2010 Census: Plans for Decennial Census Operations and Technology Have Progressed, But Much Uncertainty Remains
Published: 2008-06-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: On April 3, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce announced significant changes to how the Census Bureau (Bureau) would conduct nonresponse follow-up, its largest field operation, in which census workers interview households that do not return initial census forms for the 2010 decennial census, and to its Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) contract. The Bureau has since issued a redesigned plan to conduct a paper-based follow-up operation, an integrated 2010 Census project schedule, and is working on revising the FDCA contract. These are major changes late in the decennial census cycle. This testimony discusses (1) the Bureau's plans for conducting a paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation, (2) management of the FDCA contract and its latest cost estimates, and (3) the status of the Bureau's integrated 2010 project schedule. This testimony is based on past work, recent interviews with Bureau officials, and a review of redesign documents.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Bureau has taken important steps to plan for a paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation, but several aspects remain uncertain. On May 8, 2008, the Bureau issued a paper-based nonresponse follow-up plan that details key components of the operation and describes processes for managing it and other operations. However, the plan envisions using an information system to manage the field operation workload, which experienced significant problems when tested earlier in the dress rehearsal. These problems make it more critical to test the system's capabilities for supporting the nonresponse follow-up operation. The Bureau will also institute new strategies--through second mailings and a new approach to remove late mail returns--but has only tested some aspects of these operations and will be unable to test them in a dress rehearsal, making it difficult to estimate their impact on operations in 2010. Ideally, the dress rehearsal should test almost all of the operations and procedures planned for the decennial under as close to census-like conditions as possible. Bureau officials expect that some small-scale testing will occur, particularly integration testing for its operations control system and cognitive testing of the forms used by enumerators for nonresponse follow-up, but what will be tested and when is not yet certain. The Bureau has taken several positive steps to address FDCA program management and oversight, but cost estimates need reconciling. The Bureau has taken actions to strengthen the FDCA program office leadership and expertise. To lead the program office, the Bureau has assigned an experienced Census program manager and hired an outside information technology expert to provide executive level guidance. The Bureau has also taken actions to improve communications and transparency of contractor activities. Further, the Bureau has obtained an independent government cost estimate based on the changes to the FDCA program's scope, which is nearly $600 million less than the contractor's rough order of magnitude estimate. After the contractor develops its detailed cost estimate, then the Bureau will need to reconcile the two cost estimates and renegotiate the contract. The Bureau will need to ensure that the final contract modifications and terms allow for FDCA program activities to be conducted in a timely and accurate manner for the 2010 decennial census. The Bureau's integrated schedule, dated May 22, 2008, identifies over 11,000 activities and milestones for the census. There is overlap in the testing and deployment schedule for the handheld device that will be used to collect address data in the field. Further, the Bureau's summary of key milestones does not include a milestone for when testing of key activities related to nonresponse follow-up will take place. Such milestones are important because nonresponse follow-up is the single largest field operation and will not be part of a dress rehearsal. The Bureau recognizes that it could include a key milestone for nonresponse follow-up testing activities. GAO is reviewing in greater detail the summary and integrated schedule of milestones and a summary of program risks provided on June 4th.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to be here today to discuss the Census Bureau’s (Bureau)  plans for conducting the decennial census. For 2010, the Bureau intended  to automate field data collection activities as a way to reduce costs and  improve data quality and operational efficiency; however, testing  uncovered several problems with its planned use of technology and the  Bureau has now revised its plans. This statement focuses on the Bureau’s  efforts to redesign the 2010 Census, including 1) the Bureau’s plans for  conducting a paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation in 2010; (2)  management of the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) program  and its latest cost estimates; and (3) the status of the Bureau’s integrated  2010 schedule, including milestones.
In March 2008, we designated the 2010 Census as a high-risk area, citing  several long-standing and emerging challenges. These challenges include  weaknesses in managing information technology (IT), questions  surrounding the performance of handheld computers, uncertainty over the  cost of the 2010 Census, and the elimination of several operations from the  2008 Dress Rehearsal. In February 2008, the Director of the Bureau  initiated a replanning of the FDCA program, a major acquisition that  includes systems, equipment (including handheld computers), and  infrastructure for field staff to use in collecting data for the 2010 Census.  After analyzing several options to revise the design of the decennial, the  Secretary of Commerce, on April 3, 2008, announced that the Bureau  would no longer use handheld computers in its largest field operation,  nonresponse follow-up—in which field workers interview households that  did not return census forms. However, the Bureau would continue with  the contract for the FDCA program to provide handheld computers for  address canvassing—in which field workers verify addresses—and  develop the information system for controlling the workload of all census  field operations. The Bureau estimated that, along with updating its  assumptions, the option of conducting a paper-based nonresponse follow- up but using handheld computers for address canvassing, would result in a  cost increase of $2.2 billion to $3 billion over the previously reported  estimate of $11.5 billion.
