Electronic Records Archive: The National Archives and Records Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan
Published: 2009-07-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since 2001, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has been developing an Electronic Records Archive (ERA) to preserve and provide access to massive volumes of electronic records independent of their original hardware and software. The ERA system is to include a base system for federal records and a separate system for presidential records, known as the Executive Office of the President (EOP) system. The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act requires NARA to submit an expenditure plan for ERA to congressional appropriation committees. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine whether NARA's fiscal year 2009 plan meets the legislative conditions set forth in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, (2) provide an update on NARA's progress in implementing recommendations made in GAO's review of NARA's 2008 expenditure plan, and (3) provide any other observations about the expenditure plan and the ERA acquisition. To do this, GAO reviewed the expenditure plan, interviewed NARA officials, and reviewed program data and documentation.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: NARA's fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan satisfies the six legislative conditions in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. NARA implemented one of GAO's prior recommendations and partially implemented the other. Specifically, NARA developed a risk mitigation plan for the EOP system in the event that it was not ready in time for the presidential transition in January 2009. In addition, NARA began including summaries of performance against ERA cost and schedule estimates in its monthly reports to Congress. However, during its review, GAO found methodological weaknesses that could limit NARA's ability to accurately report on program cost, schedule, and performance. GAO made four observations on NARA's expenditure plan and the ERA acquisition: (1) The expenditure plan does not specifically identify whether completed system increments include all planned functionality or what functionality will be included in future increments, including the outcomes NARA expects from the remainder of its fiscal year 2009 funding. Until NARA fully describes the outcomes expected from this funding, Congress will lack important information for evaluating the agency's requests for funds. (2) The expenditure plan states that it relies on Earned Value Management (EVM), a tool for project management intended to provide objective reports of program status. However, NARA is not fully implementing practices necessary to make effective use of EVM, limiting the reliability of its progress reports. Without consistently following these best practices, NARA will be hindered in accurately monitoring and reporting on the cost, schedule, and performance of the ERA system. (3) Although NARA certified initial operating capability for the EOP system in December 2008, less than 3 percent of the electronic records from the Bush Administration had been ingested into the system at the time of GAO's review, and NARA did not expect the remainder to be ingested until October 2009. In the interim, NARA is using systems developed in accordance with its risk mitigation plan to support the search, processing, and retrieval of presidential records. These systems cost less than $600,000, compared with the $40 million NARA has obligated for the EOP system. Until NARA completely ingests the Bush Administration records into EOP, it will be unable to use the system for its intended purpose. (4) NARA lacks a contingency plan for the ERA system in the event of a failure or disruption. While NARA identified 11 security weaknesses related to contingency planning during system testing and planned actions to address them, it has completed only 1 of the 11 planned actions. Further, NARA does not have a fully functional backup and restore process for ERA, a key component for ensuring system availability. Until NARA fully develops and tests a contingency plan, it risks prolonged unavailability of the ERA system in the event of a failure or disruption.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since 2001, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has  been developing an Electronic Records Archive (ERA) to preserve and  provide access to massive volumes of electronic records independent of  their original hardware or software. NARA plans for the system to manage  the entire life cycle of electronic records, from their ingestion through  preservation and dissemination to customers.
The system is being deployed in phases, or increments, and is to include a  “base” system for federal records and a separate system for presidential  records, referred to as the Executive Office of the President (EOP) system.  According to NARA, the first increment of the base system achieved initial  operating capability (IOC) in June 2008. NARA certified IOC for the EOP  system in December 2008.
As mandated by the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, NARA is required  to submit an expenditure plan to congressional appropriations committees  before obligating multi-year funds for the ERA program. In March 2009,  NARA finalized the expenditure plan to support its request for $67 million  in ERA funding for fiscal year 2009, which is comprised of $45.8 million in  multi-year funds and $21.2 million in single-year funds. As in the previous  year, the plan must satisfy six legislative conditions, including a review by  GAO. Our objectives in reviewing the plan were to (1) determine whether  NARA’s fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan satisfies the applicable  legislative conditions, (2) provide an update on NARA’s progress in  implementing our prior expenditure plan review recommendations, and  (3) provide any other observations about the expenditure plan and the  ERA acquisition.
To assess compliance with the legislative conditions, we analyzed the  expenditure plan submitted by NARA in March 2009 and reviewed its  budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), along  with other program data and documentation. To determine whether NARA  had implemented our prior recommendations, we obtained and reviewed  the agency’s mitigation plan for the EOP system and its monthly reports to  Congress. To develop observations on the ERA expenditure plan and  acquisition, we analyzed the expenditure plan; reviewed agency and  contractor documents, agency data, and federal guidance; and interviewed  NARA officials.
To assess the reliability of computer-generated data used in the  development of this report, we conducted an on-site review of the ERA  systems, reviewed Inspector General reports on NARA’s financial systems  and computer controls, interviewed NARA officials about data reliability  controls, and compared the data to previously reported data. Based on  these reviews, we believe the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes  of this engagement.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 to July 2009 at  NARA’s College Park, Maryland, location and at the Allegany Ballistics  Laboratory at Rocket Center, West Virginia, 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 based on our audit  objectives.
On May 13, 2009, we briefed your staffs on the results of our review. This  report transmits the material we used at the briefing and provides the  recommendations that we made to the Acting Archivist of the United  States. The full briefing materials, including details on our scope and  methodology, are reprinted as appendix I.
In summary, we made the following major points:    NARA’s fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan satisfies the six legislative  conditions contained in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
NARA implemented one of the recommendations we made last year and  partially implemented the other:   We recommended that NARA develop a risk mitigation plan to ensure  indexing and searching of records from the Bush Administration in the  event that the EOP system was not complete in time for the January  2009 presidential transition. NARA finalized its plan in November 2008.  It stated that, in the event that records could not be ingested into EOP  in a timely manner, NARA intended to acquire hardware and software  to replicate the systems containing the data and use them to retrieve  requested records.
We recommended that, to improve the utility of information provided  to Congress, NARA include summary measures of project performance  against ERA cost and schedule estimates in its monthly reports. In July  2008, NARA began including this information as an appendix to its  monthly reports to Congress. However, during our review, we found  methodological weaknesses that could limit NARA’s ability to  accurately report on program cost, schedule, and performance.
We made four observations related to the ERA program and fiscal year    Cost, schedule, and performance data in the expenditure plan do not  provide a clear picture of ERA system progress. The plan does not  specifically identify whether completed increments included all  previously planned functionality or what functionality will be provided  in future increments. For example, the plan does not specify what  outcomes NARA expects to achieve with the remainder of its fiscal  year 2009 funding. NARA officials attributed the plan’s lack of  specificity to ongoing negotiations with its contractor. Until NARA  fully describes the outcomes expected for the remainder of the year,  congressional appropriators will lack information important for  evaluating the agency’s request for ERA funds.
NARA’s expenditure plan states that it relies on Earned Value  Management (EVM), an important tool for project management and  control that is intended to provide, among other things, objective  reports of program status. However, NARA is fully addressing only 5 of  the 13 practices required to effectively implement EVM, which limits  the reliability of its progress reports. NARA officials attributed these  weaknesses, in part, to documentation that did not accurately reflect  the program’s current status. Without consistently following these best  practices, NARA will be hindered in accurately monitoring and  reporting on the cost, schedule, and performance of the ERA system.
Although NARA certified initial operating capability for the EOP  system in December 2008, the system is not currently fulfilling its  intended purpose. At the time of our briefing, less than 3 percent of the  Bush Administration electronic records NARA received had been  successfully ingested into the system. NARA officials estimated that  the records would not be fully ingested until October 2009. Agency  officials attributed delays in part to unexpected difficulties, such as  data not being extracted in expected formats and incomplete  replication of one type of data. In the interim, NARA is primarily  supporting search, processing, and retrieval of presidential records  using the replicated systems described in the risk mitigation plan that  we recommended the agency develop last year, which cost less than  $600,000 to put in place, compared to the nearly $40 million NARA has  obligated for EOP. Until NARA completely and accurately ingests the  Bush Administration presidential records into the EOP system, it will  be unable to use the system for its intended purpose and will incur  additional costs maintaining the systems it is now using to support  requests for these records.
NARA lacks a contingency plan for the ERA system in the event of a  system failure or disruption. While NARA identified 11 security  weaknesses related to contingency planning during acceptance testing  and listed actions planned to address them, NARA has completed only  1 of the 11 planned actions. Further, NARA does not have a fully  functional backup and restore process for the ERA system, a key  component of planning for system availability in the event of a failure  or disruption. According to NARA officials, a full system contingency  plan is under development. However, until such a plan is tested and  implemented, NARA risks prolonged unavailability of the ERA system  in the event of a failure or disruption.
subsections: section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While NARA has continued to make progress on the ERA system, that  progress cannot be fully quantified because NARA’s expenditure plan does  not clearly identify what functions have already been delivered, how much  was spent to provide each function, or how much is required to maintain  the delivered increments. NARA’s current plan similarly lacks details on  the functions to be provided in future increments and the costs associated  with them, including development efforts scheduled to take place in the  remainder of this year. In addition, although NARA has been using Earned  Value Management to track program cost, schedule, and performance,  weaknesses in its EVM data limit NARA’s ability to accurately report on  the project’s progress. Without more specific and accurate information on  the immediate and long-term goals of the program and the outcomes  expected from its resulting efforts, NARA will be hindered in effectively  monitoring and reporting on the cost, schedule, and performance of the  ERA system, and congressional appropriators will lack information  necessary to evaluate the agency’s requests for funds.
Although NARA certified that the EOP portion of the ERA system had  achieved initial operating capability as planned in December 2008, the  system has been of limited use because of delays in ingesting electronic  records into the system. Further, even though it has obligated nearly $40  million on EOP, NARA has instead answered requests for Bush electronic  records by using existing systems or replicating White House systems that  cost less than $600,000. Under its current schedule, the Bush  Administration records will not be fully ingested into the system until  October 2009. However, even when the data are fully ingested, the  system’s lack of a complete, fully tested contingency plan increases the  risk that a system failure or disruption will result in the system being  unavailable for several days or more.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Archivist of the United States take the following  actions:    Report to Congress on the specific outcomes to be achieved by ERA  program funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2009.
Provide detailed information in future expenditure plans on what was  spent and delivered for deployed increments of the ERA system and cost  and functional delivery plans for future increments.
Strengthen the earned value process so that it follows the practices  described in GAO’s guide and more reliable cost, schedule, and  performance information can be included in future expenditure plans and  monthly reports.
Include in NARA’s next expenditure plan an analysis of the costs and  benefits of using the EOP system to respond to presidential records  requests compared to other existing systems currently being used to  respond to such requests.
Develop and implement a system contingency plan for ERA that follows  contingency guidance for federal systems.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in  appendix II, the Acting Archivist of the United States stated that she  appreciated the insight into the expenditure plan observations addressed  in the report. She stated that she was pleased to note our recognition that  the Fiscal Year 2009 ERA Expenditure Plan met the legislative conditions.  In addition, the Acting Archivist summarized actions taken or planned in  response to four of our five recommendations. Specifically, she stated that  NARA provided a briefing to Congress on the specific outcomes to be  achieved by the ERA program on April 27, 2009, and that further detail will  be added to the next expenditure plan to address costs and functions  delivered to date and what is planned for future increments. She further  stated that NARA is in the process of upgrading its EVM system and will  strive to comply with all 13 best practices. Finally, the Acting Archivist  stated that an ERA Contingency Plan has been developed and is in final  review.
The Acting Archivist disagreed with our observation that the EOP system  is not currently fulfilling its intended purpose. She stated that this  observation failed to differentiate between what the system is capable of  doing and the work currently being done on the system. She added that  the system does provide required functionality—including searching any  records ingested in the system—and that all the remaining data from the  Bush Administration will be ingested by the end of the fiscal year. The  Acting Archivist also stated that the problem was with the copies of the  records that NARA received from the White House, not with the EOP  system, and that the data issues have been resolved. We disagree with the  Acting Archivist’s statements because the EOP system still lacks the  capability to search and retrieve all Bush Administration records in  NARA’s possession. Specifically, as we reported in our briefing, NARA  used the EOP system to satisfy one request for presidential records during  the first 3 months of the transition, but used the less expensive replicated  systems to answer another 24 requests. In addition, before the transition,  NARA estimated that it would not complete ingesting data until May 2009,  limiting the capability of the system in the transition’s early months  regardless of the replication errors that ultimately occurred. Finally, the  Acting Archivist’s estimate that the Bush data will not be fully ingested  until the end of the fiscal year further highlights the fact that NARA still  possesses Bush Administration electronic records that cannot be searched  using EOP. Until all the Bush Administration records are ingested, the  EOP system will not be performing its stated function.
Regarding our recommendation that NARA include in its next expenditure  plan an analysis of the costs and benefits of using the EOP system to  respond to presidential records requests compared to the systems  currently being used, the Acting Archivist stated that it did not seem cost- effective to conduct a retrospective analysis as to whether there might  have been technology solutions for systems that have already been retired.  However, NARA has not yet provided evidence that the mitigation plan  systems have been retired. In addition, we are not recommending a study  of past alternatives, but a study of the ongoing costs and benefits of using  the EOP system compared with the technology used under NARA’s risk  mitigation plan. This would provide the agency with useful information in  planning future spending, given that NARA was able to respond to  requests for Bush Administration records using systems costing  significantly less than what has been spent to date on the EOP system.  Such an analysis could also inform the contingency plan the Acting  Archivist said is being finalized in response to our recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to the Archivist of the United States.  The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major  contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Briefing to Staff of Congressional Committees on NARA’s Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan
subsections: section_title: Review of NARA’s Fiscal Year 2009 Electronic Records Archive Expenditure Plan
section_title: Attachments
paragraphs: Since 2001, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA or the Archives)  has been working to develop a modern Electronic Records Archive (ERA). This major  information system is estimated to cost more than $550 million and is intended to  preserve and provide access to massive volumes of all types and formats of electronic  records, including presidential records, independent of their original hardware or software.  NARA plans for the system to manage the entire life cycle of electronic records, from their  ingestion through preservation and dissemination to customers. It is to consist of    infrastructure elements, including hardware and operating systems;    business applications that will support the transfer, preservation, dissemination,  and management of all types of records; and    a means for public access via the Internet.
Because of the system’s complexity, NARA awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin to  develop ERA in phases, or increments, the first of which was originally scheduled to  achieve initial operating capability (IOC) in September 2007. However, the contractor did  not meet the original cost and schedule milestones due, in part, to productivity issues with  its initial development team.
In response, NARA and Lockheed Martin agreed to a revised schedule and strategy,  consisting of a two-pronged development approach.
First, they agreed to continue development of the original system but delayed  capabilities to later increments. According to NARA, IOC for this system, now  referred to as the “base” ERA system, was achieved in June 2008 as planned  under the revised schedule.
Second, NARA conducted parallel development of a separate system dedicated  initially to receiving electronic records from the outgoing Bush Administration in  January 2009. This system, referred to as the Executive Office of the President  (EOP) system, uses a different architecture from that of the ERA base: it was built  on a commercial product that was to provide the basic requirements for processing  presidential electronic records, such as rapid ingestion of records and the ability to  search content. NARA believed that if it could not ingest the Bush records in a way  that supported search and retrieval immediately after the transition, it risked not  being able to effectively respond to requests from Congress, the new  administration, and the courts for these records—a critical agency mission. NARA  certified the EOP system for IOC in December 2008.
As mandated by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, NARA is required to submit an  expenditure plan before obligating multiyear funds for the ERA program. As in the  previous year, the plan must satisfy the following legislative conditions:    meet the capital planning and investment control review requirements established  by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including Circular A-11;    comply with the agency’s enterprise architecture;    conform to the agency’s enterprise life-cycle methodology;    comply with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and system acquisition  management practices of the federal government;     be approved by the agency and OMB; and    be reviewed by GAO. tion Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, div. D, title V, 123 St. 524, 667 (Mr. 11, 2009).
On March 6, 2009, the agency finalized the 2009 expenditure plan that was submitted to  the House and Senate appropriations committees to support its request for $67 million in  ERA funding for fiscal year 2009, which is comprised of $45.8 million in multi-year funds  and $21.2 million in single-year funds. fil yer 2009 budget authority totled $67.6 million which inclde $0.6 million crried over from mlti-yer fnd  pproprited in previous ye.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology    determine whether NARA’s fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan satisfies the    provide an update on NARA’s progress in implementing our prior expenditure plan    provide any other observations about the expenditure plan and the ERA  acquisition.
To assess compliance with the legislative conditions, we    reviewed NARA’s fiscal year 2009 exhibit 300 submissionto OMB to determine  the extent to which the agency has complied with OMB’s capital planning and  investment control requirements;     obtained and reviewed data on NARA’s enterprise architecture to determine the  status of the agency’s enterprise architecture efforts;     reviewed NARA’s enterprise systems development life cycle methodology that  includes processes for managing system investments, configuration management,  and risks, and reviewed related documentation concerning how these processes  were implemented for the ERA project, such as minutes of oversight boards and  the risk management plan;    reviewed internal assessments of ERA;     obtained and reviewed OMB’s approval of the expenditure plan; and     reviewed and analyzed the fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan submitted by the  agency in March 2009. develop n exhiit 300, o known as the Cpitl Asset Plnd Business CasSummry, to justify ech reqt for jor informtion technology invetment. OMB et forth reqirement for the exhiit 300 in Circr A-11, Prt 7, Plnning,  Bdgeting, Acqition, nd Mgement of Cpitl Asset.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology  To determine the status of our two prior recommendations, we obtained and reviewed  monthly congressional reports and the EOP mitigation plan. We reviewed these  documents to determine whether NARA (1) developed a risk mitigation plan to ensure  indexing and searching of records from the Bush Administration in the event that the EOP  system was not complete in time for the January 2009 presidential transition and (2)  included earned value data in its monthly reports to Congress.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology  To develop observations on the ERA expenditure plan and acquisition, we analyzed the  cost and schedule information contained in the expenditure plan, reviewed agency and  contractor documents such as EOP test results—including acceptance tests and security  and risk assessments—and cost and schedule reports, and performed analysis of Earned  Value Management (EVM) data and key processes used in NARA’s EVM system. We  also reviewed federal requirements for contingency planning and NARA plans for  corrective action on issues identified. In addition, we interviewed NARA officials. We did  not evaluate the controls over the procedures used to transfer records from the White  House to NARA or controls over processes used to determine which records were  presidential records. project mgement tool tht integrte the techniccope of work with chedle nd cot element for invetment  plnning nd control. It compre the ve of work ccomplihed in  given period with the ve of the work expected in tht period.  Difference in expecttion re measured in oth cond chedle vrince. OMB reqire gencie to use EVM in their  performnce-based mgement tem for the prt of n invetment in which development effort i reqired or tem  improvement re nder wy.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology  To assess the reliability of the cost and schedule information contained in the expenditure  plan, we interviewed NARA officials in order to gain an understanding of the data and  discuss our use of the data in this briefing. In addition, we compared schedule information  in the fiscal year 2009 plan with information in the fiscal year 2008 plan and the ERA  integrated schedule. We did not, however, assess the accuracy and reliability of the  information reported in these documents.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 to May 2009 at NARA’s College  Park, Maryland, location 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 based on our audit  objectives.
NARA’s fiscal year 2009 plan satisfies the six legislative conditions contained in the 2009  Omnibus Appropriations Act.
NARA implemented one of the recommendations we made last year, and partially  implemented the other:     We recommended that NARA develop a risk mitigation plan to ensure indexing and  searching of records from the Bush Administration in the event that the EOP  system was not complete in time for the January 2009 presidential transition.  NARA finalized its plan in November 2008. It stated that, in the event that records  could not be ingested into EOP in a timely manner, NARA intended to acquire  hardware and software to replicate the systems containing the data and use them  to retrieve requested records.
We recommended that, to improve the utility of information provided to Congress,  NARA include summary measures of project performance against ERA cost and  schedule estimates in its monthly reports. In July 2008, NARA began including an  Earned Value Summary as an appendix to its monthly reports to Congress.  However, after reviewing NARA’s earned value data, we found methodological  weaknesses that could limit NARA’s ability to accurately report on program cost,  schedule, and performance (these weaknesses are discussed further below).
We have four observations related to the ERA program and fiscal year 2009 expenditure  plan:    Cost, schedule, and performance data in the expenditure plan do not provide a  clear picture of ERA system progress. The plan does not specifically identify  whether completed increments included all previously planned functionality or what  functionality will be provided in future increments. For example, the plan does not  specify what outcomes NARA expects to achieve with the remainder of its fiscal  year 2009 funding. NARA officials attributed the plan’s lack of specificity to ongoing  negotiations with its contractor. Until NARA fully describes the outcomes expected  for the remainder of the year, congressional appropriators will lack information  important for evaluating the agency’s request for ERA funds.
NARA’s expenditure plan states that it relies on Earned Value Management (EVM),  an important tool for project management and control that is intended to provide,  among other things, objective reports of program status. However, NARA is fully  addressing only 5 of the 13 practices required to effectively implement EVM, which  limits the reliability of its progress reports. NARA officials attributed these  weaknesses, in part, to documentation that did not accurately reflect the program’s  current status. Without consistently following these best practices, NARA will be  hindered in accurately monitoring and reporting on the cost, schedule, and  performance of the ERA system.
Although NARA certified initial operating capability for the EOP system in  December 2008, the system is not currently fulfilling its intended purpose. Less  than 3 percent of the Bush Administration electronic records NARA received have  been successfully ingested into the system. NARA officials estimate that the  records will not be fully ingested until October 2009. Agency officials attributed  delays in part to unexpected difficulties, such as data not being extracted in  expected formats and incomplete replication of one type of data. In the interim,  NARA is primarily supporting search, processing, and retrieval of presidential  records using the replicated systems described in the risk mitigation plan we  recommended the agency develop last year, which cost less than $600,000 to put  in place, compared to nearly $40 million it has obligated for EOP. Until NARA  completely and accurately ingests the Bush Administration presidential records into  EOP, it will be unable to use the system for its intended purpose and will incur  additional costs maintaining the systems it is now using to support requests for  these records.
NARA lacks a contingency plan for the ERA system in the event of a system failure  or disruption. While NARA identified 11 security weaknesses related to  contingency planning during acceptance testing and listed actions planned to  address them, NARA has completed only one of the 11 planned actions. Further,  NARA does not have a fully functional backup and restore process for the ERA  system, a key component of planning for system availability in the event of a failure  or disruption. According to NARA officials, a full system contingency plan is under  development. However, until such a plan is tested and implemented, NARA risks  prolonged unavailability of the ERA system in the event of a failure or disruption.
We are recommending that the Archivist of the United States take the following actions:    Report to Congress on the specific outcomes to be achieved by ERA program  funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2009.
Provide detailed information in future expenditure plans on what was spent and  delivered for deployed increments of the ERA system and cost and functional  delivery plans for future increments.
Strengthen the earned value process so that it follows the practices described in  GAO’s guide and more reliable cost, schedule, and performance information can  be included in future expenditure plans and monthly reports.
Include in NARA’s next expenditure plan an analysis of the costs and benefits of  using the EOP system to respond to presidential records requests compared to  other existing systems currently being used to respond to such requests.
Develop and implement a system contingency plan for ERA that follows  contingency guidance for federal systems.
In written comments on a draft of this briefing, the Acting Archivist of the United States  agreed with 4 of our 5 recommendations. Regarding our recommendation that NARA  report on the costs and benefits of using the EOP system to answer requests for  presidential records compared to other systems, the Acting archivist stated that such a  comparison would not be valid because of the differing capabilities of the systems and  that the EOP system has accomplished enormous amounts of work. We disagree that a  comparison of the costs and benefits of EOP and other systems would be invalid,  because a valid analysis should account for the differences in capabilities. In addition, we  noted that the replicated systems currently used to answer requests include nearly half of  the records transferred to NARA and have been used to answer most of the requests  received to date.
The ability to find, organize, use, share, appropriately dispose of, and save records—the  essence of records management—is vital for the effective functioning of the federal  government. In the wake of the transition from paper-based to electronic processes,  records are increasingly electronic, and the volumes of electronic records produced by  federal agencies are vast and rapidly growing, providing challenges to NARA as the  nation’s record keeper and archivist.
Besides sheer volume, other factors contributing to the challenge of electronic records  include their complexity and their dependence on software and hardware. Specifically, the  computer operating systems and the hardware and software that are used to create  electronic documents can become obsolete. If they do, they may leave behind records  that cannot be read without the original hardware and software. Further, the storage  media for these records are affected by both obsolescence and decay. Media may be  fragile, have limited shelf life, and become obsolete in a few years. For example, few  computers today have disk drives that can read information stored on 8- or 5¼-inch  diskettes, even if the diskettes themselves remain readable.
Another challenge is the growth in electronic presidential records. The Presidential  Records Act gives the Archivist of the United States responsibility for the custody, control,  and preservation of presidential records upon the conclusion of a President’s term of  office. The act states that the Archivist has an affirmative duty to make such records  available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions  of the act.
In response to widely recognized challenges, the Archives began a research and  development program to develop a modern archive for electronic records. In 2001, NARA  hired a contractor to develop policies and plans to guide the overall acquisition of an  electronic records system. In December 2003, the agency released a request for  proposals for the design of ERA. In August 2004, NARA awarded two firm-fixed-price  contracts for the design phase, totaling about $20 million—one to Harris Corporation and  the other to Lockheed Martin Corporation. On September 8, 2005, NARA announced the  selection of Lockheed Martin Corporation to build the ERA system. l Acqition Regtion,  firm-fixed-price contrct provide for  price tht i not subject to ny djustment  on the bas of the contrctor’ cot experience in performing the contrct.
The total value of the cost plus award fee contract with Lockheed through 2012 is about  $317 million. As of fiscal year 2008, NARA has paid Lockheed $111.9 million for system  development. t plus rd fee contrct i  cot reimbuement contrct tht provide for  fee conting of  basmont fixed t inception  of the contrct plus rd mont tht me given based pon dgmentl evuation y the government of contrct  performnce.
The purpose of ERA is to ensure that the records of the federal government are  preserved for as long as needed, independent of the original hardware or software that  created them. ERA is to provide the technology to ensure that anyone, anywhere,  anytime can access NARA’s electronic records holdings with the current technology that  will be in use.
The system is to enable the general public, federal agencies, and NARA staff to search  and access information about all types of federal records, whether in NARA custody or  not, as well as to search for and access electronic records stored in the system. Using  various search engines, the system is to provide the ability to create and execute  searches, view search results, and select assets for output or presentation.
Figure 1 provides a simplified depiction of the system’s business concept.
As currently planned, the ERA system is to consist of six major components.
Ingest will enable the transfer of electronic records from federal agencies.    Archival Storage will enable stored records to be managed in a way that guarantees  their integrity and availability.
Dissemination will enable users to search descriptions and business data about all  types of records, and to search the content of electronic records and retrieve them.
Records Management will support scheduling, appraisal, description, and requests  to transfer custody of all types of records, as well as ingesting and managing  electronic records, including the capture of selected records data (such as origination  date, format, and disposition).
Preservation will enable secure and reliable storage of files in formats in which they  were received, as well as creating backup copies for off-site storage.
Local Services & Control will regulate how the ERA components communicate with  each other, manage internal security, and enable telecommunications and system  network management. chedle i  docment tht decri gency record, eablihe  period for their retention y the gency, nd providendtory intrction for wht to do with them when they re no longer needed for crrent government business.    pprsal i the process of determining the vnd the finl dipoition of record, mking them either temporry or  permnent.
NARA currently plans to deliver these components in five separate increments:     Increment 1 was deployed in two releases. Release 1 established the ERA base  system—the hardware, software, and communications needed to deploy the  system. Release 2 enabled functional archives with the ability to preserve  electronic data in their original format, enable disposition agreements and  scheduling, and receive unclassified and sensitive data from four federal agencies;  according to NARA officials, this increment was completed in June 2008.
Increment 2 includes the EOP system, which was designed to handle records from  the Executive Office of the President. The EOP system uses an architecture  based on a commercial off-the-shelf product that supplies basic requirements,  including rapid ingest of records and immediate and flexible search of content.  Increment 2 includes basic case management for special access requests. This  release was certified for initial operating capability (IOC) in December 2008.
The second release of Increment 2 and Increments 3 through 5 are to provide  additional ERA functionality, such as public access. originl EOP pl inclded  NtionSecrity Stem. NARA subseqently deferred the cability to inget classified  ntionecrity d, ting tht the volme to e trferred from the Bush Adminitrtion did not support the eablihment of ll  le classified EOP tem as plnned. Inted, NARA migrted the classified d from the Bush Adminitrtion to n exiting  classified NARA preidentil liry tem.  re req NARA receive from the crrent nd former dminitrtion, Congress, nd the cort for ccess to preidentil  record.
Figure 2 shows the current incremental timetable for deploying ERA and the functionality  planned for each increment.
Since 2002, we have issued several reports on ERA and its development. In May  2008, we testified that the development of the ERA base was proceeding according to  the revised schedule, although it faced challenges in meeting several testing deadlines.  We also testified that the timely completion of the EOP system was uncertain, in part, due to ongoing negotiations between NARA and Lockheed Martin on system capabilities, tim frames, and limited information about the nature of the records to be delivered. ne  17, 2002). Records Management: Planning for the Electronic Records Archives Has Improved, GAO-04-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.  23, 2004); Information Management: Acquisition of the Electronic Records Archives Is Progressing, GAO-05-802 (Washington, D.C.;  Jly 15, 2005); Electronic Records Archives: The National Archives and Records Administration’s Fiscal Year 2006 Expenditure Plan,  GAO-06-906 (Washington, D.C.: Ag. 18, 2006); nd Information Management: The National Archives and Records Administration’s  Fiscal Year 2007 Expenditure Plan, GAO-07-987 (Washington, D.C.: Jly 27, 2007).   y  14, 2008).
In September 2008 we reported that NARA did not fully comply with its enterprise life- cycle methodology because it had not yet developed a mitigation plan to process the  outgoing administration’s records into the ERA system at the time of the January 2009  presidential transition. NARA intended to develop a mitigation plan at the end of 2008,  when it expected to know more about the types and volume of the presidential records  that it would receive. We reported that this proposed schedule would leave NARA little  time to prepare for and implement the plan.
As of April 2009, the life-cycle cost for ERA through March 2012 was estimated at $551.4  million; the total life-cycle cost includes not only the development contract costs, but also  program management, research and development, and program office support, among  other things.
Table 1 shows the amount spent for ERA in fiscal year 2008. Table 2 shows the reported  spending from the program’s inception to the end of fiscal year 2008.
In March 2009, NARA submitted a fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan as required to obtain  the release of multiyear funds for ERA. The Omnibus Appropriations Act states that the  agency could not obligate these funds until the appropriations committees reviewed and  approved the expenditure plan. As of March 31, 2009, the appropriations committees  have released $28.5 million of fiscal year 2009 multi-year funds with $17.3 million  remaining to be released. Single-year funds appropriated for fiscal year 2009 totaled  $21.2 million.
NARA’s estimated ERA obligations for fiscal year 2009, including both single-year and  multi-year funds, are $67.6 million. NARA plans to spend $11.1 million of this amount on  EOP, and the remainder on the ERA base system and ERA program. As of March 31,  2009, NARA had obligated $23.9 million. Table 3 shows how NARA planned to distribute  funds across the ERA program in fiscal year 2009.
Objective 1: NARA’s expenditure plan satisfies the fiscal year 2009 legislative  conditions.
Objective 2: NARA has partially implemented our previous recommendations  In July 2008, we made two recommendations to NARA—developing a mitigation plan and  enhancing ERA project oversight. NARA implemented one of our recommendations and  partially implemented the other.
Objective 3: Observations about NARA’s ERA Acquisition and Expenditure Plan  Observation 1: Cost, schedule, and performance data in the expenditure plan do not  provide a clear picture of system progress.
NARA’s expenditure plan should include a sufficient level and scope of information for  Congress to understand what system capabilities and benefits are to be delivered, by  when, and at what costs, and what progress is being made against the commitments that  were made in prior expenditure plans. However, NARA’s plan does not clearly show what  functions have been delivered to date or what functions will be included in future  increments and at what cost.
As of fiscal year 2008, NARA has spent $237.4 million for ERA, or about 43 percent of the  program’s estimated life-cycle costs through 2012. NARA’s expenditure plan describes  the results achieved with ERA funding at a high level. For example, as described in the  plan, Increment 1, also known as the ERA base, includes the system hardware and  software as well as some capability to preserve electronic data in their original format.  Also, according to the plan, Increment 2, the EOP system, includes the capability to  perform content searching and basic case management for presidential records.  However, the plan does not provide a complete picture of what capabilities were delivered  in these increments. In addition, even though NARA reported that planned functionality in  both of these increments had been deferred to future increments, the plan does not  provide cost estimates for the deferred functionality. As a result, it is not possible to fully  identify what functionality has been delivered to date and at what cost.
Additionally, NARA states it will spend $21.3 million to continue development of Increment  3, including implementing a common architecture, extending storage capabilities, and  providing public access and preservation capabilities. However, NARA’s fiscal year 2009  plan lacks specifics about the scope of these improvements. For example, it does not  quantify by how much it will extend storage capacity. Also, NARA’s plan does not specify  when these functions will be completed or how much will be spent on each one.
Finally, while NARA’s plan reports that fiscal year 2009 funds will be used to support  operations and maintenance of the completed base and EOP increments, it does not  specify how much will be needed to address issues deferred when the systems were  accepted. For example, the plan does not specify the funding required during the fiscal  year to address issues in the EOP system that were identified but deferred when the  system was certified for initial operating capability in December 2008. NARA officials  subsequently estimated that such efforts will cost $1.1 million.
NARA officials attributed the plan’s lack of specificity to ongoing negotiations with  Lockheed Martin. NARA provided broad descriptions of tasks for future development to  Lockheed and is currently working with the contractor to refine them, and expects  Lockheed to provide a proposal for accomplishing these tasks in May 2009. It is also in  negotiations over the costs of addressing issues that were deferred at IOC.
Without more specific information on what functionality has been and will be delivered  and the costs associated with those functions, NARA and other interested parties will  have limited abilities to measure overall program progress. In addition, until NARA  specifies how it will use funds requested for the remainder of the year, congressional  appropriators will lack information important for evaluating NARA’s request.
Observation 2: NARA is not consistently following best practices in Earned Value  Management  NARA’s expenditure plan states that, in managing ERA, the agency uses Earned Value  Management (EVM) tools and requires the same of its contractors. EVM, if implemented  appropriately, can provide objective reports of project status, produce early warning signs  of impending schedule delays and cost overruns, and provide unbiased estimates of a  program’s total costs. We recently published a set of best practices on cost estimation  that addresses the use of EVM. Comparing NARA’s EVM data to those practices, we  determined that NARA fully addressed only 5 of the 13 practices. For example, we found  weaknesses within the EVM performance reports, including contractor reports of funds  spent without work scheduled or completed, and work completed and funds spent where  no work was planned. rch, 2009).
In addition, the program has not recently performed an integrated cost-schedule risk  analysis. This type of analysis provides an estimate of the how much the program will  cost upon completion and can be compared to the estimate derived from EVM data to  determine if it is likely to be sound. NARA officials attributed these weaknesses, in part, to  documentation that did not accurately reflect the program’s current status. By not  consistently adhering to identified best practices, NARA’s program management data  may be unreliable, likely hindering NARA’s ability to accurately monitor and report on  program costs, schedule, and performance. Further detail on these best practices and our  assessment can be found in attachment 1.
Observation 3: Although NARA certified initial operating capability for EOP, the system is  not currently fulfilling its intended purpose.
NARA designed and developed the EOP system to support the transfer of electronic  records at the end of the George W. Bush Administration as required by the Presidential  Records Act. In fiscal year 2008, NARA obligated $27.9 million for the planning and  development of EOP in order for the system to be ready for the presidential transition.  The system was to ingest the electronic records and to support search, processing, and  retrieval of records—particularly for “special access” requests for the ongoing business  of Congress and the next administration—immediately after the presidential transition on  January 20, 2009. Responding to special access requests from the current administration,  Congress, and the courts is a critical part of NARA’s mission and one of the major  capabilities intended for the EOP system. re req NARA receive from the crrent nd former dminitrtion, Congress, nd the cort for ccess to preidentil  record. The prioritie re determined y NARA’ Office of Preidentil Lirie based on experience with the record of previous  dminitrtion.
In December 2008, NARA certified IOC for the EOP system, based on successful  completion of acceptance and security testing. In January 2009, NARA took custody of  approximately 78.4 terabytes of unclassified Bush Administration electronic records,  which agency officials characterized as all such records.  Before the transition, NARA had  estimated that it was going to receive almost 124 terabytes of presidential records.  According to NARA officials, the difference between the estimated volume of records and  the actual records received is due to inaccurate information provided by the previous  administration.
NARA copied the records data to large storage arrays, which were initially stored in the  Washington, D.C. area, then moved to the ERA facility in West Virginia, where ingestion  of records into EOP takes place. As of April 27, only 2.3 terabytes of data have been fully  ingested from the first storage array into the EOP system, where they are available for  search and retrieval. This constitutes about 3 percent of all Bush Administration  unclassified electronic records. NARA currently estimates that ingest of all 78.4 terabytes  of unclassified records will not be complete until October 2009. Before the transition,  NARA has estimated that ingest would be completed by May 2009. abt one trillion yte or abt 1,000 gigabyte.
NARA officials attributed delays, in part, to unexpected difficulties. For example,  according to NARA officials, once they started using the EOP system, they discovered  that records from certain White House systems were not being extracted in the expected  format. As a result, it had to develop additional software tools to facilitate the full  extraction of data from White House systems prior to ingest into EOP. In addition, in April  2009, NARA discovered that 31 terabytes of priority data that had been partially ingested  between December 2008 and January 2009 was neither complete nor accurate because  it was taken from an incomplete copy of the source system. NARA has started to re-copy  data from what it believes to be a complete version of the source data.
Because the records had not been ingested into the EOP system, NARA had to use other  systems to respond to requests for presidential records. As of April 24, 2009, NARA had  received 43 special access requests for information on the Bush Administration. Only one  of these requests used EOP for search, and no responsive records were found. To  respond to 24 of these requests, NARA used the replicated White House systems  described in its risk mitigation plan, which called for acquiring the software and related  hardware used by the White House to manage a records management system and an  image database. According to NARA officials, these replicated systems cost $570,000 to  put into service. The sources used to respond to the 42 requests that did not use EOP are  listed in table 6 below.
Observation 4: NARA lacks a contingency plan for ensuring continuity of the ERA system.
Contingency planning is a critical component of information protection. If normal  operations are interrupted, network managers must be able to detect, mitigate, and  recover from service disruptions while preserving access to vital information. Therefore, a  contingency plan details emergency response, backup operations, and disaster recovery  for information systems. It is important that these plans be clearly documented,  communicated to potentially affected staff, updated to reflect current operations, and  regularly tested.
The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires each agency to  develop, document, and implement an information security program that includes plans  and procedures to ensure continuity of operations for information systems that support  the agency’s operations and assets. The National Institute of Standards and Technology  (NIST) requires that agencies’ systems have contingency plans and that the plans  address, at a minimum, identification and notification of key personnel, plan activation,  system recovery, and system reconstitution. Specifically, NIST identifies 10 security  control activities related to contingency planning, including developing a formal  contingency plan, training employees on their contingency roles and responsibilities, and  identifying a geographically separate alternative processing site to support critical  business functions in the event of a system failure or disruption. tionl Intitte of Sndrd nd Technology, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems, Specil  Publiction 800-53 Reviion 1 (Githersburg, MD: Decemer 2006).
NARA has not developed a contingency plan for the ERA system to ensure availability in  the event of a system failure or disruption. In December 2008, NARA issued an  assessment that detailed the results of an evaluation of the security features associated  with the ERA system. This assessment identified weaknesses related to all 10 of the  contingency planning control activities, which were attributed to the system not having the  required contingency plans. OMB guidancerequires that when an agency identifies  security weaknesses, it must also develop a plan of action to address the identified  weaknesses, including the resources required to fix the weaknesses, the scheduled  completion date of each fix, and the current status of the mitigation. Accordingly, NARA  developed a plan of action and milestone document which was to detail all the primary  risk elements present in the system and the corresponding plan of actions to mitigate or  correct identified deficiencies before the ERA system reached IOC. However, while the  initial plan of action and milestones discussed fixes for eight contingency planning control  activities, it did not address two others—contingency planning policies and procedures  and telecommunications services. For those eight control activities mentioned in the  document, no timetable was provided for completion to address the identified issues. A  subsequent planning document was developed that provided further detail on the  identified risks. gement nd Bdget, “Gidnce for Prepring nd Submitting Secrity Pl of Action nd Miletone,” Memorndm  for the He of Exective Deprtment nd Agencie, Mitchell E. Dniel, Jr., Director, M-02-01, Octoer 17, 2001.
The revised plan of action and milestones document provided the scheduled dates of  completion as well as the current status of the mitigation activities. However, this version  did not mention the various risk categories (i.e., “low,” “medium,” “high”) and used a  variety of terms to describe the status of each weakness (e.g., “pending,” “planned,”  “ongoing”) without providing clear definitions of their meaning. Further, 10 of 11 items in  the plan of action to address contingency planning weaknesses remain open as of April  2009.
In addition, NIST standards require that agencies back up information contained within a  system and employ a mechanism that would restore the system after a disruption or  failure. Following product acceptance tests for EOP, NARA reported that the backup and  restore functions for the commercial off-the-shelf archiving product used at the ERA  facility in West Virginia tested successfully, but there were concerns about the amount of  time required to execute the process. In lab tests, the restore process took about 56  hours for 11 million files. This is significant because, while the backup is being  performed, the replication of data must be stopped; otherwise it could bring the system to  a halt. Subsequently, NARA officials stated that they have conducted two successful  backups, but the restore process had not been fully tested to ensure that the combined  backup and restore capability can be successfully implemented. The most recent backup,  conducted at Rocket Center on March 20, 2009, took 95 hours and 38 minutes for 11.25  terabytes of data, but NARA could not provide any documentation to substantiate the  success of the backups or information on the length of time needed to perform the restore  function. timte tht it has received more thn 300 million file from the Bush Adminitrtion.
NARA considered the initial backup and restore test a success because it met the  requirements set for the contractor. According to NARA’s requirements documentation,  among other things, the Backup and Recovery service was supposed to “provide the  capability to recover EOP ERA records as required to re-establish the system,” and  “provide the capability to recover application files to re-establish the EOP ERA system.”  However, as in the examples cited, none of the backup/restore requirements specified  how long the backup and restore process should take. According to NARA officials, a full  system contingency plan is currently under development.
Without a complete and successfully tested contingency plan, there is an increased risk  that, in the event of a major system failure or disruption, NARA would not be able to  effectively restore its information and ensure system availability. Such a significant risk  severely limits the reliability of the system.
While NARA has continued to make progress on the ERA system, that progress cannot  be fully quantified because NARA’s expenditure plan does not clearly identify what  functions have already been delivered, how much was spent to provide each function, or  how much is required to maintain the delivered increments. NARA’s current plan similarly  lacks details on the functions to be provided in future increments and the costs associated  with them, including development efforts scheduled to take place in the remainder of this  year. In addition, although NARA has been using Earned Value Management to track  program cost, schedule, and performance, weaknesses in its EVM data limit NARA’s  ability to accurately report on the project’s progress. Without more specific and accurate  information on the immediate and long-term goals of the program and the outcomes  expected from its resulting efforts, NARA will be hindered in effectively monitoring and  reporting on the cost, schedule, and performance of the ERA system and congressional  appropriators will lack information necessary to evaluate the agency’s requests for funds.
Although NARA certified that the EOP portion of the ERA system had achieved initial  operating capability as planned in December 2008, the system has been of limited use  because of delays in ingesting electronic records into the system. Further, even though it  has obligated nearly $40 million on EOP, NARA has instead answered requests for Bush  electronic records using existing systems or replicated White House systems that cost  less than $600,000. Under its current schedule, the Bush Administration records will not  be fully ingested into the system until October 2009. However, even when the data are  fully ingested, the system’s lack of a complete, fully tested contingency plan increases the  risk that a system failure or disruption will result in the system being unavailable for  several days or more.
We recommend that the Archivist of the United States take the following actions:    Report to Congress on the specific outcomes to be achieved by ERA program  funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2009.
Provide detailed information in future expenditure plans on what was spent and  delivered for deployed increments of the ERA system and cost and functional  delivery plans for future increments.
Strengthen the earned value process so that it follows the practices described in  GAO’s guide and more reliable cost, schedule, and performance information can  be included in future expenditure plans and monthly reports.
Include in NARA’s next expenditure plan an analysis of the costs and benefits of  using the EOP system to respond to presidential records requests compared to  other existing systems currently being used to respond to such requests.
Develop and implement a system contingency plan for ERA that follows  contingency guidance for federal systems.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation  In written comments on a draft of this briefing, the Acting Archivist of the United States  agreed with 4 of our 5 recommendations. Specifically, in response to our recommendation  that NARA report to Congress on the specific outcomes to be achieved during the  remainder of the year, she indicated that a briefing on that subject was provided on April  27, 2009. In addition, she agreed to:    ensure that future expenditure plans include more details on the costs and  functions of future increments,    strive to comply with EVM best practices, and    complete the ERA system contingency plan.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation  Regarding our recommendation that NARA report on the costs and benefits of using the  EOP system to answer requests for presidential records compared to other systems, the  Acting Archivist raised several points. First she wrote that the EOP system is  accomplishing an enormous amount of work at exceptional speed, and that the system  has the capability to transfer and ingest records as they became available. However, as  indicated in our briefing, the EOP system has been of limited use to answering the  requests received to date. Further, the ingest of presidential records into the system  required the use of additional software tools and is now scheduled to take 5 months  longer than NARA estimated before the transition, even though NARA received a  significantly lower volume of records than anticipated. The Acting Archivist also wrote that  EOP supports functions other than the search of presidential records, such as the  lifecycle management of presidential records, and that comparisons between the  replicated systems and EOP are not valid. While we acknowledge that EOP was  designed to perform functions other than search, we disagree that a comparison between  EOP and other systems would not be valid. Instead, we believe that an appropriate  analysis of the costs and benefits of using the various systems should account for the  need to satisfy non-search requirements, such as lifecycle management of records, using  systems other than EOP.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation  Finally, the Acting Archivist wrote that the replicated systems were being used for a small  subset of records. However, these systems include nearly half of the records NARA  received, by volume. In addition, these same records have been the subject of most of  the requests received to date. We also addressed the Acting Archivist’s technical  comments, as appropriate.
section_title: NARA’s EVM processes only partially adhere to the thirteen practices that GAO has identified as necessary in developing a reliable EVM process. Specifically, NARA fully adhered to 5 of the 13 best practices in implementing EVM, partially adhered to 6, and did not adhere to 2. While NARA’s EVM data indicate that the project is meeting cost and some schedule targets, not adhering to best practices does not allow NARA to effectively measure progress or forecast cost overruns. See table 7 for details.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, key contributions to this report  were made by James R. Sweetman, Jr., Assistant Director; Monica Perez  Anatalio; Nabajyoti Barkakati; Carol Cha; Barbara Collier; Tisha  Derricotte; Jennifer Echard; Pamlutricia Greenleaf; Kush Malhotra; Lee  McCracken; and Tarunkant Mithani.