Information Technology: Agencies Need to Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of Investment Information
Published: 2006-01-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Each year, agencies submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case--the exhibit 300--to justify each request for a major information technology (IT) investment. The exhibit's content should reflect controls that agencies have established to ensure good project management, as well as showing that they have defined cost, schedule, and performance goals. It is thus a tool to help OMB and agencies identify and correct poorly planned or performing investments. In its budget and oversight role, OMB relies on the accuracy and completeness of this information. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which selected agencies have underlying support for the information in their fiscal year 2006 exhibit 300s. From five major departments having over $1 billion in IT expenditures in that year, GAO chose for analysis 29 exhibits for projects that supported a cross section of federal activities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Underlying support was often inadequate for information provided in the exhibit 300s reviewed. Three general types of weaknesses were evident. All exhibit 300s had documentation weaknesses. Documentation either did not exist or did not fully agree with specific areas of the exhibit 300. For example, both these problems occurred in relation to calculations of financial benefits for most investments. In addition, for 23 of the 29 investments, information on performance goals and measures was not supported by explanations of how agencies had initially measured their baseline levels of performance (from which they determine progress) or how they determined the actual progress reported in the exhibit 300. Agencies did not always demonstrate that they complied with federal or departmental requirements or policies with regard to management and reporting processes. For example, 21 investments were required to use a specific management system as the basis for the cost, schedule, and performance information in the exhibit 300, but only 6 did so following OMB-required standards. Also, none had cost analyses that fully complied with OMB requirements for cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. In contrast, most investments did demonstrate compliance with information security planning and training requirements. In sections that required actual cost data, these data were unreliable because they were not derived from cost-accounting systems with adequate controls. In the absence of such systems, agencies generally derived cost information from ad hoc processes. Officials from the five agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and the Treasury) attributed these shortcomings in support to lack of understanding of a requirement or how to respond to it. Agency officials mentioned in particular insufficient guidance or training, as well as lack of familiarity with particular requirements. The weaknesses in the 29 exhibit 300s raise questions regarding the sufficiency of the business cases for these major investments and the quality of the projects' management. Without adequate support in key areas, OMB and agency executives may be depending on unreliable information to make critical decisions on IT projects, thus putting at risk millions of dollars. Further, although the 29 examples cannot be directly projected to the over one thousand business cases developed each year across the federal government, the results suggest that the underlying causes for the weaknesses identified need attention. These weaknesses and their causes are also consistent with problems in project and investment management that are pervasive governmentwide, including at such agencies as the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, as documented in reports by GAO and others.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Each year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a central  role in determining how much the government plans to spend for  information technology (IT) and how these funds are allocated. The IT  budget is not insignificant: federal agencies requested over $65 billion in  fiscal year 2006. While these investments are critical to achieving the goals  of the federal government, for the past 3 years OMB has highlighted in the  President’s Budget tens of billions of dollars of IT investments that are at  risk. In the most recent budget, for fiscal year 2006, nearly 25 percent of the  funds requested, totaling about $15 billion, were considered by OMB to be  at risk.
A key component of OMB’s management and oversight of the IT budget  process is the exhibit 300, also known as the Capital Asset Plan and  Business Case, which is developed by agencies and reviewed by both  agencies and OMB. OMB sets forth requirements for the exhibit 300 in its  circular A-11. According to this guidance, agencies are required to perform  analyses and provide documentation to support decisions on proposed  major IT investments. The exhibit 300 is the means to accomplish this task:  it is a reporting mechanism intended to enable an agency to demonstrate to  its own management, as well as OMB, that it has employed the disciplines  of good project management; developed a strong business case for the  investment; and met other Administration priorities in defining the cost,  schedule, and performance goals proposed for the investment. The exhibit  300 comprises eight key sections, which cover spending, performance  goals and measures, analysis of alternatives, risk inventory and  assessment, acquisition strategy, project (investment) and funding plan,  enterprise architecture, and security and privacy. When considering IT  investments to recommend for funding, OMB relies on the accuracy and  completeness of the information reported in the exhibit 300s.
This report responds to your request that we determine the extent to which  selected agencies have underlying support for the information in their  fiscal year 2006 exhibit 300s. To accomplish this objective, we reviewed  exhibit 300s from the fiscal year 2006 budget submission, as well as  supporting documentation, for 29 major IT investments at five  departments. We compared information in each exhibit 300 with the  supporting documentation on the corresponding investment. Further  details on our objective, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix  I. Our work was conducted between March and November 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 included 1,087 IT projects,  totaling about $65 billion. The planned expenditures at the civilian agencies  comprised about $35 billion of that total cost. In particular, the five  departments in our review made up about one-third of the civilian planned  expenditures (see fig. 1).
OMB plays a key role in overseeing these IT investments and how they are  managed, stemming from its predominant mission: to assist the President  in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to supervise budget  administration in executive branch agencies. In helping to formulate the  President’s spending plans, OMB is responsible for evaluating the  effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures; assessing  competing funding demands among agencies; and setting funding  priorities. To carry out these responsibilities, OMB depends on agencies to  collect and report accurate and complete information; these activities  depend in turn on agencies having effective IT management practices.
subsections: section_title: Improvements in IT Management Are Goals of Laws and Guidance
paragraphs: To drive improvement in the implementation and management of IT  projects, the Congress enacted the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, which  expanded the responsibilities of OMB and the agencies that had been set under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires that  agencies engage in capital planning and performance- and results-based  management. The act also requires OMB to establish processes to analyze,  track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments in  information systems made by executive agencies. OMB is also required to  report to the Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved  as a result of major capital investments in information systems that are  made by executive agencies.
With regard to OMB’s responsibilities in this area, we recently issued a  report that provided recommendations to improve OMB’s processes for  monitoring high-risk IT investments. Since that report was released, OMB  has issued additional guidance outlining steps that agencies must take for  all high-risk projects to better ensure improved execution and performance  as well as promote more effective oversight.
In response to the Clinger-Cohen Act and other statutes, OMB developed  policy for planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of federal  capital assets. This policy is set forth in OMB Circular A-11 (section 300)  and in OMB’s Capital Programming Guide (supplement to Part 7 of  Circular A-11), which directs agencies to develop, implement, and use a  capital programming process to build their capital asset portfolios. Among  other things, OMB’s Capital Programming Guide directs agencies to  evaluate and select capital asset investments that will support core  mission functions that must be performed by the federal government  and demonstrate projected returns on investment that are clearly equal  to or better than alternative uses of available public resources;  institute performance measures and management processes that  monitor actual performance and compare to planned results; and  establish oversight mechanisms that require periodic review of  operational capital assets to determine how mission requirements might  have changed and whether the asset continues to fulfill mission  requirements and deliver intended benefits to the agency and  customers.
Among OMB’s goals in requiring the use of a capital programming process  is to assist agencies in complying with a number of results-oriented  requirements. Key requirements include those set by   the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, which (1) requires  agencies to establish cost, schedule, and measurable performance goals  for all major acquisition programs and (2) establishes that agencies  should achieve on average 90 percent of those goals;  the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which  establishes the foundation for budget decision making to achieve  strategic goals in order to meet agency mission objectives; and   the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, which  requires agencies to integrate IT security into their strategic and  operational planning processes, such as the capital planning and  enterprise architecture processes at the agency.
OMB is aided in its responsibilities by the Chief Information Officers (CIO)  Council as described by the E-Government Act of 2002. The council is  designated the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices  related to the design, acquisition, development, modernization, use,  operation, sharing, and performance of federal government information  resources. Among the specific functions of the CIO Council are the  development of recommendations for the Director of OMB on government  information resources management policies and requirements and the  sharing of experiences, ideas, best practices, and innovative approaches  related to information resources management. The CIO Council has issued  several guides on capital planning and investment management over the  past several years.
To further support the implementation of IT capital planning practices, we  have developed an IT investment management (ITIM) framework that  agencies can use in developing a stable and effective capital planning  process, as required by statute and directed in OMB’s Capital  Programming Guide. Consistent with the statutory focus on selecting,  controlling, and evaluating investments, this framework focuses on  these processes in relation to IT investments specifically. It is a tool that  can be used to determine both the status of an agency’s current IT  investment management capabilities and the additional steps that are  needed to establish more effective processes. Mature and effective  management of IT investments can vastly improve government  performance and accountability. Without good management, such  investments can result in wasteful spending and lost opportunities for  improving delivery of services to the public.
The ITIM framework lays out a coherent collection of key practices that,  when implemented in a coordinated manner, can lead an agency through a  robust set of analyses and decision points that support effective IT  investment management. The framework explicitly calls for consideration  of cost, schedule, benefit, and risk objectives, including the development of  analyses such as return on investment and a risk management plan. The  framework also describes the criticality of tracking progress using valid  and complete data. The guidance laid out in the ITIM framework is  consistent with the requirements of OMB’s Circular A-11 and matches it in  many instances. For example, among the requirements on the exhibit 300 is  that agencies indicate that the investment has been reviewed and approved  by the responsible oversight entity. The agency investment review board is  a critical element of the ITIM framework, and the expectation for the board  to select and oversee IT investments is explicit.
In previous work using our IT investment management framework, we  reported that the use of IT investment management practices by agencies  was mixed. For example, a few agencies that have followed the ITIM  framework in implementing capital planning processes have made  significant improvements. In contrast, however, we and others have  continued to identify weaknesses at agencies in many areas, including  immature management processes to support both the selection and  oversight of major IT investments and the measurement of actual versus  expected performance in meeting established IT performance measures.  For example:   We recently reported that the HHS senior investment board does not  regularly review component agencies’ IT investments, leaving close to  90 percent of its discretionary investments without an appropriate level  of executive oversight. To remedy this weakness, we recommended  that the department (1) establish a process for the investment board to  regularly review and track the performance of a defined set of  component agency IT systems against expectations and (2) take  corrective actions when these expectations are not being met.
At DHS, we determined that the department’s draft information  resources management strategic plan did not include fully defined goals  and performance measures. To address this weakness, we  recommended that the department establish IT goals and performance  measures that, at a minimum, address how information and technology  management contributes to program productivity, the efficiency and  effectiveness of agency operations, and service to the public.
A recent review by the DOD Inspector General determined that over 90  percent of the business cases submitted to OMB in support of the DOD  fiscal year 2006 budget request did not completely respond to one or  more data elements addressing security funding, certification and  accreditation, training and security plans, and enterprise architecture.  The DOD Inspector General concluded that, as a result, these  submissions continued to have limited value and did not demonstrate  that the department was effectively managing its proposed IT  investments for fiscal year 2006.
section_title: Exhibit 300 Supports OMB and Agency Oversight of IT Management
paragraphs: Besides providing policy for planning, budgeting, acquisition, and  management of federal capital assets, section 300 of OMB’s Circular A-11  instructs agencies on budget justification and reporting requirements for  major IT investments. Section 300 defines the budget exhibit 300, also  called the Capital Asset Plan and Business Case, as a document that  agencies submit to OMB to justify resource requests for major IT  investments. According to OMB, only priority capital asset investments that  comply with the policies for good capital programming, as described in the  Capital Programming Guide, will be recommended for funding in the  President’s Budget.
The exhibit 300 was established as a source of information on which to  base both quantitative decisions about budgetary resources consistent with  the Administration’s program priorities and qualitative assessments about  whether the agency’s planning, acquisition, management, and use of capital  assets (investments) are consistent with OMB policy and guidance. The  types of information included in the exhibit 300 are intended, among other  things, to help OMB and the agencies identify and correct poorly planned  or performing investments (i.e., investments that are behind schedule, over  budget, or not delivering expected results) and real or potential systemic  weaknesses in federal information resource management (such as a  shortage of sufficiently qualified project managers).
According to Circular A-11, the information in the exhibit 300 allows the  agency and OMB to review and evaluate each agency’s IT spending and to  compare IT spending across the federal government. Further, the  information helps the agency and OMB to provide a full and accurate  accounting of IT investments for the agency, as required by the Paperwork  Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act.
The exhibit 300 is required for all assets, though certain sections apply only  to information technology. Table 1 provides a description of the key  sections of the exhibit 300, as well as examples of the types of  documentation that provide support for the data summarized in the exhibit  300 (although the supporting documentation may take other forms). This  support may be derived from a variety of sources, including financial  management systems and management processes that agencies carry out  to comply with federal requirements and guidelines (such as the Federal  Information Security Management Act of 2002 and the Federal Enterprise Architecture), as well as from analyses carried out specifically in support  of the management of the investment.
According to OMB guidance, the life-cycle stage of the asset affects what is  reported on the exhibit 300:   New investments (i.e., proposed for budget year or later, or in  development) must be justified based on the need to fill a gap in the  agency’s ability to meet strategic goals and objectives with the lowest  life-cycle costs of all possible alternatives and provide risk-adjusted cost  and schedule goals and measurable performance benefits.
Mixed life-cycle investments (i.e., investments that are operational but  include some developmental effort, such as a technology refresh) must  demonstrate satisfactory progress toward achieving baseline cost,  schedule, and performance goals using an EVM system.
Operational investments (i.e., steady state) must demonstrate, among  other things, how close actual annual operating and maintenance costs  are to the original life-cycle cost estimates; whether the technical merits  of the investment continue to meet the needs of the agency and  customers; and that an analysis of alternatives was performed with a  future focus.
OMB requires agencies to transmit exhibit 300s electronically, using a  predefined format. To meet this requirement and facilitate the aggregation  of elements of the exhibits from various sources throughout the  organization, many agencies use software applications to compile their  exhibits 300s. Besides aggregating portions of the exhibit 300, these tools  are designed to also perform certain calculations, such as return on  investment and those required for earned value analysis.
section_title: Exhibit 300s Were Generally Not Based on Adequate Support
paragraphs: Although the agencies reported that all 29 exhibit 300s had been approved  by their investment review boards (as required), in many instances, support  for the information provided was not adequate. (Details on the 29  investment projects described in the exhibit 300s that we reviewed are  provided in app. III.) Three types of problems were evident.
First, all exhibit 300s had documentation weaknesses. For example,  each investment lacked documentary support for one or more of the  following: Analysis of Alternatives, Risk Inventory and Assessment, and  Performance Measures and Goals. In other cases, the supporting  material that was provided to us did not match the information in the  exhibit 300.
Second, agencies did not always demonstrate (for example, in the  Security and Privacy and the Project and Funding Plan sections) that  they complied with federal requirements or policies with regard to  management and reporting processes.
Finally, information in some sections (such as the Summary of Spending  table and the Project and Funding Plan) could not be relied upon  because the numbers were not derived using repeatable processes or  reliable systems.
Agency officials attributed the absence of adequate support for their  exhibit 300s to lack of understanding of the requirements or of how to  respond to them. Agency officials mentioned in particular insufficient  guidance or training, as well as lack of familiarity with particular  requirements, such as the EVM process. If underlying support is inadequate  in key areas, OMB and agency executives are depending on unreliable  information to monitor the management of major IT projects and to make  critical decisions on their funding, thus putting at risk millions of dollars in  investments.
subsections: section_title: Underlying Documentation Was Lacking or Did Not Support the Exhibit 300
paragraphs: OMB Circular A-11 states that agencies must justify funding requests for  major acquisitions by demonstrating, among other things, measurable  performance benefits, comprehensive risk mitigation and management  planning, and positive return on investment for the planned investment.  Agencies are instructed to establish performance metrics (including  baselines from which progress can be measured) to ensure that project  managers are accountable in meeting expected performance goals and that  projects are aligned with the agencies’ strategic goals. Agencies are also  expected to manage investment risk through a robust risk management  program; according to OMB’s guidance, agencies need to actively manage  risks from initial concept throughout the life cycle of each investment. To  demonstrate a positive return on investment for the selected alternative  and identify a project’s total lifetime cost, OMB requires agencies to  compare alternatives and report summary cost information for investments  (including calculations for payback period and net present value).
Documents produced in the performance of these activities provide  evidence that they were carried out as required.
Performance measures. The investments did not usually demonstrate  the basis for the performance measure information provided in the  exhibit 300. Only 6 of the 29 investments had documentation to support  how agencies initially measured their baseline levels of performance,  from which they measured progress toward the agency’s strategic goals.  In most cases, the investments lacked documentation describing the  levels of performance that had been achieved or how these results  actually helped meet agency strategic needs. The absence of  documentation in these cases could indicate a systemic weakness in  agency performance management practices, since well-developed  practices should provide the expected support. This finding is  consistent with our prior work where we determined that agencies were  generally not measuring actual versus expected performance in meeting  IT performance goals. Weak performance management practices  reduce the ability of agency executives to track investment performance  in meeting performance objectives and raise the risk that investments  will not be well aligned with agency strategic objectives.
Risk management. About 75 percent of the investments were unable to  demonstrate that they were actively addressing the risk elements that  OMB specifies in Circular A-11, or how they had determined that any of  those risks were not applicable. In addition, documentation of risk  management that was provided had significant weaknesses. In one case,  a risk management plan was approximately 9 years old and had not been  updated, and for three investments, the risk documentation addressed  only the project development phase, even though the systems had exited  that phase and were in full operation.
Analysis of alternatives. All 29 investments reported cost information  in the analysis of alternatives section of the exhibit 300. However, in  about 72 percent of the exhibit 300s reviewed, either supporting  documentation was missing for this cost information, or information in  the documentation did not agree with that in the exhibit 300.
In cases where investments lacked documentation to support information  reported in the performance and risk areas, project officials frequently told  us that they had filled out these sections of the exhibit 300 to satisfy the  reporting requirement, relying on their own knowledge of the investment  rather than any project documentation. However, such an approach is not  consistent with the requirement for providing accurate information in  compliance with OMB capital programming and capital planning and  investment control policies. In addition, several project officials told us  that they believed some of the 19 risk management areas required in the  exhibit 300 were not applicable to their investment, but they reported on  those categories nonetheless to fulfill the requirement. Although the  guidance instructs agencies to indicate whether the risk category was not  applicable, officials stated that their impression is that “not applicable”  responses might lower the evaluation of their investments and reduce or  eliminate their funding.
Further, agency officials generally responded that the training they  received for preparing the exhibit 300 was not sufficient. For example, one  agency commented that agencies would benefit from targeted OMB  training that would address agency-specific questions. Several agencies  stressed that OMB training should occur earlier in the budget cycle. In  addition, one agency said that it needed OMB training on preparing each  section of the exhibit 300.
Overall, the lack of documentation supporting the exhibit 300s raises  questions regarding the sufficiency of the business case for the investment  and the quality of the projects’ management.
section_title: Agencies Did Not Always Comply or Provide Evidence of Compliance with Federal Requirements and Policies
paragraphs: Compliance with OMB and other federal guidance and related federal laws  helps ensure that agency investments are managed in a manner consistent  with the intent of the Congress and that key information is available to  OMB and agency managers on which they can base informed decisions.
The security section of the exhibit 300 requires that agencies  demonstrate that they have developed information security plans in  accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of  2002 (FISMA); according to FISMA, these plans must include rules of  behavior for system use, technical security controls, and procedures for  incident handling—that is, how to respond to system security breaches.  In addition, agencies ensure that employees and contractors receive security awareness training. Guidance from the National Institute of  Standards and Technology (NIST) supports FISMA by outlining the  necessary components of key security documentation, including  security plans, certification and accreditation packages, and security  controls testing.
For the analysis of alternatives section, OMB’s instructions for the  exhibit 300 cite the Clinger-Cohen Act, which requires agencies to  complete a cost-benefit analysis for new IT investments, and OMB  Circular A-94, which outlines requirements for completing cost-benefit  and cost-effectiveness analyses, including the comparison of at least  three alternatives, a discussion of assumptions for each alternative, and  an analysis of uncertainty (a sensitivity assessment to raise awareness  of the potential for unforeseen impacts on the investment).
For the project and funding plan section, OMB Circular A-11 provides  guidance that requires an agency to have in place a process for  monitoring the investment’s status in accomplishing baseline cost and  schedule goals.
For the 29 investments, agency compliance with the FISMA and NIST  requirements described above was mixed. For example, about 86 percent  of all investments could demonstrate, based on documentation, that  security awareness training had been conducted for employees and  contractors and that a mechanism for tracking completion of security  awareness training had been established. In addition, 21 of the 22  operational investments (for which information security plans are  required) had security plans that addressed areas such as the rules of  behavior for system use and technical security controls. In contrast, about  77 percent of these 22 investments did not provide support describing how  incident handling activities would be performed at a system level, such as  detecting, reporting, and mitigating risks associated with security  incidents.
While the compliance of security documentation with federal requirements  was mixed, the documented support for the analysis of alternatives and the  project and funding plan areas of the exhibit 300 provided little assurance  that investments complied with applicable guidance and laws. None of the  investments had cost analysis documentation that fully complied with  Circulars A-94 and A-11 criteria (lacking, for example, a comparison of at  least three alternatives, a discussion of assumptions for each alternative, or  an analysis of uncertainty).
Project officials attributed deficiencies in the analysis of alternatives to,  among other things, a lack of understanding of what was expected for  reporting in the exhibit 300. In a few instances, officials noted that they  believed that their investments were excluded from meeting the federal  requirements because the investments were near the end of their  operational or, in some cases, useful life cycles. OMB guidance on analysis  of alternatives does not differentiate between operational and  developmental investments; nonetheless, one agency’s internal guidance  explicitly states that no analysis of alternatives is necessary for  investments in the steady state (that is, operational). However, a  forward-looking analysis of alternatives for operational investments can  help agencies recognize when an alternative solution may be more efficient  or effective than the current investment, thereby freeing scarce resources  to be reallocated.
The agencies’ lack of compliance with OMB guidelines for analysis of  alternatives, including the cost-benefit analysis, leaves senior executive  managers at risk of making poor investment management decisions on  incomplete and sometimes inaccurate information.
For the project and funding plan section of the exhibit 300, OMB Circular  A-11 provides guidance on the information to be provided, which depends  upon the state of the investment (i.e., new, mixed life cycle, or steady  state). According to this guidance, information presented in the project and  funding plan is to be derived from one of two types of analysis: for steady  state investments, an operational analysis, and for new and mixed life-cycle  investments, an analysis based on an EVM process that is compliant with  ANSI/EIA-748-A. Operational analysis is a method for assessing the  technical merits of an existing investment in meeting user needs, while  EVM is a method for assessing the value of work performed compared to  its actual cost during development of an investment.
Of the eight steady state investments we reviewed, only two had conducted  an operational analysis. Furthermore, only one of those had documented  procedures that were in accordance with OMB’s Capital Programming  Guide criteria, such as addressing user needs and technical performance.  In most cases for which no operational analyses were in place, agency  officials commented that OMB guidance describing how to perform an  operational analysis was at such a high level of generality that they found it  difficult to follow. Instead of attempting to devise and perform an  operational analysis, therefore, they implemented variations on an EVM  process. However, these implementations of EVM did not address topics  required for the operational analysis, such as user needs and technical  performance. Unless they address these topics, agencies may not have the  information they need to determine, among other things, whether  investments are performing as intended and meeting user needs.
Similarly, of the 21 new and mixed life-cycle investments required to use  EVM, only 6 used an EVM process that generally followed the ANSI  standard. Since fiscal year 2002, OMB has required the use of EVM as a  project management tool. The ANSI standard is intended to ensure that  data produced by an EVM process are reliable so as to allow objective  reports of project status, produce early warning signs of impending  schedule delays and cost overruns, and ultimately provide unbiased  estimates of anticipated costs at completion. If agencies do not implement  EVM processes that follow the ANSI standard, they have reduced  assurance that the information used for tracking the cost, schedule, and  performance of the investment is reliable.
For the remaining 15 investments that did not have EVM processes  following the required standard, project officials commented that EVM was  relatively new to them and that they did not understand how to implement  an ANSI-compliant process at the time of the fiscal year 2006 submission.  At the time of our review, all five departments stated that they were  working toward implementing compliant processes.
To OMB’s credit, it recognized the need for improvement in the execution  of agencies’ IT projects and has issued clarifying guidance on the implementation of EVM. This guidance, issued in August 2005, could be  expected to have an impact on the exhibit 300s prepared for fiscal year  2008. Under this guidance, agencies are instructed, among other things, to  develop comprehensive agency policies for using EVM to plan and  manage development activities for major IT investments no later than  December 31, 2005;  include a provision and clause in major acquisition contracts or agency  in-house project charters directing the use of an EVM system compliant  with the required standard; and  provide documentation demonstrating that the contractor’s or agency’s  in-house EVM system complies with the required standard and conduct  periodic surveillance reviews.
Additionally, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense  Acquisition Regulations Council published in the Federal Register a  proposed amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Case  2004-019) to standardize EVM contract policy across the government.
In previous work, we have reported that EVM can have a significant  impact on the success of an IT acquisition because it heightens visibility  into whether a program is on target with respect to cost, schedule, and  technical performance. Therefore, it is important that the process is  implemented properly to maximize its value as a project management tool.  If it is not implemented effectively, agency executives and OMB risk  making poor investment decisions based on inaccurate and potentially  misleading EVM information.
section_title: Cost Data Supporting Business Cases Were Unreliable
paragraphs: Accurate and timely cost management information is critical for federal  managers to understand the progress of major projects and vital in  developing meaningful links among budget, accounting, and performance.  The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 emphasizes  the need for agencies to have systems that are able to generate reliable,  useful, and timely information for decision-making purposes and to ensure  accountability on an ongoing basis. In previous work, we have reported  on the lack of adherence to federal accounting standards throughout the  federal government and have made recommendations that agencies  improve cost-accounting systems.
At every agency, cost information reported in the 29 exhibit 300s was  derived from ad hoc processes rather than from cost-accounting systems  with adequate controls to ensure accountability. This condition had impact  in two particular areas of the exhibit 300—the summary of spending table  and the project and funding plan section:  Figures for dollars expended for the prior year (in this case, fiscal year  2004) were not reliable. In all cases, documentation provided to support  prior year cost figures in the summary of spending table showed that the  information was derived from ad hoc sources, such as spreadsheet  estimates, handwritten figures, or e-mails. Therefore, the cost data  reported in the exhibit 300 are not verifiable.
Information in the project and funding plans was also unreliable for the  21 new and mixed life-cycle investments required to use EVM. As  discussed earlier, 15 of these investments reported cost figures based on  EVM processes that did not follow the ANSI standard; because the  standard was not followed, these processes did not have the controls  necessary to ensure that the data they produced were reliable. The other  6 investments had ANSI-compliant EVM processes in place for the  contractor component of the investment costs, but the government  component of the investment costs was derived from ad hoc systems  (such as tracking government costs in spreadsheets based on project  managers’ own records); thus, that portion of the data was not reliable,  lending a degree of unreliability to the overall EVM reports.
The lack of accurate cost figures limits decision makers’ ability to  determine the actual resources expended on an investment, and therefore  inhibits their ability to make fully informed decisions on whether to  proceed. Without reliable systems that meet federal standards, government  agencies cannot produce reliable cost-based performance information.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The usefulness of the exhibit 300 business case as a mechanism to support  the selection and oversight of federal IT investments is undercut by the  kinds of weaknesses displayed in the 29 business cases that we reviewed.  Although we cannot directly project these examples to the more than one  thousand business cases developed each year across the federal  government, our results suggest that the issues raised need attention. The  shortcomings in guidance and training are likely to be widespread, and so  the weaknesses may extend beyond the specific examples identified here.  The kinds of weaknesses displayed and the causes behind them are  consistent with the pervasive problems with project and investment  management that we have documented in numerous prior reports.
The absence of documentary support in the cases reviewed raises  questions regarding the sufficiency of the justification provided for the  investment and undermines the management decisions being made based  on it. More troubling, it may indicate an underlying weakness in the  management of the investment, particularly since several sections of the  exhibit are specifically designed to capture information from systems used  in project management, such as those that support EVM and financial  management. In many cases, inadequate support raises questions regarding  the adequacy of an agency’s management processes and internal controls,  which strongly affect the reliability of the information presented to  decision makers. Further, in view of the inaccuracies in the cases reviewed,  it is evident that agencies are not taking sufficient actions to ensure the  accuracy of the information in the exhibit 300s. To make reasonable  decisions, management needs to be aware of limitations in the data on  which they rely and thus be able to take steps to mitigate the risks involved.
Collectively, our findings raise questions on whether fundamental project  management processes are in place, whether project managers are  adequately trained in these processes, and whether they receive sufficient  guidance on these processes and on preparing all areas of the exhibit 300.  At a minimum, this situation undermines the usefulness of the exhibit 300  as a mechanism to communicate to OMB and agency executives that the  project team has employed the disciplines of good project management. By  reporting information that is not supported by documentation, the exhibit  300 can create the misleading appearance that investments are being  managed properly, when in fact they are not. In addition, OMB has relied on  these exhibits to identify and oversee high-risk projects; thus, our finding  that the data being presented to OMB may not be reliable or accurate  further complicates its oversight.
While OMB is applying more rigor to its oversight processes through such  processes as its tracking of high-risk investments, these advances may be  undermined by inaccurate or unreliable data used in decision making.  Unless these weaknesses are addressed, OMB, agency executives, and  Congress will not have assurance that key decisions to pursue and oversee  the $65 billion in IT investments are being made based on accurate and  reliable information.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the accuracy and validity of exhibit 300s for major IT  investments and to increase the value of using the information they provide  in selection, oversight, and resource allocation decisions, we are making  three recommendations. 1. Because decision makers should be aware of any weaknesses in the  processes used to develop the information in the exhibit 300s, we are  recommending that the Director of OMB direct agencies to determine  the extent to which the information contained in each exhibit 300 is  accurate and reliable. Where weaknesses in accuracy and reliability are  identified, the agency should be required to disclose them and explain  the agency’s approach to mitigating them.
In addition, to help ensure that agency personnel completing exhibit 300s  better understand their responsibilities, we recommend that the Director of  OMB take the following additional actions: 2.
In advance of OMB’s next issuance of the Circular A-11 update, develop  and promulgate clearer and more explicit guidance for sections of the  exhibit 300 business case that cause confusion, including addressing  weaknesses identified in this report (as indicated below) and  consulting with agency personnel having responsibility for completing  exhibit 300s across government to identify other areas of confusion. At  a minimum, the guidance should do the following:  Provide a more detailed description of the requirements for  completing an operational analysis, as referred to in the supplement  to Part 7 of Circular A-11, the Capital Programming Guide.
Address or clarify possible flexibilities and alternative approaches  available to agencies in completing their exhibit 300s: for example,  whether the analysis of alternatives section of the exhibit 300 needs  to be updated every year for steady state investments and whether all  risk areas are relevant for all investments. 3. Provide for training of agency personnel responsible for completing  exhibit 300s. This training should go beyond a description of changes  from prior years’ guidance and include working through examples for a  variety of investments. In developing the training, OMB should consult  with agencies to identify deficiencies that the training should address.
In implementing these recommendations, OMB should work with the CIO  Council to develop the necessary guidance and implement an effective  training program to ensure governmentwide acceptance of these changes.
Because we have outstanding recommendations aimed at enhancing OMB’s  audit guidance related to federal cost-accounting systems, we are not  making any new recommendations in this report regarding federal cost  accounting.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the five agencies whose  exhibit 300s we reviewed.
In written comments received on December 23, 2005, the Administrator of  OMB’s Office for E-Government and Information Technology accepted the  findings of the draft report. OMB described two of our three  recommendations and expressed three concerns: first, that our report does  not address the need for agencies to ensure the accuracy of their IT  investment requests; second, that the report focuses on the way agency  employees fill out OMB’s exhibit 300s and not on the underlying  management responsibilities; and third, that by directing our  recommendations to OMB rather than to the agencies, we could be seen as  suggesting that OMB and not the agencies are responsible for data  accuracy and employee training.
OMB’s concern regarding data accuracy is addressed by our first  recommendation: that the Director of OMB instruct agencies to determine  the extent to which the information contained in each exhibit 300 is  accurate and reliable, to disclose weaknesses, and to describe the agency’s  approach to mitigating these weaknesses. This recommendation clearly  places responsibility on the agencies for assessing the quality of their  budget information and the processes that produced this information.
With respect to OMB’s concern that the recommendations do not focus on  how well agencies fulfill their underlying information resources  management responsibilities, our view is that our recommendation on  disclosing and mitigating weaknesses does address these underlying  responsibilities. The report specifically addresses the exhibit 300s and the  reliability of these documents when used as support in the agencies’ and  OMB’s decision-making processes. As our report clearly states, the lack of  documentation may indicate an underlying weakness in the management of  the investment. In many cases inadequate support raises questions about  the investments’ program management and internal controls. Requiring  agencies to disclose and mitigate associated weaknesses presupposes that  agencies examine and address their approach to fulfilling information  resources management responsibilities.
Regarding OMB’s third concern, we do not intend to suggest that agencies  are not responsible and accountable for the weaknesses we describe. We  place significant responsibility on agencies to manage their information  assets effectively, as reflected in our first recommendation and in the large  number of evaluations that we have previously conducted at individual  agencies and the recommendations resulting, some of which are still  outstanding. In this report, however, our recommendations are directed to  OMB because they address findings relating to OMB-required budget  documents, and OMB has statutory responsibility for providing information  resources management guidance governmentwide.
Regarding OMB’s comment that agencies be held responsible for employee  training in information resources management, we agree that agencies are  responsible for such training. However, as agencies indicated during the  review, additional training by OMB would be helpful, especially in the  understanding of OMB’s requirements for the exhibit 300. This is also  consistent with OMB’s responsibility under the E-Government Act of 2002  to identify where current training does not satisfy the personnel needs  related to information technology and information resource management.
The Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer for Information  Technology Reform of the Department of Energy provided largely technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Director of Audit  Relations of the Department of Transportation also provided technical  comments that were incorporated as appropriate. The Departments of  Agriculture, Commerce, and the Treasury provided no comments.
The written comments from OMB are reproduced in appendix II.
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  Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy,  Transportation, and the Treasury and the Director of Office of Management  and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9286. I can also be reached by e-mail at  pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Other contacts and key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objective was to ascertain the extent to which selected agencies have  underlying support for the information described in their fiscal year 2006  exhibit 300s as submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  in September 2004. To address our objective, we reviewed the supporting  documentation for 29 exhibit 300s from agencies and components from the  Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and the  Treasury.
We selected the five departments for our review on the basis of two  criteria. First, to ensure that we examined significant investments, we  selected departments that expected to spend $1 billion or more on  information technology (IT) investments in fiscal year 2006. Second, of  those agencies with significant investments, we further narrowed our  selection of agencies to those with the first and second largest number of  IT investments in each of three categories of the federal government’s  Business Reference Model (BRM): Services for Citizens, Support Delivery  of Services, and Management of Government Resources. We did this to  ensure that the agencies under review reflect the primary business  operations performed by the federal government. We excluded the Mode of  Delivery Business Area because we found investments in this area to be  largely from one agency, the Department of Defense (DOD). (In general,  Mode of Delivery describes the mechanisms the government uses to  achieve its purposes: Services for Citizens.) (We excluded DOD and the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from our selection, because the  Defense Inspector General recently performed an extensive review of  exhibit 300s, and we have both completed and ongoing work on several  major IT investments at DHS). This process resulted in the selection of the  five departments mentioned above.
To make our selection of IT investments from the five departments, we  used OMB capital planning and budget documentation to identify a mix of  investments. Specifically, we chose IT investments that (1) supported  government operations across each of the three BRM business areas  identified above and (2) reflected different stages of investment (e.g., new,  mixed life cycle, and steady state). Initially, we selected a total of 30  investments (i.e., 6 investments from each department). However, one IT  investment was dropped from our total of 30 selected investments because  we determined during our review that OMB and the agency had cancelled  its funding.
To determine the extent of each investment’s underlying support, we  developed a set of questions regarding the types of analysis and  documentation that were associated with the information provided in each  of the major sections of OMB’s exhibit 300. Using our set of questions, we  met with agency officials for each selected investment to collect and  analyze investment documentation associated with each exhibit 300 area in  our evaluation. We further compared the documentation against the exhibit  300 to ascertain whether the documentation agreed with what the  investment reported in the exhibit 300. Where federal requirements, laws,  and other guidelines were cited in Circular A-11, we also used these to  assess the extent to which agencies and components had complied with  specific documentation requirements as prescribed in these sources  (including National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidance,  OMB circulars, and OMB memorandums).
In areas where federal directives were cited in the exhibit 300, we  conducted limited reliability testing; these areas included security, analysis  of alternatives, and the project and funding plan. In our evaluation of  security documentation, we used criteria set forth in NIST guidance to  assess whether the major components were present in key documents,  which included the security plan and system-level incident handling  procedures. For security awareness training, we identified whether training  was conducted and tracked but did not assess its content. In our evaluation  of the analysis of alternatives, we used criteria from OMB Circular A-94 to  assess whether the major components were present in the cost-benefit or  cost-effectiveness analysis. In cases where investment managers told us  that their earned value management (EVM) processes were in conformance  with ANSI/EIA-748-A (for our evaluation of the project and funding plan  sections), we used criteria from ANSI/EIA-748-A to assess whether key  EVM processes were in place. We did not test the quality of the  documentation in these areas of evaluation.
Regarding the reliability of cost data, we did not test the adequacy of  agency or contractor cost-accounting systems. Our evaluation was based  on what we were told by the agencies and the information they could  provide (to the extent to which they had information).
We performed our work at the agencies’ offices in the Washington, D.C.,  metropolitan area. We conducted our review between March and  November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
section_title: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
section_title: Descriptions of Investments Reviewed
paragraphs: The following provides additional detail on the agencies and investments  that we reviewed as part of this audit. We reviewed a total of 29  investments at five departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy,  Transportation, and the Treasury. The selected departments account for  the first and second largest number of IT investments in each of three  categories of the federal government’s Business Reference Model: Services  for Citizens, Support Delivery of Services, and Management of  Government Resources.
According to OMB guidance, the life-cycle stage of the asset affects what is  reported on the exhibit 300:   New investments (i.e., proposed for budget year or later, or in  development) must be justified based on the need to fill a gap in the  agency’s ability to meet strategic goals and objectives with the lowest  life-cycle costs of all possible alternatives and must provide risk- adjusted cost and schedule goals and measurable performance benefits.
Mixed life-cycle investments (i.e., investments that are operational but  include some developmental effort, such as a technology refresh) must  demonstrate satisfactory progress toward achieving baseline cost,  schedule, and performance goals using an EVM system.
Operational investments (i.e., steady state) must demonstrate, among  other things, how close actual annual operating and maintenance costs  are to the original life-cycle cost estimates, whether the technical merits  of the investment continue to meet the needs of the agency and  customers, and that an analysis of alternatives was performed with a  future focus.
subsections: section_title: Department of Agriculture
subsections: section_title: System: Comprehensive Electronic Permit System (ePermits)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is expected to automate processes to  allow the Department of Agriculture to issue, track, and rapidly verify the  validity of a federal permit allowing the importation of plants and animals.  It is also expected to assist the public by allowing applicants to apply for  permits, check the status of permit applications, and receive permits  online.
section_title: System: Corporate Financial Management Systems (CFMS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This investment is designed to represent the entire  portfolio of current corporate financial management and administrative  payment systems for the department. It is a corporatewide solution for  financial management reform and systems integration that provides tools  for program and financial managers to manage and evaluate federal  programs.
section_title: System: Integrated Acquisition System (IAS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is intended to be a single enterprisewide  acquisition management system to support a strategic and more  standardized acquisition management process for Agriculture. It is  expected to provide a real-time interface to the department’s core financial  system, reliable data, and a shortened time for acquiring goods and  services.
section_title: System: Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking System (PCIT)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is expected to establish a new process to  collect and track phytosanitary certificates issued by the department,  which attest to compliance with import regulations of importing countries.  It is also intended to provide better service to users by reducing the need  for repetitive data entry from applicants and enabling certifying officials to  deliver certificates in a timelier manner.
section_title: System: Processed Commodity Inventory Management System (PCIMS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to support the annual  acquisition, tracking, and distribution of commodities acquired by  Agriculture for domestic and foreign food assistance programs by  providing financial and program management, reporting, and control to  track commodity requests against purchases and distributions from  inventory.
section_title: System: Store Tracking and Redemption System Redesign (STARS II)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is intended to support the department’s  Food-Stamp program mission by tracking and monitoring food  coupon/electronic benefit redemption activities and regulatory violations  by businesses and associated administrative actions related to enforcement  of penalties, among other things. This initiative is expected to replace the  current legacy system, which has been in place since 1993.
section_title: Department of Commerce
subsections: section_title: System: Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to be an interactive computer  system that integrates all meteorological and hydrological data and all  satellite and radar data to enable the forecaster to prepare and issue more  accurate and timely forecasts and warnings.
section_title: System: Comprehensive Large Array-Data Stewardship System (CLASS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is expected to provide an integrated  solution to weather and water data archive and access, including an access  portal with search, browse, and geospatial capabilities for users to obtain  environmental data, contributing to improvements in prediction  capabilities.
section_title: System: Economic Census and Surveys (ECON)
paragraphs: Brief description: This investment is designed to provide statistical  programs that count and profile U.S. businesses and government  organizations through the gathering of surveys and principal economic  indicators in order to conduct research and technical studies.
section_title: System: Improve the Automated Export System (AES)
paragraphs: Brief description: The current system is designed to expedite monthly  statistics on international trade, remedy shortcomings in export statistics,  and help to control the export of weapons or other hazardous items that  could be a threat to U.S. national security or public welfare. The proposed  initiative is designed to improve the current system to handle electronic  filing of all export transactions, incorporate an electronic manifest system,  and provide for verification of export information reported on export  transactions.
section_title: System: National Weather Service Telecommunication Gateway (NWSTG) System
paragraphs: Brief description: The current system is designed to collect and distribute  raw and processed hydrometeorological data and products, disseminating  weather observations and guidance to a national and international  community of customers. Improvements to current system are expected to  provide sufficient performance, capacity, and catastrophic backup  capability to meet current and future demands for data.
section_title: System: Satellite Operations Control Center Command and Data Acquisition (SOCC/CDA)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to command and control  Commerce’s operational environmental satellites and to acquire and  manage the weather and water data the satellites collect, in order to  provide support functions that are not available commercially, such as real- time hurricane support.
section_title: Department of Energy
subsections: section_title: System: Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
paragraphs: Brief description: This project is designed to support scientific research  by providing an interoperable, effective, and reliable communications  infrastructure and network services to the Department of Energy research  facilities.
section_title: System: E-content Management System (eCMS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is expected to be an enterprisewide,  integrated document and records management system that will include  portal accessibility and integration with knowledge management tools in  order to improve decision and service delivery quality and serve as a  resource for operations management.
section_title: System: Integrated Planning, Accountability, and Budgeting System Information System (IPABS- IS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to support the routine  collection and reporting needs of Energy for life-cycle planning, budget  formulation, and project and budget execution.
section_title: System: Licensing Support Network (LSN)
paragraphs: Brief description: This is a Web-based system that is intended to make  relevant documentary material supporting the Nuclear Regulatory License  Application available to users, as part of the requirements of the Nuclear  Waste Policy Act.
section_title: System: Los Alamos National Laboratory Enterprise Project (LANL ERP)
paragraphs: Brief description: This investment is intended to identify, design, and  implement the systems, processes, and controls related to financial  management, human resources, supply chain management, facilities  maintenance, information management, project management, and  manufacturing in order to lower costs and provide more efficient  operations and improved management.
section_title: Department of Transportation
subsections: section_title: System: Asset Supply Chain Management (ASCM)
paragraphs: Brief description: This investment is intended to provide the Department  of Transportation (DOT) with asset management and supply chain  management information systems to track and manage over $21 billion in  federal government assets. Reducing the number of information systems,  optimizing supply chain operations, and streamlining business operations  of employees are expected to result in reduced costs to the agency.
section_title: System: DOT Financial System Consolidation
paragraphs: Brief description: This program is expected to consolidate several major  and nonmajor DOT financial systems to interface or integrate all related  systems in order to eliminate redundant data and processes.
section_title: System: National Transit Database (NTD)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to collect performance data  from over 640 local transit agencies for the purpose of reporting statistical  data on the U.S. transit industry.
section_title: System: Next Generation Air/Ground Communications (NEXCOM)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is intended to provide air pilot/controller  voice and data communications by utilizing a digital-based air/ground  communication system.
section_title: System: System Approach for Safety Oversight (SASO)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is expected to consolidate the agency’s 28  oversight systems on aviation regulatory compliance into 5 integrated  aviation safety risk management systems. Its intended purpose is to allow  applicable government agencies and the aviation industry to use common  system safety applications and databases for managing and overseeing  flight safety.
section_title: System: Wide-Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This is a navigation system that is designed to provide  navigation across the entire United States for all classes of aircraft in all  flight operations, including en-route navigation, airport departures, and  airport arrivals including precision landing approaches in all weather  conditions.
section_title: Department of the Treasury
subsections: section_title: System: Customer Account Data Engine (CADE)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is part of a modernization program that is  expected to provide the Department of the Treasury with the capability to  manage its tax accounts utilizing new technology, applications, and  databases. This system is designed to create applications for daily posting,  settlement, maintenance, refund processing, and issue detection for  taxpayer tax account and return data to improve customer service and  compliance.
section_title: System: Debt Management Accounting System (DMAS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to be a financial accounting  system for activities associated with Treasury’s debt collection program to  track funds recovered by the agency, post these funds to the proper  account in an accurate and timely manner, and transfer moneys due to the  appropriate government agencies. The system is also designed to record  the general ledger activity and produce operational, management, and  standard external reports.
section_title: System: Electronic Management System (EMS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to be a front-end processing  system that receives, validates, stores, forwards to mainframe electronic  filing systems, and acknowledges electronic files containing tax  documents. The system is intended to receive returns from third parties,  acknowledge the receipt of information, format the information for  mainframe processing, provide acknowledgements to the third parties, and  send state return data to participating states.
section_title: System: Governmentwide Accounting and Reporting Modernization (GWA)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to produce accurate,  accessible, and timely governmentwide financial information through the  streamlining of reports and the reduction of the reconciliation burden on  government agencies in order to minimize the amount of labor necessary to  transfer financial information.
section_title: System: Service Center Recognition/Images Processing System (SCRIPS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is intended to be a data capture,  management, and storage system used to process tax documents  automatically in order to meet mandated timelines and processing  requirements for various tax forms and the Federal Tax Deposits, which  directly impacts revenue brought into the federal treasury.
section_title: System: Secure Payment System (SPS)
paragraphs: Brief description: This system is designed to be a browser-based Internet  version of the current Electronic Certification System, which will allow  federal program agencies to submit certified requests for payment  disbursement online. It is intended to provide a more secure payment  process, increase the ability to protect sensitive financial and privacy data,  and improve the financial performance of federal program agencies by  providing program agencies a method of providing financial data to  Treasury.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286, pownerd@gao.gov.
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following people made key  contributions to this report: Carol Cha, Barbara Collier, Joseph Cruz, Lester  Diamond, Valerie Hopkins, Sandra Kerr, Linda Lambert, Tammi Nguyen,  Chris Owens, Mark Shaw, Kevin Walsh, and Martin Yeung.