Architect of the Capitol: Midyear Status Report on Implementation of Management Review Recommendations
Published: 2004-08-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Conference Report on the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, directed GAO to monitor AOC's progress in implementing recommendations contained in GAO's management review of AOC's operations, issued in January 2003. This is the second status report in which GAO examines the actions taken by AOC to implement selected GAO recommendations. Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, mandated GAO to assess AOC's Chief Operating Officer's (COO) action plan. This report provides that assessment.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: AOC has made progress on key management control issues, but substantial work remains to achieve sustained, long-term management improvements and organizational transformation. These key issues include (1) stakeholder involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable financial statements and related internal controls, (4) financial reporting for operating units and cost accounting, (5) information security management, (6) worker safety performance measures, (7) Capitol complex master planning, and (8) strategic management of recycling. For example, AOC has not fully engaged its congressional and other stakeholders in developing a clear, transparent, and documented understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how progress will be assessed. AOC has taken some steps to involve its stakeholders by delivering planning documents and responding to requests for information. AOC has made progress addressing employee communications issues and can maintain momentum by fully and effectively implementing its planned initiatives. AOC has made progress in preparing auditable agencywide financial statements; however, it has deferred the audit of a complete set of financial statements from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. Also, substantial work remains before AOC can provide its managers with the meaningful financial, cost, and performance information needed to enhance their management of operating units. AOC has continued to make some progress establishing the management foundation for effective information security management, but much remains to be accomplished, such as completing system risk assessments and monitoring and evaluating its security policies and controls. Additionally, AOC has developed performance measures to track worker safety, but work remains to ensure successful implementation of these measures. In regard to project management, AOC has taken steps to develop a Capitol complex master plan and expects it to be available for stakeholder comment in February 2006. Given the importance of the master plan, stakeholder involvement early in and throughout its development is key to the plan's ultimate acceptance and value. Similarly, AOC has made progress developing a mission statement and goals for its recycling program as part of its broader Environmental Program Plan, although AOC does not expect to obtain congressional input until after the plan has been completed--an important omission. The Architect and the COO need to work with Congress to determine Congress' information needs--with a specific focus on AOC's project management--and the timing and format of delivery of that information that will best meet Congress' needs. The COO Action Plan was submitted to Congress on December 22, 2003--59 days late. Overall, the plan's high-level description of action items assumes that Congress and other users have a deep and detailed knowledge of AOC's goals, internal operations, and management functions--a level of knowledge that is not reasonable to expect.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: This is our second semiannual report on the Office of the Architect of the  Capitol (AOC), as required by the Conference Report on the Consolidated  Appropriations Resolution, 2003.  This report evaluates AOC’s progress  since December 1, 2003, in establishing select elements of a strategic  management and accountability framework, including strong management  infrastructure and controls, to drive its agency transformation efforts and  to address long-standing program issues.  In January 2004, we completed  the first semiannual review and issued a report on AOC’s progress from  January 18, 2003, through November 30, 2003, in implementing  recommendations outlined in our January 2003 report.
Based on our past reviews of AOC’s progress implementing our  recommendations, this report focuses on eight key management control  issues that deserve near-term attention.  These are (1) stakeholder  involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable financial  statements and related internal controls, (4) financial reporting for  operating units and cost accounting, (5) information security management,  (6) worker safety performance measures, (7) Capitol complex master  planning, and (8) strategic management of recycling.  Each key issue is  linked to one or more of our prior recommendations.  As mandated by the  Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, this report also assesses the  Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer (COO) Action Plan that was  issued in December 2003.  We conducted our work in Washington, D.C.,  from April 2004 through July 2004 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new construction  of the buildings and grounds primarily located within the Capitol Hill  complex.  Organizationally, AOC consists of a centralized staff that  performs administrative functions and separate “jurisdictions” responsible  for the day-to-day operations at the U.S. Capitol Building, the Senate Office  Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the Library of Congress Buildings  and Grounds, the Supreme Court Buildings and Grounds, the Capitol  Grounds, the Capitol Power Plant, and the Botanic Garden.  The historic  nature and high profile of many of these buildings creates a complex  environment in which to carry out AOC’s mission.  AOC must perform its  duties in an environment that requires balancing the divergent needs of  congressional leadership, committees, individual members of Congress,  congressional staffs, and the visiting public.  The challenges of operating in  this environment were complicated by the events of September 11, 2001,  and the resulting need for increased security.
We issued a report in January 2003 that contained 35 recommendations to  assist AOC in establishing a strategic management and accountability  framework, including strong management infrastructure and controls, to  drive its agency transformation effort, and to address long-standing  program issues.  As a part of ongoing work to monitor AOC’s efforts to  implement the recommendations, we issued a report in January 2004 that  covered the agency’s progress from January 18, 2003, through November  30, 2003.
In our January 2004 report, we reiterated that many of AOC’s management  problems are long-standing and that organizational transformation would  take time to accomplish.  Not surprisingly, AOC’s efforts to address the 35  recommendations were, at that time, very much a work in progress.  We  highlighted the agency’s first steps to develop a management and  accountability framework, including the issuance of a draft strategic plan  and efforts to strengthen individual accountability for goals.  We noted,  however, that additional steps were needed to enhance communications  with congressional and other stakeholders and employees.  In addition, we  found that AOC began to draft new human capital policies and procedures  and developed three broad-based action plans to help institutionalize  financial management best practices, although many of the actions were  not scheduled for completion until 2007.
We also reported that AOC was making progress developing an agencywide  approach to information technology (IT) management, although additional  steps were needed to ensure that, for example, mature information security  management, investment management, and enterprise architecture (EA)  management processes are implemented.  In addition, we found that AOC  was beginning to address worker safety concerns by developing a hazard  assessment and control policy, although it is not expected to be fully  implemented until May 2006; was taking steps to establish a project  prioritization framework for better management and accountability; and  was progressing toward adopting a more strategic approach to recycling.   Overall, we concluded that AOC fulfilled three recommendations, and we  made four additional recommendations—which brought to 36 the number  of open recommendations.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report is part of our effort under a congressional mandate to monitor  AOC’s progress to establish a strategic management and accountability  framework, improve its management infrastructure and internal control,  and address long-standing areas of concern.  Our first objective was to  assess AOC’s progress over the 6-month period from December 1, 2003,  through May 31, 2004, on eight key issues that deserve near-term attention  and focus: (1) stakeholder involvement, (2) employee communications,   (3) auditable financial statements and related internal controls,   (4) financial reporting for operating units and cost accounting,   (5) information security management, (6) worker safety performance  measures, (7) Capitol complex master planning, and (8) strategic  management of recycling.  Our second objective, which was mandated by  the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), was  to assess AOC’s COO action plan that was issued in December 2003.
To address our first objective, we collected documentation to determine  AOC’s progress on addressing each key issue and the 16 corresponding  prior recommendations.  For example, we reviewed documents such as  AOC’s 5-year strategic and annual performance plans; strategic  communications plan; process manuals; funds control administration  order; policy for inventory management; security risk management policy;  information security training, education, and awareness policy; IT security  metrics policy; inspection, audit, and evaluation policy; and updated  occupational safety and health program plan.  We also interviewed AOC  officials responsible for implementing the 16 recommendations and other  related improvement efforts under way at AOC.
