FEDERAL 

EMPLOYEES

Opportunities Exist to 

Strengthen 

Performance 

Management Pilot

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2013

GAO-13-755

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-755, a report to 

Congressional Requesters

September 2013

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Performance 

Management Pilot

Why GAO Did This Study

A longstanding challenge for federal 

agencies has been developing credible 

and effective performance 

management systems that can serve 

as a strategic tool to drive internal 

change and achieve results. In 2011, 

various federal agencies, labor unions, 

and other organizations developed the 

Goals-Engagement-AccountabilityResults (GEAR) framework to help

improve performance management. 

GAO was asked to evaluate GEAR. 

This report (1) analyzes how the GEAR 

framework addresses key practices for 

effective performance management 

and identifies opportunities to improve 

GEAR implementation governmentwide; (2) describes the status of GEAR 

implementation at pilot agencies and 

lessons learned to date; and (3) 

assesses the extent to which each pilot 

agency’s GEAR implementation plan 

includes selected best practices for 

project planning. The report is based 

on GAO’s analysis of GEAR 

documents, agency project plans, and

interviews with agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

As GEAR is adopted government-wide,

GAO recommends that the Director of 

OPM, in collaboration with the CHCO 

Council, define roles and 

responsibilities for OPM, the CHCO 

Council, and individual agencies, in 

such areas as updating the toolkit (as 

needed) and disseminating information 

on GEAR more broadly. GAO also 

recommends that OPM, Coast Guard, 

HUD, and NCA update their GEAR 

project plans to be consistent with best 

practices for project planning.

OPM, DHS, HUD, and VA agreed with 

the recommendations. 

What GAO Found

GAO found that the GEAR framework generally addresses previously identified 

key practices for effective performance management, such as aligning individual 

performance expectations with organizational goals, but refinements could 

improve future government-wide implementation. Five federal agencies are 

piloting GEAR—the Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland Security/Coast 

Guard (DHS/Coast Guard), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veterans 

Affairs/National Cemetery Administration (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM)—with the intention to expand GEAR government-wide. The 

Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO Council) is developing a toolkit

based, among other things, on the experience of the pilot agencies. The toolkit is 

intended to help additional agencies implement the GEAR framework; CHCO 

Council representatives expect the toolkit to be complete by the end of 

September 2013. However, beyond the toolkit, neither the CHCO Council nor 

OPM have identified next steps to implement GEAR government-wide, such as 

identifying roles and responsibilities. Further, neither OPM nor the CHCO Council 

has plans to regularly update the GEAR framework or toolkit to include additional 

lessons learned, or to make such information available more broadly to key 

stakeholders, such as human resource professionals who may be responsible for 

future implementation. Without taking these steps, agencies that have already 

begun implementing GEAR risk losing their momentum; in addition, it may be 

challenging to implement GEAR government-wide. 

The five pilot agencies adopted various approaches to implementing GEAR –

DOE, HUD, and OPM implemented GEAR agency-wide, while Coast Guard and 

NCA adopted GEAR in single units – based on agency needs, available 

resources, and GAO’s lessons learned to date. For example, early stakeholder 

involvement, including engagement between those representing labor and 

management, resulted in greater transparency and fewer obstacles. In addition, 

administering employee surveys to identify the greatest needs before 

implementing GEAR helped establish a baseline to better track results. 

Each of the pilot agencies developed a GEAR project plan that outlined specific 

actions. DOE’s GEAR plan was the most thoroughly documented. The other four 

agency plans did not include all project planning best practices, as shown in the 

table below. Without these elements, agencies may be limited in their ability to

determine what needs to be done, when it should be done, who should do it, and 

how to measure progress towards achieving objectives.

Some Agencies’ GEAR Project Plans Were More Complete Than Others

Extent to which plans included project planning good practices

Agency Objectives 

Specific 

actions 

Roles and 

responsibilities Schedules 

Performance 

measures 

Coast Guard Yes Yes Yes Partiallya No 

DOE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

HUD No Yes No Yes Yes

NCA Yes Yes Partiallya Partiallya No 

OPM No Yes No Yes Yes

Source: GAO analysis.

a

GAO assessed an agency’s plan as partially including a best practice if it included limited information 

on a specific best practice but did not do so consistently throughout the plan.

View GAO-13-755. For more information, 

contact Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-6806, or 

goldenkoffr@gao.gov
Page i GAO-13-755 Performance Management

Letter 1

Background 4

The GEAR Framework Generally Addresses Key Performance 

Management Practices; Refinements Could Improve Future 

Government-wide Implementation 8

Pilot Agencies Adopted Various Approaches to Implementing 

GEAR; Opportunities Exist to Capture Lessons Learned 14

Some Agencies’ GEAR Project Plans Were More Complete than 

Others 18

Conclusion 27

Recommendations for Executive Action 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

APPENDIX I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 34

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 36

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 38

Appendix V GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of 

Homeland Security/Coast Guard 40

Appendix VI GEAR Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Energy 44

Appendix VII GEAR Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 48

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-755 Performance Management

Appendix VIII GEAR Implementation Approach for the Dept. of 

Veterans Affairs’ National Cemetery Administration 51

Appendix IX GEAR Implementation Approach for the Office

of Personnel Management 54

Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 57

Tables

Table 1: GEAR Generally Addresses Key Practices for Effective 

Performance Management 8

Table 2: Estimated Number of Employees Affected by GEAR and 

Estimated Timeline for Implementation at the Pilot 

Agencies 15

Table 3: Agencies’ GEAR Project Plans Included Varying Levels of 

Detail20

Table 4: Coast Guard’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include 

Performance Measures 20

Table 5: DOE’s GEAR Project Plan Meets All Selected Best 

Practices 22

Table 6: HUD’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives 

or Roles and Responsibilities 23

Table 7: NCA’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Schedules or 

Performance Measures 24

Table 8: OPM’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives 

or Roles and Responsibilities 26

Table 9: GEAR Implementation Status According to the 

Department of Homeland Security’s Coast Guard as of 

July 2013 41

Table 10: GEAR Implementation Status According to the 

Department of Energy as of July 2013 46

Table 11: GEAR Implementation Status According to the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development as of

July 2013 49
Page iii GAO-13-755 Performance Management

Table 12: GEAR Implementation Status According to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Cemetery 

Administration as of July 2013 52

Table 13: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Office of 

Personnel Management as of July 2013 55
Page iv GAO-13-755 Performance Management

Abbreviations

AFGE American Federation of Government 

 Employees

CHCO Council Chief Human Capital Officers Council

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOE Department of Energy 

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

GEAR Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results

GS general schedule

HCF Human Capital Framework

HUD Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

LMAC Labor Management Advisory Committee

LMR Council National Council on Federal LaborManagement Relations

MSN Memorial Service Network

NCA National Cemetery Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PAAT Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool

PIO Performance Improvement Officer

SES Senior Executive Service

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WBS work breakdown structure

WG wage grade

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-13-755 Performance Management 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 12, 2013

The Honorable Darrell Issa

Chairman

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Blake Farenthold

Chairman

Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and 

the Census

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

In our past work we have noted how current budget and long-term fiscal 

pressures, combined with a potential wave of employee retirements, 

could produce gaps in leadership and institutional knowledge that could 

impair the ability of federal agencies to carry out their complex and 

evolving missions.1 We concluded that effective performance 

management systems that link individual performance to organizational 

results will be key to mission success in this difficult environment. In 

2011, representatives of various federal agencies, labor unions, and 

management organizations were brought together by the National Council 

on Federal Labor-Management Relations (LMR Council), in conjunction 

with the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO Council), to identify 

ways to reform and improve employee performance management in the 

federal government.2

 1

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, 

The resulting effort, the Goals-EngagementAccountability-Results (GEAR) framework, is a set of five high-level 

recommendations intended to create high-performing organizations that 

GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013).

2

The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations is an advisory committee 

established by Executive Order No. 13522 in 2009. It consists of the Director of the Office 

of Personnel Management and the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of 

Management and Budget (who serve as co-chairs), the chair of the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority, other federal officials, union officials from federal employee unions, 

and representatives of federal management organizations. Its purpose is to advise the

President on matters involving executive branch labor-management relations and other 

activities related to improving federal labor-management partnerships, relations, and the 

delivery of government services. Creating Labor-Management Forums to Improve Delivery 

of Government Services, 74 Fed. Reg. 66203 (Dec. 9, 2009).
Page 2 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

are aligned, accountable, and focused on results.3 Five federal agencies 

are piloting GEAR, either agency-wide or in single units: the Department 

of Energy (DOE), the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), the Department of Homeland Security/United States Coast Guard 

(DHS/Coast Guard), the Department of Veterans Affairs/National 

Cemetery Administration (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM).4

You asked us to evaluate the GEAR framework. This report (1) analyzes 

how the GEAR framework addresses key practices for effective 

performance management and identifies opportunities, if any, to improve 

GEAR implementation government-wide; (2) describes the status of each 

pilot agency’s GEAR implementation and any lessons learned to date; 

and (3) assesses the extent to which each agency’s GEAR 

implementation plan includes selected best practices for project planning.

To address our first objective, we systematically reviewed the GEAR 

report from the LMR Council to determine whether the goals, 

recommendations, and actions described in the document reflected key 

practices for effective performance management that we previously 

identified.5

 3

Employee Performance Management Workgroup, Report to the National Council on 

Federal Labor-Management Relations, Goals – Engagement – Accountability – Results: 

Getting in GEAR for Employee Performance Management (Revised November 2011).

We verified that the key practices were applicable for 

purposes of this engagement by conducting a literature review of leading 

performance management practices and consulting with internal subject 

matter experts. In addition, we interviewed OPM officials and CHCO 

4

For purposes of this report, we are referring to both departments and agencies as 

“agencies.”

5

GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: March 14, 

2003). These best practices were based on previously issued reports on public sector 

organizations’ approaches to reinforcing individual accountability for results. 
Page 3 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Council officials who were members of the LMR Council work group that 

drafted the report.6

To address our second objective, we obtained and analyzed each 

agency’s GEAR implementation plan(s) and obtained and analyzed 

updates from the agencies and other documentation that identified their 

current GEAR implementation status. We developed an interview 

instrument to discuss agency strategies with human resource/human 

capital officials, program managers, and other officials responsible for 

GEAR implementation. We also interviewed labor union representatives 

about any problems or concerns with implementing the GEAR framework. 

In addition, in May 2013 we visited Coast Guard Base Boston, where we 

observed initial GEAR training sessions and interviewed supervisors and 

employees about their reactions to the training and the GEAR framework. 

We chose this site because the Coast Guard was the most recent of the 

five pilot agencies to implement GEAR and we were able to visit soon 

after the start of their implementation efforts.

To address our third objective, we identified project planning best 

practices (drawn primarily from Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government, GAO’s definitions of performance measurement, 

and GAO’s guide for best practices in project schedules) and assessed 

the inclusion of information contained in the agencies’ GEAR plans 

against the best practices.7

 6

The CHCO Council was established under the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, 

enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to advise and coordinate the 

activities of members’ agencies on such matters as the modernization of human resource 

systems, improved quality of human resource information, and legislation affecting human 

resource operations and organizations. The council includes 25 members drawn from the 

15 executive departments and 8 additional agencies designated by OPM’s director. The 

council is chaired by the OPM director; the Deputy Director for Management of the Office 

of Management and Budget is vice chair. See Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2288 

(Nov. 25, 2002), at 5 U.S.C. § 1401 note. 

