INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Additional Executive 

Review Sessions 

Needed to Address 

Troubled Projects 

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2013

GAO-13-524

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-524, a report to 

congressional requesters

June 2013

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Additional Executive Review Sessions Needed to 

Address Troubled Projects

Why GAO Did This Study

While IT investments have the 

potential to make organizations more 

efficient, many federal IT projects 

experience cost overruns, schedule 

delays, and performance shortfalls. To 

help address these shortfalls, OMB 

established TechStats—face-to-face 

meetings to terminate or turnaround IT 

investments that are failing or are not 

producing results. 

GAO was asked to evaluate the 

implementation of TechStats. GAO’s 

objectives were to (1) identify key 

characteristics of TechStats held to 

date; (2) evaluate whether selected 

agencies are conducting TechStats in 

accordance with OMB guidance, and 

(3) analyze the extent to which 

reported TechStat results are tracked 

and validated. To do so, GAO selected 

four agencies—Agriculture, 

Commerce, HHS, and DHS—because 

these were the agencies with the 

highest number of at-risk investments. 

GAO analyzed OMB and agency 

documentation, compared agency 

processes to TechStat guidance, 

compared efforts to validate reported 

outcomes to leading practices, and 

interviewed OMB and agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations to 

OMB to require agencies to address 

high-risk investments and to report on 

how they validated the outcomes. GAO 

is also making recommendations to 

selected agencies to address 

weaknesses in following OMB’s 

TechStat guidance. OMB and 

Commerce officials generally agreed 

with GAO’s recommendations. 

Agriculture partially agreed with GAO’s 

assessment; neither it nor HHS 

commented on the recommendations.

What GAO Found

Since January 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and selected 

agencies have held multiple TechStat Accountability Sessions (TechStats) on 

information technology (IT) investments that varied in terms of function, 

significance, and risk. As of April 2013, OMB reported conducting 79 TechStats, 

which focused on 55 investments at 23 federal agencies. The four agencies 

conducted 37 TechStats covering 28 investments. About 70 percent of the OMBand 76 percent of agency-led TechStats on major investments were considered 

medium- to high-risk at the time of the TechStat. However, the number of at-risk 

TechStats held to date is relatively small compared to the current number of 

medium- and high-risk IT investments. Until OMB and agencies develop plans to 

address these investments, the investments will likely remain at risk.

Number of TechStats as a Percentage of Medium- and High-Risk Investments, as of May 2013

Number of at-risk IT 

investments that have 

undergone a TechStat 

Number of 

at-risk IT 

investments Percentage 

OMB-led

Governmentwide 30 162 18.5%

OMB- or Agency-led

Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) 6 15 40.0%

Department of Commerce (Commerce) 7 12 58.3%

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 8 26 30.8%

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2 16 12.5%

Agency average 33.3%

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data as of August 2012.

The selected agencies are generally conducting TechStats in accordance with 

OMB guidance. OMB’s TechStat guidance includes 15 key requirements, such 

as when TechStats should be implemented, what participants should be 

included, and how outcomes should be tracked and reported. DHS implemented 

all of the TechStat requirements. Commerce, HHS, and Agriculture implemented 

a majority of the requirements, but each had shortcomings. For example, these 

agencies did not consistently create memorandums with responsible parties and

due dates for action items. Fully implementing OMB’s guidance could better 

position agencies to effectively manage and resolve problems on IT investments.

OMB and selected agencies have tracked and reported positive results from 

TechStats, with most resulting in improved governance. OMB also reported in 

2011 that federal agencies achieved almost $4 billion in life-cycle cost savings as 

a result of TechStat sessions. However, GAO was unable to validate OMB’s 

reported results because OMB did not provide artifacts showing that it ensured 

the results were valid. From GAO’s selected agencies, three investments had 

cost implications. Agencies provided supporting documentation for about $22.2 

million in cost savings and avoidances. Until OMB obtains and shares 

information on the methods used to validate reported results, it will be difficult for 

the results to be independently validated and for OMB to provide assurance to 

Congress and the public that TechStats are achieving their intended impact.

View GAO-13-524. For more information, 

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

pownerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Letter 1 

Background 2

OMB and Selected Agencies Have Held Multiple TechStats on a 

Diverse Set of IT Investments, but Other At-Risk Investments 

Have Not Yet Been Assessed 11

Selected Agencies are Generally Conducting TechStats in 

Accordance with OMB Guidance, but Areas for Improvement 

Exist 29

OMB and Agencies Reported Positive Results and Cost Savings 

from Holding TechStats, but Are Not Ensuring Results Are Valid 34

Conclusions 40

Recommendations for Executive Action 41

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 42

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Agriculture 49

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Commerce 50

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 52

Tables

Table 1: IT Dashboard CIO Rating Colors, Based on a Five-Point 

Scale for CIO Ratings 7

Table 2: Investments on which OMB Reported Holding TechStats 13

Table 3: Reported Spending on Major Investments on Which OMB 

Reported Holding a TechStat, through September 2012 17

Table 4: Dashboard Ratings for the Major IT Investments that were 

Subject to a TechStat 19

Table 5: Investments Selected for Agency-led TechStats from Four 

Selected Agencies 21

Table 6: Reported Spending on Major Investments on which 

Agencies Performed a TechStat, through September 2012 24

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Table 7: CIO Ratings for Major Investments on Which Agencies 

Held a TechStat 26

Table 8: Number of TechStats as a Percentage of Medium- or HighRisk Investments, as of May 2013 27

Table 9: High Risk Investments that Have Not Undergone an OMBled or Agency-led TechStat, as of May 2013 28

Table 10: Key Requirements for TechStats 29

Table 11: Agencies’ Implementation of OMB TechStat Guidance 31

Table 12: Outcomes of Agency-Led TechStat Reviews for Four 

Selected Agencies (as of March 2013) 36

Figures

Figure 1: Number of OMB-led TechStats, by Agency, as of April 

2013 12

Figure 2: Primary Function of Investments Subject to a TechStat 15

Figure 3: Number of Major and Non-Major Investments that 

Underwent a TechStat 16

Figure 4: Level of TechStat at Four Selected Agencies 22

Figure 5: Primary Function of Investments that Underwent a 

TechStat at Four Selected Agencies 23

Figure 6: Number of Major and Non-Major Investments that 

Underwent a TechStat at Four Selected Agencies 24

Figure 7: OMB’s Reported Cost Savings and Avoidances, as of 

November 2011 37

Figure 8: Cost Savings and Avoidances for Agency-Led TechStat 

Sessions, as of November 2011 38
Page iii GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Abbreviations

Agriculture Department of Agriculture

CIO Chief Information Officer

Commerce Department of Commerce

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense 

DOT Department of Transportation

Education Department of Education

Energy Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

Interior Department of the Interior

IT information technology

Justice Department of Justice 

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SBA Small Business Administration

SSA Social Security Administration

State Department of State

Treasury Department of the Treasury

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 13, 2013

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D. 

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Susan Collins 

United States Senate

Many information technology (IT) projects undertaken by the federal 

government have cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than 

anticipated and taken years longer to deploy than was originally 

expected. To help address these issues, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) launched TechStat Accountability Sessions (TechStats) in 

January 2010. A TechStat is a face-to-face, evidence-based 

accountability review of an IT investment that enables the federal 

government to intervene to turnaround, halt, or terminate projects that are 

failing or are not producing results. OMB began leading TechStat 

sessions on agency IT projects in 2010, and subsequently required 

federal agencies to start holding them too.

You asked us to evaluate how OMB and selected federal agencies are 

implementing TechStats. Our objectives were to (1) identify key 

characteristics of TechStats conducted by OMB and selected agencies, 

(2) evaluate whether selected agencies are conducting TechStats in 

accordance with OMB guidance, and (3) analyze the extent to which 

reported results from TechStat review sessions are documented, tracked, 

and validated.

To do so, we selected four agencies—the Department of Agriculture 

(Agriculture), the Department of Commerce (Commerce), the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS)—based on two factors: the number of at-risk IT 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

investments shown on OMB’s IT Dashboard as of August 2012 and a 

determination on whether the agency had led TechStat sessions during 

2011. We analyzed OMB’s list of the TechStat sessions it had led through 

February 2013 as well as the latest budget data for each of these 

investments to determine key characteristics of the investments that 

underwent OMB-led TechStats. We also analyzed the four selected 

agencies’ lists of the agency-led TechStat reviews held as of March 2013 

as well as budgetary and other supporting documentation for each 

investment and review to determine key characteristics of the investments 

that underwent agency-led TechStats. We compared the OMB and 

agency TechStat documentation against OMB guidance to identify 

strengths or weaknesses in the agencies’ approaches. We also compared 

OMB’s and the agencies’ reported TechStat results to OMB’s guidance 

on reporting agency-led outcomes and other relevant best practices.1

We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 to June 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides additional 

details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.

In 

addition, we interviewed officials at OMB and our four selected agencies 

to better understand the TechStat process and associated results from 

these reviews. While we were able to corroborate information about the IT 

investments, we were unable to determine the reliability of the reported 

outcomes and cost savings for the OMB-led TechStats because OMB did 

not provide evidence that would allow us to verify its reported data.

If done correctly, investments in IT have the potential to make 

organizations more efficient in fulfilling their missions. For example, 

Department of Defense (DOD) officials recently reported that an IT 

system supporting military logistics has improved the organization’s 

performance by providing real-time information about road conditions, 

construction, incidents, and weather to facilitate rapid deployment of 

 

1

GAO, Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act: An Assessment 

Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18 

(Washington, D.C.: February 1998). 

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

military assets.2 Also, Federal Aviation Administration officials reported 

that an IT system supporting weather data processing has improved 

aviation operations by integrating terminal and aircraft sensor data with 

forecast data from the National Weather Service, and providing it to air 

traffic controllers. These officials estimated that the system allows them to

increase airspace capacity by 25 percent in certain weather conditions.3

However, as we have previously reported, federal IT projects too 

frequently incur cost overruns and schedule slippages while contributing 

little to mission-related outcomes. For example, in May 2010, we reported 

that after spending $127 million over 9 years on an outpatient scheduling 

system, the Department of Veterans Affairs has not implemented any of 

the system’s capabilities and was essentially starting over.4 Further, in 

May 2012, we reported that while IT should enable government to better 

serve the American people, the federal government had not achieved 

expected productivity improvements—despite spending more than $600 

billion on IT over the past decade.5

OMB plays a key role in overseeing how federal agencies manage their 

IT investments by working with them to better plan, justify, and determine 

how to manage them. Each year, OMB and federal agencies work 

together to determine how much the government plans to spend on IT 

projects and how these funds are to be allocated. OMB also guides 

agencies in developing sound business cases for IT investments and 

establishing management processes for overseeing these investments 

throughout their life cycles. The scope of this undertaking is quite large: in 

 

2

This system is the Global Combat Support System-Joint Increment 7.

