GAO-06-302R Post-Hearing Questions on FBI Management Capabilities 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

December 21, 2005 

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, 

 and Commerce, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives

Subject: Information Technology: Responses to Subcommittee Post-hearing 

Questions Regarding the FBI’s Management Practices and Acquisition of a New 

Investigative Case Management System

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This letter responds to your follow-up questions about our September 14, 2005, 

testimony1 before your Subcommittee. In that testimony, we discussed the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) progress in building management capabilities 

essential to successfully modernizing its information technology (IT) systems. As you 

know, systems modernization is a vital part of the FBI’s ongoing efforts to transform 

itself in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Your questions and our 

responses are as follows:

1. GAO’s recently completed report on the FBI’s information technology 

enterprise architecture concludes the FBI has made progress on this effort 

but much more remains to be done. The report states that “until the Bureau 

has a complete and enforceable enterprise architecture, it remains at risk of

developing systems that do not effectively and efficiently support mission

operations and performance.” Does this mean that the FBI should not 

proceed with its new case management system “Sentinel” until these 

deficiencies are addressed?

Notwithstanding the fact that any agency faces considerable risk if it does not have a 

complete and enforceable enterprise architecture to guide and constrain system 

investments, this does not mean an agency should categorically decide not to invest 

in a given system until such an architecture exists. Rather, our position has 

consistently been that such risks, such as lack of interoperability with or duplication 

of other systems, need to be (1) fully disclosed and considered in deciding whether to 

invest in the system and (2) managed when a decision is made to proceed with an 

 1

GAO, Information Technology: FBI Is Building Management Capabilities Essential to Successful System 

Deployments, but Challenges Remain, GAO-05-1014T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2005).
investment without an architecture because of other compelling reasons, such as an 

urgent mission need. In the case of Sentinel, this means that the FBI’s decision to 

proceed with the program concurrent with its development of the enterprise 

architecture (EA) should be based on the consideration of such risks. It also means 

that proactive steps should be taken to minimize these risks. Accordingly, our report2

did not state that the FBI should not proceed with Sentinel until it had a complete 

and enforceable architecture. 

Our research and evaluations of agencies has shown that certain urgent and 

compelling mission needs will necessitate acquiring system capabilities at the same 

time architectures are being developed. A key to dealing with this practical reality is 

recognizing that doing so increases the risk of deploying systems that are duplicative, 

not well integrated, and unnecessarily costly to operate and interface. A related key 

to success is for agencies in this situation to develop and implement strategies to 

effectively mitigate the risks associated with acquiring, developing, and implementing 

systems while the enterprise architecture is still evolving. This is especially important 

for the FBI because its EA program and Sentinel are long-term, multi-phased 

initiatives that are running concurrently. This is why we recommended3

 in September 

2003 that the FBI develop and implement a strategy to mitigate the risks associated 

with continued investment in modernized systems before it has developed an 

architecture and the controls for enforcing its implementation. 

The FBI has taken steps to address this recommendation. For example, the bureau 

has defined and issued an initial version of an interim "to-be" architecture that (1) 

focuses on the bureau's investigative, intelligence, and analytical lines of business 

that are to be supported by Sentinel; (2) identifies overlaps and dependencies 

between Sentinel and other enterprise components; and (3) contains plans to avoid 

duplication and redundancy. 

2. The report states that the FBI is relying heavily on contractor 

support to develop its enterprise architecture; however, it is not 

using effective contract management controls for this contract. 

Specifically, the report is critical of the FBI for not using a 

performance-based contract and for not performing effective 

contractor tracking and oversight. Please describe how these 

contracting deficiencies could impact the FBI’s ability to develop 

an enterprise architecture in a timely fashion? Does GAO believe 

these contract management problems only pertain to this project 

or do they exist throughout the FBI’s information technology 

program, including the new case management system?

As we state in our report,4

 the absence of performance-based contracting and 

effective contractor tracking and oversight has constrained the FBI’s ability to 

effectively manage and oversee its EA contractor. More specifically, it has inhibited 

 2

GAO, Information Technology: FBI Is Taking Steps to Develop an Enterprise Architecture, but Much Remains 

to Be Accomplished, GAO-05-363 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005). 3

GAO, Information Technology: FBI Needs An Enterprise Architecture to Guide Its Modernization Activities, 

GAO-03-959 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2003). 4

GAO-05-363.

Page 2 GAO-06-302R Post-Hearing Questions on FBI Management Capabilities 
the bureau’s ability to adequately define product quality expectations, which in turn 

increases the chances that delivered products will require rework. Such rework puts 

the bureau at risk of spending more time and money than necessary to produce an 

architecture. Because of this, we recommended that the FBI employ performancebased contracting activities, along with effective contract tracking and oversight 

practices, prospectively on all EA contract actions.

While we have not reviewed contract management practices across the FBI’s 

portfolio of IT programs, the Department of Justice’s Inspector General reported in 

February 2005 that, after investing more than 3 years and $170 million, the FBI was 

unable to deploy its investigative case management project—referred to as the Virtual 

Case File—due in part to weaknesses in the way contractors were retained and 

overseen.5

 Similarly, the Surveys and Investigations Staff of the House Appropriations 

Committee reported in April 2005 that the bureau lacked the necessary management 

and controls to effectively oversee the Virtual Case File contractor and that this 

contributed to the FBI’s cancellation of the project.6

More recently, the FBI’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) acknowledged the contract 

management problems that we reported by describing steps under way to expand the 

use of performance-based contracting and strengthen overall contract management. 

Specifically, the CIO stated that the Finance Division, which is responsible for bureau 

contracting policies and procedures, had begun increasing awareness and providing 

training on the use of performance-based contracting. The CIO also stated that the 

bureau is in the process of implementing an FBI-wide life cycle management directive 

that is to define procedures for the use of performance-based contracting methods 

and the establishment of contract tracking and oversight structures, policies, and 

processes. According to the CIO, these procedures are to be fully defined and 

implemented in 2006.

3. Over the past several years, there has been significant turnover in the FBI’s 

senior information technology leadership. Is consistent and stable 

information technology leadership something Director Mueller needs to 

remain concerned about?

Consistent and stable management leadership is a human capital best practice 

and as such, should be an ongoing and sustained focus of the Director within 

all FBI organizational components, including IT. Our research of private and 

public organizations that effectively manage IT shows that they have, among 

other things, sustained senior leadership at key IT positions, including the CIO 

and other IT executive positions.7

 As we and others have reported, the FBI has 

been challenged in its ability to retain individuals in senior IT positions. For 

example, in March 2004, we reported that the CIO had changed 5 times over 

the previous 24 months, and the IT official responsible for developing the 

8

 5

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Management 

of the Trilogy Information Technology Modernization Project, Audit Report 05-07 (February 2005). 6

Surveys and Investigations Staff, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, A Report To The 

Committee On Appropriations, U.S. House Of Representatives, on the Federal Bureau Of Investigation’s 

Implementation Of Virtual Case File (April 2005). 7

See, for example, GAO, FBI Transformation: FBI Continues to Make Progress in Its Efforts to Transform and

Address Priorities, GAO-04-578T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2004). 8

GAO-04-578T. 

Page 3 GAO-06-302R Post-Hearing Questions on FBI Management Capabilities 
bureau’s architecture—the chief architect—had changed 5 times during the 

previous 16 months. About the same time, the Department of Justice’s 

Inspector General reported that leadership turnover was also occurring on key 

IT projects, such as Trilogy.

9

 

Moreover, a recent assessment of the FBI’s human capital efforts by the 

National Academy of Public Administration states that the bureau still faces 

challenges in this area, including establishing an overall strategy for unifying 

the various FBI leadership development and other human capital initiatives 

and developing and implementing a strategic process to plan for intermediate 

and long-term leadership and workforce needs.

10 According to the Academy, 

while the bureau is taking steps to improve the situation, much more needs to 

be done. 

4. The GAO report states that sufficient resources have not been applied to 

developing an enterprise architecture. Does the FBI need to improve its 

methodology for budgeting for information technology management? Does 

GAO have an estimate for the level of additional resources that are needed?

According to federal guidance,

11 an agency should have the resources (funding and 

human capital) to establish and effectively manage its EA program. Our report did 

not identify issues or take exception with the sufficiency of the architecture 

program’s funding level 

12

being applied to the architecture program or the bureau’s IT 

management budgeting methodology. However, it did state that key human capital 

resources were not in place. In particular, four of five key architect positions were 

vacant. According to bureau officials, the absence of these key staff was hampering 

their architecture development efforts. Bureau officials told us that job 

announcements had been issued for the four key architect positions, but it had been 

difficult finding the right candidates. 

5. The GAO report raises concerns that several of the FBI’s information 

technology positions remain vacant. This is somewhat frustrating to hear 

because in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act, Congress gave the FBI 

the authority to provide bonuses of up to 50 percent of an employee’s salary 

and provided authority to pay certain critical employees more than 

$175,000 per year. Has the FBI been using these new authorities to attract 

high quality information technology staff? What have other agencies done to 

attract talented information technology professionals?

 9

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Statement of Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, 

before the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary

Concerning Information Technology in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 23, 2004). 10National Academy of Public Administration, Transforming the FBI: Roadmap to an Effective Human Capital 

Program, (September 2005). 11See, for example, CIO Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0 (February 

2001) and GAO, Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture 

Management (Version 1.1), GAO-03-584G (Washington, D.C.: April 2003). 12GAO-05-363.

Page 4 GAO-06-302R Post-Hearing Questions on FBI Management Capabilities 
According to a recent National Academy of Public Administration report on 

the bureau’s management of human capital,13 the FBI requested and was 

provided these personnel pay flexibilities in December 2004 to better retain 

employees with unique qualifications and to encourage personnel to relocate 

to high cost areas. The Academy also reported that the bureau had not yet 

used these authorities, in part because it had only recently developed a policy 

for doing so. 

While our reviews of the FBI’s IT management capabilities have not addressed 

whether the bureau was using its new authorities to attract high-quality IT 

staff, our research of leading organizations, in addition to our experience in 

evaluating federal agencies, shows that successful organizations attract IT 

professionals by taking a strategic approach to human capital management.

14

This includes developing strategies tailored to addressing gaps between the 

current workforce and future needs, including investing in 

• training and professional development, 

• retention allowances, 

• skill-based pay to attract and retain the critical skills needed for mission 

accomplishment, and 

• pay and nonpay incentives for high-performing employees. 

We previously reported on the FBI’s need to take such a strategic approach to 

help it better attract and retain high-quality IT personnel

15

. In March 2004, the 

FBI issued an enterprisewide strategic human capital plan, including policies 

and procedures for IT human capital. Since then, the CIO told us that his office 

is taking additional steps to enhance its IT human capital capability, including 

targeting training and professional certifications. 

However, as we have previously reported, the bureau has yet to create an 

integrated plan of action that is based on a comprehensive analysis of human 

capital roles and responsibilities needed to support the IT functions 

established under the office of the CIO’s reorganization. Such an analysis 

should include an assessment of core competencies and essential knowledge, 

skills, and abilities 

16

and then compare them to current human capital strengths 

and weaknesses. This will permit gaps to be identified between current 

capabilities and those needed to perform established IT functions. The plan 

should then describe actions needed to fill the identified gaps (that is, the 

planned combination of hiring, training, contractor support, and so on), along 

with time frames, resources, performance measures, and accountability 

structures. According to the CIO, he is in the process of hiring a contractor 

with human capital expertise to help identify gaps between existing and 

 13National Academy of Public Administration, Transforming the FBI: Roadmap to an Effective Human Capital 

Program, September 2005. 14See, for example, GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: 

March 2002), and GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in

the Federal Government, GAO-03-893G, (Washington, D.C.: July 2003). 15GAO, FBI Reorganization: Progress Made in Efforts to Transform, but Major Challenges Continue, GAO-03-

759T (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003). 16GAO-05-1014T. 

Page 5 GAO-06-302R Post-Hearing Questions on FBI Management Capabilities 
needed skills and abilities and intends to have this effort completed, including 

the development of an implementation plan to address any gaps, by the end of 

2005. 

* * * * * * * 

In responding to these questions, we relied on past work related to our reviews of the 

FBI’s management of its IT and our best practices research and evaluations of IT 

management at other federal agencies. We conducted this past work in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this 

letter to other interested congressional committees. Copies will also be available at 

no charge at our Web site at http:/www.gao.gov. If you have questions about our 

responses, please contact me at (202) 512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this correspondence. Key contributors to this product include Gary Mountjoy, 

Assistant Director; Justin Booth; Nancy Glover; Dan Gordon; and Teresa Tucker. 

Sincerely yours, 

Randolph C. Hite 

Director, Information Technology Architecture 

 and System Issues 

(310614)

Page 6 GAO-06-302R Post-Hearing Questions on FBI Management Capabilities 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER