INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Agencies Need to 

Strengthen Oversight 

of Billions of Dollars 

in Operations and 

Maintenance 

Investments

Report to the Subcommittee on Federal 

Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services, and 

International Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental

Affairs, U.S. Senate

October 2012

GAO-13-87

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-87, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 

Government Information, Federal Services, and 

International Security, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

October 2012

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Agencies Need to Strengthen Oversight of Billions of 

Dollars in Operations and Maintenance Investments

Why GAO Did This Study

Of the $79 billion federal agencies 

budgeted for IT in 2011, $54 billion

(about 69 percent) was reported to 

have been spent on the operations and 

maintenance of existing legacy IT 

systems—commonly referred to as

steady state investments. Given the 

size and magnitude of these 

investments, it is essential that 

agencies effectively manage them to 

ensure they continue to meet agency 

needs. As such, OMB directs agencies 

to periodically examine the 

performance of such investments 

against, among other things, 

established cost, schedule, and 

performance goals by performing 

annual OAs. 

GAO was asked to determine the 

extent to which federal agencies 

analyze the performance of steady 

state investments in accordance with 

OMB guidance. To do so, GAO (1) 

selected five agencies, DOD, HHS, 

DHS, Treasury, and VA, which 

reported spending $4.6 billion annually 

on major steady state investments; and 

(2) and compared their fiscal year 2011 

OAs to OMB criteria. GAO also

analyzed documents and interviewed 

agency officials regarding any 

variances as well as their causes.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that DOD, 

Treasury, and VA develop an OA policy 

and conduct annual OAs; and that DHS 

and HHS ensure OAs are being 

performed for all investments and that 

all factors are fully assessed. GAO is 

also recommending that OMB revise its 

guidance to incorporate mechanisms to 

ensure OAs are completed and provide 

for increased transparency. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, 

OMB and the five agencies GAO

reviewed agreed with its content and 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

Federal agency assessments of the performance of information technology (IT) 

investments in operations and maintenance (O&M)—commonly referred to as 

operational analyses (OAs)—vary significantly. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance calls for agencies to develop an OA policy and perform such 

analyses annually to ensure steady state investments continue to meet agency 

needs. The guidance also includes 17 key factors (addressing areas such as cost, 

schedule, customer satisfaction, and innovation) that are to be assessed. The five 

agencies GAO reviewed varied in the extent to which they carried out these tasks. 

The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services 

(HHS) developed a policy which included all OMB assessment factors and 

performed OAs. However, they did not include all investments and key factors. In 

particular, DHS analyzed 16 of its 44 steady state investments, meaning 28 

investments with annual budgets totaling $1 billion were not analyzed; HHS 

analyzed 7 of its 8 steady state investments. For OAs performed by DHS and 

HHS, both fully addressed approximately half of the key factors. With regard to the 

DHS and HHS investments that did not undergo an analysis or were not fully 

assessed against key factors, agency officials said this was due in part to program 

officials inconsistently applying OMB and agency guidance in conducting OAs and 

that OAs were not a priority. DHS and HHS have recently begun to take action to 

make OAs a priority and improve consistency. For example, DHS’s chief 

information officer recently issued a directive requiring all steady state IT 

investments to conduct analyses annually and plans to assign staff in the office of 

the chief information officer to review them to ensure they are complete.

The Departments of Defense (DOD), the Treasury (Treasury), and Veterans 

Affairs (VA) did not develop a policy and did not perform analyses on their 23 

major steady state investments with annual budgets totaling $2.1 billion. DOD and

VA officials said that they did not have a policy or perform analyses because they 

measure the performance of steady state investments via development of plans 

and business cases submitted to OMB (called exhibit 300s) as part of the budget 

process. While these can be helpful in managing performance and do address 

aspects of the 17 key factors, they do not address 11 of the key factors. For 

example, the exhibit 300 does not address reviewing strategic business results 

and making recommendations to modify or terminate an investment. Treasury 

officials stated that they did not to perform OAs in 2011 and instead decided to 

use the time to develop a policy. However, the officials stated that they did not 

anticipate the policy to be completed until the end of this calendar year. 

Overall, these five agencies have steady state investments with a fiscal year 2011 

budget of over $3 billion which have not undergone needed analyses. While OMB 

requires agencies to perform OAs, its existing guidance does not provide 

mechanisms that ensure the OAs are completed and allow public transparency 

into the results of the assessments. Until agencies address these shortcomings, 

there is increased risk that these agencies will not know whether the multibillion

dollar investments fully meet their intended objectives.

View GAO-13-87. For more information, 

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

pownerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Letter 1 

Background 2

Federal Agencies’ Assessments of Major IT Steady State 

Investments Vary Significantly 7

Conclusions 17

Recommendations for Executive Action 18

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 18

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 21

Appendix II Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s OAs Addressed Key Factors 23 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 47 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 49 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of the Treasury 51 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 52 

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 54

Tables

Table 1: Total Reported Federal IT Spending by the 26 Key 

Agencies for Fiscal Year 2011 (in millions), in Descending 

Order of O&M Spending 3

Table 2: Total Steady State IT Investments, and Number of 

Investments for Five Agencies That Had OAs and Did Not 

Have OAs with Cost (in millions) 8

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 3: Extent to Which DHS Steady State IT Investments 

Underwent OAs in Fiscal Year 2011 (by Component and 

Cost in Millions) 10

Table 4: Extent to Which HHS Steady State IT Investments 

Underwent OAs in Fiscal Year 2011 (by Component and 

Cost in Millions) 12

Table 5: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Analysis of Extent to 

Which Infrastructure’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors 23

Table 6: Office of the Chief Information Officer: Analysis of Extent 

to Which Homeland Secure Data Network’s Fiscal Year 

2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 24

Table 7: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Disaster Management E-Government 

Initiative’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key 

Factors 25

Table 8: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Integrated Financial Management 

Information System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB 

Key Factors 26

Table 9: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Intelligence Fusion System’s Fiscal Year 

2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 27

Table 10: National Protection and Programs Directorate: Analysis 

of Extent to Which National Security and Emergency 

Preparedness Priority Telecommunication Services’s 

Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 28

Table 11: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Federal Air Marshal Service Mission 

Scheduling and Notification System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA 

Addressed OMB Key Factors 29

Table 12: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Federal Air Marshal Service Network’s 

Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 30

Table 13: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat 

Assessment Program’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors 31

Table 14: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Information Technology Infrastructure 

Program’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key 

Factors 32
Page iii GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 15: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Secure Flight’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA 

Addressed OMB Key Factors 33

Table 16: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Coast 

Guard Business Intelligence’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA 

Addressed OMB Key Factors 34

Table 17: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Core 

Accounting System Suite’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors 35