To address our second objective, we reviewed and analyzed several  documents, including (1) the requirements of the Deputy Architect/Chief  Operating Officer Action Plan described in the legislation; (2) the Report  to the Congress from the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, dated  December 22, 2003; (3) the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer  Action Plan, dated December 22, 2003; and (4) the Architect of the Capitol  Strategic Plan, dated December 15, 2003.
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from April 2004 through July  2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: AOC Has Yet to Fully Engage Congressional and Other Stakeholders
paragraphs: AOC must perform its duties in an environment that requires balancing the  divergent needs of congressional leadership, committees, individual  members of Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting public.  The  challenges of operating in this environment were complicated by the events  of September 11, 2001, and the resulting need for increased security.  As we  stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, it is critical for AOC to  engage Congress and other stakeholders to ensure that its strategic and  other planning efforts fully consider the interests and expectations of these  stakeholders.  Successful stakeholder involvement requires continuously  engaging Congress and other stakeholders to obtain their input and  feedback for organizational or operational changes at AOC, ensuring that  AOC’s finite resources are efficiently targeted at the highest project  priorities, and fostering a basic understanding with Congress and other  stakeholders of how to balance competing demands.  Successful  stakeholder involvement also includes improving AOC’s accountability  reporting, which helps communicate what AOC has accomplished and its  plan for continued progress.
In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that would  help AOC improve its relations with Congress and other stakeholders:  Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving  key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC’s strategic  planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from  these efforts.
Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external  communications by improving annual accountability reporting through  annual performance planning and reporting.
Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external  communications by completing the development of congressional  protocols by involving stakeholders.
As noted in our January 2004 report, AOC improved its strategic planning  process and provided more specificity to its strategic goals and objectives,  as well as developed milestone dates and actions to assist AOC in  monitoring its progress.  AOC also made progress in improving annual  accountability reporting by implementing a strategic management  framework, which includes issuing a strategic plan every 2 years,  developing an annual performance plan, and developing an annual  performance report that discusses how AOC is progressing on meeting its  goals, as well as holding midyear status briefings.  An AOC official stated  the agency recognizes that the next step in the strategic planning process is  to more fully incorporate outcome- and performance-based measures into  the agency’s strategic and performance plans, and AOC has recently  developed a statement of work to seek assistance in developing both  quantitative and qualitative performance measures to demonstrate  progress toward its strategic goals and objectives.  In addition, we noted  that AOC was partially addressing the development of congressional  protocols.  To further assist these efforts, we made an additional  recommendation for AOC to conduct a pilot of its congressional protocols  in one or more of its jurisdictions to determine how well its protocols  would work in addressing customer requests for service while balancing  the needs of multiple requests with the requirements of the strategic plan  and corresponding project priorities of the agency.
During the 6-month review period, AOC did not fully engage its  congressional and other stakeholders.  For example, AOC has not reached  agreement with Congress on how best to develop a clear, transparent, and  documented understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how  progress will be assessed.  In addition, as detailed in other sections of this  report, AOC needs to expand Congress’ involvement in the development of  the Capitol complex master plan and the mission and goals for the agency’s  recycling program.  AOC did take some steps to inform these stakeholders  by delivering planning documents to Congress, responding to requests for  information, and attending monthly or biweekly meetings with  congressional stakeholders.  AOC officials stated that they delivered AOC’s  final strategic plan, performance plan, and COO action plan to  congressional stakeholders in December 2003 to inform them of planned  activities.  (See our assessment of the COO action plan below.)  AOC also  generated a detailed report, at the request of its congressional  stakeholders, that outlined AOC’s progress in implementing our  recommendations.  Furthermore, AOC did take some steps to  communicate with congressional and other stakeholders by attending  monthly meetings held by House leadership; biweekly meetings with other  House stakeholders, such as the House Clerk and Sergeant At Arms;  monthly meetings with the Senate Rules Committee; and bimonthly  meetings with the Senate Sergeant At Arms.  AOC is also preparing to issue  its third building services customer satisfaction survey in June 2004 to  measure the agency’s performance.  However, it has yet to release the  results of the 2003 survey, which was originally scheduled for December  2003, because it has yet to be approved by several AOC jurisdictions.
As we reported in January 2003, AOC drafted an initial set of congressional  protocols to help AOC work with its congressional customers using clearly  defined, consistently applied, and transparent policies and procedures.   Since then, AOC completed draft congressional protocols and submitted  them to key congressional stakeholders.  An AOC official stated that, based  on stakeholder feedback, the protocols are not viable because  congressional stakeholders do not believe they are applicable to the  operation of and services conducted by AOC.  Based on this feedback, an  AOC official said that the agency may not pursue implementing the  congressional protocols.
As a legislative branch agency, we have found congressional protocols to  be a successful vehicle in helping us work with Congress.  Successful  development and implementation of these protocols first required us to  reach out to and solicit feedback from congressional and other  stakeholders to develop an understanding of congressional customer needs  and identify concerns before we developed an initial draft.  Further, we  continuously engaged our congressional and other stakeholders  throughout pilot testing and implementation.  Thus, if AOC decides not to  further pursue the congressional protocols or some other vehicle, neither  AOC nor congressional stakeholders can be assured that agency efforts and  resources are targeted at their highest project priorities and transparency  exists for strategic and tactical decisions and trade-offs.
AOC has taken some steps to involve congressional and other  stakeholders; however, it has yet to fully engage these stakeholders.  AOC  can strengthen its stakeholder relationships by informing congressional  and other stakeholders of AOC’s progress and activities, as well as more  effectively consulting with these stakeholders to build a mutual  understanding of each other’s priorities.
subsections: section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: To strengthen the relationship between AOC and its congressional and  other stakeholders, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol direct the  Chief Operating Officer to  actively consult with Congress on the design and implementation of  meaningful outcome- and performance-based measures that are useful  to both AOC and Congress and thereby enable AOC and Congress to  assess AOC’s progress;    expedite the release of the 2003 building services customer satisfaction  survey, as a transparency and accountability mechanism and to provide  Congress and other stakeholders assurance that actions are being taken  in response to their feedback; and   work with Congress on the design and implementation of a transparent  process to facilitate an understanding between AOC and its  congressional stakeholders about how AOC targets its efforts and  resources at the highest project priorities and how strategic and tactical  decisions and trade-offs are made.
section_title: AOC Has Made Progress toward Implementing an Employee Communications Strategy
paragraphs: Strong internal communication with employees is vital to any  organizational transformation by helping employees understand their  contribution to overall agency goals and facilitate feedback that helps an  organization develop strategies for improvement.  Strong employee  communications would also help AOC address its history of employee  relations problems and complaints.  Effective communication efforts  include receiving employee input, which can be obtained from existing  offices that interact directly with employees, or via other methods,  including employee surveys or focus groups.  Regardless of the source,  systematically collecting and analyzing employee data are important for  identifying agencywide issues affecting employee relations and improving  human capital policies and procedures.  Another useful practice for dealing  with issues affecting employee relations and collecting employee data is to  establish an ombudsperson position.
In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations to improve  AOC’s ability to communicate with employees:   Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external  communications by providing opportunities for routine employee input  and feedback.
Strengthen AOC’s human capital policies, procedures, and processes by  assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and  analyze data from the various employee relations offices and employee  advisory council while maintaining employee confidentiality.
Establish a direct reporting relationship between the ombudsperson and  the Architect consistent with professional standards.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was partially addressing the  development of a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external  communications.  As such, we made an additional recommendation for  AOC to gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or  surveys before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking  actions to address any identified employee concerns.
Over the 6-month period reviewed, AOC continued to make progress  addressing employee communications by obtaining employee input and  providing employees with feedback, as well as assessing the data gathered  during these efforts.  To help implement these steps, AOC management  issued a communications plan, a draft employee feedback manual, a  customer satisfaction survey manual, and a focus group guide.  Specifically,  AOC’s Employee Feedback Process Manual stated that it is AOC’s policy  “to periodically and systematically obtain and report employee feedback,  to assess satisfaction levels on activity-related topics, and to use this  feedback in improvement actions.”
To obtain employee input and provide employee feedback, AOC developed  a guide that outlines procedures for conducting focus groups and discusses  AOC’s intent to contract out the facilitation of focus groups.  AOC  management also prepared a statement of work that provides requirements  a contractor must follow when conducting focus groups, including a  requirement for providing a written report containing general conclusions  and findings.  AOC officials stated that they awarded the contract on June  28, 2003, to facilitate AOC’s focus groups, so they may begin no later than  August 1, 2004.
AOC also obtains employee input by requiring key managers to document  and track employees’ concerns or issues each month.  Key AOC officials  from AOC’s Employee Assistance Programs, Labor Relations, Employment  Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity, Employee Advisory Council  (EAC), senior management, and Human Resources Management Division  (HRMD) meet monthly to assess employee concerns and identify  systematic concerns.  Agency officials stated that at each of the meetings,  all attendees are reminded that employee confidentiality must be  maintained.  In May 2004, the attendees agreed to pursue a number of  actions in response to employee concerns discussed at the monthly  meetings.  Furthermore, AOC has included as an objective in its Human  Capital Plan to solicit feedback from its EAC.  AOC also plans to use exit  interviews to collect employees’ views upon leaving AOC as well as  regularly obtain input from employees through its customer satisfaction  surveys, to gauge AOC’s internal customers’, including employees’,  perceptions of AOC’s performance.
To provide feedback to its employees, AOC continues to publish its weekly  and quarterly agencywide newsletters (AOC This Week and Shop Talk) and  issues HR Bulletins that provide updates on changes in human resource  practices and highlight information regarding issues such as employee  benefits.  AOC also published a pamphlet that summarizes the agency’s  strategic plan.  According to agency officials, every AOC employee has  received a copy of the pamphlet, while “town hall” briefings have been held  with over 400 employees to further discuss the strategic plan.
Regarding the use of an ombudsperson, AOC officials agreed with the  recommendation in our January 2004 report to adhere to the standard of  independence for the office of an ombudsperson.  Agency officials also  noted that direct meetings between the Ombudsperson and the Architect  were planned, but they never took place because the Ombudsperson’s  contract expired on September 30, 2003, and the position has not been  filled.  AOC does not have plans to fill the position of ombudsperson.   According to AOC officials, the ombudsperson was to serve as an  independent provider of advice and counsel to nonunion employees on  employment policies, practices, and other employment-related matters.   The ombudsperson’s duties and responsibilities focused on resolving  employee issues that may have not been resolved by other offices,  according to AOC officials.
AOC has made progress in addressing employee communications issues by  creating the basic framework in its communications plan and process  manuals by which AOC will regularly obtain employee input, systematically  analyze those data, and provide feedback to employees on improvement  actions that results from those efforts.  For instance, AOC has committed  itself to initiating employee focus groups not later than August 1, 2004.   AOC also needs to issue and implement its draft Employee Feedback  Manual.  AOC can maintain momentum in this area by fully implementing  the policies and procedures that it drafted or issued as part of its employee  communication efforts.  As we noted in our October 2003 report on the  Government Printing Office’s transformation, developing a comprehensive  communications strategy that reaches out to employees and seeks to  engage them in a two-way exchange helps to build trust and cultivate  stronger working relationships.  Most important, AOC’s top leadership  must make visible and timely adjustments as appropriate in policy or  procedures in response to employee concerns.
AOC’s decision to not fill the vacant ombudsperson position raises  questions as to whether the services previously provided by the  ombudsperson are being met by other offices or are no longer needed.   Given the history of employee relations issues at AOC, a critical component  of such a management decision would be to conduct a thorough analysis of  the agency’s and employees’ needs, as well as an assessment of the  capacity of existing offices, both internal and external to AOC, to fulfill  those needs.  Without a thorough analysis AOC cannot be assured that the  need for an ombudsperson no longer exists, or that AOC units are prepared  to fulfill the responsibilities an ombudsperson would have performed.
subsections: section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: To improve communications with employees, we recommend that the  Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to  fully and effectively implement the basic framework as defined in its  communications plan and process manuals, and finalize its draft  employee feedback manual to assure that the current progress already  made is maintained and   conduct an analysis of both AOC management and employee needs with  respect to resolving employee concerns and issues, as well as assessing  the capacity of existing offices to fulfill those needs.
section_title: Progress Made in Preparing Auditable Financial Statements and Establishing Related Internal Controls
paragraphs: Preparing auditable financial statements and establishing related internal  controls are fundamental components of a foundation of control and  accountability.  In our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, we discussed  the value of a system of checks and balances over assets and financial  reporting.  These steps are a key foundation for implementing our January  2003 recommendation that AOC continue to improve its approach to  financial management by institutionalizing practices that will support  budgeting, financial, and program management.  AOC’s goals of preparing  auditable financial statements and establishing effective internal controls  are significant components of AOC’s plan to build a foundation of financial  control and accountability—one of the three broad-based action plans  established by AOC’s Office of Chief Financial Officer to respond to our  recommendation.
In preparing for an audit of its September 30, 2003, balance sheet, AOC  prepared a full set of agencywide financial statements for fiscal year 2003  and has, in fiscal year 2004, begun preparing quarterly agencywide financial  statements.  This first-ever audit of AOC’s balance sheet is nearing  completion and AOC officials expect the auditor’s report to be issued in the  near future.  Completing the first agencywide balance sheet audit  represents a key step in AOC’s efforts to build a foundation of financial  control and accountability.  As we reported in January 2004, AOC planned  to begin issuing a complete set of audited financial statements for fiscal  year 2004.  However, according to AOC officials, the fiscal year 2003 audit  has taken longer and required more effort to support than initially planned  and, as a result, management has now modified its plan for the fiscal year  2004 audit.  In particular, AOC officials noted that establishing the  historical cost for AOC building and improvement assets and values for  AOC liabilities took longer and required more work than initially expected.   AOC has decided to forgo an audit of a complete set of financial statements  for fiscal year 2004 and instead will have its September 30, 2004, balance  sheet audited.  According to AOC officials, after consulting with AOC’s  audit committee and its auditor, AOC decided to defer the audit of a full set  of statements to fiscal year 2005 because of the limited time and CFO staff  resources available to begin preparing for an audit of a complete set of  statements for fiscal year 2004 and the need to work on strengthening  internal controls, including ongoing efforts to address issues identified  during the fiscal year 2003 audit.  In conjunction with the audit of the  September 30, 2004, balance sheet, AOC officials plan to ask the external  auditor to perform additional procedures, which will be designed to help  AOC better prepare for the audit of a complete set of AOC financial  statements for fiscal year 2005.  However, even though the auditor’s work  for fiscal year 2004 will be limited to a balance sheet audit and some  additional procedures, AOC has not revised its stated goal of receiving an  unqualified opinion on a complete set of fiscal year 2005 financial  statements.
Regarding progress on internal controls during the 6-month period, AOC  has adopted and implemented key policies and procedures in the areas of  account reconciliations and funds control administration, and  institutionalized its policies on inventory management and control.  In  addition, during this period, AOC’s external auditor has, as part of the  balance sheet audit, been reviewing relevant internal controls.  Account  reconciliations, such as those adopted by AOC for accounts receivable and  fund balance with Treasury, are a fundamental control over financial  reporting.  Funds control administration is a group of control processes  that provide a means of establishing responsibilities and delegating  authority to the managers who are to be accountable for the use and  control of appropriated funds.  In addition, AOC has made progress in  institutionalizing its policies on inventory management and control.  AOC  finalized an inventory management policy in January 2004 and, shortly  thereafter, initiated a major effort to train all inventory personnel on  related procedures and controls.  According to AOC officials,  implementation of these policies and procedures came about as part of  efforts to prepare the fiscal year 2003 agencywide financial statements.   Finally, as we discussed, AOC expects the auditor to report on the results  of the audit, including its internal control work, in the near future.  The  results of the auditor’s internal control work will provide AOC with  valuable information as it pursues other efforts to strengthen internal  controls and enhance financial control and accountability.
We reported in January 2004 that AOC plans to issue a policy statement on  internal controls by September 30, 2004.  In this regard, AOC has begun the  process of obtaining contractor support to assist management in  developing an internal control framework, a related policy statement on  internal controls, and related training.  To speed their efforts and enhance  its acceptance within the agency, AOC officials hope to model their internal  control framework and related guidance after ones that are currently in use  elsewhere in the legislative branch.  As AOC prepares to implement an  internal control framework, AOC needs to realize that establishing  appropriate and effective accounting, compliance, and operational  controls, which potentially may affect all aspects of AOC operations and  activities, represents a significant agencywide challenge—one that will  require senior management attention and support.
During the 6-month review period, AOC made progress in preparing  agencywide financial statements; supporting the audit of its September 30,  2003, balance sheet; and establishing related internal control policies and  procedures.  This progress provides a valuable baseline from which to  further leverage the audit process through related efforts to improve  internal controls over financial reporting and institutionalize financial  management best practices.  In addition, as plans move forward for a full  scope audit of a complete set of financial statements for fiscal year 2005,  AOC needs to provide strong and visible support for these efforts.
subsections: section_title: Recommendation for Agency Action
paragraphs: To help strengthen and sustain AOC’s emerging foundation of financial  accountability and control, we recommend that the Architect of the  Capitol, the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and other  senior management provide strong and visible support for efforts to  prepare auditable financial statements and implement an effective internal  control framework by monitoring the implementation and related  milestones for each effort, ensuring the commitment to and support for  each effort by participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any  impediments that may arise.
section_title: Substantial Work Remains on Providing Financial Reporting for Operating Units and Implementing Cost Accounting Processes and Procedures
paragraphs: Developing and using meaningful financial reports by major operating units  and implementing effective cost accounting processes and procedures can  help extend responsibility for financial accountability and control to AOC’s  operating units.  An important aspect of having meaningful financial  information available to managers in operating units is the ability to  implement an appropriate level of cost accounting processes and  procedures that can provide the kind of cost information needed to  effectively manage operations.  Using financial information at the major  operating unit level that incorporates effective cost accounting processes  and procedures can be a key component of AOC’s ongoing efforts to  institutionalize financial management best practices in support of  budgeting, financial, and program management at AOC.
AOC has made progress in developing the capacity to produce automated  financial reports for its major operating units (jurisdictions).  The financial  reports, which currently consist of financial statements for each major  operating unit, are developed with the same basic processes and data used  to produce AOC’s agencywide financial statements.  AOC officials said that  operating unit financial reports have not yet been provided to managers  because CFO staff need to conduct an initial review and analysis of their  content and operational managers need to receive some training on the  content of the reported information and how it might be useful to them.   AOC officials expect to begin distributing the financial reports and  providing related training to operating unit managers by the end of March  2005.  AOC officials acknowledged that providing managers with financial- statement-level information for their major operating units is only an initial  step in developing financial and cost-related information that managers can  use to enhance their operations.
AOC’s December 2003 performance plan makes provisions for a multiyear  plan for establishing AOC’s cost accounting goals and objectives and  identifying and implementing system and procedural changes needed to  accomplish them.  However, the plan calls for only limited work to be  completed through the end of fiscal year 2005, with major work scheduled  for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2007 to identify and implement  system and procedural changes needed to have a cost accounting system  operational in fiscal year 2008.
In explaining the limited near-term progress planned for implementing cost  accounting, AOC officials noted that successfully implementing cost  accounting depends on an organization’s strategic goals, objectives, and  related performance measures, which tend to drive the categories of costs  and how the related data should be collected and reported.  However, AOC  officials noted that a recent AOC effort to study the potential for  developing performance-based budgets indicated that AOC’s current  strategic and performance plans do not define either the expected level of  program performance or the actual results that should be achieved.   Recognizing these limitations, AOC’s recently issued Cost Accounting  Feasibility Study noted that AOC staff working on strategic planning are  developing an agencywide approach that will identify appropriate and  consistent performance metrics across major operating units. The effort is  scheduled for completion some time in fiscal year 2005.  The December  2003 performance plan indicates that the CFO staff plan to begin  substantive work on the underlying studies and analyses needed to support  recommendations on implementing cost accounting at AOC in fiscal year  2006.  In explaining the schedule for implementing cost accounting, AOC  officials said that it made more sense to defer substantive work on  implementing cost accounting until agencywide performance measures  and metrics are established, especially in light of the other ongoing tasks  and priorities that the CFO’s office is responsible for leading.
While AOC can now generate financial reports for major operating units  annually and quarterly, substantial work remains to be done to conduct an  initial review and analyze the form and content of the recently developed  reports and to train operating managers on the information’s content and  its potential use in managing and overseeing operating units.  Also, while it  may now be relatively easy and efficient to generate quarterly and annual  financial reports for major operating units consisting of financial- statement-level information, it is not clear at this time how useful operating  managers will find the information they contain.  In addition, AOC does not  have outcome and performance-based measures and metrics that can be  used by operating managers to link financial information to outcomes and  performance.  As a result, substantial work remains to be done before AOC  can provide managers with the meaningful financial, cost, and performance  information needed to enhance their management of operating units and  extend responsibility for financial accountability and control to the units.
We consider AOC’s ongoing efforts to provide managers with operating unit  financial information and training on the meaning and potential use of such  information to be good initial steps in orienting AOC’s managers on the use  of financial data to enhance operational management.  However, once the  managers are provided with timely financial statements for major operating  units and the related training, AOC officials need to work with operating  managers to assess the usefulness of the financial-statement-level  information and to identify opportunities to expand or otherwise enhance  the nature and type of information (e.g., detailed cost accounting  information for specific projects and operating activities) made available to  managers.
With regard to cost accounting, AOC does not have the cost accounting  processes and procedures needed to produce operation-specific cost  information that can be used by managers to enhance their management of  major operating units.  Furthermore, AOC officials noted that they do not  expect to begin substantive work on a multiyear effort to develop and  implement system and procedural changes necessary to implement  appropriate cost accounting at AOC until fiscal year 2006.  The officials  anticipate completing the needed system and procedural changes in fiscal  year 2007 and having a cost accounting system operational in fiscal year  2008.
AOC officials acknowledged that, in the interim, some opportunity exists to  develop and apply selected high-level cost allocations that would  allocate—over some reasonable basis—selected categories of overhead  costs (e.g., the costs associated with operating functional activities such as  human resources, finance, and budget) to major operating units.  However,  the officials also noted that the value or usefulness of such information is  limited by the lack of specific cost accounting data on performance  measures and metrics.  The officials noted that the allocations would be, by  their nature, done after the fact and operating unit managers would likely  have little to no reasonable frame of reference or perspective on the level  of overhead costs allocated to their operating unit or how those costs relate  to their unit.
While each of the reasons cited by AOC officials to support the anticipated  time frame for implementing the needed cost accounting system has merit,  we think it is reasonable to determine whether, prior to fiscal year 2006,  substantial work can begin on the underlying studies and analyses that will  be needed to identify options and develop tentative recommendations for  implementing a cost accounting system at AOC.  In addition, it is important  for the CFO’s office to actively support and facilitate AOC’s efforts to  develop organizational performance measures and metrics, which along  with cost accounting information can be tracked and used to improve the  operations and management of AOC’s major operating units.  As we noted  in our January 2003 report, it is also important for management to  demonstrate its commitment to making and supporting needed changes,  which include implementing operating unit financial reports and cost  accounting throughout the organization.
subsections: section_title: Recommendations for Agency Actions
paragraphs: To enhance the successful development of useful financial, cost, and  performance reporting for major operating units and appropriate cost  accounting, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol direct the  Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to   work with operating managers to assess the usefulness of financial- statement-level information, take an active role in AOC near-term efforts  to develop agencywide performance measures, and review all available  options to determine whether substantial work can begin, prior to fiscal  year 2006, on the analyses needed to identify changes necessary to  implement useful cost accounting at AOC, and  have senior management visibly demonstrate its continuing  commitment to and support for making AOC-wide system, procedural,  and cultural changes necessary to provide managers with timely  financial, cost, and performance information by monitoring the efforts’  implementation and related milestones, ensuring the commitment to  and support for the efforts by participating AOC units, and acting to  resolve any impediments that may arise.
section_title: AOC Has Continued to Make Progress Implementing Its Information Security Program
paragraphs: Information security is an important consideration for any organization  that depends on information technology to carry out its mission.  Without  the proper safeguards, unauthorized access to systems can result in  disclosure of sensitive information, fraud, disruption to operations, or  attacks against other organizations’ sites.
In our January 2003 report, we stated that effective information security  management is critical to AOC’s ability to ensure the reliability, availability,  and confidentiality of its information technology assets.  Such AOC assets  include the Computer-Aided Facilities Management system that is used to  request and fulfill work orders for maintenance of the Capitol and the  surrounding grounds, and the Records Management system that is used to  archive architectural drawings pertaining to the U.S. Capitol, Library of  Congress, Botanic Garden, and other buildings.  We also reported that AOC  took important steps to establish an effective information security  program, but that much remained to be done before the agency would be in  a position to effectively safeguard its information and technology assets.   Accordingly, we recommended that the agency establish and implement an  information security program.  More specifically, we recommended that  AOC (1) designate a security officer and provide him or her with the  authority and resources to implement an agencywide security program,  (2) develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the  associated training, (3) develop and implement policies and guidance to  perform risk assessments continually, (4) use the results of the risk  assessments to develop and implement appropriate controls, and  (5) monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.
In our January 2004 report, we stated that AOC laid some of the foundation  for establishing an effective security program, such as designating an  information security officer, giving this official the authority and  responsibility to implement an agencywide security program, and  beginning to draft information security policies.  We also reported that AOC  partially allocated the resources needed to begin to implement its security  program, although more work remained to define and then execute the  program.  For example, we reported that AOC needed to follow through on  its stated commitments to provide needed program resources, finalize its  security policies, define processes for implementing the policies, and  implement them.
Since then, AOC has continued to make progress in implementing our  recommendations, but important work remains in five basic areas of  information security management.  First, AOC has contracted to conduct  security operations, risk management, policy assessment, and metrics  activities, but it still needs to provide resources to its security program,  including hiring two security specialists to conduct system risk  assessments.  Second, AOC has developed security training and awareness  policies and began implementing them, but it still needs to provide the  training and awareness to all employees who use information technology  assets.  Third, AOC has developed policies and guidance to perform system  risk assessments and conducted risk assessments on agency mission- critical support systems, but it still needs to complete assessments on 4  mission-critical major applications and 34 other agency systems.  Fourth,  AOC has developed guidance that for resolving identified risks and begun  implementing it on those support systems that it has assessed, but it still  needs to develop and implement controls to address any risks that may be  identified by the yet-to-be-completed assessments.  Fifth, AOC has defined  a metrics policy and a plan for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness  of its controls and begun measuring its support systems controls, and it  plans to complete initial data gathering on defined metrics by December  2004 and report on them by March 2005.  However, the agency still needs to  do the same for any controls assessments implemented as a result of any  yet-to-be compiled risks.
AOC plans to complete work in most of these areas over the next 8 months.   Specifically, it plans to (1) expedite the modification of an existing contract  to hire two security specialists by August 2, 2004; (2) complete security  awareness activities for all AOC employees between July and the end of  November 2004, develop role-based security training and begin  implementing it in fiscal year 2006; (3) complete the risk assessments on its  mission-critical major applications by September 30, 2004; (4) subsequently  develop and implement controls to address any risks identified by the yet  to be completed assessments; and (5) complete the initial data gathering on  security policy and control metrics by December 2004 and issue its first  report on their effectiveness by March 2005.
As we reported in January 2003, successfully completing these plans  depends in large part on the commitment and leadership of AOC senior  managers.  Such commitment and leadership will require the timely  allocation and application of needed resources and close oversight of plan  execution.  Without such support and the resultant improvements to AOC’s  information security management capabilities, the agency will be  challenged in its ability to effectively safeguard its data and information  assets.
section_title: AOC Has Made Progress in Developing Safety Performance Measures, but Implementation of Measures Are a Work in Progress
paragraphs: Worker safety has been a long-standing concern at AOC because it has had  higher injury and illness rates than many other federal agencies.  As we  stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, identifying,  developing, and implementing performance measures is important for  holding employees and management accountable, evaluating the  effectiveness of the safety training curriculum, and reducing workers’  compensation injuries and costs.  These performance measures are an  important link between the achievement of AOC’s safety plan goals and the  organizations’ strategic goals.  Moreover, meaningful, transparent, and  timely performance measures are critical to worker safety efforts because  they help organizations gather feedback on performance, evaluate the  effectiveness of policies, and make worker safety the cultural norm.
In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that relate to  AOC developing performance measures to track worker safety across the  organization:  Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives,  including measures for how AOC will implement the 43 specialized  safety programs and how superintendents and employees will be held  accountable for achieving results.
Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the goals  of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness of the  training provided.
Establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss  workers’ compensation cases and costs and develop strategies to  reduce these injuries and costs.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress in  addressing all three of these recommendations.
Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in developing  performance measures to track the agency’s worker safety efforts, but the  implementation of these measures is a work in progress.  AOC developed  several broad performance measures to judge the success of its safety and  health program.  First, AOC developed a measure of the number and  severity of safety and health deficiencies that exist at AOC (a baseline  assessment was completed).   Second, AOC developed a measure to assess  employees’ attitudes and beliefs about safety within their organization—a  gauge of employees’ perceptions of safety at AOC.   The initial survey was  administered between December 2003 and January 2004.  In February 2004,  AOC completed analysis of the survey responses and developed  recommendations to improve worker perceptions about safety.  Finally,  AOC uses the rate at which employees suffer a job-related injury and illness  to monitor workplace safety as established by the Department of Labor’s  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  AOC discussed its  injury and illness rate in public testimony to demonstrate its commitment  to a safe and healthy work environment.
AOC is also developing specific performance measures related to worker  safety.  First, AOC senior management, through quarterly council meetings  known as the Safety, Health and Environmental Council (SHEC), has  developed measures to assess and control workers’ compensation costs  including (1) the number and severity of injuries and illnesses, (2) the  number and cost of workers’ compensation injuries and illnesses, (3) the  number of lost production days associated with workers’ compensation  cases, and (4) the number of modified work assignments.  In addition,  SHEC has developed several tools aimed at raising employee awareness of  safety and the link between safety and workers’ compensation.   Second,  AOC has developed performance measures for several of the 34 safety  policies.  The purpose of the safety policies is to establish consistent  requirements for AOC with agencies such as OSHA and the Environmental  Protection Agency.  These safety policy measures include (1) the number of  safety inspections and audits performed, (2) the number of safety  deficiencies, and (3) the number of employees trained.  Finally, AOC has  continued to assess training performance by asking participants to evaluate  training courses; having subject matter experts from the Safety, Fire, and  Environmental Program Office audit the courses; and soliciting informal  feedback from participants’ supervisors.  Moreover, AOC has begun to  notice that safety training participants are applying lessons learned from  training.  For example, AOC officials reported that training on blood-borne  pathogens resulted in employees applying the principles learned during a  recent event.  In addition, AOC plans to assess employee knowledge and  behavior to ensure compliance with the policy, including interviewing  employees on the requirements of a jurisdictional standard operating  procedure.  However, AOC has made little progress on developing tools  necessary for more complex assessments of its training and development  efforts, such as measuring their impact on overall program or  organizational results, or comparing the benefits of training efforts against  their costs.  We have previously reported on the potential value—and  challenges—associated with these more complex approaches of assessing  training and development.  When deciding on an evaluation strategy,  agencies (such as AOC) should select an appropriate analytical approach  that will best measure the effect of their programs while also considering  what is realistic and reasonable given the broader context and fiscal  constraints.
AOC has made progress in its safety performance measures.  However,  AOC can strengthen its efforts to evaluate workplace safety.  First, while  AOC’s measure of the number and severity of safety and health deficiencies  is a positive step, time frames to correct these deficiencies still need to be  established.  Although AOC has plans to develop a measure of the timeline  in which hazards and deficiencies are corrected, it has yet to complete this  measure.  Second, while the safety perception survey provided information  on how employees’ perceive safety in their work environment, the full  potential of this tool has not been fully recognized.  AOC officials stated  that the survey should not be considered a measure of safety performance  and have no plans to administer the survey on a recurring basis.  However,  the survey is a valuable performance measure of employees’ perceptions  about workplace safety and could prove useful if conducted in the future.   For any future use, AOC would need to first address design and  implementation weaknesses.  For example, pretests of the survey were not  conducted, survey instructions were poorly worded, the questions allowed  for a biased response, and the design did not allow for a non-response  analysis.  Moreover, given the low response rate of frontline employees,  AOC should be hesitant to represent findings as reflective of the employee  population.
AOC has fulfilled our third worker safety recommendation listed above by  developing performance measures to assess the long-term impacts and  trends of workers’ compensation injuries and costs.  Through SHEC, safety  officials working with HRMD are coordinating an exchange of information  and data in order to control workers’ compensation injuries and costs.   HRMD, through its Workers’ Compensation Program Unit, gathers work- related injury and illness data.  In addition, the increased emphasis on  safety and its relationship to workers’ compensation injuries and illnesses  is being promoted at SHEC meetings.
subsections: section_title: Recommendation for Agency Action
paragraphs: To enhance worker safety performance measures at AOC, we recommend  that the Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to  expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more rigorous  methodological approach and collecting such information on a more  regular basis.
section_title: AOC Has Taken Steps to Develop a Capitol Complex Master Plan, but Lack of Congressional and Other Stakeholder Involvement and Delays Hamper Additional Progress
paragraphs: Developing a Capitol complex master plan is critical to strategic project  management because it would help facilitate consistent management and  oversight of projects and establish long-term priorities.  A key component  of a master plan is conducting facility condition assessments (FCA), which  are systematic evaluations of an organization’s capital assets.   Such  evaluations would help AOC to “compare conditions between facilities;  provide accurate and supportable information for planning and justifying  budgets; facilitate the establishment of funding priorities; and develop  budget and funding analyses and strategies.”  FCAs also help to assure  that the Capitol complex’s preventative maintenance needs are fully  documented and provide data for an overall plan with which to address  those needs.  Further, a Capitol complex master plan could help guide day- to-day prioritization by being the basis for communicating, both internally  and externally, the trade-offs that result from prioritizing one project over  another, or how individual projects fit within a broader AOC framework.
In our January 2003 report, we identified two recommendations that would  help AOC facilitate consistent management and oversight of projects and  establish long-term priorities:  Develop a Capitol complex master plan and complete condition  assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of AOC.
Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on  clearly-defined, well-documented, consistently-applied, and transparent  criteria.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress  initiating the Capitol complex master planning process, although the  expected completion date had already been pushed back 8 months to  December 2006.  FCAs for the three largest jurisdictions were also behind  the original schedule because all the contracts were not to be awarded until  December 2003.  AOC was also making progress creating a clearly defined,  well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing  projects by developing criteria to managers for scoring projects across five  rating areas—preservation, impact on mission, economic impact, safety,  and security.
During the 6-month review period, AOC took steps to develop the Capitol  complex master plan.  For example, senior AOC officials reported that the  contract for the Capitol complex master plan would be awarded in August  2004.  These officials also stated that work has been initiated on a facilities  plan for the House office buildings, which will be incorporated into the  Capitol complex master plan.  FCAs for the three largest jurisdictions—the  House, Capitol, and Senate—are under way and scheduled to be completed  in October 2004.  While AOC’s fiscal year 2004 annual performance plan  established November 2005 as the target to publish a draft Capitol complex  master plan, and December 2006 as the target to publish the final version of  the plan, senior AOC officials reported that they now intend to publish a  draft of the Capitol complex master plan in February 2006, with the final  version published in June 2007.
With respect to project prioritization, AOC reported that the process of  scoring projects in 2004 went smoothly.  Specifically, agency officials noted  that there were very few scoring discrepancies between jurisdictional  superintendents and senior AOC officials.  AOC officials also noted that the  scoring process will be used to determine what projects will be submitted  for funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget.
While AOC has taken steps to develop the Capitol complex master plan,  AOC officials noted that 12–16 months were added to incorporate  comments and finalize the plan.  This is the second time target completion  dates have been changed to a later date.  In addition, AOC officials need to  involve their stakeholders early and throughout the Capitol complex  master planning process.  Given the importance and sensitivity of the  master plan and the condition of the Capitol complex, as well as the  difficult trade-offs that the current budget environment demands,  congressional and other stakeholder involvement early and throughout the  development of the master plan is key to its ultimate acceptance and value,  which did not occur during the development of a similar plan in 1981.   Senior agency officials reported that AOC intends to define the scope of  work for the remaining jurisdictions after they complete lessons learned  from the first round of FCAs to identify areas that may improve the  effectiveness and efficiency of the process.  This is an appropriate step if it  does not delay the start of future FCAs.  Furthermore, completion of the  FCAs for the remaining jurisdictions will depend on when funding is  received.  While FCAs are a key component of the master plan, and  ultimately need to be integrated into the plan, AOC’s master planning  efforts can begin before FCAs are completed.  Further, once the FCAs are  completed it is critical that they are updated regularly.
With regard to project prioritization, AOC has created a clearly-defined,  well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing  projects.  The evaluation criteria will be used to determine which projects  will be submitted for funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle.  In  addition, although the project prioritization process is a useful tool  internally, the process does not address the underlying need to inform and  get agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why  AOC submits specific projects for funding.
subsections: section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: In order to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts, we  recommend that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the Chief  Operating Officer, lead efforts to ensure that congressional and other  stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the  Capitol complex master plan.
In order to improve the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend  that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the Chief Operating  Officer, lead efforts to ensure that AOC informs and obtains agreement  from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why specific  projects are submitted for funding.
section_title: AOC Made Progress Toward Adopting a More Strategic Approach to its Recycling Program
paragraphs: It is estimated that recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 3.3 cubic  yards of landfill space, 7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil, 4,100  kilowatt hours of energy, and 60 pounds of air pollutants.  Over 12,000 tons  of waste is created annually within the Capitol Hill complex.  Much of the  waste generated is from office, construction, and maintenance activities  and includes such materials as paper, wood, plastic, and metal.  AOC is  responsible for implementing recycling programs for much of the Capitol  Hill complex and has taken steps both centrally, and at the jurisdiction  level, to improve the overall effectiveness of its recycling programs.
In our January 2003 report, we recommended that AOC take a more  strategic approach to improve the effectiveness of its recycling programs.   Specifically, we recommended that AOC develop a clear mission and goals  for AOC’s recycling programs with input from key congressional  stakeholders as part of its proposed environmental program plan.  We  further recommended that AOC establish reasonable goals based on the  total waste stream that could potentially be recycled—information it plans  to obtain as part of its long-term environmental program plan.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC had begun taking the first  steps toward a more strategic approach for its recycling programs.  In  accordance with our recommendation, and as part of its broader  environmental program plan, AOC began collecting information on its  facilities and operations through a baseline assessment and waste stream  analysis.  The baseline assessment evaluated the compliance of AOC  facilities and operations with federal, state, and local environmental  regulations; the waste stream analysis identified the types of waste created  at AOC facilities and possible pollution prevention opportunities, such as  waste elimination, reuse, or recycling.  AOC will clarify the mission, goals,  and measures of its recycling programs as a component of pollution  prevention.  According to AOC officials, the results of the assessment and  analysis will provide a basis for establishing program priorities and  measuring future progress.  We further noted in our January 2004 report,  that AOC was planning to obtain stakeholder input on the environmental  program plan beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, after  completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis.
Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in the development of  its environmental program plan and its movement toward a more strategic  approach.  In particular, AOC has completed the baseline assessment as  well as the waste stream analysis for its facilities and operations.   Moreover, AOC is expanding its waste stream analysis—which currently  covers office, construction, and maintenance waste—to include electronic  waste (e-waste), such as outdated computer equipment.  AOC is also  developing pollution prevention plans based on the results of the waste  steam analysis.  In May 2004, AOC received input from internal  stakeholders on the draft environmental plan and expects to complete the  environmental plan in October 2004 as well as receive congressional input  early next year.
AOC has made progress toward developing a mission and goals for its  recycling programs in accordance with our January 2003 recommendation.   The completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis are  good first steps toward developing a more comprehensive environmental  program plan and should provide a sound basis for establishing program  priorities and measuring future progress.  The results from these efforts  should also help AOC develop targeted pollution prevention plans.  Finally,  the input received from internal stakeholders on the environmental plan, as  well as the expected input from congressional stakeholders early next year,  should prove to be invaluable in keeping AOC moving forward strategically.   It is critical, however, that at least preliminary congressional input be  obtained prior to the environmental plan’s completion to help ensure that  the plan is consistent with the interests and expectations of congressional  stakeholders and that AOC’s efforts and resources are targeted at the  highest priorities.
subsections: section_title: Recommendation for Agency Action
paragraphs: To further assist AOC in developing a more strategic approach for its  recycling programs and to ensure that congressional input is obtained  when it would be most useful, we recommend that the Architect of the  Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to obtain preliminary input from  congressional stakeholders on its environmental program plan— particularly as the plan relates to the mission and goals of AOC’s recycling  programs—prior to the completion of the plan.
section_title: COO Action Plan Addresses Six Business Areas, but Lacks Sufficient Details to Guide and Communicate the COO’s Performance and Progress
paragraphs: One of the most important issues raised in our January 2003 report was the  need for Congress to create a Chief Operating Officer (COO) position to  serve as the central leadership point to improve AOC’s executive decision- making capacity and accountability.  The Consolidated Appropriations  Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7) established, in section 1203 of Division  H, the new position of Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer within the  Office of the Architect of the Capitol.  Subsection 1203(e) required that the  COO prepare an action plan describing “the policies, procedures, and  actions the  will implement and time frames for carrying out the  responsibilities under this section.”  The responsibilities described include  implementing AOC’s mission and goals, providing overall organization  management, assisting the Architect in promoting reform, and measuring  results.
The action plan was to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations  of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules  and Administration of the Senate not later than 90 days after appointment  of the COO, which occurred on July 28, 2003.  The COO Action Plan,  however, was not submitted to the committees until December 22, 2003— 59 days late.
The COO Action Plan and the Report to the Congress from Deputy  Architect/Chief Operating Officer provide a list of 31 action items and their  expected completion dates across six business areas:  1. Organizational Management and Structure – 12 action items, 2. Project Management – 6 action items, 3. Customer Service – 3 action items,  4. Strategic Planning – 5 action items,  5. Communications – 3 action items, and  6. GAO Management Review Recommendations – 2 action items.
Overall, the plan’s high-level description of the action items assumes that  Congress and other users have a deep and detailed knowledge of AOC’s  goals, internal operations, and management functions—a level of  knowledge that is not reasonable to expect.  The plan’s action items are  described at such a high-level that it does not make clear how the COO  would carry out his legislated responsibilities or help lead transformational  change at AOC.  For example, the legislation states that the COO is  responsible for proposing organizational changes and staffing needed to  carry out AOC’s mission and goals.  While the COO’s report expresses the  need for organizational changes and highlights expected improvements, it  does not describe what specific changes the COO envisions or how  changes would be accomplished.  However, AOC included proposed  organizational changes in its fiscal year 2005 budget justification.  The  House Appropriations committee did not approve those changes because,  in the committee’s view, the AOC proposal does not reflect Congress’ intent  to assign the COO the responsibility for AOC’s overall direction, operation,  and management to improve AOC’s performance.
The COO action plan also does not detail how the individual action items  would be accomplished or how performance would be measured.  For  example, the first item listed in the action plan is to “review/update AOC’s  organizational structure to better align with the strategic plan and  operational mandates,” yet the plan lacks necessary details, including how  such a review would be conducted, the time frame in which it would be  completed, who would be involved in the review, or how progress would be  measured.  While the plan does list action items according to broad subject  areas, for example “organizational management and structure,” the plan  does not prioritize items that appear to be related nor does it identify the  required resources or organizational units that are being delegated those  action items.  The plan could also better communicate whether the action  items are standalone or dependent upon each other to accomplish the  COO’s responsibilities.  Finally, even though the legislation required that  the COO action plan be developed concurrently and consistently with the  strategic plan, the plan did not include a direct crosswalk to the AOC  strategic plan, which was released on December 15, 2003, nor did it provide  a clear picture of how the action items will help accomplish the agency’s  mission and goals.
subsections: section_title: Recommendation for Agency Action
paragraphs: To enhance the usefulness of the COO action plan, we recommend the  Architect of the Capitol and the Chief Operating Officer consult with  members of Congress and key committees on the specific information  regarding AOC’s plans, policies, procedures, actions, and proposed  organizational changes.  As part of this effort, the Architect and the COO  should work with Congress to determine Congress’ information needs and  the timing and format of delivery of that information that will best meet  Congress’ needs.  Furthermore, consistent with our findings and  recommendations with respect to congressional and other stakeholder  involvement in general and the Capitol complex master plan in particular,  as well as our original January 2003 management review, specific emphasis  should be placed on AOC’s project management.  Particular issues to be  discussed could include how  AOC’s projects’ priorities are determined,   AOC monitors and controls project cost, quality, and timeliness,   AOC uses lessons learned from projects and seeks to incorporate best   project management accountability is assigned and managed, and  AOC determines the best mix of in-house and contractor support when  designing projects.
Subsequent COO action plans and status reports will likely be most helpful  to Congress to the extent that they are rigorously specific as to the problem  or issue that needs to be addressed, the actions that are being taken in  response, the progress to-date, and milestones for additional actions.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: As we noted in our two previous reviews, organizational transformation  does not come quickly or easily and the changes under way at AOC require  a long-term concerted effort.  AOC has made progress in addressing the  eight key management control issues and the corresponding  recommendations outlined in this report; however, AOC management will  need to build on its efforts to date and more fully engage congressional and  other stakeholders to ensure that their interests and expectations are  incorporated into AOC’s organizational transformation.  For example,  involving stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive strategy to  improve internal and external communications, the formulation of a  Capitol complex master plan, and the establishment of a recycling mission  and goals will be critical in successfully addressing these key issues.  As  AOC works to establish its strategic management and accountability  framework and address long-standing areas of concern, it must continue to  demonstrate progress on each of these eight key issues to help it sustain  the momentum needed to accomplish its organizational transformation,  particularly in engaging its congressional and other stakeholders.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Architect of the Capitol a draft of this report on   July 26, 2004, for review and comment.  We received written comments  from the Architect on August 13, 2004, and they are reprinted in appendix I.   In his comments, the Architect generally agreed with our findings and  conclusions.  He suggested technical changes and provided additional  information related to information security, safety performance measures,  and Capitol complex master planning that were incorporated into our  report where appropriate.  The Architect also noted his agreement with  each new recommendation, except for those regarding worker safety  performance measures, Capitol complex master planning, and the process  for prioritizing projects.
Regarding worker safety performance measures, we reported that AOC’s  safety perception survey had design and implementation weaknesses and,  therefore, we recommended a more rigorous methodological approach to  the survey.  In response, the Architect stated that they found AOC’s  employee response rate to be 68 percent.  While this rate is approaching the  70 percent cut-off that is considered minimally acceptable for this type of  survey, only 49 percent of the subgroup of frontline employees (e.g.  carpenters, plumbers, and custodial workers) returned a completed survey,  according to AOC’s summary report.  As frontline employees are most at  risk of work-related injuries, their low response rate makes it difficult for  AOC to draw meaningful conclusions about these employees’ attitudes and  beliefs towards safety.  The Architect also noted that the survey used a  number of benchmark questions that have previously been used in other  surveys.  Nonetheless, AOC’s lack of a pre-test of the entire instrument  does not give AOC assurance that employees interpreted the questions in  the manner AOC had expected.  In fact, officials in one AOC jurisdiction  were concerned that some questions could be misinterpreted and therefore  had employees complete their individual survey in a group like setting.   Thus, we believe that AOC’s safety perception survey would still benefit  from a more rigorous methodological approach.
In our draft report, we also recommended that the Architect direct the COO  to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts and the process to  prioritize projects by (1) ensuring that congressional and other  stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the  Capitol complex master plan, and (2) ensuring that AOC informs and  obtains agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and  why specific projects are submitted for funding.  According to the  Architect, he has and will continue to lead the Capitol complex master plan  initiative.  In addition, the Architect noted his plan to get an  Architect/Engineer (AE) onboard so that they can jointly meet with and  ensure that stakeholders are engaged at the beginning and throughout the  development of the master plan.  We agree that the Architect’s personal  involvement in the development of the Capitol complex master plan will be  critical to its success and the Architect’s commitment to engage  stakeholders is consistent with our recommendation.  However, because  the COO position was created to serve as the central leadership point to  improve AOC’s executive decision-making capacity and accountability, the  COO should also be involved in the master planning process, project  prioritization, and communication with stakeholders.  As such, we made  revisions to the two recommendations to address the Architect’s concerns  so that the Architect, with support from the COO, leads efforts to  implement the recommendations.  In addition, the Architect questioned the  direct link between the master plan and the prioritization process.  We  continue to believe that the Capitol complex master plan and project  prioritization should be linked because a master plan could help guide day- to-day prioritization by being the basis for communicating, both internally  and externally, the trade-offs that result from prioritizing one project over  another, or how individual projects fit within a broader AOC framework.   We made revisions to the two recommendations to provide greater clarity  by addressing the master plan and the prioritization process separately.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional parties.   We are also sending a copy to the Architect of the Capitol.  This report is  also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have general questions concerning this report, or  specific questions concerning strategic management or human capital  issues, please contact J. Christopher Mihm or Steven Lozano at (202) 512- 6806 or by e-mail at mihmj@gao.gov or lozanos@gao.gov.  In addition, if you  have specific questions concerning financial management issues, please  contact Jeanette Franzel or John Reilly at (202) 512-9471 or by e-mail at  franzelj@gao.gov or reillyj@gao.gov.  If you have specific questions  concerning information technology issues, please contact Randolph Hite or  Carl Higginbotham at (202) 512-3439 or by e-mail at hiter@gao.gov or  higginbothamc@gao.gov.  Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix II.
section_title: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Individuals making key contributions to this report included Kevin J.  Conway, Jeffery Bass, Thomas Beall, Justin Booth, Terrell Dorn, Andrew  Edelson, Steven Elstein, Brett Fallavollita, Joel Grossman, Carl  Higginbotham, Dan Hoy, John Johnson, Steven Lozano, Mamesho  Macaulay, Jeff McDermott, David Merrill, John Reilly, Kris Trueblood, Carl  Urie, Michael Volpe, and Daniel Wexler.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost  is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts  newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To  have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to  www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Congressional Relations
section_title: Public Affairs