United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Full Adoption of 

Sound Transition 

Planning Practices by 

GSA and Selected 

Agencies Could 

Improve Planning 

Efforts 

June 2006 

 

GAO-06-476 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

Full Adoption of Sound Transition 

Planning Practices by GSA and Selected 

Agencies Could Improve Planning Efforts 

Highlights of GAO-06-476, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

With the current governmentwide

telecommunications contracts set 

to expire, the General Services

Administration’s (GSA) Federal 

Technology Service (FTS) and its 

customer agencies must prepare to

transition their services to a new 

contract vehicle. The previous 

federal effort to transition

telecommunications services 

proved to be a large, complex task. 

GAO was asked to determine to

what extent (1) selected agencies 

used sound practices in preparing 

for the transition and (2) GSA’s 

FTS has prepared for the transition

by addressing previous lessons 

learned and providing agencies 

with guidance on sound transition 

planning. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the

Attorney General and the Secretary 

of Energy perform the analyses

necessary to identify required 

transition resources for their 

agencies. 

In addition, GAO recommends that 

the Administrator of General 

Services provide guidance to GSA’s 

customer agencies that reflects all

of the sound transition planning 

practices. 

In commenting on a draft of this 

report, the General Services

Administration, the Department of

Justice, the Department of Energy, 

and the Department of the Interior

generally agreed with our

recommendations. 

The agencies GAO reviewed—Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, and GSA—were generally planning to employ sound 

transition planning practices (see table below). However, officials at two 

agencies stated they did not plan to fully identify necessary resources. 

Specifically, officials from the Department of Justice indicated they would 

not need additional funding for the transition, even though they could not 

provide an analytical basis for their decision, and officials from the 

Department of Energy believed their transition planning efforts would not 

require the identification of human capital needs. Without addressing all of 

the sound practices, agencies risk entering into a complex transition without 

the level of preparation necessary to ensure a smooth transition. 

FTS has addressed the majority of the lessons learned from the previous 

transition. Areas that have not yet been fully addressed are securing 

incumbent contractor cooperation and establishing guidance on inventory 

management and validation processes. FTS plans to address all remaining 

lessons prior to contract award. FTS has also provided agencies with 

guidance that fully reflects two of the five sound transition planning 

practices. However, guidance has not addressed all aspects of the remaining 

three, including establishing an inventory maintenance process, using key 

management processes, identifying measures of success, and performing 

transition-specific risk assessments. 

Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with individual 

agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility to plan and 

coordinate the transition. As a result, unless it works with agencies to 

address the full range of sound transition planning practices, agencies may 

not address the practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect 

their level of preparation. 

Sound Transition Planning Practices 

Establish an accurate telecommunications inventory and an inventory maintenance process. 

Perform a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements and use this to shape the 

agency’s management approach and guide efforts when identifying resources and developing a 

transition plan. 

Establish a structured management approach that includes a dedicated transition management 

team, key management processes (project management, configuration management, and change 

management), and clear lines of communication. 

Identify the funding and human capital resources that the transition effort will require. 

Develop a transition plan that includes transition objectives, measures of success, a risk 

assessment, and a detailed time line. 

Source: GAO. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-476.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Linda Koontz at

(202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Recommendations 4

Agency Comments 5 

Appendix I Briefing to the Staff of the Committee on 

Government Reform, House of Representatives, 

March 24, 2006 7 

Appendix II Comments from the General Services 

Administration 56 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior 58 

Abbreviations 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOJ Department of Justice 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FTS Federal Technology Service 

GSA General Services Administration 

IMC Interagency Management Council 

RFP Request for Proposal 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 

Page i GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 6, 2006

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

As you know, the previous effort by federal agencies to transition 

telecommunications services to a new contract proved to be difficult. We

reported in 20011

 that the transition to the current federal 

telecommunications contracts, known as FTS2001, encountered delays 

and increased telecommunications costs. The effort took more than 24 

months and lost an estimated $74 million in savings. As a result, we noted 

that the process of planning and managing future telecommunications 

acquisitions will be improved by applying lessons learned from the 

transition to FTS20012

. We also noted the need for comprehensive 

program management, accurate inventories, and defined contractor and 

government responsibilities. 

As the FTS2001 contracts approach expiration, General Service 

Administration’s (GSA) Federal Technology Service (FTS) and its 

customer agencies have begun to prepare for the transition to new 

contracts, known as Networx. Past experience has shown that the 

importance of this planning process should not be underestimated. 

At your request, we reviewed the extent to which (1) selected agencies 

used sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) GSA’s FTS has 

prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons learned and 

providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning. 

To achieve our first objective, we obtained FTS2001 billing information 

and identified the 50 departments and agencies with the highest total 

charges for 1 month billed. From these, we selected six that would ensure 

 1

GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-01-289 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2001). 

2

GAO, FTS2001: Contract Transition Delays and Their Impact on Program Goals, GAO544T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2001). 

Page 1 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
a representation of (1) departments, bureaus, and head agency/subagency 

relationships; (2) complexity based on the number of current vendors 

used; and (3) varying levels of attendance in an agency forum that is 

assisting FTS in its efforts to plan for the transition. The departments and 

agencies selected for review were the Department of the Interior, the 

Bureau of Land Management (within the Department of the Interior), 

Department of Energy, Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (a component of the Department of Justice), and GSA. 

We then researched available literature on telecommunications transitions 

and interviewed those with experience in telecommunications transitions, 

including industry experts, telecommunications vendors, and private 

sector companies. We analyzed the results of our research and interviews, 

synthesized common themes and issues, and identified five sound 

transition planning practices against which agency efforts could be 

measured: 

• establishing a telecommunications inventory, 

• performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements, 

• establishing a structured transition management approach, 

• identifying resources, and 

• developing a transition plan. 

Once compiled, we provided these practices to the industry experts and 

FTS for comment and general agreement. 

Next, we obtained and reviewed documentation—including strategic 

plans, telecommunications inventories, and transition related plans—and 

interviewed officials from each of the selected agencies. We assessed this 

information against the five sound transition planning practices. 

To achieve our second objective, we reviewed transition guidance and 

other Networx documentation3

 developed by FTS and the Interagency

 3

These included presentations, meeting minutes, projected time lines, FTS2001 lessons 

learned, the Networx Request for Proposals, and the Networx Transition Guide (PreAward). 

Page 2 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
Management Council4

. We also interviewed FTS Networx program officials 

to identify any planned guidance or activities for the Networx transition. 

We assessed this information against the published lessons learned from 

the FTS2001 transition, and determined whether FTS was providing 

guidance to agencies that correlated with the identified sound transition 

planning practices. 

We performed our work from June 2005 through March 2006 at the 

Washington, D.C., area offices of the selected agencies in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

On March 24, 2006, we provided your office with a detailed briefing on the 

results of this work, which is included as appendix I. The purpose of this 

letter is to provide the briefing slides to you and officially transmit our 

recommendations to the Administrator of General Services, the Attorney 

General, and the Secretary of Energy.

In summary, the agencies we reviewed were generally planning to employ

the five sound planning practices in their transition management efforts. 