Table 18: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Direct 

Access’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 36

Table 19: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Marine 

Information for Safety and Law Enforcement’s Fiscal Year 

2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 37

Table 20: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Immigration Computer Linked 

Application Information Management System’s Fiscal Year 

2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 38

Table 21: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Analysis of 

Extent to Which National Select Agency Registry’s Fiscal 

Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 40

Table 22: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Beneficiary e-Services’s Fiscal Year 2011 

OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 41

Table 23: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Analysis of 

Extent to Which Health Care Quality Improvement and 

Evaluation System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB 

Key Factors 42

Table 24: Health Resources and Services Administration: Analysis 

of Extent to Which Electronic Handbooks Program 

Management Office’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB 

Key Factors 43

Table 25: Health Resources and Services Administration: Analysis 

of Extent to Which National Practitioner Data Bank’s 

Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors 44

Table 26: Indian Health Service: Analysis of Extent to Which 

Infrastructure, Office Automation, and 

Telecommunications’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors 45

Table 27: National Institutes of Health: Analysis of Extent to Which 

Business Intelligence System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA 

Addressed OMB Key Factors 46 
Page iv GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Figure

Figure 1: Percentages of Total IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2011 

and 2012 for the 26 Key Federal Agencies 3

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer

DOD Department of Defense

DHS Department of Homeland Security

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IT information technology

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OA operational analysis 

O&M operations and maintenance

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Treasury Department of the Treasury

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

October 16, 2012

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Scott P. Brown

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services, and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

In fiscal year 2011, 26 key federal agencies reported spending 

approximately $79 billion on information technology (IT) systems to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB).1

OMB directs agencies to periodically examine the performance of these 

investments against, among other things, established cost, schedule, and 

performance goals. Specifically, OMB calls for agencies to perform 

annual operational analyses (OA), which is a key method for examining 

the performance of such investments in O&M. 

Of the $79 billion, $54 billion 

was reported by the agencies to be spent on operations and maintenance 

(O&M), which consists of existing legacy systems (i.e., steady state) and 

systems that are in both development and O&M (known as mixed life 

cycle). Given the size and magnitude of these investments, it is important 

that agencies effectively manage the operations and maintenance of 

existing investments to ensure they (1) continue to meet agency needs, 

(2) deliver value, and (3) do not unnecessarily duplicate or overlap with 

other investments. 

As requested, our objective was to determine the extent to which federal 

agencies assess the performance of steady state IT investments in 

 

1

The 26 federal departments and agencies that report to OMB on their IT investments are 

the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and 

Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, 

Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection 

Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

National Archives and Records Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business 

Administration, Smithsonian Institution, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Agency 

for International Development.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

accordance with this OMB guidance. To do so, we selected five agencies, 

the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), 

Homeland Security (DHS), the Treasury (Treasury), and Veterans Affairs 

(VA), which have the largest budgets for major steady state IT 

investments, accounting for approximately $37 billion annually or about 

70 percent of all reported O&M spending in fiscal year 2011. In doing this 

we focused on these agencies’ 75 major IT investments valued at $4.6 

billion annually that were strictly in the O&M phase (i.e., excluded mixed 

cycle investments). We determined whether the agencies developed OA 

policies in accordance with OMB guidance. We also determined whether 

these agencies were conducting OAs to manage these investments. More 

specifically, we reviewed all of these agencies’ OAs performed during 

fiscal year 2011 and compared them to OMB and related criteria. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

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

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objective. Details on our objective, 

scope, and methodology are contained in appendix I.

In fiscal year 2011, the 26 key federal agencies that report to OMB on 

their IT investments reported spending approximately $79 billion on a 

wide variety of IT systems. Of this amount, agencies reported spending 

$54 billion on O&M for existing steady state investments; they plan on 

spending about $53 billion in fiscal year 2012. As shown in figure 1, these 

amounts represent a significant majority (i.e., 69 and 71 percent) of the 

overall reported IT spending in 2011 ($79 billion) and that planned for 

2012 ($75 billion), respectively. 

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Figure 1: Percentages of Total IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 for the 26 

Key Federal Agencies

Although O&M spending governmentwide is about 70 percent of total IT 

spending, the amount spent by each agency varies from a high of 98 

percent to a low of 45 percent (as shown in the table below). 

Table 1: Total Reported Federal IT Spending by the 26 Key Agencies for Fiscal Year 2011 (in millions), in Descending Order of 

O&M Spending

Agency Total Development O&M O&M percentage of total spending

Department of Defensea $37,120 $13,896 $23,224 62.6

Department of Health and Human Services 7,030 1,721 5,309 75.5

Department of Homeland Security 5,987 1,631 4,356 72.8

Department of the Treasury 3,419 553 2,866 83.8

Department of Veterans Affairs 3,193 980 2,213 69.3

Department of Agriculture 2,504 409 2,095 83.7

Department of Justice 2,991 978 2,013 67.3

Department of Energy 1,998 266 1,732 86.7

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1,777 173 1,604 90.2

Department of Commerce 2,337 840 1,496 64.0

Department of Transportation 2,926 1,613 1,313 44.9

Department of State 1,400 94 1,306 93.3

Department of the Interior 1,028 132 896 87.2

Social Security Administration 1,471 727 743 50.5

Department of Labor 607 113 495 81.5

General Services Administration 599 106 493 82.4

Department of Education 580 97 483 83.3

Environmental Protection Agency 467 76 391 83.7
 

Page 4 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Agency Total Development O&M O&M percentage of total spending

Department of Housing and Urban Development 546 210 336 61.6

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 153 18 136 88.5

U.S. Agency for International Development 145 31 115 78.9

Small Business Administration 122 19 103 84.2

National Science Foundation 95 12 82 86.9

National Archives and Records Administration 143 70 73 51.1

Office of Personnel Management 79 10 69 86.8

Smithsonian Institution 66 4 62 94.1

Total $78,784 $24,779 $54,005 68.5%

Source: GAO analysis based on OMB data.

a While the Army Corps of Engineers submits information on its IT investments to OMB separate from 

the Department of Defense’s submission, we have included it here as part of the Department of 

Defense.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reported 

spending approximately 90 percent of its total IT spending on O&M with 

the remaining 10 percent going to new investments. The reason for this 

mix of spending, according to NASA officials, is due to NASA’s mission 

(i.e., the space shuttle mission) which relies heavily on legacy systems. 

By contrast, the Department of Transportation reported spending 

approximately 45 percent of its total IT costs on O&M with the other 55 

percent going to new investments. According to department officials, this 

mix of spending is largely due to the fact that the department has a 

number of IT development investments underway that involve large 

financial commitments relative to O&M investments. 