3

This system is the Integrated Terminal Weather System.

4

GAO, Information Technology: Management Improvements Are Essential to VA’s Second 

Effort to Replace Its Outpatient Scheduling System, GAO-10-579 (Washington, D.C.: May 

27, 2010).

5

GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to Be Done to 

Complete Actions and Measure Results, GAO-12-745T (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 

2012).
 

Page 4 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

planning for fiscal year 2014, 27 federal agencies reported plans to spend 

about $76.5 billion on 8,142 IT investments.6

Over the last three decades, Congress has enacted several laws to assist 

agencies and the federal government in managing IT investments. For 

example, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 19957 specifies OMB and 

agency responsibilities for managing IT. Among its provisions, this law 

establishes agency responsibility for maximizing the value and assessing 

and managing the risks of major information systems initiatives.8

In addition, to assist agencies in managing their investments, Congress 

enacted the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.

It also 

requires that OMB develop and oversee policies, principles, standards, 

and guidelines for federal agency IT functions, including periodic 

evaluations of major information systems.

9

As set out in these laws, OMB is to play a key role in helping federal 

agencies manage their investments by working with them to better plan, 

justify, and determine how much they need to spend on projects and how 

This law requires OMB to 

establish processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results 

of major capital investments in information systems made by federal 

agencies. It also requires that OMB report to Congress on the net 

program performance benefits achieved as a result of these investments.

 

6

The 27 federal agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, Justice, Labor, State, the Interior, the Treasury, Transportation, Veterans 

Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; the General Services Administration; the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Archives and Records 

Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of 

Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; Smithsonian Institution; Social 

Security Administration; U.S. Agency for International Development; and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

7

44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.

8

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

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

agency, a component of the agency, or another organization; has significant program or 

policy implications; has high executive visibility; has high development, operating, or 

maintenance costs; is funded through other than direct appropriations; or is defined as 

major by the agency’s capital planning and investment control process.

9

40 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq.

Roles and Responsibilities 

for Overseeing Federal IT 

Investments 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

to manage approved projects. Within OMB, the Office of E-government 

and Information Technology, headed by the Federal Chief Information 

Officer (CIO), directs the policy and strategic planning of federal IT 

investments and is responsible for oversight of federal technology 

spending.

Agency CIOs are also expected to have a key role in IT management. 

Federal law, specifically the Clinger-Cohen Act, has defined the role of 

the CIO as the focal point for IT management, requiring agency heads to 

designate CIOs to lead reforms that would help control system 

development risks; better manage technology spending; and achieve real, 

measurable improvements in agency performance. In September 2011, 

we reported that federal CIOs are not consistently responsible for all of 

the areas assigned by law or identified as critical to effective IT 

management.10 For example, although most of the CIOs were responsible 

for capital planning and investment management, we found that CIOs are 

less frequently responsible for information management duties such as 

records management and privacy requirements. In an August 2011 

memo, OMB reiterated the primary areas of responsibility for agency 

CIOs.11 This memo detailed four areas in which the CIO should have a 

lead role: IT governance, program management, commodity services, 

and information security. It emphasized the role of the CIO in driving the 

investment review process, including TechStats, and the CIO’s 

responsibility over the entire IT portfolio for an agency.

To help carry out its oversight role and further improve the transparency 

into and oversight of agencies’ IT investments, in June 2009 OMB 

publicly deployed a website, known as the IT Dashboard.12

 

10GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Role in 

Information Technology Management, 

The 

Dashboard displays federal agencies’ cost, schedule, and performance 

data for over 700 major federal IT investments at 27 federal agencies that 

comprise about $40 billion of the federal budget. According to OMB, 

these data are intended to provide both a historical and a near-real-time 

perspective on the performance of these investments. OMB analysts are 

GAO-11-634 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2011).

11OMB, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-11-29 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 2011).

12http://www.itdashboard.gov. 

OMB Established the IT 

Dashboard to Better 

Oversee and Manage 

Federal IT Investments
 

Page 6 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

expected to use the Dashboard to identify IT investments that are 

experiencing performance problems.

Using data drawn from federal agency budget submissions,13 the IT 

Dashboard provides information on an IT investment’s primary function, 

as defined by the Federal Enterprise Architecture.14

• administrative management

For fiscal year 2012 

submissions, agencies were required to select a primary function from 

categories within the Federal Enterprise Architecture business reference 

models. The primary functions available for IT investments in fiscal year 

2012 submissions were:

• community and social services

• controls and oversight

• correctional activities

• defense and national security

• disaster management

• economic development

• education

• energy

• environmental management

• financial management

• general government

• general science and innovation

• health

• homeland security

• human resource management

• income security

• information and technology 

management

• intelligence operations

• internal risk management and 

mitigation

• international affairs and 

commerce

• law enforcement

• legislative relations

• litigation and judicial activities

• natural resources

• planning and budgeting

• public affairs

• regulatory development

• revenue collection

• supply chain management

• transportation

• workforce management

The Dashboard visually presents performance ratings for individual 

investments using metrics that OMB has defined—cost, schedule, and 

 

13Two different budget submissions, called exhibit 53s and exhibit 300s, provide the data 

accessible through the IT Dashboard. Exhibit 53s list all of the IT investments and their 

associated costs within a federal organization. An Exhibit 300, also called the Capital 

Asset Plan and Business Case, is used to justify resource requests for major IT 

investments and is intended to enable an agency to demonstrate, to its own management 

and to OMB, that a major investment is well planned.

14In February 2002, OMB established the Federal Enterprise Architecture program. 

According to OMB, it is intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement through crossagency analysis and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for 

collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across agency programs. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

the CIO’s evaluation of risk. To develop the CIO’s risk evaluation, OMB 

instructed agency CIOs to assess their IT investments against a set of six 

evaluation factors, including risk management, requirements 

management, contractor oversight, historical performance, and human 

capital. The CIO assigns a rating of 1 to 5 based on his or her best 

judgment of the level of risk facing the investment. OMB then translates 

the agency CIO’s numerical assignment for an investment into a color for 

depiction on the Dashboard, with green signifying low or moderately low 

risk, yellow signifying medium risk, and red signifying moderately high or 

high risk (see table 1).

Table 1: IT Dashboard CIO Rating Colors, Based on a Five-Point Scale for CIO 

Ratings

Rating (by agency CIO) Color code

5 – Low risk Green

4 – Moderately low risk Green

3 – Medium risk Yellow

2 – Moderately high risk Red

1 – High risk Red

Source: OMB’s IT Dashboard.

In January 2010, OMB began conducting TechStats to enable the federal 

government to intervene to turnaround, halt, or terminate IT projects that 

are failing or are not producing results. TechStats are face-to-face, 

evidence-based reviews of an at-risk IT investment. OMB used CIO 

ratings from the IT Dashboard, among other sources, to select at-risk 

investments for the TechStats it conducted from 2010 through 2011.

Subsequently, as part of the Federal CIO’s 25-point IT Reform Plan,15

 

15OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010).

OMB empowered agency CIOs to hold their own TechStat sessions 

within their respective agencies, and required federal agencies to hold at 

least one TechStat by March 2011. The IT Reform Plan also required 

agencies to roll the TechStat model out to its component-level agencies 

and bureaus (bureaus) by June 2012. To do this, agencies were required 

to make agency CIOs responsible for deploying the necessary tools and 

OMB Initiated TechStat 

Accountability Sessions to 

Turn Around or Terminate 

Failing IT Projects
 

Page 8 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

training on how to conduct TechStat reviews and have at least one 

bureau conduct TechStat reviews by June 2012. In August 2011, OMB 

required agency CIOs to continue holding TechStat sessions.16

In establishing and rolling out the TechStat sessions, OMB stated that it 

expects that the sessions will help strengthen IT governance, improve 

line-of-sight between project teams and senior executives, increase the 

precision of ongoing measurement of IT program health, and boost the 

quality and timing of interventions to keep projects on track. We have 

found that the TechStat model is consistent with government and industry 

best practices for overseeing IT investments, including our own guidance 

on IT investment management processes.17 TechStat sessions hold value 

by focusing management attention on troubled projects and establishing 

clear action items to turn the projects around or terminate them.

Over the past several years, we issued numerous reports and testimonies 

on OMB’s initiatives to highlight troubled IT projects.18 We made multiple 

recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to enhance the oversight 

and transparency of federal IT projects. For example, in 2005 we 

recommended that OMB develop a central list of projects and their 

deficiencies, and analyze that list to develop governmentwide and agency 

assessments of the progress and risks of the investments, identifying 

opportunities for continued improvement.19

 

16OMB, M-11-29.

In 2006, we recommended 

that OMB develop a single aggregate list of high-risk projects and their 

17GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing 

and Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2004).

18For example: GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to Be 

Done to Complete Actions and Measure Results, GAO-12-461 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 

26, 2012); Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT 

Investments, GAO-11-826 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2011); and Information 

Technology: Management and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need 

Attention, GAO-09-624T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2009).

19GAO, Information Technology: OMB Can Make More Effective Use of Its Investment 

Reviews, GAO-05-276 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2005).

GAO Has Previously 

Reported on Federal IT 

Investment Oversight and 

Reform 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

deficiencies and use that list to report to Congress on progress made in 

correcting high-risk problems.20

As a result, OMB started publicly releasing aggregate data on its internal 

list of mission-critical projects that needed to improve (called its 

Management Watch List) and disclosing the projects’ deficiencies. The 

agency also established a High-Risk List, which consisted of projects 

identified as requiring special attention from oversight authorities and the 

highest levels of agency management. In June 2009, OMB replaced the 

Management Watch List and the High-Risk List when it deployed a public 

website—the IT Dashboard—to further improve the transparency and 

oversight of agencies’ IT investments.

In 2010 and 2011, we reported that while the Dashboard was an 

important tool for monitoring major IT projects, the cost and schedule 

ratings were not always accurate for selected agencies.21

In April 2012, we reported on the progress of OMB and selected federal 

agencies on action items in OMB’s IT Reform Plan.

We made 

recommendations to improve the accuracy of the data and, more recently, 

found that the accuracy had improved.

22

 

20GAO, Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for 

Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects, 

We found that, of 10 

selected action items, agencies had completed 3 and made progress on 

the other 7. However, we found that agencies lacked time frames for 

completing 5 of those 7 in-progress action items, and only had 

performance measures for 4 of the 10 selected action items. Thus, we 

recommended, among other things, that OMB ensure that action items 

are completed prior to the IT Reform Plan’s June 2012 deadline and 

establish time frames and performance measures for the action items. 

OMB agreed with our recommendations to complete action items and 

GAO-06-647 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 

2006).

21GAO, IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and Additional Efforts Are Under Way to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

22GAO-12-461. 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

provide deadlines, but disagreed with our recommendation to establish 

performance measures. OMB has made progress with completing 

incomplete action items, but more remains to be done. For example, one 

action item involved issuing contracting guidance to support modular 

development and OMB completed this action in June 2012. However, 

another action item involved ensuring agency data center consolidation 

plans were in place so agencies could close 800 data centers by 2015, 

and we recently reported that all but 1 of the 24 agencies’ plans were 

incomplete.23

Most recently, in October 2012, we reported specifically on the CIO rating 

portion of the IT Dashboard at six selected agencies.24 We found that 

CIOs at six federal agencies rated the majority of their IT investments as 

low risk, and that many ratings remained constant over time. For ratings 

that did change, we found two agencies reported more investments with 

reduced risk compared to earlier risk ratings; the other four agencies 

reported more investments with increased risk. In addition, we reported 

instances where the CIO ratings did not appropriately reflect significant 

cost, schedule, and performance issues reported by GAO and others. We 

recommended that the Federal CIO analyze agency trends reflected in 

Dashboard CIO ratings, and report the results of this analysis in future 

budget submissions. OMB agreed with the recommendation and recently 

released some information on trends as part of the 2014 budget. We have 

work under way to evaluate this information.

 

23GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories 

and Plans Need to Be Completed, GAO-12-742 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 19, 2012). 

24GAO, Information Technology Dashboard: Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency 

and Oversight of Investment Risk at Select Agencies, GAO-13-98 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

16, 2012).
 

Page 11 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

OMB and the four selected agencies have held multiple TechStats on IT 

investments that varied in terms of function, significance, amount spent to 

date, and risk level. Specifically, from January 2010 through April 2013, 

OMB reported leading 79 TechStat sessions, which focused on 55 IT 

investments at 23 federal agencies. These investments covered 21

functional areas (such as information and technology management, law 

enforcement, and health), and consist of 45 major, 8 non-major, and 2 

unrated investments.25

The four agencies selected for our review—Agriculture, Commerce, DHS, 

and HHS—held a total of 37 TechStat sessions covering 28 investments 

from January 2011 through March 2013. Most of the investments 

underwent a TechStat session at the agency level, but 8 underwent a 

TechStat review at the bureau level, and 2 underwent TechStat reviews 

at both. The agency-led TechStats covered 14 functional areas, and 

consist of 21 major and 7 non-major investments. For the 21 major 

investments, about 76 percent of the agency-led TechStats were on 

investments that had a CIO rating of medium- to high-risk.

For the 45 major investments that OMB reviewed, 

almost 70 percent had a CIO rating of medium to high risk at the time of 

the TechStat review.

While both OMB and agencies have made progress in holding TechStat 

sessions, there is more that could be done. Specifically, the number of 

TechStats held to date is relatively small compared to the total number of 

medium- and high-risk IT investments. Further, there are multiple highrisk IT investments spending millions of dollars that have not yet been 

assessed. Two of the selected agencies—Agriculture and Commerce—

had reviewed all of their high-risk investments, and DHS has plans to 

review its remaining high-risk investments. However, HHS has not yet 

established plans to review all of its high-risk investments. Also, OMB 

does not have plans or schedules for assessing the other high-risk IT 

investments. Until OMB and agencies intervene to turn around these atrisk projects, the government will continue to spend limited IT investment 

dollars on underperforming projects.

 

25Two OMB-led TechStats were on IT investments that have not been identified as major 

or non-major. 

OMB and Selected 

Agencies Have Held 

Multiple TechStats on 

a Diverse Set of IT 

Investments, but 

Other At-Risk 

Investments Have Not 

Yet Been Assessed
 

Page 12 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

As of April 2013, OMB reported conducting 79 TechStat reviews, with 59 

reviews occurring in 2010, 8 in 2011, 11 in 2012, and 1 so far in 2013. 

OMB conducted fewer TechStats in recent years because it expected the 

agencies to increase the number of agency-led TechStats. Most of the 

OMB-led TechStats were at DHS and DOD. OMB has conducted at least 

one TechStat at 23 agencies (including the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence). It has not held a TechStat at the Department of 

Labor, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National 

Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the 

Smithsonian Institution. Figure 1 shows the total number of reported 

OMB-led TechStats at each agency as of April 2013.

Figure 1: Number of OMB-led TechStats, by Agency, as of April 2013

Note: Key to agency names: Agriculture = U.S. Department of Agriculture; Army Corps = Army Corps 

of Engineers; Commerce = Department of Commerce; DHS = Department of Homeland Security; 

DOD = Department of Defense; DOE = Department of Energy; DOI = Department of the Interior; DOJ 

= Department of Justice; DOT = Department of Transportation; Education = Department of Education; 

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; GSA = General Services Administration; HHS = 

Department of Health and Human Services; HUD = Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

NARA = National Archives and Records Administration; ODNI = Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence; OPM = Office of Personnel Management; SBA = Small Business Administration; SSA = 

Social Security Administration; State = Department of State; Treasury = Department of the Treasury; 

USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; and VA = Department of Veterans Affairs.

OMB Reported Holding 79 

TechStats for a Variety of 

IT Investments
 

Page 13 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

These 79 TechStat reviews included 55 IT investments from 23 federal 

agencies. OMB also reported leading follow-up sessions for many of 

these investments. For example, OMB led 4 TechStats on a DHS 

investment called the Federal Emergency Management Agency—

National Flood Insurance Program Information Technology Systems and 

Services. Table 2 identifies the investments for which OMB led 

TechStats, the date of the first session, and the total number of sessions 

that OMB has held on that investment.

Table 2: Investments on which OMB Reported Holding TechStats 

Agency Investment name

Date of first 

TechStat held

Number of 

TechStats 

Agriculture Conservation Delivery Streamline Initiative 11/15/2011 1 

Web-based Supply Chain Management 3/2/2010 3 

Army Corps of Engineers Consolidated IT Infrastructure/Office Automation/Telecommunications 1/29/2010 1 

Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security Export Control Automated Support 

System 2000+

4/20/2010 2 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Air Quality 

Forecast Capability

2/24/2010 1 

Patent File Wrapper Program 9/20/2010 1 

Department of Defense Air Force-Integrated Personnel and Pay System 10/27/2010 2 

Expeditionary Combat Support System 5/7/2010 3 

Future Personnel and Pay Solution 10/27/2010 2 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System – Army 10/27/2010 3 

Department of Education Grants Management 5/21/2010 1 

Department of Energy Performance and Accountability for Grants in Energy 6/4/2010 1 

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development

Human Resources Automated Services 6/5/2012 1 

Office of the CIO Transformation Initiative 9/27/2010 2 

Voucher Management 5/31/2012 1 

Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Next Generation Identification program 4/21/2010 2 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Sentinel 10/18/2010 1 

Litigation Case Management System 9/9/2010 1 

Department of State Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System 2/24/2010 1 

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Collections and Billings System 9/17/2012 1 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

Outer Continental Shelf Connect

3/17/2010 1 

Capstone Facility Management System 3/30/2010 1 

Consolidated Infrastructure, Automation, Telecomm 10/27/2010 1 

Incident Management, Analysis, and Reporting System 4/29/2010 2 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Agency Investment name

Date of first 

TechStat held

Number of 

TechStats 

Reclamation Mission Support Services 6/29/2012 1 

Department of the Treasury Bank Secrecy Act IT Modernization 4/15/2010 1 

Integrated Financial System 4/7/2010 1 

IT Infrastructure Telecommunications Systems and Support 9/29/2010 1 

Treasury Enterprise Identity, Credential and Access Management 10/25/2010 1 

Department of 

Transportation

En Route Automation Modernization 11/9/2010 1 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Application and Information 

Services Modernization

8/30/2012 1 

Instrument Flight Procedure Automation 4/14/2010 1 

Logical Access and Authorization Control Service 3/11/2010 2 

Department of Veterans 

Affairs 

Benefits 21st Century Paperless Delivery of Veterans Benefits 10/7/2010 1 

Enterprise IT Support 4/30/2012 1 

InterAgency 21st Century Personal Identity Verification 1/21/2010 3 

Medical 21st Century Pharmacy 10/7/2010 1 

DHS Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System 3/31/2010 2 

Customs and Border Protection - Secure Border Initiative 3/10/2010 1 

Homeland Security Information Network 5/11/2010 2 

National Flood Insurance Program Information Technology Systems and 

Services 

8/4/2010 4 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Transformation 3/28/2012 2 

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Financial Replacement System 1/13/2010 1 

General Services 

Administration

Federal Supply Service 19 10/6/2010 1 

Integrated Acquisition Environment 9/26/2012 2 

HHS Food and Drug Administration MedWatch Plus 10/8/2010 1 

Secure One Health and Human Services 2/4/2010 1 

National Archives and 

Records Administration

Electronic Records Archives Program 6/17/2010 2 

Office of Personnel 

Management

Enterprise Infrastructure Operations 1/29/2010 1 

Retirement Systems Modernization 10/19/2010 1 

Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence

Business Transformation Office 6/3/2010 2 

Small Business

Administration

Identity and Access Management and Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive-12

3/10/2010 1 

Loan Management and Accounting System 4/8/2010 1 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Agency Investment name

Date of first 

TechStat held

Number of 

TechStats 

Social Security 

Administration

Citizen Access Routing Enterprise through 2020 11/1/2010 1 

U.S. Agency for 

International Development

OpsMaster 11/1/2011 1 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency data.

These 55 investments span 21 primary functional areas.26

Figure 2: Primary Function of Investments Subject to a TechStat

The most 

common functional area was information and technology management, 

followed by homeland security and human resource management. Figure 

2 provides a numerical depiction of the functions of those investments 

that were subject to a TechStat.

 

26Two investments were not categorized into functional areas.
 

Page 16 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

OMB held most of its TechStats on major IT investments, with 45 of its 55 

investments rated as major investments. OMB also held 8 TechStats on 

non-major investments and 2 on investments lacking a major/non-major 

designation. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of major and non-major 

investments.

Figure 3: Number of Major and Non-Major Investments that Underwent a TechStat

Thirty-eight of the 45 major investments that underwent an OMB-led 

TechStat have reportedly cost the federal government about $16 billion 

through fiscal year 2012.27

 

27Expenditure data were not available on seven major IT investments that were not 

included in the agencies’ recent budget submissions.

DHS’s investments that were the subject of a 

TechStat session accounted for most of the cost, with a reported $4.9 

billion spent. DOT follows with investments that have reportedly cost $2.8 

billion through September 2012. The reported cost of individual 

investments ranged from $4.18 million to $3.2 billion. Table 3 details how 

much each agency has spent on its major investment.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Table 3: Reported Spending on Major Investments on Which OMB Reported Holding a TechStat, through September 2012 

Home agency/ investment Reported spending (in millions)

Agriculture $194.68

Conservation Delivery Streamline Initiative $26.63

Web-based Supply Chain Management $168.05

Department of Defense $1,697.49

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System $169.42

Expeditionary Combat Support System $1,348.06

Integrated Personnel and Pay System - Army $180.01

Department of Education $30.98

Grants Management $30.98

Department of Energy $28.35

Performance and Accountability for Grants in Energy $28.35

Department of Housing and Urban Development $102.02

Human Resources Automated Services $30.55

Voucher Management $71.47

Department of Justice $1,290.19

Federal Bureau of Investigation Next 

Generation Identification program

$780.45

Federal Bureau of Investigation Sentinel $509.74

Department of State $23.20

Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System $23.20

Department of the Interior $443.22

Bureau of Land Management - Collections and Billings System $40.52

Incident Management, Analysis, and Reporting System $64.75

Reclamation Mission Support Services $337.95

Department of the Treasury $502.82

Bank Secrecy Act IT Modernization $31.49

Integrated Financial System $353.31

Treasury Enterprise Identity, Credential and Access Management $118.03

Department of Transportation $2,777.69a

En Route Automation Modernization $2,677.41

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Application and Information Services 

Modernization

$12.30

Instrument Flight Procedure Automation $87.99

Department of Veterans Affairs $1,787.48

Benefits 21st Century Paperless Delivery of Veterans Benefits $388.81

Enterprise IT Support $1,305.63
 

Page 18 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Home agency/ investment Reported spending (in millions)

InterAgency 21st Century Personal Identity Verification $57.55

Medical 21st Century Pharmacy $35.49

DHS $4,974.23a

Automated Commercial Environment / International Trade Data System $3,176.20

Homeland Security Information Network $237.59

National Flood Insurance Program Information Technology Systems and Services $104.72

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Transformation $1,455.73

Environmental Protection Agency $200.34

Financial Replacement System $200.34

General Services Administration $726.73a

Federal Supply Service 19 $228.49

Integrated Acquisition Environment $498.25

HHS $263.64

Food and Drug Administration MedWatch Plus $71.85

Secure One Health and Human Services $191.79

National Archives and Records Administration $495.99

Electronic Records Archive Program $495.99

Office of Personnel Management $339.78

Enterprise Infrastructure Operations $339.78

Small Business Administration $4.18

Identity and Access Management and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 $4.18

Social Security Administration $130.94

Citizen Access Routing Enterprise through 2020 $130.94

Total $16,013.95

Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency Exhibit 300 data.

a

Due to rounding, subtotals may not add up to agency totals.

Of the 45 major IT investments that were subject to a TechStat, 67 

percent were considered medium- to high-risk investments at the time 

they were chosen for a TechStat. Specifically, 9 had high- or moderately 

high-risk (red) CIO ratings on the IT Dashboard, 21 had medium-risk 

(yellow) ratings, and 9 had low- or moderately low-risk (green) ratings. In 

addition, 6 investments’ risk levels were not identified. Table 4 shows the 

Dashboard ratings for the major IT investments that underwent a 

TechStat.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Table 4: Dashboard Ratings for the Major IT Investments that were Subject to a TechStat 

Agency Investment name

Date of first 

TechStat 

Dashboard rating at 

time of first TechStat

Agriculture Conservation Delivery Streamline Initiative 11/15/2011 Medium risk

Web-based Supply Chain Management 3/2/2010 Medium risk

Commerce Patent File Wrapper Program 9/20/2010 Moderately high risk

Department of Defense Air Force-Integrated Personnel and Pay System 10/27/2010 No ratinga

Expeditionary Combat Support System 5/7/2010 Medium risk

Integrated Personnel and Pay System – Army 10/27/2010 No ratinga

Department of Education Grants Management 5/21/2010 Moderately low risk

Department of Energy Performance and Accountability for Grants in Energy 6/4/2010 Medium risk

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development

Human Resources Automated Services 6/5/2012 Moderately low risk

Office of CIO Transformation Initiative 9/27/2010 Medium risk

Voucher Management 5/31/2012 Medium risk

Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Next Generation 

Identification program

4/21/2010 No ratinga

Federal Bureau of Investigation Sentinel 10/18/2010 Moderately high risk

Department of State Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System 2/24/2010 Medium risk

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Collections and Billings 

System

9/17/2012 Moderately low risk

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement Outer Continental Shelf Connect

3/17/2010 Medium risk

Capstone Facility Management System 3/30/2010 Medium risk

Consolidated Infrastructure, Automation, Telecomm 10/27/2010 Medium risk

Incident Management, Analysis, and Reporting System 4/29/2010 Moderately low risk

Reclamation Mission Support Services 6/29/2012 Low risk

Department of the Treasury Bank Secrecy Act IT Modernization 4/15/2010 Medium risk

Integrated Financial System 4/7/2010 Medium risk

IT Infrastructure Telecommunications Systems and Support 9/29/2010 No ratinga

Treasury Enterprise Identity, Credential and Access 

Management

10/25/2010 Moderately high risk

Department of 

Transportation

En Route Automation Modernization 11/9/2010 High risk

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Application and 

Information Services Modernization

8/30/2012 Medium risk

Instrument Flight Procedure Automation 4/14/2010 Medium risk

Department of Veterans 

Affairs 

Benefits 21st Century Paperless Delivery of Veterans 

Benefits

10/7/2010 Low risk

Enterprise IT Support 4/30/2012 Low risk

InterAgency 21st Century Personal Identity Verification 1/21/2010 No ratinga
 

Page 20 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Agency Investment name

Date of first 

TechStat 

Dashboard rating at 

time of first TechStat

Medical 21st Century Pharmacy 10/7/2010 Medium risk

DHS Automated Commercial Environment / International Trade 

Data System

3/31/2010 Moderately high risk

Homeland Security Information Network 5/11/2010 Moderately high risk

National Flood Insurance Program Information Technology 

Systems and Services 

8/4/2010 Moderately high risk

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Transformation 3/28/2012 Moderately high risk

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Financial Replacement System 1/13/2010 Medium risk

General Services 

Administration

Federal Supply Service 19 10/6/2010 Medium risk

Integrated Acquisition Environment 9/26/2012 Medium risk

HHS Food and Drug Administration MedWatch Plus 10/8/2010 Medium risk

Secure One Health and Human Services 2/4/2010 No ratinga

National Archives and 

Records Administration

Electronic Records Archives Program 6/17/2010 Medium risk

Office of Personnel 

Management

Enterprise Infrastructure Operations 1/29/2010 Moderately high risk

Retirement Systems Modernization 10/19/2010 Medium risk

Small Business 

Administration

Identity and Access Management and Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive-12

3/10/2010 Moderately low risk

Social Security 

Administration

Citizen Access Routing Enterprise through 2020 11/1/2010 Moderately low risk

Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency IT Dashboard data.

a

This investment did not have a CIO rating on the IT Dashboard at the time of the investment’s first 

TechStat.

From January 2011 through March 2013, the four selected agencies— 

Agriculture, Commerce, DHS, and HHS—held 37 TechStats that covered 

28 different investments. Commerce held the most, with 15 TechStat 

sessions, followed by DHS, HHS, and Agriculture, with 8, 7, and 7 

sessions, respectively. Table 5 lists the investments, the date of the first 

TechStat session, and the total number of TechStats by agency.

Selected Agencies Held 37 

TechStats on a Diverse Set 

of IT Investments
 

Page 21 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Table 5: Investments Selected for Agency-led TechStats from Four Selected Agencies 

Agency Investment name

Date of first 

TechStat 

Number of 

TechStats 

Agriculture Automated Timber Sales Accounting 2/26/2013 1 

Comprehensive Loan Program 3/24/2011 2 

Emerging Information Technology Architecture 10/31/2012 1 

Farm Program Modernization 11/28/2012 1 

Food Safety and Inspection Service Public Health Information Consolidation Projects 

(now called Public Health Information System)

7/28/2011 1 

Web-based Supply Chain Management 1/14/2013 1 

Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security Commerce Exporter Support System 8/8/2012 1 

Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery 9/20/2012 1 

Census - Data Access and Dissemination System 8/3/2011 1 

Census IT Infrastructure 6/28/2012 1 

Export Control and Automated Support System 2000+ 6/20/2011 1 

National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Law Enforcement Wide Area Network 12/16/2011 1 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / National Weather Service/ 

Automated Surface Observing System

11/6/2012 1 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration—Radio Spectrum 

Management—Federal Spectrum Management System 

10/9/2012 1 

National Weather Service Telecommunication Gateway System (Legacy, Replacement, 

and Critical Infrastructure Protection)

7/8/2011 1 

Next Generation Weather Radar System Product Improvement 3/25/2011 2 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Financial Management System 1/20/2011 1 

Weather Radio Improvement Project 6/8/2011 3 

DHS Customs and Border Protection Infrastructure 3/8/2012 1 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office—Joint Analysis Center Collaborative Information 

System 

2/22/2012 1 

Enterprise Performance Analysis 12/12/2012 1 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Electronic Health Record System 11/9/2011 1 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System 

3/30/2011 2 

DHS Infrastructure Transformation Program 8/12/2011 1 

National Protection and Programs Directorate—Federal Protective Service Risk 

Assessment and Management Program

6/21/2012 1 

HHS Enterprise Human Resources and Personnel 4/27/2011 4 

Food and Drug Administration Office of Regulatory Affairs Mission Accomplishments and 

Regulatory Compliance Services

12/8/2011 1 

One Stop Service Solution 12/28/2011 2 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
 

Page 22 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Although most of the agency-led TechStat reviews were held at the 

agency level, three of the agencies in our review have also been holding 

them at the bureau or component agency level. Specifically, of the 

agencies in our review, 18 of the 28 investments underwent at least one 

TechStat review at the agency level, 8 underwent a TechStat review at 

the bureau level, and 2 underwent TechStat reviews at both. Of the 

selected agencies, Agriculture had not held a bureau-level TechStat (see 

fig. 4).

Figure 4: Level of TechStat at Four Selected Agencies

Like the OMB-led reviews, the investments selected by agencies for 

TechStat reviews had diverse primary functional areas. Specifically, 25 of 

the investments that underwent agency-led TechStats at the four selected 

agencies cover 14 different functional areas.28

 

28The budget submissions for three investments did not identify their functional areas. 

The most common area 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

was information and technology management (6 investments), followed 

by environmental management (4 investments) (see fig. 5).

Figure 5: Primary Function of Investments that Underwent a TechStat at Four Selected Agencies

Most of the investments that underwent a TechStat review at the four 

agencies were major investments, with a quarter of the sessions focusing 

on non-major investments (see fig. 6).
 

Page 24 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Figure 6: Number of Major and Non-Major Investments that Underwent a TechStat at 

Four Selected Agencies

The four agencies reported spending $7.8 billion through the end of fiscal 

year 2012 on 20 of the 21 major investments that underwent an agencyled review.29

Table 6: Reported Spending on Major Investments on which Agencies Performed a TechStat, through September 2012 

The cost of individual investments ranged from $6.22 million 

for a new Commerce investment to $3.7 billion for a DHS investment. 

Table 6 provides a summary of the amount spent on major investments 

through September 2012.

Agency Investment name Reported cost (in millions)

Agriculture $698.01

Automated Timber Sales Accounting $10.93

Comprehensive Loan Program $111.58

Emerging Information Technology Architecture $63.02

Farm Program Modernization $233.69

Public Health Information Consolidation Projects (now called Public Health 

Information System) $110.74

Web-based Supply Chain Management $168.05

 

29Expenditure data are not available for one investment that was recently eliminated. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Agency Investment name Reported cost (in millions)

Commerce $1,883.11

Bureau of Industry and Security Commerce Exporter Support System $6.22

Census - Data Access and Dissemination System $375.51

Census IT Infrastructure $1,073.65

National Telecommunications and Information Administration - Radio Spectrum 

Management - Federal Spectrum Management System $37.75

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ National Weather Service 

Telecommunication Gateway System (Legacy, Replacement, and Critical 

Infrastructure Protection) $218.27

Next Generation Weather Radar System Product Improvement $148.31

Weather Radio Improvement Project $23.40

DHS $4,868.17

Customs and Border Protection Infrastructure $3,712.26

Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Electronic Health Record System $21.43

Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System $255.30

DHS Infrastructure Transformation Program $824.67

National Protection and Programs Directorate – Federal Protective Service Risk 

Assessment and Management Program $54.51

HHS $334.82

Enterprise Human Resources and Personnel $148.43

Food and Drug Administration Office of Regulatory Affairs Mission Accomplishments 

and Regulatory Compliance Services $186.39

Total $7,784.10a

Source: GAO analysis of agency Exhibit 300 data.

Note:

a

Due to rounding, subtotals may not add up to totals. 

Similar to the OMB-led TechStats, the majority of the agency-led 

TechStats on major investments were on investments that were 

considered to be a medium- to high-risk investment. Specifically, 16 of the 

21 major investments that agencies chose for a TechStat had either a 

medium- or high-risk rating on the Dashboard. Five investments that were 

chosen received a moderately low-risk rating on the Dashboard. Table 7 

provides the details.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Table 7: CIO Ratings for Major Investments on Which Agencies Held a TechStat 

Agency Investment name

Date of first 

TechStat

CIO rating at time of 

first TechStat

Agriculture Automated Timber Sales Accounting 3/26/2013 Moderately high risk

Comprehensive Loan Program 3/24/2011 Moderately low risk

Emerging Information Technology Architecture 10/31/2012 Medium risk

Farm Program Modernization 11/28/2012 Medium risk

Food Safety and Inspection Service Public Health Information Consolidation 

Projects (now called Public Health Information System)

7/28/2011 Medium risk

Web-based Supply Chain Management 1/14/2013 Medium risk

Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security Commerce Exporter Support System 8/8/2012 Moderately high risk

Census - Data Access and Dissemination System 8/3/2011 Medium risk

Census IT Infrastructure 6/28/2012 Medium risk

Export Control and Automated Support System 2000+ 6/20/2011 Moderately low risk

National Weather Service Telecommunication Gateway System (Legacy, 

Replacement, and Critical Infrastructure Protection)

7/8/2011 Moderately high risk

Next Generation Weather Radar System Product Improvement 3/25/2011 Medium risk

Radio Spectrum Management—Federal Spectrum Management System 10/9/2012 Moderately low risk

Weather Radio Improvement Project 6/8/2011 Moderately high risk

DHS Customs and Border Protection Infrastructure 3/8/2012 Medium risk

Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Electronic Health Record System 11/9/2011 Moderately low risk

Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System

3/30/2011 Medium risk

DHS Infrastructure Transformation Program 8/12/2011 Medium risk

National Protection and Programs Directorate—Federal Protective Service 

Risk Assessment and Management Program

6/21/2012 Moderately high risk

HHS Enterprise Human Resources and Personnel 4/27/2011 Medium risk

Food and Drug Administration Office of Regulatory Affairs Mission 

Accomplishments and Regulatory Compliance Services

12/8/2011 Moderately low risk

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard and agency data.

While the TechStat process was developed to address at-risk 

investments, the number of TechStats that OMB and selected agencies 

performed to date on medium-or high-risk investments represents a small 

percentage of the current number of IT investments with a medium- or 

high-risk CIO rating. Specifically, the OMB-led TechStats represent 

roughly 18.5 percent of the investments across the government that have 

a medium- or high-risk CIO rating. For the four selected agencies, the 

number of TechStats represents about 33 percent of the investments that 

have a medium- or high-risk CIO rating. Results within agencies vary from 

OMB and Agencies Have 

Assessed Relatively Few 

At-Risk IT Investments
 

Page 27 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

12.5 to 58.3 percent. Table 8 provides the details on the four agencies’ atrisk investments and the number that have undergone OMB-led or 

agency-led TechStats.

Table 8: Number of TechStats as a Percentage of Medium- or High-Risk 

Investments, as of May 2013

Number of at-risk IT

investments that have 

undergone a TechStat 

Number of at-risk IT 

investments Percentage 

OMB-led

Governmentwide 30 162 18.5%

Agency-led or OMB-led

Agriculture 6 15 40.0%

Commerce 7 12 58.3%

DHS 8 26 30.8%

HHS 2 16 12.5%

Agency average 33.3%

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data as of August 2012.

Focusing specifically on the riskiest investments (those with a moderately 

high- or high-risk rating), millions of dollars are being spent on 

investments that have not yet undergone a TechStat. As of May 2013, the 

IT Dashboard listed 28 major investments as having a high- or 

moderately high-risk CIO rating. Thirteen of these investments have not 

undergone a TechStat.30 Since these investments total over $172 million 

in fiscal year 2013 spending, there is potential for savings if these highrisk investments are turned around. Table 9 provides details on the highrisk investments that have not been the subject of a TechStat.

 

30Ten have had an OMB-led TechStat and five have had an agency-led TechStat.
 

Page 28 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Table 9: High-Risk Investments that Have Not Undergone an OMB-led or Agency-led TechStat, as of May 2013

Agency Investment

Total FY13 spending 

(in millions)

Department of 

Education 

Cyber Security Operations $7.75

Enterprise Business Collaboration $2.25

Integrated Data Collection and Performance Reporting $4.49

Security Authorization $3.80

System Security Authorizations $4.07

Department of Health 

and Human Services

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Center for Consumer Information and 

Insurance Oversight IT Infrastructure

$32.45

Unified Financial Management System: Modernization Program $37.59

Department of the 

Interior

National Park Service - National Fee Collection Point of Sale System $0.90

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

Benefits Legacy $36.36

Enterprise Telephony Strategy $0.0

DHS Federal Emergency Management Agency Infrastructure $36.75

Federal Protective Service Tac Com Equipment and Support $3.91

National Archives and 

Records Administration

Description and Authority Services $1.91

Total $172.23

Source: GAO analysis of IT Dashboard data.

DHS officials noted that they plan to hold TechStat sessions on both of 

their high-risk investments in June 2013. HHS officials stated that the 

department plans to hold TechStats in the future, but has not established 

schedules for their high-risk investments. In total, there are 11 high-risk 

investments that do not have a scheduled TechStat or other management 

review.

OMB and agency officials stated that they are continuing to monitor 

selected investments to determine whether to hold a TechStat. Also, two 

agencies’ officials explained that just because an IT investment has a 

high-risk CIO rating does not necessarily mean that the investment is 

troubled. For example, Commerce officials stated that they list some 

investments as high risk while they wait for program documentation. 

However, in its guidance on the IT Dashboard, OMB notes that it expects 

that CIO ratings should be maintained as an accurate representation of 

the state of an IT investment. Agency CIOs are able to immediately adjust 

risk levels if they determined that the investment no longer merits a highrisk rating. Moreover, missing documentation could be a minor issue as 

Commerce suggests, or in the case of requirements documents or test 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

plans, it could be a significant indicator of a troubled program. It is the 

CIO’s responsibility to determine which is the case and to adjust their 

ratings accordingly. Until agencies and OMB develop plans and 

schedules to address their at-risk projects, the investments will likely 

remain at risk.

The four selected agencies are generally conducting TechStats in 

accordance with OMB guidance. In 2011, when OMB decided to move 

beyond conducting its own TechStats and to have agencies conduct them 

too, OMB provided agencies guidance through the IT Reform Plan, a 

memorandum, and the TechStat Toolkit, which is available on the CIO 

Council’s website.31

Table 10: Key Requirements for TechStats 

These documents include 15 key requirements, 

including when TechStats should be implemented by the agencies, what 

participants should be included, how at-risk investments should be 

chosen, and how outcomes should be tracked and reported. The 

requirements can be grouped into four broad categories: scope, 

governance, process, and outcomes. Table 10 shows key requirements 

for TechStat reviews.

Category Agency TechStat requirements

Scope Conduct TechStats at the department level by March 2011

Conduct TechStats at the bureau level by June 2012

Conduct TechStats at a more granular level than major IT investments, including on subsets of major investments 

(called projects) and on non-major investments

Governance Ensure that sessions are led by CIO

Embrace the TechStat model within existing capital planning and investment control procedures and embed 

TechStat accountability within its existing governance structure

Ensure that the standard invitation to a TechStat review includes the TechStat team, Investment Manager, 

Business Owner, and Investment Review Board members

Ensure that the majority of the preparation for a TechStat review is performed by the TechStat team and CIO with 

support from Investment Managers and Business Owners

 

31GAO has also identified effective practices for using “Stat” meetings, or data-driven 

performance reviews, as a performance improvement tool. See GAO, Managing for 

Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies Should Explore 

How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies, GAO-13-228 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2013).

Selected Agencies are 

Generally Conducting 

TechStats in 

Accordance with 

OMB Guidance, but 

Areas for 

Improvement Exist
 

Page 30 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Category Agency TechStat requirements

Process Institute training programs on the TechStat process

Identify at-risk programs for TechStat sessions using sources including (but not limited to) agency performance 

management system, federal IT Dashboard (CIO rating, cost and schedule rating), exhibit 300 analysis (past and 

present), rebaseline reviews and other project documentation, GAO and Inspector General reports, congressional 

testimony, news media, and human intelligence

Document action steps, deadlines, and responsibilities identified during the TechStat in a memorandum to the 

investment

Ensure that the TechStat action items and recovery plans are actively managed and monitored by the TechStat 

team

Track all action items in a consolidated repository

Outcomes Track each investment reviewed in a TechStat into one of the following outcomes: proceed with minimal 

intervention, accelerated delivery, budget reduction, or termination

Share outcomes with OMB as part of lessons learned

Publish TechStat results in an internal collaborative tool for primary stakeholders, including the status of action 

items, investment disposition decisions, and best practices and success stories identified

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

The four selected agencies implemented most of OMB’s 15 key 

requirements. Specifically, DHS implemented all 15 requirements, 

Commerce fully implemented 14 requirements and partially implemented 

1 requirement, HHS fully implemented 11 of the requirements and 

partially implemented 4 requirements, and Agriculture fully implemented 

10 of the requirements, partially implemented 3 requirements, and did not 

implement 2 requirements.

All four agencies fully implemented eight of OMB’s requirements: (1) the 

appropriate people are invited to the TechStat meetings, (2) sessions are 

led by the CIO, (3) the preparation for the TechStat is performed by the 

TechStat team and the CIO, (4) investments selected by TechStats are 

done so by the prescribed criteria, (5) all action items are tracked in a 

consolidated repository, (6) each investment is tracked into an outcome, 

(7) outcomes are shared with OMB, and (8) results are published in an 

collaborative tool. The requirement with the least implementation involves 

documenting action items, deadlines, and responsible parties in a

memorandum following each TechStat. Table 11 provides details 

regarding the agencies’ implementation of OMB guidance on TechStats.
 

Page 31 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Table 11: Agencies’ Implementation of OMB TechStat Guidance

Agency TechStat requirements Agriculture Commerce HHS DHS Description

Scope Conduct TechStats at the 

department level by March 2011

● ● ◐ ● Agriculture, Commerce, and DHS 

successfully conducted TechStats at the 

department level by March 2011. HHS 

held its first TechStat after the OMBrequired deadline.

Conduct TechStats at the bureau 

level by June 2012

◐ ● ◐ ● Commerce and DHS bureaus conducted 

TechStats by June 2012. HHS bureaus 

conducted TechStats after the OMB 

deadline. Agriculture provided selected 

bureaus training on how to conduct 

TechStats in October 2012; however, it 

has not yet instructed its bureaus to hold 

TechStats. 

Conduct TechStats at a more 

granular level than major IT 

investments, including on subsets 

of major investments (called 

projects) and on non-major 

investments

○ ● ● ● While Commerce, HHS, and DHS have 

conducted TechStats on non-major IT 

investments, Agriculture has not. The 

agency plans to instruct its components to 

hold TechStats on non-major investments 

following the review of all of the major 

investments.

Governance Ensure that sessions are led by 

CIO

● ● ● ● All four agencies ensured that TechStat 

sessions are led by the CIO, or the 

bureau CIO, as appropriate. 

Embrace TechStat model within 

existing capital planning and 

investment control procedures 

and embed TechStat 

accountability within its existing 

governance structure

○ ● ● ● Commerce, DHS, and HHS have 

embraced the TechStat model within the 

existing capital planning and investment 

control procedures and embedded 

accountability within its existing 

governance structure. Agriculture’s 

integrated governance structure does not 

include TechStats. Agency officials stated 

that these documents are in the process 

of being reviewed and approved. 

Ensure that the standard invitation 

to a TechStat review includes the 

TechStat team, Investment

Manager, Business Owner, and 

Investment Review Board 

members

● ● ● ● All four agencies ensured that the 

invitation to a TechStat includes the 

appropriate people, as prescribed by the 

guidance.

Ensure that the majority of the 

preparation for a TechStat review 

is performed by the TechStat 

team and CIO with support from 

Investment Managers and 

Business Owners

● ● ● ● All four agencies ensured that the majority 

of the preparation for a TechStat is 

performed by the TechStat team and CIO 

(or bureau CIO, as appropriate) with 

support from Investment Managers and 

Business Owners.
 

Page 32 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Agency TechStat requirements Agriculture Commerce HHS DHS Description

Process Institute training programs on the 

TechStat process

◐ ● ● ● Commerce, HHS, and DHS have 

instituted training programs on the 

TechStat process. Agriculture provided 

training in October 2012, but several 

bureaus did not take the training. The 

agency plans to conduct the training 

again in April 2013. 

Identify programs for TechStat 

sessions using sources including 

(but not limited to) agency 

performance management 

system, federal IT Dashboard 

(CIO rating, cost and schedule 

rating), exhibit 300 analysis (past 

and present), rebaseline reviews 

and other project documentation, 

GAO and inspector general

reports, congressional testimony, 

news media, and human 

intelligence

● ● ● ● All four agencies used sources that 

include those suggested by OMB to 

identify programs for TechStat sessions.

Document action steps, 

deadlines, and responsibilities in a 

memorandum following each 

TechStat

◐ ◐ ◐ ● DHS consistently created memorandums 

that include action steps, deadlines, and 

responsibilities. Agriculture and 

Commerce consistently created 

memorandums, but did not consistently 

include all three required elements. HHS 

did not consistently create memorandums 

to the investment. For example, there was 

no memorandum created for the bureauled TechStat on the Food and Drug 

Administration Office of Regulatory Affairs 

Mission Accomplishments and Regulatory 

Compliance Services. Further, in another 

case, action item lists did not list 

responsible parties. 

Ensure that the TechStat action 

items and recovery plans are 

actively managed and monitored 

by the TechStat team

● ● ◐ ● Agriculture, Commerce, and DHS 

consistently ensured that TechStat action 

items are actively managed and 

monitored. HHS partially fulfills this 

requirement. Specifically, HHS monitored 

the status of six action items, but did not 

track two action items from 2011 to 

closure. 

Track all action items in a 

consolidated repository

● ● ● ● All four agencies tracked action items in a 

repository. 

Outcomes Track each investment reviewed 

in a TechStat into one of the 

following outcomes: proceed with 

minimal intervention, accelerated 

delivery, budget reduction, or 

termination

● ● ● ● All four agencies tracked investments into 

the prescribed categories.
 

Page 33 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Agency TechStat requirements Agriculture Commerce HHS DHS Description

Share outcomes with OMB as part 

of lessons learned

● ● ● ● All four agencies consistently shared 

outcomes with OMB.

Publish TechStat results in an 

internal collaborative tool for 

primary stakeholders, including 

the status of action items, 

investment disposition decisions, 

and best practices and success 

stories identified

● ● ● ● All four agencies published TechStat 

results in an internal collaborative tool.

Key: ● = Agency has fully implemented the requirement.

◐ = Agency has partially implemented the requirement.

○ = Agency has not implemented the requirement.

Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency data.

While the four selected agencies have largely implemented OMB’s 

guidance on conducting TechStats, three agencies have selected areas 

where they can improve. For example, Agriculture created memorandums 

following a TechStat, but did not consistently include responsible parties; 

Commerce created memorandums, but did not include deadlines; and 

HHS did not always create memorandums or monitor all of its action 

items to closure.

Agency officials noted several reasons for not fully implementing OMB’s 

guidance. Specifically, Agriculture officials noted that they are updating 

their capital planning guidance to include TechStat reviews, but that this 

guidance is in the process of being reviewed and approved. Also, 

Commerce and HHS officials noted that OMB gave agencies flexibility in 

exactly how to implement their guidance. While OMB did provide 

agencies flexibility in selecting investments for TechStat reviews and 

conducting those reviews, the requirements are clearly delineated in OMB 

instructions and training. Fully implementing OMB’s TechStat guidance 

could better position the agencies to realize the benefits of the TechStat 

initiative—including strengthening overall IT governance and oversight, 

and proactively identifying and resolving problems before investments 

experience delays or cost overruns.
 

Page 34 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

The IT Reform Plan and related OMB guidance instructed agencies to 

track and report on the outcomes of their TechStat sessions (including 

improved governance, accelerated deliveries, and terminated projects), 

and on any associated cost implications (such as cost savings or cost 

avoidances).

OMB and the four agencies we reviewed have tracked and reported 

positive results from TechStats, with most resulting in improved 

governance or accelerated deliveries. OMB also reported that federal 

agencies achieved over $3 billion in cost savings or avoidances as a 

result of the OMB-led TechStats in 2010 and $900 million from agencyled TechStats in 2011. Using a different calculation formula, OMB also 

reported that TechStats resulted in $63.5 million in cost implications in 

2012.32

However, we were unable to validate the reported outcomes and 

associated savings because OMB did not provide supporting artifacts or 

demonstrate the steps that OMB analysts took to verify the agencies’ 

data. Without documentation or an explanation of its method in validating 

agencies’ reported results and cost savings, it will be difficult for OMB to 

provide a sufficient level of confidence to Congress and the public that the 

information it has presented is credible.

Both OMB and agencies reported achieving positive results from their 

respective TechStat sessions. Specifically, in 2011 OMB staff reported 

achieving a variety of positive outcomes from the OMB-led TechStat 

sessions, including 11 investments being reduced in scope, four 

investments that were cancelled, and multiple investments with 

accelerated program delivery. We also identified four investments that 

were the focus of an OMB-led TechStat that were subsequently 

terminated and two other investments that were split into multiple smaller 

investments to improve governance and accelerate the delivery of 

 

32According to OMB staff, the original report identified cost implications based on life-cycle 

costs of the investment, whereas the quarterly reports identify only near-term cost 

implications.

