GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 23, 2004 

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Subject: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Lack of Accountability 

for Computer Equipment Leaves These Assets Vulnerable to Loss or 

Misappropriation 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In testimony in October 20021

 and in a report issued in April 20032 we raised concerns 

about the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) accountability for 

computers and computer-related equipment bought with government purchase cards. 

Our review identified a large volume of computers and computer-related purchases 

for which HUD did not have adequate supporting documentation. In addition, HUD 

acknowledged that items bought with purchase cards were not being consistently 

entered in its asset management system thereby increasing its vulnerability to loss or 

theft.3 

Given these findings, and the approximately $59 million4

 HUD reported it has spent 

on computers and computer-related equipment and services over the last 3 fiscal 

years, you asked us to further assess HUD’s accountability for these vulnerable 

assets. Specifically, you requested that we determine whether HUD had established 

an effective system of internal control for maintaining accountability over its 

computer equipment. Our review covered HUD’s systems and controls in place 

during fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. 

 

1

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Management: Strategies to Address Improper Payments 

at HUD, Education, and Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-167T (Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2002). 2

 U.S. General Accounting Office, HUD Purchase Cards: Poor Internal Controls Resulted in Improper 

and Questionable Purchases, GAO-03-489 (Washington, D.C.: April 2003). 3

 This information was provided in response to Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-02-

05 requiring agencies to develop a remedial action plan to manage the risk associated with purchase 

card usage. 

4

 This total includes purchases of computer-related supplies and services and nonaccountable 

equipment, which is not tracked in HUD’s asset management system. 
Page 2 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

We conducted our review from July 2003 through March 2004, in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments from 

HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Administration/Chief Information Officer or her 

designee. HUD’s written comments are reprinted in the enclosure. 

Results in Brief 

HUD did not have an effective internal control system in place to maintain 

accountability over its computer equipment. Fundamental internal control activities 

were not performed, and as a result, computers and computer-related equipment 

were highly vulnerable to loss or misappropriation. We found that HUD did not 

consistently record computer equipment purchases in its asset management system 

or effectively maintain or reconcile its records. In addition, HUD did not perform 

regular physical inventories to verify the quantities and location of computer 

equipment. 

Because of these serious internal control weaknesses, neither HUD nor we were able 

to reliably determine the total amount of computer equipment purchases during the 

period of our review. However, for four of HUD’s major computer equipment 

vendors, we were able to identify over $2.2 million in computer equipment purchased 

in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 that was not recorded in HUD’s asset management 

system, of which we determined over $82,000 to be lost or missing.5

 Given the 

seriousness of the identified control weaknesses, these numbers could be much 

higher. 

Although HUD has awarded a new information technology contract for essentially all 

of its information processing, telecommunications, and related needs on an 

agencywide basis,6 it will still be accountable for HUD-owned equipment at least 

through fiscal year 2006. Until HUD corrects the weaknesses in its internal controls, 

accountability over existing computer equipment will remain problematic, and these 

assets will continue to be vulnerable to loss or misappropriation. 

This report makes seven recommendations for actions that if fully implemented, 

should help the department better protect and account for its computer equipment. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, HUD concurred with our findings and 

recommendations and outlined actions it plans to take in response. 

Background 

HUD’s reported purchases of computers and computer-related equipment, hereinafter 

referred to as computer equipment, and services in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 

 

5

 We define lost or missing computer equipment as that for which HUD was unable to provide location 

information or that which HUD specifically stated it was unable to locate. 

6

 As discussed later in the report, in December 2003, GAO sustained a protest filed against HUD’s 

award of this contract. 
Page 3 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

totaled about $27.6 million, $22.1 million, and $9.3 million, respectively. HUD uses its 

asset management system to account for all accountable inventory, which includes 

computer equipment (both capitalized and noncapitalized) as well as other items, 

such as furniture, weapons, and audiovisual equipment.7

 HUD issued new inventory 

process Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) on July 1, 2001, to supplement HUD 

Handbook 2200.01, Administrative Services Policy Handbook, dated December 2000. 

