Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

July 2003 BUREAU OF INDIAN 

AFFAIRS SCHOOLS 

New Facilities 

Management 

Information System 

Promising, but 

Improved Data 

Accuracy Needed 

GAO-03-692 
FMIS is designed to address the previous data system’s shortcomings and 

appears to have the capability to meet BIA’s management needs if the data 

that are entered into FMIS are correct and timely. The old system was hard 

to use and did not readily provide data for maintenance and repair efforts. 

FMIS’s design appears to overcome these weaknesses. For example, FMIS 

has features that help facility managers make data more consistent, as well 

as tools for helping managers develop cost estimates for maintenance and 

construction projects. 

BIA’s contractor has been correcting the data that were transferred to FMIS 

from the previous system, but issues such as software compatibility 

problems between the contractor’s system and FMIS have delayed entry of 

some of the data for more than 1 year. BIA officials say that these problems 

are being addressed. They said the delay has not affected their ability to 

prioritize or fund repair and construction projects, and our review of the 

data indicated that most newly identified deficiencies will not need to be 

addressed for 2 to 5 years. Our review of data from 14 BIA schools and 

observations during site visits disclosed no instances in which these data 

problems resulted in an unsafe learning environment for children. 

Most measures for controlling the quality of new data BIA employees are 

entering into the system for individual schools are not working well. BIA 

has established a multilevel review process and training programs to help 

ensure that such data entries are complete and accurate, but BIA’s 

contractor, in reviewing data at the end of this process, continues to find 

that nearly half of the proposed data entries coming through the system are 

inaccurate and incomplete. Data entries from one-third of 102 schools that 

entered data show a 100-percent error rate. As a result, BIA officials 

continue to rely on their contractor to ensure that FMIS reflects accurate 

and complete data on the condition of BIA’s facilities. 

BIA School in South Dakota 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

is responsible for providing over 

48,000 children with a safe place to 

learn. In response to concerns that 

data in its old information system 

did not accurately reflect the 

condition of facilities, BIA acquired 

a new system, called the Facilities 

Management Information System 

(FMIS). GAO was asked to 

determine whether FMIS addresses 

the old system’s weaknesses and 

meets BIA’s management needs, 

whether BIA has finished validating 

the accuracy of data entered into 

FMIS from the old system, and how 

well the quality control measures 

are working for ensuring the 

accuracy of new data being entered 

into the system from individual 

schools. 

GAO recommends that BIA 

establish better guidance and 

performance expectations for 

employees who are responsible for 

entering and reviewing the 

accuracy and completeness of 

FMIS data. GAO also recommends 

that BIA officials periodically 

analyze the extent and type of data 

errors being found during review in 

order to identify training needs and 

other strategies for addressing any 

continuing problems. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-692.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

Shaul (202) 512-6778. 

Highlights of GAO-03-692, a report to 

Congressional Committees 

July 2003

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS SCHOOLS

New Facilities Management Information 

System Promising, but Improved Data 

Accuracy Needed 
Page i GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

FMIS’s Design Addresses Previous Information System’s 

Shortcomings and Appears to Have the Capability to Meet BIA’s 

Needs 8

Inventory and Backlog Data Have Been Validated, but Not 

Transferred to FMIS 13

Control Measures in Place for Ensuring Data Quality Are Largely 

Ineffective 22

Conclusion 26

Recommendation for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments on Our Evaluation 27

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 30 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of the Interior 32 

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 34 

GAO Contacts 34

Staff Acknowledgments 34

Tables 

Table 1. Description of Backlog Categories and Ranks 10

Table 2: School Facilities Listed in the FMIS Inventory Directly 

Used by Children 14

Table 3: Categories of Unfunded FMIS Backlog Entries as of 

October 2002 17

Table 4: Modifications to the Backlog Data from AME’s 100 Percent 

Validation in 1999 18

Table 5: Estimated Total Cost Changes to the FMIS Backlog for 14 

Schools 20

Table 6: Extent of Disapproved Entries in FMIS among 102 Schools 

Submitting Data, August 2001 to December 2002. 23

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Figure 

Figure 1: FMIS Design and Implementation Timeline 7

Abbreviations 

AME Applied Management Engineering, Inc. 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

FACCOM Facility Construction Operations and Maintenance 

FMIS Facilities Management Information System 

O&M operations and maintenance 

OFMC Office of Facilities Management and Constructions 

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. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

July 31, 2003 

Congressional Committees: 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which is responsible for ensuring that 

over 48,000 Indian students have school facilities that provide them with a 

safe and quality place to learn, works with Indian tribes to operate and 

maintain nearly 2,200 buildings at 171 elementary and secondary schools.1

During fiscal year 2002, BIA’s budget for operating, maintaining, 

constructing, and repairing its school facilities was nearly $348 million. 

For many years, BIA and tribal employees have been tracking the 

condition of their school facilities using an automated information system. 

Tribal Indian education organizations2

 and BIA have had longstanding 

concerns that the information system was inadequate for managing school 

facilities and did not accurately reflect how many buildings are in good 

condition or disrepair. As a result, BIA did not have accurate and complete 

information to determine how much annual funding is needed at each 

school site for heating, lighting, and other operating expenses, as well as 

how much current and future funding is needed at each site for making 

repairs and capital improvements, such as patching a roof or upgrading a 

fire alarm system. 

Recognizing the need to address these concerns, BIA is now in its third 

year of implementing a new Facilities Management Information System 

(FMIS) to replace its old information system.3

 Prior to implementing FMIS, 

however, and to ensure that this new system met BIA’s management 

needs, BIA hired a consulting firm to identify weaknesses with the old 

system and recommend improvements for designing a new one. Once the 

 1

During school year 2001-2002, in addition to the 171 elementary and secondary schools, 

BIA funded 14 peripheral dormitories. These dormitories are established on reservations 

for Indian students who attend nearby public schools. 

2

We discussed the issues concerning the school facilities with the Association of 

Community Tribal Schools, the National Indian School Board Association, the Native 

American Grant Schools Association, and the Association of Navajo Community Controlled 

School Boards. 

3

BIA uses the FMIS to manage its entire Facilities Management Program. FMIS processes 

information about all BIA-owned or BIA-funded facilities. However, facilities other than 

educational facilities were considered to be out of our scope and were not included in our 

analysis. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

new system was designed and BIA was prepared to implement it, BIA 

hired an engineering firm to validate all of the data to be transferred from 

the old system into FMIS to ensure that the data were accurate and 

complete. To maintain the integrity of these data over time, BIA also 

introduced various quality control measures for helping ensure that facility 

management staff would accurately enter new data into FMIS. Because of 

concerns about the quality of the data in the former system, the Congress 

directed us to conduct a review in this area.4

 After discussions with 

cognizant congressional committees and several Indian education 

organizations about the information that would be most helpful, we 

focused our efforts on (1) whether BIA’s new facilities management 

information system addresses the former system’s shortcomings and 

meets BIA’s needs for managing school facilities; (2) the status of BIA’s 

effort to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data being 

transferred from the old system into FMIS; and (3) how well BIA’s quality 

control measures are working to ensure that new data entered into FMIS 

are accurate and complete. 

