United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

April 1997 GPRA

Managerial

Accountability and

Flexibility Pilot Did

Not Work As Intended

GAO/GGD-97-36

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-275511 

April 10, 1997

The Honorable Fred D. Thompson

Chairman

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

Congress intended for the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA) to fundamentally shift the focus of federal management and

accountability from a preoccupation with rigid adherence to prescribed

processes to a focus on achieving desired outcomes and results. In crafting

GPRA, Congress recognized that if federal managers were to be held

accountable for achieving results, they would need the authority and

flexibility to achieve those results. GPRA provides for a series of pilot

projects so that federal agencies can gain experience in using the act’s

provisions and provide lessons to other agencies before GPRA’s

governmentwide implementation, which is to begin in the fall of 1997. One

set of these GPRA pilot projects focused on managerial accountability and

flexibility.

This report was developed in partial response to GPRA’s requirement that

we report on the act’s implementation during the initial pilot phase—fiscal

years 1994 to 1996—and on the prospects for its governmentwide

implementation. Our objectives were to (1) determine whether the

managerial accountability and flexibility pilot worked as intended and the

reasons why it did or did not and (2) identify the lessons learned from this

pilot and their possible implications for governmentwide implementation

of GPRA.

Background The experiences of foreign governments that are considered leaders in

implementing results-oriented management reforms, such as such as

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, have suggested

that substantial improvements in performance are possible when

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

managers are provided with expanded authority over spending, human

resource, and other management functions while being held more

accountable for achieving results.1

 Congress was aware of the experiences

of these foreign governments—and the similar experiences of some state

and local governments in the United States—when it developed GPRA.

As one avenue of providing managers with needed authority and

flexibility, GPRA allows agencies to propose, and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to approve, waivers of certain nonstatutory

administrative requirements and controls. A waiver proposal must

describe and quantify any anticipated effects on an agency’s performance

and be endorsed by the agency that imposed the requirement or control.

These waivers could include the delegation of additional procurement

authority to line managers or the lifting of limitations on personnel

compensation and remuneration by central management agencies.

However, GPRA does not provide any new authority to waive statutory

requirements. 2

 Finally, GPRA does not provide any new authorities to any

agency to waive requirements, nor does it restrict or redefine waiver

authorities already in existence. However, if an agency has authority under

a law other than GPRA to waive a statutory requirement or control, it may

do so and only needs to satisfy the requirements of that law.

Under GPRA, managerial accountability and flexibility waivers were to be

piloted during fiscal years 1995 and 1996. OMB was to select at least five

agencies to participate in the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot

from among the eligible GPRA performance planning and reporting agencies

during fiscal years 1994 to 1996. (See app. I for an overview of GPRA,

including the pilot phases.) Agency proposals to OMB were to identify the

requirement or control to be waived, quantify how relief from the control

or requirement was expected to affect performance, and compare the

anticipated performance improvements with (1) current performance

levels and (2) levels that could be expected without the waiver.

Agency proposals for participation in this phase of the GPRA pilot process

were to be sent to OMB for consideration. OMB would not approve a waiver

request unless it was endorsed by the agency that established the

requirement—for example, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the

1

See Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal Management Reforms

(GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995).

2

The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report that accompanied GPRA specified that the act

does not authorize waivers of any regulation promulgated in accordance with the Administrative

Procedures Act, unless the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures

Act are satisfied (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

General Services Administration (GSA), or the Department of the

Treasury’s Financial Management Service (FMS). OMB was then to use the

relevant central management agency’s endorsement of waiver requests in

deciding whether to designate a line agency as a managerial accountability

and flexibility pilot.3

Results in Brief The GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilot did not work as

intended. OMB did not designate any of the 7 departments and 1

independent agency that submitted a total of 61 waiver proposals as GPRA

managerial accountability and flexibility pilots. For about three-quarters of

the waiver proposals, OMB or other central management agencies

determined that the waivers were not allowable for statutory or other

reasons or that the requirement for which the waivers were proposed no

longer existed. For the remaining proposals, OMB or other central

management agencies approved waivers or developed compromises by

using authorities that were already available independent of GPRA.

Three major factors contributed to the failure of GPRA’s managerial

accountability and flexibility pilot phase to work as intended. First,

changes in federal management practices and laws that occurred after

GPRA was enacted affected agencies’ need for the GPRA process. These

changes included the elimination of the bulk of the Federal Personnel

Manual, which provided instructions and guidance on virtually every facet

of government employment, and the enactment of the Federal Workforce

Restructuring Act. This act established a new personnel ceiling for all of

the executive branch, which had the effect of limiting OMB’s ability to

waive agency personnel ceilings established in the budget. With a statutory

cap on the number of executive branch employees being set, OMB believed

it would not be able to manage the federal government’s full-time

equivalent (FTE) reductions while ensuring that downsizing statutory

requirements were met if one or more agencies were given the authority to

exceed their FTE limits.

Second, GPRA was not the only means by which agencies could receive

waivers from administrative requirements, and thereby obtain needed

managerial flexibility. For example, as previously noted, a number of

waivers that were initially proposed as part of the GPRA process were

approved under authorities existing independent of GPRA. Moreover, under

the National Performance Review (NPR), about 185 reinvention labs were

3

For a more detailed description of GPRA’s requirements, see appendix I.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

created.4 The goal of the reinvention lab effort was similar to that of the

GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility provision—in essence, to

improve performance by providing managers with added operational

authority. However, obtaining a waiver as a reinvention lab was easier

than using the GPRA process. For example, in contrast to GPRA, agencies

obtaining waivers through the reinvention labs were not required to show

how, and the degree to which, program performance would be changed as

the result of receiving a waiver.

Third, OMB did not work actively with agencies that were seeking to take

part in the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot, in contrast to its

more proactive posture toward other GPRA requirements, such as the pilots

for the performance planning and reporting requirements. As of

November 1996, almost 11 months after OMB had received the

endorsements by the central management agencies, OMB had not formally

notified two of the eight agencies that nine of their requested waivers had

been approved outside of the GPRA pilot process or that a compromise had

been developed. According to officials in those agencies, in the absence of

formal notification from OMB, they continued to operate under the old

requirements, even though they were not required to do so. Overall,

officials in five of the eight agencies that submitted a waiver proposal to

OMB said that they never received (1) feedback from OMB on the status of

their waiver proposals; (2) notification of specific concerns that OMB may

have had about the quality and scope of the proposals; or, most important,

(3) explicit instructions from OMB on how their proposals could be

improved to better meet OMB’s expectations. However, under the

performance planning and reporting pilot, OMB assessed the strengths and

weaknesses of agency proposals and suggested ways to improve them.

Even though the pilot process did not result in any GPRA-authorized

waivers and thus did not work as intended, the process provided lessons

for agencies and may have important implications for governmentwide

GPRA implementation. While preparing their waiver requests, several

participating agencies learned that the burdens and constraints that

confronted their managers often were imposed by the agency itself or its

parent department and were not the result of requirements imposed by

central management agencies. The administration’s effort to develop

federal management “templates” that, in part, document the range of

4

NPR is the administration’s major management reform initiative and has issued recommendations

intended to make the government “work better and cost less.” A key part of that initiative has been the

establishment of reinvention labs, which are designed to test ways that agencies could improve their

performance and customer service by reengineering work processes and eliminating unnecessary

regulations. See Management Reform: Status of Agency Reinvention Lab Efforts (GAO/GGD-96-69,

Mar. 20, 1996) for our assessment of the status of NPR’s efforts to encourage reinvention labs.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

flexibility agencies have under existing central management agency

requirements is a promising means for disseminating knowledge about

available flexibility among federal agencies.5

In addition, the pilot experience should provide useful information for

Congress to consider as GPRA is implemented governmentwide. The report

of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which accompanied the

act, recognized that the limited nature of the flexibility waivers authorized

by GPRA may not be sufficient to enable managers to address barriers to

improved performance. However, the report stated that neither the Senate

Committee nor the agencies were able to identify the statutory and other

controls for which waivers should be considered. In addition, the report

urged OMB to develop (1) a list of possible statutory barriers to improved

program performance that Congress may wish to consider modifying or

abolishing and (2) an analysis of the performance benefits and other

effects that legislative changes would produce. The relatively large number

of proposals to waive statutory requirements should be helpful to OMB in

fulfilling these tasks.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

To meet our two objectives of (1) determining whether the managerial

accountability and flexibility pilot worked as intended and the reasons

that it did or did not and (2) identifying the lessons learned from this pilot

and possible implications for governmentwide implementation of the GPRA

managerial accountability and flexibility provision, we first reviewed GPRA

and its legislative history to determine congressional intent. We

interviewed the OMB official who managed the GPRA waiver process and

OMB’s review of the 61 waiver proposals. At the other central management

agencies—GSA, OPM, and FMS—we interviewed officials and reviewed

documents to determine each agency’s role in the waiver process. We

reviewed guidance on the scope of allowable and unallowable waiver

proposals that OMB and the other central management agencies had

developed for line agencies. We also reviewed documents showing the

agencies’ proposals, management agencies’ decisions on the proposals,

and the reasons for those decisions. However, we did not assess the final

waiver determinations made by OMB and the other central management

agencies on whether the pilot agencies’ waiver proposals should or should

not have been approved.

5

These templates are being developed as part of the administration’s initiative to create Performance

Based Organizations (PBO). The PBO initiative is intended to give agencies that deliver measurable

services a greater degree of autonomy from governmentwide rules in exchange for greater

accountability for achieving results.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

We supplemented our work at the central management agencies by

interviewing officials from the 28 agencies participating as GPRA

performance planning and reporting pilots that were eligible to develop

waivers. An additional seven performance planning and reporting pilots

were designated too late to participate in the managerial accountability

and flexibility waiver pilot. The 28 eligible agencies had a total of 70

individual pilots or components that were involved in the performance

planning and reporting pilot phase. (See app. II for a list of these eligible

performance planning and reporting pilot organizations.) We interviewed

officials in 68 of these 70 organizations. (The remaining two organizations

could not identify a knowledgeable official for us to interview.) For the

majority of the performance planning and reporting pilots, our discussions

focused on identifying the reasons that a waiver proposal was not

submitted to OMB for consideration.

For the 14 of the 70 organizations, representing 8 agencies, that did submit

a waiver proposal, we conducted more in-depth interviews and reviewed

documents to determine how those agencies developed their proposals,

what were the characteristics of the waiver proposals, and how much

interaction agency officials had with OMB and the other central

management agencies after the proposals were submitted. (See app. III for

the results of these 14 organizations’ waiver proposals.)

We also reviewed our recent and ongoing work on GPRA and related

management reform efforts to help identify the implications of the GPRA

managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process for governmentwide

implementation of GPRA. A list of our recent reports related to these issues

is at the end of this report.

We conducted our review from December 1995 to February 1997 in

Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. We obtained written comments on the draft of this

report from the Office of Management and Budget. These comments and

our evaluation are discussed on pages 17 and 18, and the OMB letter is

reprinted in appendix IV.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

OMB Did Not Select

Any Agencies as

Managerial

Accountability and

Flexibility Pilots

Of the 70 organizations participating in the performance planning and

reporting pilot phase and eligible to participate as managerial

accountability and flexibility pilots, 14—from 8 independent

agencies—submitted 61 waiver proposals to OMB. However, OMB did not

designate any of the agencies as pilots for GPRA’s managerial accountability

and flexibility provision. Figure 1 shows the results of the central

management agencies’ decisions—including OMB’s—on the 61 GPRA waiver

proposals.

Figure 1: Results of Waiver Proposals

N = 61

 Approved outside of 

GPRA - 9

Compromise 

developed - 7

Requirement 

eliminated - 5

No decision - 4

Proposal 

withdrawn - 1

Not allowable under 

GPRA - 35

Sources: OMB, GSA, OPM, and FMS data.

Of the 61 waiver proposals, OMB and the other central management

agencies found 35 not to be allowable under GPRA for statutory or other

reasons. (App. III provides a listing of the 61 waiver proposals and the

decisions of the central management agencies.) Of the remaining 26 of the

61 waiver proposals, 9 were approved by relevant central management

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

agencies using authorities existing independently of GPRA. For example,

the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) had four waiver proposals approved by

GSA outside of the GPRA pilot process under GSA’s existing authority. Also,

Treasury’s FMS granted one waiver outside of the pilot, which was initially

proposed as part of the GPRA pilot, for the Bureau of Engraving and

Printing to convert disbursements to foreign currencies through

commercial banks rather than through U.S. embassies. For an additional 7

of the 26 waiver proposals, an office in OMB developed a compromise with

the proposing agencies. The compromises generally streamlined and

expedited, but did not remove, OMB’s review and approval of agencies’

customer surveys. For 5 of the remaining 10 waiver proposals, the

requirement for which the waiver had been proposed was eliminated

through other initiatives, making a waiver unnecessary. For example,

some of the proposals asked for a waiver of requirements that GSA

eliminated for all agencies. No decisions were made on four other waiver

proposals, and one proposal was withdrawn.

These 26 waivers and compromises were not carried out under the GPRA

process because the act does not require an agency to use its provision as

the exclusive means for obtaining a waiver for an increase in managerial

flexibility. As long as the separate authority exists, GPRA does not prevent

line and central management agencies from agreeing on waivers outside of

the GPRA pilot process. Therefore, central management agencies were able

to approve these waivers and compromises under their independent

authority, even though OMB believed that the line agencies’ proposals did

not satisfy the GPRA requirements because they did not (1) show

sufficiently how the waivers would help agency performance and

(2) quantify the degree to which performance would be changed.

Of the 35 waiver proposals that OMB and the other central management

agencies found not to be allowable under the GPRA pilot, the majority, or 25

proposals, sought waivers of statutory requirements. An additional 9 of the

35 waiver proposals were not allowable because the agencies were

requesting waivers from nonstatutory requirements that the central

management agencies were not authorized to grant. The remaining

proposal was denied because granting it would contradict the central

management agency’s policy. Figure 2 shows the reasons that the 35

proposals were not allowable under GPRA.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

Figure 2: Reasons That the 35

Proposals Were Not Allowable Under

GPRA Statutory requirement - 25

Not grantable by central 

management agencies - 9

Not permissible by agency 

policy - 1

N = 35

Sources: OMB, GSA, OPM, and FMS data.

According to the information furnished by the central management

agencies, of the 25 proposals that sought waivers of statutory

requirements, 8 requested waivers of human resource requirements that

can only be waived as an OPM-designated demonstration project authorized

under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.6

An additional 9 of the 35 waiver proposals that OMB and the other central

management agencies found not to be allowable under GPRA were not

allowable because the agencies were requesting waivers from

nonstatutory requirements that the central management agencies were not

authorized to grant. Of these nine proposals, three were for waivers of

Government Printing Office printing requirements that, according to OMB,

could only be granted by the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing.

OMB could not consider granting waivers from government printing

6

Demonstration projects are meant to allow agencies to use alternative ways to implement personnel

functions, such as hiring, pay, and performance management, and to show the feasibility of the

application of these alternatives to other agencies.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

requirements since GPRA’s managerial accountability and flexibility

provision applied only to executive branch agencies, not legislative

agencies. The remaining proposal of the 35 was denied by FMS because

granting a waiver that would create the appearance of currency

speculation is not permissible by FMS policy.

Continuing Federal

Management Reform

Efforts Reduced the

Need for the GPRA

Waiver Process

Changes to federal management practices that have been undertaken since

GPRA was enacted reduced the need for the GPRA waiver mechanism.

According to agency officials both in agencies that submitted waiver

proposals and those agencies that did not, these changes in federal

management practices, in some cases, addressed the central barriers to

agencies’ improved performance. For example, as previously noted, five of

the proposals submitted to OMB sought waivers from requirements that

were eliminated for all agencies, thereby making waivers unnecessary. The

following reform efforts are examples of changes in federal management

practices that limited the use of the GPRA waiver process.

The Elimination of the

Federal Personnel Manual

OPM eliminated the Federal Personnel Manual as part of its NPR reinvention

effort in January 1994. Before its elimination, the approximately

10,000-page manual provided instructions and guidance on virtually every

facet of government employment, including a section specifying how

federal employees should label file folders. The manual’s elimination and

other initiatives were designed to provide federal managers with the

flexibility needed to (1) determine the work processes that would enhance

the agencies’ performance and ability to meet their missions and (2) hire

the staff that would best implement those work processes.

Enactment of the Federal

Workforce Restructuring

Act

About 22 percent, or 15, of the 68 organizations we contacted told us that

they had planned to seek waivers under GPRA from OMB’s administrative

controls over agencies’ FTE staffing ceilings.7

 According to officials in the

GPRA performance planning and reporting pilot agencies, FTE controls

could be barriers to improving an agency’s performance because such

controls may limit its flexibility in allocating resources in the most

efficient way possible. For example, some agencies whose costs are

covered by fees collected for services said that the FTE controls prevented

them from hiring additional staff to help improve their agencies’

performance, even though they had the funds to pay the additional staff. In

7

An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who collectively complete 2,080 work hours in

a given year. Therefore, both one full-time employee and two half-time employees equal one FTE.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

fact, GPRA specifically mentions “specification of personnel staffing levels”

as a possible area for waivers that could be available to pilot agencies.

However, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, which was enacted

after GPRA, established new FTE ceilings for the executive branch of the

federal government and required reductions in the federal workforce

totaling 272,900 FTEs by fiscal year 1999. Although the act did not set FTE

ceilings for individual agencies, an increase in the FTE levels of any one

agency would need to be met by offsetting reductions of FTEs in other

agencies. As a result, OMB concluded, at that time, that it could not manage

the governmentwide FTE reduction requirements if one or more agencies

were given the authority to exceed their FTE limits. Therefore, OMB’s

guidance discouraged agencies from seeking such waivers, and, as a

result, of the three waiver proposals requesting relief from the FTE

limitations, OMB did not approve the two proposals it received, and OPM did

not approve the one proposal it received from OMB. Officials from agencies

that did not submit any waiver proposals, as well as officials from those

agencies that did submit proposals, cited the exclusion of FTE ceilings as a

factor that limited the usefulness of the GPRA managerial accountability

and flexibility pilot process.

Agencies Used

Another Mechanism

to Obtain Some

Waivers

Since GPRA did not convey any new authority to waive rules or alter any

existing authorities, agencies were able to use another mechanism to

obtain needed managerial flexibility. Under NPR, 26 federal departments,

agencies, and other federal entities were participating in about 185 NPR

reinvention labs. The reinvention labs, like GPRA’s managerial

accountability and flexibility provisions, were to be agency-level efforts

designed to test ways agencies could improve performance and customer

service by reengineering work processes and eliminating unnecessary

regulations. Many of the waiver requests developed by the reinvention labs

were targeted at the same types of requirements that could be waived

under GPRA. From our review on the status of the reinvention labs, we

determined that about 32.4 percent, or 317, of 977 waivers that had been

requested by the labs were directed at obtaining relief from rules imposed

by central management agencies, including OMB, GSA, and OPM.

8

 Over

30 percent, or 97, of these 317 requests had been approved at the time we

did our review, and decisions on an additional 41 percent, or 130, were

pending.

8

About another 52 percent of the waiver requests were directed at agency-specific rules, while the

remaining 16 percent were directed at other sources (e.g., executive memorandums). See

GAO/GGD-96-69, page 39.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

An agency seeking a waiver generally found that it was much easier to

take another avenue, such as to become an NPR lab, than it was to obtain a

waiver under GPRA. Unlike the agencies submitting waiver proposals under

the GPRA pilot process, NPR reinvention lab agencies negotiated directly

with the central management agency that imposed a requirement, thereby

seeking relief under the management agency’s existing waiver authority

without OMB’s involvement in the process. Also, labs were not required,

before they could be approved, to show how and the degree to which their

performance would change as a result of receiving added flexibility.

Finally, labs were not required to subsequently report on the effectiveness

of their use of a waiver in improving performance and service to

customers.

OMB Contributed to

Pilot Phase’s Not

Working as Intended

by Not Actively

Working With

Agencies

OMB did not actively work with agencies on their managerial accountability

and flexibility proposals to (1) provide feedback, (2) notify the agencies of

specific concerns, or (3) provide explicit instructions, especially after it

received those waiver proposals and concluded that they did not meet

GPRA requirements. According to an OMB official, the waiver proposals did

not reflect well thought-out efforts on the part of the agencies to identify

requirements that significantly hindered their ability to achieve their

missions and goals. In addition, according to OMB, in some cases the

agencies did not adequately research the requirements from which they

were seeking waivers. As evidence, OMB pointed to the relatively large

number of requests for exemptions from statutory requirements, which are

not allowable under GPRA. OMB believed that the calculations of projected

changes in performance either were lacking or, in many instances, were of

such minimal nature as to not merit, by themselves, designating a pilot.

Overall, OMB believed that the proposals it received were generally limited

to seeking waivers from minor annoyances rather than significant barriers

to improved performance.

However, OMB also did not consistently provide feedback to the agencies

that submitted waiver proposals. Officials from all eight of the agencies

that submitted waiver proposals requested feedback from OMB. Officials

from 5 of the 8 agencies—covering 45 of the 61 waiver proposals—said

that they never received (1) feedback from OMB on the status of their

waiver proposals, (2) notification of specific concerns that OMB may have

had about the quality and scope of those proposals, or (3) explicit

guidance from OMB on how their proposals could be improved to better

meet OMB’s expectations.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

OMB believed that an aggressive effort to work with the pilot agencies to

improve the quality and scope of the proposed waivers would not have

been fruitful. On the basis of its 1994 reviews of agencies’ initial GPRA

performance plans under the performance planning and reporting GPRA

pilot phase, OMB believed that most pilot agencies had made only limited

progress in setting program goals, developing performance measures, and

managing on the basis of those goals and measures. As a result, OMB

concluded, the pilot agencies were not in a position to successfully

undertake an added step of determining whether, and the degree to which,

changes in their processes would help the agencies better achieve

program goals. OMB’s conclusion, which was made, in general, without

attempting to work with the agencies to confirm that they could not

develop more comprehensive waiver proposals, was a major factor that

led OMB not to work with the majority of the agencies to try to produce

what it would consider to be a more acceptable set of proposals.

OMB’s approach to the waiver pilot process differed significantly from its

approach to the performance planning and reporting pilot process. For

example, under the planning and reporting pilots, OMB issued a summary

assessment of the agencies’ fiscal year 1994 performance plans. This

assessment included a discussion of the plans’ strengths and weaknesses

and additional actions the agencies needed to take to improve these plans.

In addition, as of November 1996, almost 11 months after receiving the

central management agencies’ endorsements, OMB had not formally

notified two of the eight agencies that for nine of their requested waivers,

the central management agencies had either approved them outside of the

GPRA pilot process, or a compromise had been developed. Therefore, the

relevant performance pilots in these two agencies—Treasury’s Internal

Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services’

Office of Child Support Enforcement—continued to operate under the old

requirements, according to officials.

In contrast, an official at DLA said that the agency learned that it had been

granted waivers outside of the GPRA pilot process when officials

questioned OMB in June 1996, which was about 8 months after GSA

approved the waivers, about the status of their proposals. The Department

of Commerce was notified that OMB offered compromises to (1) a proposal

to allow for (but not specifically expedite) a customer service survey

clearance and (2) a proposal concerning the change of an in-house

function to a contract. However, Commerce did not believe that these

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

compromises provided the flexibility desired and decided not to

implement them.

According to OMB, it informally notified agencies when waiver proposals

were approved or compromises were developed outside of the GPRA

process. However, records of these informal contacts did not exist, and

officials in relevant agencies could not recall such informal notifications.

Some of these officials also said that they would have needed formal

approval before they would have felt comfortable varying from required

procedures.

Waiver Pilot Process

Provided Lessons for

Agencies and May

Help Them Implement

GPRA

Governmentwide

Even if no waivers were approved under the GPRA pilot process, the GPRA

waiver pilot process provided lessons for the agencies that submitted

waiver proposals. Several agencies, in preparing waiver proposals for

external requirements, found that they first had to identify (1) the burdens

and constraints that confronted their managers, which often were

primarily imposed by the agency itself and not by the requirements of

statutes or central management agencies, and (2) the authorities that were

already available. Furthermore, the relatively large number of proposals to

waive statutory requirements should be helpful to OMB in identifying

statutory barriers to agency performance. In the report of the Senate

Committee on Governmental Affairs that accompanied GPRA, OMB was

encouraged to develop a list of statutory requirements for which Congress,

in future legislation, should consider authorizing waivers.

Waiver Pilot Process

Highlighted the Need for

Agencies to Make Full Use

of Existing Authorities

The GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process showed

that agencies were not taking full advantage of existing authorities and

flexibilities. The experiences of agencies that proposed waivers

underscored the fact that the major burdens and constraints that

confronted agency managers often were imposed by the agency itself and

not by central management agencies. For example, one agency found that

most of its waiver proposals concerned requirements that its parent

department had imposed. The department and the agency have since

worked together to more fully make use of existing flexibilities. In another

example, a Department of Defense agency, in preparing its GPRA waiver

proposal, also found that most of its needed flexibilities could be granted

by Defense and did not require the approval of a central management

agency. The Department has since implemented policies and procedures

to streamline the process its components should take to obtain relief from

internally imposed requirements. The experiences of the agencies

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

proposing GPRA waivers are more broadly confirmed by our work on the

NPR reinvention labs. We reported that over half of the waivers that the

labs requested were for relief from requirements imposed by a lab’s own

agency.9

Agency managers also said that, in many cases, they were not sure which

federal management requirements they had to follow by law, regulation, or

administrative requirement. The managers said that the rapid and

significant changes to federal management practices that Congress and the

administration were making compounded their confusion. Therefore,

managers were uncertain which management practices and procedures

were imposed by their own agencies, eligible for a waiver under GPRA, or

based in statute.

Efforts that are under way as part of the administration’s PBO initiative are

to assist agencies in identifying the requirements they now face. Under the

initiative, a series of templates is being developed for selected

management areas, such as human resources management and

procurement.10 These templates are to describe for agencies the current

requirements, the authorities that currently exist for agencies, and the

procedures for obtaining additional flexibility. For example, the human

resources management template, which has been developed, has three

parts. The first part presents governmentwide interests, such as

accountability for adherence to merit system principles, that must be

maintained even as additional authorities are provided to agencies. The

second part provides a detailed discussion of the existing personnel

flexibilities and authorities. The third part discusses how OPM’s existing

authority to establish demonstration projects under the Civil Service

Reform Act of 1978 can be used as a vehicle to waive existing laws and

regulations. In fact, for 8 of the 11 GPRA waiver proposals that OPM denied

because they asked for a waiver from statutory or other requirements that

were beyond the scope of GPRA, OPM expressed its willingness to explore

with the requesting agency the possibility of creating a demonstration

project.

