Federal Software Licenses: Better Management Needed to Achieve Significant Savings Government-Wide
Published: 2014-05-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The federal government plans to spend at least $82 billion on IT products and services in fiscal year 2014, such as software licenses. Federal agencies engage in thousands of licensing agreements annually. Effective management of software licenses can help avoid purchasing too many licenses that result in unused software.
GAO was asked to review federal agencies' management of software licenses. GAO (1) assessed the extent to which OMB and federal agencies have appropriate policies on software license management, (2) determined the extent to which agencies adequately manage licenses, and (3) described agencies' most widely used software and extent to which they were over or under purchased. GAO assessed policies from 24 agencies and OMB against sound licensing policy measures. GAO also analyzed and compared agencies' software inventories and management controls to leading practices, and interviewed responsible officials. To identify sound licensing policy measures and leading practices, GAO interviewed recognized private sector and government software license management experts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the vast majority of agencies that GAO reviewed do not have adequate policies for managing software licenses. While OMB has a policy on a broader information technology (IT) management initiative that is intended to assist agencies in gathering information on their IT investments, including software licenses, it does not guide agencies in developing comprehensive license management policies. Regarding agencies, of the 24 major federal agencies, 2 have comprehensive policies that include the establishment of clear roles and central oversight authority for managing enterprise software license agreements, among other things; 18 have them but they are not comprehensive; and 4 have not developed any. The weaknesses in agencies' policies were due, in part, to the lack of a priority for establishing software license management practices and a lack of direction from OMB. Without an OMB directive and comprehensive policies, it will be difficult for the agencies to consistently and effectively manage software licenses.
Federal agencies are not adequately managing their software licenses because they generally do not follow leading practices in this area. The table lists the leading practices and the number of agencies that have fully, partially, or not implemented them.
The inadequate implementation of leading practices in software license management was partially due to weaknesses in agencies' policies. As a result, agencies' oversight of software license spending is limited or lacking, and they may miss out on savings. The potential savings could be significant considering that, in fiscal year 2012, one major federal agency reported saving approximately $181 million by consolidating its enterprise license agreements even though its oversight process was ad hoc.
Given that agencies lack comprehensive software license inventories that are regularly tracked and maintained, GAO cannot accurately describe the most widely used software applications across the government, including the extent to which they were over and under purchased. Further, the data provided by agencies regarding their most widely used applications had limitations. Specifically, (1) agencies with data provided them in various ways, including by license count, usage, and cost; (2) the data provided by these agencies on the most widely used applications were not always complete; and (3) not all agencies had available data on the most widely used applications. Until weaknesses in how agencies manage licenses are addressed, the most widely used applications cannot be determined and thus opportunities for savings across the federal government may be missed.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends OMB issue a directive to help guide agencies in managing licenses and that the 24 agencies improve their policies and practices for managing licenses. OMB disagreed with the need for a directive, but GAO believes it is needed, as discussed in the report. Most agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no comments.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government plans to spend at least $82 billion on information  technology (IT) products and services in fiscal year 2014, such as  purchases of software licenses. More than 4 million desktop, laptop, and  networked computers serve as essential tools for achieving the missions  of federal agencies.
Federal agencies engage in thousands of licensing agreements annually.  Effective management of software licenses can help organizations avoid  purchasing too many licenses that result in unused software. In addition,  effective management can help avoid purchasing too few licenses, which  results in noncompliance with license terms and causes the imposition of  additional fees.
You asked us to review federal agencies’ management of software  licenses. Our objectives were to (1) assess the extent to which the Office  of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies have  appropriate policies on software license management, (2) determine the  extent to which federal agencies are adequately managing software  licenses, and (3) describe the software applications most widely used by  the federal agencies and the extent to which they were over or under  purchased.
To address our first objective, we identified seven elements that  comprehensive software license policies should contain by interviewing  six recognized software license management experts from the private and  federal sectors and comparing OMB guidance, relevant executive orders,  other federal guidance, and professional publications against the  elements that had been identified. Further, we analyzed OMB guidance,  interviewed OMB staff, and analyzed policies for managing software  licenses from the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agenciesseven elements for establishing comprehensive policies.
To accomplish the second objective, we identified five leading practices  for software license management by interviewing experts and comparing  the results to relevant guidance and professional publications, as  described for our first objective.  For each of the 24 agencies, we  compared the agencies’ practices with the five leading practices. In  addition, we obtained and analyzed relevant software license information  such as budget documentation for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, software  contracts, and software license inventories for fiscal years 2012 and  2013. We also obtained information through interviews with officials  responsible for software license management activities.
Finally, for our third objective, to describe the most widely used software  applications, we reviewed and analyzed the agencies’ software  inventories or agencies’ self-reported lists of applications according to  volume and spending for each of the 24 major federal agencies. We also  interviewed agency officials to determine whether data were available on  the extent to which software licenses were over or under purchased for  these applications.
Please see appendix I for detailed information on our methodology. conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional details of our scope  and methodology are contained in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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 pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. The law places  responsibility for managing investments with the heads of agencies and  establishes chief information officers (CIO) to advise and assist agency  heads in carrying out this responsibility.OMB to establish processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and  results of major capital investments in information systems made by  federal agencies and report to Congress on the net program performance  benefits achieved as a result of these investments.
Additionally, this law requires  Federal agencies are responsible for managing their IT investment  portfolio, including the risks from their major information system initiatives,  in order to maximize the value of these investments to the agency.  Federal agencies expect to spend at least $82 billion in fiscal year 2014  to meet their increasing demand for IT products and services, such as  purchases of software licenses.
Additionally, two executive orders contain information for federal agencies  relative to the management of software licenses. In particular, executive  order 13103 specifies that each agency shall adopt policies and  procedures to ensure that the agency uses only computer software not in  violation of copyright laws. These procedures may include information on  preparing agency software inventories. Additionally, as part of executive   on promoting efficient spending, agencies are required to  order 13589,assess current device inventories and usage, and establish controls to  ensure that they are not paying for unused or underutilized IT equipment,  installed software, or services.
According to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library’s Guide to  Software Asset Management, software licenses are legal rights to use  software in accordance with terms and conditions specified by the  software copyright owner. Rights to use software are separate from the  legal rights to the software itself, which are normally kept by the software  manufacturer or other third party. Licenses may be bought and are  normally required whenever externally acquired software is used, which  will typically be when the software is installed on a computer (or when  executed on a computer even if installed elsewhere such as on a server).  They may also be defined in enterprise terms, such as number of  workstations or employees, in which case a license is required for each  qualifying unit or individual regardless of actual usage.
Many software products are commercial-off-the-shelf, meaning the  software is sold in substantial quantities in the commercial market place.  Commercial software typically includes fees for initial and continued use  of licenses. These fees may include, as part of the license contract,  access to product support and/or other services, including upgrades.
Licensing models and definitions may significantly differ depending on the  software product and vendor. For example, the guidebasic types of licenses vary by duration and measure of usage:
Perpetual licenses: These licenses are when use rights are  permanent once purchased.
Subscription or rental licenses: These licenses are used for a specific  period of time, which can vary from days to years and may or may not  include upgrade rights.
Temporary licenses: These licenses are pending full payment or  receipt of proof of purchase.
Per copy, by workstation/seat/device, name used, anonymous user,  or concurrent user: Historically most licenses sold have been on a  per-copy-used basis, with several different units of measure possible.  Sometimes multiple users will be allowed per license
Concurrent usage: This type of license allows a specified number of  users to connect simultaneously to a software application. Products  exist to help monitor and control concurrent usage; however,  concurrent licenses are not as commonly available as per copy  licenses.
Per server speed or per processor: These licenses are linked to the  speed or power of the server on which they run, or the number of  processors within the server.
Enterprise or site: These licenses are sold on an enterprise or site  basis that requires a count of qualifying entities.
Other complexities: Other, more complex licensing situations related  to usage also exist with regard to licensing and the use of techniques  such as multiplexing, clustering, virtualization, shared services, thin  client, roaming services, and cloud and grid computing.