To assist agencies in managing their investments, Congress enacted the 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which requires OMB to establish processes to 

analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital 

investments in information systems made by federal agencies and report 

to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as a 

result of these investments.2

 

2

40 U.S.C. § 11302(c). 

Further, the act places responsibility for 

managing investments with the heads of agencies and establishes chief 

information officers to advise and assist agency heads in carrying out this 

responsibility. 

OMB’s Roles and 

Responsibilities 

for Overseeing IT 

Investments, 

Including Operations and 

Maintenance
 

Page 5 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

In carrying out its responsibilities, OMB uses several data collection 

mechanisms to oversee federal IT spending during the annual budget 

formulation process. Specifically, OMB requires 26 key federal 

departments and agencies to provide information to it related to their IT 

investments (called exhibit 53s) and capital asset plans and business 

cases (called exhibit 300s).3

• Exhibit 53. The purpose of the exhibit 53 is to identify all IT investments—

both major and nonmajor4

• Exhibit 300. The purpose of the exhibit 300 is to provide a business case 

for each major IT investment and to allow OMB to monitor IT investments 

once they are funded. Agencies are required to provide information on 

each major investment’s cost, schedule, and performance. 

—and their associated costs within a federal 

organization. Information included on agency exhibit 53s is designed, in 

part, to help OMB better understand what agencies are spending on IT 

investments. The information also supports cost analyses prescribed by 

the Clinger-Cohen Act. As part of the annual budget, OMB publishes a 

report on IT spending for the federal government representing a 

compilation of exhibit 53 data submitted by the 26 agencies.

In addition, in June 2009, to further improve the transparency into and 

oversight of agencies’ IT investments, OMB publicly deployed a website, 

known as the IT Dashboard (Dashboard), which replaced its Management 

Watch List and High-Risk List. As part of this effort, OMB issued guidance 

directing federal agencies to report, via the Dashboard, the performance 

of their IT investments. Currently, the Dashboard publicly displays 

information on the cost, schedule, and performance of over 700 major 

federal IT investments at 26 federal agencies. In addition, the Dashboard 

allows users to download exhibit 53 data, which include information on 

both major and nonmajor investments. According to OMB, these data are 

intended to provide a near real-time perspective of the performance of 

these investments, as well as a historical perspective. Further, the public 

 

3 OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (August 

2012). 

4

According to OMB guidance, a major investment is a system or acquisition requiring 

special management attention because of its importance to the mission or function of the 

agency, a component of the agency, or another organization; is for financial management 

and obligates more than $500,000 annually; has significant program or policy implications; 

has high executive visibility; has high development, operating, or maintenance costs; is 

funded through other than direct appropriations; or is defined as major by the agency’s 

capital planning and investment control process.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

display of these data is intended to allow OMB, other oversight bodies, 

and the general public to hold the government agencies accountable for 

results and progress. Since the Dashboard has been implemented, we 

have reported and made recommendations to improve the data accuracy 

and reliability. In 2010 and 2011, we reported on the progress of the 

Dashboard and made recommendations to further improve how it rates 

investments relative to current performance.5

Further, OMB has developed guidance that calls for agencies to develop 

an OA policy for examining the ongoing performance of existing IT 

investments to measure, among other things, that the investment is 

continuing to meet business and customer needs and is contributing to 

meeting the agency’s strategic goals.6

• assessment of current costs against life-cycle costs;

This guidance calls for the policy to 

provide for an annual OA of each investment that addresses the 

following: cost, schedule, customer satisfaction, strategic and business 

results, financial goals, and innovation. To address these areas, the 

guidance specifies the following 17 key factors that are to be addressed:

• a structured schedule assessment (i.e., measuring the 

performance of the investment against its established schedule);

• a structured assessment of performance goals (i.e., measuring the 

performance of the investment against established goals);

• identification of whether the investment supports customer 

processes as designed and is delivering goods and services it 

was designed to deliver;

• a measure of the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself;

• a measure of how well the investment contributes to achieving the 

organization’s business needs and strategic goals;

 

5

GAO, IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved and Additional Efforts Are Under Way to 

Better Inform Decision Making, GAO-12-210 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2011); 

Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, but Further 

Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, GAO-11-262 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); and Information Technology: OMB’s Dashboard Has 

Increased Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, GAO-10-701 

(Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2010).

6

Capital Programming Guide, Supplement to OMB Circular A-11, Part 7 (July 2012); OMB 

Memorandum M-10-27 (June 2010), requires agencies to establish a policy for performing 

OAs on steady state investments as a part of managing and monitoring investment 

baselines. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

• a comparison of current performance with a pre-established cost 

baseline and estimates;

• areas for innovation in the areas of customer satisfaction, strategic 

and business results, and financial performance;

• indication if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals;

• consideration of issues, such as greater utilization of technology 

or consolidation of investments to better meet organizational 

goals;

• an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in the 

investment’s planning and acquisition phases;

• identification of whether there is a need to redesign, modify, or 

terminate the investment;

• an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., better 

ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals); 

• lessons learned;

• cost or schedule variances;

• recommendations to redesign or modify an asset in advance of 

potential problems; and

• overlap with other investments.

With regard to overseeing the agencies’ development of policies and 

annual performance, OMB officials responsible for governmentwide OA 

policy stated that they expect agencies to perform all the steps specified 

in the guidance and to be prepared to show documentation as evidence 

of compliance with the guidance should OMB decide to check.

Although OMB guidance calls for agencies to develop an OA policy and 

perform such analyses annually, the extent to which the five federal 

agencies we reviewed carried out these tasks varied significantly. 

Specifically, DHS and HHS developed a policy and conducted OAs, but in 

doing so, they excluded key investments and assessment factors. DOD, 

Treasury, and VA did not develop a policy or conduct OAs. The following 

table shows the total number of steady state investments for each 

agency, and provides the number and budgeted amount for those 

investments that underwent an assessment and those that did not. 

Federal Agencies’ 

Assessments of Major 

IT Steady State 

Investments Vary 

Significantly 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 2: Total Steady State IT Investments, and Number of Investments for Five 

Agencies That Had OAs and Did Not Have OAs with Cost (in millions)

Source: GAO analysis based on OMB data. 

Until agencies more completely address their policy and performance 

shortcomings, there is increased risk that existing multibillion dollar 

investments will continue to be funded although it is not fully known 

whether they meet their intended objectives. 

DHS and HHS had developed policies, which contained all performance 

factors identified in OMB’s guidance. Specifically, 

• In 2008, DHS issued its policy called “Operational Analysis 

Guidance.”7

• In 2008, HHS issued its policy called “Practices Guide: Annual 

Operational Analysis.”

The guidance states that OAs should be performed on an 

annual basis to evaluate the operational results of agency steady 

state investments. In addition, the guidance provides a report 

template which includes sections that should be contained and 

reported on in it. DHS’s policy addressed all of the key factors in the 

OMB guidance, including, for example, assessing current costs 

against life-cycle costs and a detailed schedule assessment. 

8

 

7

DHS, Operational Analysis Guidance, Version 1.1, May 2008.

The guide states OAs are required to be 

performed on an annual basis. Further, the guide includes a template 

and a checklist for conducting them. In addition, agencies within the 

department have issued their own policy. For example, in 2011, The 

8

HHS, Enterprise Performance Life Cycle Framework, Practices Guide, Annual 

Operational Analysis, September 2008.

Agency (total investments 

in steady state)

Total 

investments 

with an OA

Fiscal 

year 2011 

cost

Total 

investments 

without an OA

Fiscal 

year 2011 

cost

DOD (4) 0 -- 4 $381 

DHS (44) 16 1,175 28 1,011 

HHS (8) 7 207 1 77 

Treasury (16) 0 -- 16 152 

VA (3) 0 -- 3 1,600 

Total (75) 23 $1,400 52 $3,200 

DHS and HHS Developed 

an OA Policy and 

Performed OAs, but Did 

Not Address All 

Investments and Key 

Factors
 

Page 9 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its “Operational 

Analysis Guide” and in 2010, the National Institutes of Health issued 

its framework, “A How-to Guide.”9

Further, DHS and HHS performed OAs on some of their steady state 

investments, but not for all. Specifically, of their 52 total steady state 

investments, DHS and HHS conducted analyses on 23 with total budgets 

of $1.4 billion and did not conduct analyses on 29 investments with total 

budgets of $1.1 billion. More specifically, 

These policies contained all of the 

key factors identified in the OMB policy, such as measuring the effect 

the investment has on the performing organization itself and 

identifying any areas for innovation. 

• Of DHS’s 44 steady state investments, the department conducted 

OAs on16 of them, which have an annual budget of $1.2 billion; it did 

not perform analyses on the other 28, which have an annual budget of 

almost $1 billion.

• Of HHS’s 8 steady state investments, the department conducted 

analyses on 7 of them, which have an annual budget of $207 million; 

it did not perform an OA on the remaining investment, which has an 

annual budget of $77 million.

Tables 3 and 4 show DHS’s and HHS’s steady state investments by 

component agency and whether OAs were performed on these 

investments in fiscal year 2011. (Details of our analysis of all the analyses 

and a brief description of the investments are included in app. II.)

 

9

HHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Operational Analysis Guide, Version 

9.0, January 2011 and HHS, National Institutes of Health: NIG Operational Analysis 

Management Framework: A How-to Guide, Version 1.2, August 2010.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 3: Extent to Which DHS Steady State IT Investments Underwent OAs in Fiscal Year 2011 (by Component and Cost in 

Millions)

 

Yes No

Cost for 

fiscal 

year 2011

Component Investment

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection

1. Advance Passenger Information System X $4.78

2. Automated Targeting System Maintenance X 33.89

3. SBInet Block 1 X 27.65

4. Infrastructure X 556.69

5. Land Border Integration X 75.78

6. Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program X 110.49

7. Systems, Applications, and Products X 18.21

DHS, Office of the 

Chief Information 

Officer

8. Homeland Secure Data Network X 47.66

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency

9. Disaster Management E-Government Initiative X 12.27

10. Infrastructure X 56.14

11. Integrated Financial Management Information System X 4.30

12. National Flood Insurance Program Technology Systems and Services X 10.83

U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement

13. Federal Financial Management System X 24.69

14. Intelligence Fusion System X 7.36

National Protection 

and Programs 

Directorate

15. Information Systems Security Line of Business X 3.02

16. National Security and Emergency Preparedness Priority Telecommunication 

Services 

X 46.05

17. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Arrival and Departure 

Information System

 X 20.65

18. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Automated Biometric 

Identification System

 X 104.36

Office of Health Affairs 19. BioSurveillance Common Operating Network X 1.49

Transportation 

Security 

Administration

20. Crew Vetting X 11.60

21. Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and Notification System X 14.13

22. Federal Air Marshal Service Network X 41.79

23. Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat Assessment Program X 12.00

24. Information Technology Infrastructure Program X 284.20

25. Performance Management Information System X 10.64

26. Secure Flight X 84.19

27. Transportation Worker Identification Credential X 9.20

28. Transportation Security Administration Operating Platform X 121.80
 

Page 11 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Source: GAO analysis based on OMB data. 

Yes No

Cost for 

fiscal 

year 2011

Component Investment

U.S. Coast Guard 29. Asset Logistics Management Information System X 8.15

30. Coast Guard Business Intelligence X 6.29

31. Core Accounting System Suite X 32.13

32. Direct Access X 9.64

33. Infrastructure Standard Workstation Infrastructure Recapitalization and 

Sustainment

 X 62.93

34. Infrastructure Coast Guard One X 25.00

35. Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement X 10.39

36. Ports and Waterways Safety System IT X 38.40

37. Vessel Logistics System X 4.85

U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services

38. Customer Service Web Portal X 20.89

39. Immigration Computer Linked Application Information Management System 3 X 5.99

40. Infrastructure (End User Support) X 111.42

41. Integrated Document Production X 48.14

42. Naturalization Computer Linked Application Information Management System 4 X 2.42

U.S. Secret Service 43. Enterprise Financial Management System X 5.67

44. Information Technology Infrastructure X 38.03

Total 44 16 28 $2,186.20
 

Page 12 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 4: Extent to Which HHS Steady State IT Investments Underwent OAs in Fiscal Year 2011 (by Component and Cost in 

Millions)

Source: GAO analysis based on OMB data.

In addition, although DHS and HHS performed analyses, the agencies did 

not address all key factors in conducting them. Specifically, 

• of DHS’s 16 OAs, which were to include a total 272 key factors, DHS:

• addressed 145 (or 53 percent),

• partially addressed 20 (or 7 percent), and

• did not address 107 (or 39 percent); and

• of HHS’s 7 OAs, which were to include a total of 119 key factors, HHS:

• addressed 66 (or 55 percent),

• partially addressed 6 (or 5 percent), and

• did not address 47 (or 39 percent) factors.

The following provides key examples by component agency to illustrate 

how factors were fully addressed, partially addressed, or not addressed at 

all.

• In its operational analysis of its U.S. Coast Guard Business Intelligence 

investment, the U.S. Coast Guard fully addressed five key factors (see 

table 16 in app. II). For example, on the factor regarding whether the 

investment supports customer processes as designed and is delivering 

Yes No Cost for 

fiscal 

year 

2011

Component Investment 

Centers for Disease 

Control and 

Prevention

1. Information Technology Infrastructure X $77.09

2. National Select Agency Registry X 5.05

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services

3. Beneficiary e-Services X 60.82

4. Health Care Quality Improvement and Evaluation System X 21.20

Health Resources and 

Services 

Administration

5. Electronic Handbooks Program Management Office X 23.69

6. National Practitioner Data Bank X 23.51

Indian Health Service 7. Infrastructure, Office Automation, and Telecommunications X 55.31

National Institutes of 

Health

8. Business Intelligence System X 17.60

Total 8 7 1 $284.27
 

Page 13 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

the goods and services it was designed to deliver, the component 

measured (via surveys) customer satisfaction, usage trends, system 

trends, and feedback, and used this information to implement system 

improvements. U.S. Coast Guard partially addressed three factors. For 

example, in assessing performance goals, the component identified two 

major goals of the investment, but did not include how or when these 

goals were to be achieved. U.S. Coast Guard did not address nine key 

factors, including those on identifying lessons learned and reviewing the 

status of risk versus cost, schedule, and performance. These factors are 

important because they provide management with key information on 

why problems occurred and how they can be avoided in the future, as 

well as whether the investment is worth pursing given anticipated costs, 

benefits, and associated risks.

• In assessing the Information Technology Infrastructure Program, 

Transportation Security Administration addressed eight key factors (see 

table 14 in app. II). For example, on the factor calling for performance of 

a structured schedule assessment, the component analyzed a detailed 

list of task descriptions, start and end dates, and planned versus actual 

costs to ensure the investment is performing against an established 

schedule which can minimize costs over the life cycle of an investment. 

The component partially addressed one key factor; specifically, the factor 

calling for identifying whether the investment supports customer 

processes and is delivering the goods and services intended. In 

assessing this factor, Transportation Security Administration conducted 

surveys to measure customer satisfaction, but in doing so did not include 

measures to assess whether the investment was delivering the goods 

and services it was designed to deliver. The component did not address 

eight key factors. For example, it did not identify any areas for innovation 

or whether the investment overlapped with other systems. These latter 

steps are essential to identifying investment improvements, increasing 

value and reducing costs, and eliminating duplicate systems and the 

costs associated with them.

• For the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Intelligence Fusion 

System, the component fully addressed nine key factors (see table 9 in 

app. II). These factors included analyzing current costs against life-cycle 

costs and whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver, through measures such as customer surveys and help desk 

metrics. The component partially addressed the factor on identifying

areas (e.g., business results and customer satisfaction, financial 

performance) for innovation. Specifically, it identified two areas for 

innovation, namely strategic and business results and customer 

satisfaction, but did not address financial performance. U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement did not address seven key factors; for 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

example, it did not identify lessons learned or assess whether to modify 

or terminate the investment. Fully addressing these factors is crucial to 

agencies in determining whether to continue an investment that is not 

performing as required.

• For its Infrastructure, Office Automation, and Telecommunications 

investment, Indian Health Service fully addressed 14 key factors (see 

table 26 in app. II). For example, in addressing the factor on assessing 

performance goals, it analyzed the investment’s performance goals 

against the results to date for each goal. The component partially 

addressed the factor on the status of risks versus cost, schedule, and 

performance. Specifically, it analyzed cost and schedule progress, but 

did not include an assessment of risks. Indian Health Service did not 

address two key factors. For example, it did not identify lessons learned

and whether the investment overlapped with other systems. Addressing 

these factors is important because they help agencies to, among other 

things, identify where cost-effective improvements can be made.

• HHS’s Health Resources and Services Administration fully addressed 15 

key factors in its operational analysis of its Electronic Handbooks 

Program Management Office (see table 24 in app. II). For example, it 

conducted a structured assessment of performance goals, including a 

detailed list of goals, and how and when they were addressed. Health 

Resources and Services Administration only partially addressed the key 

factor on providing a structured schedule assessment. Specifically, the 

component identified certain parts of the investment schedule, such as 

standard and unscheduled maintenance efforts, but other schedule 

elements, such as completion dates and goals, were not identified. 

Health Resources and Services Administration did not address one 

factor. For example, it did not assess current costs against life-cycle 

costs. This factor is important because it can, among other things, 

provide information to agency decision makers with answers to whether 

annual operating and maintenance costs are comparable to the 

estimated costs developed during the development phase. 

• In its analysis of the Business Intelligence System, National Institutes of 

Health fully assessed six key factors (see table 27 in app. II). For 

example, on the factor calling for identifying whether the investment 

supports customer processes as designed and is delivering the goods 

and services it was designed to deliver, the component analyzed user 

and customer assessments that showed improvement in this area. The 

component partially addressed the key factor on measuring the effect an 

investment has on the performing organization itself. For example, 

National Institutes of Health identified that the investment was in line with 

the appropriate component enterprise architecture, but did not identify the 

effect the investment had on other aspects of the department such as its 

mission and business processes. National Institutes of Health did not 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

address 10 factors, including lessons learned and determining whether to 

modify or terminate the investment. These factors are critical to whether 

to continue an investment that is not performing as required.

With regard to why analyses were not performed on all investments and 

why those that were conducted did not fully address all factors, DHS and 

HHS attributed these shortfalls to the following:

• Officials from DHS’s Office of the CIO who are responsible for overseeing 

the performance of OAs department-wide told us the components only 

performed 16 of the 44 analyses and did not address all key factors (in 

the 16 OAs that were performed) because they were not consistently 

implementing department and OMB policy as they should have because 

it was not a priority. To illustrate their point, the officials told us that while 

most components strive to perform annual analyses, other components 

do not require them to be conducted on an annual basis citing other tasks 

as taking precedence. To address these shortfalls, the department 

recently took steps to make OAs a priority and to ensure consistent 

application of department and OMB policy. Specifically, in May 2012, 

DHS’s CIO issued a memorandum stating that all steady state IT 

investments are required to have an annual OA completed no later than 

June of each fiscal year and that component CIOs are to work with 

program managers to implement and ensure compliance with DHS OA 

requirements. Further, as part of this initiative, DHS’s CIO plans to assign 

resources and responsibility to CIO office staff to review and ensure 

compliance with DHS’s policy. These are steps in the right direction; 

however, the DHS CIO officials told us that these initiatives will not be 

fully implemented until sometime in fiscal year 2013. 

• HHS officials from the Office of the CIO said their shortfalls (i.e., one 

component did not perform an OA and those that were performed did not 

address all factors) were due, in part, to inconsistent implementation of 

department and OMB policy across the components due to analyses not 

being a priority. As an example of this, officials from the office of the HHS 

CIO who are responsible for overseeing the department OA program 

cited how they had planned to implement an initiative to annually review 

all analyses performed by the components to ensure consistency and 

quality but have not been able to do so due to limited CIO staff being 

assigned to other initiatives.