On April 15, 2008, the Bureau Director reported on the Bureau’s ongoing  efforts to address problems associated with the FDCA program and its  plans to implement a paper-based nonresponse follow-up. In addition to  announcing strengthened management planning and oversight, he  reiterated that—from April 9, 2008 when the Director testified before this  Committee—the Bureau would provide a detailed operating plan for its  FDCA program within 30 days, including deadlines for key milestones, and  the related paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation; in 45 days, the  Bureau would develop an integrated project schedule for the 2010 Census;  and, in 60 days, the Bureau would produce a testing program for the  automated address canvassing operation.
Our testimony today is based on our past work, including our observation  of the use of handheld computers in the address canvassing dress  rehearsal, as well as the status of the Bureau’s redesign efforts. In  assessing the status of the redesign, we reviewed and discussed with  Bureau officials documents, including plans for a paper-based  nonresponse follow-up operation, related FDCA documents, and the 2010  Census integrated schedule. This work was conducted in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions.
In summary, the Bureau has taken important steps to plan for a paper- based nonresponse follow-up operation, but several aspects remain  uncertain. The Bureau’s plan for nonresponse follow-up, released on May  8, 2008, details key components of the operation and its management.  However, the plan envisions using an information system, to manage the  field operation workload, which experienced significant problems when  tested earlier in the dress rehearsal, and proposes new replacement  mailing and late mail return strategies, which have not been fully tested.  The Bureau has also taken several positive steps to address FDCA  program management and oversight, but will need to reconcile the cost  estimates from its own FDCA contractor and an independent government  estimate, which differed by nearly $600 million. Finally, the Bureau’s  integrated schedule, dated May 22, 2008, identifies over 11,000 activities  and milestones for the decennial. However, there is overlap in the testing  and deployment schedule for the handheld device that will be used to  collect address data in the field, and the integrated schedule also does not  specifically define testing for key information technology systems (e.g.  system, integration, and end-to-end). The Bureau also issued the 2010  Census Key Operational Milestone Schedule. This represents a higher level  summary of about 175 key activities and is linked to the more exhaustive  integrated schedule. However, there are several notable exceptions to this  schedule of key operational milestones. For example, the schedule does  not include a milestone for when testing of key activities related to  nonresponse follow-up will take place. Such milestones are important  because nonresponse follow-up is the single largest field operation and  will not be part of a dress rehearsal. The Bureau recognizes that it could  include a key milestone for nonresponse follow-up testing activities. We  are currently reviewing in greater detail the summary and integrated  schedule of milestones and the recently revised summary of program risks  provided on June 4th.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Bureau has less than two years until Census Day. To ensure a  successful census, sound risk management will be crucial, particularly  given its scope, magnitude, and immutable deadlines of the census. The  size of the decennial operation means that small problems can magnify  quickly, and big problems could be overwhelming. For example, 60  seconds might seem like an inconsequential amount of time, but in 2000, if  enumerators had spent just 1 minute more at each household during  nonresponse follow-up, almost $10 million would have been added to the  cost of the census. Further, sound risk management is important to a  successful census because many risks are interrelated, and a shortcoming  in one operation could cause other operations to spiral downward. For  instance, a low mail response rate would drive up the follow-up workload,  which in turn would increase staffing needs and costs. Of course, the  reverse is also true, where a success in one operation could positively  affect downstream operations. Nevertheless, rigorous up-front planning  and testing, as well as risk mitigation plans, are the best ways to stave off  problems. Finally, the census is conducted against a backdrop of  immutable deadlines; the census’ elaborate chain of interrelated pre- and  post-Census Day activities is predicated upon those dates. To meet legally  mandated reporting requirements, including delivery of population counts  to the President on December 31, 2010, census activities need to take place  at specific times and in the proper sequence.
section_title: Bureau Has Taken Important Steps in Planning for a Paper- based Nonresponse Follow-up Operation, But Much Remains Uncertain
paragraphs: On May 8, 2008 the Bureau issued its plans for conducting the 2010 Census  paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation outlining key operational  decisions. Among these is the need to develop an information system to  manage the workload for a paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation  and for additional field infrastructure, such as more telephones and  computers to support this operation, to restructure the replacement  mailing and the removal of late mail returns from the nonresponse follow- up workload, as well as the need for cognitive testing of the enumerator  questionnaire used to collect data from nonrespondents.
The contractor carrying out the FDCA program will develop the  operations control system, which is designed to manage field operations  that rely on paper as well as those that rely upon the handheld computers.  The Bureau is particularly concerned about this system because when it  was tested as part of earlier dress rehearsal operations—for example,  during group quarters validation—it was found to be unreliable. As a  result, the workload for these operations had to be supplemented with  additional paper-based efforts by local census office staff, instead of  electronically as intended. The operations control system is critical  because it is intended to provide managers with essential real-time  information such as enumerator productivity and the status of workload  such as interviews conducted and remaining. Bureau officials said that the  manual workaround was manageable for the dress rehearsal with just two  local census offices; however, such a manual workaround would be nearly  impossible to do when operations are carried out nationwide next year.  Officials said that they expect to review computer screen shots of the  operations control system reports it will use to manage the nonresponse  follow-up operation in January 2009; however, the Bureau has not yet  determined when and how testing of the operations control system before  nonresponse follow-up, which begins in April 2010, will occur.
The Bureau will be using newly developed systems for integrating  responses and managing nonresponse follow-up workload that have not  yet been fully tested in a census-like environment. The Bureau’s contract  for the Decennial Response Integration System, designed to help identify  households that have not yet returned census forms and to collect the  results from enumerators conducting nonresponse follow-up interviews,  will process each mail return and enumerator questionnaire and transmit  to the FDCA program the number of questionnaires received. In turn,  FDCA will manage the nonresponse follow-up workload, in part by  removing initial late mail returns from the list of housing units requiring  follow-up visits. Consequently, depending on time and cost considerations,  Bureau officials believe that the Bureau must conduct, at a minimum, a  small scale simulation of the integration and communication between the  Decennial Response Integration System and FDCA for such aspects as  load testing for a paper-based operation, and interfaces such as when the  paper is processed by the Decennial Response Integration System and  when the check-in status is transmitted to individual local census offices  through management reports processed by the FDCA program. When or  how these tests will be completed is not clear.
The Bureau’s plans for nonresponse follow-up will also require changes in  local census office infrastructure. The Bureau expects it will need  additional hardware, including printing and scanning equipment,  computers, and telephones. Further, the Bureau expects to scale the  FDCA network to support a system for keying in large volumes of data  related to hiring and payroll for over 700,000 field workers it plans to hire  for the nonresponse follow-up operation. Previously, the Bureau expected  to maintain field worker time reporting using the handheld computer.  Also, the Bureau expected to hire fewer field workers.
The Bureau’s redesign has also changed the replacement mailing strategy  which will be used in 2010. The replacement mailing is a second mailing  sent to nonresponding households. Testing has shown that a second  mailing increases the overall response rate and reduces costs by  increasing the number of returns that come in by mail, decreasing the need  for census field workers to collect census data in person. Prior to the  redesign, the Bureau planned to send second mailings to all  nonresponding households that initially received the census form in the  mail. However these plans changed, in part because, according to the  Bureau, without using handheld computers for nonresponse follow-up, it  would not be able to dynamically remove late mail returns—including  those resulting from the replacement mailing—from the enumerator  assignments on a daily basis. The Bureau had to devise a way to balance  the time available to print replacement questionnaires with the time  available to remove late mail returns from the paper-based nonresponse  follow-up workload.
The Bureau now plans a multi-part approach. First, it will send  approximately 25-30 million blanket replacement mailings to census tracts  with low response rates, based on historical response rate data from 1990  and 2000 Census and the American Community Survey. As a result, all  housing units in these selected census tracts would receive a second  census form, regardless of whether or not they returned the initial form.  Similarly, the Bureau plans to target a second mailing to an additional 15  million households in census tracts that are in the middle-range of mail  response rates. Finally, the Bureau will not send a replacement mailing to  households located in census tracts that previously had high mail response  rates. This combination “blanket” and “targeted” mailing strategy is a new  approach that will not be tested prior to the 2010 Census. If the  replacement mailing does not function as planned, this strategy could  confuse respondents in the blanket mailing areas and result in multiple  responses from the same household that return both forms. It is  instructive to consider that the Bureau’s previous experience with a  blanket second “replacement” questionnaire sent to all housing units  located in the 1998 dress rehearsal sites caused a significant number of  households with multiple responses. As a result, the replacement mailing  was dropped from the 2000 Census design because the Bureau was  concerned that it would have been overwhelming to process multiple  census responses during the actual census.
Moreover, without the benefit of implementing nonresponse follow-up  during the dress rehearsal, the Bureau will not know how well its new  system for removal of late mail returns will work. While the Bureau  encourages respondents to mail back their census forms quickly, some are  not returned until the middle of April or later, after the nonresponse  follow-up operation has begun. To reduce the cost of nonresponse follow- up and to minimize respondent burden, it is beneficial to the Bureau to  remove these late mail returns from the nonresponse follow-up universe.  Because nonresponse follow-up will be paper-based rather than conducted  with handheld computers, the Bureau will remove late mail returns with  the FDCA program prior to April 20 and manually thereafter; however, the  recent Bureau plans provide only timelines for removing late mail returns  and the Bureau has not yet finalized the workload estimates or how it will  manage this work. Not having an opportunity to rehearse its strategy for  removing late mail returns makes difficult any estimate of resulting  workload.
In addition, Bureau officials said that it will be important to conduct  cognitive testing of the questionnaire used by enumerators for  nonresponse follow-up. With the change from using handheld computers,  a paper questionnaire will be used by census enumerators in the 2010  nonresponse follow-up when making personal visits to housing units to  collect census data. When developing this questionnaire, the Bureau plans  to draw upon its extensive research and testing of interviewer-conducted  questionnaires developed for other censuses and surveys as well as  lessons learned in Census 2000. According to its May 8, 2008 plans for  conducting the paper-based nonresponse follow-up, the Bureau will  conduct this cognitive and usability testing in early summer 2008 and the  testing will address both respondent interactions and ease of use for the  census enumerators. The Bureau expects the questionnaire will have  space for up to six people as in Census 2000 and will link other household  members to the address via a continuation form; include coverage  questions; meet the Decennial Response Integration System data capture  specifications; and collect data on the outcome of the enumeration.
Not being able to test the paper-based nonresponse follow-up in the 2008  Dress Rehearsal introduces risk because the dress rehearsal will no longer  be a dry-run of the decennial census. While the Bureau has carried out a  paper-based follow-up operation in the past, there are now new  procedures and system interfaces that, as a result of its exclusion from the  dress rehearsal, will not be tested under census-like conditions. We  discussed the nonresponse follow-up plan with Bureau officials and they  acknowledge the importance of testing new and changed activities of  nonresponse follow-up as well as system interfaces to reduce risk.  However, because plans have changed for many aspects of the  nonresponse follow-up operation, Bureau officials are uncertain about  testing and are still trying to determine which activities and interfaces will  be tested and when that testing will occur.
It is important to note that the Bureau has taken some important initial  steps to manage the replannning effort. For example, the Bureau has  added temporary “action officers” to its 2010 governance structure. As of  April 17, 2008, six action officers had been identified to achieve the six  objectives in its Recovery Plan—nonresponse follow-up replan, reduce  FDCA risk, improve communications, document decennial program  testing, improve program management, and baseline an integrated  schedule. Each action officer is assigned to one of the objectives. These  action officers are intended to be catalysts, liaisons, and facilitators  responsible for ensuring that the tasks and milestones for each objective  are met. Also, the action officers meet with the Associate and Assistant  Directors to facilitate quick decision-making and on a regular basis  provide updates on the status of plans. Weekly, the Bureau’s Director  meets with the Department of Commerce’s Deputy Secretary to discuss  the status of the replan for the 2010 Census.
The Bureau has also issued documents that describe actions it will take to  identify and manage risk. The Bureau’s 2010 Census Program Management  Plan, issued May 5, 2008, contains information about the risk management  process and notes that 24 program-level or high level-risks have been  identified, were currently being validated, and that each of these 24 risks  would have either mitigation or contingency plans associated with them.  However, according to Bureau officials, these 24 risks were associated  with an automated operation and the Bureau had not yet developed risks  related to the paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation. We requested  information on these 24 risks, and on June 4, 2008, the Bureau provided us  with an updated program-level risk document. The update now includes 25  program-level risks and identifies several risks related to the redesign  including late design changes and testing. However, the Bureau has not  updated project-level risks—which are risks specific to an operation or  system—for nonresponse follow-up since the change to paper was  announced. Once the Bureau provides project-level risk documents, we  will assess the Bureau’s actions to identify, prioritize, and manage risk for  the replanned nonresponse follow-up operation.
section_title: Bureau Has Improved Program Management and Oversight, but Cost Estimates Need Timely Reconciling
paragraphs: The Bureau has taken steps to strengthen the FDCA program office  leadership and expertise. The Bureau has recently assigned an  experienced Bureau manager to manage the FDCA program office.  According to the Bureau, the manager has extensive experience in  directing major IT projects. The Bureau has also hired an outside IT  expert, to provide advice and guidance to the FDCA program office. The  Bureau has also implemented key activities to help improve management  and transparency of contractor activities. Bureau officials have established  a schedule for daily assessment meetings with contractor personnel; are  conducting weekly status assessment and resolution meetings with the  Deputy Director and Director; and are holding regular meetings with the  Department of Commerce.
The Bureau has obtained cost estimates for FDCA from both Harris and  MITRE, based on the recent changes to the scope of the program. In  particular, these cost estimates include the January 16, 2008 requirements  and the decision for a paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation.  Harris is estimating that the revised FDCA program will cost roughly $1.3  billion; however, this cost estimate is preliminary and expected to be  further refined.
At the direction of the Bureau, MITRE developed an independent  government cost estimate in April 2008. MITRE’s estimate is about $726  million, which is nearly $600 million less than the contractor’s rough order  of magnitude estimate. A comparison of the two estimates reveals  significant differences in two areas: software development and common  support. In particular, Harris is estimating that software development will  be about $200 million greater than MITRE’s independent estimate; and that  common support will be about $300 million greater than MITRE’s  estimate.
Software development ($200 million difference): MITRE officials noted  that these differences could be attributed to different assumptions  based on abnormal software development (such as starts and stops due  to budget instability), labor rates used, amount of additional staff  needed in order to maintain the schedule and to address quality and  testing issues, as well as cost contingency reserves.
Common support ($300 million difference): Although this program  element contains the largest cost difference, MITRE officials noted that  they could not identify the primary cost drivers that caused the gap.  However, possible explanations could be cost contingency reserves  that may have been built into the Harris estimate, labor rates used,  unexpected high level of change management personnel resulting from  budget and requirements changes, and other potential impacts on  management resulting from program instability.
Harris had originally planned to deliver the cost estimate by August 20,  2008. However, the Bureau requested that this estimate be delivered  sooner and Harris recently agreed to deliver this cost estimate by July 15,  2008. The Bureau and contractor plan to reconcile and agree to a final  estimate by August 15, 2008. We plan to analyze the independent cost  estimate and the Harris final estimate for the program. As part of this  analysis, we intend to evaluate the methodology, as well as underlying  assumptions, used to develop each estimate.
The Bureau needs to act swiftly to finalize the FDCA program’s cost  estimate and renegotiate the contract. In particular, it will need to have a  final cost estimate from Harris in mid-July, and will need to reconcile this  estimate with MITRE’s independent estimate thoroughly and quickly to  have a final cost estimate by August 15, 2008. Our body of work on the  lessons learned on other major IT acquisitions, highlights the importance  of establishing realistic cost estimates (through reconciliation of program  and independent cost estimates), using fixed price contract techniques for  low risk procurement areas, where appropriate, and establishing  management reserve funds for unexpected costs. In moving forward, it is  important that the Bureau exercise diligence in finalizing the contract  terms to ensure that the FDCA program is conducted in a timely and  efficient manner for the 2010 decennial.
section_title: Bureau’s Integrated Schedule Identified Activities and Associated Milestones but Did Not Address Risks and Costs
paragraphs: The Bureau designed its 2010 Census Integrated Schedule, dated May 22,  2008, to provide information on its schedule framework and activity-level  design as well as to describe the program complexity and methods that the  Bureau will use to manage the 44 interdependent operations,  incorporating over 11,000 unique activities, to conduct the 2010 Census.  The Bureau briefed committee staff and us on this final integrated  schedule last week. Based on this briefing and our preliminary review of  the schedule, we can offer some observations.
The integrated schedule does identify activities that need to be  accomplished for the decennial and the Bureau establishes milestones for  completing tasks. However, the schedule does not link those activities  with associated risks nor does it capture the cost of operations. We  previously recommended to manage the 2010 Census and contain costs,  the Bureau develop a comprehensive, integrated project plan for the 2010  Census that should include risk and mitigation plans, updated cost  estimates, and detailed milestones that identify all significant  relationships. We also observed that testing the handheld computer that  will be used in the address canvassing operation—an activity we have  previously identified as important in mitigating risks associated with use  of new technology—overlapped with its deployment. Specifically, in  describing the testing and integrating of handheld computers for the  address canvassing operation, the schedule indicates that this activity will  begin in December 2008 and be completed in late March 2009; however,  the deployment of the handheld device for address canvassing will  actually start in February 2009, before the completion of testing and  integration. It would appear uncertain that the testing and integration  milestones would permit modification to technology or operations prior to  the onset of operations. Further, the Bureau’s integrated schedule does  not specifically define testing (e.g., system, integration, and end-to-end).  Separately, the Bureau on June 6, 200 produced a testing plan for the  address canvassing operation.
On May 22, 2008, the Bureau also issued the 2010 Census Key Operational  Milestone Schedule. This represents a higher level summary of key  operations and is linked to the more exhaustive integrated schedule. The  Bureau identified about 175 activities that it considers key and that are  used by senior management to oversee the 2010 Census. However, there  are several notable exceptions to this schedule of key operational  milestones. For example, there is no key milestone for identification of  program and project risks in light of the significant change in planned  operations, nor for developing necessary mitigation or contingency plans.  Including key milestones for risk identification and mitigation in its high- level schedule will enable the Bureau to stay focused on activities which  can directly impact the quality or cost of the 2010 Census. Nor does the  schedule include a milestone for when testing of key activities related to  nonresponse follow-up will take place. This is despite the fact that this  represents the single largest field operation and will not be part of a dress  rehearsal. The Bureau does recognize that it could include in its high-level  summary schedule a key milestone for nonresponse follow-up testing  activities. Further testing schedules for address canvassing and the  operations control system also do not appear as key milestones, though  they do appear in the detailed integrated schedule. Including these critical  activities as part of the list of key milestones could ensure greater  management attention, as well as help in focus oversight. We are currently  reviewing in greater detail the summary and integrated schedule of  milestones and the recently revised program-level risk document provided  on June 4, 2008.
In summary, the Bureau has taken some important steps toward managing  the changes it plans for conducting the 2010 Census. Yet much remains  uncertain and in the absence of a full dress rehearsal, the risks to a  successful decennial census are substantial. Risks are especially high for  the 2010 Census nonresponse follow-up operation both because the  Bureau will not reap the benefits of having a dress rehearsal for this key  operation but also because it is changing its approach late in the decade.  These make even more compelling the need for the Bureau to specify what  tests it plans to conduct in the absence of a dress rehearsal and when such  testing will take place.
The Bureau will also need to take several next steps to finalize the FDCA  program’s cost estimate. In particular, it will need to have a final cost  estimate from Harris, as soon as possible, in order to have a sufficient  amount of time to complete modifications to the contract by the end of the  fiscal year. Our body of work on the lessons learned on other major IT  acquisitions, highlights the importance of establishing realistic cost  estimates (through reconciliation of program and independent cost  estimates), using fixed price contract techniques for low risk procurement  areas, such as hardware, and establishing management reserve funds for  unexpected costs. In moving forward, it is important that the Bureau  exercise diligence in finalizing the contract terms to ensure that the FDCA  program can be conducted in a timely and efficient manner.
Finally, the Bureau has developed a detailed integrated schedule of  activities that need to be conducted during the 2010 Census and  established milestones for completing them. It will be important for the  Bureau to ensure that among the key milestones and activities that are  highlighted for management and oversight are those that represent the  greatest impact on the ultimate cost and quality of the 2010 Census.
Mr. Chairmen and members of the committee and subcommittee, this  concludes our statement. We would be happy to respond to any questions  that you or members of the subcommittee may have at this time.
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this testimony, please  contact Mathew J. Scirè at (202) 512-6806 or David A. Powner at (202) 512- 9286 or by email at sciremj@gao.gov or pownerd@gao.gov. Other key  contributors to this testimony include Carol Cha, Betty Clark, Vijay  D’Souza, Sarah Farkas, Richard Hung, Andrea Levine, Catherine Myrick,  Lisa Pearson, Cynthia Scott, and Niti Tandon.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.