INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Departments of 

Defense and Energy 

Need to Address 

Potentially 

Duplicative 

Investments

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2012

GAO-12-241

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-241, a report to 

congressional requesters

February 2012

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Departments of Defense and Energy Need to

Address Potentially Duplicative Investments

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government spends 

billions of dollars on information 

technology (IT) each year, with such 

investments accounting for at least $79 

billion in fiscal year 2011. Given the 

size of these investments, it is 

important that federal agencies avoid 

duplicative investments when possible 

to ensure the most efficient use of 

resources. GAO has previously 

reported on initiatives under way to 

address potentially duplicative IT 

investments—i.e., investments 

providing similar functions across the 

government. GAO was asked to review 

the extent to which potentially 

duplicative IT investments exist within 

three categories at selected agencies 

(the Departments of Defense (DOD), 

Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security

(DHS)) and actions these agencies are 

taking to address them. To accomplish

this, GAO analyzed budget data on 

agency IT investments, reviewed 

agency information related to efforts to 

address duplication, and interviewed 

agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD and DOE

report on the progress of efforts to 

identify and eliminate duplication, 

where appropriate. GAO is also 

recommending that DOD, DOE, and 

DHS correct misclassifications of 

investments. DOD and DHS agreed 

with the recommendations. DOE 

generally agreed with the first 

recommendation, but disagreed with 

parts of the second recommendation

regarding the number of misclassified 

investments. However, GAO believes 

the number is accurate.

What GAO Found

Although the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) use various 

investment review processes to identify duplicative investments, GAO found that 

37 of its sample of 810 investments were potentially duplicative (see table).

These investments account for about $1.2 billion in total information technology 

(IT) spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. For example, GAO identified 

four DOD Navy personnel assignment investments—one system for officers, one 

for enlisted personnel, one for reservists, and a general assignment system—

each of which is responsible for managing similar functions. While GAO did not 

identify any potentially duplicative investments at the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) within its sample, DHS officials have independently identified 

several duplicative investments and systems. 

Potentially Duplicative Investments

Department Purpose Number of 

investments

Planned and actual 

expenditures ($ in millions)

DOD Acquisition Management 4 $407

Aviation Maintenance and Logistics 2 $85

Civilian Personnel Management 2 $504

Contract Management 10 $58

Housing Management 2 $5

Personnel Assignment Management 6 $40

Promotion Rating 2 $3

Workforce Management 3 $109

DOE Back-end Infrastructure 3 $1

Electronic Records and Document 

Management

3 $7

Total 37 $1,219

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data.

DOD and DOE officials offered a variety of reasons for the potential duplication, 

such as decentralized governance and a lack of control over certain facilities. 

Further complicating agencies’ ability to identify and eliminate duplicative 

investments is that investments are, in certain cases, misclassified by function.

Until agencies correctly categorize their investments, they cannot be confident 

that their investments are not duplicative. 

DHS has taken action to improve its processes for identifying and eliminating 

duplicative investments. For example, through reviewing portfolios of IT 

investments, DHS has identified much, and eliminated some, duplicative 

functionality in certain investments. Additionally, DOD and DOE have recently 

initiated plans to address potential duplication in many of the investments GAO 

identified, which include consolidating or eliminating systems. While these efforts

may eventually yield results, they have not yet led to the elimination of 

duplication. For example, while DOD and DOE have specific plans to improve 

their IT investment review processes, officials did not provide examples of 

duplicative investments that had been consolidated or eliminated. Until DOD and 

DOE demonstrate progress on these efforts, the agencies will be unable to 

provide assurance that they are avoiding investment in unnecessary systems. View GAO-12-241. For more information, 

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

pownerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Letter 1 

Background 3

Selected Agencies Have Potentially Duplicative Investments; DOD 

and DOE Need to Do More to Address Them 16

Conclusions 23

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 30

Appendix II Further Information on Potentially Duplicative Investments 33

Appendix III Miscategorized Investments 38

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 43

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Energy 45

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 49

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Tables

Table 1: FEA Primary Functions for Investments, for Fiscal Year 

2012 Budget Submissions 11

Table 2: Examples of FEA Primary Functions and Corresponding 

Sub-Functions 13

Table 3: Potentially Duplicative Investments 18

Table 4: DHS Investments Consolidated or Eliminated to Reduce 

Duplicative Functionality 20

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 5: Unaddressed Potentially Duplicative DOD Investments 22

Table 6: Agency Plans to Address Potentially Duplicative 

Investments 22

Table 7: FEA Primary Functions and Sub-Functions Used to Select 

IT Investments 30

Table 8: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOD 33

Table 9: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOE 37

Table 10: Miscategorized Air Force Investments at DOD 38

Table 11: Miscategorized Army Investments at DOD 38

Table 12: Miscategorized Navy Investments at DOD 39

Table 13: Miscategorized Enterprisewide Investments at DOD 40

Table 14: Miscategorized Investments at DOE 41

Table 15: Miscategorized Investments at DHS 42

Figures

Figure 1: Breakdown of Number of Federal IT Investments for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (as of July 2011) 6

Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on 

the Dashboard, as of August 2011 9

Figure 3: Number of Government IT Investments by Primary 

Function, as of July 2011 12
Page iii GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture

IT information technology

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

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-12-241 Information Technology Investments

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 17, 2012

Congressional Requesters

The United States government spends billions of taxpayer dollars on 

information technology (IT) investments each year, with such investments 

accounting for at least $79 billion in fiscal year 2011.1

Last year, we issued a comprehensive report that identified federal

programs or functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or 

fragmentation exists; the actions needed to address such conditions; and 

the potential financial and other benefits of doing so.

Given the size of 

these investments, it is important that federal agencies avoid investing in 

duplicative investments, whenever possible, to ensure the most efficient 

use of resources.

2 More recently, we 

reported on the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) and federal 

agencies’ oversight of IT investments and the initiatives under way to 

address potentially duplicative IT investments.3

At your request, this report provides the results of our review to identify 

the extent to which potentially duplicative IT investments exist within 

these three categories.

Specifically, we recently 

reported that there are hundreds of IT investments providing similar 

functions across the federal government. For example, agencies reported 

about 1,500 investments that perform general information and technology 

functions, about 775 supply chain management investments, and about 

620 human resource management investments.

4

 

1

As we previously reported, this amount does not include the IT investments of 58 

independent executive branch agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, or of 

the legislative or judicial branches. See GAO, Information Technology: OMB Needs to 

Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments, 

Specifically, you asked us to identify potentially 

duplicative IT investments at selected agencies and the actions these 

GAO-11-826 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 

2011).

2

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).

3

GAO-11-826. 

4

For the purposes of our analysis, we considered “duplication” to occur when two or more 

agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to 

the same beneficiaries. 

 
Page 2 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

agencies are taking to address them. We selected for review three of the 

largest agencies with respect to number of investments–the Departments 

of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS).

To identify potentially duplicative IT investments within each of the 

selected agencies, we analyzed a subset of investment data from OMB’s 

exhibit 53 to identify investments with similar functionality.5 Specifically, 

we reviewed 810, or 11 percent, of the approximately 7,200 IT 

investments federal agencies report to OMB through the exhibit 53. Our 

review represents approximately 24 percent of DOD’s IT portfolio in terms 

of the number of investments that they report to OMB, 19 percent of 

DOE’s, and 16 percent of DHS’s. We then reviewed the name and 

narrative description of each investment’s purpose to identify similarities 

among related investments within each agency (we did not review 

investments across agencies).6 This formed the basis of establishing 

groupings of similar investments. We discussed the groupings with each 

of the selected agencies, and we obtained further information from 

agency officials and reviewed and assessed agencies’ rationales for 

having multiple systems that perform similar functions. Additionally, when 

analyzing each investment’s description, we compared the investment’s 

designated Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)7

 

5

The exhibit 53 identifies all IT projects—both major and non-major—and their associated 

costs within a federal organization. Information included on agency exhibit 53s is 

designed, in part, to help OMB better understand what agencies are spending on IT 

investments.

primary category and 

sub-category with OMB’s definitions for each FEA primary category and 

sub-category and determined whether the investment was placed in the 

correct FEA category. We obtained additional information from agency 

officials about these discrepancies. We also interviewed officials to 

discuss actions agencies have taken to address the potentially duplicative 

investments and reviewed supporting documentation.

6

Certain investments were not placed in groups because the investment descriptions were 

too broad. Additionally, IT investments identified as Funding Contributions were not 

included, since they are managed by other agencies.

7

The FEA is intended to provide federal agencies and other decision-makers with a 

common frame of reference or taxonomy for informing agencies’ individual enterprise 

architecture efforts and their planned and ongoing investment activities, and to do so in a 

way that identifies opportunities for avoiding duplication of effort and launching initiatives 

to establish and implement common, reusable, and interoperable solutions across agency 

boundaries.
Page 3 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 2012 

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 objective. See appendix I for a complete 

description of our objective, scope, and methodology.

Information technology should enable government to better serve the 

American people. However, according to OMB, despite spending more 

than $600 billion on IT over the past decade, the federal government has 

achieved little of the productivity improvements that private industry has 

realized from IT.8 Too often, federal IT projects run over budget, behind 

schedule, or fail to deliver promised functionality. In combating this 

problem, proper oversight is critical. Both OMB and federal agencies have 

key roles and responsibilities for overseeing IT investment management. 

OMB is responsible for working with agencies to ensure investments are 

appropriately planned and justified. Additionally, each year, OMB and 

federal agencies work together to determine how much the government 

plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds are to be allocated.

Congress enacted several laws to assist the federal government in better 

managing IT investments. The three key laws are the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995,9 the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,10 and the 

E-Government Act of 2002:11

• The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 specified OMB and agency 

responsibilities for managing information resources, including the 

management of IT. Among its provisions, this law established agency 

responsibility for assessing and managing the risks of major 

 

8

OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management (Washington, D.C.: December 2010). 

9

44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.

1040 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq.

11Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

Background 

Required Roles and 

Responsibilities for IT 

Investment Oversight
Page 4 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

information systems initiatives.12

• The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 placed responsibility for managing 

investments with the heads of agencies and established chief 

information officers (CIO) to advise and assist agency heads in 

carrying out this responsibility. Additionally, this law required OMB to 

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

results of major capital investments in information systems made by 

federal agencies and report to Congress on the net program 

performance benefits achieved as a result of these investments.

It also required that OMB develop 

and oversee policies, principles, standards, and guidelines for federal 

agency IT functions, including periodic evaluations of major 

information systems.

• The E-Government Act of 2002 established a federal e-government 

initiative, which encouraged the use of web-based Internet 

applications to enhance the access to and delivery of government 

information and service to citizens, to business partners, to 

employees, and among agencies at all levels of government. The act 

also required OMB to report annually to Congress on the status of egovernment initiatives. In these reports, OMB is to describe the 

administration’s use of e-government principles to improve 

government performance and the delivery of information and services 

to the public. 

OMB uses the following mechanisms to help it fulfill its required oversight 

responsibilities of federal IT spending during the annual budget 

formulation process.

 

12According to OMB guidance, a major investment is a system or acquisition requiring 

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

agency, a component of the agency, or another organization; is for financial management 

and obligates more than $500,000 annually; has significant program or policy implications; 

has high executive visibility; has high development, operating, or maintenance costs; is 

funded through other than direct appropriations; or is defined as major by the agency’s 

capital planning and investment control process.

OMB’s IT Oversight 

Mechanisms
Page 5 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

• OMB requires 27 federal departments and agencies13 to provide 

information related to their IT investments, including agency IT 

investment portfolios (called exhibit 53s) and capital asset plans and 

business cases (called exhibit 300s).14

• In June 2009, OMB publicly deployed the IT Dashboard, which is 

intended to display near real-time information on the cost, schedule, 

and performance of all major IT investments. For each major 

investment, the Dashboard provides performance ratings on cost and 

schedule, a CIO evaluation, and an overall rating. The CIO evaluation

is based on his or her evaluation of the performance of each 

investment and takes into consideration multiple variables. This 

evaluation is to be updated when new information becomes available 

that would affect the assessment of a given investment. The CIO also 

has the ability to provide written comments regarding the status of 

each investment. The Dashboard replaced OMB’s Management 

Watch List and High-Risk List, which were previously used to highlight 

poorly planned or poorly performing investments on a quarterly basis. 

As of August 2011, the Dashboard displayed information on the cost, 

schedule, and performance of 797 major federal IT investments at 27 

federal agencies.

According to OMB, the public display of investment data on the IT 

Dashboard is intended to allow OMB, other oversight bodies, and the 

general public to hold government agencies accountable for results and 

progress. In addition, the Dashboard allows users to download exhibit 53 

data, which provide details on the more than 7,200 federal IT investments 

(totaling $78.8 billion in planned spending for fiscal year 2011). Figure 1 

shows the number of IT investments and planned spending by federal 

agency.

 

13The 27 agencies are the Agency for International Development; the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Army Corps of Engineers; the 

Environmental Protection Agency; the General Services Administration; the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Archives and Records Administration; 

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

Personnel Management; the Small Business Administration; the Smithsonian Institution; 

and the Social Security Administration.

14The exhibit 300s provide a business case for each major IT investment and allow OMB 

to monitor IT investments once they are funded. Agencies are required to provide 

information on each major investment’s cost, schedule, and performance. 
Page 6 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Figure 1: Breakdown of Number of Federal IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011 (as 

of July 2011)

As we have previously reported, while the IT Dashboard provides IT 

investment information for 27 federal agencies, it does not include any 

information about 61 other agencies’ investments.15

 

15

Specifically, it does 

not include information from 58 independent executive branch agencies 

GAO-11-826. 
Page 7 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

(such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Central 

Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Communications Commission) and 

3 other agencies (such as the Legal Services Corporation). It also does 

not include information from the legislative or judicial branch agencies. 

Accordingly, we recommended that OMB specify which executive branch 

agencies are included when discussing the annual federal IT investment 

portfolio. OMB disagreed with this recommendation, stating that the 

agencies included in the federal IT portfolio are already identified in OMB 

guidance and on the IT Dashboard. However, we maintained that the 

recommendation had not been fully addressed because OMB officials 

frequently refer to the federal IT portfolio without clarifying that it does not 

include all agencies.

Despite required roles and responsibilities and OMB’s oversight 

mechanisms, the federal government spends billions of dollars on poorly 

performing IT investments, as the following examples illustrate:

• In April 2008, due to problems identified during testing and cost 

overruns and schedule slippages, the Secretary of Commerce 

announced a redesign of the 2010 Census, resulting in a $205 million 

increase in life-cycle costs.

• In February 2010, the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources 

System was canceled after 10 years of development and 

approximately $850 million spent, due, in part, to a lack of strategic 

alignment, governance, and requirements management, as well as

the overall size and scope of the effort.16

• In July 2010, OMB directed the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) to halt development of its Electronic Records 

Archive system at the end of fiscal year 2011 (1 year earlier than 

planned). OMB cited concerns about the system’s cost, schedule, and

 

16Advance Policy Questions for Testimony of Elizabeth A. McGrath to be Deputy Chief 

Management Officer of the Department of Defense, http://armedservices.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/McGrath%2003-23-10.pdf (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2010).

Agencies Spend Billions on 

Poorly Performing IT 

Investments 
Page 8 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

performance and directed NARA to better define system functionality 

and improve strategic planning. Through fiscal year 2010, NARA had

spent about $375 million on the system.

• In January 2011, the Secretary of Homeland Security ended the 

Secure Border Initiative Network program after spending about $1.5 

billion because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability 

standards.17

• In February 2011, the Office of Personnel Management canceled its 

Retirement Systems Modernization program, after several years of 

trying to improve the implementation of this investment.18

• In March 2011, we reported that while DOD’s Navy Next Generation 

Enterprise Network investment’s first increment is estimated to cost 

$50 billion, the program was not well positioned to meet its cost and 

schedule estimates.

According to 

the Office of Personnel Management, it spent approximately $231 

million on this investment.

19

Additionally, as of August 2011, according to the IT Dashboard, 261 of 

the federal government’s approximately 800 major IT investments—

totaling almost $18 billion—are in need of management attention (rated 

As such, we recommended DOD limit further 

investment until it conducts an interim review to reconsider the 

selected acquisition approach and addresses its investment 

management issues. DOD stated that it did not concur with the 

recommendation to reconsider its acquisition approach, but we 

maintain that without doing so, DOD cannot be sure it is pursuing the 

most cost-effective approach.

 

17GAO, Border Security: Preliminary Observations on the Status of Key Southwest Border 

Technology Programs, GAO-11-448T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011).

18GAO, OPM Retirement Modernization: Longstanding Information Technology 

Management Weaknesses Need to Be Addressed, GAO-12-226T (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 15, 2011).

19GAO, Information Technology: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on Navy’s Next 

Generation Enterprise Network Acquisition, GAO-11-150 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 

2011).
Page 9 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

“yellow” to indicate the need for attention or “red” to indicate significant 

concerns).20

Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the Dashboard, 

as of August 2011

(See fig. 2.)

In recognizing that wasteful spending continues to plague IT investment 

management, OMB has recently implemented additional efforts to 

address this problem. These efforts include the following:

• TechStat reviews. In January 2010, the Federal CIO began leading 

reviews—known as “TechStat” sessions—of selected IT investments 

involving OMB and agency leadership to increase accountability and 

transparency and improve performance. OMB officials stated that, as 

 

20The approximately 800 major IT investments total about $40.6 billion for fiscal year 

2011.
Page 10 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

of December 2010, 58 sessions had been held and resulted in 

improvements to or termination of IT investments with performance 

problems. For example, the June 2010 TechStat session for NARA’s 

Electronic Records Archive investment (mentioned above) resulted in 

the halting of development funding pending the completion of a 

strategic plan. In addition, OMB has identified 26 additional 

high-priority IT projects and plans to develop corrective action plans 

with agencies at future TechStat sessions. According to the former 

Federal CIO, OMB’s efforts to improve management and oversight of 

IT investments have resulted in $3 billion in savings.

• IT reform. In December 2010, the Federal CIO issued a 25 Point 

Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management. This 18-month plan specified five major goals: 

strengthening program management, streamlining governance and 

improving accountability, increasing engagement with industry, 

aligning the acquisition and budget processes with the technology 

cycle, and applying “light technology” and shared solutions. As part of 

this plan, OMB outlined actions to, among other things, strengthen 

agencies’ investment review boards and consolidate federal data 

centers. The plan stated that OMB will work with Congress to 

consolidate commodity IT spending (e.g., e-mail, data centers, 

content management systems, and web infrastructure) under agency 

CIOs. Further, the plan called for the role of federal agency CIOs to 

focus more on IT portfolio management.

In addition to these efforts to improve government spending on IT, 

avoiding unnecessary duplicative investments is critically important. In 

February 2002, OMB established the FEA initiative. According to OMB, 

the FEA is intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement through 

cross-agency analysis and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, 

and opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within 

and across agency programs. The FEA is composed of five “reference 

models” describing the federal government’s (1) business (or mission) 

processes and functions, independent of the agencies that perform them; 

(2) performance goals and outcome measures; (3) means of service 

delivery; (4) information and data definitions; and (5) technology 

standards. Since the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, OMB has required 

agencies to categorize their IT investments in their annual exhibit 53s 

according to primary function and sub-function as identified in the FEA 

reference models. For fiscal year 2012 submissions, agencies chose from 

the primary functions listed in table 1.

Categorization of IT 

Investments Is Intended to 

Facilitate Identification of 

Similar IT Investments
Page 11 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 1: FEA Primary Functions for Investments, for Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 

Submissions

Administrative Management

Community and Social Services

Controls and Oversight

Correctional Activities

Defense and National Security

Disaster Management

Economic Development

Education

Energy

Environmental Management

Financial Management

General Government

General Science and Innovation

Health

Homeland Security

Human Resource Management

Income Security

Information and Technology Management

Intelligence Operations

Internal Risk Management and Mitigation

International Affairs and Commerce

Law Enforcement

Legislative Relations

Litigation and Judicial Activities

Natural Resources

Planning and Budgeting

Public Affairs

Regulatory Development

Revenue Collection

Supply Chain Management

Transportation

Workforce Management

Source: OMB.

In their fiscal year 2011 submissions, agencies reported the greatest 

number of IT investments in Information and Technology Management 

(1,536 investments), followed by Supply Chain Management (777 

investments), and Human Resource Management (622 investments). 

Similarly, planned expenditures on investments were greatest in 

Information and Technology Management, at about $35.5 billion. Figure 3 

depicts, by primary function, the total number of investments within the 27 

federal agencies that report to the IT Dashboard. 
Page 12 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Figure 3: Number of Government IT Investments by Primary Function, as of July 2011 

Additionally, agencies were required to choose a sub-function for each 

investment related to the primary function. These sub-functions are to be 

selected from the business reference model. Table 2 provides examples 

of primary functions and their corresponding sub-functions.
Page 13 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 2: Examples of FEA Primary Functions and Corresponding Sub-Functions

Primary function Sub-functions

Information and Technology 

Management

System Development

Lifecycle/Change Management

System Maintenance

IT Infrastructure Maintenance

Information Security

Record Retention

Information Management

Information Sharing

System and Network Monitoring

Supply Chain Management Goods Acquisition

Inventory Control

Logistics Management

Services Acquisition

Human Resource Management HR Strategy

Staff Acquisition

Organization and Position Management

Compensation Management

Benefits Management

Employee Performance Management

Employee Relations

Labor Relations

Separation Management

Human Resources Development

Source: FEA Consolidated Reference Model.
Page 14 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

During the past several years, we have issued multiple reports and 

testimonies and made numerous recommendations to OMB and federal 

agencies to identify and reduce duplication within the federal 

government’s portfolio of IT investments.21

In March 2011, we reported an overview of federal programs and 

functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or 

fragmentation existed.22

We reported that overlap and fragmentation among government 

programs or activities could be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. 

Thus, the reduction or elimination of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation 

could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually and help agencies 

provide more efficient and effective services. For example, we reported 

that, according to OMB, the number of federal data centers (defined as 

Specifically, we identified 34 areas where 

agencies, offices, or initiatives had similar or overlapping objectives or 

provided similar services to the same populations, or where government 

missions were fragmented across multiple agencies or programs. These 

areas spanned a range of government missions: agriculture, defense, 

economic development, energy, general government, health, homeland 

security, international affairs, and social services. Within and across these 

missions, the report touched on hundreds of federal programs, including 

IT programs, affecting virtually all major federal departments and 

agencies.

 

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

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

GAO-11-826; Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, 

but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, 

GAO-11-262 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); Information Technology: OMB’s 

Dashboard Has Increased Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, 

GAO-10-701 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2010); Information Technology: Management 

and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention, GAO-09-624T

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2009); Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to 

Improve Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars, 

GAO-08-1051T (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008); Information Technology: Further 

Improvements Needed to Identify and Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects, 

GAO-07-1211T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2007); Information Technology: 

Improvements Needed to More Accurately Identify and Better Oversee Risky Projects 

Totaling Billions of Dollars, GAO-06-1099T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006); Information 

Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and 

Overseeing High Risk Projects, GAO-06-647 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006).

22GAO-11-318SP. 

GAO Has Previously 

Reported on Potential 

Duplication and the 

Challenges of Identifying 

Duplicative Investments
Page 15 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

data processing and storage facilities) grew from 432 in 1998 to more 

than 2,000 in 2010. These data centers often house similar types of 

equipment and provide similar processing and storage capabilities. These 

factors have led to concerns associated with the provision of redundant 

capabilities, the underutilization of resources, and the significant 

consumption of energy. Operating such a large number of centers places 

costly demands on the government. In an effort to address these 

inefficiencies, in February 2010, OMB launched the Federal Data Center 

Consolidation Initiative to guide federal agencies in consolidating data 

centers. Specifically, OMB and agencies plan to close over 950 of the 

more than 2,100 federal data centers by 2015. As of November 2011, 

agencies reported that a total of 149 data centers have been closed 

across the federal government. For example, 16 DOD data centers, 3 

DOE centers, and 7 DHS centers have been closed.

In September 2011, we reported that limitations in OMB’s guidance 

hindered efforts to identify IT duplication.23

We also reported that results of OMB initiatives to identify potentially 

duplicative investments were mixed and that several federal agencies did 

not routinely assess their entire IT portfolios to identify and remove or 

consolidate duplicative systems. Specifically, we said that most of OMB’s 

recent initiatives have not yet demonstrated results, and several agencies 

did not routinely assess legacy systems to determine if they are 

Specifically, OMB guidance 

stated that each IT investment needs to be mapped to a single functional 

category within the FEA to allow for the identification and analysis of 

potentially duplicative investments across agencies. We noted that this 

limits OMB’s ability to identify potentially duplicative investments both 

within and across agencies because similar investments may be 

organized under different functions. Accordingly, we recommended that 

OMB revise guidance to federal agencies on categorizing IT investments 

to ensure that the categorizations are clear and that it allow agencies to 

choose secondary categories, where applicable, which will aid in 

identifying potentially duplicative investments. OMB officials generally 

agreed with this recommendation and stated that they plan to update the 

FEA reference models in the fall of 2011 to provide additional clarity on 

how agencies should characterize investments in order to enhance the 

identification of potentially duplicative investments.

 

23GAO-11-826. 
Page 16 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

duplicative. As a result, we recommended that OMB require federal 

agencies to report the steps they take to ensure that their IT investments 

are not duplicative as part of their annual budget and IT investment 

submissions. OMB generally agreed with this recommendation.

Although the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security 

utilize various processes to prevent and reduce investment in duplicative 

programs and systems, potentially duplicative IT investments exist. 

Further complicating agencies’ ability to identify and address duplicative 

investments is miscategorization of investments within agencies. Each of 

the agencies has recently initiated plans to address many of these 

investments. DHS’s efforts have resulted in the identification and 

elimination of duplication, but DOD’s and DOE’s initiatives have not yet 

led to the elimination or consolidation of duplicative investments or 

functionality. Until DOD and DOE demonstrate progress on their efforts to 

identify and eliminate duplicative investments, and correctly categorize 

investments, it will remain unclear whether they are avoiding investment 

in unnecessary systems.

Each of the agencies we reviewed has IT investment management 

processes in place that are, in part, intended to prevent, identify, and 

eliminate unnecessary duplicative investments. For example, DOD’s 

Information Technology Portfolio Management Implementation guide 

requires the evaluation of existing systems to identify duplication and 

determine whether to maintain, upgrade, delete, or replace identified 

systems. Similarly, DOE’s Guide to IT Capital Planning and Investment 

Control specifies that investment business case summaries should be 

reviewed for redundancies and opportunities for collaboration. 

Additionally, according to DHS’s Capital Planning and Investment Control 

Guide, proposed investments must be reviewed at the department level to 

determine if the proposed need is, among other things, being fulfilled by 

another DHS program, or already fulfilled by an existing capability.

Selected Agencies 

Have Potentially 

Duplicative 

Investments; DOD 

and DOE Need to Do 

More to Address 

Them 

Potentially Duplicative IT 

Investments Exist at 

Selected Agencies
Page 17 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Even with such investment review processes, of the 810 investments we 

reviewed,24 we identified 37 potentially duplicative investments at DOD 

and DOE within three FEA categories (Human Resource Management, 

Information and Technology Management, and Supply Chain 

Management).25

• 31 potentially duplicative investments totaling approximately $1.2 

billion at DOD, and

These investments account for about $1.2 billion in total 

IT spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. Specifically, we identified

• 6 potentially duplicative investments totaling approximately $8 million 

at DOE.

The 37 investments comprise 12 groups of investments that appear to 

have duplicative purposes based on our analysis of each investment’s 

description, budget information, and other supporting documentation from 

agency officials (see table 3). For example, we identified three 

investments at DOE that were each responsible for managing the backend infrastructure at three different locations. We also identified four DOD 

Navy personnel assignment investments—one system for officers, one for 

enlisted personnel, one for reservists, and a general assignment 

system—each of which is responsible for managing similar assignment 

functions. Additionally, the Air Force has five investments that are each 

responsible for contract management, and within the Navy there are 

another five contract management investments. Table 3 summarizes the 

12 groups of potentially duplicative investments we identified by purpose 

and agency. (See app. II for details on each of the 37 potentially 

duplicative investments.)

 

24We reviewed 11 percent of the total number of IT investments that agencies report to 

OMB through the IT Dashboard (810 of 7,227). The investments we reviewed represent 

approximately 24 percent of DOD’s IT portfolio in terms of the number of investments 

reported to the Dashboard, 19 percent of DOE’s, and 16 percent of DHS’s. See appendix I 

for a complete description of our objective, scope, and methodology.

25Within the three selected functions, we narrowed our review to the following seven subfunctions: Benefits Management, Organization and Position Management, Employee 

Performance Management, Information Management, Information Security, Inventory 

Control, and Goods Acquisition.
Page 18 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 3: Potentially Duplicative Investments 

Dollars in millions

Department Branch or bureau Purpose

Number of 

investments

Planned and

actual spending 

fiscal years 2007-

2012

DOD Air Force Contract Management 5 $41

Army Personnel Assignment Management 2 $12

Navy Acquisition Management 4 $407

Aviation Maintenance and Logistics 2 $85

Contract Management 5 $17

Housing Management 2 $5

Personnel Assignment Management 4 $28

Promotion Rating 2 $3

Workforce Management 3 $109

DOD Enterprisewide Civilian Personnel Management 2 $504

DOE Energy Programs Back-end Infrastructure 3 $1

Energy Programs & Environmental 

and Other Defense Activities

Electronic Records and Document 

Management

3 $7

Total 37 $1,219

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data.

We did not identify any potentially duplicative investments at DHS within 

our sample; however, DHS has independently identified several 

duplicative investments and systems. Specifically, DHS officials have 

identified and, more importantly, reduced duplicative functionality in four 

investments by consolidating or eliminating certain systems within each of 

these investments. DHS officials have also identified 38 additional 

systems that they have determined to be duplicative. For example, 

officials identified multiple personnel action processing systems that could 

be consolidated.

Officials from the three agencies reported that duplicative investments 

exist for a number of reasons, including decentralized governance within 

the departments and a lack of control over contractor facilities. For 

example, DOE investments for the management of back-end 

infrastructure are for facilities which DOE oversees but does not control. 

In addition, DOD officials indicated that a key reason for potential 

duplication at the Department of the Navy is that it had traditionally used a 

decentralized IT management approach, which allowed offices to develop 

systems independent of any other office’s IT needs or acquisitions.
Page 19 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Further complicating the agencies’ ability to prevent investment in 

duplicative systems or programs is the miscategorization of investments. 

Among the 810 investments we reviewed, we identified 22 investments 

where the selected agencies assigned incorrect FEA primary functions or 

sub-functions.26

• DOD’s Computer Aided Procurement System was initially categorized 

within the Information and Technology Management primary function, 

but DOD agreed that this investment should be classified within the 

Supply Chain Management primary function.

Specifically, we identified 13 miscategorized investments 

at DOD, 4 at DOE, and 5 at DHS. Examples are as follows:

• DOE’s Environmental Management Headquarters Central Internet 

Database was initially categorized within the Information and 

Technology Management primary function, but DOE agreed that this 

investment could be assigned the Environmental Management 

primary function and the Environmental Monitoring and Forecasting 

sub-function.

• DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency—Minor 

Personnel/Training Systems investment was initially categorized 

within the Employee Performance Management sub-function, but 

DHS agreed that this investment should be assigned to the Human 

Resources Development sub-function.

Agency officials agreed that they had inadvertently miscategorized 15 of 

the 22 investments we identified. However, proper categorization is 

necessary in order to analyze and identify duplicative investments, both 

within and across agencies. Each improper categorization represents a 

possible missed opportunity to identify and eliminate an unjustified 

duplicative investment. Until agencies correctly categorize their 

investments, they cannot be confident that their investments are not 

duplicative and are justified, and they may continue expending valuable 

resources developing and maintaining unnecessarily duplicative systems.

 

26See appendix III for a complete listing of these investments. 
Page 20 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

DHS has taken action to improve its processes for identifying and 

eliminating duplicative investments, which has produced tangible results. 

Specifically, in 2010 and 2011, the DHS CIO conducted program and 

portfolio reviews of hundreds of IT investments and systems. DHS 

evaluated portfolios of investments within its components to avoid 

investing in systems that are duplicative or overlapping, and to identify 

and leverage investments across the department. Among other things, 

this effort contributed to the identification and consolidation of duplicative 

functionality within four investments. DHS also has plans to further 

consolidate systems within these investments by 2014, which is expected 

to produce approximately $41 million in cost savings. The portfolio 

reviews also contributed to the identification of 38 additional systems that 

are duplicative. Additionally, the DHS CIO and Chief Human Capital 

Officer are coordinating to streamline and consolidate the department’s 

human resources investments. A summary of the investments for which 

DHS eliminated duplicative functionality and systems is provided in table 

4 below.

Table 4: DHS Investments Consolidated or Eliminated to Reduce Duplicative Functionality

Investment title Action

Cost savings 

estimate

DHS—Integrated Security 

Management System

Consolidated six personnel security-related systems into DHS’s 

enterprisewide security suitability system.a 

$2 million annually

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency—Time And Attendance 

Collection and Reporting 

Eliminated this investment and now provides time and attendance 

functionality through DHS’s enterprisewide time and attendance system.

$284,000 over 2 years

Homeland Security Information 

Network

Consolidated two DHS components’ portals (e.g., the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s Fire Services Portal) into the Homeland Security 

Information Network.b

$1 million over 5 years

Human Resources Information 

Technology

Consolidated five time and attendance systems into DHS’s 

enterprisewide time and attendance system, as well as the Department 

of Agriculture’s National Finance Center system.

Not available

Source: DHS.

a

DHS reported that another personnel security-related system is scheduled to be consolidated into 

this investment during fiscal year 2012.

b

DHS reported that an additional 12 portals will be consolidated into this investment before 2014. 

DHS officials estimate that these efforts will result in another approximately $41 million in savings.

DOD has begun taking action to address 29 of the 31 duplicative 

investments we identified. For example, according to DOD officials, four 

of the DOD Navy acquisition management investments—two for Naval 

Sea Systems Command and two for Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Agencies Have Recently 

Initiated Plans to Address 

Potential Duplication in 

Many Investments, but 

Results Have Yet to Be 

Realized at DOD and DOE
Page 21 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Command—will be reviewed to determine whether these multiple support 

systems are necessary. In addition, DOD reported that the Air Force is in 

the process of developing a single contract writing system to replace the 

five potentially duplicative investments we have identified. Moreover, the 

Department of the Navy has implemented an executive oversight board 

that is chaired by the Navy CIO, and it is now the Navy’s single senior 

information management and technology policy and governance forum. 

The Department of the Navy also required all IT expenditures greater 

than $100,000 to be centrally reviewed and approved by the Navy CIO to 

ensure that they are not duplicative.27

Similarly, DOE has plans under way to address each of the 6 investments 

we identified as potentially duplicative. Specifically, DOE officials 

established working groups that are addressing the two groups of 

duplicative investments we identified. These working groups are to 

address records management and back-end infrastructure, and are 

looking across the department to minimize redundancy in each of these 

areas. In addition, the CIO stated that DOE has developed a 

departmental strategy for electronic records management whereby a 

small number of approved records management applications will be 

identified for departmentwide use. Moreover, in a broader effort to reduce 

duplication across the department, in September and October 2011, DOE 

held technical strategic reviews, known as “TechStrat” sessions, which 

are aimed at exploring opportunities to consolidate DOE’s commodity IT 

services, such as e-mail and help desk support, among the various DOE 

offices. The first two sessions provided opportunities for DOE bureaus to 

identify and share lessons learned, and established action items to 

improve DOE’s IT investment portfolio.

Officials reported that these 

initiatives will include the review of Navy’s 22 potentially duplicative 

investments that we identified. 

While these efforts could eventually yield results, DOD’s and DOE’s 

initiatives have not yet led to the consolidation or elimination of 

duplication. For example, while DOD provided us with documented 

milestones—several of which have passed—for improving the 

Department of the Navy’s IT investment review processes, officials did 

 

27Under Secretary of the Navy’s memo of December 3, 2010, “Department of the Navy 

Information Technology (IT)/Cyberspace Efficiency Initiatives and Realignment” and 

September 19, 2011, “Department of the Navy Secretariat Information Technology 

Expenditure Approval Authority (lTEAA).” 
Page 22 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

not provide us with any examples of duplicative investments that they had 

consolidated or eliminated. Similarly, while DOE officials have 

documented time frames for consolidating DOE’s commodity IT services, 

electronic records management investments, and identity management 

investments, officials were unable to demonstrate that they have 

consolidated or eliminated unjustified duplicative investments.

Additionally, DOD does not have plans under way to address the 

remaining 2 of the 31 potentially duplicative investments. DOD officials 

stated that they do not have plans to address these investments because 

they do not agree that they are potentially duplicative. However, agency 

officials were unable to demonstrate that investing in these systems and 

programs was justified. Table 5 provides more information on the 

unaddressed potentially duplicative investments at DOD.

Table 5: Unaddressed Potentially Duplicative DOD Investments

Dollars in millions

Similar 

purpose Branch

Investment 

title Description

Total IT spending 

for fiscal years 

2007-2012

Civilian

Personnel 

Management

DOD 

Enterprisewide

Executive 

Performance and 

Appraisal Tool

Civilian personnel management system that will become the 

enterprisewide automated solution for senior professional 

performance management.

$0.591

Defense Civilian 

Personnel Data 

System

Corporate human resources system for civilian employees 

supporting the military departments and defense agencies.

$503.280

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Table 6 summarizes the number of potentially duplicative investments for 

which Defense and Energy have actions under way, as well as the 

number of investments that remain unaddressed.

Table 6: Agency Plans to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments

Agency

Potentially 

duplicative 

investments

Plans under way 

to address 

duplication

No plans 

under way

DOD 31 29 2 

DOE 6 6 0 

Total 37 35 2 

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data.
Page 23 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Until DOD and DOE demonstrate, through existing transparency 

mechanisms such as OMB’s IT Dashboard, that they are making 

progress in identifying and eliminating duplicative investments, it will 

remain unclear whether they are avoiding investment in unnecessary 

systems. 

While agencies have various investment review processes in place that 

are partially designed to avoid investing in systems that are duplicative, 

we have identified 37 potentially duplicative investments at DOD and 

DOE. These investments account for about $1.2 billion in total IT 

spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. Given that our review 

covered 11 percent (810 investments) of the total number of IT 

investments that agencies report to OMB, it raises questions about how 

much more potential duplication exists.

DHS’s recent efforts have resulted in the identification and consolidation 

of duplicative functionality in several investments and related systems. 

DOD and DOE have also recently initiated plans to address many 

investments that we identified, but these recent initiatives have not yet 

resulted in the consolidation or elimination of duplicative investments or 

functionality. Further complicating agencies’ ability to prevent, identify, 

and eliminate duplicative investments is miscategorization of investments 

within agencies. Without demonstrating the progress of efforts to identity 

and eliminate duplicative investments, DOD and DOE will be unable to 

provide assurance that they are avoiding investment in unnecessary 

systems. Similarly, until DOD, DOE, and DHS, correctly categorize their 

investments, they are limiting their ability to identify opportunities to 

consolidate or eliminate duplicative investments.

To better ensure agencies avoid investing in duplicative investments, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the CIO to take the 

following two actions:

• utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard, 

to report on the results of the department’s efforts to identify and 

eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment 

we have identified, as well as any other duplicative investments; and

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 24 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

• correct the miscategorizations for the DOD investments we identified 

and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency 

submissions.

We recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the CIO to take the 

following two actions:

• utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard, 

to report on the results of the department’s efforts to identify and 

eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment 

we have identified, as well as any other duplicative investments; and

• correct the miscategorizations for the DOE investments we identified 

and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency 

submissions.

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the CIO to 

take the following action:

• correct the miscategorizations for the DHS investments we identified 

and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency 

submissions.

We provided a draft of our report to the three departments selected for 

our review and to OMB. In commenting on the draft, DOD and DHS 

generally concurred with our recommendations. DOE generally agreed 

with our first recommendation and disagreed with parts of our second 

recommendation. In addition, OMB provided oral technical comments that 

we incorporated, where appropriate. Each department’s comments are 

discussed in more detail below, and the written comments are reprinted in 

appendixes IV, V, and VI.

DOD’s Deputy CIO for Information Management, Integration, and 

Technology within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Networks and Information Integration provided written comments, which 

stated that the department agreed with both of our recommendations. 

DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, where 

appropriate.

The Director of DHS’s Departmental GAO/Office of Inspector General 

Liaison Office provided written comments, which stated that the 

department agreed with our recommendation to correct the 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 25 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

miscategorized investments and ensure that investments are correctly 

categorized. Additionally, DHS provided documentation showing that the 

department had recently corrected the miscategorizations in response to 

our recommendation. The department also provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated as appropriate.

The DOE CIO provided written comments in which the department 

generally agreed with the first recommendation and disagreed with parts 

of the second recommendation. Regarding our first recommendation, to 

identify and eliminate potentially duplicative investments as appropriate, 

DOE generally agreed with the recommendation and stated that the 

Office of the CIO is committed to increasing its IT investment oversight. 

The department added that for the non-major investments that GAO 

identified as being potentially duplicative, it will update GAO on its 

progress through means other than the IT Dashboard, since non-major 

investments are not individually tracked on the Dashboard. However, 

DOE also indicated that it does not believe certain investments that we 

identified are potentially duplicative. Specifically, DOE did not agree that 

the two card issuance and maintenance, and three logical access control 

investments were potentially duplicative. Rather, it stated that the 

investments in these groups were listed individually on the exhibit 53 for 

reporting purposes, in order to show how the funding was being 

distributed at various locations. According to DOE, these costs were for 

the labor involved in deploying the technology, and could not be avoided 

given the separate geographical locations. We reviewed this additional 

information, and subsequently removed these five investments from our 

list of potentially duplicative investments.

Regarding our second recommendation to correct miscategorizations and 

ensure that investments are correctly categorized, DOE disagreed with 

parts of this recommendation. Specifically, DOE agreed that two of the 

four investments could be recategorized. However, it disagreed that the 

two training center investments should be recategorized, and stated that 

they should continue to be categorized under the Employee Performance 

Management FEA sub-function because of how they are funded. 

However, OMB guidance defines Employee Performance Management 

as activities that enable managers to make distinctions in performance 

and link individual performance to agency goals and mission 

accomplishment. In other words, this sub-function involves enabling 

managers to assess the performance of personnel—and does not involve 

providing training to personnel. In contrast, the Human Resources 

Development sub-function—which OMB guidance defines as 

administering, delivering, and designing employee development 
Page 26 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

programs—is a more appropriate category.28

In addition, DOE stated that in our September 2011 report we highlighted 

limitations in OMB’s guidance regarding proper categorization of 

investments and further stated that, while OMB agreed to make 

improvements to the guidance, agencies and OMB did not have time to 

implement the changes before our new audit began. In our September 

report, we noted that, under OMB’s guidance, agencies were unable to 

designate a secondary category, in addition to the primary category for 

each of the investments. However, in this report, our concern is with the 

accuracy of agencies’ selections of the primary categories for certain 

investments. These are two independent concerns with investment 

categorization—both of which need to be addressed and are not 

necessarily dependent on each other. In other words, regardless of 

whether agencies are able to designate a secondary category, in addition 

to a primary category, it is still critically important that the primary 

category is accurate.

Therefore, we maintain our 

position. Additionally, DOE stated that we identified only 4 miscategorized 

investments from its total population of 876 investments. However, this 

implies we reviewed all 876 investments. As stated in our report, we 

looked at 19 percent of DOE’s reported IT investment population, or 167 

investments, and identified 4 miscategorized investments from that 

subset.

DOE made several additional comments that we address below:

• The department stated that it has implemented various investment 

review processes to help identify potentially duplicative investments 

and to manage these investments. We acknowledge in the report that 

DOE has such processes in place, and we provide examples of the 

department’s existing IT investment management processes that are, 

in part, intended to prevent, identify, and eliminate duplicative 

investments.

 

28OMB, FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document Version 2.3 (Washington, D.C., 

October 2007).
Page 27 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

• DOE stated that our draft report mentions the Federal Data Center 

Consolidation Initiative but that we did not specifically discuss DOE’s 

accomplishment in this area. In response, we added the number of 

federal data centers that DOE reportedly closed.

• The department stated that prior to the GAO audit, DOE officials 

realized potential duplicative investments may exist in back-end 

infrastructure and that a working group has been meeting regularly to 

identify duplicative investments and investigate the possibility of 

consolidating. We agree with this statement, and we acknowledge the 

working group’s efforts in the report. However, as we report, this 

initiative has not yet resulted in the consolidation or elimination of 

duplicative investments or functionality.

• According to DOE, it had developed a departmental strategy for 

electronic records management whereby a small number of approved 

records management applications will be identified for departmentwide use. It added that the three records management investments 

cited in our report will remain in place while the departmental strategy 

is being implemented. In response to this comment, we updated the 

report to acknowledge that the CIO stated that DOE has developed a 

departmental strategy, in addition to establishing an electronic records 

management working group. However, similar to the back-end 

infrastructure, these efforts have not yet resulted in the consolidation 

or elimination of duplicative investments or functionality, and thus, 

DOE may continue investing in unnecessary systems until such 

actions are taken.

• Lastly, DOE noted that in our report we discuss the Department’s 

TechStrat sessions related to commodity IT services but did not 

discuss the TechStrat sessions conducted by its Office of 

Environmental Management on its major investments. We did not add 

this activity to the report, because supporting documentation was not 

provided to indicate that this session was conducted to specifically 

reduce duplication, rather than to review major investments with 

performance problems.

Finally, OMB’s Chief Architect provided comments regarding the office’s 

efforts to oversee IT investments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
Page 28 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

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

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 11 days from the 

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

appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, 

Energy, and Homeland Security; the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget; and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report also will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions on the matters 

discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in 

appendix VII.

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology

Management Issues
Page 29 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

List of Requesters

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,

Government Information, Federal Services

and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Darrell Issa

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House of Representatives

The Honorable Ben Quayle

United States House of Representatives
Page 30 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Our objective was to identify potentially duplicative information technology 

(IT) investments at selected agencies and actions these agencies are 

taking to address them. To select agencies for review, we used the Office 

of Management and Budget’s (OMB) fiscal year 2011 exhibit 53. 

Specifically, we downloaded this data from OMB’s IT Dashboard and 

used it to identify the agencies and their number of IT investments as 

reported on the Dashboard. We used this analysis to select for review 

three of the agencies with the highest number of IT investments—the 

Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security 

(DHS).

To identify potentially duplicative investments, we further narrowed our 

analysis of the exhibit 53 data to the largest Federal Enterprise 

Architecture (FEA)1

Table 7: FEA Primary Functions and Sub-Functions Used to Select IT Investments 

 primary functions, by number of investments. Within 

each of the selected primary functions, we selected the two sub-functions 

with the most investments. Table 7 identifies the FEA primary functions 

and FEA sub-functions used to select the investments for review.

FEA primary function FEA sub-function 

Human Resource Management Benefits Management

Employee Performance Managementa

Organization and Position Managementa

Information and Technology Management Information Management

Information Security

Supply Chain Management Goods Acquisition

Inventory Control

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

a

Within the Human Resource Management function, our selection criteria resulted in a tie for the 

second-highest sub-function; we elected to include both of these sub functions.

This resulted in a nongeneralizable sample of 810 IT investments, which 

is 11 percent of the total number of IT investments that agencies report to 

OMB through the IT Dashboard (810 of 7,227).The investments we 

 

1

According to OMB, the FEA is intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement 

through cross-agency analysis and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and 

opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across agency 

programs.

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Page 31 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

reviewed represent approximately 24 percent of DOD’s IT portfolio in

terms of number of investments that it reports to the Dashboard, 19 

percent of DOE’s, and 16 percent of DHS’s. To determine the reliability of 

the data on the IT Dashboard, we reviewed recent GAO reports that 

identified issues with the accuracy and reliability of agency data on the IT 

Dashboard.2 We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of this report, which was to identify selected investments to 

include in our review.

We then reviewed the name and narrative description of each 

investment’s purpose to identify similarities among related investments 

within each agency (we did not review investments across agencies).3

To identify the actions agencies have taken to address the potentially 

duplicative investments we identified, we reviewed agency 

documentation, such as agency memos and working group charters, and 

interviewed officials. We also reviewed documentation and interviewed 

agency officials to identify what investments were consolidated, 

eliminated, or modified to decrease duplication and the estimated cost 

savings (if available) associated with these actions.

This formed the basis of establishing groupings of similar investments. 

We discussed the groupings with each of the selected agencies, and we 

obtained further information from agency officials. We also reviewed and 

assessed agencies’ rationales for having multiple systems that perform 

similar functions. Additionally, when analyzing each investment’s 

description, we compared each investment’s designated FEA primary 

category and sub-category to OMB’s definitions for each FEA primary 

category and sub-category and determined whether the investment was 

placed in the correct FEA category. We obtained additional information 

from agency officials about these discrepancies.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

 

2

GAO-12-210, GAO-11-262, and GAO-10-701. 

3

Certain investments were not placed in groups because the investment descriptions were 

too broad. Additionally, IT investments identified as Funding Contributions were not 

included, since they are managed by other agencies.
Page 32 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

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 objective.
Page 33 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

The tables in this appendix provide information on the 37 investments that 

we identified as potentially duplicative within the three selected FEA

functions (Human Resource Management, Information and Technology 

Management, and Supply Chain Management).1

Table 8: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOD

Specifically, we 

identified 31 potentially duplicative IT investments at DOD and 6 at DOE. 

Highlighted investments indicate the instances in which the agency does 

not currently have plans under way to address the potential duplication.

Dollars in millions

Similar purpose

Bureau—investment 

title Description

FEA primary 

function

Total IT 

spending for 

fiscal years 

2007-2012

Contract Management Air Force–Contract

Writing System

Contract writing system for weapons systems and 

science and technology.

Supply Chain 

Management

$4.663

Air Force–Automated 

Contract Preparation 

System

Provides management and preparation of purchase 

requests and amendments, solicitations and 

amendments, offers, contracts, orders, 

modifications, supporting documents relating to the 

acquisition process, required management reports, 

and interfacing capabilities.

Supply Chain 

Management

$22.604

Air Force–Contracting 

Information Database 

System

Online reporting tool for logistics contracting data. Supply Chain 

Management

$9.952

Air Force–Acquisition 

and Due In System

Single repository of information for items centrally 

procured at the Air Logistics Center; maintains and 

processes data for contracting and requirements 

activities from purchase requirements initiation 

through life cycle.

Supply Chain 

Management

$2.290

Air Force–Contract 

Profit Reporting 

Systems

Provides decision support and calculation 

assistance and reporting functions for Air Force 

and Army procurement actions to DOD and other 

major commands and government agencies.

Supply Chain 

Management

$1.183

 

1

Within the three selected functions, we narrowed our review to the following seven subfunctions: Benefits Management, Organization and Position Management, Employee 

Performance Management, Information Management, Information Security, Inventory 

Control, and Goods Acquisition.

Appendix II: Further Information on 

Potentially Duplicative Investments
Page 34 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Dollars in millions

Similar purpose

Bureau—investment 

title Description

FEA primary 

function

Total IT 

spending for 

fiscal years 

2007-2012

Personnel Assignment 

Management

Army–Enlisted 

Distribution and 

Assignment System

Supports the management of the enlisted force to 

include assignments, deletions, and deferments. 

Users can create, validate, and modify requisitions. 

It provides enlisted strength management 

information, forecasting, and online query 

capability.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$11.545

Army–Assignment 

Satisfaction Key

Self service web-based system that enables active 

Army enlisted soldiers to directly update 

assignment preferences and allows soldiers to 

volunteer for duty locations and special duty.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$0.006

Acquisition 

Management

Navy–Naval Sea 

Systems Command 

Acquisition Capabilities

Naval Sea Systems Command miscellaneous 

subsystems, projects, programs, special interest 

items, IT organizations, and sub-initiatives in 

support of acquisition capabilities not delineated 

elsewhere.

Supply Chain 

Management

$3.347

Navy–Space and 

Naval Warfare 

Systems Command 

Acquisition Capabilities

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 

miscellaneous subsystems, projects, programs, 

special interest items, IT organizations, and subinitiatives in support of acquisition capabilities not 

delineated elsewhere.

Supply Chain 

Management

$129.149

Navy–Naval Sea 

Systems Command 

Systems Acquisition 

Management 

Capabilities

Naval Sea Systems Command miscellaneous 

subsystems, projects, programs, special interest 

items, IT organizations, and sub-initiatives in 

support of systems acquisition management 

capabilities not delineated elsewhere.

Supply Chain 

Management

$3.486

Navy–Space and 

Naval Warfare 

Systems Command 

Systems Acquisition 

Management 

Capabilities

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 

miscellaneous subsystems, projects, programs, 

special interest items, IT organizations, and subinitiatives in support of systems acquisition 

management capabilities not delineated elsewhere.

Supply Chain 

Management

$271.084 

Aviation Maintenance 

and Logistics

Navy–Decision 

Knowledge 

Programming for 

Logistics Analysis and 

Technical Evaluation

Functions as an inventory management, current 

and historical flight, maintenance, engine, and 

aircraft data repository and warehouse. It is also 

planned to replace other logistical or tracking 

systems as investment funds are made available.

Supply Chain 

Management

$50.195

Navy–Airborne 

Weapons Info System

Central repository of airborne weapons 

maintenance and logistics information. It also 

provides full life cycle management of weapons 

systems.

Supply Chain 

Management

$34.308
Page 35 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Dollars in millions

Similar purpose

Bureau—investment 

title Description

FEA primary 

function

Total IT 

spending for 

fiscal years 

2007-2012

Contract Management Navy–Integrated 

Technical Item 

Management Program

System that supports the processing of 

procurement actions from requirements generation 

to the completion or termination of the contractual 

cycle. Includes all involved work from interactive 

information to generate procurement 

documentation.

Supply Chain 

Management

$10.267

Navy–Space and 

Naval Warfare 

Systems Command 

Contract Information 

Management System

Application used to administer information related 

to procurement solicitations, solicitation 

amendments, large and small contracts, delivery 

orders, contract closeout actions, and simplified 

acquisition information.

Supply Chain 

Management

$0.858

Navy–Space and 

Naval Warfare 

Systems Command 

Systems Center 

Atlantic Contract 

Information 

Management System

Internal contract management information system 

that provides real-time data on procurement 

acquisitions that are in the process of being 

awarded and all major activities in the contracting 

field supporting Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Center Atlantic.

Supply Chain 

Management

$0.022

Navy–Contract Data 

Requirements List

Part of Navy’s paperless process that allows for the 

electronic preparation of Contract Data 

Requirements List required for contracting 

documents.

Supply Chain 

Management

$0.539

Navy–Acquisition 

Management 

Automation System

Automated procurement system for the 

management of all procurement activities. 

Supply Chain 

Management

$4.889

Housing Management Navy–APPLY/SLATER Online means for junior and senior officers to apply 

for housing in the Navy Reserve.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$0.671

Navy–Commander, 

Navy Installations 

Command 

Manpower/Billets

Systems that support Manpower/Billet housing 

applications for Naval Installations Command.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$4.154

Personnel Assignment 

Management

Navy–Career 

Management System 

Interactive Detailing

Integrated web-based architecture framework that 

will allow fleet personnel to manage distributions, 

requisitions, and assignments.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$14.180

Navy–Officer 

Assignment 

Information System II

Online officer personnel information and orderwriting capabilities for use by officer assignment 

and placement personnel.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$1.014

Navy–Enlisted 

Assignment 

information System

Online enlisted personnel information and orderwriting capabilities for use by enlisted assignment 

and placement personnel.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$1.408

Navy–Reserve Order 

Writing System

Standard Navy order-writing system for active and 

reserve officer and enlisted personnel.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$11.527
Page 36 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Dollars in millions

Similar purpose

Bureau—investment 

title Description

FEA primary 

function

Total IT 

spending for 

fiscal years 

2007-2012

Promotion Rating Navy–Fleet Rating 

Identification System

Provides a comprehensive assessment of sailors 

and their eligibility and/or qualification for ratings or 

jobs for specialized skills. Additionally, it supports 

the management of accessions for entry-level 

personnel, entry-level career path, and 

administration of the reenlistment process.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$2.749

Navy–Departmental 

Systems

Applications support the management of 

performance, performance evaluation, physical 

fitness program, human resources, personnel 

promotion, and the administration of recognition 

programs. For example, the Enlisted Selection 

Board System provides eligibility files for active 

duty and reserve senior enlisted members, and the 

Officer Promotion Administrative System maintains 

officer personnel data applicable to the promotion 

and selection board process.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$0.610

Workforce 

Management

Navy–Total Force 

Administration System

Family of systems that support specific functions 

within the hire-to-retire end-to-end business 

processes to include functional areas such as 

permanent change of station assignments, 

retention, mobilization, manpower planning, 

personnel and pay, promotion and performance, 

family advocacy, and civilian workforce 

development.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$89.601

Navy–Manpower 

Models

Comprised of 13 models supporting core 

manpower planning processes of accessing, 

classifying, retaining, promoting, mobilizing, 

distributing, and assigning Marines.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$13.819

Navy–Total Workforce 

Management System

Web-based application that is used by human 

resources management officials to track and 

manage their workforce data requirements.

