Architect of the Capitol: Status Report on Implementation of Management Review Recommendations
Published: 2004-01-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) plays an important role in supporting the effective functioning of Congress and its neighboring institutions. In January 2003, GAO conducted a comprehensive management review of AOC's operations and made 35 recommendations to help AOC establish a strategic management and accountability framework, improve its management infrastructure and internal control, and address longstanding concerns. In February 2003, the Conference Report mandated GAO to monitor progress being made on the implementation of the 35 management review recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As discussed in GAO's January 2003 report, many of AOC's management problems were long-standing and its organizational transformation would take time to fully accomplish. Not surprisingly, AOC's efforts in addressing these initial management review recommendations is very much a work in progress. Initial steps are being taken, but a great deal more needs to be done. Moreover, greater effort will have to be made if more timely improvements are to occur. Sustained commitment and assertive involvement of AOC's leadership is key to addressing AOC's long-standing weaknesses and instilling lasting change. AOC is taking the first steps in the development of its management and accountability framework, such as improving planning and organizational alignment through its draft strategic plan. AOC is also strengthening individual accountability for organizational goals through its senior executive performance management systems, but more progress can be made by aligning its employee performance management system with mission-critical goals. AOC needs to take additional steps to strengthen agencywide communications by providing opportunities to gather employee feedback sooner than fiscal year 2005 and by conducting a pilot of its congressional protocols. AOC is making some progress in improving its management infrastructure and internal control. AOC is addressing initial concerns about the lack of consistent human capital policies and procedures. Also, AOC has developed three broad-based action plans to achieve its strategy of institutionalizing financial management best practices. However, while efforts on individual action items associated with the three action plans have begun, many are not scheduled for completion until fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Much work remains to address unplanned action items and complete ongoing efforts in improving financial management. AOC is developing a new IT portfolio management process or investment framework, which it plans to implement in fiscal year 2004 and is also taking steps to develop and use EA. However, while AOC is generally implementing the kind of IT management reforms recommended, GAO makes additional recommendations to ensure that mature investment management and EA processes are developed and implemented. Finally, AOC is addressing GAO's concern about worker safety by developing a hazard assessment and control policy, but this policy is not expected to be fully implemented in all jurisdictions until May 2006. Until AOC completes this policy implementation and its subsequent analysis in all jurisdictions, it will not be able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC hazards. AOC is also taking steps to establish a project priority framework for better project management and accountability. Also, AOC has made some progress toward adopting a more strategic approach to recycling taking steps to clarify the mission of the program and establishing goals as part of its environmental program plan.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In January 2003, we issued a management review of the Office of the  Architect of the Capitol (AOC) that contained 35 recommendations to  assist AOC in establishing a strategic management and accountability  framework to transform its organization. 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. Congress accepted this suggestion. The Architect of the  Capitol appointed the first COO on July 28, 2003. As the first of our reports  on AOC’s implementation of the recommendations contained in our  January 2003 report, this status report will provide the Architect and the  agency’s new COO with information that can assist them in elevating,  integrating, and institutionalizing attention and accountability for certain  key management functions and leading transformational change within  AOC.
The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Legislative  Branch Appropriations Act mandated GAO to monitor the implementation  of the recommendations of our January 2003 report. This report discusses  the progress AOC has made in establishing its strategic management and  accountability framework, instituting management infrastructure and  controls, and addressing long-standing program issues. As such, this report  does not directly address issues associated with major AOC projects, such  as the Capitol Visitor Center and the Capitol Power Plant. Rather, the  January 2003 report and this status report concern the establishment of  AOC’s strategic management and accountability framework and the  management infrastructure and internal control AOC needs to have in  place to be successful in all its efforts, including its major projects. Our  January 2003 report concluded that AOC needs to improve its internal  control, which is synonymous with management control, and is integral to  any organization. Internal control is comprised of the plans, methods, and  procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives, and that help  safeguard assets and prevent and detect errors and fraud. (For a detailed  assessment of AOC’s progress addressing each of our 35 management  review recommendations, as well as an expanded explanation of the basis  for our additional recommendations, see appendixes I through VII.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new construction  of all buildings within the Capitol Hill complex. Organizationally, AOC is  made up of a centralized staff that performs administrative functions and  “jurisdictions” that handle their own day-to day operations, such as the  Capitol building, the House and Senate office buildings, the Library of  Congress, and the Supreme Court, and support the operation of Congress  and its neighboring institutions. The historic nature and high-profile use of  many of these buildings creates a complex environment in which to carry  out this 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  compounded by the events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting need  for increased security and safety.
section_title: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Conference Report on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003,  directed us to monitor and evaluate AOC’s progress in implementing its  management plan that addressed the recommendations contained in our  January 2003 report. Accordingly, our objective for this report was to  assess the progress AOC is making in addressing our findings and  implementing our recommendations since the issuance of our January 2003  report. In this regard, this report addresses the recommendations we made  in our January 2003 report, which concerned the areas of strategic planning  and management, human capital, financial management, information  technology, worker safety, project management, and recycling.
To address our objective, we collected from AOC documentation of the  organization’s implementation of our recommendations, which we used to  assess the progress made in addressing the issues underlying these  recommendations. For example, we reviewed documents such as AOC’s  draft strategic and performance plans, draft communications plan, IT  investment framework, centralized IT management policy, initial versions  of EA products, occupational safety and health program plan, master safety  plan, project management evaluation and screening matrix, and pollution  prevention planning initiative, among others. We also reviewed  documentation to see that policies had been changed and meetings had  taken place. We also interviewed AOC officials to determine the status of  the organization’s progress on our recommendations. In addition, we also  continue to meet regularly with the COO to discuss the status of  improvement efforts underway at AOC and other issues of mutual interest  and concern. We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from July 2003  through November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
section_title: AOC Has Begun Establishing a Strategic Management and Accountability Framework, but Communications with Employees and Stakeholders Can Be Improved
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we stated that to better serve Congress, AOC  needed to build its capability to define goals, set priorities, ensure  followthrough, monitor progress, and establish accountability for results to  achieve its agenda for organizational transformation. We made 11  recommendations that would help AOC establish a management and  accountability framework to lead and execute its organizational  transformation. To adopt the elements of the management and  accountability framework—strategic planning, organizational alignment,  communications, performance measurement, and strategic human capital  management—and build on efforts under way at AOC, we recommended  that the Architect of the Capitol   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;   strengthen accountability for results by developing annual goals,  measuring performance, and strategically managing human capital to  support achieving those goals and measures, such as creating a line of  sight by linking AOC’s senior executive and employee performance  management system; and  develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external  communications by completing the development of congressional  protocols with stakeholder involvement and continuing to regularly  measure customer satisfaction AOC-wide, among other strategies, such  as providing opportunities for employee feedback.
AOC is taking the first steps towards establishing our recommended  strategic management and accountability framework. For example, AOC is  making important progress in improving strategic planning and  organizational alignment by issuing draft strategic and performance plans,  though both are still subject to revision and approval by AOC’s new COO.  Specifically, in March 2003, AOC issued its draft strategic plan for fiscal  years 2003-2007, which outlines four strategic focus areas and  corresponding strategic goals, and a draft performance plan for fiscal years  2003-2007 with a particular focus on fiscal years 2003-2004, which provides  the specific action plans and milestones for achieving the goals and  objectives in the draft strategic plan. This framework and the  accompanying draft plans provide a basis for AOC’s ongoing effort to  reassess its organizational structure to ensure that it is aligned to meet its  goals, as well as create and administer high quality—and accountable— products and services.
Many of the action plans and milestone dates that AOC has outlined in its  draft performance plan are scheduled to occur over the next several years.  Because AOC’s organizational transformation agenda is a long-term  process, it is especially important that AOC leadership closely monitor the  interim activities, action plans, and milestones outlined in its draft  performance plan to ensure that it meets intended deadlines and completes  its transformation. As we noted in our January 2003 report, sustained top  leadership attention is essential to overcome an organization’s natural  resistance to change, marshal the resources needed to implement the  change, and build and maintain the organizationwide commitment to new  ways of doing business.
In addition, AOC is also involving key congressional stakeholders, as we  recommended, in the development of its agency draft strategic plan and is  requesting input on the strategic direction of the agency. AOC’s high-level  summary of the stakeholder reaction it received demonstrates the value of  such outreach. The need for a strong and continuing communications  strategy, an augmented fire safety strategy, and creating a “living” planning  and improvement approach that becomes part of AOC’s culture, were  among the important issues raised by stakeholders. Building on its  strategic planning efforts, it is important that AOC continues to involve key  congressional, as well as other stakeholders, in its strategic planning  process, and keeps them informed of any operational and organizational  changes resulting from this planning process.
In addition, AOC is making progress in strengthening individual  accountability for organizational goals—creating a line of sight—by linking  its senior executive performance management system, known as the  Performance Review Process (PRP), with its draft agency strategic goals,  as we also recommended. However, AOC has not made as much progress in  linking its employee performance management system, known as the  Performance Communication Evaluation System (PCES) to its agency  strategic goals. We have reported that high performing organizations align  performance expectations of top leadership with goals and then cascade  those expectations down to lower levels. According to the Director of the  AOC Human Resource Management Division (HRMD), to align PCES with  PRP, AOC plans to first consolidate its multiple jurisdictional rating cycles  into one cycle and then expects to incorporate the agency’s strategic goals  into PCES by January 2005. While consolidating the multiple jurisdictional  employee performance management cycles may be helpful in the  administration of its performance reviews, AOC does not need to wait for  this consolidation of performance review cycles to integrate its strategic  goals into PCES. By linking both its senior executive and employee  performance management systems to agency strategic goals, AOC can  improve the strategic management of its human capital and help achieve  these goals.
Furthermore, AOC is progressing in establishing a communications  strategy and has developed its first agencywide communications plan, as  recommended in our January 2003 report, and included conducting  employee focus groups or surveys as part of that plan. According to the  Deputy Chief of Staff, funds to conduct AOC’s employee focus groups or  surveys were requested after the fiscal year 2004 budget submission in  early December 2002. Therefore, AOC plans to conduct its employee focus  groups or surveys in fiscal year 2005. Our own experiences at GAO have  shown that obtaining employee views, such as through focus groups, need  not be a resource intensive effort and that in any case, the benefits often far  exceed the incremental costs. We recently reported that because people  are the drivers of any organizational transformation, it is vital to monitor  their attitudes. As such, AOC employees need to see that AOC top  leadership not only listens to their concerns, but also takes action and  makes appropriate adjustments to the transformation in a visible and  timely way. Because of the importance of considering employee views  during an organizational transformation, we recommend that AOC not wait  until fiscal year 2005 to conduct its planned employee focus groups or  surveys to gather feedback.
Moreover, as we recommended, AOC completed the development of its  congressional protocols on June 30, 2003, to strengthen communications  with key stakeholders and plans to meet with congressional stakeholders  to discuss these protocols and issue final protocols by March 31, 2004. As  stated in our January 2003 report, the purpose of agency protocols is to  help create a basic understanding between AOC and its stakeholders of  how AOC’s efforts and resources can be targeted at the highest priorities.  Protocols also foster transparency about how decisions and tradeoffs can  be made and services deployed given the competing demands that confront  AOC, and how those demands and resources require careful and  continuous balancing. According to AOC officials, although the  development of its congressional protocols is complete, implementing  these protocols may be difficult because of stakeholder concerns about  their potential effect on decreasing levels of service. In our January 2003  report, we noted that we had worked closely with Congress on the  development of our own congressional protocols, along with careful pilot  testing, and then implemented our final protocols in 1999. AOC needs to  discuss with its stakeholders how the use of these protocols will help AOC  balance immediate needs with the achievement of overall agency strategic  goals. A pilot test would provide AOC and its customers an opportunity to  test the application of the protocols to the various types of customer needs  AOC confronts and to revise those protocols based on feedback obtained  during the pilot.
section_title: Recommendations for Future Action
paragraphs: To further progress in developing its strategic management and  accountability framework and improve communications agencywide, we  recommend that the Architect of the Capitol take the following actions  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   conduct a pilot of AOC congressional protocols in one or more of its  jurisdictions to determine how well protocols would work in addressing  customer requests for service, while balancing the demands of multiple  requests with the strategic plan and corresponding project priorities of  the agency.
section_title: Progress Is Being Made in Establishing Management Infrastructure and Internal Control, but Considerable Work Remains Before Effective Information Technology Management Capability Will Be in Place
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we made nine recommendations to help AOC  improve its management infrastructure and internal control to support its  organizational transformation initiative. In particular, we stated effective  internal control also could help AOC manage change and cope with shifting  environments and evolving demands and priorities. We found that AOC  would need to further develop and consistently apply transparent human  capital policies and procedures to help encourage trust in management.  Additionally, we stated that AOC must continue improving its approach to  financial management to support effective and efficient program  management by developing and implementing effective budget formulation  and execution policies and procedures that govern capital projects and  operating activities AOC-wide. We also noted that AOC needed to adopt an  agencywide approach to information technology management to position  itself to optimize the contribution of information technology to agency  mission performance. Specifically, we recommended that AOC  strengthen and consistently implement its human capital policies,  procedures, and processes, such as developing a consistent agencywide  leave policy, assessing ways in which AOC management could better  gather and analyze data on employee relations issues, and establishing a  direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson and the  Architect;   continue to improve AOC’s approach to financial management by  developing strategies to institutionalize financial management practices  that will support budgeting, financial, and program management at AOC;  and  adopt an agencywide approach to information technology management  by establishing appropriate leadership and developing the policies,  procedures, and tools needed to effectively and efficiently manage  information technology resources across the agency.
AOC is taking the first steps towards improving its management  infrastructure and internal control, though in some cases, additional steps  need to be taken to fully address the findings of our January 2003 report.  For example, AOC is making important progress in addressing our  recommendation to develop and implement agencywide human capital  policies and procedures by (1) drafting its employee absence and leave  policy, still pending review and approval by the Architect, (2) providing  guidelines to its workforce for determining eligibility for Sunday premium  pay, and (3) completing its policy and procedures for administering pay  flexibilities. The issuance of these policies is important to addressing the  concerns raised by AOC employees when we conducted employee focus  groups as part of our January 2003 report. AOC’s HRMD director told us  that managers and supervisors are now being held accountable through its  employee performance management systems for the consistent application  of human capital policies and procedures, such as leave granting, overtime,  and giving employee awards. As part of its management and oversight  responsibilities of human capital policies, it is important that AOC senior  management and HRMD continually monitor whether supervisors and  managers are fairly administering the policies concerning leave, rewards,  and recognition. AOC could also use information gathered during employee  focus groups, employee satisfaction surveys, and informal feedback from  employees to monitor employee views on the administration of these  policies.
Furthermore, as we recommended, AOC has developed and begun to  implement strategies designed to institutionalize financial management  best practices. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has  established three broad-based action plans to improve financial  management practices at AOC: (1) build a foundation of financial control  and accountability, (2) assess the financial management organization’s  current role in meeting mission objectives and organize financial  management to add value, and (3) improve forward-looking analysis, train  managers to understand how to use financial information, and improve the  partnership between financial management and operations. These action  plans, if properly carried out, represent a reasonable basis for achieving  AOC’s goal of institutionalizing financial management best practices that  support the effective delivery of programs and services. However, while  AOC has established three action plans to address our recommendation  and begun efforts to implement them, none of the individual action items  associated with the three action plans has been completed, and many are  not scheduled for completion until fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Furthermore,  planning for certain items has not yet begun, and for some is not scheduled  to begin until mid-fiscal year 2004. While AOC has made progress since our  January 2003 report, much work remains to address unplanned action  items and complete ongoing planning and implementation efforts.
AOC is also beginning to address its IT investment management challenges.  We found when preparing our January 2003 report that AOC did not have  an agencywide, portfolio-based approach to investment management.  Thus, we recommended that AOC develop a detailed plan to guide the  development and implementation of such an approach, focusing first on  controlling existing projects and establishing the management structures to  implement the portfolio-based project selection process. Such an approach  helps an organization measure the progress of existing projects and  continually assess proposed and ongoing projects as an integrated and  competing set of investment options.
In response, AOC is developing a new IT portfolio management process,  referred to as its investment framework, which it plans to implement in  fiscal year 2004. AOC’s IT policy, signed by the Architect, states that the  framework is to provide an effective means to select projects that best  support the agency’s mission. A draft version of the framework, completed  in October 2003, is organized along a “select, control, and evaluate” model.  To execute the select, control, and evaluate processes, the framework  specifies four management structures—an architecture and standards  committee, a project management board, a business systems  modernization office, and an investment review board, with AOC defining  the memberships of each of these entities. In January 2004, AOC stated that  it has begun using the framework to control all fiscal year 2004  investments. An agency official also told us that AOC intends to fully  implement the framework by May 2004.
AOC’s actions partially address our recommendation. Specifically, we  recommended that the agency focus first on detailing and implementing  processes to control existing investments and that efforts to develop and  implement these processes be guided by a detailed plan. Although AOC  states that it has revised its project investment review board to include key  senior agency leaders, it has not focused first on controlling existing IT  investments. For AOC to implement effective IT investment management  processes, it is important that it follow our previous recommendation on  establishing a foundation for its investment management framework. In  building on this foundation, AOC needs to take additional steps to help it  execute the more mature investment management processes provided for  in our investment management guide.
Moreover, AOC is taking steps to develop and use an EA. We recommended  that AOC develop, implement, and maintain an EA, starting with  developing an architecture policy, establishing executive oversight, and  designating a chief enterprise architect. Our experience with federal  agencies has shown that attempting to modernize IT environments without  an EA to guide and constrain investments often results in systems that are  duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and  interface, and ineffective in supporting mission goals. The development,  implementation, and maintenance of architectures are recognized  hallmarks of successful private and public organizations that effectively  exploited IT in meeting their mission goals. In contrast, we reported in our  January 2003 report that AOC did not have an EA or the management  foundation needed to successfully develop one.
In response to our recommendation, AOC has issued an EA policy and  assigned the Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM)  responsibility for developing and maintaining the architecture. AOC has  also assigned responsibility for guiding and approving EA development to  the agency’s senior policy committee, which is composed of  representatives from across the agency. AOC has committed to hire a chief  enterprise architect and will request funds to do so in its fiscal year 2005  budget. AOC has also established a unit to provide technical and  managerial support, selected a framework to guide development, and has  prepared initial versions of its existing and target architectures and a plan  for migrating from its existing to its target states. The agency states that the  Deputy Chief of Staff has recently approved these products.
Despite these steps, much work remains to satisfy our January 2003  recommendation aimed at establishing the management foundation for  developing and using an EA. For example, the agency has not yet hired a  chief enterprise architect and has not ensured that adequate resources are  devoted to the program, that architecture environments are described in  terms of performance and security, and that metrics are used to measure  EA progress. In addition to addressing these architecture management  foundational needs, AOC will need to take additional steps to implement  those architecture management practices associated with effectively  completing, maintaining, and implementing an EA that are defined in our  architecture management guide.
Improving AOC’s organizational internal control will help to support its  overall management infrastructure, and AOC is doing so by issuing  consistent agencywide human capital policies and procedures. AOC is also  improving its overall approach to financial management by developing  action plans and beginning to implement these plans to institutionalize  sound financial management practices. AOC has also recognized that  adopting a corporate approach to IT management is a key enabler of its  strategy for organizational improvement, and it has demonstrated its  commitment to do so. However, until AOC completes and implements  plans for improvement that are consistent with all our recommendations, it  will be challenged in its ability to optimize the contribution of IT to agency  mission performance.
section_title: Recommendations for Future Action
paragraphs: We recommend that to further its progress in the management of its  information technology, the Architect of the Capitol  plan for and implement those practices in our IT investment  management guide associated with corporate, portfolio-based  investment decision making, such as (1) implementing criteria to select  investments that will best support the organization’s strategic goals,  objectives, and mission, (2) using these criteria to consistently analyze  and prioritize all IT investments, (3) ensuring that the optimal  investment portfolio with manageable risks and returns is selected and  funded, and (4) overseeing each investment within the portfolio to  ensure that it achieves its cost, benefit, schedule, and risk expectations;  and   plan for and implement the practices in our architecture management  guide associated with leveraging an EA for organizational  transformation, such as (1) ensuring that adequate resources are  devoted to the program (funding, people, tools, and technology), (2)  ensuring that the architecture describes both the “as is” and the “to be”  environments in terms of performance, (3) ensuring that architecture  business, performance, information and data, applications and services,  and technology descriptions address security, and (4) ensuring that  metrics are used to measure EA progress, quality, compliance, and  return on investment.
section_title: AOC is Beginning to Address Long-standing Issues in Worker Safety, Project Management, and Recycling
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we made 15 recommendations to help AOC  address long-standing program issues, worker safety, project management,  and recycling. We noted that both the strategic management and  accountability framework and improving management infrastructure and  other internal controls that support AOC’s transformation cut across the  agency’s programs and influence its performance in all areas critical to  achieving its mission, especially program areas of long-standing concern to  AOC’s employees and congressional stakeholders. We stated that the  Architect declared safety his number one priority; nonetheless, relating  safety to other pressing priorities and developing a clear strategy for how  working safely will become the cultural norm, was still a work in progress  at the AOC. Similarly, we reported that AOC had adopted industry best  practices for project management, but implementation was uneven and  could benefit from stronger leadership and improvements in performance  and financial management, priority setting, communication, and strategic  management of human capital. Finally, although AOC had recently made  improvements to the House and Senate recycling programs, contamination  of recycled materials remained high, and the goals for the overall program  remained unclear. Specifically, we recommended that the Architect of the  Capitol  improve the overall approach to worker safety in identifying  performance measures, clearly defining policies and procedures for  reporting hazards, establishing a consistent system for conducting  investigations and followup, establishing a safety training curriculum,  assigning clear responsibility for tracking worker safety employee  training, clarifying the role of the Office of the Attending Physician  (OAP) in helping AOC to meet its safety goals, and establishing a senior  management work group to routinely discuss worker compensation  issues;   improve its overall approach to project management by developing a  Capitol Hill complex master plan and completing building condition  assessments, developing a transparent process to prioritize agency  capital projects, developing tools to effectively communicate priorities  and progress of projects, clearly defining project-management-related  measures, and aligning project management staff and resources with  mission-critical goals; and   improve its overall approach to its recycling program by developing a  clear mission and goals, developing a performance measurement system  to support accomplishing its recycling program, and examining the  roles, responsibilities, and accountability of its recycling program staff.
AOC is making progress in addressing long-standing areas of concern,  though much remains to be done. For example, to address our concern  regarding the lack of clearly defined and documented policies and  procedures for reporting hazards, AOC has plans to develop a Hazard  Assessment and Control policy, but it is not expected to be fully  implemented across all jurisdictions until May 2006. As a key component in  developing this, AOC (1) plans to identify hazards associated with specific  job tasks or Job Hazard Analysis (JHA), (2) has created a schedule for  completing each JHA, and (3) contracted with the Public Health Service to  identify hazards associated with job tasks in each jurisdiction. According to  AOC officials, the JHA process has been completed for two jurisdictions,  the Senate office buildings and the Construction Management Division.  While a majority of the jurisdictions await full development and  implementation of the Hazard Assessment and Control policy, each  jurisdiction continues to rely upon its own hazard reporting processes.  Also, AOC has established a plan and initiated actions to improve the  reporting of hazards, though the development and implementation of  agencywide policy and procedures for hazard reporting is expected to take  years to complete due to the time needed to develop and fully implement  this safety policy. Until AOC completes the implementation of this policy  and subsequent analysis across all jurisdictions, it will not be able to  develop a comprehensive picture of AOC hazards. Additionally, until AOC  completes the system-wide process for investigating incidents across all  jurisdictions, it will not be able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC  incidents, including their causes.
Additionally, AOC continues to recognize the importance of a disciplined  project management process and is taking steps to establish a framework  for better project management and accountability. For example, as we  recommended, AOC has developed a process to assign project priorities  that is based on clearly defined, well-documented, consistently applied,  and transparent criteria. According to the Office of Design and  Construction Acting Chief, in February 2003, AOC worked with a  consultant to develop evaluation criteria to set the prioritization of building  projects. For prioritization purposes, each project is evaluated in five areas,  (1) preservation, (2) impact on mission, (3) economic impact,   (4) safety, and (5) security; and assigned a score, based on a 100-point  scale, in each area. AOC also developed a matrix to provide criteria and  guidance on how to evaluate and score the projects in each of the five  areas. AOC has created a clearly defined, well-documented, and  transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing projects. While  determining the priority of projects will always be somewhat subjective,  AOC has developed a reasonable approach using a matrix to help raters  score projects in five areas. The matrix provides clear guidance when  scoring projects in each of the five rating areas. Since the evaluation  criteria have not yet been used to determine which projects will be  submitted for funding, it remains to be seen if it will be consistently  applied. Using this matrix and documenting the factors used in making the  priority decisions should help AOC support its capital improvement  program.
AOC has also made some progress toward adopting a more strategic  approach to its recycling program. For example, consistent with our  recommendations, AOC is taking steps to clarify the mission of the  recycling program and establish program goals as part of its environmental  program plan. In its March 2003 draft strategic plan, AOC states that it  plans to develop a long-range environmental program plan that will  establish program mission, vision, goals, and measures. The draft  strategic plan also states that this environmental program plan would  include clarifying the mission, goals, and measures of the recycling  program—a component of pollution prevention. Although, according to its  draft performance plan, AOC is a few months behind its schedule, AOC  officials told us that work has begun on both of these projects—the  baseline assessment and waste stream analysis—and both projects will be  substantially completed by the end of 2003. These AOC officials also  advised us that the results of the baseline assessment and waste stream  analysis would provide a basis for establishing program priorities and  measuring progress. The draft performance plan also provides for  stakeholder participation in this process both before and after the actual  environmental program planning process occurs, but this has not yet taken  place. According to AOC’s draft performance plan, stakeholder  involvement is scheduled to begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2004,  after completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis.  AOC is taking the first steps needed to developing its recycling program  mission and goals within the broader context of an environmental program  plan, which is reasonable and consistent with our recommendation.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: We noted in our January 2003 report that organizational transformation  does not come quickly or easily and the changes under way at AOC would  require a long-term, concerted effort. We stated that by drawing on the full  potential of its top leadership and management team, AOC could begin to  take immediate steps on a number of the concerns described in our  January 2003 report, although we recognized that AOC would be able to  implement some of these actions more quickly than others. Although we  have found that AOC is addressing each of our 35 original  recommendations either through its planning efforts or actions it has  initiated; a great deal more needs to be done. Moreover, greater effort will  have to be made if more timely improvements are to occur. Sustained  commitment and assertive involvement on behalf of AOC leadership will be  vital to ensure that it completes the many action plans and reaches its  milestones during the next several years to achieve its organizational  transformation.
As AOC works to establish its strategic management and accountability  framework, improve its management infrastructure, and address long- standing areas of concern, it must continue to demonstrate that progress is  being made on each of our recommendations to help it sustain the  momentum needed to accomplish its organizational transformation,  particularly in improving communications with employees and  stakeholders and improving its management of information technology.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report on December 17, 2003 to the Architect of  the Capitol for his review and comment. We received written comments  from the Architect on January 20, 2004. In response to our draft, the  Architect generally agreed with our findings, although there are some areas  of disagreement. Most of the comments were technical changes based on  information that was either not provided to us during our review or related  to activities that occurred outside the timeframe of our review. We will  assess these activities as part of our future semi-annual reviews. Where  appropriate, we have revised our draft report in response to AOC’s  comments.
In his written comments, the Architect disagreed with our characterization  or assessment of progress in the areas of information technology, worker  safety, and recycling. Regarding information technology, we reported that  AOC had taken a number of steps to strengthen investment selection  processes but had not focused on controlling its existing IT investments, as  we had recommended. In response, the Architect stated that AOC was now  controlling existing investments, noting several steps the agency had taken  to do so. While we do not question whether the agency has taken the steps  it cited, our position is that those steps either relate to investment selection  rather than investment control, as defined in our investment framework, or  the steps were missing necessary details describing how the investment  control function was being performed. Thus, we believe that AOC still  needs to focus on investment control.
Regarding worker safety, the AOC commented that GAO did not fully  capture the progress that has been made in creating an effective worker  safety and health program. We believe, however, that the information we  present in the report is an accurate portrayal of the information we  collected during the period of our review. New information brought forth in  the AOC’s comments to our draft will be considered during the next semi- annual review.
Regarding recycling issues, the Architect states that although the  contaminated materials had resulted in limited revenue generation, the  recycling contractor separated the contaminated material from the  recyclable material, and thus waste reduction did occur. We believe that the  language contained in our January 2003 report about the level of waste  reduction the AOC had achieved through its recycling efforts is accurate as  stated.
The Architect’s written comments and our response are reprinted in app.  VIII.
This report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have further questions about this report, please contact me or Steven  Lozano at (202) 512-6806 or on mihmj@gao.gov or lozanos@gao.gov. Major  contributors to this report included Justin Booth, Carole Cimitile, John  Dale, Terrell Dorn, Maria Edelstein, Elena Epps, Brett Fallavollita, V. Bruce  Goddard, Carl Higginbotham, David Merrill, Susan Pachikara, Masha  Pastuhov-Pastein, John Reilly, William Roach, Mark Trapani, Kris  Trueblood, and Michael Volpe.
section_title: Strategic Management
paragraphs: Our January 2003 report contained 11 recommendations to help the Office  of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) establish its strategic management  and accountability framework in the areas of strategic planning and  organizational alignment, communications, development of congressional  protocols by involving stakeholders, accountability reporting through  annual performance planning and reporting, customer satisfaction,  performance measurement, strategic human capital management, and  establishing action-oriented implementation goals. This appendix  describes AOC’s progress to date in addressing each of these  recommendations. We provide a brief review of findings that led to each  recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the  recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC’s actions  address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation  in our January 2003 report. We also make additional recommendations to  assist AOC in improving its communications with employees and  stakeholders.
Recommendation: 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.
Successful organizations ensure that their strategic planning fully  considers the interests and expectations of Congress and other  stakeholders. In moving forward with its strategic planning efforts, it will  be critical that AOC fully engage key congressional and other stakeholders  in further developing and implementing its strategic plan, as well as  revisions, to provide a strong foundation for any organizational or  operating changes that may be needed to implement the plan. Key  congressional and other stakeholder involvement will be especially  important for AOC to help it ensure that its efforts and resources are  targeted at the highest priorities.
Actions Taken by AOC: In March 2003, AOC issued a draft strategic plan  for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 that contained AOC’s four strategic focus  areas and corresponding strategic goals described in table 1. AOC also  issued a draft performance plan outlining the specific actions and  milestones to reach for achieving the goals and objectives established in  the draft strategic plan. The draft strategic plan is to become operational  through the annual performance planning process, which translates  strategic goals into objectives, action plans, milestones, and performance  measures. AOC has developed an overall approach to managing  organizational performance that includes strategic planning, annual  planning and accountability reporting, and assessment of AOC’s  performance based on meeting agencywide milestones and measures. AOC  staff plans to meet with stakeholders to discuss its plan. The draft strategic  plan will be the cornerstone of this process.
As stated in its draft strategic plan, AOC plans to update the strategic plan  every two years, annually produce a performance plan and performance  report, along with action plans supplemented by more detailed functional  plans developed along the same planning time line (fiscal years 2003-2007).  In its draft performance plan and based on the strategic focus areas in table  1, AOC has developed corresponding strategic objectives, action plans,  milestones, and target dates to help the agency achieve its strategic goals  and monitor its progress.
In addition, AOC is also involving key congressional stakeholders, as we  recommended, in the development of its agency draft strategic plan and is  requesting input on the strategic direction of the agency. According to  AOC’s Deputy Chief of Staff, as of May 2003, the Architect and other senior  AOC officials have met with 16 stakeholders, such as Members of  Congress, committee staff, and other legislative agency staff members, and  have scheduled seven meetings with additional stakeholders to discuss the  agency’s draft strategic plan to obtain stakeholder input. During these  meetings, AOC officials reviewed with stakeholders its mission, vision, and  core values and the four strategic focus areas along with their  corresponding strategic goals. AOC officials also asked stakeholders to  comment on: (1) the positive actions they would like to see the agency  continue or expand, (2) the areas needing improvement or missing entirely,  (3) ways that AOC could improve its relationship with the stakeholder, and  (4) criteria used by the stakeholder to judge AOC’s performance.
The need for a strong and continuing communications strategy, an  augmented fire safety strategy, and creating a “living” planning and  improvement approach that becomes part of AOC’s culture, were among  the important issues raised by congressional stakeholders. AOC planned to  incorporate the feedback received from stakeholder meetings into its  agency strategic and performance plans by December 31, 2003.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation by improving its strategic planning process and providing  more specificity to its strategic goals and objectives, along with developing  milestone dates and activities to assist the agency in monitoring its  progress. AOC is also involving key congressional stakeholders in the  development of its draft agency strategic plan and asking for input on the  strategic direction of the agency. AOC’s high-level summary of the  stakeholder reaction it received demonstrates the value of such outreach.  Building on these efforts, it is important that AOC continue to involve key  congressional, as well as other stakeholders, in the strategic planning  process and keep them informed of any operational and organizational  changes resulting from this planning process.
Recommendation: Develop comprehensive strategy to improve  internal and external communications by providing opportunities  for routine employee input and feedback.
We reported that AOC could (1) strengthen its internal communications by  developing a communications strategy that would help AOC’s line  employees understand the connection between what they do on a day-to- day basis, AOC’s strategic goals, and their individual performance  expectations, and (2) seek employee feedback and develop goals for  improvement. We also stated that one way of implementing such a  communication strategy is to conduct routine employee feedback surveys  and/or focus groups. As part of our January 2003 report, we used focus  groups to gather employee and supervisor perceptions about working at  AOC. These focus groups generated a wealth of valuable information to  AOC on employees’ views on a range of issues including perceptions of  supervisory favoritism and inconsistency in the way that supervisors  applied awards, overtime, and leave policies. AOC noted that the use of  employee focus groups or surveys is one strategy it plans to use to help  achieve its human capital strategic goal of attracting, developing, and  retaining diverse, satisfied, and highly motivated employees.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC published its draft agencywide Strategic  Communications Plan, 2003-2007 on August 29, 2003, and planned to  obtain comments from its key congressional stakeholders to complete this  plan by December 31, 2003. The draft communications plan recognizes that  communicating with employees, stakeholders, and other customers is  critical to achieving AOC’s strategic goals and contains three strategies: (1)  educating employees on the agency strategic plan and the change process  AOC will use to achieve its strategic goals, (2) communicating the agency  strategic plan’s goals and agency accomplishments with congressional and  external audiences, (3) continuing to expand communications initiatives by  considering the development of correspondence policies and guidelines, a  media contact policy, and other directives to assure a clear line of  communication and a consistent message. AOC has developed strategies to  communicate with each of its identified customers and stakeholders,  including AOC employees, congressional and other public officials, and the  visiting public, dignitaries, other federal agencies, historians, and others. In  its communications plan, AOC has also noted that it will be important to  track the effectiveness and impact of communications initiatives by  conducting employee feedback surveys, employee focus groups,  stakeholder and client surveys and meetings, tracking word of mouth  comments, and correspondence.
According to its draft strategic communications plan, AOC plans to initiate  several actions to implement this communication strategy. AOC plans to:   publish more frequently the agency’s employee newsletter, Shop Talk,  increasing the number of issues per year from four to six and to feature  more stories about AOC’s strategic plan,  conduct employee feedback sessions and/or focus groups every two   conduct employee site tours of major AOC projects, such as the Capitol  Visitor Center in fall 2003, and  explore sending taped video messages or webcasts from the Architect to  employees.
Additionally, according to the Deputy Chief of Staff, AOC will follow up on  the Architect’s commitment, stated in his May 23, 2002 memorandum to  employees, to conduct employee focus groups, beginning in fiscal year  2005. According to AOC’s Deputy Chief of Staff, the need to conduct an  employee focus group was identified as part of AOC’s draft performance  plan. However, the Deputy Chief of Staff stated that funds to conduct AOC’s  employee focus groups or surveys were requested after the fiscal year 2004  budget submission in early December 2002. Therefore, AOC plans to  conduct its employee focus groups or surveys in fiscal year 2005, with the  final analysis of these focus groups to be issued in fiscal year 2005.
AOC also plans to communicate with congressional stakeholders and other  public officials by continuing to publish its Highlights Report and begin  producing an annual financial report and a quarterly capital project report  to congressional leaders and key staff, as well as conducting continuous  outreach to congressional press secretaries.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. The  development of its draft agencywide strategic communications plan is a  positive step towards improving and coordinating communication with its  internal and external audiences. Because people are the drivers of any  organizational transformation, it is vital to monitor their attitudes.  However, it is most important for employees to see that top leadership not  only listens to their concerns, but also takes action and makes appropriate  adjustments to the transformation in a visible and timely way. However,  AOC does not plan to hold employee focus groups until fiscal year 2005,  even though it is important that AOC leadership obtain employee feedback  on its transformation in a timely manner. While AOC cites budget  limitations as preventing them from conducting employee focus groups or  surveys earlier than fiscal year 2005, our own experience at GAO when we  obtained employee views, such as through focus groups, showed us it need  not be a resource intensive effort. In any case, the benefits often far exceed  the incremental costs.
Additional Recommendation: We recommend to the Architect of the  Capitol that AOC 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.
Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve  internal and external communications by completing the  development of congressional protocols by involving stakeholders.
In our January 2003 report, we noted that AOC drafted an initial set of  congressional protocols that would help ensure that AOC deals with its  congressional customers using clearly defined, consistently applied, and  transparent policies and procedures. At that time, AOC noted that these  protocols needed to be made consistent with the approach for AOC’s draft  strategic plan, finalized, and distributed. We also stated that AOC must  continually involve its stakeholders in the development of these protocols.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC completed its draft congressional protocols  on June 30, 2003 and plans to meet with congressional stakeholders in the  subsequent few months to discuss these protocols. AOC officials stated  that it may be challenging to implement these congressional protocols  because the agency’s clients have become accustomed to receiving  immediate service and using an informal means of interacting with AOC  staff when requesting such services. AOC plans to issue its final protocols  by March 31, 2004.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. The  purpose of agency protocols is to help create a basic understanding  between AOC and its stakeholders about how AOC’s efforts and resources  can be targeted at the highest priorities, as well as transparency about how  decisions and tradeoffs can be made and services deployed given the  competing demands that confront AOC, and how those demands and  resources require careful and continuous balancing. AOC needs to discuss  with its stakeholders how the use of these protocols will help AOC to  balance immediate customer needs with the achievement of overall agency  strategic goals. In our January 2003 report, we noted that we had worked  closely with Congress on the development of our own congressional  protocols, along with careful pilot testing, and then implemented our final  protocols in 1999. A pilot test would provide AOC and its customers an  opportunity to test the application of the protocols to the various types of  customer needs the AOC confronts and to revise those protocols based on  feedback obtained during the pilot.
Additional Recommendation: We recommend that AOC 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 need of multiple requests with the  strategic plan and corresponding project priorities of the agency.
Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve  internal and external communications by improving accountability  reporting through annual performance planning and reporting.
In our January 2003 report, we noted that AOC could adopt the reporting  elements of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to  strengthen accountability and transparency by annually reporting program  performance and financial information. This is consistent with the  approach that we have taken with our own performance planning and  accountability reporting. Such results-oriented accountability reporting  would help AOC communicate what it has accomplished, as well as its  plans for continued progress, to its external stakeholders.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to AOC’s draft strategic plan, the  agency plans to produce an annual performance plan at the beginning of  each fiscal year that outlines the specific actions, associated milestones,  and performance measures planned for the upcoming fiscal year. In  addition, as stated in the AOC draft strategic plan, this plan is scheduled to  be updated every 2 years, and at the end of each fiscal year, AOC will  publish an annual performance report that outlines progress towards  meeting agency goals, as well as the individual performance measures.  AOC also plans to integrate its performance reporting cycle into the budget  cycle, so that congressional appropriators and other key stakeholders can  use the information for planning and resource decisions. In addition, AOC  plans to provide an annual financial report to congressional leaders and  key staff.
AOC also plans to monitor its progress against the measures and  achievements of milestones through monthly assessment meetings with  agency senior executives and senior management team. AOC held its first  assessment meeting on June 23, 2003, to gather its progress on milestones  to date. According to the draft performance plan, AOC had planned to  report progress to stakeholders on September 30, 2003. However,  according to AOC officials, because the draft strategic and performance  plans had not yet been approved by the Chief Operating Officer (COO), and  thus the milestone activities were also not approved, a September 30  meeting was not held with stakeholders.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. According to the AOC draft strategic and performance  plans, AOC is committed to implementing a strategic management  framework including issuing a strategic plan every 2 years, developing an  annual performance plan, and an annual performance report that discusses  how AOC is progressing on meeting its goals, as well as mid-year status  briefings. Meeting with congressional and other stakeholders to discuss  progress on the accomplishment of its milestones periodically is an  important part of establishing an annual reporting structure, as well as  communicating effectively with stakeholders to help AOC build its  management and accountability framework. Once the agency draft  strategic and performance plans are approved, AOC will be in a position to  hold its mid-year status briefings as indicated in its annual performance  plan.
Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve  internal and communications by continuing to regularly measure  customer satisfaction AOC-wide.
In our January 2003 report, we reported that in June 2002, AOC made a  concerted effort to gather the views of some of its clients through a  building services customer satisfaction survey for the Senate, House  Capitol building, and Library of Congress and planned to continue  conducting this survey annually. The purpose of the survey was to obtain  valuable feedback from AOC customers about the services received. We  recommended that AOC’s continuing efforts to routinely measure customer  satisfaction AOC-wide with both its congressional customers as well as  other customers, such as visitors to the Capitol Hill complex, would help  AOC identify its service quality strengths, performance gaps, and  improvement opportunities.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to documents we reviewed, as a result  of conducting the June 2002 building services customer survey, AOC  reported back to each jurisdiction in March 2003 the actions it had taken to  improve building services. In June 2003, AOC administered its second  building services customer satisfaction survey for the Senate, House,  Capitol building, and Library of Congress jurisdictions. According to its  draft performance plan and letters accompanying the second customer  satisfaction survey, AOC expected to report the final results of this second  building services customer satisfaction survey in December 31, 2003. The  Architect also stated in these letters that AOC will use the results of these  customer satisfaction surveys to identify service improvement initiatives  and priorities for action that will be incorporated into the AOC business  plan, as well as monitor the quality of AOC services and the progress of  improvement initiatives. According to the Deputy Chief of Staff, AOC is  planning to conduct its customer survey annually.
GAO Analysis: AOC has fulfilled our recommendation because it has  taken actions based on the 2002 customer satisfaction survey, continues to  measure customer satisfaction in 2003, and plans to conduct an annual  customer survey.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and  strategic human capital management by developing annual goals  and measuring performance.
Measuring performance enables an organization to track its progress in  achieving its goals, gives managers crucial information on which to guide  their organizational and management decisions, creates powerful  incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior, and helps to  assure accountability. Developing annual performance goals that provide a  connection between the long-term strategic goals in the strategic plan and  the day-to-day activities of managers and staff members will help AOC  establish a management and accountability framework and reporting  system that is needed for organizational transformation.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to its draft strategic plan, AOC’s  performance measurement approach is to adopt specific strategies and  practices to move towards business decision making that is supported by  performance data, using both qualitative and quantitative performance  measures to demonstrate progress towards achievement of its strategic  goals and objectives. AOC has identified a number of high-level agencywide  performance measures to monitor and evaluate the success of its work  corresponding to its four strategic focus areas: facilities management,  project management, human capital, and organizational excellence. AOC  plans to adopt specific strategies and practices to move towards decision- making that is supported by performance data, using both qualitative and  quantitative performance measures to demonstrate progress towards its  strategic goals and objectives. According to AOC’s draft strategic plan, the  performance measures to be developed will serve as the basis for the  annual performance goals that connect its strategic goals to the day-to-day  work of AOC employees. The high-level agencywide measurement areas  used to monitor AOC’s success, and for which AOC leaders will be held  accountable, have been identified as follows: client satisfaction, employee  satisfaction, projects on-time, projects on-budget, project quality, facility  maintenance, asset preservation, employee safety, clean audit, recycling,  and budget execution. According to the AOC draft strategic plan, the  targets will establish standards for desired performance on each measure.  However, the specific metrics and the methodology to obtain data for each  of these areas, as well as the targets for each measure, have not yet been  developed. In July 2003, AOC hired a management analyst to help create  more specific program-level measures, corresponding to agency-level  performance measures described previously, that will form the basis of an  agencywide performance measurement system.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. AOC has begun to institutionalize important elements of  its strategic management and accountability framework by developing  annual goals and issuing its strategic and performance plans. As such, AOC  has taken its first steps towards identifying high-level agencywide  measures and has committed to creating a more specific performance  measurement system to help the agency track its own progress in meeting  its strategic goals and keeping key stakeholders informed. The creation of a  performance measurement system will be essential to helping AOC track  and report on its agencywide performance measures. Our analyses in  Appendixes V, VI, and VII that assess AOC’s key program issues, worker  safety, project management, and recycling cite the lack of specific  performance measures as continuing critical issues for AOC to address.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and  strategic human capital management by creating a line of sight by  linking AOC’s senior executive and employee performance  management systems to mission-critical goals.
Effective performance management systems can be strategic tools for  organizations to drive internal change and achieve external results. These  systems align individual performance expectations with organizational  goals. High performing organizations align performance expectations of  top leadership with goals and then cascade those expectations down to  lower levels. In our January 2003 report, we noted that AOC had instructed  its senior executives to incorporate the agency’s draft strategic or mission- critical goals and responsibilities into their performance requirements,  which describe how an individual’s work contributes to organizational  goals and results. We recommended that AOC align its employee  performance management system, Performance Communication  Evaluation System (PCES), with its senior executive performance  management system, Performance Review Process (PRP), to strengthen  individual accountability for organizational goals.
Actions Taken by AOC: As of July 1, 2003, AOC reported that it  completed its PRP. Each senior executive is to be held accountable for the  following four performance requirements: leadership and management,  customer satisfaction, safety, and human capital management. Senior  executives are to identify the critical actions that pertain to these  performance requirements and support the achievement of specific  milestones as outlined in the agency’s draft performance plan.
AOC’s director of the AOC Human Resources Management Division  (HRMD) told us that when the recently appointed COO completes and  reviews the strategic plan and the agency’s strategic goals, AOC will be able  to incorporate these strategic goals into PRP and subsequently link these  goals into PCES. This is to be completed by January 2005. According to the  HRMD director, to align PCES with PRP, AOC will need to coordinate its  multiple rating cycles into one cycle. The Senior Policy Committee met on  June 24, 2003, to discuss coordinating the performance rating cycles and  agreed to implement one standard performance rating cycle beginning in  January 2005 from January 1 to December 31 of each year.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. AOC is working to create the line of sight needed to link  senior executive performance with agency strategic goals by identifying  performance requirements for senior executives that are intended to  contribute to the achievement of the agency’s draft strategic plan. While  consolidating the jurisdictional employee performance management cycles  would be helpful in the administration of performance reviews at AOC,  AOC need not wait for this consolidation to make important progress in  integrating its strategic goals into PCES. As AOC’s performance  management effort moves forward, it will be important that AOC adopt  additional performance management practices that leading organizations  have used to enhance performance and ensure accountability.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and  strategic human capital management by establishing agencywide  core and technical competencies and holding employees  accountable for these competencies as a part of the performance  management system.
In our January 2003 report, we recommended that AOC consider  developing core and technical competencies as the basis for its  performance management systems. Agencywide core and technical  competencies can serve as guidance for employees as they strive to meet  organizational expectations. The core competencies should be derived  from AOC’s strategic plan and workforce planning efforts and reflect AOC’s  core values. All employees should be held accountable for achieving core  competencies as AOC moves to transform its culture. We also suggested  that as AOC develops a cadre of managerial and professional employees,  the development of specific technical competencies can assist the agency  in creating and developing a successful leadership and managerial team.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC’s HRMD director told us that AOC is  creating a leadership development program that identifies competencies  for senior executives and agency managers. In addition, this draft  leadership program will identify training to match those competencies and  provide alternative training options to meet the program requirements.  According to the HRMD director, in September 2003, this draft leadership  development program was submitted for management consideration by the  Senior Policy Committee and is still pending approval. The Director also  told us that the identification of competencies for all employees in a  defined framework would begin after the Office of Workforce Planning and  Management (WFPM) is established. AOC is also revising existing  competencies for shop supervisors. According to the HRMD director, she  will be working with the heads of the Office of Design and Construction  and the Procurement Division in fall 2003 to identify technical  competencies for project managers and contracting officers, respectively.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. AOC is taking the initial steps towards establishing  competencies for its senior managers and also developing the training  opportunities to help its managers achieve those competencies. Given the  designated organizational purpose of WFPM, it is appropriate that AOC  plans to use this office to help assess the competencies needed for  employees, as we noted in our January 2003 report that competencies can  help form the basis for an organization’s selection, promotion, training,  performance management, and succession planning initiatives—all  traditional functions of a strategic workforce planning approach. We have  found that successful organizations include human capital professionals  acting together with agency leaders and line managers to develop strategic  and program plans to accomplish agency goals. Through this joint action,  agency and human capital leaders and their staffs share accountability for  successfully integrating strategic human capital approaches into the  planning and decision-making of the agency. As WFPM is established, it is  important that AOC adopt such an approach.
AOC is also making progress towards the development of technical  competencies by working with its respective offices in developing  competencies for its project managers and contracting officers. However, it  is important that AOC continue the development of both its technical and  core competencies for all employees and ensure that these competencies  are tied to the agency’s strategic plan. Part of the typical competency  development process is the validation phase, which allows employees an  opportunity to validate the accuracy of the defined competencies. This  validation process is critical to capturing the competencies accurately and  also gaining employee ownership and acceptance of the competencies for  incorporation into the performance management system.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and  strategic human capital management by developing the capacity to  collect and analyze workforce data.
Collecting and analyzing data are fundamental building blocks for  measuring the effectiveness of human capital approaches in support of the  mission and goals of an agency. The ability to collect and analyze data will  greatly enhance AOC’s ability to acquire, develop, and retain talent, while  allowing it to effectively plan for the needs of its workforce. AOC needs to  develop a fact-based, comprehensive approach to the collection and  analysis of accurate and reliable information across a range of human  capital activities.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has created WFPM as described above, but  has not yet established the ability to collect and analyze workforce data.  According to the HRMD director, AOC does not plan to purchase any  system until WFPM is staffed, although AOC has been reviewing possible  vendor systems designed to help it collect workforce data.
GAO Analysis: AOC’s plans are addressing our recommendations.  However, until the office is established and additional actions are  undertaken, we cannot fully assess its actions in response to this  recommendation. Moreover, AOC does not need to wait until it contracts  with a vendor to begin to identify and establish reliable data sources and  collection methods that will help to support its workforce planning and  management process. Early development of reliable data provides a  baseline that an agency can use to identify current workforce problems.  Regular updating of the data enables agencies to plan for improvements,  manage changes in the programs and workforce, and track the effects of  changes on achieving program goals. To ensure a data-driven, performance- oriented approach to human capital management, senior agency officials,  including both program leaders and human capital leaders, can provide  oversight and accountability for the integration and alignment of the  agencies’ human capital approaches. As shown in figure 1, federal agencies  collect and analyze a variety of information to support their specific  workforce planning efforts.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and  strategic human capital management by identifying current and  future workforce needs and developing strategies to fill gaps.
