across components with differing funding streams 1 0 

Operational Difficulty with procurement process 0 3 

(11) Technology and resource constraints 0 2 

Implementing cloud computing 3 1 

Relocating displaced staff 1 1 

Implementing shared services 0 1 

Implementing virtualization 0 1 

No motivation for IT organizations to reduce IT system energy costs when they do not 

pay for power costs

0 1 

Environmental challenges 0 1 

Maintaining services during consolidation transition 9 0 

Managing physical infrastructure 2 0 

Creating appropriate service-level agreements with other organizations 2 0 

Locating a suitable site for data center 2 0 

Transitioning to a new service provider 1 0 

Understanding the limitations of facilities 1 0 

Technical Planning migration strategy 2 7 

(7) Maintaining appropriate level of system security 3 0 

Configuring the network for consolidation 2 0 

Forecasting capacity and seasonal demand 2 0 

Meshing data from multiple locations 2 0 

Ensuring enough bandwidth for the network 2 0 

Creating shared standards (including system and physical security, storage, and risk 

management) for co-located resources and services

1 0 

Testing of changed applications 1 0 

Overseeing a vendor’s security; certification and accreditation are set up and 

performed

1 0 

Analyzing business needs and solutions to be sure of a good fit 1 0 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data and interviews with agency officials.
 

Page 41 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Agencies reported seven challenges that are specific to FDCCI, including 

obtaining power usage and providing good quality asset inventories, both 

as required by OMB. Specifically, 15 agencies reported that obtaining 

power usage information was a challenge, which is less than the 19 

agencies that reported this challenge last year. For example, a NASA 

official told us that the agency only had one data center (out of 79) that 

was fully metered, but that the agency was working to establish metering 

capabilities at several more locations. An SBA official told us that the 

agency was still working to complete a power audit, but that it was 

questionable whether such an audit would be worth the amount of work 

required to install separate power meters in leased facilities. A USAID 

official reported that none of the agency’s facilities were metered and that 

the agency was not a landlord for any of its facilities, making power 

information difficult to obtain. Further, 10 agencies reported that providing 

good quality inventories was a challenge, which is more than the 4 

agencies that reported this challenge last year. For example, an EPA 

official told us that the agency had trouble determining cost information 

for its server rooms because most were facilities within office spaces and 

which were part of larger federal leases or within GSA buildings. As a 

result, EPA focused their efforts on facilities greater than 500 square feet. 

Additionally, a Defense official reported that that gathering and verifying 

inventory information for an organization the size of the department was 

challenging.

Agencies reported three cultural challenges to data center consolidation, 

including accepting cultural change that is part of consolidation and 

obtaining enterprise buy-in to the consolidation effort. One of the most 

prevalently reported cultural challenges, accepting cultural change, was 

cited by 5 agencies, which is 10 fewer agencies than last year. For 

example, Energy found that there was a perceived need for each facility 

or departmental organization to have “ownership” of their own data 

centers and server rooms in order to support their business or mission 

needs. Justice recognized that moving from the department’s current 

environment to a more unified, standardized, and cost-efficient approach 

for providing data center services requires change and consequently, 

efforts were underway to drive more significant consolidation. Another 

commonly reported cultural challenge was obtaining enterprise buy-in to 

the consolidation effort, which was reported by 5 agencies—an increase 

from the single agency that reported this last year. For example, DHS 

reported their consolidation effort to be a multistakeholder operation that 

required immense amounts of coordination and found that delays and 

issues arose when various stakeholders maintained differing visions, 

expectations, and commitment to the effort. Further, NRC reported that 

Initiative-related Challenges

Cultural Challenges
 

Page 42 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

one of its main challenges was managing the level of coordination 

required by the number of internal and external entities involved in 

planning and the related activities that need to happen simultaneously.

Agencies reported two funding challenges: acquiring the funding needed 

for consolidation and identifying cost savings to be realized by 

consolidation. Nine agencies reported challenges with acquiring funding, 

which is slightly fewer than the 11 agencies that reported this challenge 

last year. For example, Energy reported that the department had little or 

no funding available to invest in data center measurement systems, 

server utilizations assessments, or consolidation projects. Additionally, 

both Justice and Transportation reported challenges in providing upfront 

funding for consolidation efforts before cost savings accrue. Two 

agencies reported challenges with identifying cost savings, a decrease 

from the 9 agencies that reported this challenge last year. For example, 

an Interior official noted that the department would likely not be able to 

report on savings for 2011 because most bureaus absorbed the cost of 

consolidation within their budgets. Although site-specific plans were 

required by the department, most did not address costs. Additionally, an 

SSA official noted that the agency currently had too many uncertainties 

surrounding its consolidation effort to perform a cost-benefit analysis.

Agencies reported eight operational challenges, including difficulties with 

procurement and technology and resource constraints, neither of which 

had been reported in 2011. Three agencies encountered challenges with 

procurement, including DHS, which had to create a team to streamline 

projects through the department’s procurement process. GSA reported 

encountering construction contracting challenges on all three of the 

agency’s calendar year 2011 data center consolidations. These contract 

challenges included: vendors that could not meet award schedules, 

nonresponsive vendors, and long lead times for some IT equipment. To 

counter such delays, GSA increased the time allotted for planned 

contracting efforts and vendor delivery schedules. Additionally, two 

agencies reported challenges with technology and resource constraints. 

Specifically, EPA reported encountering minor delays in consolidation 

plan execution due to such constraints and NRC reported another of its 

main challenges to consolidation being available resources and the 

impact on its critical path to consolidation, which is the timely completion 

of the agency’s new headquarters building.

Agencies reported only one technical challenge to consolidation, planning 

a migration strategy. Specifically, this was reported by seven agencies, 

an increase from the two agencies that reported this in 2011. For 

Funding Challenges

Operational Challenges

Technical Challenges
 

Page 43 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

example, Transportation’s consolidation plan notes that in the 

department’s organization, it is a long process to identify possible 

consolidations, present them to management, then to users, and then 

work the technical side of migrations. Transportation’s plan also noted 

that application mapping is a very difficult and time-consuming activity, 

but cannot be skipped in a successful completion of a migration. Further, 

an Education official told us that the department had to develop a twostep approach for migrating files after encountering technical issues with 

an earlier migration effort. Finally, Commerce reported in its consolidation 

plan that detailed consolidation planning was critical due to the number of 

moving parts and potential impact on applications and customers.

As we have previously reported, one approach agencies can use to 

manage challenges such as the ones described above is through risk 

management processes. In 2011, we reported that less than half of the 

agencies included a discussion of risk management in their data center 

consolidation plans. As we stated earlier, 18 of the agencies, or 75 

percent, now fully address risk management. By addressing consolidation 

risk, agencies have better positioned themselves to manage the 

challenges they have identified.

In any significant IT initiative, it is important that both successes and 

challenges be highlighted. In the case of FDCCI, a success highlights 

approaches and strategies that are helping agencies to meet their 

consolidation targets and fulfill the intent of the initiative. Conversely, a 

challenge identifies an area where agencies are struggling to meet the 

requirements and intent of this governmentwide effort. The two most 

reported consolidation successes are both key tenets of OMB’s FDCCI: 

the use of virtualization and cloud services, and working with other 

agencies to find consolidation opportunities. Alternately, the three most 

reported challenges directly impact the ability of FDCCI to meet its goals: 

gathering power usage information, developing good quality data center 

inventories, and acquiring the funding needed for consolidation. In light of 

how closely the successes and challenges reported by agencies relate to 

FDCCI, it will be important for OMB to continue to provide leadership and 

guidance to the initiative. This includes, as we have previously

recommended, utilizing the existing accountability infrastructure of the 

Data Center Consolidation Task Force to assess agency consolidation 
 

Page 44 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

plans to ensure they are complete and to monitor the agencies’ 

implementation of their plans.23

With agencies reporting having closed 286 data centers by the end of 

2011 and planning to close an additional 346 centers by the end of 2012, 

the data center consolidation initiative is expected to realize about $2.4 

billion in cost savings through 2015. OMB now requires agencies to 

annually update both their data center inventories and their consolidation 

plans and has expanded the required content of both. However, agencies’ 

consolidation and savings goals continue to be built on incomplete 

inventories and plans. To better ensure that FDCCI improves 

governmental efficiency and achieves promised cost savings, we are 

reiterating our prior recommendation to the department secretaries and 

agency heads of the 24 departments and agencies participating in the 

federal data center consolidation initiative to fully complete their 

consolidation inventories and plans expeditiously.24

As OMB refines its approach to the data center consolidation initiative, it 

provides updated guidance to agencies. However, three agencies did not 

learn of the most recent changes in OMB’s required formats, in part 

because the guidance was provided in meetings and not in a formal letter 

from the Federal CIO to agency CIOs or disseminated on the website 

where all prior guidance had been disseminated. Until OMB uses more 

structured mechanisms to disseminate its guidance, it runs the risk that 

agencies will not learn of important changes in format or approach.

Additionally, basic consolidation plan requirements, such as the need for 

schedules and cost estimates, are still unmet by almost 70 percent of the 

agencies. Among the five agencies selected for a detailed review, none of 

the agencies’ master schedules and estimates were completed in a 

manner consistent with best practices. For example, none of the agencies 

was able to demonstrate that its cost estimates were accurate, credible, 

or comprehensive. OMB’s cost of ownership model should help address a 

number of planning concerns. As more agencies use the model, OMB 

can use the model to ensure consistent planning and reporting on 

consolidation efforts across FDCCI. However, agencies’ use of the model 

 

23GAO-11-565. 

24GAO-11-565. 

Conclusions
 

Page 45 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

is still voluntary. Until OMB requires agencies to use the model, it may 

miss opportunities to ensure consistency among agencies and it will 

remain difficult to summarize projections across agencies.

As the federal consolidation effort matures, agencies are beginning to 

realize successes. These constructive experiences, which stem from 

OMB’s recommended consolidation strategies, indicate that FDCCI is 

moving in the right direction. However, as agencies work towards their 

consolidation goals, many continue to report challenges related to 

gathering the necessary technical information and funding the 

consolidation itself. While these challenges are consistent with those 

reported in the past, over 25 previous challenges were no longer reported 

by the agencies. Such a dynamic environment reinforces the need for 

agencies to remain in communication in order to facilitate knowledge 

sharing and transfer and for OMB to continue to provide leadership and 

guidance.

In addition to reiterating our prior recommendation to agencies to 

complete the missing elements of their inventories and plans, we are 

making two recommendations to OMB. Specifically, we recommend that 

the Director of OMB direct the Federal CIO to

• ensure that all future revisions to the guidance on data center 

consolidation inventories and plans are defined in OMB memorandum 

and posted to the FDCCI public website in a manner consistent with 

the guidance published in 2010, and

• ensure agencies utilize OMB’s Total Cost of Ownership model as a 

standardized planning tool across the consolidation initiative.

In addition, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture, Homeland

Security, Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs direct their 

component agencies and their data center consolidation program 

managers to implement recognized best practices when completing 

required program schedules and cost-benefit analyses.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 46 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

We received comments on a draft of our report from OMB, the 5 agencies 

to which we made recommendations, and the other 19 agencies 

mentioned in the report. Specifically, OMB and the 5 agencies to which 

we made recommendations either agreed with, or had no comment on,

the recommendations and the other 19 agencies had no specific 

comments on our recommendations. Multiple agencies also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Each 

agency’s comments are discussed in more detail below.

• In oral comments, OMB officials, including the Deputy Federal CIO 

and staff from the Office of E-government and Information Technology 

and the Office of the General Counsel, stated that they generally 

agreed with, and described planned actions to implement, our 

recommendations. These officials also provided technical comments, 

which we have incorporated as appropriate.

• In written comments, Agriculture’s Acting CIO stated that the 

department concurred with the content of the report and had no 

comments. The department offered no comments on our 

recommendations. The department also provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Agriculture’s 

written comments are provided in appendix III. 

• In written comments, DHS’s Director of the Departmental GAO/OIG 

Liaison Office concurred with our recommendation, commented on 

the current and planned state of the department’s consolidation 

efforts, and outlined actions the department plans to take to 

implement our recommendation and update its data center inventory 

and consolidation plan. The department also provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. DHS’s written 

comments are provided in appendix IV.

• In written comments, Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget stated the department concurred with the 

report’s finding and recommendations, commented on the current 

status of the department’s consolidation efforts, and described the 

department’s plans to develop savings and cost avoidance 

projections. The department also provided technical comments, which 

we have incorporated as appropriate. Interior’s written comments are 

provided in appendix V.

• In comments provided via e-mail, Transportation’s Deputy Director of 

Audit Relations wrote that the department had no comments on the 

draft. The department offered no comments on the recommendations.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 47 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

• In written comments, VA’s Chief of Staff stated that the department 

generally agreed with our conclusions, concurred with our 

recommendation, and described planned actions to address our 

recommendation. The department also provided technical comments, 

which we have incorporated as appropriate. VA’s written comments are 

provided in appendix VI. 

• In written comments, Commerce’s Acting Secretary concurred with 

the report’s general findings as they applied to the department and 

with the specific reporting on the department’s consolidation plan. 

Commerce’s written comments are provided in appendix VII. 

• In comments provided via e-mail, an audit liaison from Defense’s 

Office of the CIO wrote that the department had no comments on the 

report.

• In comments provided via e-mail, an official from Education’s Office of 

the Secretary wrote that the department had no comments on the 

report.

• In written comments, the Director of Energy’s Corporate IT Project 

Management Office stated that the department concurred with the 

findings reported for Energy and noted steps being taken by the 

department to address a consolidation challenge discussed in our 

report. The department also elaborated on facilities that we cited as 

not having been reported in Energy’s FDCCI inventory. Energy’s 

written comments are provided in appendix VIII.

• In written comments, HHS’ Assistant Secretary for Legislation stated 

our report was an accurate representation of the department’s 2011 

data center inventory and consolidation plan and outlined actions the 

department plans to take to complete missing inventory and plan 

elements. HHS’ written comments are provided in appendix IX.

• In comments provided via e-mail, a HUD audit liaison wrote that the 

department had no comments or concerns regarding the report.

• In comments provided via e-mail, an official from Justice’s Office of 

the CIO wrote that the department had no comments on the report.

• In written comments, Labor’s Assistant Secretary for Administration 

and Management stated that the department did not have any 

comments on the draft to contribute. Labor’s written comments are 

provided in appendix X. 
 

Page 48 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

• In comments provided via e-mail, an official from State’s Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer wrote that the department had no comments 

on the report.

• In comments provided via e-mail, Treasury’s Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Information Systems agreed with our report. The 

department also provided technical comments, which we have 

incorporated as appropriate.

• In written comments, the Director of EPA’s Office of Technology 

Operation and Planning provided technical comments, which we have 

incorporated as appropriate. The agency did not comment on the 

report’s findings. 

• In comments provided via e-mail, an official from GSA’s GAO/IG Audit 

Response Division wrote that the agency had no comments on the 

report.

• In comments provided via e-mail, the team lead for NASA’s GAO/OIG 

Audit Liaison wrote that the agency was providing no comments on 

the report.

• In written comments, NSF’s CIO stated that the agency generally 

agreed with our characterization of their consolidation plan, but 

disagreed with our assessment of the agency’s master program 

schedule. The CIO asserted that we were provided with such a 

schedule, while also acknowledging that the schedule was inherently 

less detailed than those of agencies and departments with multiple 

components, but that it identified all NSF consolidation activities in the 

format and level of detail prescribed by OMB. However, OMB’s 

guidance on master program schedules states that such schedules 

are to be created from the detailed implementation schedules 

provided by data center managers, as well as driven by related 

federal government activities, such as OMB reporting and budgeting. 

While we acknowledge that NSF’s consolidation scope is less than 

that of some agencies, the high-level timeline presented as a master 

program schedule consists only of a single line item that states the 

fiscal year when NSF’s data center will be decommissioned. Further, 

this timeline does not include any of the detailed implementation 

activities or key baseline milestones required by OMB. As such, we 

believe our evaluation is reasonable and appropriate. NSF’s written 

comments are provided in appendix XI.
 

Page 49 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

• In comments provided via e-mail, the NRC OIG and GAO Liaison 

wrote that the agency had reviewed the report and had no comments. 

The liaison also provided an update on NRC’s plans to move to a 

single data center.

• In comments provided via e-mail, an official from OPM’s Office of 

Internal Oversight and Compliance wrote that the agency had no 

comments on the report.

• In comments provided via e-mail, the program manager for SBA’s 

Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

• In comments provided via e-mail, a SSA audit liaison wrote that the 

agency had no comments on the report.

• In comments provided via e-mail, an official from USAID’s Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer wrote that the agency had no comments on 

the report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the secretaries and agency heads of the departments and 

agencies addressed in this report; and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

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

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

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

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix XII. 

David A. Powner

Director

Information Technology

Management Issues
 

Page 50 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

List of Requesters

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Scott P. Brown

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services, and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable James Lankford

Chairman

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations, and Procurement Reform

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Benjamin E. Quayle

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the extent to which agencies have 

updated and verified their data center inventories and data center 

consolidation plans, (2) evaluate the extent to which selected agencies 

have adequately completed key elements of their consolidation plans, 

and (3) identify agencies’ notable consolidation successes and 

challenges.

For this governmentwide review, we assessed the 24 departments and 

agencies (agencies) that were identified by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) to be 

included in the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI). 

Table 13 lists these agencies.

Table 13: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 

Participating in FDCCI

Departments Agencies

Agriculture Environmental Protection Agency

Commerce General Services Administration

Defense National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Education National Science Foundation

Energy Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Health and Human Services Office of Personnel Management

Homeland Security Small Business Administration

Housing and Urban Development Social Security Administration

Interior U.S. Agency for International Development

Justice 

Labor

State

Transportation

Treasury

Veterans Affairs

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

To evaluate the agencies’ updated data center inventories and 

consolidation plans, we reviewed OMB’s guidance and identified key 

required elements for each type of document. We compared agency 

consolidation inventories and plans to OMB’s required elements, and 

identified gaps and missing elements. We rated each element as “Yes” if 

the agency provides complete information; “Partial” if the agency provides 

some, but not all, of the information; and “No” if the agency does not 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

provide the information. We followed up with agencies to clarify our initial 

findings and to determine why parts of the inventories and plans were 

incomplete or missing, as applicable. We also compared our findings with 

those reported in 2011.1

To evaluate the completion of key elements of selected agencies’ 

consolidation plans, we selected two required plan elements, a master 

program schedule and a cost-benefit analysis, which is a type of cost 

estimate. In 2011, we reported that these two elements had the lowest 

reported completion rates among the FDCCI agencies.

To assess the reliability of the data agencies 

provided in their data center inventories and plans, we reviewed the 

letters agencies were required to submit attesting to the completeness 

and reliability of their inventories and plans, we interviewed agency 

officials about the actions taken to verify their data, and reviewed those 

results against our past reviews of agency inventories and plans. We 

concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes, which 

was to report on the completeness of the inventories and plans.

2 We then selected 

five agencies that we reported in 2011 as having one or both of the two 

key elements. Specifically, the Departments of Agriculture (Agriculture), 

Homeland Security (DHS), and Interior (Interior) were the only agencies 

that reported having a completed master program schedule in our 2011 

report. Similarly, DHS and the Departments of Transportation 

(Transportation) and Veterans Affairs (VA) were the three agencies that

reported having a completed cost-benefit analysis in our 2011 report and 

that reported the greatest amount of anticipated savings. To assess the 

agencies’ schedules, we compared copies of their consolidation master 

program schedules with relevant best practices compiled in a GAO 

exposure report issued in May 2012.3

 

1

GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to 

Achieve Expected Savings, 

These practices include four select 

characteristics of properly sequenced schedule activities that are 

essential for a reliable schedule network, such as identifying all schedule 

dependencies and ensuring that all activities have proper relationships 

with each other. In conducting this analysis, for each schedule, we rated 

GAO-11-565 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2011). 

2

GAO-11-565. 

3

GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules 

(Exposure Draft), GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

each practice as having been fully, partially, or not addressed.4 We 

discussed our findings with agency officials to determine why the 

schedules did not address all aspects of the best practices. To assess the 

agencies’ cost estimates, we compared documentation supporting the 

cost and savings estimates found in the agencies’ consolidation plans 

with relevant best practices.5 These practices include ensuring that each 

estimate is comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible. In 

doing so, for each estimate, we rated each practice as having been met, 

substantially, partially, minimally, or not met.6

To identify the key successes and challenges encountered by agencies in 

consolidating data centers, we reviewed agency consolidation plans and 

interviewed agency officials. We then determined which successes and 

challenges were encountered most often. To assess the reliability of cost 

savings data reported by Interior, we confirmed that the information was 

included in the department’s updated consolidation plan, which the 

Interior CIO attested was assessed and determined to be accurate and 

complete. In doing so, we concluded that the quality of the information 

was sufficient for our purposes.

We also discussed our 

findings with agency officials to determine why the estimates did not 

address all aspects of the best practices. To assess the reliability of the 

data the five agencies provided in their master program schedules and 

cost estimates, we reviewed the schedules and estimates, compared 

them to our guidance on scheduling and estimating, and interviewed 

officials about how the schedules and estimates were constructed. We 

concluded that the schedules and estimates were generally unreliable 

and our report includes findings related to those assessments. The 

results of our evaluation at these five agencies cannot be generalized to 

other agencies.