Although DHS and HHS had 23 investments—with collective annual 

budgets of $1.4 billion—that underwent OAs, these investments were not 

thoroughly assessed against all key factors. Until these agencies assess 

all steady state investments and ensure that they are fully assessed 

against factors, there is increased risk that these agencies will not know 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

whether the multibillion dollar investments fully meet their intended 

objectives. 

DOD, Treasury, and VA had not developed a policy for performing OAs 

and did not conduct OAs for their 23 steady state investments that have 

combined annual budgets of $2.1 billion. Specifically, 

• DOD did not conduct analyses for its 4 major investments that have 

annual budgets totaling $381 million,

• Treasury did not conduct such analyses for its16 major investments that 

have annual budgets totaling $152 million, and

• VA did not conduct OAs for its 3 major investments that have annual 

budgets totaling $1.6 billion.

Regarding why DOD and VA had not developed policies and are not 

performing analyses, officials from those agencies stated that in lieu of 

conducting OAs, they assess the performance of steady state 

investments as part of developing their annual exhibit 300 submissions to 

OMB. While we have previously reported that using the exhibit 300 

process can be a tool to manage investment performance,10

• identifying alternative methods for achieving the same mission needs and 

strategic goals. Doing this is important because it helps agencies assess 

whether they are using the most cost effective solution to achieving 

agency goals;

our analysis 

shows that the process does not fully address 11 of the 17 factors. For 

example, the exhibit 300 process does not fully provide for addressing the 

following factors:

• addressing greater utilization of technology or consolidation of 

investments will better meet organizational goals. It is also critical to 

helping agencies ensure that their investments are meeting performance 

goals in the most cost-effective manner;

• identifying lessons learned, why problems occurred, or how savings were 

realized, which is essential to avoid repeating the same mistakes, which 

helps saving resources; and

• identifying where the agency needs to redesign, modify, or terminate the 

investment, which is a means to achieving solutions that return the 

greatest benefit for funds invested.

 

10GAO, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Improve the Accuracy and Reliability 

of Investment Information, GAO-06-250 (Washington, D.C: Jan.12, 2006). 

DOD, Treasury, and VA Did 

Not Develop Policies or 

Perform OAs 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Further, OMB officials told us that the exhibit 300 process is not a 

substitute for conducting OAs. Although OMB requires OAs for all steady 

state systems, its guidance does not provide a mechanism for ensuring 

they are completed and submitted to OMB for review. In particular, it does 

not have a reporting mechanism that provides for public transparency into 

the results of these assessments, which the IT Dashboard could provide. 

Having such a mechanism for the performance of steady state systems is 

consistent with Clinger-Cohen Act requirements that call for OMB to 

analyze and report on the performance of IT capital investments. 

Moreover, such public disclosure promotes increased transparency which 

is one of OMB’s goals in establishing the IT Dashboard.

Treasury officials from the department’s office of the CIO told us they 

decided not to perform OAs in 2011 and instead decided to use the time 

to develop a policy. However, the officials stated that they did not 

anticipate the policy to be completed until the end of this calendar year. 

Until these agencies establish policies and begin performing OA 

assessments for their steady state investments, there is increased risk 

that these agencies will not know whether the multibillion dollar 

investments fully meet their intended objectives, therefore increasing the 

potential for waste and duplication. 

The federal government has made a multibillion dollar commitment to 

operating and maintaining its IT investments. OMB has established 

guidance for federal agencies to use to evaluate the performance of such 

investments, including whether a sound basis exists for agencies to 

continue funding them. DHS and HHS had developed policies in 

accordance with OMB guidance and performed analyses, but did not do 

so for all of their investments and their analyses did not address all key 

factors. During the course of this review, DHS reiterated the importance 

of performing OAs and issued a memorandum with initiatives to address 

the department’s shortcomings. Further, DOD, Treasury, and VA had not 

developed a policy nor had they performed OAs. Taken together, these 

five agencies continue to invest billions of dollars each year on IT steady 

state investments without ensuring that they are continuing to meet 

agency needs and are delivering value. These shortcomings are due in 

part to a number of factors, including agencies relying on budget 

submission processes through their annual exhibit 300 submissions, 

which are not intended as a substitute for OAs, and not viewing 

performance of these assessments as a priority. Although OMB’s current 

guidance does not require agencies to report on OAs to OMB, using 

Conclusions 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

existing oversight and transparency tools like the IT Dashboard could 

help ensure that these important performance assessments are 

completed and available for public viewing. Nonetheless, until the 

agencies address these shortcomings and ensure all their steady state 

investments are fully assessed, there is increased potential for these 

multibillion dollar investments to result in unnecessary waste and 

duplication. 

To ensure that major steady state IT investments are being adequately 

analyzed, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans 

Affairs, and the Treasury direct appropriate officials to develop an OA 

policy, annually perform OAs on all investments, and ensure the 

assessments include all key factors. 

In addition, we recommend that the Secretaries of Homeland Security 

and Health and Human Services direct their Chief Information Officers to 

ensure OAs are performed annually on all major steady state investments 

and the assessments include all key factors.

Further, to ensure that OA policies are developed and that annual 

analyses are conducted and to promote transparency into the results of 

these analyses, we recommend that the Director of OMB revise existing 

guidance to include directing agencies to report on the IT Dashboard the 

results from the OAs of their steady state investments.

In commenting on a draft of this report, OMB and the five agencies 

agreed with our findings and recommendations. Their comments are 

discussed in more detail below.

• In oral comments, staff from OMB’s Office of E-Government and 

Information Technology concurred with our recommendations and 

stated that OMB had recently initiated an effort to address the specific 

recommendation directed to it. Specifically, the staff stated that OMB’s 

fiscal year 2014 budget guidance (dated August 3, 2012) directs 

agencies to include OAs as part of their exhibit 300 submissions to 

OMB. 

• In written comments—signed by DOD’s Deputy Chief Information 

Officer for Information Enterprise and reprinted in appendix III—DOD 

concurred with our recommendation and said it plans to establish an 

OA policy in coordination with OMB. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 19 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

• In written comments—signed by the Director of the Departmental 

GAO-OIG Liaison Office and reprinted in appendix IV—DHS 

concurred with our recommendation. The department, after receiving 

our draft report, identified and provided to us OAs that it had 

performed for 3 additional investments in fiscal year 2011. DHS also 

provided technical comments which we incorporated in the report as 

appropriate. 

• In comments provided via e-mail from its GAO Intake Coordinator 

within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, HHS stated 

that it did not have any general comments on the report. The 

department did provide technical comments which we incorporated in 

the report as appropriate. 