The objective of software license management is to manage, control, and  protect an organization’s software assets, including management of the  risks arising from the use of those software assets. Proper management  of software licenses helps to minimize risks by ensuring that licenses are  used in compliance with licensing agreements and cost-effectively  deployed, and that software purchasing and maintenance expenses are  properly controlled. To help ensure that the legal agreements that come  with procured software licenses are adhered to and that organizations  avoid purchasing unnecessary licenses, proper management of licenses  is essential.
section_title: OMB and Federal Agencies Need to Improve Policies on Managing Software Licenses
paragraphs: OMB and most federal agencies that we reviewed do not have adequate  policies for managing software licenses. OMB has a broader IT  management initiative, known as PortfolioStat, which is intended to assist  agencies in gathering information on their IT investments, including  software licenses. However, OMB does not have a directive guiding  agencies in developing comprehensive software license management  policies. Further, while 2 agencies have adequate policies for managing  software licenses, the vast majority of agencies do not. Specifically, of the  24 major federal agencies, 18 have developed them, but they are not  comprehensive; and 4 agencies have not developed any. The lack of  robust licensing policies is due in part to the absence of direction from  OMB. Without guidance from OMB or comprehensive policies, it will be  difficult for the agencies to consistently and effectively manage software  licenses.
subsections: section_title: Key OMB Policy Does Not Adequately Address Agencies’ Software License Management
paragraphs: OMB has developed policy that addresses software licenses as part of its  broader PortfolioStat IT initiative, as well as an executive order  containing additional direction to the agencies. Specifically, OMB  launched the PortfolioStat initiative in March 2012, and it requires  agencies to conduct an annual, agency-wide 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.  Toward this end, OMB established several key requirements for  agencies, including designating a lead official with responsibility for  implementing the process and consolidating at least two duplicative  commodity IT areas; such areas could include software licenses.
PortfolioStat is also intended to assist agencies in meeting the targets  and requirements under other OMB initiatives aimed at eliminating waste  and duplication and promoting shared services across the federal  government, such as the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative.example, through the PortfolioStat process, OMB works with agencies to  improve agency IT procurement processes, as outlined in the Federal  Strategic Sourcing Initiative, in order to reduce prices on specific  commodities that agency IT managers acquire, including software  licenses.
However, it is up to the agencies to decide whether software licenses  should be a priority for consolidation during the PortfolioStat review.  Several agencies identified enterprise software licensing as a target area  for cost savings or avoidance in the plans they provided to OMB in  September 2012: the Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD), the Department of State (State), the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Further, while PortfolioStat can assist agencies in identifying cost savings  and avoidance related to software licensing, this initiative, combined with  the key executive order on more efficient software spending, is not  enough to guide the agencies in developing comprehensive licensing  management policies. As previously discussed, the executive order  requires agencies to establish controls to ensure that they are not paying  for unused or underutilized software. However, OMB lacks a directive that  guides the agencies to ensure that they have appropriate policies.
An official from OMB’s Office of E-Government and Information  Technology stated that the PortfolioStat effort is intentionally focused on  the organization as opposed to an individual area such as software  license management. This official added that they have no plans to  develop such guidance at this time.
Until the agencies have sufficient direction from OMB, opportunities to  systematically identify software license related cost savings across the  federal government will likely continue to be missed.
section_title: The Majority of Agencies Have Software License Management Policies, but They Are Not Comprehensive
paragraphs: Given the absence of an OMB directive providing guidance to agencies  on licensing management policy, we identified seven elements that a  comprehensive software licensing policy should specify:  identify clear roles, responsibilities, and central oversight authority  within the department for managing enterprise software license  agreements and commercial software licenses; establish a comprehensive inventory (80 percent of software license  spending and/or enterprise licenses in the department) by identifying  and collecting information about software license agreements using  automated discovery and inventory tools; regularly track and maintain software licenses to assist the agency in  implementing decisions throughout the software license management  life cycle; analyze software usage and other data to make cost-effective provide training relevant to software license management; establish goals and objectives of the software license management  consider the software license management life-cycle phases (i.e.,  requisition, reception, deployment and maintenance, retirement, and  disposal phases) to implement effective decision making and  incorporate existing standards, processes, and metrics.
The following table provides a composite assessment of the 24 agencies’  policies on managing software license against the seven elements.
Two of the 24 agencies have developed comprehensive policies for  managing software licenses, the Department of Labor (Labor) and DHS.  For example, in April 2013, Labor’s Office of the CIO software license  management policies documented, among other things, how the agency  manages installation requests and licensing of software that is applicable  to its office and customers, as well as how licenses become part of its  inventory. Similarly, in February 2012, DHS provided guidance that the  Office of the CIO will monitor agency component usage of the enterprise  license agreement software transfer process, refine the process as  needed, and ensure cost avoidances are achieved. Related guidance  also directs all DHS components, directorates, and offices not to use  other contracting vehicles to procure software licenses once enterprise  licenses are in place DHS-wide.
Further, 18 agencies have taken steps to include software license  management policies in their IT management policies and procedures.  However, inclusion of the seven elements we identified varied with each  agency. Appendix II provides detailed information describing the extent to  which the 18 agencies had comprehensive policies, and the following are  illustrative examples.
Defense established policies that include the establishment of a  comprehensive inventory of software licenses and the analysis of  these data to inform investment decisions to identify opportunities to  reduce costs, but the department has not developed policies on  centralizing management, tracking an inventory using automated  tools, providing training to appropriate personnel on managing these  licenses, or considering the software license management life-cycle  phases.
State has policies that identify agency responsibilities regarding the  management of Microsoft and Oracle enterprise license agreements  and the tracking of software licenses, but has not developed a policy  for establishing a comprehensive inventory, analyzing software  license data to inform investment decisions, providing training on  management of software licenses, establishing goals and objectives  of managing software licenses, and considering the software license  management life-cycle phases.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has policies at the  business-unit level that address centralized management, establishing  inventories, and tracking software licenses using tools; however, the  agency has not developed a policy for analyzing software license data  to inform decision making, providing training on managing software  licenses, establishing goals and objectives for managing licenses, or  considering the software license management life-cycle phases.
Finally, 4 agencies (the Department of Commerce (Commerce), the  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of the  Interior (Interior), and the National Science Foundation (NSF)) had not  developed department-wide policies for managing software licenses,  according to officials. In one example, Commerce stated that it does not  have policies at the department level, but instead the individual  components are responsible for managing software licenses at the  bureau level and may have issued relevant software license management  policies. As an additional example, HHS has not established policies for  managing software licenses, but stated that it plans to establish a vendor  management office that will develop and manage guidance for centrally  managing its software licenses.
The general consensus of the agency officials we spoke to on their policy  weaknesses was that they were due, in part, to the lack of a priority for  establishing or enhancing department- or agency-level software license  management. As noted earlier, more specific direction from OMB could  assist agencies in giving more adequate attention to this area. Until  agencies develop comprehensive policies related to managing software  licenses, they cannot ensure that they are consistently and cost- effectively managing software throughout the agency.
section_title: Federal Agencies’ Practices on Managing Software Licenses Have Significant Weaknesses
paragraphs: Federal agencies are generally not following the leading practices we  identified for managing their software licenses. These practices include:  centralizing management; establishing a comprehensive inventory of  licenses; regularly tracking and maintaining comprehensive inventories  using automated discovery and inventory tools and metrics; analyzing the  software license data to inform investment decisions and identify  opportunities to reduce costs; and providing appropriate personnel with  sufficient training on software license management. Table 2 describes  these leading practices in managing software licenses.
Of the 24 major federal agencies, 4 had fully demonstrated at least one of  the leading practices, and none of the agencies had implemented all of  the leading practices. Table 3 outlines the extent to which each of the 24  major federal agencies have implemented leading practices for managing  software licenses. Following the table is a summary of the agencies’  implementation of each key practice. Additional details on the 24  agencies are provided in appendix II.
The majority of agencies have a partially centralized approach to  managing software licenses. Four of the 24 agencies have a  centralized approach to managing the majority (80 percent) of agency  software license spending, and/or agency enterprise licenses; 15  agencies have a partially centralized approach; and 5 agencies have a  decentralized approach to managing software licenses. For example,  NSF manages licenses for enterprise-wide software in a centralized  manner, which accounts for the majority of software used at the agency.  Management of licenses for special-use software is decentralized, but it  accounts for about 10 percent of the agency’s overall software inventory.
With regard to the 15 with a partially centralized approach, these  agencies may manage enterprise license agreements for selected  software centrally, but other software, which accounts for the bulk of  software used, may be managed by either agency components or  individual program areas. For example, Labor manages all of the  agency’s Microsoft enterprise license agreements and other software  managed within the Office of the CIO. However, Labor stated it does not  track software licenses of other agency components. To better centralize  the management of software licenses, Labor stated that it is in the  process of combining all IT components and management of their  software within the Office of the CIO and this effort is expected to be  completed in fiscal year 2016.
The 5 agencies that have a decentralized approach for managing  software licenses have delegated responsibilities to the components or  individual program areas. For example, Commerce manages software  licenses in a decentralized manner, where management of software  licenses is delegated to the agency’s components, and the management  structure within these components may vary. Agency officials stated that  in some components the Office of CIO is responsible for managing  software licenses, whereas other Commerce components operate in an  even more decentralized manner, with individual offices being responsible  for managing software licenses. However, of these five agencies, officials  from two agencies (HHS and Interior) noted they are planning to move  toward centralizing their approach to managing software licenses.
The majority of agencies do not have comprehensive inventories of  software licenses. Two of the 24 agencies have a comprehensive  inventory of software licenses; 20 have some form of an inventory; and 2  do not have any inventory of their software licenses purchased.  Specifically, according to HUD and NSF software license documentation,  these agencies have a comprehensive inventory of software licenses that  consists of the majority of the agency’s spending on software licenses  and/or enterprise licenses.
Twenty agencies have some form of an inventory, but they do not include  the majority of the software license spending or number of licenses. For  example, Energy has an inventory of software licenses within the Office of  the CIO that it stated represents approximately 6 percent of the total  number of users department-wide. Similarly, the Small Business  Administration (SBA) has a centrally managed inventory, but the  inventory is not comprehensive since it excludes information from several  program offices. However, according to SBA officials, the agency has a  tool to discover all software licenses on the SBA network that it expects to  deploy later in fiscal year 2014.
The remaining 2 agencies do not have any inventory representing the  majority of software license spending or total licenses.
The majority of agencies are partially tracking and managing  software license deployment and usage. None of the 24 agencies are  fully tracking and maintaining software license inventories. Specifically, 20  are partially tracking and managing licenses using automated discovery  and inventory tools and metrics, and 4 do not track or manage software  licenses with automated tools. Overall, agencies’ tracking and managing  of inventories varies. For example, the Department of Agriculture (USDA)  uses two automated discovery and inventory tools to capture  configuration information for all end points across the department to  include desktops, laptops, and servers. However, officials from the Office  of the CIO noted that these reports are not produced on a regular basis  and the agency is not able to track software licenses outside of enterprise  license agreements. As another example, according to DHS officials, the  agency does not track comprehensive inventories using automated tools  and metrics, but they stated that agency components track software  outside of DHS’s enterprise license agreements. However, DHS officials  stated that DHS does not have visibility of the majority of the  department’s licenses. Additionally, Interior is using an automated  discovery and inventory tool to track 21 different applications and  operating systems. According to agency officials, Interior also uses  spreadsheets to manually track licenses. However, the agency is not  frequently tracking, managing, and reporting on the majority of software  licenses.
Four agencies are not tracking and maintaining their inventories using  automated discovery and inventory tools.
Agencies are not adequately analyzing data to identify opportunities  for cost savings in software license purchases. None of the 24  agencies are fully analyzing software license data to inform investment  decisions: 15 have analyzed some data to inform investment decisions or  identify software license contract savings opportunities department-wide,  and the remaining 9 have not assessed any software license data to  identify opportunities for cost savings. More specifically, while the 15  agencies do not have controls in place for analyzing data on a regular  basis, they are finding opportunities in an ad hoc manner to reduce  software license spending and duplication. For example:
Through OMB’s PortfolioStat process, Commerce reported achieving  a total of $1.05 million in cost savings in fiscal year 2012 through  consolidation of selected software contracts, taking advantage of  lower prices offered through enterprise licensing.
DHS conducted department-wide contract business case  assessments on re-competing Adobe enterprise license agreements.  Based on the analyses, the agency reported cost avoidance over  $125 million through the Adobe agreement from March 2010 through  December 31, 2012. As another example, DHS negotiated more than  10 enterprise licensing agreementshardware vendors, which led to cost avoidance of $181 million in  fiscal year 2012. Furthermore, through the PortfolioStat process, in  October 2012, the agency reported a total estimated savings or cost  avoidance of approximately $376 million from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal  year 2015 with its enterprise license agreement initiative.
According to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)  officials, in fiscal year 2013, the agency realized cost savings of  approximately $33 million by consolidating major IT contracts,  including Cisco and Microsoft licenses, to achieve efficiencies.
VA reported through the PortfolioStat process that it renegotiated a  fiscal year 2012 enterprise license agreement to reduce costs  associated with software products used, saving the agency  approximately $13 million in net cost avoidance in fiscal year 2012  and $37 million in net cost avoidance for fiscal year 2013.
State reported through the PortfolioStat process a total estimated  savings or cost avoidance of $6 million for fiscal years 2014 and 2015  with regard to enterprise licensing software.
The remaining agencies did not demonstrate that they had analyzed  software license data to inform investment decisions. For example,  Department of Justice officials stated that this is primarily performed as  subordinate activities within programs or as annual activities for software  renewal through contract negotiations. However, documentation of this  analysis was not provided.
The majority of agencies lack training on management of software  licenses. None of the 24 agencies provided sufficient training to  appropriate personnel on managing software licenses. Specifically, 5  provided some, but not all, key training on managing software licenses,  including contract terms and conditions, and 19 did not provide any  software licenses management training. Specifically, in April 2013, NASA  provided a webinar presentation on its Enterprise License Management  Team that included information on the program’s mission, objectives,  dependencies and interfaces, and business cases, among other things.  However, this training did not include aspects of sufficient software  license management training such as negotiations, laws and regulations,  and contract terms and conditions department-wide. Similarly, while NRC  has provided software license management training to employees related  to configuration management through its broader training on Information  Technology Infrastructure Library, it has not done so for contract terms  and conditions as well as negotiations of software license agreements.  While these agencies have taken positive steps, the vast majority of the  federal agencies lack sufficient training.
The inadequate implementation of leading practices in software license  management can be linked to the weaknesses in agencies’ policies and  decentralized approaches to license management. As a result, agencies’  oversight of software license spending has been limited or lacking.  Therefore, without improved policies and oversight, agencies will likely  miss opportunities for significant savings across the federal government.
section_title: Agencies’ Most Widely Used Software Applications Are Not Known Due to Data Limitations
paragraphs: Given the weaknesses identified in this report regarding agencies’  lack of comprehensive, well-maintained inventories of software  licenses, we cannot accurately describe the most widely used  software applications across the government, including the extent to  which they were over and under purchased. Further, the data  provided by agencies regarding their most widely used applications  are varying, incomplete, or not available—and thus, cannot be  compared across the government.
Varying data: The agencies that had data on widely used software  applications provided it in various ways, including by license count,  usage, and cost. For example:
State, General Services Administration (GSA), and Labor  provided data by both license count and cost. According to a  State official, in fiscal year 2013, the cost for the department’s  most widely used software applications was about $17 million.  Officials also stated that Microsoft Office Professional 2010 is the  costliest application for the department (about $7 million) and  Entrust Entelligence Security Provider is the most widely used  application by licenses (approximately 124,000 licenses, costing  about $436,000). GSA provided a list of 13,809 different  applications with total software licenses counts for each specific  application. According to the agency, in fiscal year 2013, Oracle  was the costliest application (about $5.4 million), and Extend360  Enforcement Agent was the agency’s most widely used  application, with about 17,430 licenses. According to GSA  officials, in fiscal year 2013, the cost for the most widely used  software applications by license count was about $13 million.  Furthermore, Labor reported that its most widely used software  applications costs about $1.1 million in fiscal year 2012. In  addition, Labor reported that Windows 7 bundled with Microsoft  Office Professional 2010 was the department’s most costly  software (approximately $427,000 with 3,050 users). On the other  hand, SCCM Advanced Client was the department’s most  common software, with 3,107 users and costing about $41,000.
NASA and OPM provided data by cost. Specifically, NASA and  OPM reported on their costliest applications and stated that the  most widely used applications by license count and cost are the  same. In particular, OPM reported that its most widely used  applications cost about $9.7 million in fiscal year 2013. Among  these, OPM reported its Microsoft and Oracle enterprise licenses  agreement are the most costly applications with about $2.1 million  for each application, but no data on license count was provided.  NASA reported that in fiscal year 2012 the agency spent about  $13 million on its most widely used applications. Among these,  NASA reported that Oracle is the most widely used application by  both license count and cost. In fiscal year 2012, the agency spent  approximately $4.6 million on this software for 122,279 licenses.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and  Treasury provided data by license count. USAID reported  Microsoft Configuration Manager Client as its most widely used  application, with 12,341 licenses, but no cost data were provided.  Similarly, Treasury reported Microsoft as its most widely used  application, with about 1.3 million licenses, but no further data  were provided on actual applications, and department officials  stated it does not maintain a list of the most costly applications;  rather it uses the procurement process as an opportunity to  reassess software needs.
USDA provided data on license usage. Specifically, these data  included the total number of computers and the total number of  times the software was used. For example Microsoft Corporation  was listed, with 124,310 computers and 83,542,797 total  instances in which the software was used; however, further data  were not provided on the use of the actual applications (i.e., the  number of instances in which the software was used or the total of  duration of time it was used).
Incomplete data: The data provided by the agencies on the most widely  used applications were not always complete. For example, EPA’s  reported data included count and cost for a subset of software, and  therefore it was unclear which applications were most widely used. In  addition, while ten agencies (Commerce, the Department of  Transportation (DOT), Education, the Department of Energy (Energy),  Interior, Justice, NRC, SBA, and the Social Security Administration  (SSA)) provided a list of most widely used applications, no specific usage  data on the number of instances in which the software was used, the total  of duration of time it was used, or no cost was provided.
Unavailable data: Four agencies (Defense, HHS, DHS and VA) did not  have available data on the most widely used applications. The agencies  cited various reasons for not having these data, or for having incomplete  data. These reasons included non-centralized management of software  licenses and not having validated, reliable information. For example, HHS  indicated that these data are not available because the operating  divisions manage their own software applications. Similarly, according to  DHS officials, to provide the data on its most widely used and costliest  applications would require a larger departmental effort, including a data  call to each of the components. In addition, VA indicated that it is in the  process of validating this information and could not provide an accurate  answer.
As for the extent to which most widely used software licenses were over  and under purchased, none of the 24 agencies had cost data available for  over- or under-purchasing of their most widely used software applications.  Three agencies provided partial information on over- or under-purchasing  for the most widely used applications: Defense, SBA, and USDA.  Specifically, Defense officials stated that information on over- or under- purchasing exists within the Department of the Army for Microsoft  products; however, no data were provided. SBA believes this figure is  under $75,000 annually but did not have documentation to support this  assertion. Also, according to USDA officials, for fiscal year 2014, the  agency reduced its Microsoft Desktop licensing by over 4,000 units for the  new contract renewal and 11,000 for Adobe Acrobat Standard software.  However, the remaining 21 agencies do not have information on over- or  under-purchasing for the most widely used applications. For example,  Commerce officials stated they are not aware of any over- or under- purchased software and attributed this to a decentralized approach to  managing licenses. In addition, USAID officials stated that reporting on  over- and under-purchased licenses is problematic because of the  manual efforts that are required to gather and compare data against  known purchases. GSA officials stated that GSA does not have this  information available; however, they indicated that GSA plans to form an  office tasked with this responsibility.
Until agencies address the weaknesses identified in how they manage  their software licenses, including establishing a comprehensive inventory  that is regularly tracked and maintained, the most widely used  applications across the federal government cannot be accurately  determined. Additionally, because agencies were unable to identify the  extent to which these applications were over or under purchased, they  risk procuring software in a costly and ineffective manner.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The federal government procures thousands of software licenses  agreements annually, and therefore effectively managing them is critical  to ensure that agencies maximize the value of these investments. OMB  has issued a policy associated with a broader IT management initiative  but does not have a directive that assists agencies in developing licensing  policies. This is especially important since the majority of agencies lack  comprehensive policies and have significant weaknesses in managing  their software licenses. While most agencies have established policies  that address leading practices for effectively managing software licenses,  they are not comprehensive. This has contributed to the majority of  agencies (1) not having a fully centralized approach for managing  licenses, (2) not fully establishing a comprehensive inventory for regularly  tracking and maintaining software licenses, (3) not regularly tracking and  maintaining an inventory using tools and metrics, or (4) not providing  sufficient training on software management. The result is an inability to  analyze software license data to more cost-effectively buy and maintain  software licenses, and ascertain the software applications most widely  used across the federal government. Consequently, while agencies were  able to identify millions in savings for software, there is the potential for  even greater savings and additional opportunities to reduce software  license spending and duplication than what agencies have reported. Until  OMB and the agencies focus on improving policies and processes, they  will not have the data to manage software licenses and will likely miss  opportunities to reduce costs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Director of OMB issue a directive to the agencies  on developing comprehensive software licensing policies comprised of  the seven elements identified in this report.
We are also making numerous recommendations to the 24 departments  and agencies in our review to improve their policies and practices for  managing software licenses. Appendix III contains these  recommendations.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the 24 Chief Financial  Officers Act agencies in our review for comment and received responses  from all 25. OMB disagreed with our recommendation to issue a directive  and of the 24 agencies that we made specific recommendations to, 11  agreed, 5 partially agreed, 2 neither agreed nor disagreed, and 6 had no  comments. The agencies’ comments and our responses are summarized  below.
In written comments, OMB noted that there are several management  tools in place with respect to software license management, including  the three we identified in our report; however, the agency disagreed  with our statements that OMB and federal agencies need to improve  policies on managing software licenses, and that until agencies have  sufficient direction from OMB, opportunities to systematically identify  software license related cost savings across the federal government  will likely continue to be missed. In particular, OMB cited two  additional management initiatives that it asserted have significant  bearing in the area of software licensing that were not included in our  report. These two initiatives are known as “Maximizing Use of  SmartBuy and Avoiding Duplication” and “Cross Agency Priority Goal:  Cybersecurity.”
OMB stated that the SmartBuy initiative, along with the initiatives  detailed in our report, deliver a policy foundation that allows an  agency to leverage GSA and collaborate with agencies and monitor  performance. In addition, OMB stated that the Cybersecurity initiative  can be used to understand the risk and vulnerabilities of the software  an agency is using. The agency also noted that through the collective  OMB initiatives, agencies now have the tools to identify when there is  underutilization of software and are better able to recapture those  underutilized licenses and deploy them to people who need them.
While we agree that OMB’s initiatives collectively represent important  management tools for agencies, they are not enough to guide  agencies in developing comprehensive license management policies.  More specifically, the two initiatives along with the other three we  previously cited do not provide guidance to agencies on developing  software license management policies comprised of the seven  elements identified in our report. Our report shows that only 2 of the  24 major agencies have comprehensive policies in place; and only 2  have comprehensive license inventories. Until this gap in guidance is  addressed, agencies will likely continue to lack the visibility into what  needs to be managed, and be unable to take full advantage of OMB’s  SmartBuy and other tools to drive license efficiency and utilization.  Therefore, we continue to believe that OMB should develop a  directive that guides the agencies to ensure that they have  appropriate policies. OMB’s comments are reprinted in appendix XX.
In e-mail comments, an official from Agriculture’s Audit Liaison Group  stated that the department generally concurs with our findings and  recommendations and plans to move forward with our  recommendations.
In written comments, Commerce stated the department concurred  with our findings as they apply to the status of software license  management within the department, but partially concurred with four  of our six recommendations. Specifically, the department plans to  develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management of  software licenses, and ensure that software license management  training is provided to appropriate agency personnel. Since the  department did not provide any information on the reasons why it  partially concurred with the remaining recommendations, we are  maintaining our recommendations. Commerce’s comments are  reprinted in appendix IV.
In written comments, Defense concurred with two of the six  recommendations and partially concurred with the remaining ones.  Specifically, the department partially concurred with our  recommendations to develop a comprehensive policy; employ a  centralized license management approach; establish a  comprehensive license inventory; and regularly track and maintain the  inventory using automated tools and metrics.
With regard to a need for a comprehensive policy and centralized  approach, the department stated that it concurs that a license  management policy is necessary to address the weaknesses we  identified; and that the majority of license spending and/or enterprise- wide licenses should be managed using an approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel. However, Defense  stated it does not concur that a centralized management approach is  appropriate for the size and complexity of the department.
We continue to believe our recommendations are valid because  consistent with leading practices, in order to take advantage of  economies of scale, a single entity should have access to department- wide software license data. Furthermore, the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires the Defense CIO, in  consultation with Defense component CIOs, to issue a plan to conduct  a department-wide inventory of a subset of software licenses that will  maximize its return on investment; and to describe in the plan how the  department can achieve the greatest economies of scale and savings  in the procurement, use, and optimization of these licenses. In  addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014  further clarifies what the plan should entail. Adequately conducting an  inventory will necessitate that Defense centrally manage its software  license data. Having licensing management policy in place to address  the identified weaknesses, as well as employing a centralized  approach, would position the department to more effectively carry out  these mandated requirements, among other things.
With regard to the need for a license inventory and tools to track the  inventory, Defense stated that it concurs that inventory data should be  collected for agency software licenses purchased and/or enterprise- wide licenses; and that effective license management requires regular  tracking and maintaining of inventory data using automated tools and  metrics. However, the department stated it does not concur that  maintaining an inventory comprising the majority of software  regardless of dollar value is required. Further, Defense stated it may  be resource exhaustive to incorporate automated tools to establish  inventories for the majority of licenses; and may not be practicable to  retroactively collect standard data about historical license transactions  due to the decentralized nature of purchasing and license  management today within the department.
We agree that inventory data does not need to include all software  regardless of dollar value. As detailed in our report, leading practices  note a comprehensive inventory should represent the majority (80  percent) of the agency’s software license spending and/or enterprise  licenses to allow the department visibility that reduces redundant  applications and identification of other cost saving opportunities.  Moreover, in response to the requirements in the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Defense’s own licensing  inventory plan is based on the software products with the highest  relative spend across the department to target the products that  present the greatest potential economies of scale and cost savings. In  other words, the department is already planning to take steps to  establish an inventory consistent with our recommendation.
Regarding the use of automated tools to collect and maintain the  licensing inventory, we agree that the department should take the  most cost-effective and forward-looking approach. Accordingly, a  focus on implementing tools and metrics on current and future  software license purchases (rather than historical transactions) is  reasonable. Such an approach is consistent with our  recommendations; therefore, we are maintaining them. The  department’s comments are reprinted in appendix V.
In written comments, Education concurred with our recommendations  and stated it plans to implement a revised software acquisition policy  in 2014, which will allow for better management, tracking, and  reporting of software licenses. The department’s comments are  reprinted in appendix VI.
In written comments, Energy neither agreed nor disagreed with our  recommendations, but stated that it has taken a number of steps to  aggregate licensing, and at this time has no plans to centralize  software licensing. In particular, the department stated it agrees that  there may be opportunities to aggregate licensing to achieve volume  discounts and integrate disparate but related data sources. Energy  further stated its IT Modernization Strategy, targeted for completion in  fiscal year 2016, seeks to reduce the number of procurement vehicles  and to leverage the department’s collective buying power, among  other things. Energy also described activities under way that it  believes address our specific recommendations, as well as clarified  specific facts (on developing a comprehensive policy and having  visibility into 45 percent of the department’s licenses), which we  incorporated in the report as appropriate.
While we agree that these activities are important steps, we continue  to believe that further work is needed to improve software license  management at the department. Because of Energy’s decentralized  approach, it does not have visibility into the majority of the  department’s software licenses. Additionally, while the department  stated analysis is done on agency-wide software usage and training is  managed on an office-by-office basis, Energy could not provide  evidence to substantiate these claims. Until the department takes a  more centralized approach, as well as addresses the other identified  weaknesses, such as regular analysis of licensing inventory data to  inform decisions and relevant management training, the department  will likely not be adequately positioned to take advantage of the  procurement vehicles and collective buying power currently being  planned as part of its modernization strategy. The department’s  comments are reprinted in appendix VII.
In written comments, HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our  recommendations and noted initiatives it plans to take to promote cost  savings and visibility regarding IT spending. The department’s  comments are reprinted in appendix VIII.
In written comments, DHS concurred with our recommendations and  identified steps the department plans to take to address the  weaknesses. The department’s comments are reprinted in appendix  IX.
In written comments, HUD had no comments on our report and stated  it would provide more definitive information with timelines once the  final report has been issued. The department’s comments are  reprinted in appendix X.
In written comments, Interior agreed with most of our findings and  concurred with five recommendations and partially concurred with one  recommendation. The department partially disagreed with our  recommendation to provide sufficient software license management  training to appropriate personnel, stating that it will continue to provide  training on contract terms and conditions, among other things and it  does not agree that unique training is needed for software license  management. We agree that unique training in software license  management is not needed if included as part of other training as we  identified in our report. However, the department did not provide any  documentation to support that training has been provided to  appropriate personnel. We therefore maintain our recommendation.  The department’s comments are reprinted in appendix XI.
In e-mail comments, an official from Justice’s Audit Liaison Group  stated that the department concurs with the recommendations and will  address how it plans to implement them once the final report has  been issued.
In e-mail comments, an official from Labor’s Office of the Assistant  Secretary for Policy stated the department had no comments.
In written comments, State noted that it concurred with our  recommendations and plans to identify actions to address these  recommendations. The department’s comments are reprinted in  appendix XII.
In e-mail comments, the Deputy Director of Audit Relations from  Transportation stated it had no comments.
In written comments, the Department of the Treasury had no  comments on the report. The department’s comments are reprinted in  appendix XIII.
In written comments, VA generally agreed with our conclusions and  concurred with our six recommendations. The department also  identified initiatives underway to address the weaknesses identified in  the report. The department’s comments are reprinted in appendix XIV.
In written comments, EPA partially agreed with our assessment and  acknowledges that there is work to be done to better manage  software licenses for the agency. Since the agency did not specifically  state why it partially concurred, we are maintaining our  recommendations. The agency’s comments are reprinted in appendix  XV.
In written comments, GSA agreed with our findings and  recommendations and stated it would take actions as appropriate.  The agency’s comments are reprinted in appendix XVI.
In written comments, NASA concurred with three recommendations  and partially concurred with three others. Specifically, the agency  partially concurred with our recommendations to employ a centralized  management approach, establish a comprehensive license inventory,  and regularly track and maintain this inventory using automated tools  and metrics. The agency stated that to fully implement a centralized  software license management approach will require several phases,  working with NASA stakeholders to ensure both mission and  institutional software is integrated. In particular, NASA stated it would  be difficult to employ one centralized software license management  tool because, while it has a mechanism in place for a few of its large  enterprise license purchases, several of its large IT contracts have  purchasing of licenses embedded in the contract conditions.  Accordingly, the agency cannot easily obtain inventory data for  licenses not in its control (i.e., contractor-managed licenses).  Additionally, NASA noted that to fully establish and regularly track and  maintain a comprehensive inventory will require changes to some of  the large IT contracts at the agency to be able to automatically pull the  licensing information into a centralized system, with increased costs.
While we agree that a phased approach to implementing a centralized  software license approach may be the most practicable, we are not  advocating the department collect information on licenses it does not  control. Instead our recommendations to establish and regularly track  and maintain a comprehensive inventory of licenses are for the  licenses that NASA purchases directly, as we noted in our report.  Thus, we maintain our recommendations. The agency’s comments  are reprinted in appendix XVII.
In written comments, NSF stated that it had no comments on our  report. The agency’s comments are reprinted in appendix XVIII.
In written comments, NRC stated it generally agreed with our report  and had no further comments. The agency’s comments are reprinted  in appendix XIX.
In written comments, OPM concurred with our recommendations and  noted actions the agency plans to take. The agency’s comments are  reprinted in appendix XXI.
In e-mail comments, an official from SBA’s Office of Congressional  and Legislative Affairs stated it had no comments.
In written comments, SSA agreed with our recommendations and  identified actions the agency plans to take. The agency’s comments  are reprinted in appendix XXII.
In written comments, USAID agreed with our recommendations and  identified actions it plans to take. The agency’s comments are  reprinted in appendix XXIII.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services,  Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor,  State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney  General; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; the  Administrator of the General Services Administration; the Administrator of  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Director of the  National Science Foundation; the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory  Commission; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the  Director of the Office of Personnel Management; the Administrator of the  Small Business Administration; the Commissioner of the Social Security  Administration; the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International  Development; and other interested parties. This report also is available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have any questions on information discussed in  this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4456 or ChaC@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 XXIV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives for this engagement were to (1) assess the extent to which  the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies have  appropriate policies on software license management, (2) determine the  extent to which federal agencies are adequately managing software  licenses, and (3) describe the software applications most widely used by  the federal agencies and the extent to which they were over or under  purchased. The scope of our review included the 24 major agencies  covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.
To address our first objective, we identified seven elements that  comprehensive software license policies should contain. To do so, we  first identified experts in the field of software license management by  reviewing software license management websites and professional  literature. We then selected six experts based on type, depth, and  relevance of software license management experience, as well as  relevance of published work, awards and recognition in the professional  community, recommendations, and availability with a range of private and  public sector experience. We selected the following six individuals:
Patricia Adams—Research Director, Gartner, Inc.
Victoria Barber—Research Director, Gartner, Inc.
Tim Clark—Partner, The FactPoint Group
Steve Cooper—Chief Information Officer (CIO) Executive Advisor,  Mason-Harriman Group and former Federal Aviation Administration  CIO
Mark Day—Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Integrated  Technology Services, General Services Administration
Amy Konary—Research Vice President, International Data  Following our expert selection process, we interviewed each of the  recognized experts to solicit information about what software license  policies should contain.
We then compared the information collected from the experts against  OMB guidance, relevant executive orders, other federal guidance, and  professional literature. We synthesized the resulting information into a list  of seven elements:  identify clear roles, responsibilities, and central oversight authority  within the department for managing enterprise software license  agreements and commercial software licenses; establish a comprehensive inventory (80 percent of software license  spending and/or enterprise licenses in the department) by identifying  and collecting information about software license agreements using  automated discovery and inventory tools; regularly track and maintain software licenses to assist the agency in  implementing decisions throughout the software license management  life cycle; analyze software usage and other data to make cost-effective provide training relevant to software license management; establish goals and objectives of the software license management  consider the software license management life-cycle phases (i.e.,  requisition, reception, deployment and maintenance, retirement, and  disposal phases) to implement effective decision making and  incorporate existing standards, processes, and metrics.
We then solicited feedback from our experts on the elements developed,  and integrated this feedback to finalize our elements. Three of the experts  contributed to the validation of our list of elements.
For each of the 24 agencies, we then obtained and analyzed policy  documents, such as agency and departmental guidance, policies,  procedures, regulations, and standard operating procedures, and  compared them to the seven elements. We also obtained information  through interviews with officials responsible for software license  management activities.
Further, to assess the extent to which the OMB has appropriate guidance  on software license management, we collected and analyzed OMB  guidance on the PortfolioStat and Strategic Sourcing initiatives to  determine its efforts to oversee federal agencies’ management of  software licenses. We then compared these efforts to relevant legislation  and executive orders. In addition, we reviewed the results of our prior  work on PortfolioStat. We then interviewed OMB officials to identify their  views on whether the relevant guidance for software license management  to federal agencies is appropriately established.
For our second objective, on managing licenses, we identified five leading  practices in the field of software license management. We used the same  process involving the six experts as described for the first objective. We  synthesized the resulting information into a set of leading practices that  can help agencies manage their software licenses, including (1)  centralizing the management of software licenses; (2) establishing a  comprehensive inventory that represents at least 80 percent of the  agency’s total software license spending and/or total software licenses  agency-wide; (3) regularly tracking and maintaining an inventory using  automated discovery and inventory tools and metrics; (4) analyzing the  data to inform investment decisions and identifying opportunities to  reduce costs; and (5) providing appropriate agency personnel with  sufficient software license management training. We then solicited  feedback from our experts on the leading practices developed, and  integrated this feedback to finalize our leading practices. Three of these  experts contributed to the validation of our list of effective practices.
To determine the extent to which federal agencies are adequately  managing their software licenses, we obtained and analyzed relevant  software license information such as budget documentation for fiscal  years 2012 and 2013, software contracts, management of software  license policies and procedures, software license inventories for fiscal  years 2012 and 2013, documentation on internally reported cost saving,  training curriculums, software management application documentation  and reports. We also obtained information through interviews with officials  responsible for software license management activities. For each agency,  we then compared agencies’ documentation against the five leading  practices to determine the extent to which they are adequately managing  licenses.
To assess the reliability of the data agencies provided in their software  license inventories, we confirmed with agencies whether these  inventories were comprehensive (i.e., representing at least 80 percent of  the agency’s total software license spending and/or total software  licenses agency-wide). In cases where the agency attested to its being  comprehensive, we asked agency officials how they ensure the data  within their inventories are comprehensive, reliable, valid, and accurate,  and requested supporting documentation, such as those related to  internal control processes. For those inventories that agencies reported  as not comprehensive, we determined additional data reliability steps  were not required because agencies have knowledge to determine  whether they do not have a comprehensive inventory and would not have  concerns with inventories being rated as not comprehensive if the rating  was based on their own assessment. We concluded that the data were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes for the first two objectives.
Finally, for our third objective, we collected and analyzed information on  the most widely used software applications, such as agencies’ software  inventories and/or lists of applications according to volume and spending.  In addition, we obtained information on whether software licenses were  over or under purchased for the most widely used applications, as  documented by the agencies. For each of the 24 agencies, we analyzed  the information to describe the extent to which the most widely used  applications were over or under purchased. We also interviewed agency  officials. We identified issues with the reliability of the information on the  most widely used applications because the data varied or were  incomplete. We did not test the adequacy of agencies’ cost data. Our  evaluation of these cost data was based on what we were told by  agencies and the information the agencies could provide.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to May 2014 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of Agencies’ Software License Management Practices
paragraphs: We conducted detailed assessments of the 24 Chief Financial Officers  Act agencies’ software license management practices against leading  practices. The following section summarizes the results of our  assessment of each agency’s software license management against  leading practices.
subsections: section_title: Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: Table 4 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Department of Commerce
paragraphs: ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
Table 5 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Department of Defense
paragraphs: ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
Table 6 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Defense’s (Defense) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Department of Education
paragraphs: ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
Table 7 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Education’s (Education) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Department of Energy
paragraphs: Table 8 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Energy’s (Energy) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   Energy’s policy, Order 200.1A on IT Management, requires the Office of the CIO to  address centralized management through consolidation of software acquisition,  volume purchasing arrangements and enterprise-wide agreements and track and  maintain its inventory of software licenses. However, Energy does not have policy  addressing analysis of license data to better inform investment decision making,  education and training, establishing goals and objectives of the program, and  managing licenses throughout their entire lifecycle.
Energy’s licenses are primarily managed in a decentralized manner. According to  Energy officials, licenses within the Office of the Chief Information Officer are tracked  centrally, which accounts for approximately 45 percent of the department’s users.
Energy does have an inventory of software licenses; however, it is limited to the  licenses managed by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which, according to  Energy officials, account for approximately 45 percent of the department’s users.  Specifically, this inventory includes information covering the version number, total  number of licenses, and total number of licenses in use.
Energy uses automated tools to track licenses within the Office of the Chief  Information Officer, but this only covers licenses managed by the office, which  accounts for approximately 45 percent of department’s users.
Energy does not analyze the data to inform investment decisions and identify  opportunities to reduce costs. Energy officials stated this is occurring at the program  level; however, documentation to support this was not available.
Energy has not provided relevant software license management training; however,  according to officials, there may be localized training within programs and field sites.  ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services
paragraphs: Table 9 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) practices for  managing software licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   HHS officials stated that the department has not developed department-wide policies  for managing software licenses. However, the officials stated that it has hired a  Vendor Management Office Director and that the vendor management office will take  the lead in centrally managing HHS commercial vendors and applicable software  licenses. According to HHS officials, the establishment of the vendor management  office is in process.
While HHS officials stated it has a limited inventory, the department did not provide  supporting documentation of this inventory. In addition, according to HHS officials,  outside of a limited amount of information on software such as Windows and Microsoft  Office, HHS manages its software licenses in a decentralized manner. HHS officials  explained that the department’s operating divisions manage their own needs and HHS  does not have insight into the management of the majority of software or inventories.  However, the department plans to fully staff a vendor management office to centralize  the management of software licenses.
HHS has not established a comprehensive inventory representing the majority of  software license spending or total licenses. According to officials, it does not have a  comprehensive software license inventory because it has multiple operating divisions  that internally manage software and software contracts do not clearly consist of just  software.
HHS does not regularly track and maintain comprehensive inventories of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
HHS has not analyzed fiscal year 2012 and 2013 department-wide software license  data, such as costs, benefits, usage, and trending data, to inform investment  decisions to identify opportunities to reduce costs. The department officials stated that  this information is not available.
HHS officials stated that the department does not have documentation that it provided  agency personnel with sufficient software license management training.  ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: Table 10 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Department of Housing and Urban Development
paragraphs: Table 11 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) practices for  managing software licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   While HUD infrastructure requirements, including license management, are managed  mostly through HUD’s Information Technology Services contract, which has policies  for management of those licenses, the agency has not established policy for the  agency’s licenses including Microsoft and Oracle, which account for about $7.2 million.  HUD officials agreed that the agency’s IT license management policies should be  updated to reflect current licensing agreements for its software.
HUD manages software licenses in a centralized manner through its Office of the  Chief Information Officer. HUD officials stated that about 95 percent of the software is  managed through its infrastructure managed services contract. HUD oversees these  contractor services through a set of service-level agreements that are tracked,  monitored, and evaluated continuously by an independent verification and validation  contract, according to officials. HUD officials also stated that its discovery tool licenses  are managed by the HUD Office of the Chief Information Officer outside of its services  contract.
HUD oversees a comprehensive inventory of software the department uses. The  majority of the software is managed by contractors. According to HUD officials, the  Office of the Chief Information Officer oversees an inventory representing 95 percent  of its software licenses, which are managed entirely by contractors through service- level agreements.
According to HUD officials, about 95 percent of the department’s software, with the  exception of discovery tool licenses, is managed by contractors that the Office of the  Chief Information Officer oversees. HUD regularly tracks this software information  through contractors and use of an automated tool. In addition, the department has  acquired independent verification and validation contractor support to validate  infrastructure service-level agreement metrics and performance information for all  enterprise infrastructure services provided by contractors. However, HUD officials  stated that the department’s contracts do not have performance measures or service- level agreements specifically related to managing software licenses.
HUD has not analyzed department-wide data, such as costs, benefits, usage, and  trending data, to inform investment decisions to identify opportunities to reduce costs.  According to HUD officials, the department’s contractors provide enterprise  infrastructure managed service requirements for supporting HUD’s business and do  not identify specific software licensing requirements. Accordingly, these officials stated  that the department could not associate specific costs with software licenses provided  by its contractors since contractors are providing a service at a fixed price. In addition,  while HUD could provide cost information for software acquired outside of those  contracts, it could not provide any related analysis of software data to inform its  investment decisions.
Summary of evidence   According to HUD officials, the department does not provide software license  management training to agency personnel since contractors primarily manage  software licenses under the oversight of the Office of the Chief Information Officer.  However, no documentation was provided on training received by contactors to  manage software licenses.  ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Department of the Interior
paragraphs: Table 12 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: Table 13 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Justice’s (Justice) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   Justice has a policy on governing the planning, acquisition, security, operation,  management and use of IT resources that addresses centralized management. In  particular, the policy states that for software purchases, Justice components shall use  department enterprise license agreements, blanket purchase agreements, and other  authorized contract vehicles, if economically advantageous. However, the policy does  not specifically span the management of software licenses through establishing and  tracking an inventory, analysis, education and training, goals and objectives, and life- cycle management.
Justice’s Office of the Chief Information Officer centrally manages enterprise-wide  solutions and services, such as Oracle, Adobe, and Microsoft agreements. However,  Justice officials stated that components are not required to use or buy software using  these agreements, but they almost always do. According to Justice officials, there is  no process to manage all software licenses department-wide and management of IT  resources occurs primarily at the component level. To better address centralized  management, Justice officials stated that the department plans to develop a vendor  management program office and define new related processes in the third and fourth  quarters of fiscal year 2014.
subsections: section_title: Leading practice
paragraphs: Justice has centralized inventory information for Oracle, Adobe, and Microsoft  enterprise license agreements. However, it does not have a comprehensive inventory  representing the majority of software licenses used across the department and the  majority of its total software license spending. According to officials, management of  IT resources is performed primarily at the component level.
Justice annually tracks and manages centralized enterprise license agreement  information for products such as Microsoft and Oracle within the Office of Chief  Information Officer. However, officials stated that these software data may not capture  all of its components’ procured software since these enterprise license agreements  are not mandatory and the department does not have an automated tool that  incorporates software license management-specific metrics.
Justice was unable to provide documentation showing that it analyzed software  license data department-wide, such as costs, benefits, usage, and trending data, to  inform investment decisions and identify opportunities to reduce costs.
While Justice officials stated that personnel have participated in relevant training such  as acquisition workshops, the agency was unable to provide documentation of training  and stated it does not have a software license management training program.   ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Department of Labor
paragraphs: Table 14 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Labor’s (Labor) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Department of State
paragraphs: Table 15 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of State’s (State) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   State has policies which govern the centralized management of software licenses and  tracking software licenses. Specifically, the Bureau of Information Resource  Management policy identifies responsibilities for the management of Microsoft and  Oracle enterprise license agreements and the tracking of software licenses. However,  there are no policies addressing establishing a comprehensive inventory, analyses of  software license data, training on management of software licenses, goals and  objectives, and consideration of the software license life-cycle phases.
According to State officials, enterprise agreements are managed centrally, while the  remaining licenses are managed on a bureau-by-bureau basis. Specifically, Microsoft  and Oracle enterprise license agreements are managed centrally, and VMware and  Adobe have blanket purchase agreements that have cross-bureau participation within  the department, which are also managed centrally. Officials noted that the department  has established an Enterprise Licensing Steering Committee that plans to create more  efficiency through centralization.
subsections: section_title: Leading practice
paragraphs: While the department has an inventory of software applications, including Microsoft  licenses, it is not comprehensive. According to State officials, the department is  working on establishing a department-wide inventory that will include Oracle,  Symantec, and Entrust, but a timeline for implementation is not yet determined.
While the department is centrally tracking Microsoft licenses using automated tools,  other licenses such as Oracle, Symantec, and Entrust are not being tracked.  According to officials, as the tool evolves, State plans to automate many of the  reconciliation processes and metrics it uses. In addition, it is unclear at what interval  reporting is occurring.
While State has conducted analysis using its automated tracking tool, including an  analysis of license costs and quantity by location, there is limited evidence showing  how it is used to inform investment decision making. State officials said the  department plans to begin analyzing software license data to inform investment  decisions, but did not provide a time frame for implementation.
State has not provided software license management training to employees, but  stated that its newly established steering committee is focused on software licenses  and will take training into consideration.  ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Department of Transportation
paragraphs: Table 16 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   DOT has a policy addressing components of centralized management and  management of software licenses through the entire life cycle. According to officials,  DOT is in the process of updating its policy; however, it is unclear if this update will  address establishing an inventory of licenses, regularly tracking licenses using  automated tools, analyzing license data to inform investment decision making,  providing license management training to personnel, and establishing goals and  objectives of the program. DOT officials expect to have this policy in place by  December 2014.
Summary of evidence   DOT manages most of its licenses through a common operating environment  deployed to each DOT workstation. However, this does not include software within the  Federal Aviation Administration or specialized software. Specifically, according to  DOT officials, this accounts for approximately 94 percent of the users within the  department (11,177 out of 11,799 users). Officials noted that the 11,799 users do not  include any of the users from the Federal Aviation Administration, and DOT is  uncertain how many users are within this component.
DOT provided an inventory for its common operating environment, but not a  department-wide inventory. According to officials, this accounts for approximately 94  percent of the users within DOT, not including users from the Federal Aviation  Administration.
DOT tracks and maintains all licenses within the common operating environment on a  monthly basis. Specifically, reports are run using automated tools, specifically  Microsoft’s System Center Configuration Manager, Safeboot Management Console,  and Stratusphere. However, the department does not track or maintain  comprehensive inventories within the Federal Aviation Administration.
While DOT conducted analyses for Microsoft products in 2012 and 2013, it is unclear  to what extent the department has done so for other licenses. DOT officials stated that  it is conducting analysis as contracts expire. Specifically, this process includes a  comparison of current needs with the previous year’s count and occurs during contract  renewals. Additionally, according to officials, a survey was conducted last year that  resulted in a reduction of Acrobat Pro licenses, but documentation to support this  analysis was not available.
DOT has not provided software license management training to its employees and it  does not have plans to do so, according to officials. ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: Table 17 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   Treasury has policies in place addressing the establishment of a comprehensive  inventory of software licenses and the analysis of data to inform investment decisions  and identify opportunities to reduce costs. However, policies and procedures  addressing centralized management, tracking licenses regularly using automated  tools, providing software license management education and training to personnel,  establishing goals and objectives for the program, and managing licenses throughout  their entire life cycle do not exist.
Treasury manages licenses in a decentralized manner. Specifically, while Treasury  does pursue enterprise software license agreements across the department as part of  strategic sourcing, the agreements leave the management of these licenses to the  bureaus.
According to officials, Treasury does not have a consolidated inventory because the  process of managing software licenses occurs at the individual bureaus.   However, Treasury did provide an inventory of software licenses from April to June  2013, which was established using an automated tool. The inventory includes counts  of licenses for specific applications. According to Treasury officials, the tool collects  data on all devices connected to the Treasury network at any given time.
The department performs monthly scans of software using an automated tool that  looks at hardware, software, usage, number of licenses, and number of licenses  installed, but according to officials, the tracking of these licenses using automated  tools occurs at the bureau-level and tracking is not conducted department-wide.
The department does not exclusively track whether specific software license data  have been used to inform investment decisions.
Treasury’s Office of the Chief Information Officer does not provide software license  management training to its employees. ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Department of Veterans Affairs
paragraphs: Table 18 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
VA centrally manages the software licenses that are procured through an enterprise  license agreement. In addition, officials stated they are planning to move toward a  more centralized approach to managing the majority of its software licenses, but no  time frame for completion was provided. Specifically, VA has established a  Technology Innovation Program Office to enhance its capabilities to manage software  as an asset.
While VA provided an inventory of licenses, it is not comprehensive. VA officials  stated that a comprehensive inventory will be achieved over time as the policies and  procedures for the Technology Innovation Program Office are established and  enforced.
VA uses automated tools to track software that accounts for some data and manually  tracks information on how many licenses VA owns or is entitled to operate. However,  according to officials, the Technology Innovation Program Office is investigating the  best methods for compiling an inventory of licenses.
While VA has analyzed data on its Microsoft enterprise licenses, it has not done so for  other software licenses. Specifically, in 2012, VA conducted an analysis of Microsoft  license data that resulted in a reported savings of over $30 million. This was attributed  to a recompetition which resulted in all software under this agreement being  aggregated as one purchase. However, officials stated they are unclear if this type of  analysis is performed on all enterprise license agreements. VA officials stated one of  the goals of the Technology Innovation Program Office is to ensure this type of  analysis is performed for all future license purchases.
VA officials indicated that training has been completed through a contract with  Gartner. However, the department did not provide documentation to support that this  training has occurred.  ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: Table 19 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
EPA’s management of software licenses is decentralized and there are no plans to  move it to a centralized approach. Specifically, while licenses may be managed  centrally within a business unit, this is not managed at the departmental level.
While EPA provided an inventory for a portion of licenses managed by one business  unit, its Office of Technology and Operations, it is incomplete. Specifically, the  inventory includes information on cost per unit and number of licenses for some but  not all applications. Additionally, officials stated that it does not have a comprehensive  inventory of licenses within EPA and they are uncertain if inventories exist for its other  business units.
EPA does not regularly track and maintain comprehensive inventories of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics. Officials said the Office of Technology  and Operations uses spreadsheets to manually manage enterprise software licenses,  but the inventory was incomplete.
EPA is not analyzing data to inform investment decisions and identify opportunities to  reduce costs. Officials attributed this to software not being considered an investment  in the same terms as a traditional investment that would undergo capital planning and  investment control review.
EPA has not provided training in software license management. ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: General Services Administration
paragraphs: Table 20 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the General Services Administration’s (GSA) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
section_title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
paragraphs: Table 21 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) practices for  managing software licenses against leading practices.
section_title: National Science Foundation
paragraphs: Table 22 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) practices for managing software  licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
paragraphs: Table 23 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Office of Personnel Management
paragraphs: Table 24 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   While OPM has developed a policy relevant to managing software licenses, it has not  established how to implement the policy. For example, its July 2009 policy on IT  procurement and its April 2013 OPM System Development Life Cycle Policy and  Standards combined include centralized management, establishing and tracking an  inventory, analysis, education and training, goals and objectives, and life cycle  management.
OPM manages its software licenses in a partially centralized manner. The agency  manages its enterprise license agreements through the Office of the Chief  Information Officer. However, the agency officials stated that outside of enterprise  license agreements, the Office of the Chief Information Officer does not have visibility  into program office software license spending.
The OPM Office of the Chief Information Officer has established an inventory of the  agency’s enterprise license agreements through multiple spreadsheets. However,  agency officials stated that these spreadsheets do not represent a comprehensive  agency-wide software license inventory. These officials explained that software  purchased from program offices outside of Office of the Chief Information Officer  enterprise license agreements are not actively captured through an inventory.  However, according to officials, the percentage of software license spending the  Office of the Chief Information Officer has visibility into was less than 65 percent for  fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
The agency’s Office of the Chief Information Officer annually tracks and maintains an  inventory of enterprise license agreement software using multiple spreadsheets that  are primarily tracked manually and include software counts. In addition, one  inventory is partially managed through the use of an automated tool, and multiple  inventories have established metrics such as processor usage.
While OPM has conducted analysis of its Microsoft enterprise license agreements for  fiscal year 2013, it has not analyzed agency-wide data for other licenses.  Specifically, to determine whether OPM should renew its Microsoft enterprise license  agreement for fiscal year 2013, the agency’s investment review board reviewed its  historical and anticipated future maintenance cost information and the agency’s  analysis of cost savings. Based on this analysis, the agency determined that not  renewing the Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement would cost it, at a minimum,  an additional 7 percent, or $182,000, increase in maintenance costs. However, OPM  could not illustrate that it analyzed agency-wide software license data, such as costs,  benefits, usage, and trending data, to inform investment decisions since it does not  have a comprehensive software license inventory.
While OPM officials stated it has briefed staff on topics such as enterprise license  agreements and the executive order on computer software piracy, the officials stated  that no software license management education and training documentation exists.   ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: Small Business Administration
paragraphs: Table 25 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
section_title: Social Security Administration
paragraphs: Table 26 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) practices for managing  software licenses against leading practices.
SSA has policies describing the agency’s roles and responsibilities, and objectives  relevant to software license management. However, it does not have policies for  identifying and collecting information about software license agreements using  automated discovery and inventory tools incorporating metrics, regularly tracking and  maintaining software licenses, analysis of software usage and other data, providing  training relevant to software license management; and consideration of the software  license management life-cycle phases.
SSA centrally manages a small percentage of the agency’s total licenses and license  spending through its Enterprise Software Engineering Tools Board inventory. SSA  officials stated that it manages mainframe and Microsoft desktop software centrally.  However, the officials stated that the agency has delegated the responsibility of  software license management to component local managers and, as a result, does  not centrally manage the majority of the agency’s software licenses.
The agency has established an inventory through its Enterprise Software Engineering  Tools Board. However, according to officials, this inventory is representative of a  small percentage of the agency’s total software license spending and total licenses.  In addition, while the agency officials stated that it centrally manages Microsoft  licenses and maintenance software, it did not have documentation of any inventory.  Overall, SSA officials stated that it does not have a comprehensive inventory  representing the majority of its software license spending and total licenses.  However, agency officials stated the agency plans to implement a software asset  management system to better establish a comprehensive inventory.
SSA uses a support tool to track a small percentage of the agency’s total software  licenses. However, officials stated that it has no established time frames for reporting  on the tool. According to agency officials, since SSA is not fully centralized, the  agency does not track comprehensive inventories using automated tools and metrics.  To better centralize all of its software licenses, agency officials stated it plans to  implement a software asset management system.
While SSA has analyzed selected software license data, the agency has not analyzed  department-wide software license data to inform investment decisions and identify  opportunities to reduce costs. According to SSA officials, the agency analyzes  software license data on a contract-by-contract basis to inform investment decisions  and identify opportunities to reduce costs. The officials stated that it has reduced  ongoing costs of large mainframe contracts as a result of the process. SSA has  specifically worked with an independent licensing vendor to analyze the agency’s  mainframe usage and portfolio to assist the agency in contract negotiations. In  January 2012, the vendor conducted a renewal mainframe analysis where it identified  mainframe pricing considerations for SSA. However, outside of the mainframe  contracts, SSA was not able to demonstrate that it analyzes software license data  agency-wide, such as costs, benefits, usage, and trending data, to inform investment  decisions and identify opportunities to reduce costs.
subsections: section_title: GAO assessment Summary of evidence
paragraphs: SSA has not provided appropriate agency personnel with sufficient software license  management training.   ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  leading practice.  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.
section_title: U.S. Agency for International Development
paragraphs: Table 27 provides a detailed summary of the results of our assessment of  the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) practices for  managing software licenses against leading practices.
Summary of evidence   USAID’s policy, ADS 547, and its standard operating procedure for a contract with  IBM address centralized management, the establishment of a comprehensive  inventory, goals and objectives of the software license management program, and the  management of licenses throughout the entire life cycle. Officials stated there are  plans to conduct analysis to monitor software usage; however, no time frame for  implementation was provided. In addition, policies and procedures for tracking  software using automated tools and education and training do not exist.
USAID has a contract in place with IBM for centrally managing licenses for all of  USAID’s operating units.
While USAID maintains an inventory of licenses through a contractor, there is no  established, documented process for validating and ensuring the accuracy and  reliability of the data provided by the contractor. USAID provided an inventory from  April 2013 of licenses installed at headquarters and on each mission’s servers. USAID  estimates that as of January 2014, this accounted for approximately 95 percent of its  software licenses.
USAID is using an automated tool, specifically Microsoft’s System Center  Configuration Manager, to track and manage software licenses for Microsoft products  on an annual basis. However, officials are uncertain how other applications are being  tracked and maintained.
USAID officials stated that analysis is conducted on an ad-hoc basis. While the  agency provided documentation of such analysis capabilities, it did not describe how it  was used to inform investment decision making.
USAID officials stated that its contractor’s employees receive software license  management training, but no documentation was available.   ● Fully met—the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the leading practice.  ◐ Partially met—the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the  ◌ Not met—the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the leading practice.  leading practice.
section_title: Appendix III: Recommendations to Departments and Agencies
subsections: section_title: Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture take the following six  actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Commerce
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Commerce take the following six  actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Defense
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Education
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Education take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Energy
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Energy take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services take the  following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following  five actions:
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Housing and Urban Development
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development take  the following four actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of the Interior
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of the Interior take the following six  actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Attorney General take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Labor
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the following four actions:
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of State
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of State take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Transportation
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following six  actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury take the following six  actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Department of Veterans Affairs
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs take the following six  actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection  Agency take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: General Services Administration
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of its software licenses, we  recommend that the Administrator of General Services take the following  five actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: National Science Foundation
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Director of the National Science Foundation take the  following four actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission  take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Office of Personnel Management
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management take  the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Small Business Administration
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Administrator of the Small Business Administration  take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Social Security Administration
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration  take the following six actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Employ a centralized software license management approach that is  coordinated and integrated with key personnel for the majority of  agency software license spending and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide departmental software license data, such as  costs, benefits, usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to  reduce costs and better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: U.S. Agency for International Development
paragraphs: To ensure the effective management of software licenses, we  recommend that the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International  Development take the following five actions:
Develop an agency-wide comprehensive policy for the management  of software licenses that addresses the weaknesses we identified.
Establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses using  automated tools for the majority of agency software license spending  and/or enterprise-wide licenses.
Regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software  licenses using automated tools and metrics.
Analyze agency-wide software license data, such as costs, benefits,  usage, and trending data, to identify opportunities to reduce costs and  better inform investment decision making.
Provide software license management training to appropriate agency  personnel addressing contract terms and conditions, negotiations,  laws and regulations, acquisition, security planning, and configuration  management.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix: VI: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Energy
section_title: Appendix: VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of the Treasury
section_title: Appendix XIV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Appendix XV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix XVI: Comments from the General Services Administration
section_title: Appendix XVII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
section_title: Appendix XVIII: Comments from the National Science Foundation
section_title: Appendix XIX: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
section_title: Appendix XX: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
section_title: Appendix XXI: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management
section_title: Appendix XXII: Comments from the Social Security Administration
section_title: Appendix XXIII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: Appendix XXIV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact name above, the following staff also made key  contributions to this report: Eric Winter, Assistant Director; Naba  Barkakati; Virginia Chanley; Eric Costello; Rebecca Eyler; Dana Pon; and  Niti Tandon.