 

4

“Fully” means the agency addressed all aspects of the practice. “Partially” means the 

agency addressed some, but not all, aspects of the practice. “Not addressed” means the 

agency addressed no aspects of this practice. 

5

GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: 

March 2009). 

6

“Met” means the agency provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criterion. 

“Substantially” means the agency provided evidence that satisfies a large portion of the 

criterion. “Partially” means the agency provided evidence that satisfies about half of the 

criterion. “Minimally” means the agency provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of 

the criterion. “Not met” means the agency provided no evidence that satisfies any of the 

criterion.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to July 2012, 

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.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 55 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

As part of its data center consolidation initiative, OMB required 24 federal 

departments and agencies to submit an updated data center inventory 

and consolidation plan. Key elements of the inventory were to include, for 

each data center, information on physical servers, virtualization, IT 

facilities and energy, network storage, and data center information. 

However, 3 agencies reported their inventories based on 2010 guidance, 

in which case they included information for each data center on IT 

hardware, IT software, facilities/energy/storage, and geographic location.

Key elements of the updated plan were to include information on 

quantitative goals, qualitative impacts, consolidation approach, 

consolidation scope, timeline, performance metrics, master schedule, 

cost-benefit analysis, risk management, consideration of a 

communications plan, inventory and plan verification, consolidation 

progress, and cost savings.

For each of the agencies, the following sections provide a brief summary 

of the agencies’ goal for reducing the number of data centers, and an 

assessment of the completeness of their inventories and plans, as 

compared to what we reported in 2011.1

The following information describes the key that we used in tables 14 

through 37 to convey the results of our assessment of the agencies’ 

compliance with OMB’s requirements for the FDCCI.

In the case of agencies that 

reported using the new inventory format, we have related the old key 

elements, where possible. Agencies that reported using the old format are 

directly compared to their previous results.

● – the agency provides complete information for this element.

◐ – the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the element.

○ – the agency does not provide information for this element.

Agriculture plans to consolidate from 95 data centers (40 large and 55 

small) to 27 centers (8 large and 19 small) by December 2015. However, 

the agency’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In 

its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key 

elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. 

 

1

GAO-11-565. 

Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Department of Agriculture
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 56 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Agriculture provides complete 

information for 9 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides partial 

information for the remaining 4 elements. An Agriculture official stated 

that the agency is dependent on component agencies to report complete 

inventory information. The official also stated the agency intended to 

provide the missing utilization plan information, as well as greater 

discussion of consolidation challenges in future consolidation plan 

updates. Table 14 provides our assessment of Agriculture’s compliance 

with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Table 14: Assessment of Completeness of Agriculture’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory element

July 2010 

inventory

June 2011 

update Comments

IT software assets ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on systems, but only partial 

information on software platforms, servers, and consolidation 

approach.

IT hardware and utilization ● ● The agency provides this element. 

IT facilities, energy, and storage ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on construction budgets and most 

information for power usage and capacity information.

Geographic location ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Key plan element

August

2010 plan

September

2011 update

Quantitative goals ● ◐ The agency provides some information on its utilization goals, but 

this information is not complete.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation approach ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program schedule ● ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan verification N/A ◐ The agency provides information on plan completeness, but does not 

provide information on inventory completeness, the steps taken to 

verify the data, or any data limitations.

Consolidation progress N/A ◐ The agency discusses progress to date and 2012 targets and 

considers lessons learned, but does not discuss challenges. 

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current and planned cost 

savings, but does not provide information on unexpected 

consolidation costs or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

budget.

Source: GAO analysis of Agriculture data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 57 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) plans to consolidate from 55 

data centers (33 large and 22 small centers) to 30 data centers (21 large 

and 9 small centers) by December 2015. However, Commerce’s asset 

inventory remains incomplete, while its consolidation plan is now 

complete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete 

information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the 

remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Commerce 

provides complete information for all 13 elements evaluated. A 

Commerce official stated that energy information is incomplete due to the 

lack of metering in its facilities and the inability of data center providers to 

supply agency-specific energy usage and cost information. Table 15 

provides our assessment of Commerce’s compliance with OMB’s 

requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of Commerce
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 58 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 15: Assessment of Completeness of Commerce’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ● [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

● Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical metering, power 

capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data in each of these 

areas.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facilities’ costs and 

staffing information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ● ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance 

metrics 

● ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ● The agency provides this element. 

Cost-benefit 

analysis

◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications 

plan

● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 59 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Defense (Defense) plans to consolidate from 936 data 

centers to 392 by December 2015. However, Defense’s asset inventory 

and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 

agency provides partial information for all 5 key elements. Additionally, in 

its consolidation plan, Defense provides complete information for 5 of the 

13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and 

does not provide information for 5 elements. A Defense official stated that 

the agency’s next inventory update would include more complete 

information. In addition, the official stated that it was a challenge for 

Defense to collect all of the required information because of the scope 

and size of the agency’s consolidation effort. Table 16 provides our 

assessment of Defense’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 

and 2011.

Department of Defense
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 60 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 16: Assessment of Completeness of Defense’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

◐ Some component agencies provide this information, but others do 

not.

Virtualization ◐ Some component agencies provide this information, but others do 

not.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ Some component agencies provide this information, but others do 

not.

Network 

storage

◐ Some component agencies provide this information, but others do 

not.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ Some component agencies provide this information, but others do 

not.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

November 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on the number and size of its data centers, but 

provides only partial information on data center energy usage and costs, and 

average rack space utilization. 

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ◐ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

High-level timeline ◐ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Performance 

metrics 

◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit 

analysis

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Risk management ◐ ◐ The agency discusses a risk management process, but does not reference a risk 

management plan for the consolidation initiative.

Communications 

plan

● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ◐ The agency discusses progress to date, consolidation challenges, successes, 

and lessons learned, but does not discuss whether calendar year 2012 targets will 

be met.

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 61 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Education (Education) plans to consolidate from five

data centers (three large and two small centers) to four data centers 

(three large and one small center) by December 2012. However, 

Education’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In 

its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key 

elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. 

Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Education provides complete 

information for 8 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 

information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for 1 

element. Education officials stated that 2 elements were not applicable 

because of the small scope of the agency’s effort. Table 17 provides our 

assessment of Education’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 

and 2011.

Department of Education
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 62 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 17: Assessment of Completeness of Education’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ● [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

● IT facilities, 

energy 

◐ The agency provides information on electrical power metering, 

but only provides partial information on power capacity, usage, 

and cost.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on data center classification 

and size, but does not provide information on phase of closure 

for its one targeted facility and does not provide staffing 

information for any of its facilities.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ◐ ◐ The agency provides all savings metrics, but only some utilization metrics.

Master program 

schedule

○ N/A Agency officials stated this element was not applicable because of the small 

scope of the agency’s consolidation effort.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ N/A Agency officials stated this element was not applicable because of the small 

scope of the agency’s consolidation effort.

Risk management ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ◐ The agency provides its goals for 2012 and considers lessons learned, but does 

not discuss consolidation challenges or successes.

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 63 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Energy (Energy) plans to consolidate from 56 data 

centers (26 large and 30 small centers) to 50 data centers (21 large and 

29 small centers) by December 2015. However, Energy’s asset inventory 

and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 

agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides 

partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its 

consolidation plan, Energy provides complete information for 8 of the 13 

elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does 

not provide information for 2 elements. An Energy official stated that the 

agency’s next inventory update would include more complete information. 

In addition, the official stated that a risk management plan was under 

development and that the agency planned to work with OMB’s cost model 

to formulate better cost and savings information. Table 18 provides our 

assessment of Energy’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 

and 2011.

Department of Energy
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 64 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 18: Assessment of Completeness of Energy’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical metering, but 

provides only partial information on power capacity and electricity 

usage.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facilities’ costs 

and staffing information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on the number of physical servers and the 

average virtualization of those servers, but does not provide information on its 

average server rack utilization. 

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Risk management ○ ◐ The agency discusses a risk management process, but does not reference a risk 

management plan for the consolidation initiative.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current cost savings, but does not identify 

planned savings or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of Energy data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 65 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to 

consolidate from 181 data centers (43 large and 138 small centers) to 

145 data centers (36 large and 109 small centers) by December 2015. 

However, HHS’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain 

incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete 

information for 1 key element and provides partial information for the 

remaining 4 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, HHS 

provides complete information for 11 of the 13 elements evaluated and 

provides only partial information for the remaining 2 elements. An HHS 

official noted that it was difficult to gather every inventory element for all 

of its data centers. Table 19 provides our assessment of HHS’s 

compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of Health and 

Human Services
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 66 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 19: Assessment of Completeness of HHS’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical servers ◐ The agency provides full information on its types of servers, but 

does not provide rack count information for all of its facilities.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on its total data center power 

capacity and average IT electricity usage, but is missing data in 

each of these areas.

Network storage ◐ The agency provides full information on its total network storage 

capacity, but only partial information on its use of that network 

storage.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on its types of centers and 

closure information, but provides only partial information on 

facilities’ costs and staffing information. 

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ◐ The agency provides cost savings through 2015, but not investment costs.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications 

plan

● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides projected savings through 2015, but does not discuss 

whether there were any unexpected costs or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 

enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 67 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

DHS plans to consolidate from 101 data centers (40 large and 61 small 

data centers) to 37 data centers (3 large and 34 small centers) by 

December 2015. However, DHS’s asset inventory and consolidation plan 

remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides partial 

information for all 5 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, DHS 

provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, 

provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide 

information for 1 element. DHS officials stated that the completeness of 

inventory information has improved since 2011 and that they have 

developed performance metrics. They also noted that they do not expect 

to fully realize their cost savings until consolidation activities are 

complete. Table 20 provides our assessment of DHS’s compliance with 

OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of Homeland 

Security
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 68 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 20: Assessment of Completeness of DHS’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical servers ◐ The agency provides information on total rack count and server 

types, but is missing data. 

Virtualization ◐ The agency provides information on its virtual host and virtual 

operating system counts, but is missing data.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical power metering, 

power capacity, usage, and cost, but is missing data.

Network storage ◐ The agency provides information on its total and used network 

storage, but is missing data.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on its types of centers, closure 

information, and facilities’ costs and staffing information, but is 

missing data.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on its utilization goals, but partial information on 

its savings goals.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Master program 

schedule

● ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ● ● The agency provides this element.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications 

plan

● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current savings, unexpected consolidation 

costs, and the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget, but does not 

discuss future savings from fiscal year 2011 efforts.

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 69 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has achieved 

its goal of consolidation prior to the start of the FDCCI and does not plan 

further consolidation of its existing base of contracts. Since 2005, the 

agency has operated in a fully outsourced infrastructure mode with two 

vendors providing consolidated departmental IT operations in hosting, 

storage, data transport, user environments, and systems integration, with 

off-site disaster recovery provided by one vendor. The agency’s asset 

inventory is complete, but its consolidation plan is not. Specifically, HUD 

provides complete information for 5 of the 13 elements evaluated and 

provides partial information for 1 element. A HUD official stated that 7 

elements were not applicable because the agency has reached its 

consolidated end-state architecture. Table 21 provides our assessment of 

HUD’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of Housing 

and Urban Development
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 70 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 21: Assessment of Completeness of HUD’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets N/A [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

N/A Physical servers ● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, and 

storage

N/A IT facilities, energy ● The agency provides this element.

Network storage ● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location N/A Data center 

information

● The agency provides this element.

Key plan element

August 2010 

plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals N/A N/A An agency official stated this element was not applicable because the 

agency does not own or operate any data centers. 

Qualitative impacts N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation approach N/A N/A An agency official stated this element was not applicable because the 

agency does not own or operate any data centers.

Consolidation scope N/A ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics N/A N/A An agency official stated this element was not applicable because the 

agency does not own or operate any data centers.

Master program schedule N/A N/A An agency official stated this element was not applicable because the 

agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI.

Cost-benefit analysis N/A N/A An agency official stated this element was not applicable because the 

agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI.

Risk management N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan verification N/A ◐ The agency provides information on the completeness of the 

consolidation plan, but does not provide information on data limitations 

or the steps taken to verify inventory data.

Consolidation progress N/A N/A An agency official stated this element was not applicable because the 

agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI.

Cost savings N/A N/A An agency official stated this element was not applicable because the 

agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 71 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Interior plans to consolidate from 232 data centers (158 large and 74 

small data centers) to 135 data centers (90 large and 45 small centers) by 

December 2015. However, Interior’s asset inventory and consolidation 

plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides 

complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information 

for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 

Interior provides complete information for 9 of the 13 elements evaluated, 

provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide 

information for 1 element. An Interior official stated that the agency 

expects to report more complete inventory information for the next 

inventory update and will report cost savings when it can more accurately 

estimate the agency’s expected savings. Table 22 provides our 

assessment of Interior’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 

and 2011.

Department of the Interior
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 72 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 22: Assessment of Completeness of Interior’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical power metering, 

power capacity, usage, and cost, but is missing data in each of 

these areas.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on the size of its data centers, but 

only partial information on its types of centers, closure information, 

and facilities’ costs and staffing information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on its savings goals, but partial information on 

its utilization goals.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ● ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

● ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on cost estimating efforts, but does not provide 

information on initial investment costs or cost savings.

Risk management ● ◐ The agency discusses its risk management approach, but indicates its risk 

management plan has yet to be completed.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of Interior data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 73 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Justice (Justice) plans to consolidate from 105 data 

centers (33 large and 42 small centers and 30 centers of unknown size) 

to 66 data centers (27 large and 39 small centers and no centers of 

unknown size) by December 2015. However, Justice’s asset inventory 

and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 

agency provides only partial information for all 5 key elements. 

Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Justice provides complete 

information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 

information for 2 elements, and does not provide any information for 1 

element. A Justice official stated that the agency did not know it was 

required to report the missing inventory information, but that the agency 

had the information and would include it in the next inventory update. The 

official did not know when the agency’s savings and utilization goals 

would be updated. Table 23 provides our assessment of Justice’s 

compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of Justice
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 74 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 23: Assessment of Completeness of Justice’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

◐ The agency provides information on its rack count and server 

types, but is missing data. 

Virtualization ◐ The agency provides information on its virtual host and virtual 

operating system counts, but is missing data.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on its total data center power 

capacity and average data center electricity usage, but is missing 

data. 

Network 

storage

◐ The agency provides information on its total and used network 

storage, but is missing data.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on facility closures, but provides 

only partial information on types of centers and on facilities’ costs 

and staffing information. 

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ○ The agency does not provide any information on savings and utilization goals.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ○ ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ◐ The agency provides information on initial projected savings, but not aggregate 

year-by-year information through 2015.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on 2011 savings, but does not discuss future 

targets, unexpected costs, or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of Justice data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 75 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of Labor (Labor) plans to consolidate from 89 data 

centers (20 large and 69 small centers) to 54 data centers (20 large and 

34 small centers) by December 2015. However, Labor’s asset inventory 

and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 

agency provides complete information for 2 key elements and provides 

partial information for the remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its 

consolidation plan, Labor provides complete information for 4 of the 13 

elements evaluated, provides partial information for 6 elements, and does 

not provide information for 3 elements. A Labor official stated that the 

agency had difficulty obtaining energy information because of the lack of 

metering in its facilities. The official also noted that cost information would 

not be available until the end of fiscal year 2012 while savings information 

would not be available until fiscal year 2013. Table 24 provides our 

assessment of Labor’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 

2011.

Department of Labor
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 76 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 24: Assessment of Completeness of Labor’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

● Physical 

servers 

◐ The agency provides information on server types, but provides 

only partial information on total rack count.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical metering, power 

capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data in each of these 

areas.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facilities’ gross 

floor area, costs, and staffing information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ● ◐ The agency provides its savings goals, but provides only partial information on its 

utilization goals.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ◐ The agency provides a list of data centers to be consolidated, but it does not 

identify all of the agency’s planned closures.

High-level timeline ● ◐ The agency provides a high-level timeline, but it does not identify all of the 

agency’s planned closures. 

Performance metrics ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ◐ ◐ The agency provides near-term funding availability, but does not discuss 

anticipated savings. 

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ◐ The agency provides information on the completeness of the consolidation plan, 

but does not provide information on data limitations or the steps taken to verify 

inventory data.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ◐ The agency discusses progress meeting established consolidation goals as well 

as challenges, but does not discuss consolidation successes or lessons learned.

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 77 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of State (State) plans to consolidate from 363 data 

centers (12 large and 351 small data centers) to 355 data centers (4 large 

and 351 small centers) by December 2015. According to agency officials, 

the 351 small data centers are located overseas and there are no current 

plans to consolidate these locations because of the resulting impact on 

information technology operations. However, State’s asset inventory and 

consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency 

provides complete information for 1 key element and provides partial 

information for the remaining 4 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation 

plan, State provides complete information for 9 of the 13 elements 

evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not 

provide information for 1 element. State officials stated that the agency 

focused on inventorying its larger domestic facilities and noted that it was 

difficult to capture inventory-related information, such as energy usage 

and costs, for its foreign posts. The officials added that State has since 

completed a cost-benefit analysis, the results of which would be included 

in the next update, and has developed detailed schedules for each year’s 

activities. Table 25 provides our assessment of State’s compliance with 

OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of State
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 78 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 25: Assessment of Completeness of State’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ● [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

● Physical 

servers 

◐ The agency provides information on server types, but only partial 

information on total rack count.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

● IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical power metering, 

power capacity, usage, and cost, but is missing data in each of 

these areas. 

Network 

storage

◐ The agency provides information on its total and used network 

storage, but is missing data in each of these areas. 

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facility staffing 

information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides complete information on its number of servers, but 

incomplete information on its data center energy usage and costs, and the 

average virtualization of its servers. 

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ◐ ◐ The agency provides cost benefit information for its domestic facilities, but does 

not provide information for its foreign facilities.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on unexpected consolidation costs, the impact 

of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget, and current cost savings and planned 

savings, but does not compare the savings to targets.

Source: GAO analysis of State data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 79 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Transportation plans to consolidate from 328 data centers (33 large and 

295 small centers) to 265 data centers (24 large and 241 small centers) 

by December 2015. However, Transportation’s asset inventory and 

consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency 

provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial 

information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation 

plan, Transportation provides complete information for 8 of the 13 

elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does 

not provide information for 2 elements. A Transportation official stated 

that the agency did not expect to see significant improvements for the 

energy-related information because not all facilities have meters. The 

official added that it was a challenge for the agency to collect inventory 

data for its small data centers. Table 26 provides our assessment of 

Transportation’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of 

Transportation
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 80 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 26: Assessment of Completeness of Transportation’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy 

◐ The agency provides information on electrical metering, but 

provides only partial information on power capacity and electrical 

usage.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facilities’ costs 

and staffing information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ● ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ● ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ● ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ◐ The agency provides information on the completeness of the consolidation plan 

and data limitations, but does not discuss the steps taken to verify inventory 

data.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ◐ The agency discusses progress to date, consolidation challenges, and the 

integration of lessons learned, but does not discuss consolidation successes or 

whether calendar year 2012 targets will be met.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current cost savings, unexpected costs, and 

the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget, but does not provide 

information on how current cost savings relate to established targets or identify 

future savings.

Source: GAO analysis of Transportation data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 81 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) plans to consolidate from 55 

data centers (42 large and 13 small centers) to 40 data centers (29 large 

and 11 small centers) by December 2015. However, Treasury’s asset 

inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, 

the agency provides complete information for 2 key elements and 

provides partial information for the remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in 

its consolidation plan, Treasury provides complete information for 6 of the 

13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 4 elements, and 

does not provide information for 3 elements. A Treasury official stated 

that installing meters to gather all inventory power information would be 

cost prohibitive. In addition, the official stated that the agency is working 

to complete the missing plan elements, including the master program 

schedule, risk management plan, and communications plan. Table 27 

provides our assessment of Treasury’s compliance with OMB’s 

requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Department of the 

Treasury
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 82 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 27: Assessment of Completeness of Treasury’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical metering, power 

capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data in each of these 

areas. 

Network 

storage

◐ The agency provides information on total and used network 

storage, but is missing data.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facilities’ gross 

floor area, costs, and staffing information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on its numbers of servers and their average 

virtualization percentage, but does not provide information on data center energy 

usage and costs or server rack space utilization percentage. 

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ● ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Risk management ○ ◐ The agency provides information on the tracking of risks, but does not reference 

a risk management plan for the consolidation initiative.

Communications plan ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ◐ The agency discusses progress to date, but does not discuss consolidation 

challenges, lessons learned, or whether calendar year 2012 targets will be met.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides partial information on planned cost savings, and does not 

provide information on current savings, unexpected costs, or the impact of the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 83 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

VA plans to consolidate from 97 data centers (51 large and 46 small 

centers) to 14 data centers (11 large and 3 small centers) by December 

2015. However, VA’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain 

incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete 

information for 3 of the key elements and provides partial information for 

the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, VA 

provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, 

provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide any 

information for the remaining 1 element. A VA official stated that installing 

equipment to gather all inventory power information would be cost 

prohibitive. Another official stated that the agency would more fully report 

on cost savings in future versions of their consolidation plan. Table 28 

provides our assessment of VA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 

2010 and 2011.

Department of Veterans 

Affairs
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 84 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 28: Assessment of Completeness of VA’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy 

◐ The agency provides information on power metering and power 

capacity, but provides only partial information on electricity 

usage.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facility staffing 

information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ● ◐ The agency provides information on cost-benefit results, but does not provide 

information on a time frame for the savings or provide the results on a fiscal year 

basis.

Risk management ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ◐ The agency provides information on the completeness of the consolidation plan, 

but does not provide information on the steps taken to verify inventory data. 

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of VA data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 85 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to consolidate from 78 

data centers (4 large and 74 small centers) to 53 data centers (4 large 

and 49 small centers) by December 2015. However, EPA’s asset 

inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, 

the agency provides complete information for 3 of the key elements and 

provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in 

its consolidation plan, EPA provides complete information for 10 of the 13 

elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does 

not provide any information for the remaining 1 element. An EPA official 

stated that the agency planned to develop energy estimates for the 

missing inventory information and to work with OMB’s cost model to 

develop better cost and savings information. Table 29 provides our 

assessment of EPA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 

2011.

Environmental Protection 

Agency
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 86 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 29: Assessment of Completeness of EPA’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ● [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

● Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on power metering, but provides 

only partial information on data center power capacity and 

electricity usage.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but provides only partial information on facility staffing 

information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ◐ The agency provides information on annual cost avoidances, but does not 

provide information on year-by-year cost investment and cost savings 

calculations.

Risk management ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current and planned cost savings, but does 

not provide information on unexpected consolidation costs or the impact of the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 87 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The General Services Administration (GSA) plans to consolidate from 21 

data centers (21 large and no small centers) to 9 data centers (9 large 

and no small centers) by December 2015. However, GSA’s asset 

inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, 

the agency provides partial information for all 5 key elements. 

Additionally, in its consolidation plan, GSA provides complete information 

for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides partial information for 

the 3 remaining elements. A GSA official stated that the agency had now 

completed all missing IT facilities and energy information, but that there 

were continuing difficulties in calculating savings information due to 

changing schedules and lack of energy metering information for some 

GSA facilities. Table 30 provides our assessment of GSA’s compliance 

with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

General Services 

Administration
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 88 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 30: Assessment of Completeness of GSA’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

● Physical 

servers 

◐ The agency provides information on total rack count and server 

types, but is missing data in these areas. 

Virtualization ◐ The agency provides information on virtual host and total virtual 

operating system counts, but is missing data.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical metering, power 

capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data.

Network 

storage

◐ The agency provides information on total and used network 

storage, but is missing data.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but does not provide information on facility staffing.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides its savings goals, but only partial information on its 

utilization goals.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ● ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ● ● The agency provides this element.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ◐ The agency provides information on inventory and plan completeness, but does 

not provide information on steps taken to verify inventory data.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current cost savings, but does not provide 

information on planned savings, unexpected consolidation costs, or the impact of 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 89 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to 

consolidate from 79 data centers (75 large and 4 small data centers) to 

22 large data centers by December 2015. However, NASA’s asset 

inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, 

the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and 

provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in 

its consolidation plan, NASA provides complete information for 10 of the 

13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and 

does not provide information for the remaining element. A NASA official 

stated that currently only one facility has power metering and, as a result, 

it is difficult to determine costs. The official also noted that NASA expects 

to reach its 2012 consolidation targets. Table 31 provides our assessment 

of NASA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 90 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 31: Assessment of Completeness of NASA’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ○ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides partial information on power capacity and 

usage, but does not provide information on power metering and 

cost. 

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on center types and sizes, and 

facilities’ phase of closure, but provides only partial facility staffing 

information.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ○ ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ● The agency provides this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Risk management ● ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ◐ The agency discusses progress against goals, but does not state whether 2012 

targets will be met and does not discuss challenges, lessons learned, or 

successes. 

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current cost savings, but does not provide 

information on planned savings, unexpected consolidation costs, or the impact of 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of NASA data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 91 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) currently has only one onsite, 

centrally managed data center. Since 2007, the agency has been 

transitioning from owning and operating a data center to the use of 

commercial data center services and emerging cloud computing options.

The agency’s plan is to complete transition of major legacy IT systems in 

a phased approach, with completion coinciding with the expiration of the 

NSF headquarters building lease, currently set for fiscal year 2014. The 

agency’s asset inventory is complete, but its consolidation plan is not. 

Specifically, NSF provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements 

evaluated, provides partial information for 1 element, and does not 

provide information for 2 elements. An NSF official stated that the agency 

interpreted the guidance for consolidation progress and cost savings to 

apply only to ongoing or completed consolidations. However, the official 

noted that the agency would more fully report on these elements in future 

versions of its consolidation plan. Table 32 provides our assessment of 

NSF’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

National Science 

Foundation
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 92 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 32: Assessment of Completeness of NSF’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ● [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

● Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, and 

storage

● IT facilities, 

energy

● The agency provides this element.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

● The agency provides this element.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ● ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation approach ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program schedule ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element. 

Cost-benefit analysis ● ● The agency provides this element.

Risk management ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan verification N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation progress N/A ◐ The agency provides information on consolidation progress and the 

integration of lessons learned, but does not discuss consolidation 

challenges or successes.

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of NSF data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 93 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to consolidate from 

three data centers (three large and no small centers) to one large data 

center by December 2015. However, NRC’s asset inventory and 

consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency 

provides complete information for 4 of the key elements and partial 

information for the remaining 1 element. Additionally, in its consolidation 

plan, NRC provides complete information for 8 of the 13 elements 

evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not 

provide information for the remaining 2 elements. An NRC official stated 

that the agency planned to gather missing data center information and 

that the agency’s planned single data center would be able to provide 

much of NRC’s missing energy information. The official also stated that 

both performance metrics and a master program schedule have now 

been developed. Table 33 provides our assessment of NRC’s compliance 

with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 94 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 33: Assessment of Completeness of NRC’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ● [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

● IT facilities, 

energy

● The agency provides this element.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ● Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on types of centers and facility 

closures, but does not provide information on facility staffing.

Key plan element

August

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides complete information on its numbers of servers and their 

average virtualization percentage, but incomplete information on data center 

energy usage and costs. 

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ◐ The agency provides information on initial investment costs, but does not provide 

information on cost savings.

Risk management ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current cost savings, but does not provide 

information on planned savings, unexpected consolidation costs, or the impact of 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of NRC data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 95 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) plans to consolidate from 4 

data centers (one large and three small centers) to 3 centers (one large 

and two small centers) by December 2015. However, the agency’s asset 

inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, 

the agency provides complete information for 1 key element and provides 

partial information for the remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its 

consolidation plan, OPM provides complete information for 6 of the 13

elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does 

not provide information for 3 elements. Two elements were determined to 

be not applicable to the agency. An OPM official stated that several 

missing elements, such as more detailed and complete inventory 

information and a summary of the agency’s cost-benefit analysis would 

be provided in future updates. The official also stated that the agency was 

not aware that it had to include consolidation progress and cost savings 

information in its updated consolidation plan. Another OPM official 

indicated the agency intended to provide information required by OMB’s 

guidance in the future. Table 34 provides our assessment of OPM’s 

compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Office of Personnel 

Management
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 96 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 34: Assessment of Completeness of OPM’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory element

July 2010 

inventory

June 2011 

update Comments

IT software assets ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on systems and software 

platforms, but only partial information on servers and consolidation 

approach.

