FEDERAL 

CONTRACTING

Effort to Consolidate 

Governmentwide 

Acquisition Data 

Systems Should Be 

Reassessed

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2012

GAO-12-429

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-429, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2012

FEDERAL CONTRACTING

Effort to Consolidate Governmentwide Acquisition 

Data Systems Should Be Reassessed

Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Government spends more 

than $500 billion each year on 

contracts. To ensure contracts are 

managed effectively, the government 

has established policies and 

procedures for advertising, awarding, 

administering, and reporting on them. 

Historically, data systems used to 

implement these steps have been

fragmented and duplicative, with 

multiple systems across different 

agencies providing similar services. 

The Integrated Acquisition 

Environment (IAE) was initiated in 

2001 to bring together different data 

systems into a unified system. It is 

intended to reduce duplication and 

information technology costs, and 

create a more streamlined and 

integrated federal acquisition process. 

GAO was asked to assess (1) the 

acquisition strategy being used to 

develop IAE; (2) progress that has 

been made in consolidating IAE 

systems; and (3) any challenges that 

may affect the completion of IAE. GAO 

analyzed program costs, schedules, 

contracts, acquisition documents, and 

briefings, and interviewed IAE program 

officials and contractors.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that GSA reassess 

the IAE business case to determine 

whether the current acquisition 

strategy is the most cost effective 

alternative and if so, reevaluate the 

current hosting strategy and align 

contract payments with the program 

schedule. GSA agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations and indicated that it 

will take appropriate action.

What GAO Found

The development of IAE has occurred in two stages using different 

acquisition strategies. In 2001, GSA began establishing a portfolio of 

standardized government-wide data systems through an acquisition strategy 

known as “adopt, adapt, acquire.” GSA adopted or adapted existing agencyspecific systems for government-wide use, or if no viable system met an 

identified need, GSA acquired a new system. These efforts resulted in a 

portfolio of nine data systems. In 2008, GSA began consolidating its portfolio 

of systems into one integrated system called the System for Award 

Management (SAM). In developing the system, GSA hoped to eliminate 

redundancy, reduce costs, and improve efficiency. Unlike the existing 

systems that were each designed, developed, and operated by a single

contractor, IAE relies on multiple vendors to perform these same tasks for 

SAM. The intent of this approach is to enhance competition and innovation 

and for the government to own the software associated with the system. SAM 

will be developed in phases. In each phase, capabilities from selected IAE 

systems will be added to SAM and those legacy systems will be shut down.

GSA has made progress in developing SAM and phase 1, consisting of three 

systems, is scheduled to be completed in May 2012. GSA also has 

established a computing center to host SAM and a help desk to support 

users. Since 2009, however, IAE costs have increased by $85 million, from 

about $96 to $181 million. Most of the cost growth is due to GSA omitting 

hardware and other key components in acquiring a hosting infrastructure for 

SAM. External factors, including recent statutory requirements and policy 

changes, also have contributed to higher costs by increasing the use of the 

IAE systems beyond what was anticipated. Higher costs led to the need to 

supplement existing funding, but the program did not receive all of the 

additional funding it requested. In response to rising costs and limited 

funding, GSA officials have delayed SAM’s development schedule by almost

2 years, and taken other actions to reduce or defer costs where possible.

Higher costs and constrained resources pose a risk to IAE going forward. 

GSA will need to continue operating the legacy IAE systems and contend 

with higher SAM development costs for several more years. While GSA has 

taken some steps to reduce costs, it has not reevaluated the business case 

for SAM or determined whether it is the most cost effective alternative. Such 

a reevaluation is particularly important in light of the increased infrastructure

costs, which are now a major impediment to completing SAM. In addition, 

although the SAM development phases have been pushed out several years, 

GSA has not modified its primary development contract to align the payment 

schedule with the delays. The program has continued to pay the same fixed 

price amount to the contractor for SAM development, operation, and 

maintenance even though there was little to operate and maintain for nearly 2 

years. Aligning contract payments with schedule milestones will ensure that 

the government is not paying for work that has not yet been accomplished. View GAO-12-429. For more information, 

contact William T. Woods at (202) 512-4841 or 

WoodsW@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Letter 1 

Background 2

IAE Has Evolved over Two Stages 3

Progress Made in Developing SAM, but Cost Increases and 

Schedule Delays Could Jeopardize Program Completion 10

Consequences of Higher SAM Development Costs Threaten IAE 

Going Forward 17

Conclusions 20

Recommendations for Executive Action 21

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 21

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 23

Appendix II Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) Data Systems 25

Appendix III Comments from the General Services Administration 28

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 29

Tables

Table 1: Evolution of the IAE Portfolio 5

Table 2: IAE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Contributions 

and Other Funding, Fiscal Years 2002-2011 6

Table 3. SAM Contractors and Contracts 9

Table 4: Initial SAM Development Phases (as of June 2010) 10

Figures

Figure 1: Cost Growth for the SAM Components 12

Figure 2: SAM Schedule Delays by Phase 16

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Abbreviations

ACE Acquisition Committee for E-Gov

CCR Central Contractor Registration

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System 

DOD Department of Defense

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System

EDS Electronic Data Systems

EPLS Excluded Parties List System

eSRS Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

FAPIIS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information 

System

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FedReg Federal Agency Registration

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation

FSD Federal Service Desk

FSRS Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 

Subaward Reporting System

GCE Global Computer Enterprises

GSA General Services Administration

HP Hewlett-Packard

IAE Integrated Acquisition Environment

IBM International Business Machines

MOU memorandum of understanding

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORCA Online Representations and Certifications Application

PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System

WDOL Wage Determinations OnLine

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-12-429 Federal Contracting

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 15, 2012

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Chairman

Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The U.S. government spends more than $500 billion each year on 

contracts. To ensure they are managed effectively, the government has 

established policies and processes for advertising, awarding, 

administering, and reporting on contracts. These processes use a number 

of data systems to support each of these steps, from collecting key 

information from contractors, to evaluating contractor performance, to 

tracking contract activity. In the past, these systems were fragmented and 

duplicative, with multiple systems across different agencies providing 

similar services. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

established an initiative called the Integrated Acquisition Environment 

(IAE) to unify and integrate different acquisition data systems. IAE is 

intended to enable agencies to share data and make more informed 

decisions, make it easier for contractors to do business with the 

government, and result in cost savings to the taxpayer.

Efforts to develop IAE have been under way since 2001, and you asked 

that we assess how its implementation is proceeding. In response, we 

examined (1) the acquisition strategy being used to develop IAE; (2) 

progress that has been made in consolidating the IAE systems; and (3) 

challenges that may be affecting the completion of a fully integrated IAE. 

In order to address these objectives, we obtained and analyzed program 

documents including cost estimates, schedules, contracts, and internal 

analyses, and conducted our own analyses of them. We also interviewed 

officials from the General Services Administration (GSA), the executive 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

agency for IAE, OMB, and the Acquisition Committee for E-Gov (ACE), 

which is part of the Chief Acquisition Officer’s Council and has oversight 

responsibilities for IAE.1

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to March 

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 objectives.

We discussed IAE’s acquisition strategies over 

time, the program’s current status, including its cost, schedule, and 

performance parameters, and technical and management challenges that 

face the program. Finally, we interviewed current IAE contractors to 

discuss their work on IAE systems and industry practices.

The federal acquisition process involves a number of steps that are 

common to all government agencies such as solicitation, evaluation, and 

contract award. Agencies are increasingly leveraging electronic data 

systems to streamline acquisitions and reduce costs. According to GSA 

officials, as these systems gained greater use within the government, 

some agencies developed their own unique data systems to support 

acquisition activities. These systems served specific roles in the 

acquisition process, such as contractor registration or performance 

tracking. There was little coordination in data systems across the 

government. Agencies created their own systems based on different 

standards which meant that information could not be readily shared. 

These stove-piped systems resulted in higher costs to the government; 

created inefficiencies; and made it confusing for government workers, 

vendors, and the public to use the systems.

IAE was initiated to integrate, standardize, and streamline some of the 

many different acquisition data systems used throughout the government. 

The program was charged with identifying how information systems could 

be used to integrate the acquisition functions common to different 

agencies and to implement governmentwide data systems. Common 

 

1

The Chief Acquisitions Officers Council provides a senior-level forum for monitoring and 

improving the federal acquisition system.

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

acquisition functions include, for example, posting contract opportunities, 

registering contractors who are interested in doing business with the 

government, assessing contractor past performance, and tracking and 

reporting contract actions. Bringing disparate data systems together and 

providing a shared services resource to enter and retrieve acquisition 

information should help to eliminate unnecessary and repetitive steps in 

the acquisition process and reduce information technology costs.

When IAE began, OMB directed GSA to execute and manage the 

initiative. GSA officials said that they worked with other government 

agencies that would use IAE’s systems and established a collaborative 

governance structure that would allow agency users to set the initiative’s 

priorities and budget. The Acquisition Committee for E-Gov (ACE), a 

subcommittee of the Chief Acquisition Officer’s Council, provides overall 

governance for IAE. The ACE has several responsibilities, including

providing strategic direction for IAE, approving IAE’s annual budget and 

work plan, and ensuring IAE investments align with E-Gov business 

goals. The ACE is currently co-chaired by representatives from the 

Departments of Defense and Interior.

IAE has developed in two stages using different acquisition strategies. 

Initially, GSA focused on establishing a portfolio of standardized 

governmentwide systems through an acquisition strategy known as 

“adopt, adapt, acquire.” Using this strategy, GSA adopted or adapted 

existing agency-specific systems for governmentwide use. If there was no 

viable system that could be adapted or adopted to meet an identified 

need, GSA acquired a new system. GSA also established an IAE funding 

strategy that consisted of contributions from agencies that use IAE 

systems. In 2008, to further eliminate redundancy, reduce costs, and 

improve efficiency, GSA began consolidating its portfolio of systems into 

one integrated system called the System for Award Management (SAM). 

Unlike the existing systems (sometimes called “legacy” systems) in which 

a single contractor designed, developed, and operated each of them, IAE 

relies on multiple vendors to perform these same tasks for SAM. The 

intent of this approach is to enhance competition and innovation and for 

the government to own the software associated with the system. SAM will 

be developed in phases. In each phase, capabilities from selected IAE 

systems will be added to SAM and those legacy systems will then be shut 

down.

IAE Has Evolved over 

Two Stages
 

Page 4 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

During the first IAE stage, GSA worked to create a portfolio of 

governmentwide systems through an acquisition strategy known as 

“adopt, adapt, acquire.” GSA and OMB officials surveyed various 

government stakeholders to develop an inventory of existing data 

systems and to identify additional data-related needs of the government. 

Using this information, the ACE directed GSA to adopt or adapt existing 

agency-specific systems for governmentwide use. For example, the 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, where contractors 

register certain business information prior to being considered for contract 

awards, was a Department of Defense (DOD) system that IAE adopted 

for governmentwide use in 2003. GSA officials believed DOD’s system 

met the government’s requirements, and adopting it was a better 

alternative than developing a new system. The Federal Procurement Data 

System – Next Generation (FPDS-NG) is an example of a system that 

IAE adapted.2

When no existing systems could be adopted or adapted for 

governmentwide use, IAE’s strategy was to acquire new systems from 

software developers. For example, GSA contracted with IBM in 2004 to 

develop and operate the Online Representations and Certifications 

Application (ORCA) database, for firms to submit certifications on matters 

such as firm size and ownership status. Table 1 identifies the portfolio of 

systems that were included in the first stage of IAE up through 2008 and 

whether each system was adopted, adapted, or acquired.

FPDS, the FPDS-NG predecessor, was initially 

implemented in 1978 and in 2003 GSA hired a vendor to modernize the 

system. 

 

2

The Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) is a database that 

provides information on government contracting actions over $3,000, procurement trends, 

and reports on socioeconomic goals. 

Initial Strategy Was to 

Assemble a Portfolio of 

Standardized Systems
 

Page 5 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Table 1: Evolution of the IAE Portfolio

System

Year added to IAE 

portfolio Method Description

Federal Business Opportunities 

(FedBizOpps) 

2003 Adopted/adapted Single point of entry for solicitations over 

$25,000, allowing suppliers and government 

buyers to post, search, monitor, and retrieve 

federal government market opportunities.

Federal Procurement Data System – 

Next Generation (FPDS-NG)

2003 Adopted/adapted Provides public access to data on all federal 

contract actions over $3,000.

Wage Determinations OnLine (WDOL) 2003 Acquired Makes Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon 

wage determinations accessible by the 

contracting community.

Past Performance Information Retrieval 

System (PPIRS)

2003 Adopted/adapted Provides access to past performance 

information.

Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) 2005 Adopted/adapted Identifies parties excluded from receiving federal 

contracts and certain subcontracts, as well as 

certain types of federal financial and nonfinancial 

assistance.

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 2003 Adopted/adapted Required point of registration for contractors and 

grantees wishing to do business with the 

government.

Federal Agency Registration (FedReg) 2003 Acquired Single point of information on agency 

buyers/sellers for intragovernmental transfers.

Electronic Subcontract Reporting 

System (eSRS)

2005 Acquired Facilitates prime contractor reporting of 

accomplishments toward subcontracting goals.

Online Representations and 

Certifications Application (ORCA)

2004 Acquired Allows vendors to enter representations and 

certifications for federal contracts.

Source: GAO analysis of GSA information.

Note: This table lists the systems that were associated with IAE up through 2008. Since then, other 

systems have been added to the IAE portfolio, including the Federal Awardee Performance and 

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) in 2010, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency 

Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) in 2010, and the Contractor Performance Assessment 

Reporting System (CPARS) in 2011. PPIRS was added to the IAE portfolio in 2003, removed in 2005

at the request of the ACE for budgetary reasons, and then added again in 2011.

Shortly after IAE was established, GSA and the ACE created a funding 

structure in which agencies contribute to the program based on their level 

of contracting activity. GSA negotiated memorandums of understanding 

(MOU) with the 24 departments and agencies covered by the Chief 

Financial Officers Act to collect funding contributions, which pay for the 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

development, operations, and maintenance of IAE’s portfolio.3 When 

developing its annual budget, GSA estimates what the cost of operating 

IAE will be and then determines each agency’s contribution based on its 

contracting activity (number and value of contracts) the prior year. For 

example, DOD is the largest agency in terms of the number and value of 

contracts awarded and therefore contributes the most, 65 percent of the 

total.4 The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

(Transparency Act) created new reporting requirements for federal loan 

and grant recipients that increased the use of certain IAE systems.5

Table 2: IAE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Contributions and Other Funding, Fiscal Years 2002-2011

For 

example, to comply with the Transparency Act, OMB required grant 

recipients to register in CCR. In 2008, GSA negotiated separate MOUs 

with 22 departments and agencies for additional contributions to fund the 

higher costs associated with providing greater support to grant and loan 

recipients. Overall, since 2002, about $396 million has been allocated to 

IAE, as shown in table 2.

Dollars in millions

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Contract MOUs $7.8 $21.0 $28.6 $34.9 $36.3 $38.7 $39.7 $40.8 $41.3 $42.6 $331.9

Grant & loan MOUs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.2 6.5 5.2 6.5 24.4

Other funding 16.0 22.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.0 n/a n/a n/a 39.7

Total $23.8 $43.8 $28.6 $34.9 $36.3 $38.7 $47.0 $47.3 $46.5 $49.1 $396.0

Source: GAO analysis of GSA information.

Note: The “Other funding” amounts in 2002 and 2003 were from GSA’s General Supply Fund plus a 

small amount from OMB and the Peace Corps. The 2008 amount was from OMB.

 

3 The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-576) was the beginning of a 

series of management reform legislation to improve the general financial management of 

the federal government. Among other things, it created the position of chief financial 

officer for certain federal departments and agencies; currently, there are 24 federal chief 

financial officers. 

4 DOD’s contribution is capped at 65 percent of the total contributions. DOD pays 65 

percent or its proportional share based on the number and value of its contracts, 

whichever is less. GSA officials said that DOD has had more than 65 percent of the 

contracting activity each year so it has always paid 65 percent of the contributions.

5 Pub. L. No. 109-282.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Another key component that supports the IAE systems is GSA’s contract 

with Dun & Bradstreet for the use of the Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) and other services to verify and standardize information 

on contract, grant, and loan recipients. GSA uses the DUNS numbers as 

unique identifiers for organizing and tracking these entities, including 

making linkages between parent and subsidiary businesses, within and 

across the IAE systems. The federal government has used DUNS 

numbers since 1978, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) has 

required all prospective government contractors to obtain DUNS numbers 

since 1998.6 Since 2003, OMB has also required prospective grant 

recipients to obtain DUNS numbers.7 IAE’s contract with Dun & 

Bradstreet also supports the use of DUNS numbers for other governmentwide information systems, such as USASpending.gov.8 GSA’s current 

contract with Dun & Bradstreet was awarded in 2010 and is valued at 

over $135 million for up to 8 years. The Dun & Bradstreet contract is the 

largest IAE contract.

In December 2008, the ACE approved a proposal to aggregate the IAE 

data systems into a new System for Award Management (SAM). GSA 

officials said that while the existing IAE systems had provided benefits, 

additional efficiencies could be achieved. For example, the systems 

contained overlapping data, had separate sign-on procedures, and each 

system had different hardware, software, and helpdesks. Consolidating 

the IAE portfolio was intended to reduce costs by eliminating redundancy, 

streamlining acquisition processes, and consolidating infrastructure.

GSA is relying on an acquisition strategy to develop SAM that is different 

from what it has used in the past when GSA turned to a single contractor 

to develop, operate, and support each IAE system. SAM will be split into 

multiple components with separate contractors responsible for (1) system 

 

6 FAR Subpart 4.11 generally requires prospective contractors to register in CCR and 

FAR § 52.204-7 requires a DUNS number to register in CCR. 

7 Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-03-16, “OMB Issues Grants 

Management Policies” (July 15, 2003). 

8 The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 required OMB to 

ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website that included 

information on contracts, grants, loans, and other types of federal spending. 

USAspending.gov was launched in December 2007 to fulfill these requirements.

Since 2008, IAE Has 

Sought to Consolidate Its 

Portfolio 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

design and operations, (2) software development, (3) hosting services, 

and (4) help desk support (see table 3). The new approach to developing 

SAM is intended to address lessons learned from past IAE systems. 

Unlike the legacy systems, the government will own the SAM software as 

open-source code,9 the system architecture, and all supporting hardware. 

IAE officials believe that an open-source approach to software and 

development will result in lower costs to the government because IAE will 

be able to avoid sole-source modifications to the system and 

competitively award future enhancement contracts. GSA officials said that 

in the past, system enhancements were expensive, in part because the 

incumbent contractors knew that GSA’s only alternative to a sole-source 

enhancement contract was to develop a new system. Also, GSA officials 

said the plan to consolidate help desk services into one single contractor 

is an effective way to control cost and service levels.

 

9

GSA’s definition of open-source code refers to making any custom developed software 

and associated documentation for SAM publicly available and accessible to other 

contractors. 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Table 3: SAM Contractors and Contracts

Component Contractor Contract terms Description

System Design & 

Operations

IBM Fixed-price, service 

contract awarded in 

February 2010 for $74 

million over 8 years—3 

base years and 5 option 

years

This contractor is responsible for developing the 

overall system architecture, migrating legacy 

systems into SAM, and operating and 

maintaining SAM.

Consolidated Hosting 

Service 

Qwest Fixed-price service contract 

awarded in November 2010 

under Networx, a GSA 

multiagency contract, for 

$3.3 million over 5 years.

This contractor will be responsible for providing 

the hosting facility for the SAM system and all 

data, which will be stored on government-owned 

hardware.

Software Development Global Computer 

Enterprises (GCE) 

(Phase 1)

(other contracts to be 

awarded for later 

phases) 

Fixed-price contract 

awarded in July 2011 for 

$1.2 million over 8 months.

Each phase of SAM development will require 

additional software. The software for each phase 

will be contracted separately and competitively. 

As new system requirements are developed, 

additional contracts will be awarded. 

Help Desk (known as 

Federal Service Desk)

Hewlett- Packard (HP) Awarded as a fixed- price 

contract in March 2009 for 

5 years—1 base year and 4 

option years. The estimated 

amount of the contract was 

$2.3 million.

a SAM users will be supported by a single help 

desk, which will assist with tasks such as 

contractor registration and bid submission.

Source: GAO analysis of GSA information.

a

With SAM, the system design contractor (IBM) will be responsible for 

developing the system architecture, defining technical requirements, 

specifying data migration procedures for each of the legacy systems, and 

operating and maintaining SAM. Once IBM has specified the technical 

requirements and data migration procedures for the legacy systems, a 

second contractor will be responsible for writing the software code that 

will make up SAM. GCE will write the code for the first phase and GSA 

will competitively award software contracts for the subsequent phases. 

IBM will then test and validate the software, implement the system 

migration, and begin operating and maintaining the new SAM system. A 

third contractor (Qwest) will provide hosting services, which involves 

providing a secure facility to physically house SAM and power and 

Internet connectivity. GSA will provide the hardware (hard drives, servers, 

and other equipment) and software (operating system, databases, and 

other software licenses) for the hosting facility. Finally, a fourth contractor 

(HP) will be responsible for providing a consolidated help desk to support 

SAM users.

Electronic Data Systems (EDS) initially was awarded the contract but was acquired by HewlettPackard after the contract award.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

GSA initially planned to migrate IAE systems to SAM in four phases 

based on groups of legacy IAE systems (see table 4).

Table 4: Initial SAM Development Phases (as of June 2010)

Phases Systems to be consolidated Planned completion date

1 CCR, ORCA, EPLS December 2011

2 FedBizOpps, CFDA, eSRS March 2012

3 WDOL July 2012

4 FPDS-NG February 2014

Source: GSA.

Note: While not part of the IAE portfolio, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) is a 

system that will become part of a consolidated IAE data system.

GSA and ACE officials viewed a phased approach as having less risk 

than replacing all the legacy systems at the same time. The timing of 

each phase was generally established to coincide with expiring legacy 

system contracts. As each phase is completed, the capabilities of the 

systems in that phase will be added to SAM and the legacy systems will 

be shut down. As discussed above, each development phase requires 

contributions from the four SAM contractors, with GSA managing the 

various contracts. GSA officials anticipate that additional systems may be 

added to SAM in the future. For example, the contract with IBM includes 

an option to migrate the Past Performance Information Retrieval System 

(PPIRS), which provides access to past performance information on 

contractors, to SAM. In addition, FedReg has been merged with the 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and will be included in phase 1.

GSA and its contractors have made progress in developing SAM and 

phase 1 is scheduled to be completed in May 2012. GSA also has worked 

with contractors to establish a hosting center for the system and a help 

desk to support users. However, since 2009, the costs of developing SAM 

have grown significantly. The higher development costs were primarily 

due to the failure to adequately execute the SAM hosting strategy as 

initially planned. To a lesser extent, external factors, including recent 

statutory requirements and policy changes, have contributed to higher 

operational costs as well by increasing the demand for help desk 

services. While IAE costs were increasing, the program also experienced 

a significant funding shortage in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. In response 

to rising costs and resource constraints, GSA officials have delayed 

Progress Made in 

Developing SAM, but 

Cost Increases and 

Schedule Delays 

Could Jeopardize 

Program Completion
 

Page 11 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

SAM’s development schedule and taken other actions to reduce or defer 

other costs.

GSA has made progress in consolidating the IAE systems. Specifically, 

phase 1 of SAM is nearly complete and GSA has created a consolidated 

hosting environment and established a single help desk called the 

Federal Service Desk (FSD). GSA and its contractor, IBM, have 

completed the overarching design of SAM as well as the phase 1 

technical requirements. GSA officials also report that the agency has 

purchased the hosting hardware and software needed for phase 1 and 

IBM is preparing to make the hosting facility operational in time to launch 

phase 1. Phase 1 is scheduled to go live in May 2012 and will replace 

three IAE systems—CCR, ORCA, and EPLS. Officials report that the 

phase 1 software developer is currently working closely with IBM to 

coordinate the testing and validation of the phase 1 software. IBM has 

begun developing the phase 2 requirements and GSA is in the process of 

competing the phase 2 software development contract. Phase 3 efforts 

have not yet begun. GSA officials told us FSD currently provides help 

desk services for most of the IAE data systems. Help desk responsibility 

for three systems remains with their legacy vendors. GSA officials expect 

help desk services for these remaining systems to transition to FSD as 

they become part of SAM.

Costs of the various SAM components have increased significantly over 

the past 3 years. GSA did not develop a formal cost baseline when SAM 

development was started, so we compared the initial contract value for 

each of the SAM components to the current contract estimates.

10

 

10In lieu of a program baseline, IAE program officials referred us to the independent 

government estimates GSA prepared prior to the solicitation of each contract. After 

reviewing the initial estimates and discussing them with GSA officials, we believed that 

comparing the initial contract price award to the current contract cost estimates more 

accurately reflects the cost growth for each SAM component. Specifically, GSA officials 

said that they believed the initial estimate for the IBM contract was overstated and the 

contract was awarded for a much lower price. The initial cost estimate for the contract was 

about $117 million, but the actual contract award was for $74 million. 

GSA 

currently estimates that the various SAM-related contracts will cost 

$181.1 million. This represents an increase of $85 million, nearly 90 

percent, over the initial contract award amounts which totaled about $96 

million (see fig. 1).

GSA Has Made Progress in 

Developing SAM

IAE Has Experienced Cost 

Growth 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Figure 1: Cost Growth for the SAM Components

Most of the cost growth, about $65 million, is due to higher than expected 

hosting costs. Hosting consists of a secure facility with Internet 

connectivity; the hardware on which the system will be installed; the 

operating system and other software necessary to operate the code that 

will make up SAM; and the operation and maintenance of the hosting 

environment. GSA estimated in 2008 that hosting costs for the IAE 

systems were $2.8 million and that annual costs would be much less than 

that after moving to a single hosting environment. However, we estimate 

that SAM hosting costs will average $8 million to $9 million per year. The 

higher costs are largely due to GSA omitting key components from its 

contracting strategy for acquiring hosting services. GSA’s initial strategy 

was to contract with a single company for all of these hosting services. 

However, shortly after beginning SAM development, IAE awarded a 

contract (to Qwest) for a more limited set of hosting services that only 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

included the hosting facility and Internet connectivity.11

The help desk function, FSD, also experienced cost growth over its first 

years of operation as the expected cost has nearly doubled to $33 million. 

Most of this growth appears to have resulted from factors outside of 

GSA’s control. GSA officials told us the FSD contract price is driven by 

the amount of support activity provided under the contract. The higher 

costs reflect a greater than expected demand associated primarily with 

one data system, CCR. This system serves as a registry for any 

organization that wants to do business with the federal government. 

Several events occurred that substantially increased the number of CCR 

help desk calls. Both the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) and the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) included 

provisions that increased or had the effect of increasing the number of 

CCR registrants. Specifically, the Transparency Act contained 

requirements for a single searchable website with data on federal loan, 

grant, and contract recipients, which prompted the government to require 

grant recipients to register in CCR.

It is not clear why 

GSA did not include the hosting hardware, software, and operation and 

maintenance services that were needed. Program officials told us that at 

the time they believed that the multiagency telecommunications contract 

used to obtain hosting services from Qwest did not offer the 

comprehensive services that were needed. Officials also said they 

thought IBM was responsible for providing these items, but later realized 

that was not the case. GSA decided to purchase the hosting hardware 

and software itself under existing GSA schedule contracts at an estimated 

cost of $29 million. After negotiations with IBM, GSA modified IBM’s 

contract in June 2011, adding $36 million to the $74 million contract price 

to have IBM install and operate and maintain the hosting hardware and 

software in Qwest’s facility. It took GSA more than a year to finalize its 

current hosting approach and program officials said they have purchased 

hosting hardware and software through 13 different contracts instead of 

just 1 contract as intended under their original hosting strategy.

12

 

11Qwest is providing services under a multiagency telecommunications contract available 

for governmentwide use, known as Networx, which is managed by GSA and offers federal 

agencies an opportunity to acquire telecommunications services by placing orders against 

the contract. 

The Recovery Act temporarily 

12In 2003 OMB directed federal agencies to require grantees to get DUNS numbers in 

order to apply for federal grants. Grantees were not required to register in CCR at that 

time, but were directed to do so by OMB in August 2010.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

increased the number of loan and grant recipients, which also led to 

greater numbers of CCR registrants. Also, in late 2008, the CCR login 

process changed in response to actions taken by DOD to improve 

password security measures. As a result of these changes, there was a 

drastic rise in help desk activity from CCR customers.

While SAM costs were beginning to increase, the program also did not 

receive funding increases it requested. Up through fiscal year 2010, IAE 

was primarily funded through agency contributions. When the ACE 

approved SAM development in 2008, program officials believed that 

agency contributions would be sufficient to cover the development costs. 

However, GSA had underestimated its funding needs and soon after the 

start of SAM development, GSA officials recognized that the amount of 

agency contributions was insufficient to pay to operate the existing IAE 

systems and develop SAM over the next several years. GSA officials told 

us they consulted with OMB and considered various funding options to 

pay for the development of SAM, including increased agency 

contributions, a separate appropriation request, or user fees. Ultimately, 

with OMB’s support, GSA decided to seek additional funding through an 

appropriation and requested $15 million for fiscal year 2011. The program 

received $7 million of the requested amount.13

GSA officials responded to rising costs and limited resources by 

modifying and delaying the SAM schedule, and deferring payments or 

reducing contract requirements where possible. One of the most 

significant changes was GSA’s decision to not transition FPDS-NG to the 

SAM contract as an interim step prior to FPDS-NG being fully integrated 

GSA also requested a $38 

million appropriation in fiscal year 2012 for SAM, but did not receive any 

appropriations from Congress for the year. GSA has made a $21 million 

appropriation request for fiscal year 2013.

 

13IAE does not have its own appropriation account. IAE appropriation requests have come 

through GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy. 

Cost Growth and Resource 

Constraints Prompted GSA 

to Delay the SAM Schedule 

and Defer Costs 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

into SAM.14 Under the SAM design contract, FPDS-NG was scheduled to 

be transitioned in June 2010 from the FPDS-NG legacy contractor to IBM. 

IBM then would have been responsible for operating and maintaining 

FPDS-NG “as-is” under the SAM contract and GSA could have ended the 

FPDS-NG legacy contract. GSA officials said that the transition did not 

occur because they had neglected to account for the hardware and 

software required to host FPDS-NG in the new SAM hosting facility and 

could not afford to buy these components. Instead, GSA awarded a 

follow-on contract to the FPDS-NG legacy contractor that cost an 

unanticipated $5.4 million in fiscal year 2011 and is expected to cost 

another $3.8 million in fiscal year 2012 and a similar amount annually 

through 2015.15

GSA also delayed the schedule for moving the other IAE systems to 

SAM. In 2010, GSA expected to complete all of the development phases 

of SAM in early 2014, but under the current schedule the final phase will 

be completed in 2015, 20 months later than planned (see fig. 2).

 

14GSA refers to the process of incorporating capabilities of a system into SAM as 

“migrating” that system. GSA also envisioned an optional intermediate step which it refers 

to as “transitioning.” Transitioning a system would entail continuing to operate the system 

“as-is,” except that it would be moved to the SAM hosting facility and operated by IBM 

instead of the legacy contractor. All of the IAE systems will be migrated, but GSA gave 

IBM discretion as to which systems would be transitioned. When IBM’s contract was 

awarded, the company was required to develop a plan for which systems would be 

transitioned. FPDS-NG was the only program that IBM initially selected for transition.

15GSA also modified the IBM contract to remove responsibility for transitioning FPDS-NG 

and reduced the contract price by $2 million.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Figure 2: SAM Schedule Delays by Phase

There was a 5-month delay in implementing phase 1. Delays for phases 2 

and 3 are much longer, and GSA officials cited the higher costs for 

hosting services as the main reason for delaying the phases. Phase 2 has 

also recently been split into subphases.16

 

16Phase 2a includes CFDA and eSRS/FSRS. Phase 2b includes FedBizOpps and WDOL.

While the systems included in 

phase 2a have been delayed for several months, GSA officials said they 

can complete this phase with available resources because the systems in 

phase 2a will not require a significant investment in hosting hardware and 

software. Phase 2b will not be completed until mid-2014, approximately 2 

years later than originally planned, in part because GSA cannot afford the 

estimated $21 million necessary to complete the phase. Furthermore, the 

migration of FPDS-NG is not scheduled to be completed until 20 months 

later than planned, in 2015.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

In addition to delaying SAM’s development schedule, GSA officials said 

they have taken other steps to defer or reduce costs. In 2011, GSA 

modified the payment schedule for the Dun & Bradstreet DUNS contract 

to delay payments from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012. Under the 

original contract, GSA was scheduled to make an $18 million payment in 

August 2011. To free up funds in fiscal year 2011, GSA negotiated a 

modification with Dun & Bradstreet that allowed GSA to pay only $3.8 

million in 2011 and deferred the remaining payments to later years. In 

addition, GSA cut FSD costs by reducing the required level of services 

stated in the contract. For instance, GSA capped the number of calls the 

contractor needs to respond to every month, which program officials said 

has reduced costs and made it easier to estimate future costs. However, 

the cap on calls may reduce the responsiveness of the help desk to 

users.17 GSA officials said they also stopped making investments in the 

legacy systems and stopped making all but the most minor of changes to 

the systems. For example, GSA officials said they would fix hyperlinks on 

the system websites and make other small corrections, but would avoid 

making larger changes to the legacy systems unless absolutely 

necessary.

Schedule delays and other GSA actions taken in response to cost growth 

and funding shortages are likely to lead to further cost increases that 

pose a risk to IAE. Delaying the SAM schedule will require GSA to 

continue operating the legacy IAE systems, in some cases for years 

longer than originally expected. At the same time, GSA must contend with 

higher hosting and help desk costs that will extend over several more 

years. While GSA has taken some steps to reduce these costs, it has not 

reevaluated whether its current acquisition strategy, including its 

approach to acquire hosting services, is still the most cost-effective 

approach to implement SAM. In addition, although the SAM development 

phases have been pushed out several years, GSA has not modified its 

development contract with IBM to reflect these changes. The program 

continues to pay the same fixed-price amount to the contractor for system 

development activities as well as operation and maintenance of SAM, 

even though there was little to operate and maintain for the first 2 years of 

development.

 

17GSA officials said that the first 23,000 calls each month must be answered according to 

the service agreement in the contract. For any calls above that amount, the contractor 

may answer them, but is not required to.

Consequences of 

Higher SAM 

Development Costs 

Threaten IAE Going 

Forward
 

Page 18 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

GSA delayed the SAM development schedule in response to cost growth 

and reduced funding, but those delays will result in additional cost 

increases as GSA has to extend the life of the legacy systems. For 

example, the decision to not transition FPDS-NG to the IBM contract as 

originally planned could increase GSA’s costs by approximately $16 

million as GSA will have to continue operating FPDS-NG for 5 years 

longer than expected.18

GSA is also grappling with higher SAM development costs, but has not 

assessed whether its current acquisition approach is still cost-effective. 

For example, GSA abandoned its initial hosting strategy without 

evaluating the cost or schedule implications of doing so. The initial 

strategy to use a single contractor to provide consolidated hosting 

services was intended to achieve cost savings, but the revised approach, 

which relies on multiple contractors, has proven to be much more costly 

than expected and led to schedule delays. Hosting costs are now a 

primary impediment to moving forward because GSA cannot afford to 

purchase the hardware and software necessary to complete phases 2 

and 3. In addition, according to program officials, GSA efforts to procure 

hosting hardware and software have resulted in 13 different contracts, the 

management of which has required additional program support 

resources.

Similarly, the 2-year delay in migrating 

FedBizOpps into SAM means that GSA will have to spend $2.8 million on 

FedBizOpps in fiscal year 2012. Assuming costs remain the same, 

continuing to operate FedBizOpps for 2 additional years will increase 

costs by approximately $5.6 million. Schedule delays may also increase 

FSD costs. GSA officials said that the majority of the help desk calls are 

associated with CCR whose migration has been delayed 5 months. In 

addition to paying the CCR legacy vendor to continue operating CCR for 

5 additional months, GSA will also have to pay the FSD vendor to 

continue supporting CCR.

GSA also continues to pay the SAM development contractor, IBM, 

essentially the same amount called for in the original contract even 

 

18Operating FPDS-NG will cost approximately $20.8 million over 5 years—$5.4 million in 

2011 and approximately $3.8 million annually for fiscal years 2012 through 2015. This will 

be partially offset by savings of approximately $5 million that resulted from GSA modifying 

IBM’s contract to remove responsibility for FPDS-NG. However, the net reduction in the 

IBM contract was only $2 million because GSA added in $2.9 million in additional services 

related to EPLS and ORCA.

Increased IAE Costs 

Challenge Program
 

Page 19 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

though schedule delays have pushed work out into the future. IBM’s 

contract includes responsibility for designing as well as operating and 

maintaining SAM. According to the fixed-price contract, SAM will be 

developed in phases, yet the payment schedule specified that IBM was to 

be paid a set amount each month (approximately 3 percent of the total 

contract price) for all activities under the 36-month base contract. This 

payment schedule may have been appropriate under GSA’s initial plan, 

but the development schedule changed shortly after the contract was 

awarded and much of the work to migrate systems into SAM will occur 

much later than planned. While the SAM transition and migration 

schedules have changed considerably, GSA has not adjusted IBM’s 

payment schedule to reflect the current development schedule.19 For 

example, IBM was not responsible for operating any IAE systems until the 

Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) was transitioned to the SAM 

contract in July 2011—17 months into the contract. By that time, GSA had 

already paid IBM $6.3 million of the $20.3 million contract price for SAM 

operation and maintenance. GSA and IBM officials noted that payments 

to date have been for planning and preparing to migrate the legacy 

systems to SAM. However, under the original schedule, IBM would have 

performed these services as well as operated FPDS-NG for the same 

cost. Similarly, GSA has paid more than half of the contract price for 

phase 2 migration activities even though phase 2 is not scheduled to be 

completed until May 2014.20

We raised issues about the increasing cost with SAM, and the viability of 

the hosting approach and the development contract structure with GSA 

officials and they recently told us that GSA has initiated an internal 

review, called a TechStat, of IAE.21

 

19Program officials said that during negotiations with IBM to remove the FPDS-NG 

transition, GSA did receive consideration for certain work that was scheduled but not 

performed during the first 2 years of the contract.

A TechStat is intended to be an 

evidence-based review of underperforming information technology 

investment during which agency leadership reviews a program, examines 

20GSA restructured its phases so the systems that were initially in phases 2 and 3 were 

combined into phase 2. Subsequently, phase 2 was divided into phases 2a and 2b. For 

phase 2a, eSRS and FSRS are scheduled to be migrated to SAM in December 2012 and 

CFDA is scheduled for migration in June 2013. Phase 2b (FedBizOpps and WDOL) is 

scheduled for completion in May 2014.

21In December 2010, OMB called on agency CIOs to implement TechStats in order to turn 

around or terminate one-third of poorly performing projects in their portfolio.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

performance, and develops corrective actions as necessary. Program 

officials said their current focus is on completing phase 1 of SAM, but 

they may revisit their hosting strategy once the phase is completed. GSA 

officials also told us that they will begin negotiating with IBM to change 

the contract to reflect current schedule changes and available funding.

GSA’s effort to consolidate the IAE legacy systems into SAM has the 

potential to reduce agency costs, eliminate redundancy, and streamline 

government acquisition processes. Two years into development, 

however, SAM is in trouble due to higher costs that planned funding 

levels do not cover. Most of the cost growth seen to date is largely the 

result of mistakes the program made. Rather than using a consolidated 

hosting strategy as initially proposed, the program adopted a piecemeal 

approach involving multiple sources that will cost about $65 million more 

than expected. The need for additional resources to cover the increase in 

hosting costs, however, coincided with significant funding shortfalls in the 

past 2 years and now the program cannot afford to develop SAM as 

planned.

Despite dramatically different circumstances marked by higher costs and 

constrained resources, GSA has not reassessed its business case for 

SAM. Specifically, GSA has not assessed whether developing SAM is still 

a better option than maintaining the status quo or whether the current 

development strategy, involving multiple vendors, is more cost-effective 

than using a single vendor. Ensuring there is a sound business case for 

moving forward will be critical before establishing an acquisition strategy 

to address the program’s problems. Also, while GSA has taken steps to 

reduce costs, by delaying development and deferring some costs to the 

future, there may be more that can be done to stretch available 

resources. For example, in light of higher hosting costs than expected, 

GSA has not reevaluated whether its hosting strategy is the most costeffective approach. In addition, GSA has not modified the primary SAM 

development contract to align payments with program schedule delays. 

Although GSA officials recently indicated they will begin negotiating 

changes to the development contract, it continues to pay the contractor 

for operation and maintenance activities even though many of the IAE 

systems will not be migrated into SAM for several years. Tying contract 

payments to the migration of the data systems and schedule milestones 

would ensure that the government is not paying for work that has not yet 

been accomplished.

Conclusions 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

To ensure that GSA has a sound approach for providing IAE services in 

the future, we recommend that the Administrator of GSA take the 

following two actions:

• Reassess the SAM business case to compare the costs and benefits 

of various alternatives such as:

• terminating SAM development and continuing to operate the 

legacy systems,

• maintaining the current acquisition approach to developing SAM,

• pursuing a different acquisition strategy for SAM, such as using a 

single contractor to develop and operate the system.

• If the results of this assessment support continuing the current 

acquisition approach, then:

• reevaluate the hosting strategy to ensure that it is the most costeffective approach that can be supported with available resources, 

and

• take steps to ensure that the SAM development contract 

payments are more closely aligned with the program schedule and 

delivery of capabilities.

We provided a draft of this report to GSA and OMB. In its written 

comments, GSA concurred with our recommendations and indicated that 

it will take appropriate action. GSA added that it has established an 

integrated project team that will reassess and develop a broad plan 

covering both SAM and the IAE program as a whole. GSA’s written 

comments appear in appendix III. GSA also provided technical comments 

that we incorporated, as appropriate. OMB informed us that it did not 

have comments on the draft.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget. In addition, this report will be available 

at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 22 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-4841. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations 

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

who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

William T. Woods

Director

Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

To determine how the General Services Administration (GSA) developed 

the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) initiative, we interviewed IAE 

officials and analyzed relevant documents. Specifically, we interviewed 

former and current IAE officials and the two Acquisition Committee for EGov (ACE) co-chairs from the Departments of Defense and Interior. 

These individuals described the acquisition strategy and governance 

structure that IAE developed in its early years. We verified these accounts 

with historical documents, such as internal newsletters and minutes from 

the ACE meetings that documented IAE’s development. To learn about 

the acquisition strategy IAE used to develop the System for Award 

Management (SAM), we interviewed IAE officials, reviewed IAE 

presentations, and analyzed SAM contract documents. We interviewed 

officials from IAE and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

learn about the program’s funding arrangement, obtained historical 

funding documents, and reviewed four of the interagency memorandums 

of understanding (MOU) used to fund IAE.

To determine the progress IAE has made in implementing SAM, we 

interviewed IAE officials and two of the contractors that are implementing 

SAM—IBM and GCE. We also reviewed IAE presentations, agency 

memorandums and communications, and analyzed SAM-related 

contracts. Due to lack of a formal cost baseline when SAM development 

started, we focused on the growth of the individual contracts of SAM, 

such as the IBM contract and the help desk contract. To determine SAM’s 

schedule growth, we used the original schedule created by IBM shortly 

after the contract was awarded and compared that to the latest schedule 

IAE officials provided us.

To understand and analyze the challenges IAE is facing in their 

consolidation, we interviewed officials from GSA, IAE, and OMB and 

analyzed SAM-related contracts. We also discussed IAE’s acquisition 

strategy with information technology contractors such as IBM and GCE. 

In order to understand IAE’s budget issues, we analyzed budget 

documents identifying projected funding and expenditures. We also 

analyzed the structure of IBM’s contract and verified our findings with IAE 

officials.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to March 

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 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Integrated Acquisition 

Environment (IAE) Data Systems

Page 25 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Central Contractor Registration (CCR)

CCR originally was a Department of Defense (DOD) data system that 

was brought into the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) portfolio in 

2003 and adapted for use across the federal government. CCR is the 

primary registrant database for the U.S. government. The government 

uses CCR to collect, validate, store, and disseminate data in support of 

agency acquisition and award missions. According to the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation, prospective contractors must register in CCR prior 

to the award of a contract. Also, to register in CCR, a firm must have a 

Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number.

The General Services Administration (GSA) has a contract with Northrop 

Grumman Information Technology to operate and maintain CCR. This 

contract ends September 2012.

Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS)

The Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) was created in 

2005 and intended to streamline the small business subcontracting 

program reporting process and provide the data to agencies in a manner 

that will enable them to more effectively manage the program. The Small 

Business Administration partnered with the IAE and other agency 

partners to develop the eSRS system. The eSRS is an Internet-based 

reporting tool that eliminates the need for contractors to submit and 

process Individual Subcontracting Reports (SF 294) and Summary 

Subcontracting Reports (SF 295) in hard copy. In 2007, the eSRS 

implemented an interface with FPDS-NG, which permits contractors to 

enter a contract number into eSRS and have the contract data retrieved 

from FPDS-NG for use in the subcontracting reports.

IAE has a contract with Symplicity, the original developer of eSRS, to 

provide operation and maintenance of eSRS. This contract will expire in 

September 2012, and IAE has plans to enter an interim contract with the 

same vendor until the system is migrated to SAM.

Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)

The purpose of EPLS is to provide a single comprehensive list of 

individuals and firms excluded from receiving federal contracts or 

federally approved subcontracts and from certain types of federal 

financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits. Contracting officers 

Appendix II: Integrated Acquisition 

Environment (IAE) Data Systems

Data system 

Description

Vendor information 

Data system 

Description

Vendor information 

Data system 

Description
Appendix II: Integrated Acquisition 

Environment (IAE) Data Systems

Page 26 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

use EPLS to determine whether to enter into a transaction with a specific 

contractor. EPLS is also available to the general public.

In 2011, IBM assumed responsibility to maintain and operate EPLS under 

the System for Award Management (SAM) contract.

Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps)

FedBizOpps is the single point of entry for federal buyers to publish and 

for vendors to find federal business opportunities over $25,000 across 

departments and agencies. Vendors can conduct ad hoc searches or set 

up automatic queries to notify them when opportunities meeting their 

criteria are posted.

IAE has a contract with Symplicity to operate and maintain FedBizOpps. 

IAE plans to exercise the two option years on the current contract, signed 

in 2011, and to extend it again until FedBizOpps is migrated to SAM.

Federal Agency Registration (FedReg)

In response to GAO’s classification of intragovernmental transactions as 

a governmentwide material weakness, OMB and the IAE collaborated 

with DOD to create FedReg in 2003. FedReg collects standard data on 

federal agency buyers and sellers who perform intragovernmental 

transactions. FedReg sends data on buyers and sellers to the 

Intragovernmental Transaction Exchange and Intragovernmental 

Transaction System to assist in tracking all intragovernmental 

transactions. FedReg also serves as a sort of government “Yellow 

Pages,” providing information on federal sellers of goods and services. All 

federal entities engaged in intragovernmental buying or selling must be 

registered. FedReg is now embedded within CCR.

GSA has a contract with Northrop Grumman Information Technology to 

operate and maintain FedReg (and CCR). This contract ends September 

2012.

Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation (FPDS-NG)

The Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation is a database 

that provides information on government contracting actions over $3,000, 

procurement trends, and achievement of socioeconomic goals, such as 

small business participation. In fiscal year 2011, there were nearly 

Vendor information 

Data system

Description

Vendor information 

Data system 

Description

Vendor information 

Data system 

Description
Appendix II: Integrated Acquisition 

Environment (IAE) Data Systems

Page 27 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

17,000,000 transactions recorded in FPDS-NG. FPDS-NG has been the 

primary governmentwide contracting database since 1978, and it serves 

as the backbone for other government contracting data systems. Since 

1982, GSA has administered the database on behalf of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy.

GSA awarded the FPDS-NG contract to Global Computer Enterprises, 

Inc., in 2011, and can exercise option years through 2015.

Wage Determinations OnLine.Gov (WDOL)

WDOL provides a single location for federal contracting officers to obtain 

Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act wage determinations. These 

acts require contractors and subcontractors to pay no less than the locally 

prevailing wages for services contracts and public works projects. In 

addition to wage determinations, the site also provides information on 

labor standards, federal and agency acquisition regulations, agency 

contracting processes, and other related information.

WDOL is physically maintained by the National Technical Information 

Service, an agency of the Department of Commerce.

Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA)

This application enables prospective government contractors to 

electronically submit required certifications and representations for 

responses to government solicitations for all federal contracts, instead of 

using hard copies for individual awards. The representations and 

certifications can be considered current for up to one year. These 

representations and certifications include certifications of socioeconomic 

status, affirmative action compliance, and compliance with veterans’ 

employment reporting requirements.

IBM has been the vendor for ORCA since its inception in 2004. In 2011, 

IBM assumed responsibility to maintain and operate ORCA under the 

SAM contract.

Vendor information 

Data system

Description

Vendor information 

Data system 

Description

Vendor information 
Appendix III: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 28 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

Appendix III: Comments from the General 

Services Administration
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 29 GAO-12-429 Federal Contracting

William T. Woods, (202) 512-4841 or WoodsW@gao.gov

In addition to the contact name above, John Oppenheim (Assistant 

Director); Marie Ahearn; E. Brandon Booth; Jillian Fasching; Madhav 

Panwar; Jeffrey Sanders; Benjamin Shattuck; Roxanna Sun; Robert 

Swierczek; and Rebecca Wilson made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(121007)
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.