Veterans Affairs: Actions Needed to More Effectively Manage Outgoing Mail
Published: 2017-07-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: VA sends hundreds of millions of pieces of mail to veterans and their dependents, including prescription medications and information about benefits or disability compensation. However, VA's reported mail volume and costs—$355 million in 2016—are among the highest in the federal government. GAO was asked to review VA's mail management practices.
This report examines the extent to which VA manages its outgoing mail effectively. GAO identified key elements of an effective mail management program from federal regulation and internal control standards; reviewed VA-reported mail expenditure and volume data for fiscal years 2015 and 2016; collected information on mailing practices at 10 VA facilities with the highest mail volume in fiscal year 2015; and interviewed representatives of VA, GSA, the U.S. Postal Service, VA's two primary mailing equipment vendors, and two of the nation's largest veterans service organizations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not managing its outgoing mail effectively as it lacks key elements of an effective mail management program, including reliable data on mail volume and expenditures, agency-wide performance measures for mail operations, and mail managers with appropriate authority and responsibilities.
Reporting reliable mail expenditure and volume data : The mail data VA reports to the General Services Administration (GSA) are unreliable, in part because VA's fragmented process for procuring mailing equipment prevents VA from tracking mail volume and expenditures consistently across facilities. Specifically, each fiscal year, hundreds of VA facilities individually enter their mail expenditure and volume data into a GSA database that collects mail data from federal agencies. These data are collected through inconsistent processes. For example, some facilities use mailing equipment and associated software that can automatically track volume and costs by service provider and mail class, while other facilities' equipment may be too old to have this capability or they use spreadsheets, bills, or receipts to track their costs. These processes are inconsistent because VA's different components and facilities contract for mailroom equipment independently of one another. VA lacks an overall plan to procure mailing equipment strategically. Through such procurement, VA could implement a system that would more consistently track data on mail expenditures and volume. This step would not only improve the reliability of these data but could also allow VA to take advantage of price discounts typically available under broader contracts.
Measuring performance : VA is unable to evaluate the overall efficiency of its mail program because its mail management policy does not include agency-wide goals and performance measures for its mail operations, and it has inconsistent measures across its facilities. For example, of the 10 VA facilities GAO reviewed, some assessed performance using customer service, efficiency, volume, and cost, while others used annual expenditures, among other measures. Updating the policy to include agency-wide goals and performance measures would allow VA to track progress toward consistent goals and provide it with crucial performance information needed to make programmatic decisions.
Mail managers with appropriate authority and responsibilities : VA's ability to oversee mailing practices across its facilities is limited because it has not provided its mail managers with appropriate authority and responsibilities, per federal internal control standards. The agency mail manager's responsibilities are limited to oversight of VA's mail policy, with no operational role in mail management. Additionally, mail managers for the Veterans Health Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration reported that they advise individual facilities on mail management but have no authority to direct their mail operations. Without determining appropriate authority and responsibilities for its mail managers, VA is unable to ensure that its facilities are managing their mail effectively.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: To manage its mail program more effectively, VA should develop and document a plan to improve how VA procures mailing equipment, update mail policy to include goals and performance measures, and determine and document the authority and responsibilities of the agency and administration-level mail managers to enable them to better manage and oversee mail operations. VA concurred with these recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Each year, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sends hundreds of  millions of pieces of mail to veterans and their dependents, who rely on  this mail for medications and critical information about medical  appointments, disability compensation, pension benefits, and more. VA’s  reported mail volume and costs—approximately $355 million in 2016— are among the highest in the federal government. Moreover, VA’s  reported costs have nearly doubled since 2009. GAO has raised  concerns about how VA identifies its resource needs and ensures that  resources are efficiently used across the agency. To the extent that VA’s  mail management is not cost- effective, VA is losing opportunities to  better leverage resources to assist veterans and their families. Given the  growth in reported mail costs, you asked us to review VA’s mail  management practices. This report examines the extent to which VA  manages its outgoing mail effectively.
