INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

Potentially Duplicative 

Investments Exist at the 

Departments of Defense 

and Energy 

Statement of David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology Management Issues

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Technology, 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 

and Procurement Reform, Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST

Friday, February 17, 2012

GAO-12-462T
Page 1 

February 17, 2012

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the potentially duplicative 

information technology (IT) investments at selected agencies and actions 

these agencies are taking to address them. With at least $79 billion spent 

in fiscal year 2011 by the United States government on IT investments, it 

is important that federal agencies avoid investing in duplicative 

investments, whenever possible, to ensure the most efficient use of 

resources. 

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.1 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.2

You asked us to testify on our report being released today that describes

the extent to which potentially duplicative IT investments exist within 

these three categories, including the actions agencies are taking to 

address them.

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. 

3

 

1

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

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 

In this regard, my testimony specifically covers potentially 

duplicative investments we identified at three of the largest agencies with 

respect to number of investments–the Departments of Defense (DOD), 

Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS). In preparing this 

testimony, we relied on the GAO report being released at today’s hearing. 

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

2

GAO, Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments,

GAO-11-826 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2011). 

3

GAO, Information Technology: Departments of Defense and Energy Need to Address 

Potentially Duplicative Investments, GAO-12-241 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 17, 2012). 
Page 2 

In that report, 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.4

 

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).5 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)6

All work on which this testimony is based was performed 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 

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.

 

4

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. 

5

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. 

6

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 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objective. 

Background

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.7

OMB’s IT Oversight Mechanisms

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. 

OMB uses the following mechanisms to help it fulfill oversight 

responsibilities of federal IT spending during the annual budget 

formulation process.

• OMB requires 27 federal departments and agencies8 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).9

 

7

OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

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

8

The 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.

9

The 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 4 

• 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.10

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). 

For each major 

investment, the Dashboard provides performance ratings on cost and 

schedule, a chief information officer (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. The CIO also has the ability to provide written comments 

regarding the status of each investment. 

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.11

 

10According 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. 

Specifically, it does 

not include information from 58 independent executive branch agencies 

and 3 other agencies. 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. 

11GAO-11-826. 
Page 5 

Agencies Spend Billions on Poorly Performing IT Investments 

Despite OMB’s oversight mechanisms, the federal government spends 

billions of dollars on poorly performing IT investments, as the following 

examples illustrate: 

• 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.12

• 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.13

• 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.14

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 

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

concerns).

According to 

the Office of Personnel Management, it spent approximately $231 

million on this investment. 

15

 

12Advance Policy Questions for Testimony of Elizabeth A. McGrath to be Deputy Chief 

Management Officer of the Department of Defense, 

(See fig. 1.)

http://armedservices.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/McGrath%2003-23-10.pdf (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2010).

13GAO, Border Security: Preliminary Observations on the Status of Key Southwest Border 

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

14GAO, OPM Retirement Modernization: Longstanding Information Technology 

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

Nov. 15, 2011). 

15The approximately 800 major IT investments total about $40.6 billion for fiscal year 

2011.
Page 6 

Figure 1: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the Dashboard, 

as of August 2011

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 

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

improvements to or termination of IT investments with performance 

problems. 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 
Page 7 

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.

Categorization of IT Investments Is Intended to Facilitate Identification of Similar IT 

Investments

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. 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. 

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 2 

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

federal agencies that report to the IT Dashboard. 
Page 8 

Figure 2: 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. 

GAO Has Previously Reported on Potential Duplication and the Challenges of 

Identifying Duplicative Investments 

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

testimonies and made numerous recommendations to OMB and federal 
Page 9 

agencies to identify and reduce duplication within the federal 

government’s portfolio of IT investments.16

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

functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or 

fragmentation existed.

 

17

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 

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 

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. The 

report touched on hundreds of federal programs, including IT programs, 

affecting virtually all major federal departments and agencies. 

 

16GAO, 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).

17GAO-11-318SP. 
Page 10 

Consolidation Initiative to guide federal agencies in consolidating data 

centers. Specifically, OMB and agencies plan to close more than 950 of 

the over 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.18

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 

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.

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. OMB officials generally 

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

FEA reference models to provide additional clarity on how agencies 

should characterize investments in order to enhance the identification of 

potentially duplicative investments.

 

18GAO-11-826. 
Page 11 

Selected Agencies Have Potentially Duplicative Investments; DOD 

and DOE Need to Do More to Address Them

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.

Potentially Duplicative IT Investments Exist at Selected Agencies 

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. 

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

reviewed,

19

 

19We 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. 

 we identified 37 potentially duplicative investments at DOD 

and DOE within three FEA categories (Human Resource Management, 
Page 12 

Information and Technology Management, and Supply Chain 

Management).20

• 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 1). 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 1 summarizes the 

12 groups of potentially duplicative investments we identified by purpose 

and agency.

 

20Within 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 13 

Table 1: 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, including a personnel security investment, time and 

attendance investment, human resources investment, and an information 

network investment. 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 
Page 14 

decentralized IT management approach, which allowed offices to develop

systems independent of any other office’s IT needs or acquisitions. 

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. Specifically, we identified 13 miscategorized investments 

at DOD, 4 at DOE, and 5 at DHS. For example, 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. 

Therefore, we recommended in our report that the agencies correct the 

miscategorizations for the investments we identified and ensure that 

investments are correctly categorized in agency submissions. In 

response, DOD stated that it agreed, and will attempt to make the 

categorization changes for certain investments in its fiscal year 2013 

submission. DHS also agreed with the recommendation, and provided 

documentation showing that the department had recently corrected the 

miscategorizations for each of the investments we identified. DOE agreed 

that two of the four investments we identified could be recategorized, and 

reported that the department has made those changes. However, DOE 

disagreed that the other two investments we identified were 

miscategorized, explaining that its categorizations reflect funding 

considerations. However, OMB guidance indicates that investments 

should be classified according to their intended purpose. Consequently, 

we believe the recommendation is warranted.
Page 15 

Agencies Have Recently Initiated Plans to Address Potential Duplication in Many 

Investments, but Results Have Yet to Be Realized at DOD and DOE

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. For example, officials identified multiple personnel action 

processing systems that could be consolidated.

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 

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. Officials reported that these initiatives 

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

that we identified. 

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 
Page 16 

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. 

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 

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, which are two 

civilian personnel management investments. Specifically, DOD officials 

stated that they do not have plans to address these two 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.

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. Therefore, we recommended that these two agencies utilize 

existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard, to report 

on the results of their departments’ efforts to identify and eliminate, where 

appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment we identified, as well 

as any other duplicative investments. In response to our report, DOD and 

DOE stated that they agreed with the recommendation. Additionally, DOE

added that for the non-major investments that we 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.
Page 17 

In summary, 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 that 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. Implementation of our recommendations should provide 

better assurance that agencies are avoiding investment in unnecessary 

systems.

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer 

any questions at this time.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me 

at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who 

made key contributions to this testimony are Shannin O’Neill, Assistant 

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

(311272)
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.
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.