9

GAO/GGD-96-69, page 150.

10The PBO initiative is based on the approach that the United Kingdom has used to create and manage

its “Next Steps” agencies. For information on Next Steps and similar reform efforts, see

GAO/GGD-95-120.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

Possible Statutory Barriers

Identified in Waiver

Proposals Provide Baseline

for OMB in Developing

Future Report

The report of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that

accompanied GPRA recognized that the establishment of improved

performance levels may be inhibited because the act does not allow the

waiver of statutory requirements or controls. However, the report states

that neither the Senate Committee nor the agencies were able to identify

the specific statutory requirements or controls for which a waiver should

be considered. These unidentified requirements or controls are to be

addressed, in part, by a GPRA-required report from OMB, which is due by

May 1, 1997, on the performance planning and reporting and managerial

accountability and flexibility pilot phases of GPRA. As part of that report,

OMB is to discuss any significant difficulties that agencies experienced in

developing waiver proposals.

The Senate Committee report urged OMB to develop (1) a list of possible

statutory barriers to improved program performance that Congress may

wish to consider modifying or abolishing and (2) an analysis of the

performance benefits and other effects that legislative changes would

produce. The waiver proposals seeking relief from statutory requirements

should provide a starting point for OMB’s efforts. However, according to

OMB, it will need to undertake a significant amount of additional analysis

because the agencies requesting relief from statutory requirements did not

adequately provide an assessment of the benefits a waiver would yield.

Therefore, OMB plans to work separately with the agencies to develop this

information for its report.

Conclusion The GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilot phase did not work

as intended because it did not generate the experimental waivers from

administrative requirements that Congress sought in crafting this provision

of the act. Several factors contributed to this. For example, as recognized

when GPRA was passed, the GPRA waiver provision does not allow central

management agencies or OMB to waive statutory requirements that

agencies saw as impediments to their ability to better manage for results.

Waivers from statutory requirements were not allowable under GPRA. In

addition, line agencies were able to obtain waivers through another

avenue without meeting the GPRA requirement that agencies specify the

direct and quantifiable improvements in their performance that would

result from the proposal. Agencies’ need or opportunity for waivers also

decreased after GPRA’s enactment as the administration and Congress

initiated management reforms, such as altering personnel requirements

and adopting federal FTE ceilings, that expanded or limited the flexibilities

available to federal agencies governmentwide. Finally, in part through

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

their efforts to obtain GPRA waivers, several agencies discovered that

restrictive rules often were their own creation and that these rules could

be altered without any external waivers. The management templates now

under development should, if widely disseminated, assist managers in

identifying the requirements they face and the sources of those

requirements.

OMB did not actively work with agencies to develop waiver proposals that

it would find acceptable, which also undermined the pilot effort. For

example, OMB’s feedback to agencies was very limited, and in some cases

in which a waiver had been approved or a compromise had been

developed outside of the GPRA process, the agency was not informed. As a

result, some agencies were operating under procedures that were no

longer required.

As shown by the number of waiver proposals requesting relief from

statutory requirements, agencies continued to believe that certain

statutory requirements limited their abilities to better manage and

effectively achieve their goals and objectives. The Senate Committee on

Governmental Affairs recognized the possibility that statutory barriers to

better program management exist, and, therefore, encouraged OMB to

include in its May 1997 report a list of statutes for which Congress should

consider authorizing waivers. The requirements identified in agencies’

waiver proposals provide a useful starting point for that effort.

Recommendation to

the Director of OMB

For those GPRA waiver proposals that a central management agency has

approved or for which a compromise has been developed, we recommend

that the Director of OMB formally notify the relevant agency of the waiver

approval or proposed compromise so that the new flexibilities, if still

available, can begin to be used.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We requested comments on the draft of this report from the Director of

OMB or his designee. On February 27, 1997, the Deputy Director for

Management provided us with comments on the draft. In general, OMB

found our review to be a useful resource as the agency prepares its own

report to Congress on the GPRA pilot projects and confirmed that the

managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process had yielded some

useful lessons. OMB generally agreed with the draft report’s content and

recommendation and, as a result, plans to send letters to the participating

agencies notifying them of the status of their waiver proposals.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
B-275511 

OMB also elaborated on the reasons that it did not designate any pilots from

the waiver proposals it received, noting that many of them were narrow or

applied to entities too small to have a demonstrable effect on

performance. In retrospect, according to OMB, the managerial

accountability and flexibility pilots may have followed too closely on the

heels of the performance measurement pilots to permit a meaningful—and

required—relationship between the two sets of GPRA pilots. As noted in

this report, we did not assess the final waiver determinations made by OMB

and the other central management agencies or whether waiver proposals

should or should not have been approved. However, we did note that OMB’s

approach to the waiver pilot process differed significantly from its

approach to the performance planning and reporting pilot process. Under

the planning and reporting pilots, OMB issued a summary assessment of the

agencies’ fiscal year 1994 performance plans. This assessment included a

discussion of the plans’ strengths and weaknesses and additional actions

the agencies needed to take to improve these plans. Finally, OMB suggested

additional information, such as the quality of OMB’s initial guidance to

agencies on the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process,

that would, in OMB’s view, make the report more useful. However, we did

not include this information because our review was not designed to

collect this systematically.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of

Congress; the Director and Deputy Director of OMB; officials at FMS, GSA,

and OPM; officials at GPRA pilot agencies; and other interested parties. We

also will make copies available to others on request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Please contact

me at (202) 512-8676 if you have any questions concerning this report.

L. Nye Stevens

Director, Federal Management and

 Workforce Issues

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Overview of the

Government

Performance and

Results Act

22

Appendix II 

Performance Pilots

Eligible to Participate

in Managerial

Accountability and

Flexibility Pilot

24

Appendix III 

Central Management

Agencies’

Determinations on 61

Waivers Requested by

14 Organizations

28

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Office of Management

and Budget

34

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

37

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Contents

Related GAO Products 40

Figures Figure 1: Results of Waiver Proposals 7

Figure 2: Reasons That the 35 Proposals Were Not Allowable

Under GPRA

9

Abbreviations

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

FMS Financial Management Service

FTE full-time equivalent

GPO Government Printing Office

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GSA General Services Administration

IRS Internal Revenue Service

NPR National Performance Review

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PBO Performance Based Organization

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix I 

Overview of the Government Performance

and Results Act

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is the primary

legislative framework through which agencies will be required to set

strategic goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to which

goals were met. It requires federal agencies to develop, no later than the

end of fiscal year 1997, strategic plans that cover a period of at least 5

years and that include the agency’s mission statement; identify the

agency’s long-term strategic goals; and describe how the agency intends to

achieve those goals through its activities and through its human, capital,

information, and other resources. Under GPRA, agency strategic plans are

the starting point for agencies to set annual goals for programs and to

measure the performance of the programs in achieving those goals.

Also, GPRA requires each agency to submit to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB), beginning for fiscal year 1999, an annual performance

plan. The first annual performance plans are to be submitted in the fall of

1997. The annual performance plan is to provide the direct linkage

between the strategic goals outlined in the agency’s strategic plan and

what managers and employees do day to day. In essence, this plan is to

contain the annual performance goals the agency will use to gauge its

progress toward accomplishing its strategic goals and to identify the

performance measures the agency will use to assess its progress. Also, OMB

will use agencies’ individual performance plans to develop an overall

federal government performance plan that OMB is to submit annually to

Congress with the president’s budget, beginning for fiscal year 1999.

GPRA requires that each agency submit an annual report to the president

and to the appropriate authorization and appropriations committees of

Congress on performance for the previous fiscal year (copies are to be

provided to other congressional committees and to the public upon

request). The first of these reports, on performance for fiscal year 1999, is

due by March 31, 2000, and subsequent reports are due by March 31 for the

years that follow. However, the report for fiscal year 2001 is also to

include actual results for the preceding 2 fiscal years, and the report for

fiscal year 2002 and all subsequent reports are to include actual results for

the preceding 3 fiscal years.

In crafting GPRA, Congress also recognized that managerial accountability

for results is linked to managers’ having sufficient flexibility, discretion,

and authority to accomplish desired results. GPRA authorizes agencies to

apply for managerial flexibility waivers in their annual performance plans

beginning with fiscal year 1999.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix I 

Overview of the Government Performance

and Results Act

The authority of agencies to request waivers of administrative procedural

requirements and controls is intended to provide federal managers with

more flexibility to structure agency systems to better support program

goals. An example of increased flexibility would be to allow an

organization to recapture unspent operating funds because of increased

efficiencies and then to use these funds to purchase new equipment or

expand employee training. Another example might involve delegating

more authority to line managers to make procurement decisions. Agencies

must report in their annual performance reports on the use and

effectiveness of any GPRA managerial flexibility waivers that they receive.

GPRA calls for phased implementation so that selected pilot projects in the

agencies can develop experience from implementing its requirements in

fiscal years 1994 through 1996 before implementation is required for all

agencies. As of January 1996, of the 77 pilot projects for performance

planning and performance reporting originally designated by OMB, about 68

were still under way across most major federal agencies. OMB also was

required to select at least five agencies from among the initial pilot

agencies to pilot managerial accountability and flexibility for fiscal years

1995 and 1996.

Finally, GPRA requires OMB to select at least five agencies, at least three of

which have had experience developing performance plans during the

initial GPRA pilot phase, to test performance budgeting for fiscal years 1998

and 1999. Performance budgets to be prepared by pilot projects for

performance budgeting are intended to provide Congress with information

on the direct relationship between proposed program spending and

expected program results and the anticipated effects of varying spending

levels on results.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix II 

Performance Pilots Eligible to Participate in

Managerial Accountability and Flexibility

Pilot

Performance planning and reporting pilot

Fiscal year organization was

designated a performance

planning and reporting pilot

Department of Agriculture:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service—agricultural quarantine inspection

program

1994

Cooperative Extension Service—selected national

initiatives

1994

Farmers Home Administration—single family

housing program

1994

Forest Service 1994

Natural Resources Conservation

Service—conservation operations programs

1995

Office of Civil Rights Enforcement 1994

Office of Communications 1994

Packers and Stockyards Administration—scales

and weighing operations

1995

Department of Commerce :

Census Bureau, Patent and Trademark Office, and

National Technical Information

Service—information dissemination

1994

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration

1994

Department of Defense:

Air Force Air Combat Command 1995

Army Research Laboratory 1995

Corps of Engineers—civil works operation and

maintenance program

1995

Defense Commissary Agency 1995

Defense Logistics Agency 1994

Department of Education:

Office of Postsecondary Education—student

financial assistance programs

1994

Department of Energy:

Energy Information Administration 1995

Morgantown Energy Technology Center 1994

Oak Ridge National Laboratory—technology

partnership/transfer program

1995

Office of Defense Programs—non-nuclear

component production

1994

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 1994

(continued)

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix II 

Performance Pilots Eligible to Participate in

Managerial Accountability and Flexibility

Pilot

Performance planning and reporting pilot

Fiscal year organization was

designated a performance

planning and reporting pilot

Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management

1994

Department of Health and Human Services:

Child Support Enforcement Program 1994

Food and Drug Administration—prescription drug

program

1995

Department of Housing and Urban Development:

Office of the Chief Financial

Officer—departmentwide debt collection

1994

Department of the Interior:

Bureau of Indian Affairs—forestry and ecosystem

restoration in the Pacific Northwest program

1995

Fish and Wildlife Service—North American

waterfowl management program

1994

Geological Survey—national water quality

assessment program

1995

Minerals Management Service—royalty

management program

1994

Department of Justice:

Federal Bureau of Investigation—DRUGFIRE

program

1994

Federal Bureau of Investigation—national name

check program

1994

Federal Bureau of Investigation—organized

crime/drug program

1994

Federal Bureau of Investigation—property

procurement and management

1994

Federal Bureau of Prisons—program review

division

1994

Office of Debt Collection

Management—nationwide central intake facility

1994

Weed and Seed Program—new sites 1995

Department of Labor:

Employment Training Administration—economic

dislocation and worker adjustment assistance and

trade adjustment assistance programs

1994

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1994

Department of State:

Bureau of Diplomatic Security—investigative

functions

1995

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs—business

and trade promotion

1995

(continued)

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix II 

Performance Pilots Eligible to Participate in

Managerial Accountability and Flexibility

Pilot

Performance planning and reporting pilot

Fiscal year organization was

designated a performance

planning and reporting pilot

Department of Transportation:

Federal Aviation Administration—airway facilities 1994

Federal Highway Administration—Federal Lands

Highway Organization

1994

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1994

United States Coast Guard—marine safety,

security, and environmental protection

1994

Department of the Treasury:

Bureau of Engraving and Printing 1994

Internal Revenue Service 1994

United States Customs Service—office of

enforcement

1994

United States Mint 1994

Department of Veterans Affairs:

National Cemetery System 1994

Veterans Benefits Administration—loan guaranty

operations

1994

Veterans Benefits Administration—New York

regional office

1994

Agency for International Development:a

Sustainable development activities 1995

Environmental Protection Agency:

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program 1995

Federal Emergency Management Agency:

Emergency Management Information Systems 1995

General Services Administration:

Information Resources Management

Service—procurement of micro-computer

workstations and related software

1994

Public Buildings Service—real estate activities 1994

National Science Foundation:

Education and Training Program Evaluation 1994

Electronic Proposals 1994

High Performance Computing and Communication

Program

1994

Science and Technology Centers 1994

Specialized Research Facilities 1994

Office of Personnel Management:

Retirement Adjudication Division 1995

(continued)

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix II 

Performance Pilots Eligible to Participate in

Managerial Accountability and Flexibility

Pilot

Performance planning and reporting pilot

Fiscal year organization was

designated a performance

planning and reporting pilot

Small Business Administration 1994

Social Security Administration 1994

Federal Communications Commission:

Authorization of Service function 1994

Merit Systems Protection Board:

Adjudication and Alternative Dispute Resolution in

Appellate Cases

1994

National Archives and Records Administration:

Federal Records Center program 1994

Railroad Retirement Board:

Bureau of Survivor Benefits—survivor claims

processing

1994

Tennessee Valley Authority:a

Water Management 1994

National Endowment for the Humanities:

Office of Publications and Public Affairs 1995

aThis agency could not identify a knowledgeable official for us to interview.

Source: OMB.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix III 

Central Management Agencies’

Determinations on 61 Waivers Requested by

14 Organizations

Central management agency determination

Agency/Number of

waiver requests Waiver description Agency

Waiver

decision Reason for waiver denial

Department of Commerce:

National

Technical

Information

Service

(2 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirements related to federal

credit programs and collection of

nontaxable receivables

FMS No decision Not applicable

Waiver of requirement for OMB approval

of customer surveys

OMB Compromise

developed,

no need for

waiver

Not applicable

Patent and

Trademark

Office

(3 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirement to complete a study

before converting an in-house function to

one performed under contract

OMB Compromise

developed,

no need for

waiver

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements mandating the use

of GSA schedules for purchase of items

GSA Denied GSA cannot grant waiver since

schedules are contractual

requirements that would be breached

if waiver request were granted

Waiver of requirements inhibiting the use

of a special occupational pay system

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

Department of Defense:

Defense

Logistics

Agency

(7 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirement for bidder

inspection before selling excess property

GSA Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirement to use Standard

Form 114C when selling excess property

GSA Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements that prevent DLA

from charging sales preparation expenses

to the recipient of federally transferred or

donated property

GSA Denied GSA cannot grant a waiver from the

Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949

Waiver of requirement limiting authority for

negotiated sales of property to sales of

$15,000 or less, and for negotiated firm

fixed price sales of property to sales of

$25,000 or less

GSA Denied GSA cannot grant a waiver from the

Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949

(continued)

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix III 

Central Management Agencies’

Determinations on 61 Waivers Requested by

14 Organizations

Central management agency determination

Agency/Number of

waiver requests Waiver description Agency

Waiver

decision Reason for waiver denial

Waiver of requirement to give public

notice of property that is about to be

abandoned or destroyed

GSA Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirement to prepare an

Analysis of Alternatives and Market

Survey before purchasing ADP equipment

from a DLA or interagency contract using

delivery order

GSA Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirement that limits DLA from

selling property (valued at $15,000 or

less) back to the original equipment

manufacturer, at negotiated prices rather

than original dollar value, when such

property cannot be resold elsewhere

GSA Denied GSA cannot waive dollar limitation on

negotiated sales per the Federal

Property Act

Department of Energy:

Morgantown

Energy

Technology

Center

(4 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirement to establish

qualified manufacturer lists and product

lists

GSA Requirement

eliminated,

no need for

a waiver

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements hindering the

ability to direct hire employees

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

Waiver of requirements related to the

procedures and sequence of actions to

be followed before terminating a poorly

performing employee

OPM Requirements

eliminated,

no need for

a waiver

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements related to the

donation of surplus property to public

agencies and eligible nonprofit agencies

GSA Requirements

eliminated,

no need for

a waiver

Not applicable

Department of Health and Human Services:

Office of Child

Support

Enforcement

(1 waiver

request)

Waiver of OMB approval of proposed data

collection and reporting effort

OMB Compromise

developed,

no need for

waiver

Not applicable

Department of Transportation:

Federal Aviation

Administration

(1 waiver

request)

Waiver of requirements that preclude

establishing a new performance appraisal

system

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix III 

Central Management Agencies’

Determinations on 61 Waivers Requested by

14 Organizations

Central management agency determination

Agency/Number of

waiver requests Waiver description Agency

Waiver

decision Reason for waiver denial

National

Highway Traffic

Safety

Administration

(3 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirements limiting the ability

to conduct customer surveys

OMB Compromise

developed,

no need for

waiver

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements mandating that

printing be done through the Government

Printing Office (GPO)

OMB Denied OMB does not have the authority to

grant waivers from GPO requirements

Waiver of requirements impeding the

agency from negotiating and contracting

directly with 8a firms

OMB Denied Small Business Administration

requirements are statutory

Department of the Treasury:

Internal

Revenue

Service (IRS)

(16 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirements specifying

UNICOR (Federal Prisons Industries) as a

source for procuring system furniture

GSA Denied Mechanism to obtain relief from

mandatory requirements of UNICOR

requires a petition to the Department

of Justice for clearance

Waiver of requirements impeding IRS and

state tax agencies from being housed in

the same building

GSA Denied GSA is mandated by law to provide

space and related services to federal

activities

Waiver of selected requirements that

prolong the awarding of Outside Fee

Appraisal contracts

GSA No decision Not applicable

Waiver of requirements providing for

procurement and legal office review of

uses of commercial/vendor equipment or

software for no-cost test/evaluation

purposes

GSA No decision Not applicable

Waiver of requirement prescribing that

GSA issue a negative availability

statement before obtaining commercial

lease authority for an indefinite

assignment lease for multiple motor

vehicles

GSA Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirement that IRS report on

GSA-leased vehicles in annual energy

report

GSA No decision Not applicable

Waiver of requirement that a government

bill-of-lading be used when using small

carriers for shipments greater than $250

GSA Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirement that envelopes be

purchased through GSA

GSA Requirement

eliminated,

no need for

a waiver

Not applicable

(continued)

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix III 

Central Management Agencies’

Determinations on 61 Waivers Requested by

14 Organizations

Central management agency determination

Agency/Number of

waiver requests Waiver description Agency

Waiver

decision Reason for waiver denial

Waiver of requirement precluding IRS

from charging fees after service is

rendered or product is delivered

OMB Denied Granting of this waiver would be in

violation of the Budget Enforcement

Act

Waiver of requirement for clearance of

surveys and focus groups, particularly

those related to completion rates, and

honoraria caps

OMB Compromise

developed,

no need for

waiver

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements preventing release

of Standard Form 52 directly into the

automated personnel system

OPM Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirement to reduce internal

regulations by 50 percent by 1996

OMB Denied OMB does not have the authority to

waive executive order requirements

Waiver of requirement that OMB approve

all form revisions, including minor ones

OMB Compromise

developed,

no need for

waiver

Not applicable

Waiver for biennial GSA approval for

monitoring incoming customer calls

GSA Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of competition requirements under

Federal Acquisition Regulations for all

items under $25,000

GSA Denied GSA cannot grant waiver since

competition requirements are statutory

Waiver of requirement to use GPO for

printing

OMB Denied OMB does not have authority to grant

waivers from GPO requirements

U.S. Mint

(8 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirements specifying

external review of small business

set-aside decisions

GSA Denied Small Business Administration has

denied waiver with GSA concurrence

Waiver of requirements for processing

service contract wage determinations

GSA Denied GSA does not have the authority to

grant the waiver (authority belongs to

the Secretary of Labor)

Waiver of requirement for separate equal

employment opportunity clearances for

recurring contracts with the same

contractor

GSA Denied GSA does not have the authority to

grant the waiver (authority belongs to

the Secretary of Labor)

Waiver of FTE ceilings OMB Denied OMB cannot grant waivers from the

Federal Workforce Restructuring Act

Waiver of budget object class and budget

activity controls

OMB Denied Statutory requirements mandate

information in budget by object class

Waiver of budget obligation accounting

and reporting requirements for

Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund

OMB Denied Statutory requirements mandate

accounting and reporting by fund

(continued)

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix III 

Central Management Agencies’

Determinations on 61 Waivers Requested by

14 Organizations

Central management agency determination

Agency/Number of

waiver requests Waiver description Agency

Waiver

decision Reason for waiver denial

Waiver of limitations on conducting

customer surveys without prior OMB

approval

OMB Compromise

developed,

no waiver

needed

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements inhibiting the Mint

from using term appointment employees

other than those on OPM registers

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

Bureau of

Engraving and

Printing

(10 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirement specifying travel

voucher must be submitted after travel is

complete

GSA Denied GSA cannot grant waiver because of

statutory requirement in Title 31,

U.S.C., which mandates that all

claims against the government must

be in writing, and requires

submission of a voucher

Waiver of FTE ceiling OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waivers from the

Federal Workforce Restructuring Act

Waiver of requirement to report by budget

object class and for obligation accounting/

reporting

OMB Denied Statutory requirements mandate

information in budget by object class

Waiver of requirements covering the

lengths of appointment and benefits

available to temporary employees

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

Waiver of requirements inhibiting agency

from receiving direct-hire authority

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

Waiver of requirements impeding the

establishment of pay-banding for general

schedule employees

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

Waiver of requirements specifying that

personnel performance appraisal systems

have a minimum of three rating levels for

each critical element and three summary

rating levels for each critical element and

three summary rating levels, thus

precluding introduction of a “pass/fail”

system

OPM Requirement

eliminated,

no need for

a waiver

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements that all foreign

disbursements be processed through the

Department of State

FMS Approved

outside of

the GPRA

pilot

process

Not applicable

Waiver of requirements impeding the

ability to purchase insurance against

negative fluctuations in exchange rates

when contracting with foreign vendors

FMS Denied FMS cannot grant the waiver since its

policy does not allow granting

waivers that would create the

appearance of currency speculation,

thereby contravening Treasury

Financial Manual section 9050.10

(continued)

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix III 

Central Management Agencies’

Determinations on 61 Waivers Requested by

14 Organizations

Central management agency determination

Agency/Number of

waiver requests Waiver description Agency

Waiver

decision Reason for waiver denial

Waiver of requirements precluding the

Bureau from using accumulated cash to

make short-term investments in

government securities

FMS Denied Denied under Title 31, U.S.C., section

5142

U.S. Customs

Service (1

waiver request)

Waiver of FTE ceiling OMB Denied OMB cannot grant waivers from the

Federal Workforce Restructuring Act

Department of Veterans Affairs:

New York

Regional

Office

(3 waiver

requests)

Waiver of requirement prescribing an

evaluation/approval timeline for personnel

compensation demonstration projects

OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver under

Chapter 47, Title 5, U.S.C., except

under demonstration project authority

Waiver of requirement mandating the use

of GSA contract guard service in federal

office buildings

GSA Waiver

withdrawn

Not applicable

Waiver of requirement that employee W-2

forms be adjusted to reflect the use of

government vehicles by employees

conducting government business

OMB Denied OMB does not have the authority to

grant waivers from statutory

requirements

Benefits

Administration

(1 waiver

request)

Waiver of administrative costs definition to

allow for certain costs to be categorized

as program costs

OMB Denied Granting this waiver would be in

violation of the Budget Enforcement

Act

National

Endowment for

the Humanities

(1 waiver

request)

Waiver of requirement to use GPO for

printing

OMB Denied OMB does not have the authority to

grant waivers from GPO requirements

Note: Fifteen organizations in eight agencies submitted waiver proposals to OMB. One

managerial accountability and flexibility nominee—the Department of Health and Human

Services’ Bureau of Health Professions—was ineligible since it had not been previously

designated as a performance pilot. Two other organizations—the Department of Commerce’s

Patent and Trademark Office and the National Technical Information Service—submitted

individual waiver proposals for the same pilot—Department of Commerce’s Information

Dissemination.

Sources: Data from OMB, GSA, FMS, and OPM.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

Page 36 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Michael Brostek, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce

 Issues, (202) 512-9039

J. Christopher Mihm, Assistant Director, (202) 512-3236

Joseph L. Santiago, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7813

Marshall W. Barrett

Thomas M. Beall

Kathleen M. Peyman

Kiki Theodoropoulos

Page 37 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Page 38 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Page 39 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Related GAO Products

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and Executive

Branch Decisionmaking (GAO/T-GGD-97-43, Feb. 12, 1997).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

Acquisition Reform: Regulatory Implementation of the Federal Acquisition

Streamlining Act of 1994 (GAO/NSIAD-96-139, June 28, 1996).

Management Reform: Completion Status of Agency Actions Under the

National Performance Review (GAO/GGD-96-94, June 12, 1996).

Paperwork Reduction: Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to be Met

(GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-186, June 5, 1996).

Management Reform: Status of Agency Reinvention Lab Efforts

(GAO/GGD-96-69, Mar. 20, 1996).

Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong

Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).

GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).

Managing for Results: Status of the Government Performance and Results

Act (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27, 1995).

Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal

Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995).

Government Reform: Goal-Setting and Performance (GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-130R,

Mar. 27, 1995).

Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights for Federal

Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, Dec. 21, 1994).

Management Reform: Implementation of the National Performance

Review’s Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, 1994).

(410007) Page 40 GAO/GGD-97-36 Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100