To perform this work, we identified key elements of an effective mail  management program by reviewing federal mail management  requirements in the Federal Management Regulation (FMR), which  governs mailing activities in federal agencies. The applicable elements  from the FMR are: (1) reporting reliable mail data, (2) measuring  performance, and (3) having mail managers with the authority to manage  the program. We also identified applicable federal internal control  standards, including the control environment, control activities, and  information and communications. To determine the extent to which VA  has effectively implemented these key elements and internal controls as  part of its mail management program, we obtained and reviewed key  documents, such as VA’s mail management policy and contract  documentation for the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA)  Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP) program. We also  conducted interviews with management officials from the VA Central  Office, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), VHA, and the CMOP  program on mail management practices in different components and  facilities across the agency. We also interviewed officials from the U.S.  Postal Service (USPS) and VA’s two primary mailing equipment  providers, Neopost and Pitney Bowes. We reviewed the reliability of the  mail expenditure and volume data VA reported to the General Services  Administration’s (GSA) Simplified Mail Accountability Reporting Tool  (SMART) in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. The SMART tool is used by  GSA to collect mail data from federal agencies, as part of GSA’s efforts to  oversee federal mail practices and ensure that agencies are managing  their mail operations efficiently and effectively. In an effort to assess the  validity of VA’s reported mail volume and costs, we reviewed VA’s  reported fiscal year 2015 and 2016 expenditure and volume data with its  service providers, USPS, United Parcel Service (UPS), and FedEx. To  supplement our work at the national level, we collected information on the  mail practices in place at the 10 VA facilities with the highest mail volume  reported in SMART in fiscal year 2015. We collected information from  each facility including on their SMART-reporting process, their use of  performance measures for mail operations, and the role of facility mail  managers. We observed mail operations and interviewed mailroom  personnel at a VBA regional benefit office and a VHA medical center.  While findings from these facilities are not generalizable to all VA  facilities, they provide examples of VA’s mailing practices. To obtain  information on GSA’s oversight of VA’s mail management efforts, we  interviewed officials responsible for mail management policy from GSA’s  Office of Government-Wide Policy. Finally, to learn about issues veterans  may face in receiving mail from VA, we interviewed representatives of  and obtained information from Disabled American Veterans and the  American Legion. We selected these veterans service organizations  because their memberships are among the highest in the country.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2016 to July 2017 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: VA is comprised of several entities, including its Central Office in  Washington, D.C., and three administrations —VHA, VBA, and the  National Cemetery Administration. Because these entities each provide  different services for veterans, they each handle different types of  outgoing mail. See figure 1 for a description of the services each  administration and their associated facilities provide, and examples of  outgoing mail.
VA sends hundreds of millions of pieces of mail annually as part of its  mission to provide care and benefits to veterans and their dependents.  For example, VBA mails correspondence related to compensation and  copies of documents to veterans service organizations, and VHA mails  prescription medications and letters to notify veterans of medical  appointments. Within VHA, the CMOP program processes high-volume  prescription mailings from medical centers using an automated  dispensing system. The CMOP program includes seven facilities across  the country that together mail 84 million parcels annually (filling  approximately 80 percent of VA’s total prescriptions each year).
Within VA, each administration and local facility has discretion regarding  how to handle outgoing mail. For example, a facility can use USPS as its  service provider, or it can choose to use a different service provider, such  as UPS or FedEx. SMART data indicate that most of VA’s outgoing mail  was sent via USPS in fiscal year 2016, although VA facilities also used  UPS and FedEx. In addition to choosing service providers, VA facilities often have contracts to purchase or lease mailing equipment such as  postage meters. As noted above, the CMOP program handles large- scale prescription mailings and contracts with a vendor that provides mail- manifesting services (i.e., the weighing and application of pre-paid  postage or freight charges to parcels, and the delivery of parcels to USPS  or a third-party carrier) for the seven CMOP facilities.
VA, as any other federal agency, is required to follow certain provisions in  the FMR regulating mail management. Specifically, the FMR prescribes  policy and requirements for the effective, economical, and secure  management of incoming, internal, and outgoing mail and materials in  federal agencies. Among other things, the FMR includes reporting,  performance measurement, and agency mail manager requirements.
Reporting Requirements: Large federal agencies must provide annual  mail management reports to GSA using the web-based SMART  application. The FMR requires large agencies to submit mail  management reports to ensure agencies have the policies,  procedures, and data to manage their mail operations efficiently and  effectively. Among other data, mail management reports must  include: total expenditures paid to each mail service provider, total  volume of mail pieces, volume and expenditures on mail that was  undeliverable as addressed, number of full-time equivalent employees  and contractors who have taken training to earn professional  certifications, and expenses paid on additional contracts for mail  services. Each year on October 1, GSA opens SMART for agencies  to manually input their data for the prior fiscal year. According to the  manual for the SMART application, agencies are to enter annual  expenditures and number of pieces mailed under each mail class and  service provider, and the application calculates a cost per piece  automatically. The agency mail manager is required to compile data  from all offices or components and submit one report for the agency to  GSA by December 1 each year. Aggregating the SMART data at the  agency level allows GSA to compare one agency to another on  performance measures such as cost per piece. GSA officials said they  review overall trends, training, whether mail piece counts are  consistent with the expenditures, variances from the previous year,  and whether the data suggest the need for any revisions to the FMR.
Performance Measurement Requirements: All federal agencies must  have performance measures for mail operations at the agency level  and in all mail facilities and program levels. Performance measures  are required so that the agency can gauge the success of agency mail  management plans and processes by comparing performance over  time and among organizations. Further, according to the FMR,  performance measures enhance resource allocation and provide  accountability.
Agency Mail Manager Requirements: Federal agencies are required  to have an agency mail manager who should be at a managerial level  that enables the official to speak for the agency on mail  management. The FMR enumerates general responsibilities that the  agency mail manager should carry out including, among others,  establishing written policies and procedures for timely and cost- effective dispatch and delivery of mail; ensuring agency-wide  awareness and compliance with service provider standards and  operational procedures, and promoting professional certification for  mail managers and mail center employees.
section_title: VA Is Not Managing Its Mail Program Effectively
paragraphs: VA is not managing its mail program effectively, as it lacks key elements  of an effective mail management program, including having reliable data  on mail volume and expenditures, agency-wide performance measures,  and mail managers with appropriate authority and responsibilities. First,  VA does not report reliable data to GSA because VA lacks a system to  track mail volume and expenditures consistently and does not have an  overall plan to source contracts for the mailing equipment that would  provide this capability in a more strategic manner. Second, VA is unable  to evaluate the overall efficiency of its mail program because its mail  management guidance has not been updated to include agency-wide  goals and performance measures for its mail operations. Finally, VA  cannot ensure consistent mailing practices in its administrations and  facilities because it has not provided mail managers with appropriate  authority and responsibilities to oversee mail operations across the  agency.
subsections: section_title: Fragmented Process for Procuring Mailing Equipment Has Contributed to VA’s Inability to Track and Report Reliable Mail Cost and Volume Data
paragraphs: The mail data VA reports to GSA in its annual mail management report is  unreliable, in part because VA’s fragmented process for procuring mailing  equipment prevents VA from tracking mail volume and expenditures  consistently across facilities. Federal internal control standards call for  agencies to obtain relevant data from reliable internal sources and  communicate quality information—that is, information which is  appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and provided on a  timely basis—to external parties to achieve objectives. We found  problems in VA’s fiscal year 2015 and 2016 SMART data related to  unreported, incomplete, or questionable data, for example:
Unreported Data: Mail data for the National Cemetery  Administration—along with most of VA’s 1,055 community-based  outpatient clinics and 300 vet centers, as well as other VA facilities— were not accounted for in VA’s SMART reports.
Incomplete Data: Several facilities submitted incomplete data, such as  for mail expenditures without accompanying mail volume or vice  versa. Facilities also did not consistently report data on mail that was  undeliverable as addressed. We found in 2015 that VBA did not keep  data on its undeliverable mail, and in our review, VHA’s mail manager  could not confirm whether VHA facilities accurately track these data.  Additionally, according to VHA’s mail manager, many medical centers  do not account for their on-site pharmacies’ outgoing mail in their  SMART data.
Anomalous Data: Several facilities submitted data of questionable  accuracy. For example, a regional benefit office reported spending  $9,108 to mail 29 pieces of Priority Express Mail (equating to a cost of  $314 per piece), and a medical center reported spending $507,000 to  mail 13,000 pieces of USPS Business Reply Mail (equating to a cost  of $39 per piece). According to VA, these and other figures were  based on typographical errors by VA personnel in entering the  expenditure and volume data.
We also provided VA’s fiscal year 2015 and 2016 data to FedEx and  UPS: neither could validate the information we obtained from SMART  with their own records.
To collect data for SMART reporting, VA relies on data submitted by its  facilities, and these facilities use inconsistent processes for tracking the  data. Specifically, according to VA officials, many facility mail rooms use  mailing equipment like postage meters to track data on mail volume and  expenditures. The types of mailing equipment that facilities use vary  considerably in the capability to track mail volume and expenditure data.  For example, VA officials reported that facilities with newer mailing  equipment may have also purchased enhanced accounting software from  the vendor that enables them to track mail expenditures and volume by  service provider and individual classes of mail—such as Priority or First- Class Mail. Conversely, other facilities’ equipment may not be configured  or may be too old to accept the accounting software to be able to track  classes of mail separately. In addition, facilities may rely on manual-entry  methods, such as Excel spreadsheets, or copies of bills and receipts from  service providers to track mail volume and expenditure data. As a result,  VA has no assurance that facilities are tracking their mail information  consistently or completely.
The mail volume and expenditure data from roughly 200 VA facilities are  individually entered into SMART by VA personnel. VA has no agency- wide system for tracking mail volume and expenditure data, and therefore  VA’s administration-level mail managers have limited ability to validate  the data before the agency mail manager submits the mail management  report to GSA. VHA’s and VBA’s mail managers told us they look for  anomalous entries, but they cannot verify the data’s accuracy without  individually contacting the personnel who input the data to check their  sources (e.g., the mailing equipment, spreadsheets, or service provider  bills and receipts). Neither VHA’s nor VBA’s mail manager could provide  us assurance that the SMART data from their administration were  accurate. They also reported that they lack the authority to compel  facilities to report data to SMART. GSA officials reported that they check  for data entries in SMART that vary by at least 10 percent from the  previous year’s entry and discuss questionable data with reporting  agencies, but it is each agency’s responsibility to report accurate  information. GSA officials also told us the challenges VA has encountered  in reporting to SMART are typical of other agencies. We reported in our  2015 High-Risk Series update that VHA oversight efforts are often  impeded by its reliance on facilities’ self-reported data—such as  certification from medical centers that specialty care consultations have  been completed— which lack independent validation and are often  inaccurate or incomplete.
VA’s inconsistent processes for tracking mail data are in part the result of  fragmented procurement practices for mailing equipment across the  agency in which different components of VHA and VBA make contracting  decisions for mailroom equipment independently. Specifically, VA does  not strategically acquire equipment that allows facilities to consistently  collect, track, validate, and report mail data. According to the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB), strategic sourcing is the collaborative  and structured process of critically analyzing an organization’s spending  and using this information to make business decisions about acquiring  commodities and services more effectively and efficiently. For example,  VBA reported that each of its 56 regional benefit offices negotiates and  purchases its own contract with authorized vendors. VHA reported that  the contracts for mailing equipment at its 170 medical centers are  established at various levels —in some cases, medical centers may  establish their own contracts, while in others, a Veterans Integrated  Service Network (VISN) establishes a contract for all the medical centers  within a region.
Because of this procurement process, VA is missing opportunities to track  mail expenditure and volume data consistently and facilitate the SMART- reporting process. Further, VA may be expending unnecessary additional  funds on procuring mail equipment and missing opportunities to take  advantage of its substantial buying power. Strategic sourcing involves  consolidating similar requirements to manage them collectively and reap  cost savings and efficiency gains. If an organization has business units  across many locations or functions, it is often most economical for a  central office to negotiate procurement contracts on behalf of the entire  organization. In the case of VA, it is likely that having facilities or other  units individually negotiate contracts is not cost-effective because this  practice does not take advantage of the extent of price discounts that  might be available under procurement contracts covering much larger  segments of the agency. In fact, representatives from VA’s two primary  mailing equipment providers told us that the agency lacks a consistent  contracting approach to address its mailroom needs. Representatives  from one provider estimated that it has about 3,000 contracts with VA facilities and said that if VA were to negotiate fewer contracts at higher  levels of the department, VA would almost certainly reap cost savings.  For example, representatives said that VHA’s VISNs could negotiate  contracts for multiple medical centers within a region, rather than each  medical center purchasing its own standalone mailing equipment.
While VBA has taken preliminary steps to source its mailing equipment  strategically, VA lacks an overall plan to source its contracts for mailing  equipment in a more strategic manner. VBA officials told us in July 2016  that its administration and field operations offices were collaborating to  establish a blanket purchase agreement for mailing equipment in 56  regional benefit offices across the country. According to VBA, the contract  is intended to provide opportunities to negotiate improved discounts and  leverage buying power through volume purchasing, among other things.  Officials stated that they also intend to include software in the contract  that would consolidate data across the regional benefit offices and allow  centralized reporting to SMART through web-based accounting software  linked to VBA Central Office. VBA initially targeted the end of fiscal year  2017 to finalize the contract; however, in February 2017, officials said that  it will take several years to establish the contract because some regional  benefit offices will not be able to join until their current contracts expire.  VBA officials stated that they were interested in including VHA in the  contract in order to obtain better prices. However, they said that VBA has  not had any detailed discussions with VHA about the contract and told us  that differences in the administrations’ management structures could  affect the process. Moreover, VHA’s mail manager told us that he does  not have the authority to coordinate VHA’s involvement in the contract  with VBA. By not contracting to procure more standardized equipment,  VA is missing opportunities to track and report mail data more  consistently and realize cost savings.
section_title: VA’s Mail Policy Does Not Include Agency-Wide Goals and Performance Measures
paragraphs: VA’s mail policy does not include agency-wide goals and performance  measures for mail operations, and as a result, VA is unable to determine  the extent to which its mail operations are efficient and effective. We have  previously found that results-oriented organizations set performance  goals to clearly define desired program outcomes. The FMR requires  that federal agencies have performance measures for mail operations at  the agency level and in all mail facilities and program levels. We have  previously found that measuring performance allows organizations to  track progress toward goals and provides managers with the crucial  performance data needed to make management decisions. On its  website, GSA suggests that federal agencies establish performance  measures for outgoing mail that address elements of mail operations,  such as cost per piece by mail class and the percentage of outgoing mail  that is returned as undeliverable as addressed, as well as management  measures such as the annual hours of training per full-time equivalent  employee, and measures for contracts and service level agreements,  such as the appropriate postage meter size for a mail center operation.
VA’s mail policy includes no agency-wide goals or performance measures  for mail operations; however, officials stated that performance measures  may have been developed by individual facilities. At the 10 facilities we  reviewed, we found that they were not using a consistent set of  performance measures. These facilities reported using various  performance measures for mail operations, such as metrics regarding  customer service, efficiency, volume, cost, accuracy, and staff  performance. For example, officials from one medical center said that  they measure customer service, efficiency, safety, and security, while  officials at another medical center said they measure annual expenditures  from the prior fiscal year. Officials from two regional benefit offices  indicated that they have implemented timeliness standards for their mail.  VHA’s CMOP program also has performance measures for delivery of  prescription medications but these metrics are implemented for the  program’s vendor, not an on-site mail operation. The CMOP program  outsources management of its prescription drug mail to a logistics vendor  that is responsible for manifesting parcels and providing them to USPS or  third-party providers for delivery. For example, the vendor must resolve  delivery inquiries within 48 hours and transport parcels to arrive at USPS  within 36 hours and return recalled or damaged parcels in the next  available truck.
VA lacks agency-wide performance measures for mail operations  because its mail management policy does not address the FMR  performance measures requirement. Directive 6340—VA’s 1996 mail  management policy directive and handbook—predates current mail  management regulations and has not been updated. In July 2016, VA  officials told us that efforts to update the policy involving collaboration with  GSA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and USPS were  under way. However, in February 2017, VBA and VHA mail managers we  spoke to said they were unaware of any such efforts. As of May 2017, VA  had not provided documentation of this ongoing effort. The lack of an  updated policy is not unique to VA’s mail management. For example, we  previously found that in 2016, almost 60 percent of VHA’s policies had not  been reviewed in at least 5 years to ensure they are up to date and still  relevant. Internal control standards call for agencies to update their  policies to be consistent with changes in federal law and regulation.  Without an updated policy providing performance measures across the  agency, VA’s ability to evaluate the efficiency of its mail operations is  limited.
section_title: VA Has Not Provided Mail Managers with Appropriate Authority and Responsibilities
paragraphs: Although VA has designated mail managers at the agency and  administration levels, these mail managers have limited ability to oversee  mail operations across the agency because VA has not provided them  with appropriate authority and responsibilities. Federal internal control  standards call for agencies to provide a framework for delegating  authority and assigning responsibility to achieve objectives. Specifically,  management should consider the overall responsibilities of a program,  establish the key roles needed to fulfill the program’s assigned  responsibilities, and determine the level of authority each key role needs  to fulfill a responsibility. The FMR requires agencies to have an agency  mail manager and outlines the individual’s recommended responsibilities,  which, among others, include: establishing written policies and procedures to provide timely and  cost-effective dispatch and delivery of mail and materials; ensuring agency-wide awareness and compliance with standards and  operational procedures established by all service providers used by  the agency; and ensuring that all facility- and program-level mail personnel receive  appropriate training and certifications to successfully perform their  assigned duties.
The agency and administration mail managers have limited authority to  oversee mail operations because VA has not properly determined and  documented their authorities and responsibilities. According to VA  officials, the responsibilities of the agency mail manager position are  limited to oversight of VA Directive 6340—the policy directive and  handbook that cover the mail program—with no operational role in mail  management. However, as stated previously, the VA directive was issued  in 1996 and has not been updated to incorporate current mail  management regulatory requirements. Additionally, according to the  agency mail manager, mail operations in VHA and VBA facilities are the  responsibility of the administration-level mail managers. However, the  VHA and VBA mail managers reported that although they advise  individual facilities on mail management, they have no authority to direct  their mail operations. For example, VHA’s mail manager told us that  individual facilities pursue mailing discounts independently. Additionally,  while VBA has broadly outlined the responsibilities of the VBA mail  manager in a documented position description, the VHA mail manager  has no documented responsibilities. Further, while the FMR recommends  that the agency mail manager ensure that all facility- and mail-program  level personnel receive appropriate training and certifications to perform  their assigned duties, the VHA mail manager said he has never been  encouraged to attend any training, and both the VHA and VBA mail  managers said that they do not have the authority to require mail  management employees to attend training. In addition, VA has not  assigned mail management as the primary duty for its mail managers.  According to VA, most mail manager positions are secondary duties for  the designated officials. VA has devolved responsibility for mail  management to VA’s three administrations and their hundreds of facilities,  with varying degrees of autonomy. Officials from the 10 VA facilities we  reviewed stated that they have personnel who are responsible for their respective mail operations, but most of them had other responsibilities,  such as logistics, warehouse operations, and mailroom machine  maintenance.
Because the agency and administration mail managers lack an  appropriate level of authority and responsibilities, they play a limited role  in assuring that mail operations across the agency are following  consistent practices, and therefore, effective oversight of mail operations  across facilities is hampered. For example, individual facilities are  generally responsible for their own mail operations with limited direction  or guidance, as we previously noted. VA risks being unable to ensure that  its facilities are managing their mail costs as effectively as possible,  including obtaining available discounts. VA officials told us the agency  relies on a decentralized program because of its size, the volume of mail  generated, and the unique nature of each administration’s mission.  According to officials, a more centralized mail management program  would result in higher costs, more overhead, and less responsiveness to  users. However, VA does not need to centralize its mail management  program to have its mail managers provide leadership and oversight of  facility mail operations to ensure greater consistency in mailing practices  across the agency.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: VA faces challenges in ensuring that its resources are effectively  allocated across the agency. Because it lacks key elements of an  effective mail management program, VA cannot provide assurance that  facilities are managing their mail efficiently. First, because VA lacks a  plan for how to source mailing equipment strategically, it cannot track mail  costs accurately and may be losing opportunities for cost savings and  efficiencies. Second, because VA has not updated its mail policy to  establish agency-wide performance measures for mail operations, its  ability to evaluate the mail program is limited. Setting goals and  measuring performance allows organizations to track progress and  provides managers with the crucial performance data needed to make  management decisions. Finally, VA has not provided its mail managers  with appropriate authority and responsibilities to oversee mail operations  across the agency. As a result, these officials play a limited role in  overseeing the program and coordinating consistent mail management  practices across administrations and facilities. By working to address  these issues, VA could help assure the effective allocation of resources,  thereby possibly allowing the reallocation of some resources to serve  veterans in other ways.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To manage the mail program more effectively, the Secretary of Veterans  Affairs should take the following three actions:
Develop and document a plan to source contracts for mailing  equipment in a more strategic manner. Such strategic contract  sourcing should enable facilities to obtain equipment to track mail  volume and expenditure data more consistently and to maximize cost  savings.
Update VA Directive 6340 to incorporate agency-wide goals and  performance measures for mail operations.
Determine and document the authority and responsibilities of the  agency and administration-level mail managers to enable them to  improve management and oversight of mail operations.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to VA and GSA for review and  comment. VA concurred with our recommendations, and its response is  reproduced in appendix I. GSA did not have any comments on the report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the  Administrator of the General Services Administration, the Postmaster  General of the U.S. Postal Service, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staff have questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found   on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed  in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Samer Abbas and Faye Morrison  (Assistant Directors), Justin Reed (Analyst in Charge), Amy Abramowitz,  Bonnie Pignatiello Leer, Malika Rice, Amy Rosewarne, Crystal Wesco,  and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.