OMB and Agencies 

Reported Positive 

Results and Cost 

Savings from Holding 

TechStats, but Are 

Not Ensuring Results 

Are Valid

OMB and Agencies 

Reported Positive Results 

from TechStats
 

Page 35 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

discrete capabilities.33 Further, we previously found that the June 2010 

TechStat on the National Archives and Records Administration’s 

Electronic Records Archives investment resulted in six corrective actions, 

including halting fiscal year 2012 development funding pending the 

completion of a strategic plan.34

Seeking to improve the reporting of outcomes, OMB instructed federal

agencies to track the results of each agency-led TechStat session into 

one of six outcomes: accelerated delivery, improved governance, reduced 

scope, eliminated duplication, halted, or terminated. In December 2011, 

OMB reported a summary of the outcomes of 294 agency-led TechStats 

across the federal government.

We estimated that the program would 

likely experience cost overruns of between $205 and $405 million if the 

agency completed the program as originally designed.

35

• 49 percent resulted in accelerated delivery,

Specifically, OMB reported the following 

outcomes:

• 42 percent resulted in improved governance,

• 3 percent did not report results,

• 2 percent resulted in terminations,

• 1 percent resulted in reducing the scope,

• 1 percent eliminated duplication, and

• 1 percent halted the investment.

In addition, the four agencies in our review reported on the results of their 

agency-led TechStats, with the majority resulting in improved 

governance. Specifically, out of 36 TechStat reviews, 28 resulted in 

improved governance, 4 in accelerated delivery, 2 in terminations, and 2 

 

33DHS’s Customs and Border Protection - Secure Border Initiative; Interior’s Capstone 

Facility Management System; Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 

and Enforcement Outer Continental Shelf Connect; and Office of Personnel 

Management’s Retirement Systems Modernization were terminated. Housing and Urban 

Development’s Transformation Initiative and Department of the Interior’s Consolidated 

Infrastructure Automation Telecomm investments were split into smaller investments.

34GAO, Information Technology: Continued Improvements in Investment Oversight and 

Management Can Yield Billions in Savings, GAO-11-511T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 

2011).

35CIO Council, Management Best Practices Committee, A Year in Review: Outcomes and 

Lessons Learned from Implementing Agency-Led TechStat Reviews Across the Federal 

Government (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2011). OMB staff told us that these cost 

implications were calculated over the entire life cycle of the investments.
 

Page 36 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

in a reduced scope. Table 12 provides a summary of reported results, by 

agency.

Table 12: Outcomes of Agency-Led TechStat Reviews for Four Selected Agencies 

(as of March 2013) 

Commerce DHS HHS Agriculture Total

Accelerated delivery 0 4 0 0 4 (11%)

Improved governance 14 3 5 6 28 (78%)

Reduced scope 0 0 2 0 2 (6%)

Terminated 1 1 0 0 2 (6%)

Total 15 8 7 6 36

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

In conjunction with the reported outcomes of agency-led TechStats, OMB 

instructed agencies to provide information on the cost implications of the 

outcomes. These implications could include cost savings (a reduction in 

actual expenditures) or cost avoidances (an action taken immediately that 

will reduce costs in the future). In addition, OMB’s guidance on 

performance reporting notes that performance data should be 

appropriately accurate and reliable for their intended use.36

OMB has reported cost savings and avoidances from OMB- and agencyled TechStat reviews. Specifically, OMB has reported

This guidance 

further describes verification and validation techniques that OMB 

encourages agencies to use in internal assessments, including ensuring 

that supporting documentation is maintained and readily available, data 

are verified as appropriate to the needed level of accuracy, and data 

limitations are explained and documented.

37

 

36OMB, Circular A-11, Section 260: Annual Performance Reporting (Washington, D.C.: 

August 2012).

that federal 

agencies achieved about $3 billion in cost savings or avoidances as a 

result of the OMB-led TechStats held in 2010 and 2011, and $900 million 

37For example, the Federal CIO, OMB, and the CIO Council reported these cost savings 

and avoidances in 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information 

Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010); Year in Review: Outcomes 

and Lessons Learned from Implementing Agency-Led TechStat Reviews Across the 

Federal Government, (Dec. 8, 2011); Federal Information Technology FY2013 Budget 

Priorities: “Doing More with Less;” Quarterly Report to Congress: Integrated, Efficient, and 

Effective Uses of Information Technology (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2012). 

OMB Reported Significant 

Cost Benefits from Holding 

TechStats 
 

Page 37 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

from agency-led TechStats in 2011. See figure 7 for the reported cost 

implications for both OMB-led and agency-led TechStats as of November 

2011.

Figure 7: OMB’s Reported Cost Savings and Avoidances, as of November 2011 

In addition, OMB reported that the cost savings and avoidances for the 

agency-led TechStat reviews, as of November 2011, came from 10 of the 

27 agencies under their purview. Department of Transportation had the 

most cost implications, with $510 million. See figure 8 for a depiction of 

the cost implications by agency.
 

Page 38 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Figure 8: Cost Savings and Avoidances for Agency-Led TechStat Sessions, as of 

November 2011 

Note: Key to agency names: DOD = Department of Defense; DOT = Department of Transportation; 

Energy = Department of Energy; Interior = Department of the Interior; NRC = Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission; NSF = National Science Foundation; OPM = Office of Personnel Management; SSA = 

Social Security Administration; Treasury = Department of the Treasury; and VA = Department of 

Veterans Affairs.

Two of the agencies in our review—DHS and HHS—reported $23 million 

in cost implications from three agency-led TechStats:

• DHS reported a $14 million cost avoidance after deciding to 

decommission one part of the Federal Protective Service’s Risk 

Assessment and Management Program;

• HHS reported saving $8.2 million by reengineering redundant 

business processes supporting the Food and Drug Administration’s 

Mission Accomplishment and Regulatory Compliance Service project; 

and

• HHS reported $800,000 in cost implications associated with improving 

governance and reducing the scope of the One Stop Service Solution 

project (now called GovZone).
 

Page 39 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

More recently, OMB has been reporting cost savings from agency-led 

TechStat reviews in quarterly reports to Congress.38 From December 

2011 through December 2012, OMB identified a total of $63.5 million in 

cost implications from agency-led TechStats. OMB staff stated that they 

are calculating the cost savings in these quarterly reports differently than 

their prior reports on cost savings, and thus the costs should not be 

compared.39

When collecting data, it is important to have assurance that the data are 

accurate. Best practices in implementing the Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 emphasize the need for agencies, when 

providing information, to explain the procedures used to verify or validate 

their data.40 Specifically, agencies should ensure that reported data are 

sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent, and also identify any 

significant data limitations. Explaining the limitations of the information 

can provide a context for understanding and assessing the challenges 

agencies face in gathering, processing, and analyzing needed data. Such 

a presentation of data limitation can also help identify the actions needed 

to improve the agency’s ability to measure its performance. More 

recently, we have reiterated the importance of providing OMB with 

complete and accurate data.41

DHS and HHS, the two agencies in our review that reported cost savings 

and avoidances, generally perform analyses to establish these estimates. 

DHS provided supporting documentation for how the cost implications for 

 

38Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, (P.L. 112-74), the Director of OMB 

was required to submit quarterly reports identifying the savings achieved by OMB’s 

governmentwide information technology reform efforts with the savings identified by fiscal 

year, agency, and appropriation. Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. 896 (2011). See OMB, 

Quarterly Report to Congress: Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information 

Technology (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2012); Quarterly Report to Congress: Integrated, 

Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information Technology (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2012); 

and Quarterly Report to Congress: Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information 

Technology (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2013).

39According to OMB staff, the original report identified cost implications based on life-cycle 

costs of the investment, whereas the quarterly reports identify only near-term cost 

implications.

40GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18. 

41GAO-11-262. 

OMB and Agencies Are 

Not Ensuring Reported 

Outcomes and Cost 

Implications Are Valid
 

Page 40 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

its investment were calculated and HHS provided supporting 

documentation for its larger investment. We were unable to validate the 

cost savings for HHS’s smaller investment because the agency was 

unable to provide supporting documentation.

From a governmentwide perspective, OMB staff explained that they 

review agencies’ cost implication data for completeness and quality.

However, we were unable to validate OMB’s reported outcomes and 

almost $4 billion in cost implications because OMB did not provide 

documentation on any steps that it or the agencies took to ensure the 

validity of the agencies’ outcome and cost data. For example, OMB staff 

did not provide memorandums documenting action items from the OMBled TechStats, the outcomes identified for OMB- and agency-led 

TechStats, documentation identifying which investments resulted in cost 

savings, documentation demonstrating the methodology used to calculate 

the cost savings, or a summary of steps the agencies took to validate 

reported cost savings. Moreover, OMB does not require agencies to 

report on what steps they took to verify their reported outcomes and cost 

savings.

By not requiring agencies to report on their efforts to validate reported 

outcomes and cost savings, it is not evident that OMB is following its own 

guidance for ensuring that performance data are reliable and accurate. 

Moreover, OMB is not providing reasonable assurance to Congress and 

the public that the information it has presented is credible.

One entity that was formed to assist OMB in its oversight of the TechStat 

results was the CIO Council’s subcommittee on IT Governance and 

TechStats, but according to OMB and agency officials this subcommittee 

has already been dissolved. The CIO Council’s Management Best 

Practices Committee formed the subcommittee to report on the outcomes 

and lessons learned from implementing the TechStat process. This 

subcommittee was to play a key role in continuing to mature the TechStat 

process. However, in 2012, the CIO Council dissolved the subcommittee 

because the committee chairs determined that it was no longer needed.

Consistent with government and industry best practices for overseeing IT 

investments, TechStat sessions hold value by focusing management 

attention on troubled projects and establishing clear action items to turn 

the projects around or terminate them. While OMB and agencies are 

reporting positive results from holding TechStat sessions, neither are 

doing enough to ensure that at-risk investments are undergoing review, 

Conclusions 
 

Page 41 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

sound processes are in place, and reported results are valid. Specifically, 

agencies are reviewing only about a third of their at-risk IT investments. 

Until OMB and agencies develop plans and schedules for addressing 

these at-risk investments, the investments will likely remain at risk.

The four agencies we reviewed had implemented most of the OMBrequired TechStat processes, but three had shortfalls in selected 

processes. For example, Agriculture had not yet incorporated TechStats 

in its investment management processes, Commerce had not consistently 

included deadlines for action items in its TechStat memoranda, and HHS 

had not consistently created action item memoranda following TechStats 

or tracked its action items to completion. Addressing these shortfalls 

could better position these agencies to realize the full benefits that 

TechStats offer.

OMB regularly reports on cost savings associated with TechStats, but it 

has not taken basic steps to provide reasonable assurance to Congress 

and the public that these data are valid. Until OMB requires agencies to 

report on what they did to validate cost savings data and shares this 

information, neither Congress nor the public can be assured that 

TechStats are as effective as reported. While the CIO Council recently 

dissolved its subcommittee responsible for reviewing TechStats, the 

council is one entity that is uniquely positioned to assist OMB in its 

oversight of the TechStat results.

To ensure that TechStat sessions are having the appropriate impact in 

the oversight of underperforming projects, we are making three 

recommendations to OMB. Specifically, we recommend that the Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget direct the Federal Chief 

Information Officer to

• require agencies to conduct TechStats for each IT investment rated 

with a moderately high- or high-risk CIO rating on the IT Dashboard, 

unless there is a clear reason for not doing so;

• require agencies to report to OMB on efforts to validate the outcomes, 

cost savings, and cost avoidances resulting from TechStat 

sessions; this information should be summarized when OMB reports 

on governmentwide outcomes; and

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 42 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

• direct the Federal CIO Council to track the outcome of TechStat 

sessions and to support OMB’s efforts to validate the resulting cost 

savings it reports to Congress.

In addition, we are making a recommendation to the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Commerce to

• address the weaknesses in agency- and bureau-led TechStat 

processes and management outlined in this report.

We are also making two recommendations to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services to

• establish a plan and schedule for addressing each IT investment rated 

with a moderately high- or high-risk CIO rating on the IT Dashboard; 

such a plan could include conducting a TechStat session, and

• address the weaknesses in agency- and bureau-led TechStat 

processes and management outlined in this report.

We requested comments from OMB, Agriculture, Commerce, DHS, and 

HHS on a draft of our report. In that draft report, we had made 

recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and DHS 

to establish a plan and schedule for addressing their high-risk 

investments that had not yet undergone TechStat reviews. However, 

these agencies completed these steps prior to the issuance of this report. 

Therefore, we removed the applicable recommendations.

OMB and three agencies provided comments on our draft report. OMB 

generally agreed with our recommendations; Commerce agreed with our 

recommendation; and Agriculture and HHS did not agree or disagree with 

our recommendations. DHS declined to provide comments. Each 

agency’s comments are discussed in more detail below:

• In comments provided via e-mail, staff from OMB’s Office of EGovernment and Information Technology generally concurred with our 

findings and recommendations and stated that OMB and the agencies 

are currently taking appropriate steps to meet the recommendations.

OMB provided additional details as follows:

• In commenting on our finding that it did not ensure the validity of 

the outcomes and savings it reported, OMB noted that it is 

confident in the agency validation of cost-savings and avoidances 

through the TechStat sessions, and that it was speculative to 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 43 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

conclude that the reported cost savings data were not valid 

because we could not actually assess these figures. OMB did not 

provide supporting documentation for the cost savings 

calculations and explained that the process used to validate the 

cost figures was deliberative. However, part of a sound process 

for ensuring validity involves documenting the procedures used to 

verify or validate the data; as such, we were unable to validate 

OMB’s reported outcomes and almost $4 billion in cost 

implications from 2010 and 201142

• OMB also noted that since June 2012, OMB and agencies have 

validated and transmitted cost-savings and avoidance data 

associated with TechStat sessions to Congress on a quarterly 

basis through the Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Use of IT 

Report. These reports summarize the validation methods OMB 

and agencies undertake. We acknowledge that these reports 

summarize methods through which the costs savings and 

avoidances were documented; however, due to a lack of 

supporting documentation, we could only validate $22.2 million of 

because OMB did not provide 

documentation on any steps that it or the agencies took to ensure 

the validity of the agencies’ outcome and cost data. For example, 

OMB staff did not provide memorandums documenting action 

items from the OMB-led TechStats, the outcomes identified for 

OMB- and agency-led TechStats, documentation identifying which 

investments resulted in cost savings, documentation 

demonstrating the methodology used to calculate the cost 

savings, or a summary of steps the agencies took to validate 

reported cost savings. Moreover, OMB did not require agencies to 

report on what steps they took to verify their reported outcomes 

and cost savings. Without disclosing the steps it took to validate 

the outcomes and cost savings, OMB has not provided 

reasonable assurance to Congress and the public that the 

information it has presented is credible.

 

42For example, the Federal CIO, OMB, and the CIO Council reported these cost savings 

and avoidances in 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information 

Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010); Year in Review: Outcomes 

and Lessons Learned from Implementing Agency-Led TechStat Reviews Across the 

Federal Government, (Dec. 8, 2011); Federal Information Technology FY2013 Budget 

Priorities: “Doing More with Less;” Quarterly Report to Congress: Integrated, Efficient, and 

Effective Uses of Information Technology (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2012). 
 

Page 44 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

the $63.5 million cost savings and avoidances OMB recently 

reported.

• In written comments, the Department of Agriculture’s Chief 

Information Officer partially agreed with our assessment of the 

agency’s TechStat process but did not specify the part of the 

assessment with which she disagreed. The department stated that it 

would continue to conduct periodic reviews of its IT investments to 

ensure a review of all major IT investments. In addition, the 

department stated that IT Dashboard ratings alone are not true 

indicators that an investment is poorly performing or underperforming 

and that it takes into consideration other factors, such as earned value 

management data, when determining an investment’s performance. 

We agree that the CIO rating should reflect the CIO’s assessment of 

the risk and should use many factors in determining the rating. The 

department’s written comments are provided in appendix II.

• In written comments, the Department of Commerce’s Acting Secretary 

concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department is 

in full compliance with the recommendation. The department plans to 

ensure that all TechStat memos have a specific point of contact and a 

specific due date. The department’s written comments are provided in 

appendix III.

• In comments provided via e-mail, a management analyst within the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Legislation stated that the department had no general 

comments. The department provided technical comments, which we 

have incorporated as appropriate. In its technical comments, HHS 

commented on our finding that the agency did not satisfy OMB’s 

requirement to hold its first TechStat session by March 2011. The 

HHS officials stated that the agency had appropriately initiated the 

process for holding a TechStat prior to OMB’s March 2011 deadline. 

While we acknowledge that the agency initiated the process prior to 

the deadline, the actual session was held after the deadline.
 

Page 45 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

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

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

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

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

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology

 Management Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Our objectives were to (1) identify key characteristics of TechStat 

Accountability Sessions (TechStats) conducted by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and selected agencies, (2) evaluate 

whether selected agencies are conducting TechStats in accordance with 

OMB guidance, and (3) analyze the extent to which reported results from 

TechStat review sessions are documented, tracked, and validated.

In conducting our review, we selected four agencies based on two 

factors: the number of investments with medium-, moderately high-, and 

high-risk Chief Information Officer (CIO) ratings on the information 

technology (IT) Dashboard as of August 2012, and a determination on 

whether the agency had led its own TechStats in 2011. The four agencies 

we selected—the Departments of Agriculture (Agriculture), Commerce 

(Commerce), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security 

(DHS)—had the highest number of medium-, moderately high-, and highrisk investments. In addition, in December 2011, the CIO Council reported 

that all four agencies had held their own TechStat sessions in 2011.1

To address the first objective, we obtained OMB’s list of the TechStat 

sessions it had led through April 2013, and downloaded the latest budget 

data for each of these investments.

We 

assessed the reliability of the IT Dashboard data and the data on agencyled TechStats by comparing them to agency documents, and found that 

the data were sufficient for our purpose of selecting agencies for further 

review.

2

 

1

CIO Council, Management Best Practices Committee, A Year in Review: Outcomes and 

Lessons Learned from Implementing Agency-Led TechStat Reviews Across the Federal 

Government (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2011). 

We analyzed, summarized, and—

where appropriate—graphically depicted the data. We also analyzed 

documentation from our four selected agencies about the agency-led 

TechStat reviews, including (but not limited to) briefing slides, meeting 

minutes, corrective action plans, and meeting invitations. We downloaded 

budget data as of September 2012 for each of the investments subject to 

an agency-led TechStat review at these four agencies, and summarized 

the data. We also downloaded updated budget data in May 2013 to 

determine the current number of investments that have yellow and red 

CIO ratings and have not undergone a TechStat, and summarized budget 

2

We reviewed exhibit 300 and 53 data linked on the IT Dashboard as of the last update in 

August 2012. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

data for each of these investments. We also interviewed OMB, 

Agriculture, Commerce, DHS, and HHS officials regarding the TechStat 

sessions. We assessed the reliability of OMB’s and the four agencies’ 

lists of reported TechStat sessions by seeking corroboration for the 

sessions held at our selected agencies. We determined that OMB’s and 

the four agencies’ lists were sufficient for our purposes.

To address the second objective, we analyzed OMB’s guidance to 

agencies on conducting TechStat reviews and identified15 key 

requirements. We then compared these requirements to the selected 

agencies’ documentation, including capital planning and investment 

control plans and guidance, agency-specific TechStat guidance and 

training materials, meeting minutes from investment review board 

meetings, and electronic submissions from the agency to OMB regarding 

the TechStat sessions. To identify whether agencies were documenting, 

tracking, and monitoring action items—one of the 15 key requirements—

we conducted a random sample of 10 percent of each agency’s action 

items and sought documentation from each of the agencies to support the 

status of the selected action items. This sample is not generalizable to the 

entire population of action items from each agency, but we determined it 

was sufficiently reliable for our purposes of determining whether the 

agencies were tracking and monitoring action items. We also interviewed 

officials from OMB and our four selected agencies about their respective 

TechStat processes.

To address the third objective, we identified OMB’s guidance to agencies 

on reporting the results of agency-led TechStat sessions. We analyzed 

the selected agencies’ and OMB’s reported results in each of OMB’s 

outcome categories and attempted to validate OMB’s and the agencies’ 

reported cost implications. We also reviewed quarterly reports from OMB 

to Congress to identify additional cost implication information.3

 

3

Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, OMB is required to report to 

congressional appropriations committees on cost savings associated with its IT reform 

initiatives. 

As noted 

in the body of this report, we were unable to determine the reliability of 

the reported cost implications because OMB did not provide artifacts 

demonstrating how it validated the data or evidence that it obtained 

agency validation of the data.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 to June 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 49 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 50 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 51 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 52 GAO-13-524 TechStat Accountability Sessions

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

In addition to the contact named above, individuals making contributions 

to this report included Colleen Phillips (Assistant Director), Rebecca 

Eyler, Kate Feild, and Jessica Waselkow.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

311277
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.