To conduct our review of BIA’s new information system, we reviewed the 

studies that evaluated BIA’s old information system and determined the 

extent that BIA’s new system implements recommendations. We evaluated 

data currently in the FMIS database and accompanied BIA’s contractor on 

selected site visits designed to validate and update information in the 

database. We also interviewed school officials at 8 BIA-funded schools in 

Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota. We selected these schools to 

obtain a mix based on differences in their size, geographic location, and 

type of school, such as day school or boarding school. We also interviewed 

officials from BIA’s Office of Facilities Management and Construction, 

Division of Safety and Risk Management, and Office of Indian Education 

Programs, as well as officials from various Indian education organizations. 

See appendix I for a more complete description of our scope and 

methodology. 

We conducted our work between June 2002 and July 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

FMIS is designed to address the previous information system’s 

shortcomings and appears to have the capability to meet BIA’s needs for 

 4

The mandate for this review is from Public Law 107-110. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

managing its school facilities if the data that are entered are correct and 

timely. Problems with the old system included difficulty of use and 

inaccurate data. FMIS is designed as an easy-to-use system that allows 

facility managers at the schools to enter data without having to remember 

lengthy codes or compute calculations by hand. Many facility managers at 

the schools we visited said FMIS is easier to use and contains features that 

address weaknesses they had identified with the previous system. FMIS 

also has features that can help BIA employees make accurate and 

consistent data entries, including more specific categories and priority 

rankings for repairs and improvements, and a software tool that helps 

facility managers develop cost estimates for repair, replacement, or 

construction projects. FMIS incorporates several modules to provide BIA 

managers with enough information to help them make consistent 

decisions for disbursing funds across the schools and for accurately and 

consistently prioritizing repair projects and capital improvements. 

BIA’s engineering contractor has identified needed corrections to the 

inventory and condition data that were transferred to FMIS from the old 

information system, but BIA has not made all of the data corrections in 

FMIS. As of October 2002, FMIS contained information on almost 2,200 

buildings at 171 elementary and secondary schools and showed an 

estimated cost of over $642 million for repairs, capital improvements, and 

construction to improve the facilities’ condition and meet changing 

program needs. Regarding the inventory data used to provide schools with 

annual funds for operations and maintenance (O&M), BIA’s contractor 

completed its data validation effort in February 2003, and BIA expects that 

the FMIS data will be updated by August 2003. BIA officials expect that 

this corrected inventory data will enhance their ability to provide schools 

with the appropriate amount of funding beginning in fiscal year 

2004. Regarding the data used to identify and prioritize repair projects and 

capital improvements, BIA’s contractor has been completing its cyclical 

review of the condition of school facilities on time. The contractor 

completed its first review of all school sites in 1999, identifying almost 

75,000 adjustments that increased the list of repairs and improvements by 

more than $265 million. In fiscal year 2002, the contractor visited 

33 schools and identified corrections to add, delete, or adjust the FMIS 

data. However, because of issues such as software compatibility problems 

between the contractor’s system and FMIS, BIA had not entered the 

results of these condition assessments into FMIS for over 1 year. BIA and 

contractor officials said that these compatibility problems are being 

addressed and that the delay did not significantly affect BIA’s ability to 

appropriately prioritize or fund repair and construction projects or 

negatively affect the children’s learning environment. Our review of the 
Page 4 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

data for 14 of the schools showed that none of the unentered data were for 

urgent or safety deficiencies that needed immediate attention; most were 

maintenance deficiencies that would need attention over the next 2 to 

5 years. Further, in our visits to 8 BIA schools, we did not observe that the 

children were in facilities that did not provide them with a safe place to 

learn. 

The ability of FMIS to provide accurate and complete data depends on BIA 

employees entering correct and timely information, but control measures 

BIA has established for ensuring data quality have been largely ineffective. 

BIA established a process whereby each data entry proposed by school 

facility managers is reviewed for accuracy by BIA engineering personnel at 

both an agency and a regional office, with final review and approval by 

BIA’s engineering contractor and the central office before being accepted 

into FMIS. Despite this process, however, BIA’s contractor continues to 

find that nearly half of data entries proposed by facility managers and 

approved by agency and regional office personnel are inaccurate and 

incomplete, with a third of 102 schools that entered data experiencing a 

100 percent error rate. Despite these ongoing problems, BIA officials have 

not established criteria and performance goals that define their 

expectations for the accuracy and completeness of data entered into 

FMIS. In addition, BIA officials do not analyze the number and content of 

data errors that would allow them to identify the type of additional 

guidance or training needed, or target locations that could benefit from 

more comprehensive technical assistance. BIA officials responsible for 

FMIS said that one reason they have not taken such action is because they 

had no line authority over the BIA employees that enter and review the 

FMIS data, and such action would have had to occur at a higher level 

within BIA. BIA officials said that an ongoing reorganization of the agency 

and collaboration between BIA offices offers an opportunity to address 

performance issues of BIA staff. Until BIA employee performance 

improves, BIA officials responsible for FMIS continue to rely on their 

contractor to ensure that FMIS reflects accurate and complete data about 

the condition of BIA’s facilities. 

We are making recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior to direct the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and the 

Office of Indian Education Programs to take steps to improve the ability of 

BIA employees to maintain the integrity of FMIS data. These 

recommendations include establishing criteria, guidance, and performance 

measures for maintaining accurate, complete, and timely FMIS data. These 

recommendations also include a requirement to periodically analyze the 
Page 5 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

number and content of data errors in order to identify strategies for 

correcting and preventing them. 

BIA administers funding for the operation, maintenance, construction, and 

repair of school facilities at 171 elementary and secondary schools in 

23 states. These schools are located primarily in rural areas and small 

towns and serve Indian students living on or near reservations. Many of 

these schools include not only educational buildings, but also dormitories 

and supporting infrastructure such as water and sewer systems. BIA 

operates 64 of the schools directly while the others are operated by tribes 

through separate grant or contract agreements. We previously reported on 

issues related to the condition of BIA school facilities in 1997 and 2001.5

BIA’s Office of Facilities Management and Construction (OFMC) is 

responsible for overseeing FMIS. At both BIA-operated and tribal-operated 

schools, it is the responsibility of the facility managers to enter data about 

the inventory and condition of their schools into the system. Prior to 

acceptance into FMIS, these draft data entries are reviewed and approved 

by facility managers at BIA agency and regional offices respectively, 

before final review and approval by a BIA contractor and BIA’s central 

office. 

For 22 years BIA relied on its Facility Construction Operations and 

Maintenance (FACCOM) system to maintain inventory data for its annual 

O&M program, as well as “backlog” data that reflect repairs and 

improvements needed outside of the annual maintenance program to 

improve the facilities’ condition now and in the future. These data assist 

BIA in monitoring the status of facilities repair and new construction 

projects and identifying funding needs for O&M and renovation. However, 

as BIA’s needs began to change, BIA managers realized that FACCOM had 

limitations and acknowledged that there were serious concerns with the 

accuracy and completeness of these data. 

As shown in figure 1, BIA’s efforts to replace FACCOM began in 1995 when 

one of its contractors issued a report about the FACCOM system’s 

shortcomings and recommended actions for improvement. In 1995, BIA 

entered into a contract with Anteon Corporation, a system developer, to 

 5

See U.S. General Accounting Office, School Facilities: Reported Condition and Costs to 

Repair Schools Funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs, GAO/HEHS-98-47 (Washington D.C.: 

Dec. 31, 1997) and BIA and DOD Schools: Student Achievement and Other Characteristics 

Often Differ from Public Schools’, GAO-01-934 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

design the new management information system. Relying on government 

standards,6

 BIA worked with Anteon Corporation to design the new 

system and address FACCOM’s shortcomings. In 1999, BIA contracted 

with an engineering firm, Applied Management Engineering, Inc. (AME), to 

conduct a survey at all school sites in order to validate the schools’ 

condition data and to verify the presence of buildings and their use. 

According to BIA officials, after AME validated each school’s inventory 

and condition data, and BIA approved it, the data were accepted into 

FMIS. 

 6

The standards are the Federal Information Processing Standards from the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 
Page 7 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Figure 1: FMIS Design and Implementation Timeline 

a

PL. 107-110 required BIA to update the data in FMIS every 3 years. 

From fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BIA spent nearly $12.5 million to 

develop and begin implementing FMIS. These costs include about 

$8 million for contractor expenses and over $2.6 million for BIA in-house 

expenses, which covered the design of FMIS and ongoing technical 

support. During fiscal years 1999- 2003, BIA spent about $13 million for the 

AME contract covering the validation of inventory and condition data and 

other engineering support activities. To operate FMIS, BIA expects to 

spend about $1.7 million annually through fiscal year 2006 for contractor 

expenses and about $250,000 for in-house expenses. In fiscal year 

2007, BIA hopes to move to an annual steady rate of about $750,000 for 

contractor costs and about $250,000 for in-house costs. To continue having 

AME reassess and validate the schools’ inventory and condition data, BIA 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

March

The contracting 

firm's report is

issued that 

evaluated 

FACCOM's 

weaknesses and 

recommended 

actions to verify 

existing data and

ensure integrity 

of future data.

April

BIA awarded

Anteon

Corporation

a contract to

design a new

facilities

management 

information

system.

January

BIA awarded

AME 

a contract to

verify and 

validate the

schools'

backlog data

and to validate

the inventory

associated

with the backlog.

March

AME completed

a 100 percent

validation of the

schools' backlog

data and 

of the inventory

associated with

the backlog.

June

BIA transferred

the AMEvalidated 

backlog data

into FMIS.

August

AME began

its first cycle

to reassess

and validate

the backlog

data for 20

percent of the

schools each

year.

November 

BIA began

implementing

FMIS at BIA

offices and

schools.

June

FMIS was 

available

at all BIA offices

and schools

nationwide.

November

BIA awarded

AME a contract

to verify and

validate each

of the school's

inventory data.

January

AME began its

second cycle

to reassess and

validate the

backlog data

for 20 percent

of the schools

each year.

February

AME completed

its validation and

verificaton of

the schools' 

inventory data.

April

BIA awarded AME

a contract to

continue its work

of verifying and

validating the

schools' inventory

and backlog. AME

began its third cycle 

to reassess and

validate the backlog

data for 33 percent

of the schools

each year.a

August

BIA expects to 

transfer the AMEvalidated inventory

data into FMIS.

BIA began 

reviewing and 

evaluating its 

management 

needs to 

determine an 

appropriate 

design for the 

information 

system.

Anteon 

Corporation 

began 

designing and 

developing 

FMIS.

Anteon 

Corporation 

continued 

designing and 

developing 

FMIS.

Source: BIA data.
Page 8 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

projects to spend over $8.3 million from fiscal years 2004 through 2006 on 

contract expenses. 

Recognizing the FACCOM system’s shortcomings, BIA worked with its 

system developer to design a new management information system that 

would assist in resolving many of the weaknesses identified with the old 

system, including those related to difficulty of use and accuracy of data. 

FMIS is more user friendly and it is designed to meet facility managers’ 

needs at all levels within BIA by serving as both an information 

management system and as a project management tool. FMIS incorporates 

modules, including the inventory and backlog modules, which help facility 

managers make decisions regarding the condition of the school facilities 

to provide a safe environment for their students. The inventory module 

contains information such as the physical characteristics and use of 

buildings and is used to make funding decisions for annual operating 

expenses and routine maintenance. The backlog module contains data that 

tracks detailed information about the physical condition of a school’s 

facility and is used to prioritize and fund repair projects, capital 

improvements, and construction. 

FMIS is designed to better support the day-to-day activities of the facility 

management staff by being more user friendly. FMIS is a Windows-based 

system that provides a point-and-click feature, which makes it easy to 

navigate the system without having to remember codes. This is important 

for FMIS users, because some facility managers have little prior exposure 

to computers. Facility managers we interviewed at the school sites and 

agency and regional offices said that compared to FACCOM, FMIS is 

better and easier to use. One facility manager in Arizona said FMIS is 

easier to use because the system automatically sends messages to him 

when changes are made to the data, allowing him to instantly see when 

updates have been made to his school’s data. Another facility manager in 

Arizona said FMIS’s automated functions, such as drop-down menus, 

make it user friendly. Finally, according to BIA officials, FACCOM was 

only accessible by about 3-4 percent of facility managers, which did not 

include facility managers located at the schools. FMIS is designed to be 

accessible by all of BIA’s facility managers, including those at the school 

sites, via an Internet connection. Although most of the facility managers 

we visited at the schools said FMIS was better compared to FACCOM, 

FMIS’ Design 

Addresses Previous 

Information System’s 

Shortcomings and 

Appears to Have the 

Capability to Meet 

BIA’s Needs 

FMIS Is Designed to 

Resolve Shortcomings 

with the Previous 

Information System 
Page 9 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

many had been unable to access FMIS at school sites since December of 

2001 due to a court order that shut down access to BIA’s Internet site.7

These facility managers had to travel to agency or regional offices to enter 

data or had to forward data to these offices for data entry. 

FMIS is also designed to help BIA employees improve the accuracy of the 

data, in part through automated mechanisms that help facility managers 

consistently describe the category and rank of backlog entries and the 

funding needed to address them.8

 One difficulty under FACCOM was that 

entries listed in the backlog were often categorized incorrectly with 

inflated priorities, making it difficult to determine which projects needed 

immediate attention. To address this problem, FMIS is designed to restrict 

who can enter safety deficiencies, which are given first priority for 

funding. In addition, FMIS is designed to only accept entries that have 

been reviewed and approved by three different levels of BIA management 

and the contractor. Further, BIA refined the definitions of how backlog 

items should be categorized and ranked to help facility managers use the 

definitions consistently. The definitions now include nine categories and a 

ranking system for determining the priority of the items entered into the 

backlog (see table 1). These nine categories describe whether the 

deficiency at the school affects safety and endangers students’ lives; 

violates an environmental, disability, or energy standard; is a maintenance 

or capital improvement item; or requires an emergency repair. In addition, 

the system ranks items using a scale from one through three—with one 

describing the most severe deficiency. The backlog entries ranked as a 

“1” will most likely be funded first because they are the highest priority. 

FMIS requires facility managers to enter an associated category and rank 

for all items entered into the backlog. Such a process, with its greater 

 7

In the Cobell v. Norton litigation concerning the government’s management of Native 

American trust funds, a U.S. District Court judge, on December 5, 2001, ordered the 

Department of the Interior to disconnect from the Internet all information technology 

systems that house or provide access to individual Indian trust data and all computers 

within the custody and control of Interior, its employees, and contractors that have access 

to individual trust data. In an order dated December 17, 2001, the judge held that Interior 

could reconnect systems to the Internet with the approval of a court-appointed Special 

Master. As of June 16, 2003, the BIA facilities management information system had not 

been reconnected to the Internet. 

8

Entries to FMIS are identified through physical inspections and entered by the BIA 

contractor, the Division of Safety and Risk Management, facilities management field staff, 

or the Division of Environmental Services. Cost estimates are developed from these 

inspections and are routed through the contractor from either the facilities management 

field staff or the Division of Environmental Services, according to BIA officials. 
Page 10 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

specificity in how to categorize and rank deficiencies, can help facility 

managers improve consistency in the data entered for all 171 schools. 

Table 1. Description of Backlog Categories and Ranks 

Category of violation Code and rank 

Emergency U-1—an unforeseen event in which danger exists that could 

 reasonably be expected to cause death, physical harm, 

 or property damage. 

Safety S-1—serious deficiency that poses a threat to safety and 

 health, such as fire safety violations. 

S-2—moderate deficiency such as poor lighting or trip or fall 

 hazards. 

Physical plant 

(maintenance) 

M-1—deficiency related to the structural, mechanical, or 

 electrical systems that render it inoperable, such as the 

 deterioration of a roof that causes interior building 

 damage. 

M-2—deficiency related to the facility, systems, or grounds, 

 such as replacing worn door locks that are inoperable 

M-3—functional facility equipment exceeds its normal life 

 expectancy. 

Handicapped H-1—serious code deficiency, such as the lack of accessible 

 door hardware. 

H-2—violation of codes and standards, such as the lack of 

 code compliant accessible handrails. 

Environmental X-1—serious code deficiency that poses a threat to life or 

 property, such as removing friable asbestos in occupied 

 areas. 

X-2—code deficiency, such as removing asbestos floor tiles 

 from a building. 

Predictive renewals R-3—backlogs identified for future planning to determine the 

 life cycle needs beyond the 5-year plan. 

New construction C-1—to replace buildings with serious code/safety deficiencies

 or to abate numerous high cost code violations that 

 meet or exceed the replacement cost rule. 

C-2—to accommodate functional or programmatic needs, such

 as replacing an undersized dining room to 

 accommodate the student population. 

Programmatic capital 

improvements 

P-2—to change the functional space or to accommodate 

 programmatic space needs, such as retrofitting an 

 existing classroom into a computer laboratory. 

Energy E-2—violation of energy codes and standards, such as 

 upgrading or replacing inefficient heating systems. 

E-3—deficiencies, which when corrected will reduce energy 

 use, such as replacing weather seals on exterior doors. 

Source: BIA data. 
Page 11 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

To help facility managers develop accurate and consistent cost estimates 

to address backlog items, FMIS is designed to operate with a software 

program that helps facility managers accomplish industry standard cost 

estimates for replacement, renovation, or construction projects over 

$5,000. A facility manager at a school site we visited said that this software 

tool eliminates the need to make calculations by hand, and thus greatly 

assists him in estimating accurate costs for school projects. 

Another accuracy-related area that plagued FACCOM was that projects 

would continue on the active backlog list even after completion. The FMIS 

backlog module is designed with a “backlog completion screen” that 

stores completion dates, costs, and narrative comments. This function 

helps facility managers monitor the length of time that funded backlog 

items remained on the backlog without being completed. Unlike FACCOM, 

FMIS is designed with a tracking function that identifies the name of the 

person who entered or updated a particular backlog item. Managers can 

use this function to seek clarification or justification for items that have 

not been completed within a reasonable timeframe. 

The FMIS inventory module, one of six modules in the system,9

 is designed 

to assist BIA in determining operations and maintenance funding for its 

school facilities. Specifically, the inventory module is designed to manage 

information about all of BIA’s school buildings, rooms, towers (such as a 

water tower), and grounds, along with their associated inventory items, 

such as stairs, sidewalks, or playgrounds. The inventory module also 

details if the property is owned, operated, or maintained by BIA directly or 

under contract or grant. The inventory module is designed with the 

capacity to integrate with other FMIS modules in order to generate reports 

and provide detailed documentation for federal funding purposes. 

At the schools we visited, several facility managers said the inventory 

function in FMIS helps them to better manage their school facilities. For 

example, one school facility manager in Arizona said FMIS helps him more 

accurately keep track of his school’s inventory and allowed him to enter 

the information that is necessary for BIA to make good funding decisions. 

Another facility manager in South Dakota said that because only one staff 

 9

The six modules that make up FMIS are inventory, budget, project management, backlog, 

reports, and work tickets. BIA is in the process of implementing a seventh module, the 

work plan module. 

FMIS Is Designed to Assist 

BIA in Making Funding 

Decisions for Annual 

Operating Expenses and 

Routine Maintenance 
Page 12 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

person can enter information into the inventory module, his school is able 

to maintain consistency in inventory changes and additions. 

The FMIS backlog module is designed to help BIA officials prioritize and 

make funding decisions for needed repair projects and capital 

improvements. The backlog collects and tracks condition data related to 

deficiencies, capital improvements, or construction for specific inventory 

items, such as classrooms, sidewalks, or utility systems. These data are 

entered into FMIS by a facility manager, by safety officers as a part of a 

safety inspection, or by BIA’s contractor. Although the backlog module 

can store information about any identified deficiency, the only items that 

are reported as part of BIA’s backlog are those with an estimated cost of 

more than $1,000 to fix. These deficiencies, which may be grouped 

together to form repair, replacement, or construction projects are 

maintained in the backlog until funded and complete. During our site 

visits, many of the facility managers said the backlog module helped them 

to better manage their facilities. For example, one school facility manager 

in Arizona said FMIS’s ability to store digital pictures was helpful because 

a picture of a deficiency could be sent to the regional facility manager and 

reviewed without the facility manager traveling nearly 284 miles to the 

school. 

Facility managers at schools use the information in the backlog module to 

justify funding needs for repair projects and capital improvements at their 

schools. BIA management officials allocating funding among the schools 

said the data in the backlog module allow them to determine which 

deficiencies are related to student safety and need to be addressed 

immediately, and which are related to capital improvements, such as roof 

replacement, that are planned for the future. BIA officials said they use the 

backlog data to help improve the physical condition of their schools in 

order to provide a safe and healthy learning environment for the students. 

FMIS Is Designed to Help 

BIA Prioritize and Justify 

Funding for Repair 

Projects and Capital 

Improvements 
Page 13 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

BIA’s engineering contractor has corrected the inventory and backlog data 

that existed in the old data system, but BIA has not transferred all 

corrected information to the new FMIS. The contractor completed its 

validation of the inventory data in February 2003, and BIA plans to transfer 

the corrected data into the FMIS by August 2003. BIA officials expect that 

the corrected inventory data, in conjunction with improvement to the 

existing funding formula,10 will enhance their ability to better match 

funding with annual expenses for utilities and routine maintenance at each 

school site. For the backlog data, BIA’s contractor is in the third year of 

the second cycle review of the condition of BIA-funded schools as 

planned. In fiscal year 2002, the contractor visited 33 schools and 

identified corrections to add, delete, or adjust the FMIS data. BIA, 

however, had not entered the results of these condition assessments into 

FMIS for over 1 year. BIA officials attribute the long delays in correcting 

the FMIS condition data to a revised process for verifying contractor data 

and to software compatibility problems that they say are being addressed. 

The FMIS inventory module contains data on BIA facilities, including 

almost 2,200 separate buildings that are occupied by or used for BIAfunded schools. More than 50 percent (1,146) of the buildings are used 

directly by children, as shown in table 2. 

 10BIA’s contractor is developing a new formula for allocating operations and maintenance 

funding to the schools. BIA expects to implement this formula in fiscal year 2005, after 

consulting with the tribes about the change, according to BIA officials. 

Inventory and 

Backlog Data Have 

Been Validated, but 

Not Transferred to 

FMIS 

Contractor Has Finished 

Correcting Inventory Data; 

BIA Plans to Transfer the 

Data into FMIS Later in 

2003 
Page 14 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Table 2: School Facilities Listed in the FMIS Inventory Directly Used by Children 

Buildings in the inventory used by children Number of buildings

Schools 796

Dormitories 153

Gymnasium/sports facilities 49

Multipurpose/auditorium 64

Library 21

Kitchen/cafeteria 63

Total 1,146

Source: BIA data. 

Note: Most of the remaining buildings included: fire stations, shops, garages, pump houses, heating 

and utility plants, sewage and water treatment plants, warehouses, storage facilities, communications 

facilities and equipment, animal shelters, and greenhouses. 

Accurate and up-to-date inventory data are crucial to the operation of the 

entire FMIS because other modules rely on inventory data for planning 

and prioritizing the work and for identifying and prioritizing funding 

needs. For example: 

• School facility managers access inventory data when planning and 

scheduling routine maintenance of their facilities, grounds, and 

equipment. For example, one FMIS module acts as a scheduling tool to 

inform facilities managers about work, such as preventive 

maintenance, that needs to be done to buildings, equipment, and other 

physical assets listed in the inventory. 

• BIA’s Office of Facilities Management and Construction uses inventory 

data in the formula that determines the amount of operations and 

maintenance funding allocated to each school location. Distribution of 

this funding is calculated using a formula that includes such inventory 

data as the square footage of rooms in each building and systems that 

support the facility such as heating and cooling systems. Funding 

distributions have been a particular source of contention for Office of 

Indian Education officials, who told us that inaccuracies in the 

inventory data have led to inequities in how the money is apportioned. 

Accurate data that are collected using a methodology that is consistent 

from site to site is a necessary component for demonstrating the 

fairness of the process. 

BIA’s engineering contractor, AME, has remained on schedule in its effort 

to improve the accuracy of the inventory information currently in FMIS. In 

conducting this effort, AME visited each school and collected inventory 
Page 15 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

data using a standardized, industry-based approach to help ensure that 

information on all facilities is uniformly collected and recorded. AME 

completed the first phase of this effort in 2000, when it visited each school 

to verify and update the inventory data listed in the FACCOM before its 

transfer to FMIS in that year, according to a BIA official. This phase, which 

focused on the more general aspects of the inventory, was aimed at such 

matters as identifying which buildings were still in use, the use of the 

facility, and who owns it. AME completed the second phase of the 

improvement effort in February 2003. This second phase, which took 

longer than the first phase, involved a more extensive measurement of the 

buildings and updated the drawings of floor space, grounds, infrastructure, 

and utility lines. BIA’s current plans call for replacing the existing data in 

FMIS with this updated and corrected data by August 2003. 

Our preliminary review of the new data generated during the second phase 

of AME’s work indicates that the inventory figures may change 

considerably for some schools. At our request, AME officials provided 

revised square footage data for more than 90 buildings (such as classroom 

buildings, dormitories, multipurpose buildings, and offices) at 13 different 

schools. Overall, the revised measurements for these buildings decreased 

the total square footage by about 3 percent, but the range in increases and 

decreases at each school varied significantly. For 9 of the schools the 

decrease in square footage ranged from less than 1 percent to more than 

13 percent; increases for the remaining 4 schools, ranged from less than 

1 percent to almost 18 percent. We do not know if these results will be 

typical for all schools.11 One BIA official indicated, however, that some 

schools were likely to experience greater changes than others in the 

square footage that would qualify for O&M funding. 

BIA officials said that the improved data, along with improvements to the 

funding formula, will help ensure the various schools that their share of 

O&M funding was objectively and accurately determined. However, 

whether this corrected inventory data will be transferred to FMIS in time 

for making fiscal year 2004 funding decisions is uncertain. BIA may yet 

face some implementation problems as it moves into the final months of 

putting this information in place. For example, during 2002, BIA attempted 

to run the O&M funding formula using the existing FMIS inventory data for 

 11BIA officials cited three primary reasons for square footage variance (1) new buildings or 

additions to existing buildings that have not been added to the inventory, (2) unoccupied 

buildings that should be categorized as “non-maintained” and (3) those buildings where 

ownership and occupancy are unclear. 
Page 16 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

the first time and experienced problems with the data and software. While 

the agency has had a year to work out these problems, introduction of the 

updated inventory data may hold its own unforeseen problems. If such 

problems are encountered and remain unresolved, a BIA official told us 

that the agency would continue to use the data currently in the system to 

allocate the O&M funding for fiscal year 2004. 

The backlog data in FMIS reflects actions and funding needed to improve 

the condition of facilities and infrastructure at the various schools now 

and in the future. Most of the items listed in the backlog provide detail for 

repairs needed over the next 5 years to correct what is wrong with a 

facility such as a leaky roof, the presence of asbestos, or a violation of 

handicapped codes and standards. However, FMIS also includes entries 

for capital improvements that will need to be addressed beyond 5 years to 

upgrade specific building components such as replacing lighting and 

power systems, siding, and carpeting as well as future construction to 

replace, renovate, and add buildings to accommodate program needs.12

Accurate and up-to-date backlog data are important because FMIS 

contains formulas that use these data to allow BIA to make informed 

decisions not only about which projects are in greatest need of attention, 

but also how much money is needed to fund them each year. As of 

October 2002, for example, BIA schools had a backlog of unfunded repairs 

and improvements with an estimated cost over $640 million (see table 3); 

FMIS shows that almost two-thirds of this amount may be needed within 

the next 5 years. 

 12In the FMIS, these entries are categorized as “predictive renewals.” 

Contractor Is on Schedule 

in Validating Backlog Data, 

but BIA Is Behind 

Schedule in Incorporating 

the Updated Information 
Page 17 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Table 3: Categories of Unfunded FMIS Backlog Entries as of October 2002 

Dollars in millions 

Category 

Deficiencies 

should be 

addressed 

within 1 year 

Deficiencies 

should be 

addressed in 1 

to 2 years

Deficiencies 

should be 

addressed in 3 

to 5 years

Planned work 

scheduled for 

5 to 10 years 

New 

construction 

and other capital 

improvements Total

Emergency—a danger 

exists that could cause 

physical harm or property 

damage, such as severe 

damage to a roof from a 

storm. $1,939a

 $1,939a

Safety—deficiency that 

affects safety and health, 

such as fire safety. 65,304 $20,700 $62 86,066

Physical plant 

(maintenance)—structural, 

mechanical, or electrical 

deficiency, such as aging 

roof or defective boiler. 32,960 53,499 154,115 240,573

Handicapped—violates 

code and standards, such 

as lack of accessible door 

hardware. 1,926 14,989 63 16,978

Environmental—deficiency 

such as the presence of 

friable asbestos in occupied 

areas or leaking storage 

tanks. 1,441 13,766 15,207

Predictive renewals—to 

anticipate replacement of 

building components, such 

as carpeting or roofing 

systems. $73,895b

 73,895b

New construction—to 

replace entire school or 

buildings. $112,468 112,468

Programmatic capital 

improvements—to renovate 

and add to buildings to 

meet program needs. 42,301 42,301

Energy—violates energy 

standards, such as 

inefficient heating or lighting 

systems. 53,186 53,186

Total $103,570 

(16%) 

$102,954

(16%)

$207,426

(32%)

$73,895 

(12%) 

$154,769

(24%)

$642,613

(100%)

Source: BIA data. 
Page 18 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

a

 A BIA official said that the amounts requested in the emergency category were for reimbursement of 

funds already spent to correct any outstanding deficiencies. 

b

The estimated amount for predictive renewals is not reported to the Congress as part of the backlog 

total because these entries are not yet deficiencies, but BIA is anticipating the time period in which 

they will become deficiencies and need to be addressed, according to a BIA official. 

AME currently validates the backlog for each school in a 3-year cycle. 

During its first review, in 1999, AME conducted a 100-percent validation of 

the backlog data prior to transferring that data from the old FACCOM 

system to the new FMIS backlog module. In that review, AME updated the 

backlog data by confirming entries already in the system, updating the 

costs estimated to conduct the work, deleting entries for duplicate items 

or completed work, and identifying new entries. Results of the validation 

effort, as shown in table 4, increased the backlog by more than 

$265 million; almost 28 percent of the total backlog of $960 million that 

existed in 1999. 

Table 4: Modifications to the Backlog Data from AME’s 100-Percent Validation in 

1999 

Dollars in millions 

Change to backlog data Number of changes Cost change

New deficiencies 39,143 $865,850

Modifications 14,579 a 

Completed work 6,964 (169,928)

Deleted (duplicate entries) 14,186 (430,348)

Total changes 74,872 $265,574

Source: BIA data. 

a

Data were not available. 

AME has since started the second review of each school, which consists of 

updating this information for a certain percentage of the facilities each 

year. AME updated 20 percent of the facilities in each year 2001 and 

2002. For 2003, AME is on track to increase the percentage of facilities 

reviewed each year to 34 percent to comply with recent changes in the 

law.13 These updates involve visually inspecting the architectural, 

structural, mechanical, and electrical components of each facility to 

determine if action is still needed and to update the estimated costs. In 

 13Under Public Law 107-110 (2002), section 1125(b)(6), BIA is required to periodically 

update the FMIS; in fulfilling this requirement, BIA’s contractor is updating the inventory 

and assessing the condition of about one-third of the school facilities each year. 
Page 19 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

addition, AME identifies new deficiencies, including the extent to which 

handicapped accessibility requirements are met, and verifying estimated 

costs. 

Our review of some updates conducted during fiscal year 2002 indicates 

that AME’s reviews will continue to result in substantial changes in 

backlog data. We obtained data for 14 of the schools reviewed between 

February and April 2002.14 For the 14 schools, the AME update resulted in 

a net increase of almost $11 million (see table 5) in the unfunded FMIS 

backlog of more than $39 million, an increase of about 28 percent. Part of 

the change involved modifications to deficiencies already in the backlog 

inventory, such as revising cost estimates and deleting projects that had 

been completed or no longer needed but were still listed in the backlog as 

ongoing. However, a large part of the change involved adding new 

deficiencies to the backlog. In all, there were almost 650 new backlog 

entries, and more than 75 percent of these entries were for deficiencies 

identified at school facilities and dormitories, where children are the 

primary occupants.15 For example, there were more than 200 entries for 

dormitories with an estimated cost of almost $4 million. None of these 

entries were for urgent or safety deficiencies that needed immediate 

attention; most were maintenance deficiencies that will need attention 

over the next 2 to 5 years, such as repairing lighting and plumbing systems, 

carpeting, and ceilings. 

 14This was slightly more than 40 percent of the 33 schools AME reviewed during 2002. 

15Includes dormitories, gymnasiums, libraries, and classroom facilities. 
Page 20 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Table 5: Estimated Total Cost Changes to the FMIS Backlog for 14 Schools 

Dollars in millions 

Category Net cost change to backlog

Physical plant (maintenance) $5,536

Safety (329)

Environmental (76)

Handicapped 1,120

New construction—school replacement 1,903

Programmatic capital improvements—renovations to 

meet program needs 

1,140

Energy 228

Predictive renewals 1,397

Total change $10,919

Source: BIA data. 

While the contractor’s field assessments are proceeding on schedule, there 

have been significant delays in incorporating the 2002 updated backlog 

data into FMIS. In fiscal year 2001, the first year of the updates, the 

contractor assessed the condition of 39 schools and transferred the data 

from its information system to the FMIS without problems, according to 

BIA and contractor officials. However, officials said that in fiscal year 

2002, the untimely transfer of data from the field assessments to the 

contractor’s information system16 and software compatibility problems 

between the contractor’s information system and FMIS delayed the update 

of backlog data for 33 schools for over a year. These implementation 

problems occurred for such reasons as the following: 

• BIA added a new function to the FMIS, which took 6 months to 

implement, rather than the 2 months that they had planned, according 

to a BIA official. This new function involved using the FMIS, for the 

first time, to generate the O&M funding amounts to be distributed to 

the various schools. 

• A change to the backlog category and ranking system in FMIS created 

duplicate entries that took time to resolve. In the 2002 assessments, 

some deficiencies that were already in the system were recategorized, 

and when the update was transferred to FMIS a duplicate entry was 

 16Typically, the contractor takes about 9 weeks to collect, analyze, and transfer data from 

the contractor’s information system to FMIS, according to BIA and AME officials. 
Page 21 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

created instead of overwriting the old entry. According to BIA and 

contractor officials, this software compatibility problem has largely 

been addressed. As of April 2003, data for 27 of the 33 schools had been 

entered into FMIS. 

A BIA official told us that delays in introducing these updates into the 

FMIS backlog could have some impact on their ability to prioritize or fund 

repair and capital improvement projects, but not a significant impact for 

two reasons. First, the deficiencies that receive the highest points in the 

project ranking system are safety deficiencies, which are identified and 

updated in an annual safety inspection by BIA’s safety officers and not 

AME. Second, the most critical deficiencies at the schools were identified 

in the first assessment in 1999, and during this second assessment, AME is 

finding very few deficiencies that would be funded within 1 to 2 years that 

were not already in the system. However, one official acknowledged that 

since the FMIS ranks the schools for major repair and capital 

improvement projects based on the points applied to each deficiency, if 

AME’s assessment indicated an increase in the severity of a deficiency and 

that change was not reflected in the system, that school could be ranked 

lower than if the data were up to date. 

Our site visits to 8 BIA-funded schools did not disclose any instances 

where serious problems were not being addressed. While facilities 

management staff and school principals pointed out problems with their 

facilities, we did not observe that the children were in an unsafe learning 

environment with obvious safety or repair issues. The problems we 

observed were either of a less serious nature, or if serious, were being 

addressed in some form. For example, at a boarding school in Arizona the 

principal said that the fire alarm system for the school building and 

dormitory had been improperly installed and had to be replaced. While 

waiting for the funding for a new system, which had been approved, they 

had to use funds from the school budget to hire extra people to stand fire 

watch 24 hours a day. 
Page 22 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

The ability of FMIS to provide accurate and complete data depends on BIA 

employees entering correct and timely information, but review processes 

and training programs BIA has established for ensuring data quality have 

been largely ineffective. Although adherence to federal control standards17

are a major part of providing reasonable assurance that the objectives of 

the agency are being achieved, half of the entries proposed by BIA 

employees are incorrect or incomplete and are flagged by BIA’s 

contractor. Discussions with BIA employees indicate that some employees 

are unclear about their responsibilities in maintaining the accuracy of 

FMIS data, and the high error rates in data entry indicate that additional 

training is needed in some locations to improve performance. BIA has not 

analyzed the information it has available about the content and origination 

of the data errors to determine the type of additional training that might be 

needed or to target locations with the highest error rates for technical 

assistance. Further, BIA has not established criteria or performance goals 

that define its expectations for the accuracy and completeness of the data 

for employees that enter and review this information. BIA’s Office of 

Facilities Management and Construction, which manages FMIS, did not 

until recently have authority to establish criteria or performance goals for 

agency and regional office personnel that are responsible for reviewing 

and approving data entries by school facility managers. BIA’s OFMC still 

does not have similar authority over school facility managers who 

originate most data entries. Under BIA’s current organization, such action 

would have to be taken by the Office of Indian Education Programs. 

BIA established a multilevel review process as a control to prevent 

problems related to inaccurate and incomplete data entries to BIA’s 

information system. In this process, each entry that school facility 

managers propose for the backlog is first reviewed and approved by BIA 

facility management personnel at an agency and a regional office before it 

is sent to BIA’s contractor, AME, for review and approval,18 with final 

approval by BIA’s central office. After approval has been obtained from 

each level, the status of the entry is changed from “draft” to “accepted” in 

FMIS, according to BIA. 

 17See U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, (Washington D.C., Nov. 1999). 

18Because changes to the square footage in the inventory affects operations and 

maintenance funding, additions or subtractions to the inventory are also reviewed at the 

agency and regional offices before it goes to the central office for final approval; the 

contractor, however, does not review these entries. 

Control Measures in 

Place for Ensuring 

Data Quality Are 

Largely Ineffective 

Despite BIA Review 

Process, Its Contractor 

Rejects Half of All FMIS 

Data Entries 
Page 23 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Although BIA established this multilevel review process to improve the 

quality of the data entered into FMIS, AME continues to reject half of the 

proposed entries because they are inaccurate and incomplete. For 

example, between August 2001 and December 2002, out of more than 

650 entries to the backlog made by facilities management staff from 

102 schools, more than 300, or almost 50 percent, were rejected by the 

contractor. BIA documents show that the incidence of the errors among 

the 102 schools was widespread. In all, 73 of the 102 schools entering data 

had one or more entries disapproved, and 33 of them had all entries 

disapproved (see table 6). 

Table 6: Extent of Disapproved Entries in FMIS among 102 Schools Submitting 

Data, August 2001 to December 2002. 

Percentage of entries disapproved Number of schools in each category

0 29

1-25 12

26-50 12

51-74 12

75-99 4

100 33

Source: BIA data. 

Facility management staff at the regional and agency offices appear to 

have the necessary background to fulfill their responsibilities for screening 

and correcting inaccurate and incomplete data entries; however, it may be 

unclear to some reviewers what their role is in this process. Federal 

control standards require that employees have the requisite knowledge, 

skills, and abilities to perform their job appropriately and have clear roles 

and responsibilities outlined in their job descriptions. Among the facilities 

management staffs in the agency and regional offices that we interviewed, 

most had an engineering background or had significant experience in 

facilities management and they were aware that maintaining accurate and 

complete data in the FMIS was important. However, facilities managers we 

interviewed at two regional offices each had a different view about their 

role in the review process. One said that it was important that the backlog 

entries are consistent and that two staff had been designated to review the 

FMIS entries from the schools and agencies in the region before being sent 

on to the central office for review by the contractor. The second manager 

said he reviewed the entries so that he knew what new additions were 

Roles and Responsibilities 

May Be Unclear to 

Employees Reviewing 

Data Entries 
Page 24 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

being proposed for the backlog; he did not consider it his role to critique 

the entries for accuracy and completeness. 

Although most BIA locations have staffs that have received training to use 

FMIS, the extent of the errors indicates that employees may not be 

receiving the kind of training needed to create accurate and complete data 

entries. Standards for internal control in the federal government include a 

commitment to competence, which includes the provision that employees 

receive the appropriate training necessary to improve their performance. 

BIA has developed a training program that is intended to provide FMIS 

users with sufficient information to operate the system. All FMIS users 

receive 40 hours of training before they are given a password that allows 

them to access the system, according to BIA; a review of BIA’s training log 

indicates that about 70 percent of the schools have at least one staff 

member onsite that has received this training.19

While training appears to be adequate in terms of providing staff with the 

basic skills needed to use the computer-based applications, what appears 

to be lacking in the training program is more specific instruction and 

guidance on the kinds of information that are needed to enter an accurate 

and complete deficiency to the backlog. BIA officials acknowledged that a 

user manual to provide this type of guidance was lacking and should be 

developed. BIA officials said developing the FMIS training has been a 

challenge because the facilities management staffs have different levels of 

knowledge about computers—for some facility managers, FMIS training 

was their first exposure to using a computer. The training programs were 

developed to meet the needs of this diverse group of users, according to 

the contractor that developed and provides the training. In our site visits 

we asked users about the training that they had received for using FMIS; 

almost all of the staff that we interviewed said that they were pleased with 

the training they received and believed that it had prepared them for using 

FMIS. In addition, they said that when they did have problems they 

contacted central office with questions and/or problems with using the 

system, the response was prompt and very helpful. 

However, the engineering contractor indicated that the varying levels of 

experience and expertise is a difficulty affecting staff’s ability to input data 

 19For those schools that do not have trained staff, the facility manager at the agency office 

is responsible for updating the data, according to a BIA official. 

Training Program May be 

Insufficient to Prepare 

Users 
Page 25 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

successfully. He said that there are more than 180 sites with education 

buildings for which data must be entered and the level of knowledge and 

expertise about facilities and the kinds of information needed for an FMIS 

entry varies widely—particularly in those sites where the turnover rate of 

facilities management staff is high. We were unable to obtain 

comprehensive data on the turnover rate for the facility management staff, 

but among the schools that we visited, the facilities managers’ length of 

employment at their current location ranged from 2 years to 17 years. 

BIA officials have information on the number and reasons that data entries 

are rejected at each location, but said that they had not used this 

information to provide performance counseling to employees or modify 

the training and guidance in this regard. Standards for internal control in 

the federal government include the provision that employees receive the 

feedback necessary to improve their performance. Analyzing the extent 

and content of data errors would be helpful to determine the type and 

amount of additional training and guidance needed to improve employee 

performance at schools, agencies, and regional offices and target them 

appropriately for technical assistance. BIA data we reviewed indicated 

that the reasons for disapproval generally fell into one of four groups and 

were consistent with historical data entry problems experienced under the 

old FACCOM system. For example, 

• more detailed description was needed for the deficiency; a roof repair, 

for example, required specific information about the kind of roof and 

its size; 

• questionable cost estimates involving labor rates or material costs; 

• duplicate entry for a deficiency already in the backlog; and 

• wrong category and/or rank for the entry such as categorizing the 

replacement of asbestos floor tiles as maintenance rather than 

environmental, which are funded from different sources. 

Of these problems, most of the rejected backlog entries generally related 

to insufficient detail to accurately estimate the cost to address the 

deficiency, according to an AME official who reviewed and rejected many 

of these entries. The kind of detail that is needed to successfully enter a 

deficiency can be seen in an example involving the repair of a leaking roof. 

To adequately estimate the cost for this repair, information is needed 

about the size of the area that needs repair or replacement, the 

BIA Does Not Use 

Information on Error Rates 

to Improve Employee 

Performance 
Page 26 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

composition of the roof (such as asphalt shingles or tile), and other 

associated components (such as whether skylights or gutters are present 

and whether they also need to be replaced). We reviewed one entry that 

had been rejected by the contractor because it came through the review 

process without information about the roof’s size or its composition. 

The ineffectiveness of BIA’s guidance, training, and review processes to 

minimize inaccurate or incomplete data entries by its employees suggests 

that accountability is another issue that deserves attention. Federal 

standards require that agencies clearly establish authority and 

responsibility for achieving agency goals and hold their employees 

accountable for performing their assigned responsibilities in a competent 

manner. During our review, the organization of BIA was such that the 

office that manages FMIS did not have line authority to establish 

performance criteria and standards for the BIA employees that entered 

and reviewed the FMIS data. 

In April 2003, BIA announced a new organization plan. This plan may offer 

OFMC greater opportunity to establish performance criteria and standards 

for facility managers at agency and regional offices. BIA officials told us 

the reorganization would not provide OFMC with line authority for facility 

managers at schools. However, the Director of the Office of Indian 

Education programs said that his office would work with OFMC to 

establish comparable performance criteria and standards for school 

facility managers. 

FMIS is designed to assist BIA employees improve the quality of 

information used to manage school facilities, but the quality of the 

decisions that BIA makes for managing the operations and maintenance, 

repair, and construction of its facilities is directly dependent upon BIA 

employees entering correct and timely information. Currently, the FMIS 

data that BIA uses for making its decisions are improving as the data are 

updated by its contractor and entered into FMIS—to date the inventory 

data have been updated and the contractor is in the third year of assessing 

the condition of the schools and updating the backlog for the second time. 

However, challenges remain in BIA’s efforts to improve the quality of data 

entered by its employees. Although BIA has implemented controls for 

ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the FMIS data entered and 

reviewed by BIA employees, they do not work effectively. Without the role 

of the contractor as a reviewer of new entries by field staff and in 

conducting site visits to verify and update the data, the quality of the FMIS 

Employees Not Held 

Accountable for FMIS 

Data Integrity 

Conclusion 
Page 27 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

data could quickly become inaccurate and out of date. BIA has not taken 

the necessary steps to hold its staff accountable for data accuracy or to 

use the available information on why the problems exist to develop 

training programs and target technical assistance where it is needed. Such 

actions are needed if BIA is to rely on its employees, rather than the 

contractor, to ensure that it provides a safe and quality learning 

environment for Indian children. 

To better enable BIA to rely on its employees for maintaining accurate and 

complete information in the FMIS, we recommend that the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs 

• establish data standards for accuracy and completeness of FMIS data 

and related performance criteria for BIA employees who are 

responsible for entering and reviewing the data and 

• analyze available error data and use this information to provide its 

employees with the necessary training, guidance, and technical 

assistance to improve performance. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for its 

review and comment. Interior’s comments are provided in appendix II. In 

its written comments, Interior agreed with our findings and 

recommendations and said that BIA is establishing a special working 

group to develop a plan to address our recommendations. In addition, BIA 

will consider our comments and observations as it continues to develop 

and implement the FMIS. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of the Department of 

Interior, relevant congressional committees, Indian education 

organizations, and other interested parties, and will make copies available 

to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me at 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments on 

Our Evaluation 
Page 28 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

(202) 512-6778 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. 

Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Marnie S. Shaul 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Page 29 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

List of Congressional Committees 

The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell 

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Vice Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Judd Gregg 

Chairman 

The Honorable Edward Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard Pombo 

Chairman 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

The objectives of this study were to determine (1) whether the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) new facilities management information system (FMIS) 

addresses the former system’s shortcomings and meets BIA’s needs for 

managing school facilities; (2) the status of BIA’s effort to validate the 

accuracy and completeness of the data being transferred from the old 

system into FMIS; and (3) how well BIA’s quality control measures are 

working to ensure that new data entered into FMIS are accurate and 

complete. 

To determine the extent to which FMIS was designed to address 

weaknesses of the previous data processing system and how the new 

system meets BIA’s facility management needs we reviewed contractor 

reports, BIA documentation on the FMIS, and interviewed contractors and 

BIA headquarters, regional, agency, and school facility management staff. 

First, we reviewed the needs assessment studies conducted by 

independent contractors to identify old system weaknesses and the 

recommendations made for addressing the system problems. We then 

reviewed the FMIS documentation to determine whether the system 

addressed weaknesses identified in the needs assessment. In addition, we 

conducted interviews with some of the contractors hired by BIA to build 

and implement the system. We also interviewed BIA officials at the Office 

of Facilities Management and Construction, the Division of Safety and 

Risk Management, and the Office of Indian Education Programs about 

improvements in the new system and how it meets their management 

needs. Finally, to understand how well school facility management staff 

received FMIS, we conducted site visits to 8 schools in Arizona, New 

Mexico, and South Dakota. We selected these schools to obtain a mix 

based on their differences in size, geographic location, type of school 

(i.e., grade level, day school, or on-reservation boarding school), and 

whether it was BIA-operated or tribal-operated. At these schools, we 

interviewed facility managers, education line officers, principals, and tribal 

officials. We also interviewed facility management staff at two regional 

and five agency offices that provide facility management services to the 

schools. 

To determine the extent to which the FMIS inventory and backlog data are 

accurate and complete we used three methods. First, we obtained data 

from two sources (1) a copy of the FMIS database and (2) a copy of the 

contractor file of backlog data from the fiscal year 2002 condition 

assessments of 14 schools. The data in these files were assessed for 

reliability, which included looking for missing data, the relationship of one 

data element to another, values beyond a given range, and dates outside of 

valid time frames. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 31 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

for the purposes of this report. We also calculated summary statistics of 

the data from these files. Second, we evaluated BIA’s multilevel review 

process. For this analysis, we obtained data on the number of backlog 

entries made by facility managers and the number that had been accepted 

and rejected by the contractor. In addition, we reviewed the log of entries 

that had been rejected by the contractor to understand the reasons for 

these rejections. We also interviewed the contractor and BIA central office 

and regional and agency facility management staff about this review 

process. Finally, we accompanied BIA’s engineering contractor on site 

visits to 2 schools in Arizona where we evaluated their methodologies for 

data collection and validation of the inventory and backlog data. 

To determine how well BIA’s internal control measures are working for its 

FMIS we first reviewed our standards on internal controls to identify 

controls that apply to an organization’s management of an information 

system. We then compared the BIA controls with those identified in our 

reports to evaluate the effectiveness of the BIA controls. Additionally, we 

interviewed staff at the BIA central office about the internal controls they 

had in place for the FMIS. We also interviewed staff at the regional and 

agency offices and the schools about one of the controls—the 

effectiveness of the training they received. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 

Page 32 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 

Page 33 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 34 GAO-03-692 BIA School Facilities Management 

Cindy Ayers, Assistant Director (206) 654-5591 

Nancy Purvine, Analyst-in-Charge (206) 287-4878 

In addition to the individuals mentioned above, Jessica Botsford, Maya 

Chakko, Terry Dorn, David Gill, Barbara Johnson, Nathan Morris, Stan 

Stenerson, and Michelle Zapata made significant contributions to this 

report. 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130156) 
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 daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports 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