Together, the handbook and the new SOPs make up HUD’s personal property 

management policy as it relates to computer equipment. According to HUD’s policies 

and procedures, all computer equipment is to be purchased through the Office of 

Information Technology (OIT) in headquarters. OIT works under the guidance of its 

own policies and procedures manual dated November 1991, HUD Handbook 2400.13 

CHG 1, Word Processing and Microcomputer Technology Policies and Procedures. 

The Office of Administrative and Management Services (OAMS) is responsible for 

maintaining HUD’s asset management system, called the Facilities Integrated 

Resource Management System (FIRMS). As of September 2003, the total amount of 

inventory recorded in FIRMS was over $167 million, of which recorded accountable 

computer equipment totaled about $96 million. While OAMS is responsible for 

maintaining an accurate account of HUD-owned computer equipment in FIRMS, it 

must rely on the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), OIT, and the 

administrative resource divisions (ARD) for the necessary information. OCPO and 

OIT are required to notify OAMS in advance of all purchases of accountable computer 

equipment. When new equipment is received directly by ARDs or field offices or 

when equipment is transferred from one field office to another, the ARDs are 

responsible for providing OAMS with the documentation needed to update FIRMS. 

The receiving department personnel, who report to OAMS, use Palm Pilots to capture 

required data elements, such as equipment type, equipment standard, serial numbers, 

and barcodes. This information is then uploaded to FIRMS thereby recording the 

equipment in FIRMS. 

OIT makes computer equipment purchases using purchase cards, or if the amounts 

exceed the purchase card limits, HUD Form 10.4, Requisition for Supplies, 

Equipment, Forms, Publications and Procurement Services, is completed and 

forwarded to OCPO to make the purchase. As required by its own handbook, OIT 

maintains the Request Ordering System (ROS), an inventory database of computer 

equipment, separately from FIRMS. OAMS has access to the ROS database, but OIT 

does not have access to FIRMS. HUD has three administrative service centers that 

cover 10 regions. There are six ARDs, two within each administrative service center, 

that are responsible for the individual field offices within each region. 

Internal control is a major part of managing an organization and is key to ensuring 

proper use of government resources. As mandated by 31 U.S.C.§3512, commonly 

known as the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, the Comptroller 

 

7

 Accountable property is all capitalized and nonexpendable equipment with an acquisition cost of 

$1,000 or more, per item. Items with recurring monthly charges with life cycle costs of more than 

$1,000, such as cellular phones, should be included as accountable property. Sensitive items valued 

under $1,000 are also considered accountable property and should be included in the Facilities 

Integrated Resource Management System. 
Page 4 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

General has issued standards for internal control.8 These standards provide the 

overall framework for establishing and maintaining internal control and for 

identifying and addressing major performance and management challenges and areas 

at greatest risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. According to these 

standards, internal control comprises the plans, methods, and procedures used to 

meet missions, goals, and objectives. 

Control activities are the policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that 

enforce management’s directives and help ensure that actions are taken to address 

risks. Control activities are an integral part of an entity’s planning, implementation, 

review, and accountability for stewardship of government resources and achieving 

effective results. They include a wide range of diverse activities. Some examples of 

control activities include reconciliations, physical control over vulnerable assets, and 

accurate and timely recording of transactions and events. 

Scope and Methodology 

To determine whether HUD has an effective system of internal control for 

maintaining accountability over its computer equipment, we performed walkthroughs of the purchasing and receiving processes, reviewed HUD’s policies and 

procedures, reviewed reports by HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and an 

independent contractor with regard to computer equipment, and interviewed HUD 

staff. 

We obtained data on fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 computer equipment purchases 

by vendor from OIT. This information had to be manually generated by OIT from 

purchase orders and other available data because it was not available by vendor in 

HUD’s asset management system. We attempted to verify the completeness of the 

purchase information by comparing it to HUD’s total recorded purchases in its 

general ledger system. However, because HUD does not specifically identify 

computer equipment purchases in its general ledger, we were unable to validate the 

purchase information provided by HUD using the general ledger. In addition, as 

discussed later in the report, we identified completeness issues with regard to HUD’s 

asset management system, and therefore neither HUD nor we could use this as a 

source for determining the overall completeness of the purchase information. 

However, from the information HUD provided us we were able to identify four 

vendors from which HUD made significant computer equipment purchases during the 

period of our review. In the course of our review, we also determined that HUD’s 

information technology contractor made significant purchases of computer 

equipment for HUD during the period of our review. However, we limited our testing 

to computer equipment purchases made directly by HUD employees from the four 

vendors selected. 

We requested and obtained information on HUD computer equipment purchases 

directly from these four vendors for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. We imported 

the data into data analysis software. We used the software to perform matching tests 

 

8

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
Page 5 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

on the data to determine whether the computer equipment purchases were included 

in FIRMS.9 

We prepared spreadsheets listing the items purchased by HUD from these vendors 

that were not included in FIRMS. We then electronically sent these spreadsheets to 

the directors of the HUD field offices who were the designated recipients of the items 

as listed on the invoices and requested that they identify for us the specific location 

of the items (for example, building name, street address, floor number, and room 

number) and to whom the items were assigned. We requested shipping 

documentation for items that HUD indicated had been transferred elsewhere. 

Additionally, we performed physical inspections of selected computer equipment at 

HUD field offices in Richmond, Denver, and New York to validate, on a test basis, 

whether the items were at the locations cited by HUD. 

We obtained copies of the journal vouchers and the capitalized equipment 

depreciation reports HUD used to perform adjustments to the general ledger at 

September 30 for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. We reviewed these documents 

and interviewed the officials responsible for preparing them to gain an understanding 

of the methodology used to make the year-end adjustments to the general ledger 

balances. 

Ineffective Internal Controls Resulted in a Lack of Accountability over Computer 

Equipment 

HUD did not have effective internal controls in place to maintain accountability over 

its computer equipment. We identified the following weaknesses in HUD’s system of 

internal control over these assets: (1) computer equipment was not consistently 

recorded in HUD’s asset management system, (2) asset management system records 

were not reconciled to HUD’s general ledger, and (3) physical inventories of 

computer equipment were not regularly performed. These conditions created an 

environment where computer equipment became highly vulnerable to loss or 

misappropriation with little risk of detection. HUD awarded a new information 

technology contract in August 2003, to provide for its future computer equipment 

needs. However, HUD will remain accountable for its existing computer equipment at 

least through 2006. 

Computer Equipment Was Not Consistently Recorded in HUD’s Asset Management System

Our review of selected purchases of computers and computer-related equipment 

from four key vendors disclosed that at least $2.2 million of these purchases were not 

recorded in HUD’s asset management system, FIRMS, thus limiting accountability 

and control over these assets, many of which are portable. 

Based on data provided to us by OIT personnel, we identified four major vendors 

from which HUD made computer equipment purchases. We requested documentation 

 

9

 We were not able to perform these matching tests on approximately $2.0 million in purchases from 

two of the four vendors because those two vendors did not include serial numbers. 
Page 6 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

related to HUD purchases of computer equipment directly from these vendors. We 

compared the corresponding information against FIRMS and determined that 

approximately 21 percent of the purchases made from these vendors had not been 

recorded in FIRMS.10 Table 1 details the unrecorded purchases during fiscal years 

2001 through 2003. 

Table 1: Items Not Recorded in HUD’s Asset Management System as of 

September 2003 

Fiscal year 

Purchases

tested

Number of 

tested items 

not recorded

Value of tested 

items not 

recorded 

Percentage of 

purchase 

dollars tested 

that were not 

recorded

2001 $5,029,007 192 $ 172,814 3

2002 5,165,160 2,165 2,006,129 38

2003 262,845 31 41,198 16

Total $ 10,457,012 2,388 $ 2,220,141 21

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. 

Given the serious internal control weaknesses we identify in this report, and the fact 

that we tested purchases only from selected vendors, there may be additional 

purchases of computer equipment that are not recorded in HUD’s asset management 

system. 

HUD’s policy requires that all accountable computer equipment purchases be 

recorded in FIRMS. OAMS is to receive notice of the purchase within 2 days of the 

approval to purchase or the actual purchase from OIT or within 3 days of the 

approval to purchase or the actual purchase from OCPO. OAMS is required by HUD 

policy to follow up with the purchaser if the equipment has not been received within 

30 days of the purchase notification to ensure that all items purchased are recorded 

in FIRMS. As shown above, for the purchases we reviewed, these policies were not 

consistently followed. For example, while OAMS received the proper advance 

notification of a large single purchase of 4,763 computers totaling about $4.4 million 

in July 2002, it failed to follow up with OIT when records indicated that not all of the 

equipment had been received after 30 days. As a result, 2,106 computers totaling 

about $1.9 million of this single purchase were not recorded in the asset management 

system, which make up the majority of the fiscal year 2002 unrecorded purchases we 

identified. 

 

We requested location information on the 2,388 items we identified that were not 

recorded in HUD’s asset management system from the directors of the field offices 

where the items were originally shipped. HUD was ultimately able to provide 

location information on 2,284 items totaling about $2.1 million. This information was 

 

10 Of the approximately $16.2 million in total purchases, as represented by HUD, from these four 

vendors, we were able to perform this comparison on approximately $10.5 million in purchases (as 

shown in table 1). Vendor documentation related to $2.0 million in purchases did not include serial 

numbers, and therefore we were unable to match these purchases against FIRMS. The remaining 

$3.7 million was not tested because it included items other than equipment. 
Page 7 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

based on OIT records, which are maintained separately from FIRMS. The department 

was unable to provide location information for 104 items totaling over $82,000. While 

not significant compared to total computer purchases during the period of review, 

HUD’s inability to locate this equipment demonstrates that lapses in accountability 

for these portable assets can and do occur under HUD’s current system of controls. 

In our efforts to locate this equipment, we also determined that supporting 

documentation for equipment transfers that occurred between HUD offices during 

the period of our review often did not exist. HUD was not able to provide supporting 

documentation for most of the items it recorded as being shipped to another location. 

For example, we sent requests for location information to each field office that 

received equipment. Based on the responses we received, we requested shipping 

documentation for the computers that were listed as no longer at the receiving field 

office. HUD was unable to provide the requested shipping documentation, stating that 

type of information is not maintained. HUD’s failure to regularly maintain supporting 

documentation for transfers is another factor that erodes its chain of accountability 

for this equipment and increases the risk of loss or misappropriation. 

Asset Management System Was Not Reconciled to HUD’s General Ledger

An effective reconciliation of an entity’s detailed list of assets to its general ledger, 

the official record of accounts, is a key internal control necessary to help ensure the 

accuracy and completeness of both sets of records and thus to maintain 

accountability and control over the assets. We found that HUD was not effectively 

reconciling its asset management system inventory records (FIRMS reports) to its 

general ledger, as required by its policies and procedures. Thus, errors in the detailed 

records went unnoticed, and inaccurate adjustments were made to the general ledger 

to “balance” it to the erroneous inventory records in FIRMS. 

When an obligation for the purchase of computer equipment is made, the obligating 

official is to establish an accounting code that initially classifies the purchase as a 

capitalized asset or an expense. When the invoice is received by the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), the purchase order number or contract number that 

appears on the invoice is entered into the accounting system, indicating whether the 

transaction should be recorded as a capitalized asset or an expense in the general 

ledger. However, for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 all such items were recorded 

initially as expenses in the general ledger. 

Upon receipt of purchased computer equipment, OAMS is to record the equipment in 

FIRMS. If the value of a single asset or a group of similar assets is $100,000 or more, 

the item is to be coded as capitalized equipment in FIRMS. OAMS sends OCFO a 

quarterly11 FIRMS report that lists all assets to be capitalized and depreciated.12 OCFO 

 

11 Prior to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003, this report was prepared manually based on OAMS 

staff’s interpretation of the capitalization policy and submitted annually. In fiscal year 2003, OAMS 

began submitting this report quarterly. Beginning with the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003, the report 

was automated. 

12 Capitalized assets are recorded on the balance sheet, whereas noncapitalized assets are recorded as 

expenses on the statement of net cost in HUD’s financial statements. Depreciation of capitalized assets 
Page 8 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

is to compare the amounts in the OAMS report to the general ledger balances and use 

the report to adjust the amount of equipment purchases for the period that should be 

capitalized as assets in the general ledger and to record the related depreciation 

expense. 

Neither OAMS nor OCFO attempts to reconcile total purchases of equipment in 

FIRMS (both capitalized and noncapitalized) to the general ledger records.13 HUD 

also does not, in its general ledger, segregate accountable assets that are required to 

be recorded in FIRMS from nonaccountable assets, which would be necessary to 

facilitate such a reconciliation. These issues, combined with the other serious 

internal control weaknesses we identified, precluded HUD or us from being able to 

reliably determine the total amount of equipment purchases for the period of our 

review. 

Because HUD does not reconcile FIRMS activity to the general ledger, if purchases 

are not recorded in FIRMS or coding errors are made in establishing whether 

equipment is capitalized or not within FIRMS, there is not an established process to 

promptly identify and correct errors. Because FIRMS is used to adjust the general 

ledger for capitalized assets, any errors in FIRMS are transferred to the general 

ledger. For example, according to officials in OCFO, in fiscal year 2001, OAMS staff 

initially recorded the purchase of several servers totaling approximately $23 million 

to expense codes in FIRMS, but it was later determined that these servers should 

have been capitalized as assets. Thus a year-end adjustment to the general ledger 

was required. Two years later in fiscal year 2003, based on a reassessment of the 

transactions, OAMS staff determined that those items should not have been 

capitalized after all and yet another year-end adjustment to the general ledger was 

required. Thus, assuming the capitalization determination by OAMS was correct, the 

general ledger balances were misstated in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. In 

addition, if OAMS fails to record computer equipment purchases in FIRMS, as we 

found during our review, this also misstates the general ledger—overstating expensed 

assets and understating capitalized assets and depreciation expense, thus skewing 

HUD’s operating results. 

Because HUD does not perform meaningful reconciliations of FIRMS to the general 

ledger, errors of this nature can continue without detection, thus compromising the 

accuracy of HUD’s general ledger computer equipment accounts and its detailed 

asset management system inventory. Thus, both accountability and control over 

these vulnerable assets are compromised. 

Based on discussions with HUD officials, we understand that once the new 

information technology contract discussed below is in place, HUD will no longer be 

making computer purchases, since essentially all computer equipment will be 

supplied and owned by the contractor. While this will simplify the process, regular 

reconciliations of FIRMS and the general ledger will still be necessary to help ensure 

 spreads the cost of the assets over the future periods benefited, rather than expensing the total cost in 

the period acquired. 

13 There is currently no requirement in HUD’s policies and procedures to reconcile total equipment 

purchases in FIRMS to total purchases in the general ledger. 
Page 9 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

that disposal and depreciation activity is properly reflected in the general ledger and 

to verify accountability in FIRMS. 

Physical Inventories of Computer Equipment Not Regularly Performed

We also found that HUD had not been regularly performing physical inventories of 

computer equipment, another key internal control necessary to secure and safeguard 

vulnerable assets. HUD’s property and equipment policies and procedures require 

that a physical inventory be completed at least every 2 years. In its Management 

Letter14 for fiscal year 1999, HUD’s OIG stated that it had noted this issue in its 

financial audit since at least 1993. The OIG discusses the issue again in its 

Management Letters for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. To address this ongoing problem, 

HUD hired a contractor in fiscal year 2001 to perform a physical inventory and update 

the computer equipment inventory records. However, no physical inventory was 

performed in fiscal year 2002 and only a partial15 physical inventory was completed in 

2003. Ongoing errors in recording equipment, combined with the other problems we 

identified, increase the risk of continuing inaccuracies in HUD’s asset management 

system that have not been corrected through regular physical inventories. HUD 

officials told us that a physical inventory had been completed in December 2003; 

however, as of the end of our fieldwork, the results of the physical inventory had not 

been provided to OAMS so that it could update FIRMS. The officials stated that due 

to the sustained protest of the contract award discussed below, all contractor work 

related to the equipment inventory has been put on hold. 

While the completion of the physical inventory is a positive step forward, until FIRMS 

is updated to reflect the results, there will be little benefit from these efforts. In 

addition, unless HUD performs regular inventories and corrects the other deficiencies 

we identified to keep its inventory records accurate on an ongoing basis, it will have 

minimal assurances of the quantities and locations of its computer equipment. 

New Information Technology Contract Will Not Fully Resolve Accountability Issues 

In August 2003, HUD awarded a new $860 million information technology contract for 

essentially all of its information processing, telecommunications, and related needs 

on a nationwide, agencywide basis. Under the new information technology contract, 

the contractor will provide contractor-owned equipment and services necessary to 

meet HUD's information processing and telecommunications requirements. Under 

this approach, HUD officials advised us that they no longer plan on making direct 

purchases of computers and computer-related equipment. However, HUD still 

retains ownership of previously purchased computer equipment and will need to 

maintain accountability for this equipment through at least fiscal year 2006, its 

estimated remaining useful life. 

 

14 The Management Letters issued by HUD’s OIG in connection with audits of HUD’s annual financial 

statements contain various findings and recommendations that were in addition to those included in 

the auditors’ reports on internal controls. 

15 Although the physical inventory count has been completed, the results have not been provided to 

OAMS so that it can reconcile the count to FIRMS. 
Page 10 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

In December 2003, GAO sustained a protest filed against HUD's award of this 

contract and recommended that HUD reopen the acquisition, obtain revised 

proposals, and make a new award determination.16 Regardless of HUD’s ultimate 

contracting decisions, it will remain responsible for ensuring that its information 

processing and telecommunications needs are met and that the agency is expending 

funds properly to meet those needs. 

Conclusion 

The combination of weaknesses we found in HUD’s controls over its computer 

equipment limit HUD’s ability to be accountable for these assets, both in terms of 

physically safeguarding the assets from loss or misappropriation and properly 

reflecting the assets and related expenses in its financial records. Even with a new 

information technology contract, HUD will still be accountable for resolving the 

issues we identified related to currently owned HUD computer equipment. Therefore 

it is important that HUD management act to establish adequate internal control over 

these highly vulnerable assets. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

In order to establish adequate internal control over HUD-owned computer equipment 

and reduce HUD’s vulnerability to fraud, waste, and abuse, we recommend that the 

Assistant Secretary for Administration/Chief Information Officer take the following 

seven actions: 

• Reiterate to responsible HUD personnel the importance of following HUD’s 

established policies and procedures for recording computer equipment 

purchases in FIRMS. 

• Follow up on the items we identified as not recorded in FIRMS to determine 

the location of the computer equipment and update FIRMS to reflect the 

results. 

• Establish specific requirements for maintenance of documentation and 

records to support changes in the location of computer equipment. 

• Perform quarterly reconciliations of HUD-owned computer equipment 

balances in FIRMS, both capitalized and noncapitalized, to the recorded 

amounts in the general ledger, including researching all differences and 

correcting any identified errors. 

• Segregate accountable equipment purchases from nonaccountable purchases 

in the general ledger in order to facilitate the reconciliation process. 

• Update FIRMS to reflect the results of the recently completed physical 

inventory of HUD-owned computer equipment. 

• Perform a complete and accurate physical inventory of HUD-owned computer 

equipment at least annually and update FIRMS as needed to reflect the 

inventory results. 

 

16 Lockheed Martin Information Systems, B-292836 (Dec. 18, 2003). 
Page 11 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

Agency Comments 

In written comments on a draft of this report, from HUD’s Assistant Secretary for 

Administration/Chief Information Officer, HUD concurred with our findings and 

recommendations and outlined actions it plans to take in response. The agency also 

provided one minor technical comment, which we incorporated into the report. 

- - - - - - - 

If you or your staff has any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-8341 or by 

e-mail at calboml@gao.gov or Robert Owens, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-8579 or 

by e-mail at owensr@gao.gov. 

Sincerely yours, 

Linda M. Calbom 

Director, Financial Management and Assurance 

Enclosure 
Page 12 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

Enclosure 

Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Page 13 GAO-04-520R Accountability for Computer Equipment Lacking 

(190115) 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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. General Accounting 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 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs 
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.