However, officials at two of the agencies stated they did not plan to fully 

identify necessary resources. Specifically, officials from the Department of 

Justice indicated they would not need additional financial resources for 

the transition, even though they could not provide an analytical basis for 

their decision, and officials from the Department of Energy believed that 

because the agency’s transition will be straightforward, identifying human 

capital resource needs would not be necessary. However, without 

addressing all of the sound practices, agencies risk entering into a 

complex transition without the level of preparation necessary to ensure a 

smooth transition. 

FTS, in preparing for the transition, has addressed the 21 out of 27 lessons

learned from the previous transition. For example, it has made efforts to 

clarify which parties are responsible for transition costs and to ensure that 

contractors have adequate operations support systems in place before the 

transition begins. FTS has not yet addressed lessons pertaining to securing 

incumbent contractor cooperation and developing guidance on

establishing inventory management and validation processes. FTS stated 

 4

The Interagency Management Council is a group of senior federal information resource

officials that was established in 1992 to provide a forum and focal point for FTS to work

with its customer agencies in planning and overseeing FTS’s long-distance 

telecommunications services. 

Page 3 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
that it plans to address the remaining lessons prior to contract award. 

Specifically, FTS stated it is currently working with the incumbent 

contractors to ensure cooperation and that high-level guidance on 

inventory maintenance will be provided in the last few months leading up 

to contract award. 

FTS has also provided agencies with guidance on performing a strategic 

analysis of telecommunications requirements and identifying necessary 

resources for the transition, two of the five sound transition planning 

practices. However, it did not provide comprehensive guidance on the 

remaining three practices (establishing a telecommunications inventory, 

establishing a structured management approach, and developing a 

transition plan). The specific aspects of the practices that its guidance

does not address are establishing an inventory maintenance process, using 

key management processes (project management, configuration 

management, and change management), developing measures of success, 

and performing transition-specific risk assessments. As stated above, FTS 

plans to provide high-level guidance on inventory maintenance in the last 

few months leading up to contract award. 

Enough time remains for agencies to effectively address all the issues we 

identified, but they need to identify telecommunications inventories and 

conduct strategic analyses soon because these practices provide inputs for 

other sound practices. Further, although principal responsibility for the 

transition rests with individual agencies, FTS has an important 

program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate the transition. As a 

result, it is important that FTS work with its customer agencies to ensure 

that they fully and consistently address the full range of sound transition 

planning practices. 

To ensure that the agencies we reviewed adequately prepare themselves 

for the transition, we recommend Recommendations 

• that the Attorney General ensure that the Department of Justice’s planning

efforts include an analysis of the extent to which current financial 

resources will be sufficient to conduct an effective transition; 

• that the Secretary of Energy ensure that the department’s planning efforts 

include identification of human capital resources needed to conduct an 

effective transition. 

Page 4 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
To ensure that agencies are adequately prepared for the transition, we 

recommend that the Administrator of General Services, in working with 

the Interagency Management Council, develop and distribute guidance to

ensure that our identified sound practices of transition planning are 

utilized. In particular, FTS should ensure that guidance addresses 

• the use of project management, configuration management, and change

management processes in transition planning efforts; 

• the establishment of measures of success to help agencies’ managers 

assess progress toward the objectives stated in their plans; and 

• the development of a transition-specific risk assessment that would allow 

an agency to lessen problems and delays during the transition. 

In comments on a draft of this report, officials from the General Services 

Administration and the Departments of Justice, Energy, and the Interior 

generally agreed with our recommendations. 

The GSA’s acting Administrator, in written comments, stated that the 

agency will work with the IMC to address our recommendations. The 

acting Administrator also stated that GSA has initiated discussions and 

planning activities to address our recommendations and that processes 

and guidelines for these issues will be included in a transition planning 

guide expected to be distributed to all agencies before December 2006. 

These comments are reproduced in appendix II. 

A Department of Justice Audit Liaison Specialist commented via e-mail 

that the agency agreed with our recommendation and findings. 

A Department of Energy Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer 

commented via e-mail that the agency will be in a position to determine if 

additional human capital resources are warranted once Networx has been 

awarded and a review and analysis of available services have been 

completed. 

The Department of the Interior’s Assistant Secretary of Policy,

Management, and Budget, in written comments, stated that the agency 

generally agreed with our recommendations and findings. He also 

expressed concern with the difficulty of the upcoming transition and 

stated that the department relies on GSA actions in order to timely allocate 

resources for this effort. These comments are reproduced in appendix III. 

Agency Comments 

Page 5 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of

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

days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 

to interested congressional committees, the Administrator of General 

Services, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 

Secretary of Energy. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

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

Should you or your offices have any questions about matters discussed in 

this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at 

koontzl@gao.gov. Key contributions to this report were made by James R. 

Sweetman, Jr., Assistant Director; Jamey Collins; Alison Holland; David 

Hong; Teresa M. Neven; Kelly Shaw; and Amos Tevelow. 

Sincerely yours, 

Linda D. Koontz 

Director, Information Management Issues 

Page 6 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

1

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Agencies Have Begun Planning 

for Transition to New Governmentwide Program, but

Unresolved Issues Remain1

Briefing to the Staff of the

Committee on Government Reform,

House of Representatives

1 Various technical clarifications have been made to the original slides.

Page 7 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 8 GAO-06-476 

2

Outline of Briefing

Introduction

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Results in Brief

Background

Selected Agencies Are in the Early Stages of Preparing for the Transition

• Establish a Telecommunications Inventory

• Perform a Strategic Analysis of Telecommunications Requirements

• Create a Structured Transition Management Approach

• Identify Resources

• Establish a Transition Plan

The General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Technology Service (FTS) Is Providing 

Transition Guidance, but Issues Remain

• FTS has Addressed the Majority of FTS2001 Lessons Learned in Its Planning for 

Networx

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 9 GAO-06-476 

3

Outline of Briefing (Cont.)

• FTS Has Provided Guidance That at Least Partially Addresses All of the Sound Practices

Conclusions

Recommendations

Agency Comments

Attachment 1: Comments from GSA

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 10 GAO-06-476 

4

Introduction

Innovations in telecommunications services continue to transform the way the federal 

government conducts business, allowing it to streamline processes, reduce paperwork and

delays, increase efficiency, and improve interaction with the public. With the current set of

governmentwide telecommunications contracts due to expire soon, the proposed 

replacement contracts, known as the Networx program, can offer federal agencies the 

opportunity to apply innovative services and solutions to their operations. However, to

maximize the benefits to taxpayers, it is important that the transition to new programs like

Networx be adequately planned.

The importance of transition planning is underscored by the previous federal effort to

transition telecommunication services to new contracts, which proved to be a large and 

complex task. In 2001, we reported2 that

• the transition to the current federal telecommunications contracts, known as FTS2001,

encountered delays and took more than 24 months, which hindered the timely

achievement of program goals; and

• transition delays resulted in raised telecommunications costs. In total, an estimated $74

million in savings was lost due to delays in completing the transition to FTS2001.

As a result, we noted that the process of planning and managing future telecommunications

acquisitions will be improved by applying lessons learned from the transition to FTS2001. We 

also noted the need for comprehensive program management, including accurate inventories 

as well as defined contractor and government responsibilities.

2 GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-01-289 (Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001).

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 11 GAO-06-476 

5

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Objectives

Our objectives were to determine to what extent (1) selected agencies used sound practices

in preparing for the transition and (2) the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal

Technology Service (FTS) has prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons

learned and providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning.

Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which selected agencies are preparing for the transition from 

FTS2001, we first selected six agencies for review.

Using FTS2001 billing data provided by FTS, we identified the 50 agencies with the highest

total charges for 1month billed. From this group of agencies we selected 6 that would ensure

a representation of (1) departments, bureaus, and head agency/sub-agency relationships (2) 

complexity based on the number of current vendors used, and (3) varying levels of

attendance in an agency forum that is assisting FTS in its efforts to plan for the transition.

The agencies selected for review were the Department of the Interior (DOI); Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), a bureau of DOI; Department of Energy (DOE); Department of Justice 

(DOJ); Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a component of DOJ; and GSA3. 

3 GSA was reviewed as a customer agency of FTS.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 12 GAO-06-476 

6

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To identify sound transition planning practices against which agency planning efforts could 

be measured, we researched available literature on telecommunications transitions and held

a series of interviews with individuals experienced in telecommunications transitions,

including the prior transition to FTS2001. We met with

• industry experts from the Washington Management Group, Council for Excellence in 

Government, Federal Sources Inc., and Gartner;

• telecommunications vendors such as Level3, MCI, and WilTel; and

• private sector companies such as CGI-AMS, Computer Sciences Corporation, HewlettPackard, and Allstate, which had just undergone its own telecommunications transition.

We analyzed the results of these interviews to synthesize common themes and issues and

identified five sound transition planning practices. Once compiled, we provided these

practices to the four industry experts and FTS for comment and general agreement.

To refine our approach and gauge the time required to assess each agency, we pretested

our evaluation methodology at two agencies, the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 13 GAO-06-476 

7

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To determine the extent to which agencies are using the identified sound practices, we took

the following actions:

• We obtained and reviewed agency documentation, including strategic plans,

telecommunications inventories, and transition-related plans, and interviewed agency

officials.

• We then assessed this information against the five sound transition planning practices.

• Based on our initial assessment, we classified the status of agency transition planning 

efforts as “completed” (finished and integrated into planning for the transition), “started” 

(begun but not fully integrated into planning for the transition), “planned” (not begun but

planned, according to agency officials), or “not planned” (not begun and agency officials

indicated they do not plan to address in their transition planning).

• We discussed our assessments with agency officials and made adjustments as 

appropriate.

Because we judgmentally selected the agencies in our review, we cannot conclude that our 

results represent the entire federal government’s level of preparation. However, the six cases

studied illustrate various challenges that agencies may face in planning for a 

telecommunications transition.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 14 GAO-06-476 

8

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To determine the extent to which FTS has prepared for the transition by addressing previous 

lessons learned and providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning, we

• reviewed transition guidance and other Networx documentation developed by FTS and

the Interagency Management Council’s Transition Working Group, including 

presentations, meeting minutes, projected time lines, FTS2001 lessons learned, the 

Networx Request for Proposals (RFP), and the Networx Transition Guide (Pre-Award);

• interviewed FTS Networx program officials to identify any planned guidance or activities

for the Networx transition; 

• assessed the identified guidance and other Networx documentation against the 

published lessons learned from the FTS2001 transition; and

• assessed whether the identified guidance and other Networx documentation is aiding

agency efforts in implementing sound practices for transition planning.

We performed our work from June 2005 through March 2006 at the Washington, D.C., area 

offices of the Departments of Energy, Interior, Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

and the General Services Administration. Our work was conducted in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 15 GAO-06-476 

9

Results in Brief

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

The agencies we reviewed were generally planning to employ sound transition planning 

practices in their transition management efforts, such as establishing a structured transition 

management approach, identifying resource requirements, and developing transition plans.

For example,

• GSA and DOE had committed staff to plan the transition, and the remaining four 

agencies planned to do so;

• officials at the six agencies indicated that a transition plan will be developed for the 

transition. 

However, we also identified instances where agency officials stated they did not plan to fully

address specific practices. For example,

• officials from DOE stated that their transition will be straightforward, and do not believe it

will require identification of human capital needs; and

• officials at DOJ indicated that they will not need additional funding for the transition, even

though DOJ has yet to conduct a strategic analysis of its telecommunications 

requirements, and agency officials did not provide any analytical basis for their decision. 

Without addressing all of the sound practices, agencies risk entering into a complex

transition without the level of preparation necessary to ensure a smooth transition. This could 

lead agencies to incur avoidable costs.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 16 GAO-06-476 

10

Results in Brief

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

FTS has addressed the majority of the lessons learned from its previous transition and has

provided guidance that at least partially addresses all sound transition planning practices.

• FTS has addressed 21 out of 27 lessons learned from the previous transition, and plans

to address the remaining six prior to contract award. For example, it has made efforts to

clarify which parties are responsible for transition costs and to ensure that contractors 

have adequate operations support systems in place before the transition begins. Areas

that have not yet been fully addressed are securing incumbent contractor cooperation 

and guidance on establishing an inventory management and validation processes. FTS

stated it is currently working with the incumbent contractors to ensure cooperation and 

that high-level guidance on inventory maintenance will be provided in the last few months 

leading up to contract award. 

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 17 GAO-06-476 

11

Results in Brief

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

• FTS has provided agencies with guidance that fully reflects two of the five sound 

transition planning practices. Specifically, it provided guidance on performing a strategic

analysis of telecommunications requirements and identifying necessary resources for the

transition. Guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three remaining practices,

including establishing and maintaining telecommunications inventories, developing 

measures of success, and performing transition-specific risk assessments. FTS officials

stated that they would provide agencies guidance on maintaining inventories in the 

months leading up to contract award. However, they do not intend to provide guidance

that addresses establishing measures of success, the use of key management

processes, or performing transition-specific risk assessments because they believe it is

not their responsibility and agencies should determine their own approach to these 

issues. 

Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with individual agencies, FTS has an

important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate the transition. Unless it works

with agencies to address the full range of sound practices, agencies may not address the 

practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect their level of preparation. Agencies’ 

experience with the previous transition demonstrates that inadequate preparation can lead to

service delays and increased costs.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 18 GAO-06-476 

12

Results in Brief

Recommendations and Agency Comments

To help ensure that the agencies reviewed adequately prepare themselves for the transition,

we are making recommendations to the Secretary of Energy and the Attorney General to

perform the analyses necessary to identify required transition resources for their agencies.

In addition, to ensure that the federal government adequately prepares the participating 

agencies, we recommend that the Administrator of General Services work with the 

Interagency Management Council to provide agencies guidance reflecting all of the sound 

transition planning practices.

In commenting on a draft of this briefing, the General Services Administration, the

Department of Justice, and the Department of Energy generally agreed with our 

recommendations and stated that they intend to address them. The Department of the 

Interior provided technical comments that we incorporated into the briefing as appropriate.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 19 GAO-06-476 

13

Background

FTS and Networx

FTS is responsible for ensuring that federal agencies have access to the telecommunications 

services and solutions needed to meet mission requirements. To meet current agency needs 

for various telecommunication services, it awarded two large governmentwide contracts—

one to Sprint4 in December 1998 and one to MCI

5 in January 1999—known together as

FTS2001. Under the terms of these contracts, each firm was guaranteed minimum revenues 

of $750 million over the life of the eight-year contracts. These contracts are to expire in 

December 2006 and January 2007, respectively. According to program officials, federal

agencies spent approximately $614 million on FTS2001 services during fiscal year 2003,

$780 million during fiscal year 2004, and $902 million during fiscal year 2005.

FTS2001 is the successor to a line of programs that has traditionally provided long-distance 

telecommunications to the federal government. With the FTS2001 contracts set to expire,

FTS released a request for information in October 2003 announcing its plans for a new

governmentwide telecommunications program known as Networx.

4 Sprint Corporation merged with Nextel Communications, Inc. to form Sprint Nextel Corporation in August 2005.

5 MCI merged with Verizon to form Verizon Business in January 2006.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 20 GAO-06-476 

14

Background

FTS and Networx

The principal differences between Networx and its predecessors are summarized in the table 

below.

The Networx program consists of two governmentwide acquisitions named Networx 

Universal and Networx Enterprise. FTS expects Networx Universal to offer a full range of

voice and data network services, managed networking services and solutions, wireless, and 

satellite communications services. This acquisition is expected to result in multiple contract

awards to relatively few bidders because few companies are expected to be able to satisfy 

its geographic coverage and comprehensive service requirements. In contrast, FTS expects

Networx Enterprise to offer leading-edge services and solutions using contractors that are 

required to cover a more geographically limited area than Networx Universal. FTS plans to 

award multiple Enterprise contracts to a greater number of bidders than Networx Universal.

Source: GAO analysis of FTS Information.

Technology Analog and digital Predominantly digital Predominantly digital and IP-based

Available

Long distance voice, video, data, 

international, management &

application, security, IP-based, 

satellite, and wireless services 

Long distance voice, video, and

additional data services, and 

international services

Long distance voice, highspeed and switched data, 

and video services 

Type

Non-mandatory commercial Non-mandatory commercial services

services 

Mandatory commercial 

services 

Means of

Delivery

Service features FTS 2000 (1989-2001) FTS2001 (1998- ) Networx (2007 - )

Federal telecommunications services programs

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 21 GAO-06-476 

15

Background

FTS and Networx

Award of the Networx contracts has been delayed several times, pushing back the expected 

start of the transition from FTS2001 to Networx. In May 2005, the final Networx requests for

proposals were released, with contract award for both acquisitions expected in April 2006.

Shortly thereafter, as a result of amendments made to the RFPs, the vendor proposal due 

dates were extended by two months. Then, in January 2006, bidders were informed that

delays had moved the Networx award date to March 2007 for Universal and May 2007 for 

Enterprise. Based on the new award dates, a transition from FTS2001 to Networx is, as of

March 2006, over a year away.

As a result of these delays, FTS recently announced its intent to negotiate sole-source 

contracts with MCI and Sprint. These contracts are expected to last between 24 and 42

months6 to give FTS and its customer agencies the time needed to finalize the Networx

acquisitions and complete the transition. 

6 FTS indicated that it intends to negotiate sole-source contracts for a 24-month base period with three 6-month optional periods for a total of 42 months.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 22 GAO-06-476 

16

Background

FTS and Networx

The original schedule and current schedules for both Networx contracts are shown in the 

table below.

Source: GAO analysis of FTS information.

A Request for Proposals,

9Actual Completion.

Contract Award(s) Fall 2006 May 2007 Winter 2005 March 2007

Vendor Proposals Due Fall 2005 October 2005 9 Winter 2004 October 2005 9

Final RFPA Released Summer 2005 May 2005 9 Fall 2004 May 2005 9

Contract Milestone Original Revised (or Actual) Original Revised (or Actual)

Networx Enterprise Networx Universal

FTS’s original and revised (or actual) key Networx contract dates

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 23 GAO-06-476 

17

Background

Transition Responsibilities

FTS, its customer agencies, and the incumbent and awarded contractors all have identified

responsibilities for the upcoming transition. 

FTS has important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate the transition from

FTS2001. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 gives FTS responsibility for managing the FTS

2000 program and implementing its follow-on programs (FTS2001 and Networx) on behalf of

and with the advice of participating agencies. This responsibility includes the development,

maintenance, and dissemination, as requested by the Office of Management and Budget or

the agencies, of recommended methods and strategies for the development and acquisition 

of IT, and managing outreach programs in cooperation with the agency managers. FTS is

also responsible for providing general guidance on the Federal Acquisition Regulation with

respect to its FTS2001 and Networx programs.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 24 GAO-06-476 

18

Background

Transition Responsibilities

FTS works with its customer agencies through the Interagency Management Council, a 

group of senior federal information resource officials. The council was established in 1992 to

provide a forum and focal point for agency participation in planning and overseeing FTS's

long-distance telecommunications services. In dealing with a multitude of matters, the 

council established subgroups to be responsible for specific issues. For example, one 

subgroup, the Transition Working Group, is helping FTS plan for the transition, advising and 

assisting with issues such as developing a Networx pre-award transition guide.

The Transition Working Group also documented, in conjunction with FTS, lessons learned 

from the FTS2001 transition. This FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned document

addresses topics such as transition resources, transition inventories, enforcing contractual

performance requirements, and transition roles and responsibilities. It identifies a total of 27 

issues with the intent of avoiding unnecessary delays during future transitions.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 25 GAO-06-476 

19

Background

Transition Responsibilities

FTS’s customer agencies—those federal agencies using the FTS2001 contract—have 

principal responsibility for the transition. These agencies are responsible for coordinating

transition efforts with the incumbent and awarded contractors to ensure that existing services

under FTS2001 are disconnected and new services are ordered. FTS has asked each of its

customer agencies to appoint a transition manager and establish a transition team that will 

• manage the agency’s internal transition planning, preparation, and execution efforts; and

• be responsible for interfacing with FTS, the Interagency Management Council, and 

officials within the agency.

Both the Networx contractors and incumbent FTS2001 contractors are responsible for 

supporting agencies in their transition planning and execution efforts:

• Networx contractors will be responsible for delivering services ordered, developing 

program-level and agency-level transition plans, and communicating the status of

transition activities with scheduled notices and reports.

• The incumbent FTS2001 contractors are expected to complete all FTS2001 service

disconnect orders requested by agencies and assist agency efforts to prepare for the 

transition by, for example, helping to identify inventory information and system 

requirements.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 26 GAO-06-476 

20

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Sound Transition Planning Practices

Based on our research, we identified five sound transition planning practices that agencies

can utilize to improve the likelihood of a smooth transition. Regardless of the complexity of

each agency’s transition, these sound practices can help agencies make the most of the 

opportunity for change that accompanies a major telecommunications transition. 