Human 

Resource 

Management

$5.704

Civilian Personnel 

Management

DOD enterprisewide–

Executive Performance 

and Appraisal Tool

Civilian personnel management system that will 

become the enterprisewide automated solution for 

senior professional performance management. 

Human 

Resource 

Management

$0.591

DOD enterprisewide–

Defense Civilian 

Personnel Data 

System

Corporate human resources system for civilian 

employees supporting the military departments and 

defense agencies. 

Human 

Resource 

Management

$503.280

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Page 37 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 9: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOE

Dollars in millions

Similar purpose Bureau—investment title Description

FEA primary 

function

Total IT 

spending for 

fiscal years 

2007-2012

Back-end 

Infrastructure

Energy Programs–Office of 

Science Headquarters Back-end 

Infrastructure

Management of back-end 

infrastructure at headquarters.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

$0.250

Energy Programs–Office of 

Science Oak Ridge Back-end 

Infrastructure

Management of back-end 

infrastructure at the Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, field site.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

$0.648

Energy Programs–Office of 

Science Chicago Back-end 

Infrastructure 

Management of back-end 

infrastructure at the Chicago field site.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

$0.093

Electronic Records 

and Document 

Management

Environmental and Other Defense 

Activities–Environmental 

Management Carlsbad Field 

Office Electronic Records and 

Document Mgmt System

Electronic records and document 

management system that is to ensure 

the capture, preservation, and indexing 

of information created either manually 

or electronically in support of all 

Carlsbad, New Mexico, field office 

programs.

Information and 

Technology 

Management 

$4.337

Environmental and Other Defense 

Activities–Health and Safety 

Electronic Document Review 

System 

Allows reviewers to track the review, 

redaction, and disposition of document 

review requests.

Information and 

Technology 

Management 

$1.418

Environmental and Other Defense 

Activities–Office of Legacy 

Management Record 

Management System

Includes the Office of Legacy 

Management Records Management 

System and the Hummingbird Records 

Management System. It also covers 

the operations and maintenance 

services for Hummingbird Records and 

Document Management System.

Information and 

Technology 

Management 

$1.003

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.
Page 38 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

The tables in this appendix provide information on the 22 investments that 

we identified as incorrectly categorized by the selected agencies 

according to OMB’s FEA.

1

Table 10: Miscategorized Air Force Investments at DOD

Specifically, we identified 13 miscategorized 

investments at DOD (2 within Air Force, 2 within Army, 3 within Navy, and 

6 enterprisewide), 4 at DOE, and 5 at DHS. Highlighted investments 

indicate the seven instances in which the agency did not agree that the 

investments were miscategorized.

Original Suggested

Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function 

Agency IT Resources Budget for IT resources that 

satisfy most IT hardware and 

software requirements, such 

as computers and scanners, 

not handled locally. 

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

IT 

Infrastructure 

Maintenance

Hill Ogden Air 

Logistics Center 508 

Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Warfighting 

Mission Area 2

A grouping of the flight 

simulator training systems.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Human Resource 

Management

Human 

Resources 

Development

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Table 11: Miscategorized Army Investments at DOD

Original Suggested

Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function

Army Wide 

Information System 

Service Support

Provides resources that improve 

and assure the reliability of 

electric power and other utilities. 

It also supports enterprise 

software licensing agreements.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

IT 

Infrastructure 

Maintenance

Personnel Enterprise 

Support-Automation

IT infrastructure maintenance in 

support of a range of human 

resource activities.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

IT 

Infrastructure 

Maintenance

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

 

1

Additional details of OMB’s FEA can be found at this address: 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea. 

Appendix III: Miscategorized Investments
Page 39 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 12: Miscategorized Navy Investments at DOD

Original Suggested

Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function 

ADT Picture 

Picture

An access control and security 

management system that offers a 

high performance database, 

detailed history, and active 

reporting generation. It also keeps 

access control records for 

buildings, rooms, facilities, turnstyles, doors, lockers, and 

equipment.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Security 

Judge Advocate 

General’s 

Services 

System

Overall architecture for all Judge 

Advocate General system support 

services and applications.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

IT 

Infrastructure 

Maintenance

Secured 

Enterprise 

Access Tool

Provides single sign-on through 

common access card-based public 

key infrastructure certificates to a 

number of Pacific Fleet-Area of 

Responsibility web-based 

applications.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Security 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Page 40 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 13: Miscategorized Enterprisewide Investments at DOD

Original Suggested

Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function 

Computer Aided 

Procurement 

System

Application that converts 

telecommunications service 

requests and orders into 

telecommunications 

requirements that are used for 

vendor solicitation.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Supply Chain 

Management

Services 

Acquisition

Global Surface 

Distribution 

Management

Port opening capability that 

provides the facility, automated 

tools, and communication 

infrastructure. 

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

IT Infrastructure 

Maintenance

Industrial 

Security Facility 

Database

A centralized web-based platform 

that manages the industrial 

security facility clearance 

process.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Administrative 

Management

Security 

Management

Infostructure Centrally procures IT hardware 

and logically consolidates certain 

transportation command 

systems. Additionally, it develops 

IT solutions to rapidly meet gaps 

in distribution processes.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

IT Infrastructure 

Maintenance

National 

Defense 

University’s IT 

Sustainment

Funds for the day-to-day 

operations and maintenance of 

the National Defense University 

network, related software and its 

maintenance, information 

security and assurance of the 

network, and development of 

systems.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

IT Infrastructure 

Maintenance

Rates and 

Tariffs File 

System

Used to update 

telecommunications contracts 

information with defined tariffs 

and tariff charges.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Supply Chain 

Management

Services 

Acquisition

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Page 41 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 14: Miscategorized Investments at DOE

Original Suggested

Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function 

Environmental Management 

Headquarters Central 

Internet Database

Designed to give the 

general public access to 

information about DOE’s 

nuclear waste 

management and cleanup 

program.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Environmental 

Management

Environmental 

Monitoring 

and 

Forecasting

National Nuclear Security 

Administration Los Alamos 

National Laboratory 

Software Applications 

Training Center

This lab’s software 

applications training 

center.

Human Resource 

Management

Employee 

Performance 

Management 

Human Resource 

Management

Human 

Resources 

Development

National Nuclear Security 

Administration Los Alamos 

National Laboratory Virtual 

Training Center

This lab’s virtual training 

center.

Human Resource 

Management

Employee 

Performance 

Management

Human Resource 

Management

Human 

Resources 

Development

Office of Nuclear Energy 

Idaho National Laboratory 

Classified Cyber Life Cycle 

Management

Provides for the

management of data calls 

from DOE, the Inspector 

General, and other federal 

entities.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Security 

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.
Page 42 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Table 15: Miscategorized Investments at DHS

Original Suggested

Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function 

United States Customs 

and Border Protection–

Television

Satellite television 

broadcasting system that 

supports mission-critical 

programs for the Office of 

Training and Development.

Human Resource 

Management

Employee 

Performance 

Management 

Human Resource 

Management

Human 

Resources 

Development

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency–

Minor Personnel/Training 

Systems

Minor personnel and training 

systems such as Employee 

Knowledge Center and 

Complaints.

Human Resource 

Management

Employee 

Performance 

Management 

Human Resource 

Management

Human 

Resources 

Development

United States 

Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement–

Password Issuance and 

Control System

Supports the centralized 

issuance of user 

identification numbers and 

passwords to valid users of 

United States Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement 

application systems.

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Management

Information and 

Technology 

Management

Information 

Security 

Transportation Security 

Administration–Online 

Learning Center

Provides delivery and 

maintenance of training 

records for Transportation 

Security Administration 

employees and contractors. 

Human Resource 

Management

Employee 

Performance 

Management 

Human Resource 

Management

Human 

Resources 

Development

United States Coast 

Guard–Ship Control and 

Navigation Training 

System

A ship-handling simulator 

used to train personnel on 

navigation, bridge team 

coordination, restricted water 

transits, and emergency 

procedures.

Human Resource 

Management

Employee 

Performance 

Management 

Human Resource 

Management

Human 

Resources 

Development

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 43 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 44 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 45 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 46 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 47 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 48 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 49 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 50 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 51 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments

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

In addition to the individual named above, the following staff made key 

contributions to this report: Shannin O’Neill, Assistant Director; Cortland 

Bradford; Javier Irizarry; Lee McCracken; and Kevin Walsh.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311251)
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 (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 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: 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.