• In written comments—signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Information Systems and Chief Information Officer and reprinted in 

appendix V—Treasury agreed with the report’s recommendations. In 

addition, after receiving our draft report, the department identified and 

provided to us OAs that it had performed on 9 of its 17 investments in 

fiscal year 2011. 

• In written comments—signed by its Chief of Staff and reprinted in 

appendix VI—VA generally agreed with our conclusions and 

concurred with the recommendation to it. 

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

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

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

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and 

Human Services, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; and other interested 

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

website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology

Management Issues
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 21 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Our objective was to determine the extent to which selected federal 

agencies assess the performance of steady state information technology 

(IT) investments in accordance with Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance. To accomplish our objective, we selected the five 

agencies (Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services 

(HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), the Treasury (Treasury), and Veterans 

Affairs (VA)) that have the largest budgets for major steady state IT 

investments; collectively, these investments accounted for approximately 

$37 billion annually or about 70 percent of all reported IT operations and 

maintenance (O&M) spending. In particular, we focused on these 

agencies’ 75 major IT investments valued at $4.6 billion annually that 

were strictly in the steady state phase as opposed to the agencies’ other 

O&M investments—called mixed life-cycle investments by the agencies 

and OMB—which are not solely in O&M; these mixed life-cycle 

investments have projects under development as well as projects being 

placed into O&M. 

We analyzed OMB’s guidance and identified a key practice called 

operational analysis (OA) that agencies are to use to assess the 

performance of existing O&M investments. We also interviewed OMB 

officials to corroborate our understanding of the key practice.

We then determined whether the five agencies developed OA policies as 

called for by the OMB guidance. Specifically, we compared each 

agency’s policy, if they had one, to the OMB criteria to determine the 

extent of compliance and where there were variances. We further 

determined whether the agencies were conducting analyses. Specifically, 

for the 75 major investments, we determined whether the agencies had 

performed an OA on each of them. In those cases where one had been 

performed, we analyzed the agencies’ efforts to address the OMB criteria 

in the analysis and categorized the extent to which the OMB key factors 

had been addressed using the following criteria: 

• Yes: if all aspects of the key factor specified in the OMB criteria were fully 

addressed.

• No: if none of the aspects of the key factor were addressed.

• Partial: if some, but not the entire key factor was addressed.

In cases where agencies did not fully address factors (i.e., partially or not 

all), we analyzed documentation and interviewed agency officials, 

including staff from the offices of the chief information officers responsible 

for overseeing these investments, to assist in identifying causes for 

shortfalls and any actions planned or underway to address the causes.

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 22 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

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

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objective.
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 23 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Tables 5-20 show our analysis for DHS’s investments with OAs in fiscal 

year 2011.

Table 5: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Analysis of Extent to Which Infrastructure’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

P U.S. Customs and Border Protection included an 

analysis of performance measures against a 

performance baseline for, among other things, 

software and hardware maintenance and network 

availability; however, a measure of cost against its 

baseline was not included.

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

Y 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment P U.S. Customs and Border Protection found that the 

investment was currently meeting established 

performance goals. The assessment did not include 

an analysis on whether opportunities to improve the 

system’s efficiency had been identified.

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and 

HHS’s OAs Addressed Key Factors 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 24 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 6: Office of the Chief Information Officer: Analysis of Extent to Which Homeland Secure Data Network’s Fiscal Year 

2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

P The Office of the Chief Information Officer identified 

which strategic goal the investment supports, namely 

to “Strengthen and Unify DHS Operations and 

Management,” but it did not include measures of how 

well the investment contributes to achieving the goal.

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

P The Office of the Chief Information Officer assessed 

current performance with pre-established 

performance measures, but it did not analyze current 

cost performance against a cost baseline.

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

P The Office of the Chief Information Officer identified 

the investment’s risk management plan, as 

containing current risks, their status, and associated 

mitigation efforts. It also identified that current risks 

are reported at monthly meetings; however, it did not 

address specific risks in its assessment and the 

impact of these risks.

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 25 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 7: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Analysis of Extent to Which Disaster Management E-Government 

Initiative’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals N 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes 

as designed and is delivering the goods and services it was 

designed to deliver

N 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

P Federal Emergency Management Agency identified 

the strategic mission, goals, and objectives that this 

investment supports, but it did not measure the effect 

the investment is having on the department and its 

mission.

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

P Federal Emergency Management Agency identified 

the strategic mission, goals, and objectives that this 

investment supports, but it did not provide any analysis 

on metrics showing the extent to which the investment 

is contributing to achieving the department’s business 

needs and strategic goals.

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost 

baseline and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial 

performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 26 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

P Federal Emergency Management Agency identified 

how the investment’s project management office 

monitored risks through a risk management plan and 

risk register, which is to be updated biweekly, but it did 

not assess risks against investment cost, schedule, 

and performance.

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the 

investment

N 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset 

before it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 8: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Analysis of Extent to Which Integrated Financial Management Information 

System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life cycle cost N

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 27 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

P Federal Emergency Management Agency used the 

investment’s risk management plan to identify risks 

and potential impact on schedule milestones, but 

this assessment did not identify the risk and 

potential impact on cost.

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

Y

14. Identifies any lessons learned N

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 9: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Analysis of Extent to Which Intelligence Fusion System’s Fiscal Year 

2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment Y 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 28 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

P U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

identified opportunities for innovation in the areas of 

strategic and business results and customer 

satisfaction; it did not address whether there were 

any innovation opportunities in the area of financial 

performance.

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

Y 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment N 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 10: National Protection and Programs Directorate: Analysis of Extent to Which National Security and Emergency 

Preparedness Priority Telecommunication Services’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 29 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving the 

same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in the 

investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance Y 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before it 

becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 11: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of Extent to Which Federal Air Marshal Service Mission 

Scheduling and Notification System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment P Transportation Security Administration developed a 

schedule performance table and a framework to 

analyze results, but the schedule assessment 

omitted analysis of key schedule aspects, including 

actual start dates and percent completed.

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 30 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

Y 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 12: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of Extent to Which Federal Air Marshal Service Network’s Fiscal 

Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment Y 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 31 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment N 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 13: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of Extent to Which Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat 

Assessment Program’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment Y 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 32 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

Y 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

Y 

14. Identifies any lessons learned Y 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 14: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of Extent to Which Information Technology Infrastructure 

Program’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment Y 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

P Transportation Security Administration stated that 

customer satisfaction is to be measured using 

surveys, service legal agreements, and key 

performance measures. However, the assessment 

did not include results of these efforts, and thus did 

not identify if the investment was meeting customer 

needs.

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

N 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 33 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 15: Transportation Security Administration: Analysis of Extent to Which Secure Flight’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment Y 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

Y 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 34 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 16: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Coast Guard Business Intelligence’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals P In its assessment, U.S. Coast Guard described how 

it has established two major goals for the 

investment, namely, to provide products and 

services which leverage standardized Enterprise 

Measures while ensuring repeatable answers, and 

to provide Enterprise Solutions for lower level 

reporting requirements; but the department did not 

analyze the performance to date against these 

established investment goals.

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

P U.S. Coast Guard described the investment as 

organizational knowledge that is directly relevant to 

decision making towards organizational goals, but it 

did not measure the effect the investment had on the 

component in performing its mission.

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 35 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

P In its assessment, U.S. Coast Guard identified an 

area of focus for fiscal year 2011 that was to 

determine how the investment aligns 

strategically/tactically with other business 

intelligence investments. U.S. Coast Guard did 

not identify whether the Business Intelligence 

investment overlapped or duplicated functions 

performed by other business intelligence 

investments.

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 17: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Core Accounting System Suite’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed 

OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 36 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance Y 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

Y 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 18: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Direct Access’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment Y 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 37 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

Y 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

Y 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 19: U.S. Coast Guard: Analysis of Extent to Which Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement’s Fiscal Year 

2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor 

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals P U.S. Coast Guard provided a summary of the 

investments’ performance goals for the past year, 

including significant deliverables, but it did not 

include how or when these goals were to be 

achieved nor did it include if any other goals 

remained outstanding.

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 38 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Table 20: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Analysis of Extent to Which Immigration Computer Linked Application

Information Management System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost

P U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services identified 

cost centers and said that they managed costs of the 

program well, but did not assess current costs 

against life-cycle costs.

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment P U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services identified 

schedule milestones, the management of scheduling, 

and identified assurance of the project moving 

forward on schedule, but it did not measure current 

progress on milestones against the established 

schedule.

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 39 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

P The assessment identified the financial management 

background of the system, its scope, and major 

costs. It also identified the financial performance 

results, and identified planned actions to improve 

financial performance, but it did not provide a 

comparison between the pre-established cost 

baseline and current performance.

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

P U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services identified 

risks associated with the system, including risks that 

could affect schedule, among other things; however, 

it did not detail potential costs associated with the 

risks.

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned Y 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

Y 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Tables 21-27 show our analysis for HHS’s investments with OAs in fiscal 

year 2011.
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 40 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 21: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Analysis of Extent to Which National Select Agency Registry’s Fiscal 

Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

N 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 41 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 22: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Analysis of Extent to Which Beneficiary e-Services’s Fiscal Year 2011 

OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

P Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

determined that it improved population health by 

providing Medicare information via public websites 

and providing customer service channels for 

beneficiaries to manage their health; it did not 

analyze or identify the effect the investment had on 

the department and its mission.

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

N 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment N 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 42 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 23: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Analysis of Extent to Which Health Care Quality Improvement and 

Evaluation System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals N 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

N 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

N 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

N 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

N 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

N 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance N 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 43 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 24: Health Resources and Services Administration: Analysis of Extent to Which Electronic Handbooks Program 

Management Office’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment P Health Resources and Services Administration 

identified standard and unscheduled maintenance 

efforts performed as scheduled, but it did not 

comparatively analyze these efforts against 

completion dates and goals.

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

Y 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

Y 

14. Identifies any lessons learned Y 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance Y 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

Y 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 44 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 25: Health Resources and Services Administration: Analysis of Extent to Which National Practitioner Data Bank’s Fiscal 

Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment P Health Resources and Services Administration

identified schedule assessment results that reflect a 

“green” score for the last four quarters. It also 

identifies that earned value management is reporting 

no discrepancies in cost and schedule. However, the 

department did not perform a comparative analysis of 

the planned and actual schedule milestones.

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

P Health Resources and Services Administration 

identified the investment’s cost, schedule, and 

performance outcomes; but did not address the 

status of risks, and their potential impacts were not 

identified.

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

Y 

14. Identifies any lessons learned Y 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance Y 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 45 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.

Table 26: Indian Health Service: Analysis of Extent to Which Infrastructure, Office Automation, and Telecommunications’s

Fiscal Year 2011 OA Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost Y 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment Y 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

Y 

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

Y 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

Y 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

Y 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

Y 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

P Indian Health Service analyzed cost and schedule 

progress, but it did not include an assessment of the 

risks and potential impacts.

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment Y 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

Y 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance Y 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

Y 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Appendix II: Extent to Which DHS’s and HHS’s 

OAs Addressed Key Factors

Page 46 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Table 27: National Institutes of Health: Analysis of Extent to Which Business Intelligence System’s Fiscal Year 2011 OA 

Addressed OMB Key Factors

Key factor

Yes, 

no, or 

partial Summary of partial rating

1. Assesses current costs against life-cycle cost N 

2. Includes a structured schedule assessment N 

3. Includes a structured assessment of performance goals Y 

4. Identifies whether the investment supports customer processes as 

designed and is delivering the goods and services it was designed to 

deliver

Y 

5. Measures the effect the investment has on the performing 

organization itself

P National Institutes of Health identified that the 

investment was in line with the appropriate 

component’s enterprise architecture, but did not 

identify the effect the investment had on other 

aspects of the component, such as its mission and 

business processes.

6. Includes a measure of how well the investment contributes to 

achieving the organization’s business needs and strategic goals

N 

7. Compares current performance with a pre-established cost baseline 

and estimates

N 

8. Identifies any areas for innovation in the areas of customer 

satisfaction, strategic and business results, and financial performance

N 

9. Identifies if the agency revisited alternative methods for achieving 

the same mission needs and strategic goals

Y 

10. Addresses issues such as greater utilization of technology or 

consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals

N 

11. Includes an ongoing review of the status of the risks identified in 

the investment’s planning and acquisition phases

Y 

12. Identifies a need to redesign, modify, or terminate the investment N 

13. Includes an analysis on the need for improved methodology (i.e., 

better ways for the investment to meet cost and performance goals)

Y 

14. Identifies any lessons learned N 

15. Identifies if the investment had a cost or schedule variance Y 

16. Identifies recommendations to redesign or modify an asset before 

it becomes a problem

N 

17. Includes information on the overlap of the investment with other 

systems

N 

Key: Y= fully addressed the key factor

P= partially addressed the key factor

N= did not address the key factor

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 47 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 48 GAO-13-87 Information Technology
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 49 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 50 GAO-13-87 Information Technology
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 51 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 52 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 53 GAO-13-87 Information Technology
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 54 GAO-13-87 Information Technology

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact name above, individuals making contributions to 

this report included Gary Mountjoy (Assistant Director), Gerard Aflague, 

Rebecca Eyler, Lori Martinez, and Teresa Smith.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311261)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

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

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.