We focused on the inclusion of the following 

best practices because they were relevant to GEAR: (1) plan objective(s) 

describing a goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain that goal; (3) roles 

and responsibilities identified and assigned to project stakeholders; (4) 

7

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); Performance Measurement and Evaluation, 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011); and GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: 

Best Practices for project schedules, Exposure Draft GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: 

May 2012). We included Exposure Draft GAO-12-120G as it presents ten best practices 

associated with developing and maintaining a reliable, high-quality schedule based on the 

planning process (the schedule is essentially a model of the project plan). 
Page 4 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

schedules containing logically related project elements leading to the 

goal; and (5) valid performance measures that permit comparison 

between desired outcomes and actual results. We assessed each 

agency’s GEAR plan to determine the extent to which the information that 

was included met each of the five best practices. In cases in which plans 

provided inconsistent information, we used a rating of “partially” included. 

In addition, we noted strengths and areas for further attention in each 

plan.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to September 

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. Further details of our 

scope and methodology appear in Appendix I.

A long-standing challenge for federal agencies has been developing 

credible and effective performance management systems that can serve 

as a strategic tool to drive internal change and achieve results.8

According to OPM regulations, performance management is the 

systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as 

individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational 

effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals.9

Performance management includes such actions as planning work and 

setting expectations, continually monitoring performance, developing the 

capacity to perform, periodically rating performance in a summary 

fashion, and rewarding good performance.

In December 2009, the LMR Council was created to establish a 

cooperative and productive form of executive branch labor-management 

relations in an effort to improve the productivity and effectiveness of the 

federal government.10

 8

The LMR Council is co-chaired by the Director of 

GAO-03-488.

9

5 C.F.R. § 430.102(a).

10Exec. Order No. 13522 (Dec. 9, 2009). The President extended the Council through 

September 30, 2013, in Exec. Order No. 13591, Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory 

Committees, 76 Fed. Reg. 74623 (Nov. 23, 2011).

Background
Page 5 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Deputy Director for

Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with 

members representing executive branch departments and agencies, 

several labor unions, and other management associations. The LMR 

Council serves as an advisor to the President on matters involving 

executive branch labor-management relations; it also promotes 

partnership efforts between labor and management within the executive 

branch. For example, the order states that management should discuss 

workplace challenges and problems with labor and endeavor to develop 

solutions jointly, rather than advise union representatives of 

predetermined solutions to problems and then engage in bargaining over 

the impact and implementation of the predetermined solutions.

In April 2011, the LMR Council, in conjunction with the CHCO Council, set 

out to examine the federal government’s performance management 

accountability framework and to make recommendations for 

improvement. The CHCO Council supports OPM in the strategic 

management of human capital at federal agencies and provides a forum 

for senior management officials to exchange human resources best 

practices.11

The work group developed the GEAR report, issued in 2011, which 

identified challenges with the federal performance management system, 

such as

By May 2011, a work group was formed (with members 

representing various federal agencies, labor unions, and management 

organizations from both the LMR and CHCO Councils) to discuss ways to 

examine the existing system of employee performance management in 

ways that the work group felt were different from previous attempts that 

focused on actions such as increasing employee accountability through 

changes to regulations.

• a lack of evidence that the mechanical aspects of public and private 

sector performance management systems, such as rating levels and 

awards, do a good job of improving employee and organizational 

performance; and

• a disconnect among the various functions responsible for 

organizational performance improvement and employee performance 

 11GAO, Federal Training Investments: Office of Personnel Management and Agencies 

Can Do More to Ensure Cost-Effective Decisions, GAO-12-878 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

17, 2012).
Page 6 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

improvement. For example, there were few formally structured 

opportunities for the individuals responsible for these functions to 

interact and communicate.

As a result of identifying these challenges, according to the GEAR report, 

the work group agreed to

• focus on the relational elements of organizational and employee 

performance management, such as how to set clear expectations in 

work plans through frequent formal and informal feedback between 

supervisors and employees; and

• engage employees and agency managers, through their labor unions 

and CHCOs, and identify successful practices that have improved the 

selection and training of supervisors and the engagement between 

employees and supervisors such as two-way communication and 

continual informal feedback.

The work group constructed the GEAR framework, as presented in the 

GEAR report, with the following recommendations:

1. Articulate a high performance culture.

2. Align employee and organizational performance management.

3. Implement accountability at all levels.

4. Create a culture of engagement.

5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development, and 

training.

OPM officials told us that the practices in the GEAR report are well known 

and credible but not universally applied in federal agencies.12

 12For example, OPM regulations for Senior Executive Service (SES) performance 

management systems require such systems to expect excellence in SES performance 

and link individual performance management with organizational goals. 5 C.F.R. § 

430.301.

According 

to an OPM senior official, the GEAR recommendations are “common 

sense but not common practice.” The same official noted that the GEAR 

recommendations align with current regulations addressing federal 

performance management, but that GEAR adds specific strategic and 
Page 7 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

technical guidance and communication strategies.13

The GEAR recommendations and framework were presented to and 

accepted by the LMR Council in November 2011. By December 2011, 

five agencies had volunteered to implement the GEAR framework. Of 

these, three agencies – DOE, HUD, and OPM – implemented GEAR 

agency-wide with few exceptions. Two agencies – Coast Guard and NCA 

– implemented GEAR in single units. The agencies all created GEAR 

implementation plans and periodically met as a group to discuss 

strategies and challenges, and to share successes and additional training 

opportunities throughout implementation. The pilot agencies also 

periodically reported their progress to both the LMR and CHCO Councils. 

No additional agencies have volunteered to pilot GEAR. However, in 

Analytical Perspectives: Performance and Management section in the 

President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, there is a stated goal of broader 

application of the GEAR framework across the federal government, with 

no stated timeframe for completion.

Agency officials said 

that combining the recommendations into one framework can aid officials 

in maintaining focus and attention on improving performance 

management in the context of competing priorities.

14

 135 C.F.R. part 430.

14Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2014 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of

the U.S. Government (Washington, D.C.: 2013).
Page 8 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

We have previously identified a set of key practices for modern, effective 

performance management, which appear with summary descriptions in 

table 1.15

Table 1: GEAR Generally Addresses Key Practices for Effective Performance Management

Our current review found that the GEAR framework generally 

addressed seven of these key practices, but it does not give clear 

attention to two other practices.

Key practice GEAR example

Align individual performance expectations with 

organizational goals. An explicit alignment helps individuals 

see the connection between their daily activities and 

organizational goals.

GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that agencies 

drive ongoing alignment and cascading of established 

organizational performance objectives down through executive, 

manager, supervisor, and employee performance goals.

Connect performance expectations to crosscutting goals.

Placing an emphasis on collaboration, interaction, and teamwork 

across organizational boundaries helps strengthen accountability 

for results.

GEAR does not clearly reflect this practice. LMR work group 

members told us that agencies’ crosscutting goals would be 

subsumed under more general agency and individual 

performance goals. 

Provide and routinely use performance information to track 

organizational priorities. Individuals use performance 

information to manage during the year, identify performance 

gaps, and pinpoint improvement opportunities.

GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that agencies 

use metrics at all organizational levels to verify goal achievement 

and accountability for employees and supervisors.

 15GAO-03-488.

The GEAR 

Framework Generally 

Addresses Key 

Performance 

Management 

Practices; 

Refinements Could 

Improve Future 

Government-wide 

Implementation

The GEAR Framework 

Generally Addresses Key 

Performance Management 

Practices
Page 9 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Key practice GEAR example

Require follow-up actions to address organizational priorities.

By requiring and tracking follow-up actions on performance gaps, 

organizations underscore the importance of holding individuals 

accountable for making progress on their priorities.

GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that agencies 

develop semi-annual reports to determine effectiveness and 

program efficiency, and that senior executives also meet semiannually to review progress and determine needed actions on 

identified issues and/or problems.

Use competencies to provide a fuller assessment of 

performance. Competencies define the skills and supporting 

behaviors that individuals need to effectively contribute to 

organizational 

results.

GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends agencies 

improve their feedback culture within their performance 

management systems, such as simplifying existing performance 

management processes to make them meaningful with specific 

linkages to agency mission, goals, and/or strategies. 

Link pay to individual and organizational performance. Pay, 

incentive, and reward systems that link employee knowledge, 

skills, and contributions to organizational results are based on 

valid, reliable, and transparent performance management 

systems with adequate safeguards.

GEAR does not reflect this practice. LMR work group members 

told us that GEAR does not specifically address pay for 

performance because Congress controls pay.

Make meaningful distinctions in performance. Effective 

performance management systems strive to provide candid and 

constructive feedback and the necessary objective information 

and documentation to reward top performers and deal with poor 

performers.

GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that agencies 

discuss and set standards that clearly differentiate among levels 

of performance.

Involve employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of 

performance management systems. Early and direct 

involvement helps increase employees’ and stakeholders’

understanding and ownership of the system and belief in its 

fairness.

GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends working with 

labor-management forums, groups of supervisors, and 

management organizations.

Maintain continuity during transitions. Because cultural 

transformations take time, performance management systems 

reinforce accountability for change management and other 

organizational goals.

GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends regular 

succession assessments for supervisory positions at risk.

Source: GAO analysis of GEAR report.

As shown in table 1, two practices—connecting performance expectations 

to crosscutting goals, and linking pay to organizational performance—do 

not receive clear attention in the GEAR framework. LMR work group 

members who helped to draft the GEAR report told us they did not 

specifically discuss agency crosscutting goals during the drafting and 

instead, focused on aligning employee and organizational performance 

management. However, they also told us that GEAR does not deter 

agencies from connecting performance expectations to crosscutting 

goals, and that they felt that crosscutting goals would be subsumed under 

individual and agency performance goals, as appropriate. OPM officials 

agreed that connecting performance expectations to crosscutting goals is 

essential to improving performance across the federal government.

In addition, these same LMR work group members said that they 

excluded linking pay to performance because Congress authorizes pay. 

Congress is responsible for authorizing pay-for-performance plans, and 
Page 10 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

tools to reward good performance with pay are increasingly limited in the 

federal government. They said that the GEAR report suggests 

appropriate action for both good and poor performance and that use of 

pay-for-performance could be understood as such an action.

According to the GEAR report, effective, and productive relationships 

between managers and employees are necessary for performance 

improvements. The greater an employee’s level of engagement, the more 

likely he or she is to go beyond the minimum required. GEAR emphasizes 

promoting employee-supervisor engagement through continual informal 

feedback and frequent (up to four times per year) formal feedback. 

Beyond the establishment of competencies and aligned goals, GEAR 

recommends frequent interaction and accountability—both for supervisors 

and employees—based on measurable goals.

The GEAR report also recommends that agencies improve the 

assessment, selection, development, and training of supervisors, 

emphasizing that agencies should select and assess supervisors based 

on supervisory and leadership proficiencies, rather than technical 

competencies, and should hold them accountable for performance of 

supervisory responsibilities. In addition, GEAR emphasizes the need to 

hold supervisors accountable for providing feedback, documenting 

performance discussions, and holding poorly-performing employees 

accountable. According to the GEAR report, focusing on accountability of 

managers and supervisors helps to ensure continual, effective 

communication and to make performance management a daily feature of 

work. Senior officials at three of the pilot agencies reported that 

supervisors sometimes say there is not enough time for supervisory 

responsibilities. For example, officials at DOE and HUD said that 

supervisors sometimes see their supervisory responsibilities as 

secondary to programmatic responsibilities and may not allocate sufficient 

time to set clear expectations or provide frequent feedback to employees.

As part of improving supervision, GEAR recommends greater integration 

between the agency units dealing with organizational performance and 

those dealing with individual employee performance. Specifically, GEAR 

proposes greater integration between the CHCO and Performance 

Improvement Officer (PIO) functions to improve overall program 

execution, either through creation of a Performance Management 

Integration Board or through continuous communication so that the 
Page 11 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

functions work in tandem.16 Similarly, GEAR emphasizes long-term 

integration of performance management into agency functions. For 

example, it recommends mentoring to ensure general organizational 

continuity, continual planning and assessment to ensure continued focus 

on personnel management and high performance, and targeted training 

and development programs to ensure agencies will have qualified 

supervisors and be able to fill other critical occupations. We have 

previously concluded that integrating human capital planning with broader 

organizational strategic planning is essential for ensuring that agencies 

have the talent and skill mix needed to cost-effectively execute their 

mission and program goals.17

While OPM and the CHCO Council have been supportive of the pilot 

effort to date, neither entity has identified their specific respective roles or 

responsibilities for achieving the current administration’s goal of 

implementing GEAR more broadly across the federal government going 

forward. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities will be important for 

maintaining the momentum of the pilot, sharing the pilot effort’s lessons 

learned, and encouraging additional agencies to implement the GEAR 

framework.

OPM has taken several steps to help the pilot agencies implement GEAR. 

For example, OPM officials have facilitated conversations among the pilot 

agencies to share information and lessons learned, and have made webbased training on performance management available to federal agencies 

at no cost.18

 16The PIO role was created by a 2007 executive order and established in law and 

elevated by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, which stated that it should be given to a 

“senior executive” at each agency who reports directly to each agency’s chief operating 

officer. The duties of the PIO include advising the agency head and chief operating officer 

on goal-setting and measurement, reviewing progress toward agency priority goals, and 

assisting in the development and use of performance measures in personnel performance 

appraisals and other personnel processes and assessments as appropriate. 

According to OPM officials, OPM, as co-chair of the CHCO 

Council, will provide leadership and direction for the government-wide 

implementation of GEAR, but the future of GEAR will be determined by 

17GAO, Human Capital Management: Effectively Implementing Reforms and Closing 

Critical Skills Gaps Are Key to Addressing Federal Workforce Challenges, GAO-12-1023T

(Washington, D.C: Sept. 19, 2012).

18The suite of web-based performance management courses were developed by the 

Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

OPM and CHCO Council 

Have Not Fully Defined 

their Roles for 

Implementing GEAR 

Government-wide
Page 12 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

the CHCO Council as a whole and not by OPM alone. They noted that the 

GEAR framework is intended to be flexible and thus did not want to 

mandate how agencies should implement it. 

CHCO Council officials agreed that the framework provides flexibility to the 

agencies; however, the same CHCO officials also cited the need for some 

standardization of GEAR metrics to ensure accountability among agencies. 

As noted, in Analytical Perspectives: Performance and Management of the 

President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, “the CHCO Council is currently 

reviewing the progress of GEAR and lessons learned in these agencies 

and identifying other leading practices across the Federal sector and 

private sector with the goal of broader application of the GEAR framework 

across the Federal Government.”19

For its part, the CHCO Council is reviewing the pilot agencies’

implementation of GEAR with an eye toward identifying promising 

practices. Specifically, CHCO Council officials told us that an internal 

work group is identifying promising practices and metrics that, when 

combined, may provide additional guidance in the form of a diagnostic 

toolkit to assist agencies in implementing the GEAR framework. 

According to CHCO Council work group members, a toolkit is needed 

because the GEAR recommendations were high-level in nature, and the 

report itself did not include practical guidance. For example, an agency 

may want to implement GEAR’s recommendation to create a culture of 

engagement, but the GEAR report provided limited guidance on how to 

do so.

According to a CHCO Council work group member, the diagnostic toolkit 

will enable agencies to identify their level of “maturity” on a scale by 

analyzing the results of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), 

the Human Capital Framework (HCF), the non-SES Performance 

Appraisal Assessment Tool (PAAT), and the SES certification process. 

Federal agencies can use these tools to measure whether, and to what 

extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in 

federal agencies (FEVS); to assist officials in achieving results in 

personnel management programs (HCF); and to assess agencies’

performance appraisal systems and develop plans and strategies for 

making improvements (non-SES PAAT and SES certification process).

 19OMB, FY 2014 Analytical Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: 2013).
Page 13 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

From this, agencies can use the results to identify a range of promising 

practices that the agency may choose from, based on identified resources 

and needs. According to the same CHCO Council work group members, 

these promising practices align with the five GEAR recommendations and 

reflect a range of initiatives (compiled from both public and private sector 

efforts, as well as pilot agencies’ experiences), that provide options for 

agencies based on their specific needs. The CHCO Council’s subgroups 

plan to complete the diagnostic toolkit by August 2013 and to present the 

final product to the CHCO Council by the end of September 2013. 

However, beyond its completion in September 2013, the CHCO Council 

has no stated plans to update the toolkit, such as collecting lessons 

learned on an ongoing basis from the pilot agencies, or including 

additional promising practices as needed. Without gathering information 

from the pilot agencies as they continue their implementation process, 

valuable information that could help agencies implement GEAR in the 

future may be lost.

While the toolkit shows promise for refining the future implementation of 

GEAR, its utility in this regard could be limited because neither the CHCO 

Council nor OPM have stated plans to broadly disseminate it. CHCO 

Council officials told us that the completed diagnostic toolkit will be 

presented to the entire CHCO Council but there is no plan to share that 

information on a broader basis, which would be consistent with the 

Administration’s goal to more broadly implement GEAR government-wide. 

CHCO Council officials stated that it was OPM’s responsibility to 

determine the future of the diagnostic toolkit. One vehicle for 

disseminating the toolkit’s information more broadly could be the OMB 

Max Federal Community Website where OPM officials have already 

posted informational material on GEAR and where pilot agencies can add 

their own information and experiences.20

Moving forward, it will be important for both OPM and the CHCO Council 

to agree upon their specific roles and responsibilities if the goal of broader 

Without making such information 

more widely available, front-line managers, supervisors, representatives 

of labor unions, and other federal human capital stakeholders may not 

have access to information that could improve employee engagement.

 20The MAX Federal Community is used by the Office of Management and Budget and 

federal agencies to share information and collaborate. Although all individuals with “.gov”, 

“.mil”, or “fed.us” in their e-mail address can create an account and access most of the 

OMB Max Federal Community, only executive branch employees are able to view GEAR 

information posted on the website by pilot agencies. 
Page 14 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

application of the GEAR framework government-wide is to be realized. 

Once specific roles and responsibilities have been established going 

forward, plans may be made to update the GEAR framework and 

diagnostic toolkit as needed and to broadly disseminate the information 

so that stakeholders government-wide who are already implementing 

GEAR (or may implement in the future) will have access to the most 

recent guidance available.

The five pilot agencies adopted various approaches to implementing all 

five of the GEAR recommendations based on their needs and available

resources. The GEAR report provides agencies with a framework focused 

on feedback, employee-supervisor engagement, and improving 

supervision; it gives agencies the flexibility to implement as they see fit. 

Thus, three of the five agencies – DOE, HUD, and OPM – implemented 

GEAR agency-wide, while two agencies – Coast Guard and NCA–

established pilots in single units. DOE, HUD, and OPM officials all said 

that the project had the best chance of changing the organizational 

culture if they implemented it agency-wide. For example, HUD officials 

said they felt that implementing GEAR agency-wide would permit it to be 

better embedded in the performance culture. An OPM official said that 

GEAR focused attention on previously identified human capital needs, 

such as supervisor assessment, that had not been addressed due to 

limited resources and competing priorities.

VA is implementing GEAR within its NCA agency as a single unit pilot in 

its Memorial Service Network (MSN) II in the southeastern region of the 

country. According to VA officials, VA chose the NCA because it has a 

reputation as a high-performing organization and an existing focus on 

metrics and feedback. NCA officials said they chose to implement GEAR 

Pilot Agencies 

Adopted Various 

Approaches to 

Implementing GEAR; 

Opportunities Exist to 

Capture Lessons 

Learned

Pilot Agencies Adopted 

Various Approaches to 

Implementing GEAR
Page 15 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

as a single unit, rather than agency-wide, because doing so allowed them 

to provide closer attention and support. The Coast Guard is implementing 

GEAR at Base Boston, which, according to officials, was chosen as the 

pilot site for several reasons: the presence of both general schedule (GS) 

and wage grade (WG) employees (who happen to be supervised by both 

military and civilian personnel) a wide variety of occupations, and the 

representation of a single union – the American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFGE) – rather than the multiple unions that are 

present at other Coast Guard bases.21

Table 2 shows how many employees will be covered by GEAR at each 

agency, as well as each agency’s time frame for implementation. 

Additional information on the actions taken by each agency is included in 

appendices V-IX.

Coast Guard officials said they 

chose to pilot GEAR at a single unit because implementation brought 

challenges such as dealing with such a large military population 

(approximately 42,000 military personnel that rotate bases approximately 

every two to three years and operate on a different performance 

management plan compared with approximately 9,000 civilian 

employees) and negotiating with approximately nine unions. According to 

one Coast Guard official, to develop more than one site would create a 

capacity issue that would make it very difficult to plan and implement.

Table 2: Estimated Number of Employees Affected by GEAR and Estimated 

Timeline for Implementation at the Pilot Agencies 

Agency

Approximate 

number of 

employees 

affected

Estimated start date 

for pilot 

implementation

Estimated pilot 

completion date

Coast Guard Base 

Boston

200 April 2013 March 2014

Department of Energy 8,400 March 2012 Early 2014, but 

expect to maintain 

indefinitely

 21The Classification Act of 1949 established the General Schedule, a single, nationwide 

pay structure for federal employees that today consists of 15 pay grades, each with 10 

pay steps. Most white-collar federal employees are paid under the General Schedule. 

Wage grade employees are paid under the Federal Wage System, which is a coordinated 

wage system for federal employees in trade, craft, and labor occupations.
Page 16 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Agency

Approximate 

number of 

employees 

affected

Estimated start date 

for pilot 

implementation

Estimated pilot 

completion date

Department of 

Housing and Urban 

Development

8,100 January 2012 September 2013

National Cemetery 

Administration, 

Memorial Service 

Network II

240 October 2012 2016

Office of Personnel 

Management

5,800 December 2011 Through 

September 2013

Source: GAO analysis of pilot agency plans.

Each of the agencies said they had engaged labor unions during GEAR 

implementation. Of the agencies that mentioned the results of their 

engagement, DOE officials said that prior to launching the pilot, the Office 

of the Chief Human Capital Officer briefed the local unions that cover their 

employees, but received no feedback. In contrast, NCA officials said that 

the two unions that cover their employees, AFGE and the National 

Association of Government Employees, have been involved in GEAR 

implementation and made contributions to NCA’s approach to GEAR. 

Coast Guard officials said the agency met with union representatives for 

several extensive discussions involving facilitators and brain-storming 

sessions, in order to include union input in the final GEAR implementation 

plan. As a result of these discussions, Coast Guard officials told us that 

the agency has the approval of the union and that both parties are 

mutually responsible for the successful implementation of GEAR. 

Representatives from labor unions that we interviewed generally agreed 

that the GEAR pilot agencies had briefed them during GEAR 

implementation.

Finally, although the five pilot agencies have defined different benefits 

that they hope to achieve through implementing GEAR, some common 

benefits include improved performance management overall, better 

engagement between employees and supervisors, and improved 

communication throughout the agencies.

The GEAR pilot agencies have demonstrated leadership over their own 

implementation efforts. Our work with the pilot agencies identified lessons 

learned both from implementation within their agencies, and from hearing 

about the experiences of others including the following:

Opportunities Exist to 

Capture Lessons Learned 

for Future Implementation 

Efforts
Page 17 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

• Strong agency leadership support from the beginning helped 

provide needed attention and focus upon implementation efforts.

For example, DOE’s Secretary sent a memo to all DOE employees 

stating his personal support for the LMR Council GEAR report and the 

agency’s commitment to the pilot effort.

• Early stakeholder involvement with employees, management, 

executive team and unions resulted in greater transparency and 

fewer obstacles during implementation. For example, NCA officials 

told us that two labor unions that have been involved in GEAR 

implementation contributed valuable input that enhanced the agency’s 

approach to GEAR – such as suggesting that exceptional

performance be defined in performance plans.

• Timing GEAR implementation to coincide with the beginning of 

the annual performance cycle in order to better track changes 

resulting from GEAR. For example, Coast Guard officials told us that 

they decided to implement GEAR at the start of their annual 

performance cycle, based on the experience of another pilot agency 

that implemented GEAR within a cycle and faced greater difficulty 

because of their timing.

• Administer employee surveys prior to implementation to identify 

the greatest needs and to establish a baseline to better track 

results. For example, Coast Guard administered a survey to its Base 

Boston employees to solicit their thoughts, experiences, and 

assessment of the current state of the employee performance 

management systems.

• Leverage shared training opportunities across agencies to 

conserve limited resources. For example, OPM officials told us that 

they worked with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to 

make a suite of performance management web courses available to 

all agencies free of charge.

• Incorporate supervision as part of an agency’s performance 

expectations. For example, according to DOE officials, they 

developed a mandatory supervisory element which holds supervisors 

accountable for each phase of the performance process.

• Allow additional time for supervisors to meet their requirements. 

For example, HUD instituted quarterly in-service days for managers 

for the purpose of focusing on communication and employee 

feedback.
Page 18 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

• Ensure continued momentum for implementation by accepting 

GEAR as a long-term culture change commitment. For example, 

HUD officials told us that agency leadership is committed to cultural 

transformation and the time required to accomplish it.

As the pilot agencies continue with their implementation plans, additional 

lessons may be learned. As we stated earlier in this report, OPM and the 

CHCO Council officials have not yet identified a plan following the 

completion of the diagnostic toolkit to capture additional lessons learned.

As we concluded in May 2012, a well-developed and documented project 

plan can help ensure that agencies are able to gauge progress, identify 

and resolve potential problems, and promote accountability at all levels of 

the project, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.22

Project planning is the basis for controlling and managing project 

performance, including managing the relationship between cost and 

time.23 As we have previously concluded, preparing a project plan 

encourages agency managers and stakeholders to systematically 

consider what is to be done, when and how it will be done, what skills will 

be needed, and how to gauge progress and results.24 Agency approaches 

to such planning can vary with each agency’s particular needs and 

mission. Nevertheless, existing best practices stress the importance of 

accountability and sound planning for any project.25

Each of the pilot agencies developed a GEAR project plan that outlined 

specific actions. Other elements (such as schedules and roles and 

Inherent in such 

planning is the development and use of a project management plan that 

describes, among other factors, the project’s objectives, implementation 

actions, lines of responsibility, estimated schedule for development and 

implementation, and performance measures. Having accurate and 

transparent project cost and schedule information is also essential to 

effective oversight.

 22GAO-12-120G.

23GAO-12-120G.

24GAO, Securities and Exchange Commission: Progress Made on Strategic Human 

Capital Management, GAO-06-86 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2006).

25GAO-12-120G.

Some Agencies’

GEAR Project Plans 

Were More Complete 

than Others
Page 19 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

responsibilities) were either implemented to varying degrees, or (in some 

cases) not implemented at all. Best practices emphasize the importance 

of establishing a complete description that ties together all project 

activities and evolves over time to continuously reflect the current status 

and desired outcome of the project.26

We identified project planning best practices from Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government, our definitions of performance 

measurement, and our guide for leading practices in project planning.

For example, DOE’s GEAR project 

plan was the most thoroughly documented of the five plans we assessed 

and included project planning best practices for all five elements we 

assessed. The other four agency plans did not include all project planning 

best practices. Not including such best practices could limit their 

effectiveness in further implementing the GEAR framework. As a result, 

the information included in the plans may not be specific enough to 

improve engagement, provide accountability, or measure progress in the 

agencies.

27

We assessed information contained in the agencies’ GEAR plans against 

the inclusion of the following best practices: (1) plan objectives, 

describing a goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain that goal; (3) roles 

and responsibilities identified and assigned to project stakeholders; (4) 

schedules containing logically related project elements leading to the 

goal; and (5) valid performance measures that permit comparison 

between desired outcomes and actual results. Since the volunteer pilot 

agencies are in the process of implementing GEAR, we assessed them 

on the contents of the plan and not against the progress made towards 

implementation of the plan. The GEAR report did not include guidance on 

developing project plans. Table 3 identifies the extent to which the five 

agency GEAR project plans address each of the project planning best 

practices.

 26GAO-12-120G.

27GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, GAO-11-646SP, and GAO-12-120G. 
Page 20 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Table 3: Agencies’ GEAR Project Plans Included Varying Levels of Detail 

Agency

Objectives 

included

Specific 

actions 

included

Roles and 

responsibilities 

included

Schedules 

included

Performance 

measures 

included

Coast Guard Yes Yes Yes Partiallya No 

Department of 

Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Department of 

Housing and 

Urban 

Development No Yes No Yes Yes

National Cemetery 

Administration Yes Yes Partiallya Partiallya No 

Office of 

Personnel 

Management No Yes No Yes Yes

Source: GAO analysis.

a

We assessed an agency’s plan as partially including a best practice if it included limited information 

on a specific best practice but was not consistently provided throughout the plan.

Table 4: Coast Guard’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Performance Measures

Agency

Objectives 

included

Specific 

actions 

included

Roles and 

responsibilities 

included

Schedules 

included

Performance 

measures 

included

Coast Guard Yes Yes Yes Partiallya No 

Source: GAO analysis.

a

We assessed an agency’s plan as partially including a best practice if it included limited information 

on a specific best practice but was not consistently provided throughout the plan.

We found that the Coast Guard’s GEAR plan includes information on 

objectives, specific actions, and roles and responsibilities, as shown in 

table 4. According to the plan, the Coast Guard selected its pilot location 

at Base Boston, with both military and civilian personnel, as a result of 

discussions between management and labor unions. The plan clearly 

states that a primary project manager in the Coast Guard’s human 

resources office and a project manager at Base Boston are in charge of 

GEAR implementation.

The Coast Guard’s plan has a high-level schedule that includes nine 

different actions and dates, such as deploying a communication plan to 

the workforce in February 2013, with the last date being the start of the 

pilot in April 2013. This is the last date in the plan associated with a 

Coast Guard’s GEAR Plan 

Lacks Performance 

Measures that Would 

Better Enable Officials

to Identify Success
Page 21 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

specific action. Elsewhere in the plan, the Coast Guard lists pending and 

ongoing actions under each of its objectives but does not include dates. 

According to Coast Guard officials, the pilot will run the length of a 

performance cycle (from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014). However, 

based on the plan, we are unable to determine whether the Coast Guard 

has additional actions planned for implementing GEAR that extend 

beyond preparing for and starting the project itself. Best practices note 

that planning and scheduling are continual processes throughout the life 

of a project.28

In addition, the plan lacks detail in defining performance measures that 

include clearly stated performance targets that are aligned to the plan’s 

objectives and enable the agency to monitor and measure progress. 

According to the plan, the Coast Guard disseminated a pre-pilot survey in 

March 2013 at Base Boston with plans for additional surveys mid- and 

post-pilot to create a baseline. In addition, the Coast Guard created a 

data repository to gather and analyze performance management 

responsibilities. However, for both examples, there is no statement within 

the plan specifying whether these are performance measures or 

identifying what types of data are being collected. According to internal 

control standards, performance measures should be established to 

evaluate the success or failure of their activities and programs.

They state that planning may be done in stages throughout 

the project as stakeholders learn more details. Because GEAR-related 

work continued at Coast Guard after April 1, 2013 the information 

included in the plan is insufficient to gauge progress.

29

Performance measurement involves identifying performance goals and 

measures, establishing performance baselines by tracking performance 

over time, identifying targets for improving performance, and measuring 

progress against those targets. Without additional information on 

performance measures, the Coast Guard is missing opportunities to 

gauge progress and measure the success of their implementation efforts 

and, as a result, the agency may not have all available data for decisionmaking. Specifically, agency officials told us that the success of GEAR’s 

implementation at Base Boston is one of the factors that will determine 

whether or not the Coast Guard exports the GEAR framework to its 

remaining bases and employees.

 28GAO-12-120G.

29GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 22 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Table 5: DOE’s GEAR Project Plan Meets All Selected Best Practices

Agency

Objectives 

included

Specific 

actions 

included

Roles and 

responsibilities 

included

Schedules 

included

Performance 

measures 

included

Department of 

Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: GAO analysis.

DOE’s GEAR plan was the most thoroughly documented of the five pilot 

plans and met all of the best practices we identified, as shown in table 5.

Highlights of the plan include:

• an articulation of the challenges facing the implementation of each 

objective;

• an analysis of DOE’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

data, one of its GEAR performance measures, that articulates one of 

the challenges facing the agency: a significant gap between a 

supervisor’s expectations for performance and an employee’s 

understanding of those expectations;30

• an action plan snapshot for management review that highlights 

accomplishments made in the 75 days since the last management 

review (such as an increase in completing planned training sessions) 

as well as the priorities and actions the agency will target before the 

next review (such as posting DOE’s 2012 FEVS results on its public 

website); and

• a graphic outlining the training requirements for new supervisors and 

the continual learning options for more experienced supervisors and 

managers.

In addition, DOE communicated the importance of the GEAR framework, 

the reasons why implementation was necessary, and how employees 

could potentially be impacted through various platforms that targeted 

numerous stakeholders. The multiple communications approach 

 30OPM conducts FEVS, which is a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of whether 

and to what extent conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their 

agencies.

DOE’s GEAR Plan

Includes All Selected Best 

Practices
Page 23 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

highlights the support agency leadership is providing for the success of 

GEAR. For example, the plan includes:

• a memorandum for all DOE employees from the Secretary showing 

his support for GEAR and the importance of ongoing communication;

• a memorandum from DOE’s CHCO outlining steps that would be 

taken to implement GEAR and the importance of supervisors 

engaging in four formal performance-based discussions;

• a memorandum from DOE’s Acting CHCO outlining the training 

framework to improve the agency’s performance-based culture and 

mandatory supervisory training requirements;

• information presented to the DOE local unions detailing what GEAR 

implementation would mean for employees in different roles of the 

organization; and

• a summary of the GEAR framework in DOE’s workforce training 

newsletter, including examples of what employees and managers at 

every level can expect from GEAR.

Table 6: HUD’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives or Roles and 

Responsibilities

Agency

Objectives 

included

Specific 

actions 

included

Roles and 

responsibilities 

included

Schedules 

included

Performance 

measures 

included

Department of 

Housing and 

Urban 

Development No Yes No Yes Yes

Source: GAO analysis.

HUD’s GEAR plan identifies 16 specific action steps, such as issuing 

guidance, completing fiscal year 2012 ratings, and developing a monthly 

in-service day policy. The plan is outlined in a work breakdown structure 

(WBS) format with actions, or task names, with most of the actions listed 

in order of completion with descriptions and schedules listed for each 

HUD’s GEAR Plan Lacks 

Objectives that Would 

Identify the Agency’s 

Purpose In Implementing 

the GEAR Framework 

and Does Not Assign 

Roles and Responsibilities
Page 24 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

action.31

The plan does not clearly define objectives, as shown in table 6 and as a 

result, the actions outlined in the plan do not indicate a purpose or goal(s) 

the agency hopes to achieve by completing the stated actions. Best 

practices note that all activities necessary to accomplish a project’s 

objectives should be defined.

The plan also includes GEAR performance metrics, the source 

of the data, and in some cases the target rates the agency hopes to 

achieve. Agency officials told us that the planned completion date of 

GEAR implementation is September 2013.

32

In addition, the plan does not include information on roles and 

responsibilities, such as the individual(s) or office(s) that will be held 

accountable for completing the actions consistent with best practices. For 

example, according to the plan, HUD will develop an awards policy, but 

there is no information that indicates the individual(s) or office(s) 

responsible for creating such a policy. Without such identification, HUD 

runs the risk of the actions not being implemented on time or at all due to 

a lack of knowledge regarding who is responsible for the specific action 

item.

Without such objectives, the actions listed 

in HUD’s plan lack a framework that clearly links the actions to each other 

or to a greater purpose.

Table 7: NCA’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Performance Measures

Agency

Objectives 

included

Specific 

actions 

included

Roles and 

responsibilities 

included

Schedules 

included

Performance 

measures 

included

National 

Cemetery 

Administration Yes Yes Partiallya Partiallya No 

Source: GAO analysis.

a

We assessed an agency’s plan as partially including a best practice if it included limited information 

on a specific best practice but was not consistently provided throughout the plan.

 31A work breakdown structure (WBS) defines in detail the work necessary to accomplish a 

project’s objectives.

32GAO-12-120G.

NCA’s GEAR Plan Lacks 

Performance 

Measurements that Would 

Better Enable Officials to 

Gauge Success
Page 25 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

According to NCA officials, the agency is implementing the GEAR 

framework as a pilot among several occupations within one of its 

Memorial Service Networks (MSN), with plans to expand to additional 

occupations and possibly export the GEAR framework to other networks 

in the future. However, the NCA project plan does not include any 

information about which occupations or networks are included in the pilot. 

In addition, it does not include information detailing how the agency 

identified the specific occupations in the pilot or why a specific network 

was selected over others.

The NCA plan includes partial information on roles and responsibilities 

associated with the objectives and specific actions, as shown in table 7. 

For example, the first key action under the goal of reinforcing NCA’s high 

performance culture states that it will establish a group of top level NCA 

executives who will oversee the implementation of GEAR. However, the 

plan does not include information on these individuals and there are no 

other roles or responsibilities identified anywhere else in the plan. By not 

identifying roles and responsibilities, it is unclear who is accountable for 

actions included within the plan and for managing project performance.

Although NCA’s plan did not include a schedule of activities, NCA 

provided a separate schedule of GEAR activities. Best practices state that 

a schedule provides not only a road map for systematic project execution 

but also the means by which to gauge progress, identify and resolve 

potential problems, and promote accountability at all levels of the 

program.33

Finally, NCA officials told us that they will export the GEAR framework to 

the four remaining MSNs in fiscal year 2014. However, NCA’s plan does 

not include performance measures that would enable the agency to 

gauge their progress towards implementing their overall GEAR 

objectives, determine if the pilot was successful, or identify areas where 

improvement is needed. As we have previously defined, performance 

measurement focuses on whether a program has achieved its objectives, 

A schedule provides a time sequence for the duration of an 

activity and helps everyone understand both the dates for major 

milestones and the activities that drive the schedule. Without a schedule 

linked to the GEAR plan itself and its objectives, it may be difficult for 

NCA to determine the progress that has been made and whether or not 

the agency is on track for implementation.

 33GAO-12-120G.
Page 26 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

expressed as measurable performance standards.34 Without such 

information, NCA may be unable to determine whether or not the actions 

taken in the single unit pilot should be replicated in the remaining 

networks, or whether changes are necessary.

Table 8: OPM’s GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives or Roles and 

Responsibilities

Agency

Objectives 

included

Specific 

actions 

included

Roles and 

responsibilities 

included

Schedules 

included

Performance 

measures 

included

Office of 

Personnel 

Management No Yes No Yes Yes

Source: GAO analysis.

OPM’s GEAR plan includes specific actions and performance measures 

that will help the agency gauge progress in implementing the GEAR 

framework, as shown in table 8. For example, OPM’s plan includes 

actions that focus on quarterly progress reviews, standardizing 

performance commitments to improve supervisor accountability, requiring 

supervisor training on GEAR, and improving the assessment and 

selection of supervisors by standardizing weighting of 

supervisory/leadership competencies against other relevant 

competencies. In addition, the plan includes five performance measures, 

with most including target rates and dates. OPM describes one of the 

performance measures as an improvement by 5 percent in two indices in 

the FEVS.

35

 34

The FEVS job satisfaction index is one of the metrics used 

by OPM to assess whether agencies are effectively managing the talent 

management system. In addition, in 2011 OPM added an index to 

measure employee engagement (which OPM defines as the extent to 

GAO-11-646SP.

35OPM, the central human resources agency for the federal government, has conducted 

the FEVS every year since 2010. Prior to 2010, OPM conducted the survey during even 

numbered years, beginning in 2004. The most recent survey sample of 2012 included the 

views of over 687,000 federal employees from 82 federal agencies. The survey results 

represent a snapshot in time of the perceptions of the federal workforce. In 2012 the 

FEVS was generally implemented as a census, rather than a sample-based survey, in an 

effort to gather the opinions of the entire federal workforce. The four index measures are: 

leadership and knowledge management; results-oriented performance culture; talent 

management; and job satisfaction.

OPM’s GEAR Plan Lacks 

Clear Objectives that 

Would Identify the 

Agency’s Purpose in 

Implementing the GEAR 

Framework and Does

Not Assign Roles and 

Responsibilities
Page 27 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

which an employee is immersed in the content of the job and energized to 

spend extra effort in job performance). According to the plan, OPM’s 

target goal is 62 percent of positive responses in the results-oriented 

performance culture index and 75 percent of positive responses for the 

employee engagement index.

OPM officials told us that they plan on implementing all of the GEAR 

recommendations agency-wide. However, the plan lacks clearly defined 

objectives consistent with best practices. For example, the plan lists the 

action “including a requirement to conduct a minimum of quarterly 

progress reviews,” but the action is not linked to either agency objectives 

or GEAR recommendations. Because there is no link between actions 

and objectives, the plan does not clearly identify issues or problems that 

the actions are targeted to address.

In addition, OPM’s plan does not include information on roles and 

responsibilities as called for by best practices. As a result, it is unclear 

which individual(s) or office(s) is responsible for specific actions. 

Specifically, many of the actions listed in the plan affect supervisors and 

the consequences of such actions may impact their individual roles and 

responsibilities. For example, one of the specific actions identified is 

standardizing supervisor performance commitments; however, the plan 

does not identify a responsible party linked to this action. As a result, 

supervisors and managers may not be able to identify a source of 

information if questions on these performance commitments arise.

The GEAR framework presents an opportunity for federal agencies to 

increase employee engagement and improve performance management. 

Indeed, even though the GEAR pilot has only been in place a short period 

of time, agency officials have already described such benefits as 

improved engagement and communication between employees and 

supervisors. Although the recommendations outlined in the GEAR report 

do not represent new concepts, implementing them in practice may 

present challenges unique to each agency, as demonstrated by the 

experience of the five pilot agencies. OPM has facilitated conversations 

among participating GEAR agencies to identify lessons learned and the 

CHCO Council is developing a GEAR toolkit to help agencies improve 

performance management and increase employee engagement.

However, going forward, the roles and responsibilities of OPM, the CHCO 

Council, and participating federal agencies have not been fully defined, 

including how to identify future promising practices, and how to update 

and disseminate information on the government-wide implementation of 

GEAR. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities will be important for 

Conclusion
Page 28 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

capitalizing on the improvements made at the five pilot agencies, as well 

as for sustaining and achieving the current Administration’s goal of 

implementing GEAR more broadly. Without these next steps, the 

momentum and lessons learned from the GEAR pilot may be lost and 

desired performance management reforms in federal agencies may not 

be fully realized.

The five pilot agencies deserve significant credit for taking steps to 

implement the GEAR recommendations and improve performance 

management within their organizations in a relatively short amount of 

time. Although it is too early to tell whether GEAR is changing 

organizational culture within the pilot agencies, leading practices 

identified during the pilot should help inform GEAR implementation efforts 

at other agencies. However, as part of implementing the GEAR model, 

most of the pilot agencies did not develop complete project plans that will 

help guide their GEAR-related efforts into the future. Updating these 

plans to fully reflect the nature and scope of their efforts will help ensure 

that these agencies meet the goals of their respective GEAR efforts and 

serve as a model for other agencies to follow.

Recognizing that moving toward a more performance-oriented culture 

within federal agencies is likely to be a continuous effort and to ensure 

that the opportunity GEAR recommendations offer to improve 

performance management is not lost, we recommend the Acting Director 

of OPM, in collaboration with the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, 

define roles and responsibilities of OPM, the CHCO Council, and 

participating federal agencies going forward as the GEAR framework is 

implemented government-wide. In doing so, OPM, in collaboration with 

the CHCO Council, could define roles and responsibilities such as

• supplementing the GEAR report and updating the diagnostic toolkit as 

needed to reflect additional promising practices and lessons learned 

(such as those we identified) and guidance on using metrics. This 

should include considering whether connecting performance 

expectations to crosscutting goals should be part of the GEAR 

framework.

• disseminating the information contained in the GEAR report and 

diagnostic toolkit through multiple venues and various governmentwide websites, such as OMB Max, to ensure federal managers, 

supervisors and other stakeholders have access to promising 

practices and additional guidance on improving performance 

management.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 29 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

In addition, to improve agencies’ GEAR implementation plans, we 

recommend that:

• the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Commandant of the 

Coast Guard take the following two actions to update the agency’s 

GEAR implementation plan to include: (1) performance measures that 

permit comparison between desired outcomes and actual results and 

(2) additional information on schedules that are linked to specific 

actions;

• the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development take the following two 

actions to update the agency’s GEAR implementation plan to: (1) 

include objectives describing the goals the agency plans to achieve and 

(2) identify roles and responsibilities for specific actions and 

stakeholders;

• the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for 

Memorial Affairs take the following three actions to update the 

National Cemetery Administration’s GEAR implementation plan to 

include: (1) performance measures that permit comparison between 

desired outcomes and actual results, (2) additional information on 

roles and responsibilities for specific actions and stakeholders, and (3)

additional information on schedules that are linked to specific actions; 

and

• the Acting Director of OPM to take the following two actions to update

the agency’s GEAR implementation plan to: (1) include objectives 

describing the goals the agency plans to achieve and (2) identify roles 

and responsibilities for specific actions and stakeholders.

We provided a draft of this report to the Acting Director of OPM and the 

Secretaries of Homeland Security (Coast Guard), Housing and Urban 

Development, Energy, and Veterans Affairs (National Cemetery 

Administration). The Associate Director for Employee Services at OPM, 

the Chief of Staff at Veterans Affairs, and the Director of the Departmental 

GAO-Office of Inspector General Liaison Office at DHS provided written 

comments on a draft of the report, which are reprinted in appendixes II, 

III, and IV, respectively.

In their written responses, OPM, DHS, and VA officials agreed with our 

recommendations. HUD officials also stated that they agreed with our 

recommendation to HUD in an e-mail exchange. We modified our 

assessment of VA’s GEAR implementation plan, changing schedules 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 30 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

from not included to partially included, based on additional information the 

agency provided after the report was sent for comment.

DOE, DHS, and VA also suggested technical changes to the report, 

which we incorporated where appropriate.

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

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

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Energy, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans 

Affairs, and the Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, as well as the appropriate congressional committees and 

other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge 

on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6806 or goldenkoffr@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 key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix XII.

Robert Goldenkoff

Director

Strategic Issues
APPENDIX I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

This report (1) analyzes how the Goals-Engagement-AccountabilityResults (GEAR) framework addresses key practices for effective 

performance management and identifies opportunities, if any, to improve 

GEAR implementation government-wide; (2) describes the status of each 

pilot agency’s GEAR implementation and any lessons learned to date; 

and (3) assesses the extent to which each agency’s GEAR 

implementation plan includes selected best practices for project planning. 

The GEAR framework is currently being piloted in five departments and 

agencies – the Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland Security/United 

States Coast Guard (DHS/Coast Guard), Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery Administration 

(VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). For 

purposes of this report, we are referring to both departments and 

agencies as “agencies.”

To analyze how the GEAR framework addresses key practices for 

effective performance management and identify opportunities, if any, to 

improve GEAR implementation government-wide, we verified that key 

practices we previously identified were applicable for purposes of this 

engagement by conducting a literature review of leading performance 

management practices and consulting with internal subject matter 

experts. In addition, OPM officials reviewed these criteria and agreed that 

many of the practices are very important contributors to organizational 

success. We systematically reviewed the GEAR report from the National 

Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (LMR Council) using a 

methodology to determine whether the goals, recommendations, and 

actions described in the document qualitatively reflected the presence or 

absence of the key practices. We also reviewed LMR Council meeting 

minutes and other materials from LMR Council meetings. Finally, we 

interviewed OPM officials and Chief Human Capital Officers Council 

officials, some of whom were members of the LMR Council work group 

that drafted the report.

To describe the status of each agency’s GEAR implementation and any 

lessons learned to date, we obtained and analyzed each agency’s GEAR 

implementation plan(s) to identify agency strategies for GEAR 

implementation as well as key actions taken and outstanding. We 

obtained and analyzed status updates from the agencies and other 

documentation about their current GEAR implementation status. We 

described agencies’ strategies to implement GEAR. We developed a 

structured interview instrument to discuss agency strategies and the 

rationale for GEAR implementation and identify challenges and 

successes with human resource/human capital officials, program 

managers, and other officials responsible for GEAR implementation. We 

APPENDIX I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
APPENDIX I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

also interviewed labor union representatives about any problems or 

concerns with implementing the GEAR framework. We interviewed OPM 

officials responsible for assisting the pilot agencies in GEAR 

implementation as well as OPM officials who had contributed to 

developing the GEAR framework in their capacity as LMR Council 

members for perspectives on lessons learned. In addition, we conducted 

a site visit at the Coast Guard’s Base Boston in May 2013, where we 

observed initial GEAR training sessions and interviewed supervisors and 

employees about their reactions to the training and GEAR itself. We 

chose this site because the Coast Guard was the most recent of the five 

pilot agencies to implement GEAR and we were able to visit soon after 

the start of their implementation efforts.

To assess the extent to which each agency’s GEAR implementation plan 

includes selected best practices for project planning, we identified project 

planning best practices primarily from Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government, GAO’s definitions of performance measurement, 

and GAO’s guide for best practices in project schedules, and assessed 

the inclusion of information contained in the agencies’ GEAR plans 

against the best practices.1

 1

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

We focused on the following best practices 

because they were relevant to GEAR: (1) plan objective(s) describing a 

goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain that goal; (3) roles and 

responsibilities identified and assigned to project stakeholders; (4) 

schedules containing logically related project elements leading to the 

goal; and (5) valid performance measures that permit comparison 

between desired outcomes and actual results. Since the pilot agencies 

are in the process of implementing GEAR, we assessed them on the 

contents of the plan and not against the progress made towards 

implementation of the plan. Two analysts independently assessed each 

agency’s GEAR plan to determine the extent to which information that 

was included met all five best practices and rated each plan using a 

three-level scale of included, partially included, or did not include, and 

reached a level of inter-rater agreement greater than 80 percent. In 

addition, we noted strengths and areas for further attention in each plan. 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); Performance Measurement and Evaluation, 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011); and GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: 

Best Practices for project schedules, exposure draft GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: 

May 2012). We included the exposure draft of GAO-12-120G as it presents ten best 

practices associated with developing and maintaining a reliable, high-quality schedule 

based on the planning process (the schedule is essentially a model of the project plan).
APPENDIX I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

We assessed partial inclusion if the agency made at least one reference 

to a specific best practice within the plan but were not able to assess full 

inclusion if the information was not consistently provided.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to September 

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 Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 34 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 35 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 36 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 37 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 38 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 39 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 
Appendix V: GEAR 

Implementation 

Approach for the Department of 

Homeland Security/Coast Guard

Page 40 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

DHS was involved in the early development of the GEAR framework as 

part of the CHCO Council and subsequently volunteered the Coast Guard 

to pilot the GEAR framework, with consideration given to expanding 

implementation after achieving success through the limited pilot effort. 

The Coast Guard is implementing all five of GEAR’s recommendations in 

a single-site pilot at Base Boston, affecting approximately 200 employees, 

both GS and WG. The Coast Guard chose Base Boston for several 

reasons: the presence of both GS and WG employees – who happen to 

be supervised by both military and civilian personnel, a wide variety of 

occupations, and the representation of a single union rather than the 

multiple unions that are present at other bases. Coast Guard officials said 

they chose to implement GEAR as a pilot because agency-wide 

implementation brought challenges such as dealing with such a large 

military population – approximately 42,000 military personnel that rotate 

bases approximately every two to three years and operate on a different 

performance management plan compared with approximately 9,000 

civilian employees – and negotiating with approximately nine unions. 

According to one senior Coast Guard official, to develop more than one 

site would create a capacity issue that would make it difficult to plan and 

implement GEAR.

The Coast Guard began planning for GEAR in March 2012 and launched 

the pilot in April 2013 to coincide with the start of the annual performance 

process. According to Coast Guard officials, the planning process was in 

place but implementation was delayed due to Base Boston personnel 

being deployed to assist in Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. The pilot is 

expected to run for the length of one annual performance cycle and 

complete on March 31, 2014. According to Coast Guard officials, agency 

officials met with union representatives for extensive discussions 

involving facilitators and brainstorming sessions in order to include union 

input in the final GEAR implementation plan. As a result of these 

discussions, Coast Guard officials told us that the agency has the 

approval of the union and that both parties are mutually responsible for 

the successful implementation of GEAR.

The Coast Guard currently requires every civilian employee to have a 

documented performance appraisal at the end of the rating cycle and 

under GEAR implementation, employees and supervisors are to receive 

increased training to improve the accountability and engagement between 

employees and supervisors. Coast Guard officials noted that the agency 

needs to improve its culture of engagement. They said part of the 

problem is that supervisors do not have enough time to provide feedback, 

and employees do not know how to prepare adequately for their 

Appendix V: GEAR Implementation 

Approach for the Department of Homeland 

Security/Coast Guard
Appendix V: GEAR 

Implementation 

Approach for the Department of 

Homeland Security/Coast Guard

Page 41 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

assessments or feedback sessions. By September 2013, all new 

supervisors (both civilian and military) will have to take 40 hours of 

mandated supervisor training so they will have a base knowledge of how 

to provide effective feedback. For more information on steps the Coast 

Guard has taken to implement GEAR, see table 9.

Coast Guard has identified the following benefits that may be realized at 

Base Boston through GEAR implementation:

• improved performance management accountability;

• improved employee-supervisor engagement through training and 

additional educational resources;

• increased communications to improve awareness and importance of 

the performance management process;

• improved overall labor management relations through involvement of 

the labor unions; and

• projected fewer grievances over performance appraisals at the end of 

the pilot.

•

Table 9: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of Homeland Security/Coast Guard as of July 2013

Mission The U.S. Coast Guard’s mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. 

economic interests —in the nation’s ports and waterways, along the coast, on international 

waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.

GEAR Implementation agency-wide 

or traditional pilot Pilot at Base Boston.

Approximate number of employees 

affected by GEAR implementation 200 employees, both civilian (GS and WG) and military.

GEAR recommendation implementing 1. Articulate a high performance culture.

2. Align employee and organizational performance management.

3. Implement accountability at all levels.

4. Create a culture of engagement.

5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development and training.
Appendix V: GEAR 

Implementation 

Approach for the Department of 

Homeland Security/Coast Guard

Page 42 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Steps taken • Developed implementation plan in conjunction with union to begin with new rating 

cycle (November 2012) and assigned project manager.

• Developed data analysis repository.

• Deployed communication plan to workforce.

• Conducted performance management and employee/labor relations training (February

2013).

• Conducted communications and team building training (March 2013).

• Implemented DHS supervisor guidance and required supervisor cornerstone training 

completed for all supervisors (March 2013).

• Conducted pre-pilot survey (March 2013).

• Assessed 2012 FEVS results.

• Updated civilian webpage to include performance management resources.

• Established civilian personnel webpage; posted performance counseling progress 

review guidance on human resources website.

• Promoted diversity and inclusion efforts.

• Developed performance plans with two progress reviews for employees and one for 

supervisors.

• Published quarterly newsletter articles about performance management system 

responsibilities.

• Posted 2010 Coast Guard hiring guide.

• Mandated 40-hour e-training for supervisors.

• Required supervisory performance element for all supervisors.

• Implemented GEAR April 1, 2013.

Ongoing action • Hold supervisors accountable for performance management system responsibilities.

• Post performance management guidance.

• Use job aids conducting reviews.

• Enhance performance management training at pilot site.

• Conduct GEAR communications throughout workforce.

• Continue to partner with labor-management forum.
Appendix V: GEAR 

Implementation 

Approach for the Department of 

Homeland Security/Coast Guard

Page 43 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Steps outstanding • Conduct OAS and FEVS surveys.

• Identify, record, and evaluate pilot successes and milestones throughout the pilot.

• Cascade senior executive service performance measures to program achievement.

• Launch GEAR presence on civilian human resources website.

• Move toward bringing all Coast Guard employees onto DHS performance 

management system to ensure goal alignment.

• Establish performance conversation timeliness guidelines for senor leadership.

• Establish employee accountability levels.

• Provide additional resources for education and notice about performance 

management system responsibilities.

• Assess performance management compliance with data repository.

• Conduct and analyze pre-, mid, and post surveys.

• Issue quarterly diversity reports.

• Institute regular meetings of employees and supervisors.

• Enhance supervisor mentoring and coaching.

• Conduct additional or new training for supervisors.

Metrics and oversight • Internal GEAR baseline and follow up surveys.

• Number of employee grievances.

• Training.

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard information.
Appendix VI: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Energy

Page 44 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

DOE officials said the agency is implementing the GEAR framework in 

part because it aligned with existing human capital priorities and 

supported DOE’s vision of improving its performance-based culture. DOE 

is implementing GEAR agency-wide with the exception of Bonneville 

Power Administration and the National Nuclear Security Administration, 

affecting approximately 8,400 employees.1

As a first step towards implementation of GEAR, DOE officials surveyed 

supervisors and employees to establish a baseline. Additionally, DOE 

officials said they held employee focus groups about the agency’s 

performance management system to help inform some of the key actions 

of the GEAR implementation plan. Agency officials said that they 

expected, and found, that employees did not view the effective execution 

of the performance management process as positively as supervisors; in 

other words, performance discussions are occurring but they are not 

perceived by employees as adding value. Based on data showing that 

timely completion of the reviews declined over the previous year, DOE 

officials have begun to look for ways to streamline the review process. 

This includes shifting to a system that allows supervisors to indicate 

satisfactory performance without the need for extensive documentation. 

Officials also said that a new electronic performance assessment system, 

DOE officials told us that a 

holistic approach to GEAR implementation provided the best opportunity 

for success and that only by engaging the entire organization could the 

agency hope to improve organizational culture. According to DOE 

officials, implementing GEAR is a two-year effort and the agency is in the 

second year of implementation; however, DOE is implementing the GEAR 

framework as part of a larger continuous effort to improve its 

performance-based culture. DOE employees are covered by local union 

collective bargaining agreements and according to DOE officials, each 

union local was engaged in GEAR implementation where appropriate. 

DOE does not have any unions with department-level recognition or 

collective bargaining rights. Before launching the pilot, the DOE Office of 

the CHCO briefed local union representatives on the GEAR framework 

and asked for their input on rollout. Agency officials said that they 

received no feedback from the unions.

 1

DOE officials reported that the National Nuclear Security Administration is in the midst of 

a five-year personnel demonstration project that is testing alternative personnel concepts 

including pay banding and linking pay and rewards to performance. The Bonneville Power 

Administration was exempt from implementing GEAR by the Secretary because they 

operate under a separate performance management system. The two units together have 

approximately 6,500 employees. 

Appendix VI: GEAR Implementation 

Approach for the Department of Energy
Appendix VI: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Energy

Page 45 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

ePerformance, has facilitated completion of quarterly reviews. According 

to DOE officials, ePerformance allows management to monitor feedback 

sessions centrally and ensure that supervisors complete them in a timely 

fashion, something that was impossible under the agency’s old paperbased system for conducting performance reviews. According to DOE 

officials, it is still not possible to ensure that all reviews are of good 

quality, only that they are timely. DOE officials feel that improved 

communication between managers and employees will be a major 

benefit. To reinforce the importance DOE places on supervision, the 

agency developed a mandatory supervisory critical element, which holds 

supervisors accountable for each phase of the performance process, 

according to officials. DOE also issued a mandatory training framework 

for supervisors and employees to support ongoing improvements in the 

agency’s performance-based culture. For more information on steps DOE 

has taken to implement GEAR, see table 10.

According to DOE officials the agency will realize additional benefits from 

implementing the GEAR framework, including

• incremental improvements to its organizational culture on a yearly 

basis demonstrated through employee feedback and other human 

capital metrics, such as ePerformance metrics;

• continued focus on human capital efforts at senior levels of agency 

management; and

• reinforcement of performance management as a year‐round priority.

In addition, DOE officials stated that benefits resulting from GEAR 

implementation have already been realized. For example, DOE officials 

stated that their use of human capital performance metrics, supported by 

GEAR’s recommendation to align performance management with 

organizational performance management, has resulted in DOE reducing 

its reliance on targeted support service.
Appendix VI: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Energy

Page 46 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Table 10: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of Energy as of July 2013

Mission The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by 

addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative 

science and technology solutions.

GEAR Implementation agency-wide or 

traditional pilot

Agency-wide except for the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Bonneville 

Power Administration.

Approximate number of employees 

affected by GEAR implementation 8,400 employees.

GEAR recommendation implementing 1. Articulate a high performance culture.

2. Align employee and organizational performance management.

3. Implement accountability at all levels.

4. Create a culture of engagement.

5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development, and training.

Steps taken • Developed agency strategic plan (May 2011).

• Conducted performance management training (fiscal year 2011 Q4 for fiscal year 

2012).

• Issued Secretary’s statement and conducted town halls.

• Designed and implemented progress review template.

• Implemented ePerformance software to support new processes; implemented 

ePerformance metrics.

• Tracking ePerformance milestones like timely completion of reviews and ratings.

• Conducted analysis of EVS and employee/manager surveys.

• Engaged local unions regarding GEAR.

• Improved both managers’ and employees’ education and support.

• Developed Five Conversations training (which provides information to supervisors on 

how to have difficult conversations with employees), which is now being leveraged by 

OPM.

• Issued supervisory mandatory training framework.

• Incorporated automatic notifications and periodic reminders to inform new 

supervisors of mandatory training requirements.

• Conducted follow-up employee survey.

• Strengthened PIO/CHCO collaboration to improve compliance with ePerformance 

requirements for timely performance management discussions.
Appendix VI: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Energy

Page 47 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Steps outstanding • Continue to emphasize performance-based culture, continuation of effort/lasting 

cultural change.

• Continue to socialize relevant HR metrics (compliance, satisfaction, mission 

accomplishment).

• Provide training to improve feedback and other conversations.

• Continue ePerformance improvements.

• Improve DOE on-boarding process.

• Continue to track FEVS indices.

• Continue to execute an effective supervisory, manager and employee training 

framework.

• Incorporate tracking and monitoring as part of data-driven reviews (HR Stat and 

Business Quarterly Reviews).

• Ensure that constructive action is taken when supervisors do not meet training 

requirements.

Metrics and oversight • 5% increase in Results-Oriented Culture and Employee Engagement indexes by 

September 2013.

• Timeliness of performance plan execution, review, and evaluation.

• Focus groups.

• Internal GEAR baseline and follow up surveys.

Source: GAO analysis of DOE information.
Appendix VII: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development

Page 48 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

According to agency officials, HUD’s CHCO was an active participant in 

the CHCO Council meetings that first developed the GEAR concepts. The 

agency volunteered to participate because GEAR is consistent with the 

Secretary’s Transformation Initiative, which aims to improve the quality of 

performance plans and increase the quality and timeliness of feedback. 

While HUD was already pursuing several objectives that it now views as 

part of GEAR, GEAR provided a framework of guiding principles that 

helped HUD officials organize their efforts. HUD is implementing GEAR 

agency-wide (with the exception of its Office of the Inspector General) 

affecting approximately 8,100 employees and four labor unions.1

At the beginning of implementation, HUD decided not to pursue GEAR’s 

fifth goal – improving the assessment, selection, development, and 

training of supervisors – based on staff capacity at that time, according to 

HUD officials. Since then, the agency has recruited a Chief Learning 

Officer and has taken several actions to implement the fifth goal, such as 

distributing guidance on holding crucial conversations with employees 

and adding supervisory training courses. As a result of GEAR, HUD has 

acquired a new performance management system that supports strategic 

alignment to individual performance objectives and will support feedback 

on performance objectives, including feedback from peers and 

subordinates. HUD officials said that they procured a new performance 

management system in October 2012 and completed union negotiations 

in June 2013 to adopt a new performance management policy and 

framework. Senior executives have already moved to the new 

performance management system and the agency is in the process of 

rolling it out to the rest of the agency. For more information on steps HUD 

has taken to implement GEAR, see table 11.

HUD 

has established the Labor-Management Advisory Committee (LMAC), 

which includes representatives from each of HUD’s four unions as well as 

managers. HUD officials did not think they could be successful if they 

implemented GEAR within a single unit. They felt that implementing it 

agency-wide would permit it to be better embedded in the performance 

culture. HUD plans for GEAR to be fully implemented in September 2013.

 1

The American Federation of Government Employees is the major union at headquarters; 

HUD’s California, Memphis, and Detroit regions each have a National Federation of 

Federal Employees Local.

Appendix VII: GEAR Implementation 

Approach for the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development
Appendix VII: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development

Page 49 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

HUD has identified the following benefits that may be realized as a result 

of GEAR implementation:

• increased alignment between HUD’s work and mission through 

performance objectives outlined in the department’s strategic plan;

• more engaged workforce through increased quality and timeliness of 

feedback;

• more accurate performance ratings as performance plans better 

reflect the work staff are doing;

• help with retention of employees; and

• improved performance management overall at HUD.

Table 11: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development as of July 2013

Mission HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality 

affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the 

economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; 

utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable 

communities free from discrimination; and transform the way HUD does business. 

GEAR Implementation agency-wide or 

traditional pilot

Agency-wide except for the Office of Inspector General.

Approximate number of employees 

affected by GEAR implementation

8,100 employees.

GEAR Recommendation implementing 1. Articulate a high performance culture.

2. Align employee and organizational performance management.

3. Implement accountability at all levels.

4. Create a culture of engagement.

Note: HUD officials decided not to pursue goal 5 based on staff capacity – no Chief Learning Officer 

(CLO) – at the time of implementation. A CLO has since been hired and HUD is creating a structure 

for goal 5.

Steps taken • Redefine senior executive service plans.

• Train on new Employee Performance Planning and Evaluation System (EPPES) 

framework.

• Begin tracking fiscal year 2012 midyear reviews (95% target by May 2012) ratings 

and fiscal year 2013 plans (both 95% target by December 2013).

• Issue fiscal year 2012 rating and fiscal year 2013 performance plan guidance.

• Deploy managers’ performance management training.

• Develop monthly in-service day policy.

• Develop awards policy.

• Acquire new ePerformance system.
Appendix VII: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development

Page 50 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Steps outstanding • Complete EPPES framework design and add template to ePerformance system.

• Develop awards policy.

• Completely replace ePerformance system.

Metrics and oversight • 5% increase in Results-Oriented Culture and Employee Engagement indexes by 

November 2013.

• Internal “pulse” survey.

• Timeliness of establishing performance plans.

• Timeliness of completion of performance ratings.

• Percentage of staff who feel their performance plan reflects the work they do and 

sets clear expectations.

• Percentage of staff who have talked with their direct supervisor about their 

performance.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD information
Appendix VIII: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs/ 

National Cemetery 

Administration

Page 51 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Unlike the other pilot agencies, VA officials had no official interaction with 

the LMR Council in the development of the GEAR framework. VA began 

implementing GEAR in October 2012 to coincide with the VA 

performance management cycle. VA officials project the implementation 

to be complete by 2016. VA is implementing GEAR within its NCA agency 

as a single unit pilot in MSN II, encompassing national cemeteries located 

in the southeastern area of the country. NCA officials expect to expand 

GEAR to the remaining four networks beginning in 2014. VA chose the 

NCA because it has a reputation as a high-performing organization and 

an existing focus on metrics and feedback. VA officials said they chose to 

implement GEAR as a single unit, rather than agency-wide, because 

doing so allowed them to provide closer attention and support.

NCA is implementing the GEAR framework to seven mission critical 

occupations totaling approximately 240 employees. NCA plans to include 

10 additional occupations in MSN II during fiscal year 2014, and to also 

apply the GEAR framework to the original seven mission critical 

occupations in the remaining four networks beginning in fiscal year 2014. 

NCA plans to continue to phase in occupations during fiscal years 2014-

2016. According to NCA officials, representatives from two unions have 

been involved in GEAR implementation and contributed valuable input 

that has enhanced NCA’s approach to GEAR. Although NCA officials told 

us they are committed to all five of GEAR’s recommendations, the agency 

is currently implementing four of the recommendations and plans to 

implement the fifth recommendation after an evaluation of current 

approaches to assessing, selecting, and developing supervisors has been 

completed.

According to NCA officials, NCA has increased feedback to employees on 

individual, unit, and agency goals and performance by implementing a 

three-step feedback process with meetings every four months (in 

February, June, and October), as well as providing tools to assist 

supervisors in preparing for and conducting those one-on-one meetings. 

Supervisors and employees also receive a monthly performance 

scorecard with information on several of NCA’s performance targets that 

include agency, region, and cemetery-level performance in key 

operational areas such as client satisfaction and employee safety.

As part of GEAR, NCA defined “exceptional” performance, in addition to 

the “fully successful” level, in new performance plans for all seven of the 

targeted occupations. NCA officials said that officials representing labor 

unions recommended this approach so employees have a clear target. 

NCA officials stated that this practice will continue as new performance 

plans are created. NCA plans to also refine their approach to rewarding 

Appendix VIII: GEAR Implementation

Approach for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs/

National Cemetery Administration
Appendix VIII: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs/ 

National Cemetery 

Administration

Page 52 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

and recognizing exceptional performers to correspond with what 

employees value. For example, they are considering possible 

generational preferences in the nature of rewards and preferences 

associated with the stages of employees’ careers. For more information 

on steps NCA has taken to implement GEAR, see table 12.

NCA has identified the following benefits that may result from GEAR 

implementation:

• by aligning performance goals with organizational goals, employees 

may better understand the connection between their daily activities 

and the organization’s success;

• employees can better identify performance successes, gaps, and 

opportunities to improve performance at their cemetery and within 

their network; and

• involving employees and their labor representatives in efforts to 

improve performance management systems increases their 

understanding and ownership of these systems and organizational 

goals and increases their belief in the fairness of the systems, 

including in the ability to reinforce accountability.

Table 12: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery Administration as 

of July 2013

Mission NCA honors Veterans and their families with final resting places in national shrines and 

with lasting tributes that commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.

GEAR implementation agency-wide 

or traditional pilot Pilot in one of NCA’s five networks.

Approximate number of employees 

affected by GEAR implementation

240 employees. Currently, seven mission critical occupations are covered by GEAR: (1) 

cemetery director; (2) cemetery foreman; (3) cemetery caretaker; (4) cemetery 

representative; (5) equipment operator; (6) cemetery technician; and (7) program support 

assistant. NCA will include 10 additional occupations in fiscal year 2013.

GEAR recommendation implementing 1. Reinforce NCA’s high performance culture.

2. Align employee and organizational performance management.

3. Implement accountability at all levels.

4. Create a culture of engagement.

5. Improve the assessment, selection, development and training of supervisors.
Appendix VIII: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs/ 

National Cemetery 

Administration

Page 53 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Steps taken • Developed performance plans for seven mission-critical occupations.

• Established successful and exceptional performance standards.

• Implemented three-step performance appraisal review with feedback at three annual 

meetings and attention to NCA’s goals and performance, past employee performance 

and contributions, and future performance expectations.

• Developed tools to simplify supervisor performance management and reduce 

employee work required for self assessments, and requests for training or special 

assignments.

• Designed of a monthly “scorecard” that presents NCA and division performance data 

and targets. Officials reported that this facilitates discussion about local results and 

opportunities for improvement.

• Established of a national labor forum that facilitates communication between NCA and 

union leaders.

• Delivered web-based training to supervisors and employees to improve understanding 

of critical points in the performance management process.

• Identified GEAR-specific performance standards among current ones like customer 

satisfaction metrics and employee surveys.

Steps outstanding • Revision of performance plans for 10 additional occupations to incorporate them into 

the pilot.

• Development of GEAR-based performance management training plans for both 

supervisors and employees.

• Implementation of an e-plan to export GEAR initiatives to NCA’s four remaining 

Networks.

• Development of a GEAR Rewards and Recognition Program with a guide for NCA 

supervisors and managers to reward exceptional performance.

• Assessment of NCA’s current employee orientation process, and design of 

comprehensive on-boarding program.

• Assessment of NCA’s current process for selecting new supervisors and development 

of recommendations to enhance current processes.

Metrics and oversight • Employee performance metrics.

• Employee perspectives from FEVS and VA’s internal survey.

• Perspectives gained from focus groups.

• Customer service metrics.

Source: GAO analysis of NCA information.
Appendix IX: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Office of Personnel Management

Page 54 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

OPM’s Director, as Chair of the CHCO Council and co-chair of the LMR 

Council, helped propose the idea of examining the federal government’s 

performance management accountability framework and make 

recommendations for its improvement, which resulted in the GEAR 

framework. In addition, OPM officials reported that the agency 

collaborated with and supported all pilot agencies in the initial 

development of their processes and implementation efforts. As a result of 

their role in developing the framework, OPM is implementing GEAR 

agency-wide, affecting approximately 5,800 employees, including 

employees represented by two unions. According to OPM officials, it 

made sense to implement GEAR agency-wide from the beginning. OPM 

had previously identified human capital needs, such as improving 

supervisor assessment, that had not been addressed due to limited 

resources and competing priorities. However, an official said that GEAR 

focused attention on some of these issues and provided a framework to 

move forward. Initially, OPM planned on implementing four of the five 

GEAR goals agency-wide, according to OPM officials, and did not take 

steps to implement the first goal of articulating a high-performance 

culture. However, according to OPM officials, the agency is currently 

developing a performance culture statement, in collaboration with its 

employees and elected labor representatives, which officials stated would 

meet GEAR’s first goal of articulating a high-performance culture when 

complete.

OPM officials said that they decided to focus on the assessment and 

selection of supervisors. Currently, OPM is identifying supervisory 

competencies to be balanced with technical requirements of supervisors. 

For example, an official said that OPM is expanding its use of situational 

judgment assessments, an emerging approach from the law enforcement 

and security community in which the supervisor would be assessed on his 

or her leadership qualities in addition to the ability to communicate 

effectively. In addition, OPM is implementing quarterly progress reviews 

using previously developed forms for supervisors and employees. An 

OPM official said that the simplicity of the new forms will make it easier 

for supervisors to use. For more information on steps OPM has taken to 

implement GEAR, see table 13.

OPM has identified the following benefits that may be realized as a result 

of GEAR implementation:

• employees will understand the agency mission and goals and be 

engaged in the process of achieving those goals;

Appendix IX: GEAR Implementation 

Approach for the Office of Personnel 

Management
Appendix IX: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Office of Personnel Management

Page 55 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

• employees will receive feedback on their performance at least 

quarterly;

• supervisors will be hired based on their leadership potential and 

demonstrated supervisory competencies; and

• supervisors will be held accountable for practicing good performance 

management.

Table 13: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Office of Personnel Management as of July 2013

Mission Recruit, retain, and honor a world-class workforce to serve the American people.

GEAR implementation agency-wide or 

traditional pilot

Agency-wide.

Approximate number of employees affected 

by GEAR implementation

5,800 employees.

GEAR recommendation implementing 1. Articulate a high performance culture.

2. Align employee and organizational performance management.

3. Implement accountability at all levels.

4. Create a culture of engagement.

5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development and training.

Steps taken • Established quarterly progress reviews to reinforce performance management 

as a year-round priority.

• Created new performance management form.

• Standardized supervisory commitment language.

• Conducted mandatory training for all supervisors and executives.

• Made other courses made available.

• Periodically highlighted GEAR in weekly publications.

• Conducted supervisor assessment and selection.

• Gathered supervisor views on competencies and weighting through survey and 

focus groups.

• Designed occupational questionnaire and structured interview questions for 

supervisor applicants.

• Implemented mandatory use of supervisor assessment questionnaire.

• Collaborated with DOE on Five Conversations training (which provides 

information to supervisors on how to have difficult conversations with 

employees).

• Revamped OPM supervisory training curriculum.

Steps outstanding • Design enhanced online situational test (target September 2013).
Appendix IX: GEAR 

Implementation Approach for the 

Office of Personnel Management

Page 56 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Metrics and oversight • Extent to which agency goals are met.

• 5% increase in Results-Oriented Culture and Employee Engagement indexes by 

September 2013.

• Score of 80 or higher on Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool.

• 100% target for timely progress review completion (using FEVS item).

• Employee, manager, and supervisor compliance with training requirements.

Source: GAO analysis of OPM information.
Appendix X: GAO Contact and 

Staff Acknowledgements

Page 57 GAO-13-755 Performance Management 

Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-6806 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Tom Gilbert, Assistant Director; 

Dewi Djunaidy; Karin Fangman; Robert Gebhart; Erik Kjeldgaard; and 

Cindy Saunders made key contributions to this report.

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(451023)
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.