• Establish a Telecommunications Inventory

• Perform Strategic Analysis of Telecommunications Requirements

• Establish a Structured Transition Management Approach

• Identify Resources

• Develop a Transition Plan

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 27 GAO-06-476 

21

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Telecommunications Inventory

Sound transition planning includes establishing an accurate inventory of current

telecommunications assets and services.

• First, agencies should have a detailed and complete transition inventory that represents

all of its facilities, components, field offices, and any other managed sites. It should

include information such as telecommunications services, traffic volumes, equipment,

and applications being utilized. Agencies can use their transition inventory to identify 

opportunities for optimizing their current technology during strategic planning.

• Second, agencies should have a documented inventory maintenance process that can 

be utilized to ensure that inventories remain current and reflect changes leading up to,

during, and after the transition. Once established, an inventory maintenance process can 

ensure that changes are captured and allow agencies to audit vendor bills against their 

inventories throughout the life of the contract.

Agencies should begin efforts to establish a telecommunications inventory early because the 

development of an accurate and reliable inventory is important to ensuring that the agency 

will be prepared to transition quickly. Further, current inventories should be established by 

the agency prior to determining strategic telecommunications requirements, when the

information can be used to help determine current and future telecommunications needs and 

areas for optimization and/or sharing of IT resources across the agency.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 28 GAO-06-476 

22

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Telecommunications Inventory

The selected agencies were at different stages in preparing telecommunications inventories.

• BLM, GSA, and DOE provided inventories of their telecommunication services. These 

three inventories included the type of information that could assist agencies in conducting 

an effective transition. However because inventories change as services are added,

changed, or removed, all three will have to be updated prior to transition execution. 

• The remaining three agencies did not yet have complete inventories, but officials stated

that they planned to develop them. FBI officials stated they had not yet been able to 

provide complete and accurate inventories because the management of their 

telecommunications services was decentralized and, therefore, they could not readily

compile the necessary information.

• GSA had a documented process for updating and maintaining its inventories that it

indicated it follows when ordering or changing circuits.

• The other five agencies did not have a documented inventory maintenance process, but

their officials said they did have staff responsible for updating and maintaining their

inventories. These officials also stated they plan to formally document an inventory

maintenance process.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 29 GAO-06-476 

23

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Telecommunications Inventory

If agencies do not establish accurate and complete telecommunications inventories prior to

transition execution, they risk not having information during transition planning that will allow

them to address strategic considerations, and may face transition delays while proper 

inventory information is gathered. Further, without an established inventory process,

agencies may not consistently and accurately capture the changes to their 

telecommunications inventories, hindering their ability to ensure that they are charged only

for the services requested.

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies’ progress toward establishing an

accurate inventory of current telecommunications assets and services.

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

5

3

Planned

Does the agency have a documented process for updating 1 0 0

and maintaining its inventories?

Has the agency identified its telecommunications inventories 3 0 0

at every site, facility, and component for the transition from

FTS2001?

Not

Planned

Does the agency have a telecommunications inventory for the Completed Started 

transition and a process to maintain that inventory? 

Telecommunications inventory

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 30 GAO-06-476 

24

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Strategic Requirements

Sound transition planning includes performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications

requirements and incorporating the results into transition planning. To accomplish this,

agencies should

• determine current and future telecommunications needs using an identified inventory of

existing services. Agencies should also use the transition as an opportunity to identify

areas for optimization and/or sharing of telecommunications resources across the 

agency. The costs and benefits of introducing new technology and alternatives for 

meeting the agency’s telecommunications needs should be evaluated. Further, the 

identified needs and opportunities should be aligned with the agency’s mission, long-term

IT plans, and enterprise architecture plans.

The results of the agency’s strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements should

shape the agency’s management approach to the transition and guide other efforts such as

identifying and allocating resources and developing a transition plan.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 31 GAO-06-476 

25

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Strategic Requirements

Most of the agencies planned to identify and incorporate strategic requirements into their 

transition planning.

• BLM had identified strategic requirements for its current and future telecommunications

needs through a recently completed analysis that considered the convergence of its

voice, video, and data services into a single IP-based network. 

• FBI had begun to identify its current and future needs in an IT strategic plan not specific

to the transition. According to an official from this agency, any identified needs will be 

incorporated into the strategic requirements developed for the transition. FBI plans to

complete its analysis in March 2006.

• The remaining four intend to identify their strategic requirements for the transition, but

believed it was too early to have done so already.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 32 GAO-06-476 

26

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Strategic Requirements

If agencies do not incorporate strategic requirements into their planning, they risk making 

decisions which are not aligned with the long-term goals of the organization and may not be 

able to take full advantage of opportunities during the transition, such as upgrading and 

optimizing their telecommunications services, or shifting service to more cost-effective

technology.

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies’ progress toward incorporating strategic

requirements into their planning.

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

4

Planned

Has the agency determined current and future 1 1 0

telecommunications needs? 

Has the agency performed a strategic analysis of Completed Started Not Planned

telecommunications requirements for the transition? 

Strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 33 GAO-06-476 

27

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Structured Transition Management Approach

Sound transition planning includes establishing a structured transition management

approach. This entails

• establishing a transition management team involved in all phases of the transition and

clearly defining responsibilities for key transition roles such as project management,

asset management, contract and legal management, human capital management, and

security issues;

• utilizing the agency’s established project management, configuration management, and 

change management processes. Project management processes are utilized to plan and 

manage transition-related activities, providing a structure that incorporates performance

measurement and project-level control. Configuration management processes are used 

to help ensure integrity and traceability as change occurs. Change management

processes help employees prepare for the procedure and technology changes that may

accompany a transition, reducing the risk that improvement efforts will fail; and

• ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the transition by identifying which parties will

be involved and how transition plans, including transition objectives, will be 

communicated. The agency should identify what is going to happen and when, including 

the frequency of status updates and meetings, and should alert and educate end users

to changes or disruptions. This also includes identifying key local and regional transition 

officials and points of contact responsible for disseminating information to employees and 

working with the vendor to facilitate transition execution.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 34 GAO-06-476 

28

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Structured Transition Management Approach

The six agencies were in the early stages of establishing a structured transition management

approach.

• DOE and GSA had formally committed staff to manage transition planning by identifying 

a transition program manager in a project charter or planning guide. They had also

begun to assign responsibilities for key transition roles and issues.

• Officials at the remaining four agencies believed it was too soon to have committed staff

to manage the transition.

• While all indicated that they have established management processes to guide their 

planning efforts, officials stated it was too early for these processes to have been 

implemented. For example, an FBI official stated that their policies require the use of the 

key management processes we identified and that they would utilize these once

transition-related activities get under way.

• GSA had identified some of its plans for communication, including the frequency of 

reports, presentations, and reviews; and the parties responsible for issuing them.

However, the plans had not yet been communicated to those beyond the transition

management team. 

• Officials at all of the agencies reviewed stated that they plan to establish lines of

communication for the transition and identify key local and/or regional transition officials,

but that it was too early in their planning to have done so.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 35 GAO-06-476 

29

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Structured Transition Management Approach

Without a structured transition management approach, agencies risk additional financial

costs, extended time lines, and disruptions to the continuity of their telecommunication 

systems. Further, without establishing lines of communication and identifying local and 

regional points of contact, agencies may lack the quality of information that is necessary for 

comprehensive understanding, accountability, and shared expectations at all levels.

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies’ progress toward establishing a

structured transition management approach. 

Is the agency using key management processes in the 0 0 6 0

management of its transition planning efforts? 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

5

4

Planned

Has the agency identified lines of communication in order 0 1 0

to facilitate information sharing during transition planning

and execution?

Has the agency committed staff to manage the transition 0 2 0

and clearly defined responsibilities for key transition roles?

Not 

Planned

Has the agency established a structured transition management Completed Started 

approach?

Structured transition management approach

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 36 GAO-06-476 

30

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Resource Identification

Sound transition planning includes identifying the resources that the transition effort requires.

To do so, the agency should take the following steps:

• Identify funding requirements to ensure that planning efforts for the telecommunications

transition have the necessary resources. The agency should identify the organizational

need for investments and assess benefits versus costs to justify any resource requests. 

Cost benefit analyses and return-on-investment calculations are common methods used 

to justify requests. Transition costs that should be considered include transition project

management, software and hardware upgrades, and the establishing reliable inventories.

• Ensure that personnel with the right skills are in place to support the transition effort.

Some of the skills that are needed are, as identified earlier, contract expertise, legal 

expertise, asset management, and program management. Further, the agency should 

identify and require training for those carrying out the transition or operating and 

maintaining newly transitioned technology. The agency should also address staffing 

levels that may be required during transition.

Identifying the need for resources early in the planning process will help to avoid

unnecessary spending and delays during the transition. Further, the resources allocated to

the transition effort should reflect the level of change identified in the agency’s strategic

analysis of telecommunications requirements; that is, if the agency chooses to implement

new technology, it must budget resources accordingly.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 37 GAO-06-476 

31

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Resource Identification

The agencies reviewed had placed varying levels of emphasis on identifying and allocating 

resources to support transition efforts.

• BLM had developed a network convergence business case that outlined benefits and

costs, and provided a return-on-investment calculation to justify requests. This agency

was awaiting approval of this request.

• Officials at four of the agencies stated that they will identify funding requirements as part

of their transition planning efforts.

• Officials at DOJ indicated that they will not need additional funding for the transition.

However, DOJ has yet to conduct a strategic analysis of its telecommunications 

requirements, and agency officials did not provide any analytical basis for its decision.

• Five agencies planned to address human capital and training needs. However, officials at

DOE stated that they do not plan to identify human capital needs for the transition. They

stated such plans would not be necessary because their agency faces a relatively

straightforward like-for-like transition and will not require extensive planning and/or 

heightened staffing levels. However, the agency had not identified its strategic

requirements to determine if a like-for-like transition was the optimal approach, nor had it

performed any other analysis to determine the required staffing levels.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 38 GAO-06-476 

32

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Resource Identification

Agencies that do not analyze needs for transition related costs and allocate resources 

commensurate with those needs may be underestimating the complexity and demands of the 

transition effort. Further, as the transition gets under way, unexpected costs may arise that

cause previously avoidable delays and unnecessary spending.

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies’ progress toward identifying and 

allocating resources.

Has the agency identified human capital and training needs for 0 0 5 1

the transition? 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

4

Planned

Has the agency identified the level of funding needed to support 1 0 1

transition planning?

Not 

Planned

Has the agency identified and allocated all resources necessary to Completed Started 

facilitate a successful transition?

Resource identification

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 39 GAO-06-476 

33

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Transition Plan

Sound transition planning includes developing a transition plan that identifies transition

objectives, measures of success, and risks, and approaches the transition planning process

as a critical project with a detailed time line. To facilitate this practice, agencies’ transition

management teams should take the following steps:

• Identify transition objectives and measures of success. Objectives should be based on 

the agency’s strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements and aligned with the 

agency’s overall mission and business objectives. Measures of success should be based 

on these transition objectives and are a key tool to help managers assess progress.

• Identify agency-specific risks that could affect transition success. The importance of the 

risks should be evaluated relative to the agency’s mission critical systems and continuity

of operations plans. Knowing what risks exist and how to mitigate them appropriately will 

lessen problems and delays during the transition. This risk assessment should also

include an analysis of information security risks to determine what controls are required 

to protect networks and what level of resources should be expended on controls.

• Develop a transition plan that depicts a management strategy with clearly defined 

transition preparation tasks and includes a time line that allows for periodic reporting.

This time line should take into account priorities relative to the agency’s mission critical 

systems, contingency plans, and identified risks.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 40 GAO-06-476 

34

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Transition Plan

The six agencies indicated that measurable objectives and clearly defined transition 

management tasks will be developed.

• DOE and GSA had identified transition-specific objectives. For example, in its transition 

planning guide, DOE had identified objectives such as (a) maintain the continuity of

service with no outages, (b) optimize service inventory by disconnecting services not

required, and (c) maximize the rate at which existing users’ services are transitioned.

• Officials at the other four agencies stated that they planned to develop objectives as a 

part of their transition planning efforts. None had established measures of success to be

used to assess progress toward their objectives, but all planned to do so. 

• Officials at all of the agencies indicated that risk assessments will be performed for this

transition, but that it was too early to have completed this task already.

• Efforts had begun at DOE to document transition planning activities that must occur prior 

to the award of the Networx contracts, but officials there indicated that these tasks would

be further developed in their transition project management plan.

• Officials at the other five agencies indicated that they planned to identify and document

necessary transition planning activities, but that it was too early to have done so at this

point.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 41 GAO-06-476 

35

Objective 1: Agency Preparation

Transition Plan

Agencies that do not document measurable objectives and clearly define transition tasks that

take into account agency priorities and risks may find it difficult to provide those involved in

the transition with clear expectations of the tasks required, provide status updates of

progress and risks, and ultimately ensure transition success.

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies’ progress toward developing a transition 

plan.

Has the agency identified agency-specific risks that could 0 0 6 0

affect transition success? 

Has the agency identified and documented agency-specific 0 2 4 0

transition objectives and measures of success?

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

5

Planned

Has the agency clearly defined transition preparation tasks 0 1 0

and developed a time line based on priorities and risks? 

Not

Planned

Has the agency developed a transition plan? Completed Started 

Transition plan

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 42 GAO-06-476 

36

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

FTS has addressed the majority of the FTS2001 lessons learned and provided guidance that

at least partially addresses all of the sound transition planning practices. Specifically, it has

addressed 21 of the 27 lessons learned, such as clarifying which parties are responsible for 

transition costs, incentivizing agencies to transition quickly, and requiring verification of the 

functionality of vendor operations support systems prior to processing orders. However, the 

office is still working to address the remaining six lessons, such as defining incumbent

contractor roles and providing guidance for agency inventory management and validation.