AOC can benefit from strategically identifying its current and future  workforce needs and then creating strategies to fill any gaps. Workforce  planning efforts linked to strategic program goals and objectives can help  the organization better identify needs such as ensuring a diverse labor  force, succession planning for scarce skill sets, and other competencies  needed in the workforce.
Actions Taken by AOC: In our January 2003 report, we stated that AOC  recognized the need to strategically plan for its workforce and had  requested funding for four positions in its fiscal year 2003 budget to create  an organization and workforce management team reporting to the Deputy  Chief of Staff within the Office of the Architect. According to AOC officials,  AOC hired the Director of WFPM and filled one staff position on October 7,  2003 and is recruiting for the remaining workforce planning and  management analyst positions. The Deputy Chief of Staff told us that the  COO would work collaboratively with WFPM to focus on the assessment of  AOC’s skill mix, resource needs, and succession planning for the agency.
GAO Analysis: AOC’s plans are addressing our recommendations, but  until the office is established and additional actions are undertaken, we  cannot fully assess its action in response to this recommendation. It is  encouraging that AOC is working to establish this office that will allow the  agency to conduct workforce planning and analysis. As AOC’s workforce  planning efforts move forward, AOC will naturally need to develop an  approach that best meets its organizational needs. Our work looking at  strategic workforce planning suggests that there are certain principles that  an organization should address irrespective of the context in which  planning is done. We have issued several reports that discuss the following  common core principles of workforce planning.
Involve top management, employees, and other stakeholders in  developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce  plan,   Determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to  achieve future programmatic results,  Develop strategies tailored to address gaps in number, deployment, and  alignment of human capital approaches that enable and sustain the  contributions of all critical skills and competencies,  Build the capability needed to address administrative, educational, and  other requirements important to support workforce strategies, and  Monitor and evaluate the agency’s progress towards its human capital  goals and the contribution that human capital results have made  towards achieving programmatic goals.
Recommendation: Establish action-oriented implementation goals  over the long term and a time line with milestone dates to track the  organization’s progress towards achieving those implementation  goals Our January 2003 report stated that AOC faces many challenges as it  transforms to become a more results-oriented, matrixed, client-focused,  and proactive organization. Making such fundamental changes in AOC’s  culture will require a long-term, concerted effort. We also noted that our  recommendations covered a broad landscape of issues confronting AOC,  such as strategic planning, communications, strategic human capital,  financial management, information technology, as well as long-standing  issues in worker safety, project management, and recycling. Establishing a  strategic management and accountability framework and developing  management infrastructure and internal controls would help AOC achieve  its organizational transformation. Thus, it was important to craft a  comprehensive and integrated approach addressing AOC’s challenges and  setting appropriate priorities, even though by necessity it would have to be  phased in over time.
Therefore, we recommended that it was essential AOC work with key  congressional and other stakeholders to establish action-oriented,  implementation goals over the long term, and a time line with milestone  dates to track the organization’s progress towards achieving those  implementation goals. We also suggested to Congress that it consider ways  in which to elevate, integrate, and institutionalize accountability for  addressing management issues and leading organizational transformation  at AOC; one option was to create a statutory COO or similar position for  AOC to improve its executive decision-making capacity and accountability.
Actions Taken by AOC: In the legislation that mandated we undertake a  general management review of the AOC, Congress also required that AOC  respond to our review by preparing a management improvement plan  addressing our study. To satisfy this congressional requirement to create a  management improvement plan addressing our management review  recommendations and our specific recommendation that AOC create  action-oriented implementation goals and a time line with milestone dates  to track AOC’s progress towards achieving its goals, AOC issued its draft  performance plan in March 2003 for fiscal years 2003-2007 with a particular  emphasis on fiscal years 2003-2004. This draft performance plan includes  specific action plans developed along the same planning time line as the  AOC draft strategic plan, as well as the tactical-level actions, performance  targets, and milestone dates necessary to carry out agency-level strategies  to achieve its mission-critical goals. In the 2003 Legislative Branch  Appropriations Act, Congress created the COO position at AOC, and the  Architect of the Capitol appointed its first COO, who began on July 28,  2003.
GAO Analysis: AOC has fulfilled our recommendation by issuing its draft  performance plan, which establishes action-oriented implementation goals  over the long term and a time line with milestone dates to track the  organization’s progress towards achieving those implementation goals. The  implementation of these two recommendations in tandem (1) the creation  of AOC’s management improvement plan and (2) the appointment of the  COO position to help AOC elevate, integrate, and institutionalize  accountability for addressing management issues and leading its  transformation, allow AOC to address issues across the agency’s programs  and influence performance in all areas critical to achieving its mission.  Moving forward, it is critical that AOC complete its draft performance plan  and then use it as a basis for managing the agency, provide progress reports  to Congress, and assure AOC’s accountability.
section_title: Strategic Human Capital Management
paragraphs: We made three recommendations in our January 2003 report to help the  Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its management  infrastructure and internal controls by strengthening its human capital  policies, procedures, and processes by developing a consistent agencywide  leave policy, comprehensively collecting and analyzing data from its  employee relations offices, and establishing a direct reporting relationship  between the Ombudsperson and the Architect. This appendix describes  AOC’s progress to date in addressing each of these recommendations. We  provide a brief review of why we made each recommendation, report the  actions that AOC has taken to implement the recommendation, and provide  our analysis of whether AOC’s actions address the underlying issues that  caused us to make the recommendation in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Strengthen AOC’s human capital policies,  procedures, and processes by continuing to develop and implement  agencywide human capital policies and procedures and holding  management and employees accountable for following these  policies and procedures.
Effective organizations establish clear and consistent human capital  policies with clearly stated expectations for both employees and  supervisors and ensure that there is accountability for following these  procedures accordingly. As mentioned, we conducted focus groups as part  of our management review and found that a majority of the focus group  participants perceived that AOC’s supervisors applied awards, overtime,  and leave policies inconsistently and suspected supervisory favoritism in  making these decisions. Some focus group participants stated that  supervisors determined on their own when an employee was entitled to  sick or annual leave and inconsistently decided when some employees  could take off time from work. Further, a majority of focus group  participants felt that the Architect’s Awards Program was not applied  consistently across jurisdictions and shifts for all employees.
Actions Taken by AOC: Since our January 2003 report, AOC has drafted  an agencywide absence and leave policy to “assure consistent treatment of  employees through the establishment of uniform procedures for the  administration of leave.” This policy covers most types of employee leave,  such as annual, sick, family and medical, and absence without pay. In  September 2003, AOC submitted its draft leave policy to the Architect for  his review and approval. AOC has submitted its policy and procedures for  administering various pay flexibilities, such as recruitment bonuses and  retention allowances, superior qualification appointments, and pre- employment travel expense reimbursements to the AOC Office of  Employment Counsel for review. On June 15, 2003, AOC issued its final  guidelines to supervisors and employees for determining when employees  are eligible to receive Sunday premium pay.
In our January 2003 report, we reported that, in March 2002, AOC had  issued a policy containing responsibilities and procedures for  administrating its employee rewards and recognition program. The Human  Resources Management Division (HRMD) director told us that managers  and supervisors are held accountable for the consistent application of the  human capital policies and procedures, such as granting leave, overtime,  and employee awards in the Performance Communication Evaluation  System (PCES) within the performance requirement of Supervision and  Management.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation of developing and implementing agencywide human  capital policies and procedures by issuing an absence and leave policy,  providing guidelines to its workforce for determining eligibility for Sunday  premium pay, and completing its policy and procedures for administering  pay flexibilities. AOC must continue to hold management and employees  accountable for following these policies and procedures through the  performance requirements in its performance management systems. As  part of its management and oversight responsibilities of human capital  policies, it is important that AOC senior management and HRMD  continually monitor whether supervisors and managers are fairly  administering the policies concerning leave, rewards, and recognition. AOC  could use information gathered during employee focus groups, employee  satisfaction surveys, and informal feedback from employees to monitor  employee views on the administration of these policies.
Recommendation: 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.
AOC has a number of offices, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity  and Conciliation Program Office, the Office of the Ombudsperson, as well  as an employee group, the Employee Advisory Council (EAC) formerly  known as the Architect’s Work Team, whose function is to interact directly  with employees and can gather information regarding employee concerns.  In addition to the roles that these offices fill in resolving the concerns of  individual employees, each of these offices can also be a valuable source  for identifying general issues of agencywide employee concerns. During  our management review, we found that it was not clear whether there was  a coordinated approach to track patterns of agencywide employee  relations issues among these offices and EAC. If this information could be  collected and analyzed by AOC’s senior managers, it could be useful for  alerting management to issues affecting employee relations. We also noted  that an agencywide tracking method needed to be balanced to maintain  employee confidentiality.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to the Deputy Chief of Staff and  HRMD director, there is a new objective in the AOC Human Capital Plan,  issued in December 2003 that allows for additional input into the policy  development review process from employee groups, such as EAC. In  addition, the HRMD director told us that in August and October 2003  representatives from the Offices of Labor Relations, Equal Employment  Opportunity and Conciliation Program, Human Resources, and the Office  of Employment Counsel met to discuss how to best shape information on  possible trends in employee relations issues among employees. According  to the HRMD director, this discussion centered on how to best share  information among these offices and what will be done with the  information when a trend is noted. AOC plans to establish a defined  process for a trial period on how best to share and examine employee  relations data and then reevaluate this process.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation by holding meetings with the program offices that can  provide employee relations data and assessments of employee concerns at  the agency and by including an objective in its Human Capital Plan to  solicit additional feedback from its EAC. It is important that AOC continue  holding these meetings to discuss ways in which it can systematically  gather and analyze information about general employee concerns, while  maintaining employee confidentiality, and regularly bring these concerns to  the attention of senior management.
Recommendation: Establish a direct reporting relationship between  the Ombudsperson and the Architect consistent with professional  standards.
Our January 2003 report assessed the ombudsperson position at AOC to  determine whether it adhered to the standards of practice for  ombudspersons established by professional organizations, including  embracing the core principles of independence, neutrality, and  confidentiality. We found that the AOC Ombudsperson reported to the  Administrative Assistant to the Architect of the Capitol or his or her  authorized designate, but not directly to the Architect. The Ombudsman  Association Standards of Practice define independence as functioning  independently of line management with the ombudsman reporting to the  highest authority in an organization. Furthermore, the American Bar  Association’s ombudsman standards for independence state that the  ombudsman’s office must be and appear to be free from interference in  order to be credible and effective. We recommended that if the AOC  Ombudsperson were to directly report to the Architect and not through  another senior manager, the core principle of independence would be  strengthened.
Actions Taken by AOC: The Deputy Chief of Staff told us that in the  future the Ombudsperson and Architect would have a direct reporting  relationship and plan to meet directly to discuss the Ombudsperson’s  monthly status reports, though these meetings have not yet taken place. He  also told us in November 2003 that the current contract with the AOC  Ombudsperson expired September 30, 2003, and AOC is hiring another  contractor for the position and expects to fill the position in the next few  months. AOC officials also stated that the Architect may choose to share  the Ombudsperson’s monthly report findings with the Chief Operating  Officer and other selected senior managers in AOC, such as the Chief of  Staff or her Deputy, as a followup to the Ombudsperson’s report.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation to adhere to the standard of independence for the office  of an ombudsman, though these meetings have not yet taken place. We  recommended that AOC establish a direct reporting relationship between  the Ombudsperson and the Architect to be consistent with professional  standards, which suggests that the Ombudsperson report directly with the  highest authority in the agency, in this case the Architect. It is appropriate  for the Architect to also include the Chief Operating Officer, as another one  of the highest authorities in the agency, during these monthly status  meetings. According to the Ombudsman Association’s model job  description under reporting guidelines for an organizational ombudsman,  “the ombudsman function is independent of and separate from the human  resource and other existing administrative structures… and typically  reports directly to the chief executive officer or chief operating officer,  with access to the board of directors, if applicable.” It is also appropriate  for the Architect to share the Ombudsperson’s report with selected senior  managers in the organization. According to Ombudsman Association  standards, the ombudsman “may prepare periodic reports, either verbally  or in writing, on organizational trends and activities based on anonymous  aggregate data. These reports may also identify patterns or problem areas  in the organization’s policies and practices and may recommend revisions  or improvements, and may assess the climate of the organization and can  be communicated in a general way to the organization’s senior  management.”
section_title: Financial Management
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we made one recommendation to help the  Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) continue to improve its  financial management by institutionalizing sound financial management  practices. This appendix describes AOC’s progress to date in addressing  our recommendation. We provide a brief review of why we made this  recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the  recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC’s actions  address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation  in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Continue to improve AOC’s approach to financial  management by developing strategies to institutionalize financial  management practices that will support budgeting, financial, and  program management at AOC.
In our January 2003 report, we noted that AOC’s Chief Financial Officer  (CFO) had adopted our executive guide on world-class financial  management as a road map for improving financial management.  According to the CFO, the financial management component of AOC’s  March 2003 draft performance plan presents AOC’s proposed actions, in  response to our January 2003 recommendation, to institutionalize financial  management best practices that support the effective delivery of programs  and services. Specifically, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)  has established three broad-based action plans to respond to this  recommendation:  build a foundation of financial control and accountability,  assess the financial management organization’s current role in meeting  mission objectives and organize financial management to add value, and  improve forward-looking analysis, train managers in understanding how  to use financial information, and improve the partnership between  financial management and operations.
Build a foundation of financial control and accountability.
A foundation of financial control and accountability provides a system of  checks and balances and needed assurances that transactions are  appropriately recorded and reported, assets are protected, established  policies and procedures are followed, and resources are used economically  and efficiently for the purposes intended. In this regard, this action plan  involves leveraging audit resources and the financial statement audit  process to issue auditable financial statements, developing an approach for  assessing and improving internal controls, and establishing inventory  management and control procedures to ensure accurate and useful  information. The plan also includes developing accurate operating and  capital budget requests and related plans to properly evaluate the  execution of programs, as well as processes and procedures needed to  prepare financial and performance reports for major programs and  business segments.
Actions Taken by AOC: OCFO reports that planning for the issuance of  auditable financial statements has been completed, and implementation is  underway to issue an audited balance sheet for fiscal year 2003 and a  complete set of audited financial statements for subsequent fiscal years.  AOC has established an audit committee to oversee the audits and has  hired an external auditor to perform the initial audit and report on related  internal control issues. In addition, OCFO reports that values have been  established for property, plant, and equipment, and that reconciliation  procedures have been developed for all major accounts. Various additional  actions are planned by OCFO to support the fiscal year 2003 audit of the  balance sheet, including an automated close of the accounting records and  automated extraction of the financial statements. Current completion dates  are mid-fiscal year 2004 for issuance of the fiscal year 2003 financial  statements (including an audited balance sheet) and mid-fiscal year 2006 to  receive an unqualified audit opinion on the complete set of fiscal year 2005  financial statements.
About internal controls, OCFO reports that policies and procedures have  been developed for all major activities of the Accounting and Budget  Division, including guidance on funds control administration. Key controls  will be reviewed as part of the fiscal year 2003 financial statement audit.  AOC plans to respond to the auditor’s report on internal controls and issue  a policy statement on internal controls by September 30, 2004.
Concerning inventory management and control procedures, OCFO reports  that AOC has implemented an inventory accounting policy, developed  interim policies and procedures for inventory management and control,  and received bids for the purchase of a new inventory control system. AOC  plans to implement its new inventory system during fiscal year 2004.
About budgeting, OCFO reports that AOC has implemented operating and  capital budget processes for the development of the fiscal year 2005 budget  estimates submission to Congress. These processes include (1) a new  capital planning program that standardizes and prioritizes capital project  submissions, (2) a budget screening process that incorporates comparisons  of prior-year spending trends for recurring programs, (3) a stakeholder  review that examines all budgets to the lowest (suballotment) level, and (4)  final review and approval by the Architect. AOC’s current planned date for  having a budget approved as submitted is September 30, 2007.
With regard to financial reports for major programs and business segments,  OCFO reports that coding needed to facilitate the preparation of  jurisdiction financial reports has been completed. AOC plans to generate  automated financial reports for fiscal year 2003 and quarterly financial  reports starting in fiscal year 2004. Actions needed to develop and issue  annual performance reports for major programs and business segments,  however, are not as far along. OCFO reports that planning is expected to  begin in mid-fiscal year 2004, once AOC’s performance plan is finalized.  Currently, OCFO projects that it will issue the initial annual performance  report in fiscal year 2007.
Assess the financial management organization’s current role in meeting  mission objectives and organize financial management to add value.
A financial management organization that meets its mission objectives and  adds value does so by providing products and services that directly support  strategic decision making and improving overall performance. To build  such an organization, this action plan calls for revising OCFO’s internal  operating plan, developing a long-term workforce strategy to ensure that  financial managers have necessary data analysis skills, and benchmarking  OCFO processes against industry leaders and other federal agencies to  facilitate reengineering of costly, inefficient processes.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to OCFO, planning has begun on the  revision of the OCFO internal operating plan, which is currently scheduled  for completion by the end of fiscal year 2004. By mid-fiscal year 2004,  OCFO plans to begin developing long-term workforce strategies to ensure  that AOC financial managers have appropriate financial analysis skills and  to start reviewing and benchmarking financial transactions and processes  as a basis for streamlining and reengineering financial processes. AOC  plans to complete both of these action items by the end of fiscal year 2005.
OCFO plans to issue a report on benchmarking efforts that will be used,  beginning in fiscal year 2006, to eliminate, streamline, and reengineer  costly and inefficient financial processes. Financial process changes are  expected to be ongoing at the end of fiscal year 2007, the cut-off date for  the 5-year performance plan.
Improve forward-looking analysis, train managers in understanding  how to use financial information, and improve the partnership between  financial management and operations.
Equipping managers with the skills and capabilities needed to effectively  use financial information in prospective analysis improves the opportunity  for meaningful partnerships between financial management and  operations. To this end, this action plan seeks to establish a link between  financial management and operations that helps to provide meaningful  information for managing and measuring cost and performance.  Specifically, this plan involves   integrating AOC’s financial and operating systems to facilitate annual   training managers to use financial information to improve operational   implementing a cost accounting system for financial reporting,  placing financial managers in jurisdictions,  stabilizing financial management system upgrades, and   developing a long-term operating plan.
Actions Taken by AOC: OCFO reports that planning has begun to  (1) integrate financial and operating systems to equip decision-makers with  relevant information and tools to perform ad hoc analysis, (2) establish  expectations and procedures for conducting annual program reviews,   (3) train managers to use financial information to improve operational  planning and decision-making, and (4) acquire and install a cost accounting  system for financial reporting.
Once financial and operating systems are integrated and expectations and  procedures for the annual reviews are established, OCFO will be able to  conduct its first annual program review. The review is currently planned  for fiscal year 2004; however, due to potential key system integration  issues, OCFO is currently considering rescheduling the review for fiscal  year 2006.
OCFO reports that many financial and procurement managers in the  jurisdictions and central office have been trained in appropriations law,  with further appropriations law training planned as an ongoing program.  Additionally, OCFO anticipates that planning for other training can begin in  mid-fiscal year 2004, with courses conducted later in the fiscal year. Letters  of authority to properly trained managers authorizing them to conduct  various financial activities are currently scheduled for distribution by the  end of fiscal year 2004.
AOC acquisition and installation of a cost accounting system is currently  scheduled for September 30, 2005; however, according to OCFO, this step  needs to be moved to fiscal year 2006 because AOC has requested fiscal  year 2005 funding for determining how it should perform cost allocation,  and for support in system set-up and testing.
OCFO reports that planning has been completed on efforts to establish  financial managers in jurisdictions, and the hiring of the first group of these  managers is underway with completion expected by the end of fiscal year  2006.
With regard to financial management systems, OCFO reports that AOC  continues to make progress in implementing major phases of its financial  management system implementation plan, with the contracting module and  inventory system—the final two phases—planned for production  operations in October 2004. AOC’s upgrade of the financial management  system is also scheduled for October 2004, with future upgrades of major  releases scheduled annually.
While plans are underway to revise OCFO’s existing internal operating  plan, as discussed previously, efforts have not yet begun to develop and  issue a long-term operating plan. Completion of the long-term plan is  currently scheduled for September 30, 2007.
GAO Analysis: Since January 2003, AOC has made progress in addressing  our recommendation. It has developed and begun to implement three  broad-based action plans that are intended to accomplish AOC’s goal of  institutionalizing financial management best practices that support the  effective delivery of programs and services. These action plans, if properly  carried out, represent a reasonable basis for achieving AOC’s goal.
However, none of the individual action items associated with the three  action plans has been completed, and many are not scheduled for  completion until fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Furthermore, planning for  certain items has not yet begun, and for some is not scheduled to begin  until mid-fiscal year 2004. With regard to the length of time needed to  complete individual action items, AOC management noted that they  represent a measured approach to improving financial management while  the agency’s other processes and systems mature. While AOC has made  progress since our January 2003 report, much work remains in beginning to  address unplanned action items and complete ongoing planning and  implementation efforts.
OCFO has made progress in planning and implementing actions designed  to build a foundation of control and accountability. These efforts, most of  which are associated with preparing AOC’s first auditable financial  statements, are well underway. OCFO also reports progress in planning and  implementing action items related to improving the partnership between  financial management and operations. However, OCFO reports only limited  progress on efforts to assess the role of AOC’s financial management  organization in meeting mission objectives and to organize financial  management so that it adds value to the organization. The CFO and his  management team must ensure that proper planning begins where needed  and ongoing planning and implementation is completed to achieve the goal  of institutionalizing financial management best practices. In addition,  because many completion dates are not scheduled until fiscal years 2006  and 2007, the use of interim dates by AOC for monitoring progress would  be beneficial. We will continue to monitor and evaluate OCFO’s progress in  carrying out the actions needed to achieve this goal and to fully address our  recommendation.
section_title: Information Technology
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we made five recommendations to help the  Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) adopt an agencywide approach  to IT management. These recommendations are (1) establishing a chief  information officer position, (2) developing and implementing effective  investment management processes, (3) developing, implementing, and  maintaining an enterprise architecture, (4) defining and implementing  effective systems development and acquisition processes, and   (5) establishing an effective information security program. This appendix  describes AOC’s progress to date in addressing each of our  recommendations. It also provides a brief explanation of why we made  each recommendation, describes the actions that AOC has taken to  implement each recommendation, and provides our analysis of whether  AOC’s actions address the underlying issues that caused us to make the  recommendation in our January 2003 report. It also provides additional  recommendations relative to investment management and enterprise  architecture management.
Recommendation: Establish a chief information officer or  comparable senior executive, with the responsibility, authority, and  adequate resources for managing IT across the agency, who is a full  participant in AOC’s senior decision-making processes and has  clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities.
Our research of private- and public-sector organizations that effectively  manage IT shows that these organizations have adopted an agencywide  management approach under the leadership of a chief information officer,  or comparable senior executive, who has the responsibility and authority  for managing IT across the agency. AOC had a decentralized approach to  management and spending in which each organizational component  controlled its IT assets.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has issued a centralized IT management  policy that assigns the OIRM director responsibility and authority for  managing IT across the agency and makes the director a key participant in  executive decision making, serving as the principal advisor to the Architect  in applying IT to improve business processes. Also, the director’s roles and  responsibilities include controlling the AOC IT budget and chairing the IT  Project Management Board, which is the project oversight body for OIRM  projects. The director is organizationally positioned to report to the  agency’s Deputy Chief of Staff, who is a member of AOC’s senior policy  committee and also the chairman of the investment review board, which is  the approval body for new IT investments beginning in fiscal year 2004. The  director’s roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities also include  overseeing and guiding the development, management, and use of IT  throughout the agency.
GAO Analysis: AOC has fulfilled our recommendation. First, AOC has  established a senior executive (the OIRM director) with the responsibility,  authority, and resources for managing IT across the agency. Second, by  having the OIRM director’s supervisor chair the investment review board  and sit on the senior policy committee, and by giving the IT director budget  control, the agency has made the director a participant in senior decision- making. Third, AOC has defined in its IT policy the director’s roles,  responsibilities, and accountabilities.
Recommendation: Develop and implement IT investment  management processes with the full support and participation of  AOC’s senior leadership. Specifically, the Architect must develop a  plan for developing and implementing the investment management  processes, as appropriate, that are outlined in our IT investment  management guide. At a minimum, the plan should specify  measurable tasks, goals, time frames, and resources required to  develop and implement the processes. The Architect should focus  first on the management processes associated with controlling  existing projects and establishing the management structures to  effectively implement an IT management process.
On the basis of research of private- and public-sector organizations that  effectively manage their IT investments, our IT investment management  guide outlines a corporate, portfolio-based approach to investment  decision making. This approach requires that a sound investment  management process be able to (1) measure the progress of existing  projects and (2) continually assess proposed and ongoing projects as an  integrated and competing set of investment options. AOC had not satisfied  the components of either of these two major steps and, as a result, did not  have an agencywide, portfolio-based approach to investment management.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC is developing a new IT portfolio  management process—called an investment framework—and plans to  implement it in fiscal year 2004. AOC’s IT policy, signed by the Architect,  states the framework is to provide an effective means to select projects  that best support the agency’s mission. The current version of the  framework, completed in October 2003, is organized along a “select,  control, and evaluate” model. In January 2004, AOC stated that it has begun  using the framework to control existing IT investments, using part of the  framework—the process used to score proposed investments’ value and  risk—on all fiscal year 2004 investments. An agency official told us that  AOC intends to fully implement the framework by May 2004. To execute  the select, control, and evaluate processes, the framework specifies four  management structures—an architecture and standards committee, a  project management board, a business systems modernization office, and  an investment review board, and AOC has defined the memberships of  each.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. AOC’s  draft investment management framework focuses on investment selection.  However, consistent with our IT investment management guide, we  recommended that the agency focus first on detailing and implementing  processes to control existing investments and that efforts to develop and  implement these processes be guided by a detailed plan. AOC does not  have a documented plan, with the associated tasks, goals, time frames, and  resources needed to implement the framework. Also, the agency has not  focused first on controlling existing IT investments. According to our  guide, to control existing investments, AOC should be (1) operating an IT  investment board responsible for controlling investments that includes  both senior IT and business representatives, (2) providing effective  oversight for ongoing IT projects throughout all phases of their life cycle,  (3) identifying, tracking, and managing IT resources; and (4) ensuring that  each IT project supports the organization’s business needs. In January  2004, AOC stated that it has begun operating its project investment review  board that has recently been revised to include senior agency leaders (e.g.,  chief financial officer and superintendents). AOC’s framework addresses  project oversight but does not specify how it will identify, track, and  manage IT resources or ensure that projects support agency business  needs. Further, although it intends to fully implement its IT investment  management process by May 2004, AOC does not have a plan to do so that  focuses on controlling existing IT projects and fully defining and  implementing more mature investment management processes. Having  such a plan would be consistent with our IT investment management guide  and our recommendation for having a road map for achieving needed  investment management maturity progression.
Additional Recommendation: We reiterate our recommendation that  AOC develop and implement a plan that is consistent with our IT  investment management guide and thus focus first on the practices  associated with controlling existing IT investments. We also recommend  that AOC plan for and implement those practices in our IT investment  management guide associated with corporate, portfolio-based investment  decision-making, such as (1) implementing criteria to select investments  that will best support the organization’s strategic goals, objectives, and  mission, (2) using these criteria to consistently analyze and prioritize all IT  investments, (3) ensuring that the optimal investment portfolio with  manageable risks and returns is selected and funded, and (4) overseeing  each investment within the portfolio to ensure that it achieves its cost,  benefit, schedule, and risk expectations.
Recommendation: Develop, implement, and maintain an enterprise  architecture (EA) to guide and constrain IT projects throughout  AOC. The Architect should implement the practices, as appropriate,  as outlined in the Chief Information Officer Council’s architecture  management guide. As a first step, the Architect should establish  the management structure for developing, implementing, and  maintaining an EA by implementing the following actions:  developing an agencywide policy statement providing a clear  mandate for developing, implementing, and maintaining the  architecture;  establishing an executive body composed of stakeholders from  AOC mission-critical program offices to guide the strategy for  developing the EA and ensure agency support and resources for  it; and  designating an individual who serves as a chief enterprise  architect to develop policy, lead the development of the EA, and  manage it as a formal program.
Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to  modernize IT environments without an EA to guide and constrain  investments often results in systems that are duplicative, not well  integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and ineffective  in supporting mission goals. The development, implementation, and  maintenance of architectures are recognized hallmarks of successful  private and public organizations that effectively exploited IT in meeting  their mission goals. At the time of our initial review, AOC did not have an  EA or the management foundation needed to successfully develop one.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC’s centralized IT policy commits to  developing, implementing, and maintaining an EA and gives OIRM  responsibility for developing and maintaining it. AOC has also assigned  responsibility for guiding EA development and approving it to the agency’s  senior policy committee, which is composed of representatives from  across the agency. According to the AOC Deputy Chief of Staff and the  OIRM director, a chief enterprise architect position was requested, but not  approved, in the fiscal year 2004 budget request, but the position has been  included in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. In the interim, AOC has  established a business systems modernization office in OIRM to provide  technical and managerial support for architectural development. The  agency also reports it has selected an architecture framework, the federal  EA framework; hired a consultant to provide an architecture methodology  and perform EA development work, and selected an automated tool to  support development. Thus far, AOC has initiated activities to develop EA  products, including completing the initial version of the existing, “as is,”  and the target, “to be,” architectures—as well as a plan that will map out  the transition from the “as is” to the “to be,” in September 2003. AOC  reports that the Deputy Chief of Staff has since approved these products.  The agency also stated that it has developed a detailed plan addressing  resource needs for its EA effort, although we have not yet received a copy  of the plan. AOC’s goal is to implement the target architecture by  September 30, 2009.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. AOC has  issued a policy on developing, implementing, and maintaining an EA;  established an executive board to oversee EA development, and assigned  responsibility to develop, implement, and maintain the architecture to  AOC’s Chief Technology Officer until a chief enterprise architect is hired.  Thus, AOC has largely implemented our recommendations for launching  the architecture effort but needs to execute the next steps toward  completing, implementing, and maintaining an EA as detailed in our guide.
Additional Recommendation: We recommend that AOC complete  ongoing steps associated with developing its EA and implement additional  steps to complete, maintain, and implement the architecture. In particular,  we recommend that AOC plan for and implement the practices in our  architecture management guide associated with leveraging an EA for  organizational transformation, such as (1) ensuring that adequate  resources are devoted to the program (funding, people, tools, and  technology), (2) ensuring that the architecture describes both the “as is”  and the “to be” environments in terms of performance, (3) ensuring that  architecture business, performance, information and data, applications and  services, and technology descriptions address security; and (4) ensuring  that metrics are used to measure EA progress, quality, compliance, and  return on investment.
Recommendation: Require disciplined and rigorous processes for  managing the development and acquisition of IT systems and  implement the processes throughout AOC. Specifically, these  processes should include the following:  quality assurance processes, including developing a quality  assurance plan and identifying applicable process and product  standards that will be used in developing and assessing project  processes and products;  configuration management processes, including establishing a  repository or configuration management system to maintain and  control configuration management items;  risk management processes, including developing a project risk  management plan, identifying and prioritizing potential  problems, implementing risk mitigation strategies, as required,  and tracking and reporting progress against the plans; and  contract tracking and oversight processes, including developing a  plan for tracking contractor activities, measuring contractor  performance and conducting periodic reviews, and conducting  internal reviews of tracking and oversight activities.
Our experience with federal agencies has shown that not having and  following rigorous and disciplined development and acquisition processes  can lead to systems that do not perform as intended, are delivered late, and  cost more than planned. OIRM’s existing information system life-cycle  guidance defined some of the key development and acquisition processes,  but did not address either risk management or contract tracking and  oversight, and only partly addressed quality assurance and configuration  management. Moreover, these processes had not been adopted and  implemented agencywide.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC awarded a contract in June 2003 to develop  a new agencywide information systems life-cycle methodology that is to  incorporate processes consistent with the Software Engineering Institute’s  Capability Maturity Model® Integration. The contract requires delivery of  the methodology by January 31, 2004. OIRM plans to pilot test the new life- cycle processes, obtain feedback from these tests, and refine the processes  as necessary before issuing guidance and beginning implementation as an  AOC-wide standard starting March 31, 2004.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. By contracting for a new life-cycle methodology  consistent with the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity  Model® Integration, AOC has taken action aimed at defining disciplined and  rigorous processes for managing the development and acquisition of IT  systems, including quality assurance, configuration management, contract  tracking and oversight, and risk management. AOC still needs to ensure  that it obtains a well-defined set of processes and that these processes are  in fact implemented by March 31, 2004, as planned.
Recommendation: Establish and implement an information security  program. Specifically, the Architect should establish an information  security program by taking the following steps:   designate a security officer and provide him or her with the  authority and resources to implement an agencywide security  program;   develop and implement policy and guidance to perform risk   use the results of the risk assessments to develop and implement   develop policies for security training and awareness and provide   monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.
Our research of private- and public-sector organizations recognized as  having strong information security programs shows that their programs  include (1) establishing a central focal point with appropriate resources,  (2) continually assessing business risks, (3) implementing and maintaining  policies and controls, (4) promoting awareness, and (5) monitoring and  evaluating policy and control effectiveness. Although AOC had taken  important steps to establish an information security program, much  remains to be done, including hiring an information security officer and an  information security specialist, before this program satisfies recognized  best practices.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has filled its information security officer  position and, on May 30, 2003, issued a policy that gives this official the  responsibility and authority to establish and implement an agencywide  information security program. According to AOC, most of the necessary  security resources (staff) were in place to begin the program as of October  9, 2003, and the agency has since filled the remaining position with contract  resources. Further, AOC has drafted two additional policies, one mandating  periodic risk assessments to determine information system vulnerabilities and use the results to institute appropriate controls, and another  mandating security awareness and training for all AOC system users.  According to AOC, issuance of these policies is scheduled for March 31,  2004, and the agency plans to begin awareness training by April 2004. In  addition, the agency stated that its comprehensive IT security plan is being  revised and estimates that this work will be completed in June 2004. Also,  AOC plans to contract out the development of audit and review procedures  to monitor and evaluate policy and program effectiveness; use AOC,  contractor, and inspector general staff to conduct risk assessments and  audits; and contract for an independent security audit of AOC systems by  September 30, 2004.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. AOC has laid some of the foundation for establishing an  effective security program, such as designating an information security  officer and giving this official the authority to implement an agencywide  security program; but work remains to first define and then execute this  program. The key is for AOC to follow through on stated commitments to  provide proper resources for the program, finalize its security policies,  define processes for implementing the policies, and implement them.
section_title: Worker Safety
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we made seven recommendations to help the  Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its overall approach to  worker safety by identifying performance measures, clearly defining  policies and procedures for reporting hazards, establishing a consistent  system for conducting investigations and followup, establishing a safety  training curriculum, assigning clear responsibility for tracking worker  safety employee training, clarifying the role of the Office of the Attending  Physician (OAP) in helping AOC to meet its safety goals, and establishing a  senior management work group to routinely discuss worker compensation  issues. This appendix describes AOC’s progress to date in addressing each  of our recommendations. We provide a brief review of why we made each  recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the  recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC’s actions  address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation  in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: 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.
At the time of our management review, 15 of AOC’s 43 safety policies had  been written and approved by the Architect. However, the standard  operating procedures for these policies had not been approved, and several  jurisdictions were using separate standard operating procedures that were  unique to each jurisdiction. In addition, AOC had not yet developed  performance measures or interim milestones that could be used to assess  the implementation of these policies. Finally, AOC had not fully linked  senior manager and employee performance with the achievement of its  safety goals.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to AOC officials and documents we  reviewed, a number of steps have been taken to address this  recommendation. First, the number of safety policies has been reduced  from 43 to 34 to better reflect the type of activities conducted at AOC.  Second, AOC has drafted an Occupational Safety and Health Program  (OSH) Plan, which establishes the objectives, actions, and milestones  necessary to achieve the agency’s safety and health goals. One objective is  to establish additional policies and procedures to ensure AOC complies  with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations  and protects employee health. Third, within the draft OSH plan, AOC has  created a schedule for developing and implementing all 34 safety policies.  Fourth, AOC is creating a standard template that identifies the critical  elements, such as the tools and training requirements, for each policy. AOC  is using the standard template to help ensure that the safety policies are  consistently implemented across the 11 jurisdictions. Fifth, AOC has  identified broader program goals that demonstrate its commitment to  worker safety. AOC is establishing performance measures for each of the  34 safety policies to demonstrate progress toward the safety program goals  and objectives. In addition, AOC has requested increases in the  jurisdictional training budget for AOC employees. Finally, AOC is using a  safety performance requirement within its PRP, senior employee  performance management system, and its PCES, employee performance  management system, to hold all senior managers and employees  accountable for safety results.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. The draft OSH plan recognizes that implementation of  AOC’s 34 safety policies will require an agencywide cultural transition that  will take a number of years of focused commitment to attain, including  additional resource commitments. While implementation of all 34 safety  policies had been targeted for completion by fiscal year 2005, this date has  been extended to fiscal year 2007. As of the beginning of fiscal year 2004,  no safety policy has been fully implemented.
The draft OSH plan identifies performance measures for some safety and  health objectives. For example, the draft OSH plan indicates a performance  measure for the objective “enhance employee awareness of and  involvement in all aspects of safety and health” and includes publicizing the  minutes from monthly meetings of jurisdictions to discuss safety and  health. However, this performance measure is not fully developed or  results oriented. To its credit, the draft OSH plan does indicate that  performance measures for many of the 34 safety policies will be determined as each policy is developed, though many of the safety  policies will not be developed for a number of years.
Implementation of the 34 safety policies, even under the extended time  frame, could be jeopardized according to AOC officials, if the increased  staff and funding needs to accomplish the plan are not met. Four of the five  jurisdictional superintendents we interviewed said they would need  additional staff to fully implement the safety policies. In addition, both  jurisdictional and central AOC officials said the jurisdictional training  budgets would need to be increased to meet the training objectives  established in the draft Occupational Safety and Health Program Plan.  Moreover, one AOC jurisdictional official stated that if the request for  additional staff members were not approved, the implementation plan  would likely be delayed beyond fiscal year 2007. To the extent that AOC  establishes a sound business case for additional staff and funding, having  the appropriate resources in place to implement the safety policies will  help AOC meet its time frames.
AOC has been unable to meet the original targeted time frame (fiscal year  2005) due to the need to revise the methodology for developing the safety  policies. This was mainly due, according to AOC officials, to insufficient  staff resources in the jurisdictions, as well as the need for consistency  across jurisdictions. Specifically, AOC headquarters is developing a  standard template for jurisdictions to use rather than relying upon  jurisdictions to create their own standard operating procedures for each  safety policy. While two of the safety policy standard templates have been  drafted, neither has been released because the agency needs to make the  procedures more user friendly for front-line employees.
Although AOC has stated it intends to link performance measures to each  of the 34 safety policies, the data needed to successfully identify individual  measures have not been collected. In addition, training needs identified in  the draft OSH plan are dependent upon approval of additional funding  requests, if negative service effects are to be avoided, according to AOC.  Moreover, AOC officials stated the updated time frame for full  implementation of the safety policies may need to be further extended to  meet the training commitments identified in the draft OSH plan.
AOC’s efforts to further develop and use performance management  systems to help clarify accountability for safety results is an encouraging  sign. However, the system for evaluating front-line employees does not yet  contain specific objective standards and criteria for evaluating individuals  on safety issues. Including these would help ensure that employees will be  encouraged to report hazards, that supervisors will take those reports  seriously, and that senior managers will be accountable for acting on these  reports.
Recommendation: Establish clearly defined and documented  policies and procedures for reporting hazards similar to those that  apply to injury and illness reporting.
During our management review, we found that although AOC had a number  of mechanisms for involving employees in its safety program and  encouraged employees to report injuries and hazards, AOC lacked a hazard  reporting mechanism and moreover, some employees were hesitant to  report hazards to management because they were not sure how seriously  their supervisors would treat these reports. As a result, AOC could not  ensure that there was a complete reporting of hazards.
Actions Taken by AOC: First, AOC plans to develop a Hazard Assessment  and Control policy, one of its 34 safety policies, beginning October 2003  through June 2004 and fully implement the policy by May 2006. Second, as a  key component in developing its Hazard Assessment and Control policy,  AOC plans to identify hazards associated with specific job tasks. AOC calls  this task a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA). AOC has created a schedule for  completing each JHA. In addition, AOC has contracted with the  Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service (PHS) to  identify hazards associated with job tasks in each jurisdiction. For all  potentially hazardous conditions identified, the job hazard analysis will  include appropriate use of personal protective equipment, medical  surveillance, training, and engineering controls. According to AOC officials,  the JHA process has been completed for two jurisdictions—the Senate and  the Construction Management Division. Lastly, while a majority of the  jurisdictions awaits full development and implementation of the Hazard  Assessment and Control policy and the Facility Management Assistant  (FMA) system, jurisdictions continue to rely upon their own hazard  reporting processes. The FMA system will (1) track and analyze the  number and types of hazards and (2) identify follow-up corrective actions  to ameliorate hazards. In addition, AOC plans to expand the capacity of the  FMA system by purchasing an incident investigation module. This will  allow AOC to track the investigation of incidents following injuries,  illnesses, fatalities, and near misses. The FMA system is commercially  available and contains a suite of software components. AOC officials  reported that these processes vary across jurisdictions and involve formal  reporting procedures and mechanisms, such as submission of standard  forms for reporting hazards, as well as informal measures, such as e-mail  messages and periodic employee meetings. In addition, AOC officials  discuss hazards as well as other safety and health issues at meetings  convened by AOC employee and managerial committees.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. While AOC has established a plan and initiated actions to  improve reporting of hazards, the development and implementation of  AOC-wide policy and procedures for hazard reporting is expected to take  years to complete due to the time needed to develop and fully implement  this safety policy. Notably, the Hazard Assessment and Control policy is not  expected to be fully implemented until 2006.
AOC has made some strides in its efforts to initiate a comprehensive survey  of hazards. Until AOC completes the implementation of this policy and  subsequent analysis across all jurisdictions, it will not be able to develop a  comprehensive picture of AOC hazards. Additionally, until AOC completes  the system-wide process for investigating incidents across all jurisdictions,  it will not be able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC incidents,  including their causes.
Recommendation: Establish a consistent AOC-wide system for  conducting investigations and follow-up.
During our management review, we found that although AOC had a number  of mechanisms to obtain employee involvement and encourage employees  to report incidents, accidents, and illnesses, the existing control  mechanisms could not ensure that all reports were treated consistently  across AOC. As a result, AOC could not ensure that there was a complete  investigation of incidents, accidents, and illnesses.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC plans to develop an incident reporting  policy, one of its 34 safety policies, to be fully implemented by May 2005. A  key component of this policy is an incident investigation module. The  module is expected to track—in electronic form—data on injuries, near  misses, and property damage following an incident. AOC officials told us  they expect to purchase the module, as well as complete the policies and  procedures pertaining to incident reporting, by March 2004. Beginning in  March 2004, AOC plans to have one jurisdiction test the incident reporting  policy.
As mentioned previously, the incident investigation module will be a  component of AOC’s integrated FMA system. Pending development of the  incident investigation module of the FMA system, jurisdictions will  continue to rely upon their own incident investigation methods. These  processes vary across jurisdictions and include formal reporting  procedures and mechanisms, such as submission of standard forms for  reporting injuries and illnesses, safety hotlines, and accident investigation  teams.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. While AOC has established a plan and initiated actions to  improve the reporting of incidents, the development and implementation of  AOC-wide policy and procedures for incident reporting is expected to take  at least a year to complete due to the need to fully develop a reporting  system that will track incidents. Until this occurs, jurisdictions will  continue to use separate systems for identifying and reporting incidents.  Additionally, until AOC completes the systemwide process for investigating  incidents, it will not be able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC  incidents, including their causes, across all jurisdictions. While the system  takes an extended time to develop, important information positioning the  agency to develop proactive strategies to avoid incidents is left untapped.  Moreover, central office safety staff will be able to view cross-jurisdictional  data. However, officials in two of the five jurisdictions we interviewed said  they could benefit from increased access to incident data from other  jurisdictions, beyond the limited information currently provided by central  office safety staff.
Finally AOC does not, at this time, have a definitive strategy to integrate the  FMA system with the system to generate work orders to correct identified  hazards. The lack of a hazard identification work order generation link  could lead to a missed opportunity to strategically manage hazard reporting  and the identification of abatement actions. Furthermore, some jurisdiction  officials told us that having separate systems for reporting and abatement  creates more work for them. Having separate systems could discourage use  of the FMA system, thereby defeating its purpose. However, a senior AOC  official stated that further linkages between these separate systems are  possible as part of AOC’s EA efforts.
Recommendation: 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.
During our management review, we found that although AOC uses a  compliance-based approach to providing safety training, it would benefit  from targeting its safety awareness training to better motivate employees at  all levels to incorporate safety into all aspects of their work.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to AOC documents we reviewed and  officials we interviewed, the agency has developed a Safety Training Plan  to provide guidance to all managers and employees to properly identify and  select training courses to ensure compliance with policy requirements. The  plan contains a training matrix that lists the training for each safety policy  with a training requirement, including the list of courses, frequency of  training, and target audiences (e.g., employees working in the electrical and  masonry shops) for each safety policy. The plan states that it is not  intended to replace or supercede specific training requirements that are  delineated in individual safety policies. In some cases, the course content is  specifically tailored to an individual jurisdiction and target audience, which  will assist supervisors and participants with relating the training to their  work environment. However, such tailoring has not been completed for all  courses. In addition, AOC uses formal methods to evaluate training, such as  a participant evaluation form, as well as informal methods, such as  following up with participants’ supervisors to obtain feedback on training  sessions. Also, Safety Policy Managers audit courses and provide feedback  to course designers and instructors. Finally, the fiscal year 2005 training  budget request will include funds for additional staff that AOC believes are  necessary to support front-line work while employees fulfill their training  requirements.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. While AOC has taken some concrete steps to change the  culture of workplace safety through training, measures to assess the actual  effectiveness of these training courses on employee behavior have not been  developed. A senior AOC official also recognized the need to better  evaluate AOC’s training system. AOC officials believe that if the agency’s  fiscal year 2005 budget request for additional staff is not met, then (1) the  timeline for all employees meeting their training requirements, as identified  in the draft OSH plan, may need to be extended or (2) AOC could  experience a loss in productivity while employees receive training. Finally,  the FMA system, which will be used to track and identify corrective actions  for hazards and incidents, will not be aligned to the training system to help  identify and target training needs to address high-risk areas.
Recommendation: Assign clear responsibility for tracking and  recording training received by AOC employees, including  maintaining an inventory of employees’ certifications and licenses.
During our management review, we found that the procedures and  responsibilities for monitoring training requirements for the safety program  were not well defined. In addition, AOC safety and HRMD officials had not  established a systematic process to identify training needs for individual  employees to help ensure the safety program’s success.
Actions Taken by AOC: Although senior officials in the jurisdictions are  responsible for monitoring employee training needs, they cannot access  HRMD’s database of AOC-sponsored training courses and employees  training attendance.  According to AOC officials we interviewed, some  jurisdictions continue to track training information on their own, which  may create inconsistencies in reporting and lead to duplicative record- keeping. In addition, we found that although AOC’s draft Safety Master  Plan noted that an electronic reminder tool—called a tickler—would be  added to HRMD’s training database to identify training needs for individual  employees, it has yet to be developed.  A senior AOC official told us that  funds have currently been made available to research the requirements  needed to develop the electronic reminder tool—now referred to as a data  management system. The official stated that the data management system  will track whether requirements in training, licensing, certifications, and  medical surveillance for employees have been met. AOC expects this  system to be operational by fiscal year 2005. AOC indicated that as part of  its effort to integrate agency goals and multiple data systems under its EA  plan, it intends at some point to develop an agencywide system that will  identify employees’ training needs, including certification and licensing  requirements.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. Procedures and responsibilities for monitoring training  requirements for the safety program, while beginning to move in the right  direction, remain poorly defined. Although HRMD’s database tracks and  records employee training, including training to meet licensing and  certification requirements, the database (1) does not proactively identify  training needed to maintain employees’ licensing and certification  requirements and (2) is not accessible to the jurisdictions.  As a result,  several jurisdictions had created and continue to use separate systems to  track employee training and maintain certification and licensure  requirements. Although AOC plans to address employee training  requirement gaps through the development of its EA plan, it has yet to take  any substantial steps to do so.
Recommendation: Clarify and explore the possibility of expanding  the role of the Office of the Attending Physician (OAP) in helping  AOC meet its safety goals, consistent with the broad  responsibilities laid out in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding  between AOC and OAP.
During our management review, we found that although OAP provides  important health and safety assistance to AOC, such as conducting OSHA- mandated medical examinations on employees exposed to hazardous  substances, the role of OAP could be more clearly defined and expanded.  In particular, the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between OAP and  AOC allows a broader role for OAP in several areas, such as providing  trend information on the results of medical examinations.
Actions Taken by AOC: Over the past 6 months, an OAP representative  has been attending AOC’s Safety, Health and Environmental Council  (SHEC) and Jurisdiction Occupational Safety and Health (JOSH) meetings  and has been involved in reviewing and commenting on AOC’s  development of 34 safety policies, particularly the policy concerning  medical examinations required for employees exposed to known hazards.  In addition, OAP has been reviewing recommendations for injured  employees who are attempting to return to work on “light-duty.”
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. While AOC has taken worthwhile steps to involve OAP in  the development of safety policies and the discussion of safety issues, it  has not identified or pursued other key areas where OAP could play a  significant role in enhancing efforts to ensure worker safety.  For example,  AOC has not taken any concrete steps to obtain data or analyses from OAP  medical examinations that might identify health-related trends. While AOC  officials told us that confidentiality issues might interfere with such efforts,  no steps have been taken to address and overcome this concern.
Recommendation: Establish a senior management work group that  will routinely discuss workers’ compensation cases and costs, and  develop strategies to reduce these injuries and costs.
A senior management work group would provide staff in HRMD, the  central office, and the jurisdictions with a forum to discuss new and  ongoing claims and facilitate the exchange of information to further control  workers’ compensation costs.  At the time of our last review, HRMD used  injury data primarily for processing workers’ compensation costs, and  central staff did not systematically analyze the data.  Jurisdiction staff, on  the other hand, did not routinely receive data on costs associated with  injuries.
Actions Taken by AOC: Rather than create a separate work group, AOC  officials discuss workers’ compensation costs at the SHEC meetings.   SHEC meetings are held each quarter and participants include senior  managers from HRMD, the central office, and the jurisdictions, as well as  JOSH representatives, an OAP representative, and a senior council  member.  During the meeting, HRMD and its Workers’ Compensation  Program Unit provide relevant data on workers’ compensation issues,  including discussions on best practices that can be used to lower workers’  compensation costs.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation, which was intended to ensure that senior management  and other key stakeholders routinely discuss data on workers’  compensation. AOC plans to develop new approaches to reduce workers’  compensation costs based upon these discussions.  However, no solutions  or new approaches to address workers’ compensation costs have thus far  been developed.
section_title: Project Management
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we made five recommendations to help the  Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its overall approach to  project management by developing a Capitol Hill complex master plan and  completing building condition assessments, developing a transparent  process to prioritize agency capital projects, developing tools to effectively  communicate priorities and progress of projects, clearly defining project- management-related measures, and aligning project management staff and  resources with mission-critical goals. This appendix describes AOC’s  progress to date in addressing each of our recommendations. We provide a  brief review of why we made each recommendation, report the actions that  AOC has taken to implement the recommendation, and provide our  analysis of whether AOC’s actions address the underlying issues that  caused us to make the recommendation in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Develop a Capitol Hill complex master plan and  complete condition assessments of all buildings and facilities under  the jurisdiction of AOC.
Master planning is necessary to help AOC establish long-term priorities, but  progress has been slow. In July 2001, the Senate Committee on  Appropriations expressed concern that AOC needed to develop a master  plan for the Capitol Hill complex. Over a year later the National Academy  of Sciences (NAS) held a planning workshop for AOC to determine the  scope of a Capitol Hill complex master plan. A key component of a master  plan is building condition assessments (BCA), which are systematic  evaluations of an organization’s assets. When conducted, BCAs must be  carried out consistently across all jurisdictions to help ensure that all  assets are evaluated in the same manner and that AOC-wide priorities can  be set. We reported in our January 2003 report that AOC had recently  formed a condition assessment team to develop a detailed statement of  work for conducting BCAs.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to the Acting Chief for AOC Office of  Design and Construction (ODC), AOC received the NAS report in June 2003  and is developing the requirements for the Capitol Hill complex master  plan. The NAS study provided guidance on developing a scope of services  for a master plan. Based on more detailed work that AOC has done in  developing the scope for the master plan, AOC revised its schedule to show  the consultant being selected in February 2004 and the final master plan  being completed in December 2006.
AOC’s Acting Chief of ODC said that AOC is completing the statement of  work for the BCAs. He said that AOC plans to award BCA contracts for its  three largest jurisdictions—the House, Capitol, and Senate—in 2003.  According to AOC, the statements of work for the Capitol and Senate BCAs  have now been completed, and it expected to award the contracts in  December 2003. These building assessments are expected to take about  one year to complete. The Acting Chief of ODC said that the BCAs for the  other buildings under AOC management would be awarded in fiscal years  2004 and 2005.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation, although, in its March 7, 2003, draft performance plan,  AOC showed that it planned to publish the final Capitol Hill complex  master plan on April 1, 2006. In addition, the current schedule shows the  final plan being completed 8 months later in December 2006. AOC’s  schedule shows that most of the additional time, 6 months, was added so  AOC can obtain and incorporate comments and finalize the plan.
Completion of the BCAs is also behind the tentative schedule developed in  March 2003. The first BCAs were to be completed March 31, 2004. But since  not all BCA contracts are expected to be awarded until December 2003,  and the work is expected to take about 1 year, it appears that the initial  BCAs for the three largest jurisdictions will not be completed until the fall  of 2004. Completion of the other BCAs will depend on when funding is  received. Since the BCAs are a key component of the master plan, AOC will  need to push to get these completed as soon as possible so they can be  integrated into the master plan. It is important to recognize that once the  BCAs are completed they should be updated on a regular schedule.
Recommendation: Develop a process for assigning project priorities  that is based on clearly defined, well documented, consistently  applied, and transparent criteria.
During our management review, the lack of a transparent process to  prioritize projects was identified as a major weakness at AOC. Priorities  were determined on the subjective decisions made by jurisdiction officials  and not on predefined criteria. The only day-to-day prioritization that was  used was a “hot projects” list. Projects were subjectively placed on this list  based on time sensitivity and high dollar volume; however, the process for  placing projects onto this list was neither formal nor consistently applied.  We reported in our January 2003 report that AOC lacked a process that can  communicate, both internally and externally, the trade-offs in prioritizing  one project over another or how individual projects fit within a broader  AOC framework.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to the ODC Acting Chief, in February  2003, AOC worked with a consultant to develop evaluation criteria to  prioritize building projects. For prioritization purposes, each project is  evaluated in five areas and assigned a score, based on a 100-point scale, in  each area. The areas that building projects are evaluated in are 1. preservation—preservation of historic or legacy buildings and the  importance of the Architect’s stewardship role, 2. impact on mission—impact on mission/client urgency/ accommodating  new or changed mission, 3. economic impact—payback, cost savings, or cost avoidance, 4. safety—fire and life safety and other code, regulatory, or statutory  requirements, 5. security—physical security.
In working with its consultant, AOC developed a matrix to provide criteria  and guidance on how to evaluate and score the projects in each of the  defined areas. For example, when evaluating a project in the area of  preservation, 80 points may be given to a project that includes the  preservation of a highly significant historical feature, while only 20 points  may be given to a project with less historical significance. Projects are  ranked based on the total number of points they receive in all five areas.  These criteria were developed after the fiscal year 2005 projects were  submitted for the proposed budget, but according to the AOC Deputy  Director of Engineering, they then applied this criteria to prioritize those  projects. The prioritized list of projects was then shared with the  superintendents who validated the results of the prioritization. For the  fiscal year 2005 projects, the prioritization was not used to determine  which projects would be included in the budget request, but only the order  in which they would be done. He said that in the future, when the  prioritization is used to determine which projects would be submitted for  funding, there may be more discussion about why projects were scored in a  particular way.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing this  recommendation. AOC has created a clearly defined, well-documented, and  transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing projects. While  determining the priority of projects will always be somewhat subjective,  AOC has developed a reasonable approach using a matrix to help raters  score projects in five areas. The matrix provides clear guidance and  specifies issues to consider when scoring projects in each of the five rating  areas. Since the evaluation criteria have not yet been used to determine  which projects will be submitted for funding, it remains to be seen if they  will be consistently applied. Using this matrix and documenting the factors  used in making the priority decisions should help AOC support its capital  improvement program.
Recommendation: Develop tools to effectively communicate  priorities and progress of projects, as a part of a broader  communication strategy.
At the time of our management review, AOC lacked the tools to  communicate its priorities internally to staff and externally to clients and  provide details on how related projects are linked to one another. AOC  officials said that the Project Information Center (PIC) system, the  database of all project-related information, was used to prioritize work and  ascertain the progress of projects, but it was not capable of producing a  unified document that shows schedules of active projects, their  interrelationships, and required staff. Without a resource-loaded project  master-planning capability, it is difficult to determine the effect of priority  changes and to quantify project manager staffing requirements. In addition,  the information in PIC was not consistently updated nor was it  systematically reviewed to determine its accuracy. While AOC used the PIC  system to prepare a quarterly capital projects report that provided the  status of all ongoing capital projects, the report did not highlight projects  that were behind schedule, over budget, or otherwise of interest to clients.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has worked to improve the capabilities of  its PIC system and the format of its quarterly report on capital projects.  AOC has improved the capabilities of PIC by adding links to the financial  management system and building/project drawings. According to AOC  officials, AOC has identified a software package capable of producing a  unified schedule that shows staff resources and a purchase order has been  issued for the software and supporting consulting to accomplish proper  installation of the application.
To improve the accuracy and timeliness of PIC data, the Director of the  Technical Support Division told us that AOC has verbally and in writing  reemphasized the importance of timely and accurate data. He also said that  two people review the data monthly looking for inaccuracies and missing  data.
AOC has revised the quarterly report format to make it more user friendly.  The quarterly report is color coded so the user can quickly identify those  projects that are behind schedule or need additional funding. The report  also includes summary information and highlights projects of particular  interest for reasons such as not being on schedule or requiring additional  funding. The report also discusses the resolution of issues related to  projects highlighted in the previous report.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. It is encouraging that AOC has made improvements to  PIC, but AOC will continue to have difficulty managing schedules and  workload until it is able to produce a unified schedule to show the status of  the projects and the responsible project managers. We did not verify the  accuracy of the PIC data but the Director of the Technical Support Division  said that they are focusing on improving data accuracy and completeness.
While the usefulness of the quarterly report has improved, our analysis  shows that the project schedule charts can still be confusing. For example,  the “work on schedule” bar on the chart shows that the work is on schedule  when it has not yet begun, which can make it appear that a large  percentage of AOC’s projects is on schedule when actually projects have  not yet begun. It would also be helpful if the individual project summaries  indicated when a project’s schedule has been changed and why the  schedule was changed. In addition, the report indicates when additional  project funding is being requested, but it is not always clear if the requested  funding is for cost overruns or if the funding request was planned and is for  a new phase of the project.
Recommendation: Define project-management-related performance  measures to achieve mission-critical strategic and annual  performance goals.
During our management review, we found that AOC needed to work with  its stakeholders to determine its long-term strategic goals and annual  performance goals for project management. The development of annual  performance goals that provide a connection between long-term goals and  day-to-day activities would enable AOC to track its progress, provide  critical information for decision-making and foster individual  accountability.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC’s draft strategic plan and draft performance  plan identify some measures and processes that will be used to monitor  and evaluate AOC’s success. The measures identified in the draft strategic  plan are (1) projects executed and delivered on time and on budget and  (2) client satisfaction. In June 2003, AOC defined uniform operating  procedures for conducting customer satisfaction surveys. As defined in  these procedures, the purpose of such a customer satisfaction survey is to  assess the gap between the services provided by AOC and the needs of its  customers. These procedures generically apply to the process of  developing, administering, and managing the data from any customer  satisfaction survey.
AOC’s draft performance plan also identified the following new  assessments (1) evaluation of design teams’ performance, (2) evaluation of  architects’, engineers’ (A/E), and general contractors’ (GC) performance,  and (3) post-occupancy evaluations of buildings to evaluate design and  standards performance over time. In July 2003, AOC issued operating  procedures for conducting project design satisfaction surveys. The purpose  of these surveys is to provide internal customers an open platform to  express appreciation or concern about their design activity. According to  the procedures, the surveys will be done on an ad hoc basis upon  completion of a design project. According to an AOC official in the Office  of the Administrative Assistant, the draft survey is being reviewed within  AOC.
As part of the AOC’s Design and Construction Office ongoing best practices  initiative, it had hired a consultant to evaluate five recently completed  construction projects to identify lessons learned that could be applied to  other projects. Key participants in the projects were surveyed about how  the projects performed in the following areas (1) organization/teamwork,  (2) planning process, (3) design process, (4) procurement process, and  (5) construction process. The consultant reported on “why projects went  right,” identified areas for improvement, and made recommendations in  each of the areas. According to the report, upgrades were recommended to  AOC project manager’s manual and standards and these recommendations  were incorporated into the project manager training held in the spring  2003.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. While AOC’s draft strategic plan has identified types of  performance measures, it has yet to formally define specific measurable  performance goals. The Acting Chief for ODC told us that he believes that  the performance goal for this division is for all projects to be delivered on  time and on budget, but this is not specifically written as a goal. In addition,  clarity is needed for how and when a project’s schedule and budget  benchmarks are established and when they can be changed. For example, if  a project’s schedule is based on receiving funding during the current year,  yet it does not receive the funding until the next year, we understand that  AOC will change the project’s schedule benchmark. It is not clear that this  decision is documented in the project summary in the quarterly report to  Congress.
As part of obtaining stakeholder input for project management, AOC’s draft  performance plan identifies a number of surveys that will be used to  monitor and evaluate projects. While AOC has developed procedures for  conducting the project design satisfaction surveys, the actual survey, which  was tentatively scheduled to be ready on June 30, 2003, is still being  finalized within AOC. The A/E and GC surveys are not scheduled to be  ready for distribution until spring 2004, and the process for developing  post-occupancy evaluations will not be completed until fall 2005.
The lessons learned report that sought feedback from stakeholders and  participants on five recently completed projects to make specific  recommendations on how to improve performance on future projects is  also an important development.
Recommendation: Align project management staff and resources  with AOC’s mission-critical goals.
At the time of our management review, AOC recognized that the current  approach of assigning mostly architects and engineers as project managers  was ineffective. Project managers said that they were being asked to wear  “too many hats,” which often distracted them from their primary duty of  managing projects. AOC officials responsible for project management had  proposed the creation of a new and independent Project Management  Division. However, we noted that such realignment must support the  agency meeting its mission-critical goals and objectives and would require  a determination as to which individuals have the skills to be dedicated  project managers and who would supervise the project managers. We also  reported that AOC had not developed project management-specific  technical competencies and defining these competencies would be  important for ensuring that the right people are employed in the right  positions and that they are routinely held accountable for their work. We  noted that as a next step, AOC could also identify and implement training  programs that are linked to the core and technical competencies required  of project managers.
Actions Taken by AOC: ODC has begun to make some organizational  changes that are awaiting approval by the COO. These changes include the  creation of a Project Management Division, which is currently staffed by a  director and three project managers. AOC is hiring five additional project  managers using position descriptions specifying the duties and knowledge  required for the position. The project manager’s duties include providing  life-cycle project management expertise and coordination from the  planning stage through post-occupancy evaluation. AOC will also be  providing all project managers with training based on AOC’s new project  management manual. Project managers are expected to be dedicated to a  project for its duration and will report to the Director of Project  Management. They will be responsible for multidisciplined capital  improvement projects with budgets of $250,000 or more, while projects  budgeted at less than $250,000 or involving a single discipline, such as  lighting retrofits, will continue to be managed by architects or engineers.
The new Director of Project Management has systematically determined  the number of project managers needed by estimating the length of time it  takes to perform each task defined in AOC’s project management guide.  This enabled him to determine how many projects one project manager  should be able to manage concurrently.
The Director of AOC’s HRMD told us that she is working with ODC to  identify competencies for project managers to help ensure that project  managers have the skills needed to effectively perform their jobs.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. While the new organization chart for AOC’s ODC is still  pending approval by the COO, AOC is creating a Project Management  Division led at the director level with attendant dedicated project manager  positions. It is also important that AOC is using a systematic approach to  determine project workload and develop a request for additional project  manager positions. AOC’s systematic approach may help justify AOC’s need  for additional project managers and manage expectations of its  stakeholders for projects based on the number of available project  managers. However, as noted, AOC still does not have the capability of  producing a unified schedule showing staff resources, which will make it  difficult to manage staffing levels. AOC is taking the first steps to ensure  that the right people are employed in the right positions by starting to  identify competencies for its project management staff, creating position  descriptions based on those competencies, and using those position  descriptions as a basis for recruiting and hiring staff.
section_title: Recycling
paragraphs: In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations to help the  Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its overall approach to  its recycling program by developing a clear mission and goals, developing a  performance measurement system to support accomplishing its recycling  program, and examining the roles and responsibilities of its recycling  program staff. This appendix describes AOC’s progress to date in  addressing each of our recommendations. We provide a brief review of why  we made each recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to  implement the recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether  AOC’s actions address the underlying issues that caused us to make the  recommendation in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC’s  recycling program with input from key congressional stakeholders  as part of its proposed environmental master plan. AOC may want  to establish reasonable goals based on the total waste stream— information it plans to obtain as part of its long-term  environmental management plan—that could potentially be  recycled.
During our management review, we found that AOC had established neither  a clear mission statement nor goals for its recycling program. Various  program-related documents made indirect references to two different  missions for the program. One mission was to reduce the total amount of  solid waste sent to landfills, and the other mission was to generate as much  revenue as possible from the sale of its recyclable materials to a recycling  contractor. Similarly, we found that AOC had not established any  measurable goals for its recycling programs. The absence of AOC recycling  goals did not allow measures to be linked to a desired level of performance,  and thus AOC could not demonstrate the extent to which performance is  achieved. We also stated that establishing meaningful goals would require  collection of certain other information, including information obtained  from a waste stream analysis.
We concluded that the high levels of contamination present in the materials  collected in both the Senate and House recycling programs had not allowed  AOC to achieve either substantial waste reduction or revenue generation it might have otherwise achieved. By clarifying the mission of the program,  AOC could design recycling programs to achieve better results. We also  suggested that, consistent with the communications strategy we discussed  in our January 2003 report, AOC should involve its congressional  stakeholders in the process of developing the mission statement for its  recycling programs. We recommended that AOC develop a clear mission  and goals for its recycling program with input from key congressional  stakeholders as part of its proposed environmental master plan.
Actions Taken by AOC: In its March 2003 draft strategic plan, AOC states  that it plans to develop a long-range environmental program plan that will  establish program mission, vision, goals, and measures. The strategic plan  also states that this environmental program plan would include clarifying  the mission, goals, and measures of the recycling program—a component  of pollution prevention. Although, according to its performance plan, AOC  is a few months behind its scheduled time frame for this work. AOC has  begun work on both of these projects—the baseline assessment and waste  stream analysis—and AOC program officials told us that both projects will  be substantially completed by the end of 2003. These AOC officials also  advised us that the results of this baseline assessment and waste stream  analysis would provide a basis for establishing program priorities and  measuring progress. The performance plan also provides for stakeholder  participation in this process both before and after the actual environmental  program planning process occurs; but this has not yet taken place.  According to AOC’s performance plan, stakeholder involvement is  scheduled to begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, after  completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation by taking the first steps toward developing a mission and  goals for its recycling program. Collecting information through its baseline  assessment and waste stream analysis will provide the factual information  AOC needs as a basis for establishing those mission and goal statements. In  addition, this information will be used in the development of its  environmental program plan. Also, according to AOC’s draft performance  plan, its stakeholders will be involved both before and after actual  development of the environmental program plan, scheduled to begin in the  third quarter of fiscal year 2004. AOC’s approach to developing its recycling  program mission and goals within the broader context of an environmental  program plan, as discussed in its draft strategic and performance plans, is  reasonable and consistent with our recommendation.
Recommendation: Develop a performance measurement,  monitoring, and evaluation system that supports accomplishing  AOC’s recycling mission and goals.
In our January 2003 report, we stated that as AOC revisited its program  mission, goals, and design, the agency would have an opportunity to  reexamine its recycling performance measurement system efforts to  ensure that it had the right type of performance measures to support  program monitoring and decision making. In addition, we stated that  monitoring performance against goals would enable AOC program  managers to identify where performance is lagging, investigate potential  causes, and identify actions designed to improve performance. We also  suggested that to support the accomplishment of AOC’s recycling mission  and goals, the performance measurement system developed should   (1) show the degree to which the desired results were achieved, (2) be  limited to the few vital measures needed for decision-making, (3) be  responsive to multiple priorities, and (4) establish accountability for  results.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC stated in its draft strategic and performance  plans that it would clarify the mission, goals, and measures of the recycling  program as part of its environmental program planning process, which is  scheduled to begin in the third quarter of fiscal year 2004 and is expected to  be complete by the end of calendar year 2004. According to the Safety and  Environmental Division (SED) director, AOC currently measures and  tracks several key performance indicators, such as tonnage collected for  multiple recycling streams and the quantity of material collected for  recycling that does not meet specifications for reimbursement. The SED  director also told us that additional action to revise existing and establish  new measures is underway, including gathering and analyzing data as part  of the waste stream analysis study. The results from this effort will be used  to establish performance goals and additional performance measures that  are appropriate to the program. This effort is part of a broader AOC  initiative to develop the environmental program plan.
According to the SED director, AOC plans to develop the environmental  program plan internally with the option of obtaining consultant services if,  during the course of the planning process, it finds certain expertise is  needed but not available on staff. Also according to the SED director, AOC  has taken steps to increase environmental staffing and contract for  technical resources necessary to address a variety of environmental issues  to support the development of the environmental program plan, such as a  completed best management practices review, a waste stream analysis and  pollution prevention planning initiative in progress, an environmental  baseline assessment nearly completed, and an electronic waste recycling  study. In addition, the SED director also told us that to minimize delays in  obtaining consultant support, the Environmental Branch has obtained  funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget to establish an environmental  contract allowing AOC to more quickly procure consultant services.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation. In addition to recommending that AOC develop a  recycling performance measurement, monitoring, and evaluation system,  our January 2003 report also suggested certain criteria and processes AOC  could follow in establishing the recycling performance measures. For  example, we suggested that AOC take certain steps in developing its  performance measurement system, such as making sure the recycling  measures developed show the degree to which the desired results were  achieved and that AOC use a General Services Administration guide for  federal agencies that describes the steps an agency could use to measure  and monitor recycling efforts. However, the development of reasonable  performance measures can also consider certain other sources, such as  government or industry benchmarks for recycling programs as well as  feedback from congressional stakeholders.
We agree that AOC should not establish performance measures until it has  obtained the information it needs from the results of the environmental  baseline and waste stream analysis that will help to establish the  performance goals of the recycling program. Because AOC has not yet  identified the performance measures it will use to assess the progress of its  overall environmental program plan, we cannot assess at this time whether  the resulting measures will be consistent with the elements of a  performance measurement system as discussed in our January 2003 report.  It is important that AOC specify the steps it will take and the information  sources it will use to develop its recycling program performance measures.
Recommendation: Examine the roles and responsibilities of AOC’s  recycling program staff to ensure that they are performing the right  jobs with the necessary authority, and holding the staff accountable  for achieving program and agency results through AOC’s  performance management system.
The roles and responsibilities of AOC’s recycling program staff members  have evolved in recent years, without the guidance of a clearly defined  mission and goals. We reported in our January 2003 report that AOC had  recently changed the responsibilities of its recycling program management  positions to provide a greater focus on program planning and evaluation.  However, these program managers reported that much of their time was  spent on day-to-day program implementation activities, leaving little time  to fulfill their expanded roles.
In addition, we found that the existing structure did not provide a clear  mechanism to determine individual accountability for achieving results.  Under the existing structure, jurisdictional recycling program managers are  accountable only to their jurisdictional management, i.e., the Senate and  House office buildings superintendents. The AOC Resource Conservation  Manager, responsible for AOC-wide recycling programs, had no authority  over either the jurisdictional managers or the recycling program managers  in those jurisdictions. In addition, we stated in our January 2003 report that  approximately 875 bargaining unit and trade union employees, such as the  recycling workers and custodial staff that collect recyclable materials,  were not covered by AOC’s employee performance management system,  PCES.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has created two new positions, an  Environmental Branch Manager and Environmental Technician within SED  that have duties and responsibilities related to the recycling program. In  addition to these positions in SED, AOC has also filled a previously vacant  Assistant Recycling Program Manager position within the House office- building jurisdiction. AOC officials said that these new positions would  provide additional resources for improved planning and evaluation of the  recycling program.
In addition, each jurisdiction reported that it evaluated respective recycling  operations and made changes in staffing and organization plans, some of  which have been implemented. The Senate jurisdiction examined its  recycling function and determined in May 2003 that the jurisdiction’s  recycling staff, then assigned to one of three different organizational units,  should be consolidated into one division reporting to the Recycling  Program Manager. In the justification for making the change, the  Superintendent for the Senate jurisdiction stated that, because of the  diluted span of control and lack of accountability that existed under the  present organizational structure, his jurisdiction could not achieve the  desired level of program performance and execution. The Senate  jurisdictional proposal also included adding four positions to the recycling  collection staff. In addition, according to the Senate recycling program  manager, this proposal has been submitted to AOC management and is  pending approval.
Similarly, to address staffing and organization issues, management in the  House jurisdiction decided to replace its part-time recycling collection  staff—plagued by a high turnover rate and consequently a constant need to  fill vacancies and train new staff— with full-time staff. This staffing change  was accomplished using the same number of full-time equivalent positions  as provided under the prior staffing plan. The House jurisdiction also  implemented a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility of using the  designated recycling staff to collect both recyclable materials and garbage  from the House office buildings. According to the Deputy Superintendent  of the House Office Buildings, based on the results of this pilot program,  the House jurisdictional management decided to permanently implement  the changes tested in the pilot program.
These changes, however, did not affect the supervisory and reporting  relationships between the recycling program manager and the collection  staff. In the House jurisdiction, the collection staff reports through line  supervisors to a night House superintendent that provides direct line  supervision of employees who carry out various housekeeping, janitorial,  and emergency maintenance functions during nonbusiness hours. The  House Recycling Program Manager has no direct authority over the  collection staff, but stated that she conducts regular inspections of the  recycling collection operations, including both individual office  compliance with the level of source separation implemented in those  offices and the collection workers’ performance of their duties. She stated  further that she has a good working relationship with the collection  workers’ direct line supervisors and reports any problems she identifies  during the course of her inspections to them. The House Deputy  Superintendent affirmed the relationship between the House Recycling  Program Manager and the collection workers’ direct line supervisors and  told us that the House jurisdiction management has no current plans to  change the reporting relationship between the House Recycling Program  manager and the collection staff.
The House jurisdiction does plan to take action that could provide  increased accountability for achieving recycling program results. The  Deputy House Superintendent told us that a recycling program element is  now included in the Performance Communication Evaluation System  (PCES) of the staff that directly supervise the recycling collection workers,  holding them accountable for the collection of recyclables by their staff.  Even with these changes, full accountability for achieving recycling  program results cannot be established because, in both the Senate and  House jurisdictions, the collection workers are bargaining unit and trade  union employees and are not covered by PCES. According to AOC’s HRMD  director, AOC is currently negotiating with the unions to include these  employees within PCES.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our  recommendation by evaluating the roles and responsibilities of its  recycling program staff and increasing accountability for program results  through its employee performance management system. The two positions  AOC has filled should make more time available for recycling program  planning and evaluation activities. The staffing and organization  evaluations completed in the Senate and House jurisdictions and the  actions taken by AOC as a result of those evaluations may improve the  recycling programs operation in those jurisdictions.
Moreover, the proposed Senate reorganization of its reporting relationship  between the recycling program manager and staff will provide more direct  accountability for achieving AOC’s organizational goals in its recycling  program by providing a direct line of supervision between recycling  program management and the staff responsible for the collection and  processing of recyclable materials. Through the added element now  incorporated into PCES for House recycling supervisors, AOC is working  to increase accountability for achieving recycling program results.
section_title: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. AOC agrees with our recommendation and agrees to take appropriate  follow-up actions. 2. AOC agrees with this finding and agrees to take appropriate follow-up  actions. 3. See comment 1.  4. AOC plans are consistent with our findings and have provided additional  information on its recent plans and actions that we will assess in our  subsequent semi-annual reviews.  5. See comment 4. 6. See comment 4. 7. The text has been modified to reflect AOC’s response.  8. See comment 1. 9. See comment 4. 10. AOC’s comments concerning our draft report’s treatment of AOC’s  action on our financial management recommendation were technical in  nature, and, as appropriate, changes were made to the final report. 11. See comment 10. 12. See comment 10. 13. See comment 10. 14. We have modified our report to reflect AOC’s position that the cited  documents are not draft.  15. We agree with AOC’s comment, and state in our report that AOC’s first  step to implementing the framework was to score and rank projects for  fiscal year 2004. However, this scoring and ranking of projects for the  upcoming fiscal year are project selection, not control, practices. Further,  while we do not question AOC’s statement in its comments that its  investment management boards are beginning to evaluate IT investments,  AOC’s comments did not address what these evaluations entail; and, our  review showed that AOC’s IT investment management framework does not  specify how the agency will identify, track, and manage IT resources or  ensure that projects support agency business needs, both of which are key  IT investment control activities. Therefore, our position remains that AOC  is focusing first on selecting, rather than controlling, investments.
We support AOC’s cited recent revision to the composition of its  investment review board, and have recognized AOC’s statement in our  report. We look forward to receiving a revision of the board’s charter  reflecting this membership change.  16. We agree that a chief enterprise architect position has been requested in  AOC’s fiscal year 2005 budget, and that it has been using contractor  assistance in developing an enterprise architecture. Our report recognizes  both of these facts. Also, while we do not question AOC’s statement that it  has developed a detailed plan addressing resources, we have not received a  copy of this plan.  17. We agree that AOC’s IT investment framework contains the evaluation  criteria specified in AOC’s comment. However, our recommendation is for  the agency to implement practices in our IT investment management guide  associated with a corporate portfolio-based investment management  process for controlling and selecting all proposed and ongoing IT  investments. As discussed in comment 15, AOC has thus far focused on  selecting among proposed new investments, to the exclusion of ongoing  projects, and it has yet to define how it is controlling ongoing projects.
We agree that our previous recommendation did not reference our  architecture management maturity guide, but rather the Chief Information  Officer’s Council practical guide. However, our maturity guide is based on  the content of the practical guide, arranging this content into a series of  five maturity levels. Further, our previous recommendation was intended  to provide AOC with the basis for taking the first step toward architecture  management maturity, and coincides with the first stage of our maturity  framework. Our new recommendations build on and complement our  previous recommendation, and thus we agree that AOC will need to evolve  its architecture plans to progress beyond this initial step.  18. We have modified our report to reflect this clarification.  19. We do not question that AOC has taken the eight steps it cites since  completing its IT investment framework, but do not agree that the agency  has focused on controlling its existing investments for the following  reasons. With respect to step 1, AOC’s scoring and ranking of then  proposed fiscal year 2004 projects are project selection, not control,  practices. Regarding steps 2 and 3, while we do not question AOC’s  statements that it has assigned its project management board responsibility  for measuring project progress and that its investment management boards  are beginning to evaluate IT investments, AOC’s comments did not address  the extent of these project reviews. Our review showed that AOC’s IT  investment management framework does not specify how the agency will  identify, track, and manage IT resources, a key IT investment control  activity. With respect to the biweekly status meetings that AOC states have  been occurring for almost two years, we reported in 2003 that the agency  had not developed the processes needed to manage and oversee all AOC  existing projects. Concerning step 4, we support AOC’s cited recent  revision to the composition of its investment review board, and have  recognized AOC’s statement in our report.
With regard to the fifth step cited by AOC, we do not question that AOC is  operating its IT investment board, but it is important to note that the AOC  IT investment framework describes the project management board as the  control and oversight board for ongoing investments. Concerning step 6,  the nature and extent of AOC cited oversight of ongoing projects is  unknown because AOC’s comments did not address what is entailed in the  project management board and the biweekly status meetings, and the  framework does not specify how the agency will identify, track, and  manage IT projects. Regarding step 7, we support the use of tools to  identify, track and manage IT resources. Concerning the last step AOC  cited, we view the interviewing of stakeholders as a positive step toward  ensuring that each IT project supports the organization’s business needs.  20. See comments 15 and 19.  21. As mentioned in comment 14, we have modified our report to reflect  AOC’s position that the architecture products are not draft and have been  approved by the Deputy Chief of Staff. We have also recognized the  statement that a detailed resource plan has been developed, as well as the  revised date for implementing the architecture. Our report already  addressed the status of the additional funding request. 22. See comment 17. 23. We do not question these statements and note that our report already  includes this information.  24. We have modified our report to reflect the recent steps AOC’s  comments state that it has taken to begin establishing and implementing an  information security program. 25. The Safety Communication Plan was not raised during interviews with  AOC officials. AOC has provided additional information that we will assess  in our subsequent semi-annual reviews.  26. The text has been modified to reflect AOC’s response.  27. Our report does not overlook the Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) process  within the Hazard Assessment and Control Policy and states that the JHA  process is, in fact, a key component of this policy. During our data  collection period, AOC had only completed a JHA in two jurisdictions. AOC  has provided additional information that we will assess in our subsequent  semi-annual reviews.  28. The baseline safety and environmental assessment mentioned by AOC  was not brought forth during our data collection and analysis period.  However, we do recognize in the draft that the Hazard Assessment and  Control policy will identify hazards associated with job tasks, as well as  identify corrective actions taken to abate these hazards. 29. This comment refers to the recycling appendix. These actions were  taken outside the timeframe of our review and will be assessed in our  subsequent semi-annual reviews.  30. See comment 29. 31. Information provided by AOC officials during our data collection period  was that they had requested significant and permanent increases in their  training budget. The text has been modified to reflect AOC’s response. 32. AOC’s response does not change our assessment that no safety policy  has been fully implemented. New information provided to us was not  raised during our review period and therefore will be assessed in  subsequent semi-annual reviews.  33. We continue to believe that the performance measure identified in the  report for the objective “enhance employee awareness of and involvement  in all aspects of safety and health”—publication of meeting minutes-- is not  results oriented. A good metric to assess employee awareness would  necessarily be based upon employee responses. In fact, AOC recognized  that its performance measures in assessing its safety policies are immature.  The text has been modified to include the AOC’s Injury and Illness rate for  FY2003.  34. The text has been modified to clarify the need for extending the original  time frame to implement the safety policies. 35. These actions were taken outside the timeframe of our review and will  be assessed in our subsequent semi-annual reviews. 36. The text has been modified to clarify the added functions AOC may  purchase for the FMA system in order to expand its capabilities.  37. The text has been modified to reflect the current uses of the FMA  system. 38. See comment 28. 39. During our data collection period, the AOC had completed a JHA in two  jurisdictions. These actions were taken outside the timeframe of our  review and will be assessed in our subsequent semi-annual reviews. 40. The text has been modified in order to clarify FMA system access  issues. 41. Our finding focuses on the need to report illnesses and injuries among  jurisdictions in a comprehensive and consistent manner. Indeed, through  its development of its Incident Investigation Module, AOC underscores the  need for such a reporting system that tracks data across jurisdictions. We  acknowledge that AOC has a Workers Compensation Tracking System for  recording and tracking injuries and illnesses.  42. These actions were taken outside the timeframe of our review and will  be assessed in our subsequent semi-annual reviews. The text has been  modified to clarify AOC’s current initiatives in this area. 43. The text has been modified to include additional methods used to  evaluate training. 44. We encourage the AOC to move strategically towards an integrated  system that links identification of hazards with employee training needs. 45. We encourage the AOC to strategically identify data access issues  related to employee training records. 46. During our review, AOC management informed us that medical  information obtained from Office of the Attending Physician (OAP) exams  were not being shared with AOC officials because of confidentiality issues.  The sharing of these data, while addressing confidentiality issues, could  benefit AOC in its efforts to identify and combat health-related trends  among AOC employees. 47. AOC’s response does not indicate that the Safety, Health and  Environmental Council (SHEC) have identified strategies to reduce  workers’ compensation costs. We continue to believe that the SHEC offers  opportunities to identify strategies to address this issue.  48. We reported this information in our strategic human capital  management and project management appendixes in our discussion of  competencies. 49. In August 2003, AOC provided us with an update to their original  schedule for the Master Plan. We compared this updated schedule to the  original schedule in the March 2003 draft performance plan and used this  information for our analysis. AOC did not provide us with any other  schedule information against which to analyze their progress. Therefore,  we presented the information made available to us as of November 2003.  50. We have made the appropriate change in the text. 51. While we recognize that the recycling contractor separates the material  collected from AOC and recycles the recyclable portion, it is also true that  office paper including both white (high grade) paper and mixed grade (both  white and colored office paper) that is contaminated with wet waste  (primarily food and beverage waste) can no longer be recycled and must be  sent to a landfill.  52. In addition to stating that the Senate jurisdiction proposal included  adding four positions to the recycling collection staff, we also stated in our  draft that the proposal recommended consolidating the recycling positions  into one organizational unit to address the diluted span of control and lack  of accountability that existed under the present organizational structure.  AOC did not comment on whether it had approved the proposed  reorganization. Increasing accountability for obtaining recycling goals was  the principal point of our discussion and increasing staff without changing  the organizational structure would not improve accountability.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs