Information Technology: OMB and Department of Homeland Security Investment Reviews
Published: 2004-02-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In July 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued two memorandums directing agencies expected to be part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to temporarily cease funding for new information technology (IT) infrastructure and business systems investments and submit information to OMB on current or planned investments in these areas. GAO was asked to (1) explain OMB's implementation of these memorandums, (2) identify any resulting changes to applicable IT investments, and (3) ascertain if DHS has initiated its own investment management reviews and, if so, what the results of these reviews have been.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The July 2002 memorandums established an investment review group cochaired by OMB and the Office of Homeland Security to review submitted investments and estimated that millions of dollars potentially could be saved as a result of consolidating and integrating component agency investments. The investment review group relied on an informal, undocumented process to fulfill its responsibilities. Nevertheless, according to OMB and DHS IT officials, the review group both reviewed five component agency investments that were submitted and addressed long-term IT strategic issues related to the transition to the new department. OMB and DHS IT officials cited some changes to agency IT infrastructure and business systems investments because of the July memorandums. In addition, DHS IT officials cited other benefits that resulted from the memorandums. However, it is not known whether, or the extent to which, savings have resulted from the memorandums. In particular, OMB did not track savings associated with the July memorandums because, according to OMB IT staff, anticipated budgetary savings had not occurred at the time the review group was in place. DHS's chief information officer stated that the department plans to track savings related to the consolidation and integration of systems and has established a mechanism for doing so. However, until such savings are identified, tracked, and reported it will remain unknown whether the July memorandums and the subsequent establishment of DHS have achieved the potential economies identified by OMB. Once DHS became operational and the investment review group no longer existed, the department established its own IT investment management process, which is still evolving. As part of this process, between May 2003 and late January 2004, the DHS's highest level investment management board performed reviews of nine investments that had reached key decision points. Even with this progress, the department has identified about 100 IT programs that are eligible for review by its two top department-level boards. However, DHS has not established a process to ensure that key reviews of such IT investments are performed in a timely manner.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), which was enacted in  November 2002, brought together 22 diverse agencies and created a new  cabinet-level department—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)— to help prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, reduce the  vulnerability of the United States to terrorist attacks, and minimize the  damage and assist in recovery from attacks that do occur. The new DHS  presents both information technology (IT) challenges and opportunities.  For example, DHS (1) faces considerable challenges in integrating the  many systems and processes that provide management with information  necessary for decision making and (2) offers opportunities to identify and  eliminate redundant investments and achieve more efficiencies in IT  investments.
To begin to tackle these issues even before the department was formed, the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in July 2002 issued two  memorandums directing federal agencies that were expected to be part of  the new department to temporarily cease funding for new IT infrastructure  and business systems investments and submit information to OMB on current or planned investments in these areas. These memorandums also  established an investment review group, co-chaired by OMB and the Office  of Homeland Security, to review investments that met the criteria in the  July memorandums. In October 2002, we testified that it was too early to  assess the impact of OMB’s action because agency submissions were still  being evaluated.
Since DHS has now been established, you requested that we follow up on  our prior testimony and (1) explain how OMB implemented the July 2002  memorandums; (2) identify what, if any, changes to agency IT investments  resulted from the July memorandums and the Homeland Security IT  Investment Review Group’s evaluations (hereafter called the review  group); and (3) ascertain whether DHS has initiated its own investment  management reviews and, if so, what the results of these reviews have  been. To address the first objective, we sought available documentation on  the criteria and process used by the investment review group to make  decisions. Likewise for the second objective, we sought documentation  from OMB and applicable DHS component agencies on decisions made by  the investment review group and on changes to IT investments that  resulted from the July 2002 memorandums. However, according to OMB  and DHS IT officials, the processes used and decisions made by the review  group and the DHS component agencies were not documented. As a result,  we largely relied upon interviews with applicable OMB and DHS IT  officials—including representatives from OMB’s Office of Information and  Regulatory Affairs, the DHS chief information officer (who is also the  former Office of Homeland Security co-chair of the investment review  group), and DHS component agency IT officials—to address the first two  objectives. To address the third objective, we reviewed DHS’s IT  investment management review policies and documentation of DHS  reviews performed of component agency IT investments. This  documentation included decision memorandums issued by its highest level  investment management board on the results of its reviews. We also  interviewed the DHS chief information officer (CIO), chief technology  officer, and the coordinator of the DHS investment review process. We  performed our work at OMB and DHS in Washington, D.C., between July  2003 and January 2004, in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: With the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the threat of terrorism  rose to the top of the country’s national security and law enforcement  agendas. In response to these growing threats, the Congress passed and the  President signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created DHS.  We have previously identified IT management as critical to the transformation of the new department. Not only does DHS face  considerable challenges in integrating the many systems and processes that  provide management with information for decision making, but it must  sufficiently identify its future needs in order to build effective systems that  can support the national homeland security strategy in the coming years.  To jump start this planning process and also begin to identify opportunities  for improved effectiveness and economy, OMB issued two memorandums  in July 2002 to selected agencies telling them to “cease temporarily” and  report on new IT infrastructure and business systems investments above  $500,000.
subsections: section_title: Mission, Organization, and Role of IT in DHS
paragraphs: On March 1, 2003, DHS assumed operational control of nearly 180,000  employees from 22 incoming agencies and offices. In establishing the new  department, the Congress articulated a seven-point mission for DHS:   Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.
Reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.
Minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks.
Carry out all functions of entities transferred to the department,  including by acting as a focal point regarding natural and man-made  crises and emergency planning.
Ensure that the functions of the agencies within the department that are  not directly related to securing the homeland are not diminished or  neglected.
Ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is not  diminished by efforts aimed at securing the homeland.
Monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism,  coordinate efforts to sever such connections, and otherwise contribute  to efforts to interdict illegal drug trafficking.
To help DHS accomplish its mission, the Homeland Security Act of 2002  establishes four mission-related directorates, the (1) Border and  Transportation Security directorate, (2) Emergency Preparedness and  Response directorate, (3) Science and Technology directorate, and (4)  Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate. In addition  to these directorates, the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Coast Guard  remain intact as distinct entities within DHS; Immigration and  Naturalization Service adjudications and benefits programs report directly  to the deputy secretary as the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration  Services, and the Management directorate is responsible for budget, human  capital, and other general management issues.
According to the most recent President’s budget, DHS expects to make  about $4 billion in IT investments in fiscal year 2004—the third largest IT  investment budget in the federal govenment. In addition, as we have  testified, information management and technology are among the critical  success factors that the new department should emphasize in its initial  implementation phase. For example, DHS currently has several ongoing IT  projects that are critical to the effective implementation of its mission,  such as the  Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, which is to provide “24 by  7” border coverage through ground-based sensors, fixed cameras, and  computer-aided detection capabilities;  Student Exchange Visitor Information System, which is expected to  manage information about nonimmigrant foreign students and exchange  visitors from schools and exchange programs;   Automated Commercial Environment project, which is to be a new trade   United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US- VISIT), a governmentwide program intended to improve the nation’s  capacity for collecting information on foreign nationals who travel to  the United States, as well as control the pre-entry, entry, status, and exit  of these travelers.
Moreover, as all of the programs and agencies are brought together in the  new department, it will be an enormous undertaking to integrate their  diverse communication and information systems. Among the IT challenges  that the new department will have to face and overcome are developing,  maintaining, and implementing an enterprise architecture, and  establishing and enforcing a disciplined IT investment management  process (which includes establishing an effective selection, control, and  evaluation process). The department’s ability to overcome these  challenges is complicated by the IT management problems that its major  components had when they transferred to DHS. Specifically, as we  previously reported, we still have numerous outstanding IT management  recommendations that require action at component agencies, such as the  Customs Service and the Coast Guard.
section_title: OMB’s July 2002 Memorandums on IT Infrastructure and Business Systems Investments
paragraphs: Figure 1 illustrates the timing of OMB’s July 2002 memorandums. These  memorandums instructed selected agencies to (1) cease temporarily new  IT infrastructure and business systems (i.e., financial management,  procurement, and human resources systems) investments above $500,000  pending a review of the investment plans of all proposed DHS component  agencies; (2) identify and submit to OMB information on any current or  planned spending on these types of initiatives; and (3) participate in  applicable IT investment review groups co-chaired by OMB and the Office  of Homeland Security.
According to OMB, its goal in issuing these memorandums was to seek  opportunities for improved effectiveness and economy. In addition,  according to officials from OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory  Affairs, another purpose was to obtain an inventory of current and planned  IT infrastructure and business systems investments for organizations to be  moved to DHS, which was expected to help in the administration’s  transition planning.
Although OMB directed selected agencies to temporarily cease these  investments, it did not necessarily mean that work was to be stopped on all  IT infrastructure and business systems projects at the applicable agencies.  First, the memorandums only pertained to funding for new development  efforts and not to existing systems in a “steady state” using operations and  maintenance funding. Second, the cessation did not apply if funds  pertaining to a development or acquisition contract had already been  obligated. Third, agencies could request an expedited review to obtain the  approval to proceed if they had an emergency or critical need. The  following are examples of how OMB’s direction to temporarily cease IT  investments would apply in certain circumstances.
If an agency had an existing procurement system in a steady state in  which no major modifications or modernization efforts were planned,  there would have been no effect on the funding of this system.
If an agency had an ongoing contract with available obligations for the  development of a financial management system, there would have been  no effect on this contract, but new obligations for development or  modernization efforts would have been required to be approved by the  review group.
If an agency wanted to award a contract over $500,000 for a new or  modernized IT infrastructure item such as a local area network, it would  have been required to obtain approval from the investment review group  before proceeding.
Our testimony of October 2002, stated that it was not possible to assess the  full effect of the July memorandums on the selected agencies at that time.  Except for emergency requests, according to representatives from OMB’s  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the review group had not  taken any action at the time of our review on the agencies’ submissions in  response to the July memorandums because neither they nor OMB had  completed their reviews of these documents.
section_title: Implementation of OMB’s July 2002 Memorandums
paragraphs: The July memorandums called on the Homeland Security IT Investment  Review Group to assess individual IT investments as part of considering  whether to consolidate or integrate component agency efforts. In fulfilling  this role, the review group relied on an informal process, which was not  documented. Although the review group reviewed the few investments that  component agencies submitted, according to OMB and DHS IT officials, the  group generally addressed broader issues related to the transition to the  new department. In particular, these officials noted that the review group  concentrated on longer term IT strategic issues, such as those related to  the development of an enterprise architecture, associated with the  transition to the proposed department.
The investment review group was tasked with (1) reviewing component  agency IT investment submissions that met the criteria in the  memorandums, and (2) making recommendations related to these  submissions, including looking for opportunities to consolidate and  integrate component agency investments. According to OMB IT  representatives, the group generally met once a week but did not have a  documented process for performing reviews of the few component agency  investments that were submitted for review. These officials reported that in  the review process that was implemented, (1) agencies requested approval  of selected IT investments, (2) OMB and the investment review group  reviewed the agency submission, and (3) the review group made a  recommendation. Once this recommendation was made, the normal budget  execution process was implemented. Moreover, according to these  representatives, the investment review group used the principles contained  in section 300 of OMB Circular A-11 and section 8(b) of OMB Circular A-130  as the criteria for evaluating submitted investments. In addition, in  commenting on a draft of this report, representatives from OMB’s Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs and Office of the General Counsel  stated that although the activities of the Homeland Security IT Investment  Review Group were generally conducted on an informal basis, the group  relied on the already-existing processes documented in these circulars to  fulfill its responsibilities.
According to OMB IT representatives, when the establishment of DHS  became closer in time, the focus of the review group shifted from reviewing  individual investments to addressing the IT strategic issues involved with  establishing the department. In particular, according to DHS officials, the  review group created six working groups to address, respectively, business  architecture, networks, information security, Web management, directory  services (e.g., e-mail capability), and technical reference model issues. In  addition, according to these officials, the investment review group took  into account transition work being performed by other entities. For  example, the review group worked with a liaison from the Chief Financial  Officers Council, which was looking at financial management system  matters related to the new department.
section_title: Some Changes Were Made to Component Agency IT Infrastructure and Business Systems Investments
paragraphs: The July 2002 memorandums resulted in some changes to agency IT  infrastructure and business systems investments. Specifically, according to  OMB and DHS IT officials, the review group recommended approval with  conditions the five IT investments submitted to it and four component  agencies reported that they changed other initiatives as a result of the  memorandums. However, it is not known whether, or the extent to which,  savings have resulted from the memorandums. In particular, OMB did not  track the savings associated with the July memorandums because,  according to OMB IT representatives, budgetary savings had not occurred  when the review group was in place. Nevertheless, OMB and DHS IT  officials cited other benefits that resulted from the memorandums, such as  the identification of ongoing component agency efforts or resources that  were important to the operation of the department at its inception.
Four component agencies submitted five IT investment requests to be  reviewed by the review group. According to OMB and DHS IT officials, all  of these requests were recommended for approval with conditions. In  addition, four component agencies reported that on their own initiative  that they terminated, delayed, or changed other initiatives as a result of the  July memorandums. (See table 1.)
The July memorandums stated that initial estimates indicated that potential  savings of between $100 million and $200 million (IT infrastructure) and  $65 million and $85 million (business systems) could be achieved over a 2- year period as a result of consolidating and integrating component agency  investments. OMB reported to congressional committees that these  estimates were based primarily on best practices in the federal government  and private industry. However, an OMB IT representative stated that these  estimates were a rough approximation and that no documentation existed  to support how they were derived.
The July memorandums also stated that the review group would track  these savings. Moreover, OMB reported to congressional committees that  this tracking would include a breakout of the savings, the cause of the  savings, and the time period in which the savings would be generated.  However, a tracking process was not established because, according to an  OMB IT representative, no budgetary savings had occurred at the time that  the investment review group was in place since no investment was  terminated by the group. According to this representative, OMB still  believes that budgetary savings will occur and expects that DHS will track  these savings. Moreover, this representative stated that OMB will be  actively working with DHS as part of its budgetary and management  processes to ensure that such savings occur.
DHS’s CIO agreed that savings are expected to result from the department’s  consolidation and integration of systems. Moreover, he stated that DHS will  be tracking such savings and has established a mechanism for doing so.  Specifically, the CIO pointed to DHS’s establishment of IT commodity  councils—groups that are responsible for a collection of related materials  or services—that would perform this function. According to the Director of  Strategic Sourcing and Acquisition Systems, the councils have established  project teams that are responsible for tracking savings. According to this  official, each project is in the process of developing their project plans,  departmental requirements, and savings targets. Until savings resulting  from the consolidation and integration of systems and services are  identified, tracked, and reported, it will remain unknown whether OMB’s  July memorandums and the subsequent establishment of DHS have  achieved the potential economies identified by OMB. In addition, DHS IT  officials stated that they were not aware of any plans to report budgetary  savings resulting from the consolidation and integration of systems to  applicable congressional committees. Such savings information is an  important element for the Congress to consider when deliberating DHS  budget requests and overseeing its IT management. Moreover, the  Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform has previously  expressed concern that there has been a tremendous push for additional IT  spending at DHS component agencies without ensuring appropriate  management or accountability.
Although budgetary savings have not yet been identified, DHS IT officials,  including the CIO, cited other benefits to the July memorandums. In  particular, DHS IT officials estimated that several million dollars in costs  have been avoided as a result of the Secret Service decision. (A Secret  Service IT official provided an explanation of how this estimate was  derived, but we could not validate this amount because it was not clearly  supported by the documentation provided.) In addition, the CIO stated that  the investment review group evolved into the department’s CIO Council,  which is responsible for developing, promulgating, implementing, and  managing a vision and direction for information resources and  telecommunications management. Further, the DHS chief technology  officer reported that the review group provided the new department with a  head start on day one operations by, for example, deciding to use the  Immigration and Naturalization Service’s network backbone for the  department. Finally, these and DHS component agency IT officials stated  that the memorandums facilitated the department’s long-term IT planning  efforts, including the development of an enterprise architecture.
section_title: DHS Has Initiated Reviews of Component Agency IT Investments, but Its Processes Are Still Evolving
paragraphs: Once DHS became operational and the investment review group  established by the July memorandums no longer existed, the department  established an IT investment management process that includes  departmental reviews of component agency IT investments meeting certain  criteria. As part of the selection phase of this process, DHS’s CIO reported  that he approved the department’s IT portfolio as part of the fiscal year  2005 budget cycle. In addition, as of January 26, 2004, the department’s  highest level investment management board had performed control  reviews of nine investments that had reached key decision points. In each  of these cases, the project was allowed to proceed although additional  documentation was required and/or conditions were set. Finally, the  department’s investment management process is still evolving as the  department attempts to deal with a large number of IT investments eligible  for departmental reviews.
In May 2003, DHS issued an investment review management directive and  IT capital planning and investment control guide, which provide the  department’s entities with requirements and guidance on documentation  and review of IT investments. In particular, the management directive  establishes four levels of investments, the top three of which are subject to  review by department-level boards—the Investment Review Board (IRB),  Management Review Council, and Enterprise Architecture Board.  Appendix I provides a description of these department-level boards and the  investments that they are responsible for. The directive also establishes a  five-phase acquisition process that calls for these investments to be  reviewed at key decision points, such as program authorization. In  addition, the IT capital planning and investment control guide lays out a  process for selecting, controlling, and managing investments. Figure 2  provides an overview of the review process outlined in the management  directive and capital planning and investment control guide.
As part of the selection phase of its capital planning and investment control  process, DHS reviewed component agency IT investments for its fiscal year  2005 budget submission. Specifically, according to DHS IT officials, (1) the  CIO approved the department’s IT portfolio and (2) all of the major IT  systems submitted to OMB for the fiscal year 2005 budget were assessed  and scored by an investment review team.
In addition, beginning in May 2003, DHS’s top-level board (the IRB) began  reviewing the department’s highest priority projects. As of January 26,  2004, the department had performed 12 control reviews of nine  investments. Table 2 summarizes the results of these reviews.
Although DHS is making progress in reviewing component agency projects,  its investment management process continues to evolve. In particular, as of  January 2, 2004, the department had identified about 100 IT programs that  were eligible for review by its two top-level departmental boards and,  according to IT officials, is having difficulty in bringing all of these  programs before the boards in a timely manner. Moreover, DHS has not  established a process to ensure that control reviews of component agency  IT investments are performed in a timely manner. Specifically, although  DHS’s capital planning and investment control guide states that the Office  of the CIO will maintain a control review schedule for all initiatives in the  department’s IT investment portfolio, as of January 2, 2004, this schedule  has not been developed. According to the DHS IRB coordinator and IT  officials, DHS has requested information from its component entities  related to the schedules and priorities of its level 1, or top-level,  investments. These officials stated that such information can then be used  to develop a master milestone calendar for control reviews. Control  review schedules, or master milestone calendars, are important to ensure  that DHS is reviewing its highest priority IT investments in a timely manner  so as to be able to affect changes to component agency approaches or even  terminate a poorly managed or strategically unnecessary investment, if  appropriate.
DHS’s CIO also stated that the department’s CIO Council is developing a  peer review process for major IT projects that is expected to include  defining a life-cycle management process and a quarterly reporting  process. The CIO stated that the new process is expected to be instituted  by the end of March 2004.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: OMB took a prudent step in issuing its July memorandums directing federal  agencies that were expected to be part of the new department to  temporarily cease funding for new IT infrastructure and business systems  investments in anticipation of the establishment of DHS. Although  documentation of the implementation of the memorandums was lacking,  OMB and DHS IT officials outlined an approach that included both  reviewing specific IT investments and the beginning of planning for the  transition to the new department. Further, DHS component agencies  identified actions that they took, such as putting initiatives on hold, and  other benefits that resulted from the memorandums. Nevertheless,  according to OMB IT representatives, budgetary savings as a result of the  July memorandums had not occurred at the time that the review group was  in place. Although DHS has begun to establish a mechanism to track such  savings in the future, until savings resulting from the consolidation and  integration of systems and services are identified, tracked, and reported, it  will remain unknown whether OMB’s July memorandums and the  subsequent establishment of DHS have achieved the millions of dollars in  potential economies identified by OMB. The Congress would benefit from  such information in its deliberations on the department’s budget and in its  oversight of DHS’s management of IT. Finally, DHS has begun to perform  high-level oversight of component agency IT investments, although much  remains to be accomplished and the process for this oversight is still  evolving. Accordingly, DHS continues to face challenges in providing  robust and constructive oversight of component agency IT investments. A  significant challenge remaining is determining the current status and  upcoming major milestones of IT investments subject to departmental  review in order to schedule timely control reviews.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To demonstrate its progress in consolidating and integrating its systems  and services, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security  direct the Chief Information Officer to periodically report to appropriate  congressional committees, the budgetary savings that have resulted from  the department’s IT consolidation and integration efforts, including a  breakout of the savings, the cause of the savings, and the time period in  which the savings have been, or will be, generated.
To ensure that IT investments subject to departmental review undergo  timely control reviews, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland  Security direct the Chief Information Officer to develop a control review  schedule for IT investments subject to departmental oversight (i.e., level 1,  2, and 3 investments).
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We received oral comments on a draft of this report from OMB and DHS.  Representatives from OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs  and Office of the General Counsel generally agreed with the findings of the  report. These representatives also provided a technical comment that we  included in the report, as appropriate. In addition, DHS’s Office of the CIO  capital planning and investment control officials stated that the report was  factually accurate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of Homeland Security and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.  Copies will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9286 or Linda J. Lambert, Assistant Director, at  (202) 512-9556. We can also be reached by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov and  lambertl@gao.gov, respectively. Another key contributor to this report was  Niti Bery.
section_title: DHS Department-Level Investment Management Boards
paragraphs: Deputy Secretary (Chair)
Chief Information Officer (CIO)
This board also  reviews all level 1 and  2 IT investments and  makes  recommendations to  the Investment  Review Board and  Management Review  Council DHS also plans to employ a Joint Requirements Council to serve as a working group to make  recommendations to the Investment Review Board and Management Review Council on cross-cutting  IT investments. The Joint Requirements Council, whose membership includes the Chief Technology  Officer, Director of Strategic Sourcing and chief operating officers of DHS’s component entities, met for  the first time on January 7, 2004.
subsections: 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