FTS has also provided to agencies guidance that correlates with two of our five sound 

transition planning practices: performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications

requirements and identifying necessary resources for the transition. However, guidance has

not been provided on aspects of the three remaining practices. For example, guidance does

not fully address establishing a structured transition management approach or developing a

transition plan.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 43 GAO-06-476 

37

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned

In planning for the upcoming transition to Networx, FTS has addressed 21 of the 27 lessons.

FTS officials stated that, based on costs identified in the taxonomy document, 

they determined FTS would have the funding needed for transition program 

management costs, and no additional funding from agencies would be required.

The Transition Fund7 was critical to 

transition execution.

This is no longer a requirement of contractors during transition. Network 

optimization reports are still required after transition is complete.

Mandatory network optimization during 

transition was largely infeasible.

Early planning was encouraged in a May 2004 letter to agency CIOs and in a 

pre-award guide dated August 5, 2005, before an expected award date of April

2006.

Activities needed for transition should

be started as soon as possible to 

ensure a rapid transition effort.

Networx includes government-specific requirements, such as a unique billing 

indicator that lists each billed service separately from all other billed services.

Unique government requirements 

cannot always be met by commercial

services or operations support systems.

7 During the last several years of the FTS 2000 contract, agencies agreed to pay a surcharge, in addition to the FTS management fee, that was set 

aside to account for program management costs associated with the transition to FTS2001.

The budget impact of transition on

agencies should be identified.

FTS and the Transition Working Group developed a Taxonomy and Allocation

of Transition Costs in October 2004 that assigns responsibilities for transition

costs. FTS officials indicated that this document can be used to budget for 

transition costs but that final calculations cannot be performed until Networx 

prices are known.

FTS and agency plans for funding the 

transition should be determined early.

In 2003, the Interagency Management Council established a Transition 

Working Group to address transition issues. The group developed a Networx

pre-award transition guide that emphasizes agency preparation for a transition 

effort of this magnitude.

The magnitude of the effort necessary 

for the transition was not fully 

appreciated.

FTS2001 transition lesson learned Example of how the lesson has been addressed

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 44 GAO-06-476 

38

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned

Before the contractor commits to a date to install services for an agency, 

Networx requires contractors to first obtain commitment from the local access

provider to avoid potential delays.

There were problems obtaining access 

to local facilities.

Networx requires contractors to describe their ability to meet transition staffing

requirements; those that are not able to support their transition workload will 

incur a financial penalty.

Contractors did not provide sufficient 

staff to meet contract terms. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned Example of how the lesson has been addressed

FTS indicated that it is preparing checklists for all FTS2001 service types that

will be transitioned and an agency site preparation checklist.

Some agency sites experienced

transition execution delays due to a

lack of preparation.

Networx includes service level agreements to hold contractors to expected 

levels of performance throughout the transition.

Contractors should be held to the 

contracts’ performance requirements 

during transition.

Networx provides flexibility by allowing agencies to specify when they would 

like ordered services to be delivered. This can be used by each agency to 

account for their specific planning considerations.

Flexibility is needed to account for the

impact of external events on planning. 

Networx includes requirements that will permit FTS to exercise oversight of

contractor performance and compliance. FTS also provided guidance 

recommending that agency transition managers review and approve Networx

contractor management plans. 

Program management approach relied 

heavily on FTS2001 contractor actions.

Networx requires vendors to work with agencies to develop transition plans that 

agencies can tailor according to their capabilities. FTS also asked agency 

transition managers to develop agency transition strategies and plans. 

Program management approach relied 

extensively on agency action, while

agency capabilities to manage it varied.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 45 GAO-06-476 

39

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned

The Taxonomy and Allocation of Transition Costs developed by FTS and the 

Transition Working Group stipulates that reimbursements for certain transition

costs can only be realized if the agency chooses a service provider and places

orders within a predefined time frame. FTS indicated that qualifying for such

transition credits should encourage agencies to make timely decisions and 

avoid transition delays.

Agencies were slow to select service 

providers.

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

Networx minimum revenue guarantees were set at $575 million. FTS officials

believe that the relatively lower minimum revenue guarantee (compared to 

FTS2001) should not be an impediment to agency selection or a disincentive to

winning contractors.

Relatively high minimum revenue 

guarantees of $1.5 billion impacted

incentives for timely transition.

Inaccurate vendor billing contributed to 

transition delays.

Networx requires verification of the functionality of contractors’ operations 

support systems prior to processing transition orders or bills. Networx also

includes a billing accuracy service level agreement that allows for agency 

credits if the contractor fails to meet accuracy requirements. 

Transition began before contractors

had acceptable operations support 

systems in place.

Agencies responsible for delays should

bear the costs of those delays.

Agencies were slow to place orders. 

The Networx Pre-Award Transition Guide finalized in August 2005 provides 

guidance on planning for upgrades.

Agencies should anticipate the need to 

upgrade services during transition.

FTS2001 transition lesson learned Example of how the lesson has been addressed

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 46 GAO-06-476 

40

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned

Six of the 27 FTS2001 transition lessons learned have not been fully addressed.

Networx requires vendors to coordinate and synchronize transition

activities with incumbents, however, incumbent requirements are not yet 

clearly defined. 

Need for adequate coordination between

the gaining and losing vendors should be 

incorporated in both the incumbent and new

vendor contracts.

While FTS has indicated that it will track the progress made by agencies 

through the disconnection of current services and the installation of new

services, it has not documented its methodology for monitoring and 

tracking the transition.

Measurement of the progress of transition

should focus on phase-out as well as

phase-in.

Metrics for monitoring of the installation of

new services should be established prior to

contract award.

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

FTS2001 transition lesson learned Remaining issues to be addressed

The Networx RFPs include detailed transition reporting requirements, 

however, incumbent transition reporting requirements have not been

finalized.

Information from service providers required 

to measure transition should be specified.

FTS has clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of parties involved—

in briefings, the Networx RFPs, and guidance—but it has not yet clearly

defined the roles and responsibilities of the incumbent contractors.

Roles and responsibilities of FTS, agencies, 

and service providers for transition activities

were not clearly defined.

The Networx Pre-Award Transition Guide provides guidance on 

establishing an accurate inventory prior to contract award. However, FTS

has not yet provided guidance to agencies on inventory management or 

validation. 

An accurate inventory prior to contract 

award is needed and inventory 

management and validation should be an

ongoing effort throughout the life of the 

contract.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 47 GAO-06-476 

41

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned

FTS officials stated they plan to address all unresolved lessons learned. They stated they 

are currently working with the FTS2001 contractors to clarify transition roles and

responsibilities, responsibilities for reporting requirements, and the coordination and 

synchronization procedures to be used during transition. In addition, officials stated that

guidance on inventory maintenance and a documented transition tracking methodology will

be provided in the last few months leading up to contract award.

Enough time remains that FTS should be able to address these unresolved issues. However,

until they are resolved it risks facing the very same delays the FTS2001 lessons learned 

were developed to avoid. Further, until agreements are reached with the incumbent

contractors regarding reporting requirements and the incumbents’ role in the transition, FTS

cannot guarantee that incumbents will comply or be able to comply with FTS’s expectations.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 48 GAO-06-476 

42

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

Guidance Based on Sound Practices

FTS has provided transition planning guidance that fully addresses two of our sound 

practices.

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

Available guidance indicates that necessary staffing and financial resources 

should be anticipated early and accurately and that agencies should develop a

forecast of required resources throughout the transition to Networx. Available 

guidance also suggests that agencies examine current resources to determine if

adequate personnel exists; address shortfalls that may require contractor

support; and identify personnel to receive training, and the desired schedule and

locations of training.

Resource Identification

Available guidance recommends that agencies involve the enterprise architect to 

ensure that planning is consistent with enterprise architecture guidance and to

determine, based on the level of complexity of the transition, whether any 

changes should be made before or after the transition.

Strategic Analysis of 

Telecommunications Requirements

Sound transition planning practice Example of how the practice has been addressed

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 49 GAO-06-476 

43

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

Guidance based on Sound Practices

Guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three remaining practices.

Guidance provided suggests that transition managers should ensure that 

agencies have adequate internal project management support for the expected 

transition workload, and, if appropriate, a hierarchy of transition teams at the 

sub-agency level. However, the guidance reviewed does not address the 

importance of agency use of project management, configuration management, 

and change management processes. 

Structured Transition Management

Approach

Available guidance indicates that agencies should identify transition goals and

develop a prioritized list of tasks and a schedule with key dates to assist in

transition management. However, none of the guidance reviewed addressed 

agencies establishing measures of success or performing a transition-specific

risk assessment.

Transition Plan

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

FTS is compiling a baseline inventory to aid agencies during the transition, but 

has not provided guidance on establishing an inventory process that can be 

utilized to maintain telecommunications inventories during and after the 

transition. 

Telecommunications Inventory

Sound transition planning practice Aspect of the practice not addressed

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 50 GAO-06-476 

44

Objective 2: FTS Preparation

Guidance based on Sound Practices

FTS officials stated that they would provide guidance explaining how agencies can use 

Networx contractor information to maintain and validate their Networx inventories, and that

more detailed guidance will be provided if requested by agencies. Officials stated that they 

believe it is not their responsibility to provide guidance on establishing measures of success,

using key management processes, and performing risk assessments, and that approaches

to these issues should be decided independently by each agency.

Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with individual agencies, FTS has an

important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate the transition. To fulfill this

responsibility, it has been actively working with agencies through the Interagency

Management Council’s Transition Working Group to, for example, address lessons learned 

and develop pre-transition guidance. However, unless it works with the Interagency

Management Council to address the full range of sound practices, the risk exists that

agencies may not address these practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect

agency’s level of preparation and the overall success of the transition. In particular, without 

guidance on measures of success and the use of key management processes, FTS risks

conducting a transition with agencies susceptible to additional costs, delays, and employee 

resistance to change due to unstructured management approaches to the transition. Further,

without guidance on the importance of performing transition-specific risk assessments, FTS 

risks working with agencies that have not been advised of the importance of implementing 

appropriate controls to cost-effectively reduce risks and help ensure a smooth transition.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 51 GAO-06-476 

45

Conclusions

The agencies reviewed generally plan to employ the sound transition planning practices

identified through our research. However, gaps in agency preparation remain. Specifically,

DOJ has decided that it will not need additional funding and DOE does not plan to identify

human capital needs, even though neither has performed a strategic analysis of their 

telecommunications requirements. This puts them at risk of underestimating the complexity

and demands of the transition effort, and of suffering avoidable disruption of service as a 

result of unexpected costs or inadequate human capital resources. Enough time remains for 

agencies to effectively address all the issues we identified, but they need to identify

telecommunications inventories and conduct strategic analyses soon because these 

practices provide inputs for other sound practices.

FTS efforts to prepare for the transition have addressed the majority of the identified 

FTS2001 lessons learned, and the guidance it has provided at least partially addresses all of

the sound transition planning practices we identified. Officials have indicated that they are 

working to address all lessons learned prior to contract award. However, they do not intend 

to fully address all sound transition planning practices. Without the development of guidance

for utilizing key management practices, establishing measures of success, and performing 

risk assessments, the federal government risks attempting a transition with inadequately

prepared management at FTS and its customer agencies. Adequate, timely guidance is

essential to ensuring that all parties involved are aware of the gamut of issues and activities

that need to be addressed.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 52 GAO-06-476 

46

Recommendations

To ensure that the agencies we reviewed adequately prepare themselves for the transition we

recommend 

• that the Attorney General ensure that the Department of Justice’s planning efforts include 

an analysis of the extent to which current financial resources will be sufficient to conduct

an effective transition; and

• that the Secretary of Energy ensure that the department’s planning efforts include 

identification of human capital resources needed to conduct an effective transition.

To ensure that agencies are adequately prepared for the transition, we recommend that the 

Administrator of General Services, in working with the Interagency Management Council,

develop and distribute guidance to ensure that our identified sound practices of transition 

planning are utilized. In particular, FTS should ensure that guidance addresses

• the use of project management, configuration management, and change management

processes in transition planning efforts;

• the establishment of measures of success to help agencies’ managers assess progress

toward the objectives stated in their plans; and

• the development of a transition-specific risk assessment that would allow an agency to

lessen problems and delays during the transition.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 53 GAO-06-476 

47

Agency Comments

Written comments on a draft of this briefing were provided by the General Services

Administration. The Departments of Justice and Energy provided comments via E-mail. All 

three generally agreed with our recommendations and intend to address them. We received 

technical comments via E-mail from the Department of the Interior that were incorporated as

appropriate. 

The acting Administrator of General Services agreed with our recommendations and stated

that the agency will work with the Interagency Management Council’s Transition Working 

Group to (1) identify key management practices that could be of value to all agencies, (2) 

establish measures of success that could be of value in assessing progress toward

objectives, and (3) develop risk assessment guidelines. Guidance on these issues will be 

included in a transition planning guide expected to be published in fiscal year 2006.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 54 GAO-06-476 

48

Agency Comments 

An Audit Liaison Specialist from the Department of Justice’s Audit Liaison Group commented,

in response to our recommendation, that the department's policies will guide its planning and 

execution of the transition from expiring FTS2001 services including the identification of the 

appropriate strategy, funding, and resource elements. While the agency intends to leverage 

existing resources to support the transition, any additional funding or resources needed will

be addressed during planning.

The Audit Liaison Specialist also commented that a 2002 DOJ IT strategic plan identified 

strategic telecommunications requirements and described a strategic objective to transition to

a single, national data network–an effort which is currently underway.

We acknowledge that in 2002 DOJ identified strategic requirements in 2002 related to its data

networks, however, these requirements did not address its non-data telecommunications

services, which it will have to transition when the FTS2001 contracts expire. 

The Associate CIO for IT Operations at the Department of Energy commented that the 

agency generally agrees with our recommendation and intends to address it.

Telecommunications
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the 

Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives, March 24, 2006 

Page 55 GAO-06-476 

49

Attachment 1

Comments from the General Services Administration

Telecommunications
Appendix II: Comments from the General Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration 

Services Administration 

Page 56 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
Appendix II: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 57 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of the Interior 

Department of the Interior 

(310757) Page 58 GAO-06-476 Telecommunications
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER