Information Technology: Key Federal Agencies Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments
Published: 2013-09-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The federal government budgets more than $82 billion annually for IT. Given the magnitude of this investment, it is important that federal agencies avoid investing in duplicative systems to ensure the most efficient use of resources. GAO's prior work has shown that agencies were funding IT investments that perform similar functions, thus raising concern that these agencies were investing in unnecessary systems. This work also raised questions about whether agencies have similar potentially duplicative investments in other areas.
GAO was asked to review duplicative IT investments. The objective of this report was to identify whether there are other potentially duplicative IT investments at key federal agencies. To do so, GAO selected for review the three agencies with the largest amount of planned IT spending--DHS, DOD, and HHS. GAO analyzed agency budgetary data (submitted to the Office of Management and Budget) that categorize investments by function to identify investments that performed similar functions. Such investments were further grouped by their specific mission purpose and discussed with agency officials, including whether they could be consolidated or eliminated.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Of the 590 information technology (IT) investments reviewed, GAO identified 12 potentially duplicative investments at three key federal agencies--namely, the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Defense (DOD), and Health and Human Services (HHS). These investments accounted for about $321 million in reported IT spending for fiscal years 2008 through 2013. Of the 12 investments, GAO identified:
two potentially duplicative investments at DHS that support immigration enforcement booking management, which includes the processing of apprehended illegal aliens suspected of committing criminal violations of immigration law;
four such investments at DOD, which include two investments that track health care status of warfighters, with one since having been canceled, and two investments that manage dental care; and
six potentially duplicative investments at HHS, which include four investments that support enterprise information security and two for Medicare coverage determination.
DHS officials said having the two immigration booking investments were due in part to one component agency's unique requirements but were unable to provide analysis showing why one system could not satisfy the unique requirements. DOD officials recognized that the investments GAO identified were duplicative and have canceled one of the health care systems and intend to consolidate the dental systems by 2015 but had not developed a plan on how this was to be accomplished. HHS officials disagreed that its information security investments were duplicative but nonetheless plan to review them by September 2013 to identify opportunities for consolidation. Regarding the Medicare coverage determination investments, HHS officials noted that they have consolidated several functions but could not provide documented justification for why the other functions were not consolidated. By addressing these duplications, the agencies will be able to provide assurance they are avoiding investing in unnecessary systems and thus saving resources.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD develop a plan and DHS and HHS conduct analyses to address the potentially duplicative investments identified in this report. DOD and HHS agreed with GAO's recommendations but DHS disagreed. GAO believes that analysis by DHS on why one system would not support both agencies' requirements is needed.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal agencies currently report spending more than $82 billion annually  on information technology (IT). Given the magnitude of this investment, it  is important that federal agencies avoid investing in duplicative  investments, whenever possible, to ensure the most efficient use of  resources. As a result, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  requires federal agencies to report on their IT investments, including  identifying the primary functions of each investment using OMB-defined  categories—such as information and technology management, supply  chain management, and human resource management.
In prior work analyzing agency investments within the aforementioned  three OMB categories, we reported in February 2012 that agencies, such  as the Departments of Defense and Energy, were funding investments  that perform similar functions, thus raising concern that these agencies  were investing in unnecessary systems. Accordingly, we recommended  that the agencies, among other things, address these potentially  duplicative investments, and the agencies generally agreed with our  recommendations.
At your request, this report provides the results of our review to identify  the extent to which potentially duplicative IT investments exist within other  OMB categories (e.g., defense and national security, health, and  homeland security) at those key agencies that reportedly spend the most  on IT. potentially duplicative IT investments at these key federal agencies. To do  this, we first selected for review the three agencies with the largest  amount of planned IT spending—namely, the Departments of Homeland  Security (DHS), Defense (DOD), and Health and Human Services (HHS).
For the purposes of our analysis, we considered “duplication” to occur when two or more  agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to  the same beneficiaries.
To identify potentially duplicative IT investments at these agencies, we (1)  reviewed key OMB budgetary data to identify investments that were  performing similar functions and (2) analyzed investment documentation  and interviewed agency officials to assess whether such investments  were duplicative and could be consolidated or eliminated. Specifically, we  assessed investment data from an OMB document—called the exhibit  53—which summarizes each agency’s annual planned (budgeted) IT  investment spending and grouped individual investments at a high level  by their primary functions and in a more detailed manner by  subfunctions. We then selected for each agency, the two primary  functions detailed on the exhibit 53 that had the largest amount of  spending planned for fiscal year 2012. Within each function category, we  further chose the two subfunction categories with the largest planned  spending. As a result of this analysis, we identified 590 investments, with  total planned spending of $15.3 billion for fiscal year 2012, to be  reviewed. The primary and subfunction categories selected for each of  the three agencies are as follows:  Further, within each subfunction category, we then reviewed the name  and narrative description of each investment’s mission purpose to identify  similarities among related investments within each agency. Once we  identified investments that had such similarities, we grouped them by  mission purpose into categories (referred to as purpose groups)—such as  dental management and enterprise information security—that more  specifically defined the purpose and mission of these similar investments.
Next, we compared the investments within these groupings to identify  those that performed similar or overlapping functions. We then discussed  these investments with the appropriate agency officials, including whether  the investments could be consolidated or eliminated, and obtained  additional information on each investment. Further, to identify any actions  agencies had taken to address the potentially duplicative investments we  identified, we assessed agency documentation (e.g., agency  memorandums, project plans) and interviewed officials.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to September  2013 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 objective. See appendix I for a  complete description of our objective, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Information technology should enable government to better serve the  American people. However, according to OMB, despite spending more  than $600 billion on IT over the past decade, the federal government has  achieved little of the productivity improvements that private industry has  realized from IT.
Too often, federal IT projects run over budget, behind schedule, fail to  deliver promised functionality, or are duplicative of other projects. In  combating this problem, proper oversight is critical. Both OMB and federal  agencies have key roles and responsibilities for overseeing IT investment  management. OMB is responsible for working with agencies to ensure  investments are appropriately planned and justified. Additionally, each  year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how much  the government plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds are to  be allocated.
OMB uses the following mechanisms and processes, among others, to  help it fulfill its required oversight responsibilities for federal IT spending.
Exhibit 53s and exhibits 300s. OMB requires 27 federal departments  and agencies to provide information related to their IT investments,  including agency exhibit 53s and capital asset plans and business  cases (called exhibit 300s).
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) initiative. In February 2002,  OMB established the FEA initiative. According to OMB, the FEA is  intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement through cross- agency analysis and identification of duplicative investments, gaps,  and opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration  within and across agency programs. The FEA is composed of five  “reference models” describing the federal government’s (1) business  (or mission) processes and functions, independent of the agencies  that perform them; (2) performance goals and outcome measures; (3)  means of service delivery; (4) information and data definitions; and (5)  technology standards. Since the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, OMB  has required agencies to categorize their IT investments in their  annual exhibit 53s according to primary function and subfunction as  identified in the FEA reference models. Additionally, agencies were  required to choose a subfunction for each investment related to the  primary function.
IT reform. In December 2010, the Federal Chief Information Officer  issued a 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information  Technology Management. This 18-month plan specified five major  goals: strengthening program management, streamlining governance  and improving accountability, increasing engagement with industry,  aligning the acquisition and budget processes with the technology  cycle, and applying “light technology” and shared solutions. As part of  this plan, OMB outlined actions to, among other things, strengthen  agencies’ investment review boards and consolidate federal data  centers. The plan stated that OMB will work with Congress to  consolidate commodity IT spending (e.g., e-mail, data centers,  content management systems, and web infrastructure) to, among  other things, eliminate duplication, under agency Chief Information  Officers. Further, the plan called for the role of agency Chief  Information Officers to focus more on IT portfolio management.
In April 2012, we reported on the federal government’s progress  toward implementing these actions. In particular, we found that OMB  and key federal agencies had made progress on action items in the IT  Reform Plan, but that much work remained to be done on action items  such as completing data center consolidation plans and launching a  forum for agencies to share IT management best practices.  Accordingly, we recommended, among other things, that the agencies  complete all key IT Reform action items; OMB agreed with our  recommendation.
IT operations and maintenance. With regard to identifying and  eliminating duplication within existing IT legacy systems—commonly  referred to as steady state investments—OMB issued the Capital  Programming Guide that calls for agencies to analyze (via operational  analysis) whether their steady state investments are continuing to  meet business and customer needs and are contributing to meeting  the agency’s strategic goals. More specifically, this guidance calls  for agencies to perform operational analyses annually on each steady  state investment and requires that each operational analysis address  17 key factors, including cost, schedule, customer satisfaction,  strategic and business results, financial goals, and whether the  investment overlaps with other systems.
In October 2012, we reported that of five key agencies selected for  review, only two had performed operational analyses, and these two  agencies did not perform analyses on all their steady state  investments.agencies, none fully addressed the 17 key factors specified in OMB’s  guidance. Consequently, we recommended that the agencies conduct  annual operational analyses on all their steady state investments and  in doing, fully address the 17 key factors. The agencies agreed with  our recommendations and have taken actions, such as developing  operational analysis guidance, to address them.
Further, of the analyses performed by the two
PortfolioStat reviews. In March 2012, OMB launched the PortfolioStat  initiative, which requires agencies to conduct an annual agencywide  IT portfolio review to, among other things, reduce commodity IT  spending and demonstrate how their IT investments align with the  agency’s mission and business functions. PortfolioStat is designed to  assist agencies in assessing the current maturity of their IT  investment management process, making decisions on eliminating  duplicative investments, and moving to shared solutions in order to  maximize the return on IT investments across the portfolio. While  OMB’s TechStat reviews are intended to examine IT performance at  the specific project or investment-level, PortfolioStat reviews are  intended to examine the portfolio as a whole and draw on the  agency’s enterprise architecture to help identify and eliminate areas of  duplication and waste. In March 2013, OMB reported that through its  PortfolioStat effort, agencies had identified and committed to nearly  100 opportunities to consolidate or eliminate commodity IT  investments. OMB reports that PortfolioStat has the potential to save  the government $2.5 billion over the next 3 years by, for example,  consolidating duplicative systems.
subsections: section_title: GAO Has Previously Reported on Potential IT Investment Duplication
paragraphs: During the past several years, we have issued multiple reports and  testimonies and made numerous recommendations to OMB and federal  agencies to identify and reduce duplication within the federal  government’s portfolio of IT investments. For example, in September  2011, we reported that results of OMB initiatives to identify potentially  duplicative IT investments were mixed and that several federal agencies  did not routinely assess their entire IT portfolios to identify and remove or  consolidate duplicative systems.OMB’s recent initiatives had not yet demonstrated results, and several  agencies had not routinely assessed legacy systems to determine if they  were duplicative. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB among other  things (1) improve its agency guidance on identifying and categorizing IT  investments and (2) require the agencies as part of their annual budget  and IT investment submissions to report the steps they take to ensure  their IT investments are not duplicative. OMB generally agreed with these  two recommendations and to address them subsequently updated its   Specifically, we found that most of  guidance to provide additional clarity on how agencies should  characterize investments in order to enhance the identification of  potentially duplicative investments.
In addition, in February 2012 we reported on potentially duplicative IT  investments within DOD, the Department of Energy, and DHS.  Specifically, we found that while DOD and the Department of Energy had  various investment review processes in place that were partially designed  to avoid investing in systems that were duplicative, we identified 37  potentially duplicative investments, totaling about $1.2 billion for fiscal  years 2007 through 2012. Accordingly, we recommended that the  agencies utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT  Dashboard, to report on the results of the department’s efforts to identify  and eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment  we identified, as well as any other duplicative investments. We also  recommended that these agencies, among other things, report on the  progress of their efforts to identify and eliminate duplication. The agencies  generally agreed with our recommendations and have taken steps to  address them. For example, DOD and the Department of Energy (1) are  conducting portfolio reviews, as part of their established IT investment  management processes, as means to identifying and eliminating IT  duplication and (2) plan to report the results of these reviews via the IT  Dashboard.
GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Cost  Savings Goal, GAO-13-378 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2013). that while agencies had closed 420 data centers, this was 285 closures  short of where OMB expected the agencies to be as of the December  2012 time frame. Further, we found that OMB had not determined  agencies’ progress against their cost savings goals because OMB had  yet to determine a consistent and repeatable method for tracking cost  savings. Consequently, we recommended that OMB, among other things,  track and report on key performance measures and extend the time frame  for achieving planned cost savings. OMB agreed with the first  recommendation and plans to evaluate the second recommendation but  did not provide a time frame for the evaluation’s completion.  Additionally, the above work and associated reports have been updated  and summarized in our 2011, 2012, and 2013 duplication series which  reported on opportunities that existed for federal agencies to reduce  fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in key areas, including IT, in order  to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness.
section_title: A Small Number of the Agencies’ IT Investments Appeared to be Potentially Duplicative, but They Represent Significant Spending
paragraphs: The three agencies in our review had some IT investments that appeared  to be duplicative; of the total investments we reviewed, the number of  such investments was small but represented a significant amount of  spending. Specifically, of the 590 IT investments reviewed, we identified  12 potentially duplicative investments (within 5 purpose groups) at DHS,  DOD, and HHS which accounted for about $321 million in reported IT  spending for fiscal years 2008 through 2013. (Our analysis and  categorization of the 12 investments by common purposes is included in  app. II). With regard to the 12 investments, we found, as shown in table 2,  the following:  two potentially duplicative investments totaling about $30 million at  DHS that are used to “book” and process apprehended illegal aliens  who are suspected of committing criminal and administrative  violations, commonly referred to as immigration enforcement booking  management;  four such investments totaling about $31 million at DOD, which  include two investments totaling $16 million that track health care  status of warfighters and two investments totaling $15 million that  manage dental care; and six potentially duplicative investments totaling approximately $260  million at HHS, which include four investments totaling $257 million  that support enterprise information security and two totaling $4 million  for Medicare Coverage Determination.
It is important that federal agencies avoid duplicative investments,  whenever possible, to ensure the most efficient use of resources. As  such, OMB has issued guidance to help agencies reduce duplicative IT  investments. More specifically, our analysis (by agency) found the  following for each of the investments addressed in the purpose groups  specified in table 2.
At DHS, the department had two potentially duplicative IT investments  with the purpose of immigration enforcement booking; they are called E3  and EAGLE and are used by DHS component agencies—namely, U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE), respectively—to enforce immigration law,  including the processing of apprehended illegal aliens who are suspected  of committing criminal and administrative violations. These investments  were potentially duplicative because they perform similar functions,  including querying other law enforcement data sources about, among other  capturing biographic information on apprehended illegal aliens,  recording illegal alien arrests and enforcement incidents,  collecting biometric data on such aliens, and  things, prior arrests and outstanding warrants.
CBP and ICE officials disagreed that the investments are duplicative, and  thus do not have plans to address them. Specifically, officials from CBP  and ICE stated that E3 and EAGLE accommodate different work  processes and requirements. For example, ICE officials stated that  EAGLE is a customized interface designed to meet the needs of its  investigative and detention mission. However, CBP and ICE officials  agreed that the systems do capture common data elements that are  stored in a single, shared database. In addition, in 2007, CBP and ICE  planned to jointly develop the E3 project. Specifically, according to the E3  project charter (dated February 2007) and project plan (dated June 2007),  the goal of the investment was to jointly develop a system to replace the  then legacy booking management system being used at the time by both  agencies. Although ICE subsequently withdrew from the project citing  risks with the intended modernization approach and unique requirements  that would not be addressed by the new system, it was not able to  provide evidence corroborating its concerns with the modernization  approach or an analysis showing that its requirements could not be  satisfied by the new (E3) system. Further, as part of its development of  EAGLE, ICE did assess three alternatives to the legacy booking  management system, including E3 but concluded that adopting E3 also  had significant cost and schedule risks. Nevertheless, ICE was not able to  provide the costs associated with each of the alternatives other than  EAGLE and thus could not corroborate their assessment that EAGLE was  the most viable alternative.
At DOD, the department had two potentially duplicative investments in  Health Care Tracking and two in Dental Management. Specifically, the  two Health Care Tracking investments—namely, the Warrior Care and  Transition System and Clinical Case Management Information  Technology Initiative—manage wounded soldier health care through their  transition back into active duty status or as veterans. DOD officials  agreed that these investments had areas of duplication, and stated that  they recently canceled the Clinical Case Management Information  Technology Initiative, in part to address this duplication.
The two dental management systems—called Corporate Dental  Application and Dental Common Access System—support and service  the oral health of operational personnel, including the collection and  management of oral health data, and updating readiness. These  investments were potentially duplicative because they perform similar  functions for each of the armed services. Department officials stated  that when the systems were originally being deployed to the various  armed services, the department did not consider deploying a common  solution. Specifically, the Navy deployed its system in 2000 and the Army  deployed its system in 1998 to meet their services’ specific dental system  requirements. DOD officials agreed that these systems are potentially  duplicative and said to address this duplication, the department plans to  migrate to a single system across all armed services. DOD officials stated  that they plan to complete this migration by fiscal year 2017 and recently  signed a memorandum of understanding (dated February 2013) on how  they plan to share data between the systems until the migration is  completed. In addition, according to these officials, DOD has developed a  draft plan for how this migration is to be completed, but the plan has yet  to be approved, and DOD was unable to provide us with documentation  of this effort.
At HHS, the department had four potentially duplicative investments in  Enterprise Information Security and two supporting Medicare Coverage.  The four information security investments maintain and secure the  operations and assets of HHS and its components. These investments were potentially duplicative because they had overlapping products and  solutions which were procured separately to address similar requirements  across HHS and its components. Department officials stated that,  although the information security investments appear to be duplicative on  the surface, these investments are not analogous to a system but, rather,  fund information security functions, such as personnel, policy, and  oversight for each component. Nonetheless, HHS officials stated that the  department is currently conducting a review, to be completed by  September 2013, to identify opportunities for consolidation of information  security activities across its components. As part of this, officials said that  HHS plans to use the Chief Information Security Officer council to gather  uniform toolsets that can be used across the department to improve  efficiencies.
The two Medicare coverage management systems—which are called the  National Coverage Determination and Local Coverage Determination  databases—collect and disseminate information regarding Medicare  coverage on national and local levels, as well as Medicare policy and  other related information to the public via a website. These systems were  potentially duplicative because they store and disseminate similar  Medicare information to the public, but are maintained separately by the  same contractor. Department officials stated that the department has  consolidated certain functions of the systems, such as help desk  functions and website management, to reduce duplication and create  efficiencies. With regard to the other functions, the officials said that they  determined that consolidating these functions would be more costly than  keeping them separate, due to issues such as differences in mandated  processes, security requirements and the size and complexity of the  systems, but were not able to provide documentation showing this cost  analysis.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: To the credit of DHS, DOD, and HHS, the vast majority of the IT  investments examined did not appear to be duplicative. Nonetheless,  those few identified as being potentially duplicative represent significant  financial investments on behalf of these agencies and appeared in part to  be unnecessary. In selected cases, DOD and HHS are acting to address  and eliminate duplicative investments. In other instances, DHS, DOD, and  HHS have not yet demonstrated evidence of plans to do so. As a result,  the agencies cannot provide assurance they are not spending resources  on duplicative investments.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better ensure agencies avoid duplicative investments, we recommend  that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct appropriate officials to: address the potentially duplicative investments identified in this report,  including assessing the extent to which a single system could meet  CBP and ICE immigration enforcement booking requirements.
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct appropriate officials  to: develop and document a plan on how the department intends to  migrate its single dental system solution to all the services.
We recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services direct  appropriate officials to: assess whether it would be cost effective to consolidate the remaining  functions of the Medicare coverage determination systems.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD and HHS agreed with our  recommendations. Specifically,   In its written comments, DOD concurred with our recommendation.  The department added that the Air Force and Army have already  transitioned to the single dental system solution (the Corporate Dental  Application). It also noted that the Navy is to do the same in fiscal  year 2015 (with the exception of ship-based installations of the system  which are not to be completed until fiscal year 2017 due to the ships’  limited availability for scheduling the installations). DOD’s comments  are reprinted in appendix III.
In comments provided via email from its GAO audit liaison within the  Office of the Chief Information Officer, HHS also concurred with our  recommendation.
DHS, in its written comments—which are reprinted in appendix IV—stated  it did not concur with our recommendation because the EAGLE and E3  investments have been reviewed by the DHS Chief Enterprise Architect  and have been through DHS’s annual IT review processes and were  found not to be duplicative. Specifically, DHS said that EAGLE and E3  share the same database, and the applications that access it were  developed separately to facilitate mission-specific functions for ICE and  CBP agents.
While we recognize that ICE and CBP developed their applications  separately to facilitate mission-specific functions, we also note that these  applications perform similar functions, such as capturing biographic  information on apprehended illegal aliens, recording illegal alien arrest  and enforcement incidents, and collecting biometric data on such aliens.  We also note (and discuss in the report) that ICE was unable to provide  analyses showing, among other things, that its specific requirements  could not be satisfied by the E3 system. Until such an assessment is  performed, DHS cannot provide assurance that it is not spending  resources on duplicative immigration enforcement investments.
DOD, HHS, and DHS also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or 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. GAO staff who made  major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objective was to identify whether there are potentially duplicative  information technology (IT) investments at key federal agencies. More  specifically, it was to identify the extent to which potentially duplicative IT  investments exist within Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  defined categories—such as defense and national security; disaster  management; health; and homeland security—at the key agencies that  reportedly spend the most on IT. To do this, we first selected for review  the three agencies with the largest amount of planned IT spending during  fiscal year 2012—namely, the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS),  Defense (DOD), and Health and Human Services (HHS).
The FEA is intended to provide federal agencies and other decision makers with a  common frame of reference or taxonomy for informing agencies’ individual enterprise  architecture efforts and their planned and ongoing investment activities, and to do so in a  way that identifies opportunities for avoiding duplication of effort and launching initiatives  to establish and implement common, reusable, and interoperable solutions across agency  boundaries.
This nongeneralizable sample of 590 IT investments was 8 percent of the  7,272 investments agencies reported on their exhibit 53s.The investments  we reviewed represented approximately 10 percent of DOD’s IT portfolio  in terms of number of investments that it reports to OMB, 31 percent of  HHS’s, and 33 percent of DHS’s.
Within each subfunction, we then reviewed the name and narrative  description of each investment’s purpose to identify similarities among  related investments within each agency. Once we identified investments  that had such similarities, we grouped them by mission purpose into  categories (we described as purpose groups)—such as dental  management and enterprise information security—that more specifically  defined the purpose and mission of these similar investments.
Next, we compared the investments within these groupings to identify  those that performed similar or overlapping functions. We then discussed  these investments with the appropriate agency officials, including whether  the investments could be consolidated or eliminated, and obtained  additional information on each investment. This included reviewing and  assessing agencies’ rationales for having multiple systems that perform  similar functions. Further, to identify any actions agencies had taken to  address the potentially duplicative investments we identified, we  assessed agency documentation (e.g., agency memorandums, project  plans) and interviewed officials. We also interviewed agency officials to  identify the actions taken to consolidate, eliminate, or modify such  investments.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to September  2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards required 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 objective.
section_title: Appendix II: Additional Information on Potentially Duplicative Investments
paragraphs: Table 4 provides information on the 12 potentially duplicative IT  investments at DHS, DOD, and HHS we identified as potentially  duplicative within the selected FEA categories (e.g., Health, Homeland  Security, and Information and Technology Management).
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, individuals making contributions  to this report included Gary Mountjoy (Assistant Director), Scott Borre,  Rebecca Eyler, James MacAulay, and Teresa Smith.