IT hardware and utilization ● ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, and storage ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on data center costs, and energy 

usage and costs, but does not provide information on construction 

budget and storage capacity types.

Geographic location ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on the number and size of its data 

centers, but is missing data. 

Key plan element

August

2010 plan

September 

2011 update

Quantitative goals ● ● The agency provides this element.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation approach ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program schedule ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ◐ ◐ The agency provides partial information on its cost benefit analysis, 

but did not provide year-by-year investment and cost savings 

information.

Risk management ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Communications plan ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Inventory/plan verification N/A ◐ The agency provides information on plan and inventory 

completeness, including data limitations, but does not provide 

information on the steps taken to verify inventory data.

Consolidation progress N/A N/A This element was determined to be not applicable since the agency 

was unaware of the requirement.

Cost savings N/A N/A This element was determined to be not applicable since the agency 

was unaware of the requirement.

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 97 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Small Business Administration (SBA) plans to consolidate from four 

large data centers to two large centers by December 2015. However, the 

agency’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its 

asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key 

elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. 

Additionally, in its consolidation plan, SBA provides complete information 

for 6 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 

elements, and does not provide information for the remaining 5 elements. 

SBA officials stated that several missing elements, such as performance 

metrics, a schedule, and a risk management strategy, were either 

developed after the plan’s completion or would be developed in the 

future. Table 35 provides our assessment of SBA’s compliance with 

OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Small Business 

Administration
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 98 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 35: Assessment of Completeness of SBA’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory element

July 2010 

inventory

June 2011 

update Comments

IT software assets ● ● The agency provides this element.

IT hardware and utilization ◐ ◐ The agency provides complete information on its number of 

servers, but provides incomplete information on server utilization 

and host and operating system counts. 

IT facilities, energy, and storage ◐ ◐ The agency provides complete information on total and used 

network storage, but provides incomplete information on data 

center power usage and capacity.

Geographic location ◐ ● The agency provides this element.

Key plan element

August

2010 plan

September 

2011 update

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on its savings and utilization 

goals, but is missing data. 

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation approach ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Master program schedule ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Risk management ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Communications plan ● ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan verification N/A ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation progress N/A ◐ The agency discusses progress to date and considers lessons 

learned, but does not discuss 2012 targets or challenges. 

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of SBA data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 99 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has two large data centers and 

plans to replace one of them with a new facility. The agency expects the 

transition to begin in February 2015 and be complete in August 2016. 

However, SSA’s consolidation plan remains incomplete. In its asset 

inventory, the agency provides complete information for all 5 key 

elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, SSA provides complete 

information for 7 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 

information for 4 elements, and does not provide information for the 

remaining 2 elements. An SSA official stated that the missing utilization 

plan elements and the plan verification information were unintentionally 

omitted and that those items would be included in the next update. Table 

36 provides our assessment of SSA’s compliance with OMB’s 

requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Social Security 

Administration
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 100 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 36: Assessment of Completeness of SSA’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011 

Key inventory element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ◐ [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

● The agency provides this element.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, and 

storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

● The agency provides this element.

Network 

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

● The agency provides this element.

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

October 2011 

update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on its savings goals, but only partial 

information on its utilization goals.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation approach ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Master program schedule ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Risk management ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan verification N/A ◐ The agency discusses steps taken to validate the inventory and plan data, 

but does not discuss inventory and plan completeness or data limitations.

Consolidation progress N/A ◐ The agency discusses consolidation progress and 2012 targets, but only 

partially considers consolidation challenges and lessons learned. 

Cost savings N/A ◐ The agency provides information on current and planned cost savings, but 

does not provide information on how these savings relate to targets and 

does not discuss the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget.

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 101 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) plans to 

consolidate from six data centers (two large and four small data centers) 

to two small data centers by December 2012. However, USAID’s asset 

inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, 

the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and 

provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in 

its consolidation plan, USAID provides complete information for 7 of the 

13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 4 elements, and 

does not provide information for the remaining 2 elements. A USAID 

official stated that missing server information would be included in the 

next inventory update and that the agency has completed a new costbenefit analysis and taken steps to verify its inventory data. The official 

also said that power-related information is difficult to obtain since the 

agency leases its data centers. Table 37 provides our assessment of 

USAID’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

U.S. Agency for 

International Development
Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ 

Completion of Key Consolidation Planning 

Elements, Arranged by Agency

Page 102 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Table 37: Assessment of Completeness of USAID’s Updated Data Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011

Key inventory 

element

July 2010 

inventory

Key inventory 

element

June 2011 

update Description

IT software assets ● [Deleted in 

guidance]

N/A Information no longer required.

IT hardware and 

utilization

◐ Physical 

servers 

◐ The agency provides information on server counts, but only 

provides partial information on rack counts.

Virtualization ● The agency provides this element.

IT facilities, energy, 

and storage

◐ IT facilities, 

energy

◐ The agency provides information on electrical power metering, but 

only provides partial information on power capacity and usage, 

and provides no information on power cost.

Network

storage

● The agency provides this element.

Geographic location ◐ Data center 

information

◐ The agency provides information on the type of its facilities, but 

provides staffing information for only one of its facilities and only 

partial information on the phase of closure for its targeted facilities 

and facility size. 

Key plan element

August 

2010 plan

September 

2011 update Comments

Quantitative goals ◐ ◐ The agency provides information on the number of its servers and their average 

virtualization percentage, but incomplete information on data center energy and 

operational costs.

Qualitative impacts ● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation 

approach

● ● The agency provides this element.

Consolidation scope ● ● The agency provides this element.

High-level timeline ● ● The agency provides this element.

Performance metrics ● ● The agency provides this element.

Master program 

schedule

○ ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Cost-benefit analysis ○ ◐ The agency provides information on year-by-year consolidation investment and 

cost savings through 2015, but notes it needs to revise costs based on new 

information.

Risk management ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Communications plan ○ ● The agency provides this element.

Inventory/plan 

verification

N/A ◐ The agency provides partial information on the completeness of its plan and 

inventory data, but does not provide information on steps taken to verify the data 

or information on any data limitations.

Consolidation 

progress

N/A ◐ The agency provides consolidation progress towards current and 2012 targets, 

but does not discuss consolidation challenges, successes, or lessons learned. 

Cost savings N/A ○ The agency does not provide this element.

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

Page 103 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Agriculture
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 104 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 105 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 106 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 107 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Page 108 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Page 109 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 110 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 111 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Energy
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 112 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix IX: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 113 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 114 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor
Appendix XI: Comments from the National 

Science Foundation

Page 115 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

Appendix XI: Comments from the National 

Science Foundation
Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 116 GAO-12-742 Data Center Consolidation

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, individuals making contributions 

to this report included Colleen Phillips (Assistant Director), Justin Booth, 

Kathleen Lovett Epperson, Rebecca Eyler, Dave Hinchman, Fatima 

Jahan, Jason Lee, John Ockay, Karen Richey, and Jessica Waselkow.

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(311252)
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 (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 www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.