Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed
Released: 2012-07-19T00:00:00

Letter

Background

While the term “data center” can be used to describe any room used for the purpose of processing or storing data, as defined by OMB in 2010, a data center was a room greater than 500 square feet, used for processing or storing data, and which met stringent availability requirements. Other facilities were classified as “server rooms,” which were typically less than 500 square feet and “server closets,” which were typically less than 200 square feet.

Several factors led OMB to urge agencies to consolidate federal data centers. According to OMB, the federal government had 432 data centers in 1998; more than 1,100 in 2009; and 2,094 in July 2010. Operating such a large number of centers places costly demands on the government. While the total annual federal spending associated with data centers has not yet been determined, OMB has found that operating data centers is a significant cost to the federal government, including hardware, software, real estate, and cooling costs. For example, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the electricity cost to operate federal servers and data centers across the government is about $450 million annually. According to the Department of Energy (Energy), data center spaces can consume 100 to 200 times as much electricity as standard office spaces. Reported server utilization rates as low as 5 percent and limited reuse of these data centers within or across agencies lends further credence to the need to restructure federal data center operations to improve efficiency and reduce costs. In 2010, the Federal CIO reported that operating and maintaining such redundant infrastructure investments was costly, inefficient, and unsustainable.

OMB and the Federal CIO Established the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative

Concerned about the size of the federal data center inventory and the potential to improve the efficiency, performance, and environmental footprint of federal data center activities, in February 2010 OMB, under the direction of the Federal CIO, announced FDCCI. This initiative’s four high-level goals are to promote the use of “green IT” by reducing the overall energy and real estate footprint of government data centers; reduce the cost of data center hardware, software, and operations; increase the overall IT security posture of the government; and shift IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and technologies.

As part of FDCCI, OMB required 24 departments and agencies that participate on the Chief Information Officers Council (see table 1) to submit a series of documents that ultimately resulted in a data center consolidation plan.

In addition to an initial data center inventory and preliminary consolidation plan, the departments and agencies were to provide the following:

An asset inventory baseline, which was to contain more detailed information and serve as the foundation for developing the final data center consolidation plans. The final inventory was also to identify the consolidation approach to be taken for each data center.

A data center consolidation plan, which was to be incorporated into the agency’s fiscal year 2012 budget and was to include a technical roadmap and approach for achieving the targets for infrastructure utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency.

In October 2010, OMB reported that all of the agencies had submitted their plans. OMB also announced plans to monitor agencies’ consolidation activities on an ongoing basis as part of the annual budget process.

Further, starting in fiscal year 2011, agencies were required to provide an annual updated data center asset inventory at the end of every third quarter and an updated consolidation plan (including any missing elements) at the end of every fourth quarter. Agencies were further required to provide a consolidation progress report at the end of every quarter.

To manage the initiative, OMB designated two agency CIOs as executive sponsors to lead the effort within the Chief Information Officers Council.

Additionally, the General Services Administration (GSA) has established the FDCCI Program Management Office, whose role is to support OMB in the planning, execution, management, and communication for FDCCI. In this role, GSA collected the responses to OMB-mandated document deliveries and reviewed the submissions for completeness and reasonableness. GSA also sponsored three workshops on the initiative for agencies and facilitated a peer review of the initial and final data center consolidation plans.

With an Expanded Definition, OMB’s Reported Inventory of Federal Data Centers Has Grown

“…a data center is…a closet, room, floor or building for the storage, management, and dissemination of data and information and computer systems and associated components, such as database, application, and storage systems and data stores [excluding facilities exclusively devoted to communications and network equipment (e.g., telephone exchanges and telecommunications rooms)]. A data center generally includes redundant or backup power supplies, redundant data communications connections, environmental controls…and special security devices housed in leased,…owned, collocated, or stand-alone facilities.”

OMB, Implementation Guidance for the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012).

OMB’s IT Reform Plan Sets Important Milestones for Data Center Consolidation

In December 2010, OMB published its 25-Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management as a means of implementing IT reform in the areas of operational efficiency and large scale IT program management. Among the 25 initiatives, OMB has included two goals that relate to data center consolidation: 1. By June 2011, complete detailed implementation plans to consolidate at least 800 data centers by 2015. 2. By June 2012, create a governmentwide marketplace for data center availability.

To accomplish its first goal, OMB required each FDCCI agency to identify a senior, dedicated data center consolidation program manager. It also launched a Data Center Consolidation Task Force comprised of the data center consolidation program managers from each agency. OMB officials stated that this task force is critical to driving forward on individual agency consolidation goals and to meeting overall federal consolidation targets. OMB has also created a publicly available dashboard for observing agencies’ consolidation progress.

To accomplish its second goal, OMB and GSA launched a governmentwide data center availability marketplace in June 2012. This online marketplace is intended to match agencies that have extra capacity with agencies with increasing demand, thereby improving the utilization of existing facilities. The marketplace will help agencies with available capacity promote their available data center space. Once agencies have a clear sense of the existing capacity landscape, they can make more informed consolidation decisions.

GAO Has Previously Reported on Federal Data Center Consolidation Efforts

We have previously reported on OMB’s efforts to consolidate federal data centers. In March 2011, we reported on the status of the FDCCI and noted that data center consolidation makes sense economically and is a way to achieve more efficient IT operations, but that challenges exist. For example, agencies reported facing challenges in ensuring the accuracy of their inventories and plans, providing upfront funding for the consolidation effort before any cost savings accrue, integrating consolidation plans into agency budget submissions (as required by OMB), establishing and implementing shared standards (for storage, systems, security, etc.), overcoming cultural resistance to such major organizational changes, and maintaining current operations during the transition to consolidated operations. We further reported that mitigating these and other challenges will require commitment from the agencies and continued oversight by OMB and the Federal CIO.

In July 2011, we reported that agency consolidation plans indicate that agencies anticipated closing about 650 data centers by fiscal year 2015 and saving about $700 million in doing so. However, we also found that only one of the 24 agencies submitted a complete inventory and no agency submitted complete plans. Further, OMB did not require agencies to document the steps they took, if any, to verify the inventory data. We noted the importance of having assurance as to the accuracy of collected data and specifically, the need for agencies to provide OMB with complete and accurate data and the possible negative impact of that data being missing or incomplete. We concluded that until these inventories and plans are complete, agencies may not be able to implement their consolidation activities and realize expected cost savings. Moreover, without an understanding of the validity of agencies’ consolidation data, OMB could not be assured that agencies are providing a sound baseline for estimating consolidation savings and measuring progress against those goals. Accordingly, we made several recommendations to OMB, including that the Federal CIO require that agencies, when updating their data center inventories, state what actions have been taken to verify the inventories and to identify any associated limitations on the data. We also recommended that the Federal CIO require that agencies complete the missing elements in their consolidation plans and in doing so, consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned. We also made recommendations to the heads of agencies to complete the information missing from their inventories and plans.

In response to our recommendations, OMB took several actions. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, in addition to the updated inventories due at the end of every third fiscal quarter, agencies are required to submit an updated consolidation plan by the end of every fourth fiscal quarter. Along with the updated plan, agencies are required to submit a signed letter from their CIOs, attesting to the completeness of the plan, stating what actions were taken to verify the inventory, and noting any limitations of inventory or plan data. The inclusion of this performance information will continue to be important to OMB as it makes decisions on how best to oversee the ongoing federal data center consolidations. By gathering this understanding of the validity and limitation on agencies’ data, OMB will be better assured that agencies are providing a sound baseline for estimating savings and accurately reporting progress against their goals. The extent to which agencies have completed information missing from their inventories and plans is discussed in the following section.

More recently, in February 2012, we updated our March 2011 work and reported that although OMB had taken steps to ensure the completion of agencies’ consolidation plans, a preliminary analysis indicated that not all plans were complete. Also, in April 2012, we reported on the progress OMB and federal agencies made in implementing the IT Reform Plan, including one action item associated with data center consolidation. We reported that this goal was only partially completed, based on our conclusion that not all of the agencies’ updated data center consolidation plans included the required elements.

Agencies Updated Inventories and Plans, but Key Elements Are Still Missing

As discussed earlier, OMB required agencies to submit an updated data center inventory that included information on each center and its assets by the end of June 2011, and an updated consolidation plan that included key information on the agencies’ consolidation approach by the end of September 2011. OMB subsequently issued revised guidance on the mandatory content of the data center inventories and consolidation plans, in May 2011 and July 2011, respectively. While the revised inventory guidance asked for different information from what was requested in 2010, it still required agencies to report on specific assets within individual data centers, as well as information about each specific data center. The revised guidance on consolidation plans was similar to the 2010 guidance, but included several additional requirements. Specifically, in addition to continuing to require information on key elements such as goals, approaches, schedules, cost-benefit calculations, and risk management plans, the revised guidance also required agencies to address the data verification steps, consolidation progress, and cost savings. Table 2 compares the original and revised requirements for key elements to be included in agency inventories and plans.

While all agencies submitted updated inventories and plans in 2011, most of the agencies’ documents are still not complete. As required, all 24 agencies submitted their inventories in June 2011 and all but 2 submitted their updated consolidation plans in September 2011. The Social Security Administration (SSA) submitted its updated consolidation plan in October 2011 and the Department of Defense (Defense) submitted an updated consolidation plan in November 2011. However, of the 24 agencies’ submissions, only 3 of the inventories are complete and only 1 of the plans is complete. For example, while all 24 agencies report on their inventories to some extent, 8 agencies provide only partial information on the new category of physical servers and 17 provide only partial information on the new category of IT facilities and energy usage. Additionally, in their consolidation plans, 13 agencies do not provide a full master program schedule, 17 agencies do not provide full cost-benefit analysis results, and 21 agencies do not include all required cost savings information. In the absence of important information such as schedules and cost estimates, agencies are at risk of not realizing key FDCCI goals such as anticipated cost savings and improved infrastructure utilization.

Agencies Continue to Report Significant Planned Facility Reductions and Cost Savings

While agencies’ inventories and goals have changed since we last reported on FDCCI, agencies continue to report plans to significantly reduce the number of their centers and to achieve cost savings. Last year, we reported that as of April 2011, 23 agencies identified 1,590 centers (using the large data center definition) and established goals to reduce that number by 652. Our most recent analysis of 24 agencies’ documentation indicates that as of September 2011, agencies identified almost 2,900 total centers, and established plans to close over 1,185 of them by 2015. The new total number of data centers includes 648 large centers (500 square feet or more), 1,283 smaller centers (less than 500 square feet), and 966 centers of undetermined size.undetermined size are primarily comprised of 936 Defense facilities, a list of which was provided in a format that did not allow for an analysis of the The centers of size of the centers. An OMB official attributed the change in the number of large centers reported to agencies’ improvements in data quality.

Table 3 contains a further breakdown of actual and planned closures by calendar year, for both large and smaller centers.

The number of facilities in agencies’ inventories has changed over time, and will likely continue to evolve. For example, in July 2011, we reported that agencies reported having 1,590 large centers in their inventories, whereas they now report only 648. There are multiple reasons for these fluctuations. Some agencies have reported confusion over the evolving definition of “data center,” while officials from other agencies told us that some facilities have been reclassified or dropped from the inventory as more was learned about the facilities. Additionally, agencies have reported that their inventory totals are in a constant state of flux and changing on a regular basis as a result of their efforts to gather and refine information about data center inventories.

Most agencies also continued to report expected savings from FDCCI. Specifically,

Nineteen agencies reported anticipating more than $2.4 billion in cost savings and more than $820 million in cost avoidances, between 2011 and 2015. Additionally, as we also reported in 2011, actual savings may be even higher because 14 of these agencies’ projections were incomplete.

One agency does not expect to accrue net savings until 2017.

One agency does not expect to attain net savings from its consolidation efforts.

Three agencies did not provide estimated cost savings.

While we recognize that agencies’ planned savings of over $2.4 billion may grow as agencies complete their cost and savings assessments, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2013 states that FDCCI is expected to realize $3 billion in savings by 2015. This reflects a $600 million dollar disparity between what agencies are reporting and what OMB is expecting. Such a disparity highlights the need for agencies to continue to develop and refine their savings projections, in order to make clear an accurate picture of the goals to be realized by the governmentwide consolidation initiative.

Asset Inventories Are Still Not Complete

In our July 2011 report, we recommended that agencies complete the missing elements from their inventories. Further, as part of FDCCI, OMB required agencies to update their data center inventories at the end of the third quarter of every fiscal year. In guidance provided to the agencies, the 2011 updated inventories were to address five key elements for each data center: (1) physical servers, (2) virtualization, (3) IT facilities and energy, (4) network storage, and (5) data center information. One information category from 2010, IT software assets, was no longer required. Table 4 provides a detailed description of each of the five key elements.

However, not all of the agencies used the revised format. Specifically, 21 of the 24 agencies submitted inventories in OMB’s updated format and 3 agencies (the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Small Business Administration (SBA)) used the former format. Officials from all 3 agencies stated that they thought they were using the correct format at the time. Further, these officials said they plan to submit information consistent with OMB’s revised inventory template in the future.

The confusion by selected agencies on which templates to use is due, in part, to a change in how OMB distributed its new guidance. While in prior years the Federal CIO wrote letters to agency CIOs and OMB posted its guidance on the FDCCI website, in conveying the direction to use a new template in spring 2011, the Federal CIO did not write letters to agency CIOs and OMB did not post its latest guidance online. Instead, the Federal CIO and OMB relied on more informal means, such as the FDCCI task force meetings, to disseminate the new guidance. Although the task force serves as an important communications conduit for FDCCI, the confusion we identified among agencies on which template to use demonstrates that the task force was not effective as the sole means of communication with the agencies. In providing guidance and direction, task force communications could be enhanced by leveraging other existing resources, such as sending letters from the Federal CIO to agency CIOs and posting the guidance on the initiative’s website.

In assessing agencies’ inventories, we rated an element as complete if the agency provided all of the information required for the element, partial if the agency provided some, but not all, of the information for the element, and incomplete if the agency did not provide the information required for the element. A partial rating could result if an agency did not provide any information for selected facilities or if the agency did not fill in selected fields for its facilities. For example, both an agency providing data on two of five facilities and an agency providing incomplete data on energy usage across facilities would receive partial ratings.

Of the 21 inventories in the new format, only 3 contain complete data for all five of the required elements. Additionally, while all agencies provide at least partial inventory data for all five elements, one agency provides complete information for four of the five eight agencies provide complete information for three of the five three agencies provide complete information for two of the five elements, two agencies provide complete information for one of the five elements, and four agencies do not have any complete elements in their inventories.

Figure 1 provides an assessment of the completeness of agencies’ inventories, by key element, and a discussion of the analysis of each element follows the figure. In addition, a detailed summary of each agency’s completion of key elements is provided in appendix II.

Physical servers. Thirteen agencies provide complete information on their physical servers and 8 agencies provide partial information. For example, the Department of Education (Education) provides complete information on its total rack count and counts of types of servers, while the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides complete counts of individual servers, but partial information on total rack count. Additionally, the Department of Justice (Justice) provides partial information for both its total rack count and types of servers.

Virtualization. Seventeen agencies provide complete information on their virtualization and 4 agencies provide partial information. For example, HUD, the Departments of State (State) and Veterans Affairs (VA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), all provide complete information on their virtual host count and virtual operating system count. In contrast, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security (DHS), Justice, and GSA provide partial information for both of those same elements.

IT facilities and energy. Four agencies provide complete information on their IT facilities and energy, while 17 provide partial information. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and SSA fully provide such information as total data center power capacity and average data center electricity usage. However, VA fully reports on total data center power capacity, but partially on average data center electricity usage and total IT data center power capacity. Further, the Department of Labor (Labor) partially reports on total data center IT power capacity and average data center electricity usage and does not report any information on total data center power capacity.

Network storage. Fourteen agencies provide complete information on their network storage and 7 provide partial information. For example, the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and Transportation (Transportation), EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) all fully report on their total and used network storage. Other agencies, such as Defense, HHS, and State partially report information in each of those two categories.

Data center information. Three agencies provide complete information on their individual data centers, while 18 provide partial information. For example, HUD and SSA both fully report on data center-specific information such as data center type, gross floor area, and target date for closure. Other agencies, such as Energy and VA fully report on gross floor area and closure information, but partially report data center costs. Also, agencies such as Defense and DHS report partial information in all categories.

Part of the reason the agencies’ inventories remain incomplete stems from challenges in gathering data center power information, a key component of the IT facilities and energy component, and more broadly, problems providing good quality asset inventories, as OMB requires. These challenges are discussed in more detail later in this report. Because the continued progress of FDCCI is largely dependent on accomplishing goals built on the information provided by agency inventories, it will be important for agencies to continue to work on completing their inventories, thus providing a sound basis for their savings and utilization forecasts.

Agencies Updated Consolidation Plans, but Most Plans Are Not Complete

In addition to the agencies’ inventories, we previously recommended and OMB required agencies to update their consolidation plans to address any missing elements. OMB’s revised guidance on the contents of the consolidation plans retains key elements from its prior guidance and adds requirements to discuss steps taken to verify inventory and plan data, consolidation progress, and consolidation cost savings. OMB has previously reported on the importance of agencies’ consolidation plans in providing a technical road map and approach for achieving specified targets for infrastructure utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency. Table 5 provides a detailed description of each of these elements.

All 24 agencies submitted consolidation plans to OMB, but only 1 agency has a complete plan. For the remaining 23 agencies, selected elements are missing from each plan. For example, among the 24 agencies, all provide complete information on their qualitative impacts, but only 9 provide complete information on their quantitative goals. Further, 23 agencies specify their consolidation approach, but only 5 indicate that a full cost-benefit analysis was performed for the consolidation initiative. In many cases, agencies submitted some, but not all, of the required information. Figure 2 provides an assessment of the completeness of agencies’ consolidation plans, by key element, and a discussion of each element follows the figure. In addition, a detailed summary of each agency’s completion of key elements is provided in appendix II.

Quantitative goals. Nine agencies provide complete savings and utilization forecasts, 13 agencies provide partial forecasts, 1 agency does not provide any information, and an official from 1 agency said that this element did not apply. For example, Agriculture and Labor were rated as providing partial forecasts because they provide complete savings forecasts, but incomplete utilization forecasts. State and NRC were rated as providing partial forecasts because they both provide incomplete savings and utilization forecasts. Some agencies identified reasons for not having completed these forecasts. Specifically, a Department of the Interior (Interior) official told us that it was not cost effective to gather the missing information, so it was not included. Officials from other agencies, such as Labor and NRC, told us of data quality problems or that their data centers lacked the ability to gather the required information. Further, a HUD official stated that the department did not have any quantitative goals because their consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

Qualitative impacts. All 24 agencies fully describe the qualitative impacts of their consolidation initiatives. For example, Commerce’s plan describes goals such as controlling data center costs and shifting IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and technologies. Additionally, NASA reports that the consolidation effort will provide access to cost and power-efficient data centers that will meet all of the agency’s computing needs, as well as transform the data center environment, in part through virtualization and the use of cloud services. Further, SBA describes goals such as reducing the amount of physical resources consumed by technology systems and modernizing and updating agency systems.

Summary of consolidation approach. Twenty-three agencies include a summary of the agencies’ consolidation approaches and an official from 1 agency said that this element did not apply. For example, Defense describes the department’s reference architecture for use in guiding the consolidation effort and also provides examples of how the Air Force and the Army are approaching aspects of their respective consolidations. Additionally, State’s plan details how the department will consolidate all domestic data centers into four enterprise data centers. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable because the department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

Scope of consolidation. Twenty-two agencies’ plans include a well- defined scope for data center consolidation, 1 provides partial information on the scope of their consolidation efforts, and 1 does not provide this information. Specifically, the agencies that provide this information list the data centers included in the consolidation effort and what consolidation approach will be taken for each center. For example, EPA lists the 25 facilities for which either the servers will be moved or the site will be decommissioned. Similarly, Justice lists the 36 centers that will be either consolidated or decommissioned. However, Labor only partially addresses consolidation scope because it only provides information on about half of its data centers. According to an agency official, the centers that have been addressed constitute the bulk of the agency’s computing power, but that the remaining facilities will be addressed in a later phase of the consolidation effort, the timing for which has not yet been determined. Additionally, Defense has not defined its consolidation scope. A Defense consolidation program official stated that the department was still working to better understand the full inventory for all departmental components.

High-level timeline. Twenty-two agencies include a high-level timeline for consolidation efforts, 1 agency includes partial information on its timeline, and 1 does not provide a timeline. For example, Justice and EPA both provide the year for which action will be taken on their centers to be consolidated and NRC lists the years its three centers will be consolidated before they are replaced by NRC’s new data center. In contrast, Labor provides a timeline for about half of its data centers, and Defense does not provide a timeline because it has not fully defined the scope of its consolidation effort.

Performance metrics. Eighteen agencies identify specific performance metrics for their consolidation programs, 1 agency provides partial information on its metrics, 4 agencies do not identify specific metrics, and an official from 1 agency said that this element did not apply. Specifically, Agriculture’s plan defines several key performance indicators such as the numbers of applications moved and physical servers eliminated. Additionally, several agencies, such as Commerce, Defense, and NSF, provide consolidation performance metrics based on quantitative savings and utilization goals. As an example of an agency with partial metrics, Education identifies metrics based on its savings goals, but is missing information on its progress in meeting utilization goals. Additionally, DHS and NRC do not identify any performance metrics. Officials from both DHS and NRC agreed that their agencies did not have such measures when their plans were published, but noted that the required metrics had since been developed or that they now have the resources to develop them. Further, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable because the department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

Master program schedule. Nine agencies reference a completed master program schedule, 13 agencies do not reference such a schedule, and officials from 2 agencies said that this element did not apply. For example, HHS, VA, and GSA discuss their master program schedules, but other agencies, such as State and EPA do not reference schedules in their plans. State officials noted that the department has a schedule, but that it was not included in their consolidation plan due to a miscommunication. They stated that it would be included in their next plan update. Some agencies, such as Defense and Labor, are working to develop their schedules or will develop them in the future. A Defense official told us that the department has drafted a combined data center consolidation and cloud computing master schedule that is expected to be approved by the end of September 2012. Officials from Energy told us that their consolidation schedule existed, but that it was part of a larger departmental effort and did not provide detail down to the individual data center level. Officials from OPM questioned the utility of a master program schedule for relatively limited consolidation efforts. Two agencies reported that this requirement was not applicable to their situation. Specifically, officials from Education stated that this requirement was not applicable because of the small scale of their agency’s consolidation efforts. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable because the department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

Cost-benefit analysis. Five agencies provide results from a complete cost-benefit analysis that encompasses their entire consolidation initiative, 10 agencies provide only selected elements of a cost-benefit analysis, and 7 agencies do not provide a cost-benefit analysis. This element did not apply to 2 agencies. For example, Commerce details full annualized cost and savings estimates through fiscal year 2015, while other agencies, such as HHS and Interior provide only partial information. Specifically, HHS addresses projected savings, but not costs, and Interior acknowledges that an analysis has not yet been completed. Some agencies, such as Defense and Energy, plan to complete a cost-benefit analysis in the future. Officials from Transportation told us that the department was working on a new cost-benefit analysis, as the department no longer felt comfortable with their original savings projections. An Education official noted that the department’s consolidation did not cost anything and that although data will be moved out of the department’s one server room to be consolidated by the end of 2012, the facility would still operate as a network center. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable because the department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005.

Risk management plan. Eighteen agencies reference a consolidation risk management plan and require that risks be tracked, 4 agencies partially address risk management, and 2 agencies do not address risk management. For example, DHS describes its Data Center Services Project Risk Management Plan, including how risks are identified, assessed, and mitigated throughout the development life cycle. Additionally, Transportation addresses how its risk management plan identifies and tracks risks in three categories: people, process, and technology and administration. In contrast, agencies such as Energy and Interior are rated as partial because they are continuing to develop their risk management processes. An Interior official told us that the department’s plan is scheduled to be completed by June 2012. Officials from both OPM and SBA acknowledged that their consolidation plans did not address a risk management plan, but noted that risk was either being managed as part of individual projects or within a larger context within their respective organizations.

Communications plan. Twenty-two agencies consider a communications plan for the agencies’ consolidation initiatives, 1 agency does so partially, and 1 agency does not. For example, HHS describes a series of organizational responsibilities for gathering and reporting project information, as well as communicating with other departmental stakeholders. Additionally, GSA describes how its communications approach ensures that stakeholders both within and outside of the agency are kept informed as to consolidation progress. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) partially addresses its communications plan, noting that it is maintained as part of a larger departmental effort. OPM makes no such reference. Further, an official from OPM told us that a communications plan was not as critical for a small agency.

Inventory and plan verification. Fifteen agencies fully describe the steps taken to ensure that inventories and plans were complete and accurate, and 9 agencies partially do so. For example, State describes how information was gathered and validated, addresses several limitations, and attests to the documents’ completeness. Additionally, EPA describes how information was validated, describes limitations on inventory data, and attests to the currency of the agency’s plans. However, other agencies, such as Agriculture, HUD, and SSA are rated as having partially completed this element because they note that information was validated, but do not address data limitations or the completeness of both the inventory and plan. A HUD official told us that the department was unaware of this requirement and agreed to consider what could be said in the next plan update. An SSA official acknowledged that this information was meant to be included, but was inadvertently omitted.

Consolidation progress. Eleven agencies fully report on progress meeting consolidation goals, 11 agencies do so partially, and this element does not apply to 2 agencies. Specifically, Justice addresses progress against consolidation goals, discusses consolidation challenges, and references consolidation successes, such as integrating lessons learned from other organizations. VA similarly describes progress against goals and challenges, and also notes the department’s reliance on commercial and public best practices while updating its consolidation plan. However, both Education and NASA are rated as partially completing this element because they discuss progress against goals, but do not present specific successes or challenges. A NASA official agreed that this information was not included, but stated that the agency was aware of situations that addressed both categories of information. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable because the department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005. OPM officials stated that the agency followed OMB’s original guidance when completing their updated consolidation plan, which did not include a requirement for reporting on consolidation progress.

Cost savings. Only 1 agency fully reports on consolidation cost savings, while 13 agencies do so partially, and 8 do not. This element does not apply to two other agencies. Specifically, Commerce discusses net savings, future savings, budgetary impacts, and that the consolidation effort did not incur any unexpected costs. In contrast, HHS and Justice address net and future savings, but not budgetary impacts or unexpected costs. Additionally, other agencies do not include this information for various reasons. Notably, a Defense official told us that it was challenging to gather savings information from all the department’s components. An NSF official told us the information was not included because the agency had not yet realized any cost savings and so, had nothing to report. However, the agency expected to have more to report in the future. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable because the department’s consolidation effort was completed in 2005. Further, as with reporting on consolidation progress, OPM officials stated that they followed OMB’s original guidance, which did not include a requirement relating to cost savings.

In the continued absence of completed consolidation plans, agencies are at risk of implementing their respective initiatives without a clear understanding of their current state and proposed end state. For example, OMB intends for agencies’ master program schedules to provide an agencywide plan drawn from detailed implementation schedules for each data center. However, only nine agencies have fully completed this activity. Further, OMB intends agencies’ cost-benefit analyses to assess planned investments and cost savings calculations on a year-by-year basis, thus capturing realistic estimates of funding needed or savings realized from the closing of facilities and associated reduction in energy use. Nonetheless, only five agencies have completed such a study. Without completing this information, agencies may not realize anticipated cost savings, improved infrastructure utilization, or energy efficiency. The importance of these two practices is further discussed in the following section.

Selected Agencies Have Incomplete Schedules and Cost Estimates

OMB requires both a master program schedule and a cost-benefit analysis as key elements of agencies’ consolidation plans, but none of the agencies we evaluated had complete schedules or cost estimates. A comprehensive schedule is an important foundational element for initiative planning and provides a road map for systematic project execution. A credible cost-benefit analysis, which is one type of cost estimate, is a key tool for management to use in making informed decisions and includes information such as relative benefits and the effect and value of cost trade-offs. However, of five agencies (Agriculture, DHS, Interior, Transportation, and VA) selected for further analysis, none had a schedule or cost estimate that was fully consistent with best practices. Of the five agencies, two did not have schedules at all and one agency had previously completed a cost estimate but no longer had confidence in those calculations and therefore, planned to do a new cost-benefit analysis. OMB is sponsoring the development of a standardized cost model that could help agencies provide future estimates based on a common set of assumptions, estimates, and calculations.

Selected Agencies’ Master Program Schedules Are Not Complete

The success of a program depends in part on having an integrated and reliable master schedule that defines when and how long work will occur and how one activity is related to another. A program schedule provides not only a road map for systematic project execution but also the means by which to gauge progress, identify and resolve potential problems, and promote accountability at all levels of the program. A schedule also provides a time sequence for the duration of a program’s activities and furthers an understanding of both the dates for major milestones and the activities that drive the schedule. Our research has identified four select attributes of properly sequenced schedule activities that are essential for a reliable schedule network. Table 6 provides a detailed description of these attributes.

Of the five agencies selected, three agencies (Agriculture, VA, and DHS) provided their consolidation master program schedules and two agencies (Interior and Transportation) did not provide a master program schedule that we could evaluate. Of the three agencies that provided schedules, Agriculture and VA provided a single master schedule and DHS provided 4 schedules representing different aspects of the department’s future consolidation plans. However, none of these agencies’ schedules is fully compliant with the four attributes, although each agency was at least partially consistent with these practices. Table 7 provides an assessment of the agencies’ consistency with the four attributes of properly sequenced schedule activities. A discussion of the analysis of each characteristic follows the table.

Identified dependencies. None of the three agencies’ schedules is fully consistent with this practice. Specifically, two of DHS’s schedules have activities missing predecessors, successors, or both. Additionally, almost half of Agriculture’s activities, and almost 40 percent of VA’s, have a similar condition.

No dangling activities. Two of the three agencies are consistent with this practice and one agency is partially consistent. For example, neither schedule for Agriculture or VA has any dangling activities. In contrast, two of DHS’s four schedules do not have dangling activities, while the remaining two do have such activities.

No start-to-finish links. Two of the three agencies’ schedules are consistent with this practice and one agency’s schedule is partially consistent. Both of Agriculture and VA’s schedules are consistent with this practice and have no start-to-finish links. However, while three of DHS’s schedules do not have start-to-finish links, one schedule does.

No summary links. One of the three agencies was consistent with this practice, one agency was partially consistent, and one agency was not consistent. Specifically, Agriculture’s schedule does not have any summary links, while only one of DHS’s schedules meets the same condition. Three of DHS’s schedules include summary links, as does VA’s schedule.

Department officials gave a variety of reasons why their respective department did not provide documentation of a completed master program schedule:

An Agriculture official told us that the department had a detailed schedule for every individual closure, but that because those projects are not necessarily linked to one another, there was no need to link these activities in a master schedule. However, leading practices demonstrate that even a summary master schedule should be a roll- up of lower-level schedules and reflect milestones that are automatically calculated through the established network logic between planned activities. A schedule with proper logic can predict impacts on the project’s planned finish date of, among other things, misallocated resources, delayed activities, external events, scope changes, and unrealistic deadlines.

DHS’s consolidation program manager stated that the department provided separate schedules because schedules are developed for individual facilities when placed under contract for closure. However, leading practices show that a program schedule should include the entire required scope of effort, including the effort necessary from all government, contractors, and other key parties for a program’s successful execution from start to finish. The DHS consolidation program manager acknowledged that the schedules in question were developed by contractors and that the department plans to incorporate the suggested best practices as appropriate.

A VA official told us that because some of the tasks in the department’s schedule are expected to start on particular dates to ensure funding is available for the project task, they do not have predecessor tasks. While this can be a permissible step when the schedule constraints are clearly identified, the VA official was able to provide some, but not all, of those constraints. The VA official further told us that unnecessary tasks and constraints have since been removed from the department’s schedule.

Interior officials stated that the department’s master program schedule was not yet complete.

Transportation’s consolidation program manager stated that the department does not have a master program schedule dedicated to the FDCCI. Rather, the consolidation effort appears as a task on the department’s master IT projects schedule.

In the absence of program schedules constructed in accordance with scheduling best practices, the agencies we evaluated are at risk of moving forward with their consolidation efforts despite having incomplete information that defines when and how long work will occur and how activities are related to each other.

Selected Agencies’ Cost Estimates Are Not Reliable

We have reported that the ability to generate a reliable cost estimate, such as a cost-benefit analysis, is a critical function necessary to support OMB’s capital programming process. Such estimates should also include information on the benefits of the project. Without such estimates, agencies are at risk of experiencing cost overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. Our research has identified a number of best practices that are the basis of effective program cost estimating and should result in reliable and valid cost estimates that management can use for making informed decisions. Table 8 provides a detailed description of the four characteristics of a high-quality and reliable cost estimate.

Of the five agencies selected, four (Agriculture, DHS, Interior, and VA) provided supporting documentation used to calculate the cost estimates found in the agencies’ consolidation plans and one (Transportation) did not. Transportation officials explained that they were no longer confident in their prior estimates and they planned to undertake a new cost-benefit analysis in 2012. None of the four agencies’ estimates was fully compliant with best practices, although all of the estimates were at least minimally consistent with these practices. Table 9 provides an assessment of the estimates’ consistency with the characteristics of a reliable cost estimate. A discussion of the analysis of each characteristic follows the table.

Comprehensive. None of the estimates are fully consistent with this practice, although all four estimates satisfy about half of the criterion for this practice. For example, Agriculture includes most related costs and estimate assumptions, but does not include a work breakdown structure. Similarly, Interior includes most related costs and estimate assumptions, but also does not include a work breakdown structure.

Well-documented. None of the estimates fully satisfy this practice. Specifically, one estimate satisfies most, but not all, of the practice, one estimate satisfies about half of the criterion for the practice, and two estimates satisfy a few of the criterion for the practice. For example, Interior documents its technical baseline but does not fully document how the estimate was developed. VA describes how its calculations were performed and discusses the estimate’s technical baseline, but satisfied only half of the criteria describing how the estimate was performed.

Accurate. None of the estimates fully satisfied this practice. One estimate satisfied about half of the practice and three estimates satisfied some of the practice. For example, Agriculture’s estimate is partially based on historical estimates, but has not been updated since March 2009. Additionally, while DHS updated its estimate in July 2011, it did not adjust for inflation or document variations between planned and actual costs.

Credible. None of the estimates fully satisfied this practice. One estimate satisfied about half the practice and three estimates satisfied some of the practice. For example, DHS addressed some aspects of a risk and uncertainty analysis, but did not conduct an estimate sensitivity analysis. Conversely, VA addressed some aspects of an estimate sensitivity analysis, but did not conduct a risk and uncertainty analysis. Neither agency conducted an independent cost estimate.

Agency officials gave a variety of reasons for why their cost estimates were not complete. For example, the Agriculture CIO indicated that the department’s estimate was performed several years ago by a contractor and additional documentation was difficult to acquire. Additionally, Interior’s consolidation program manager stated that the department was in the process of revising its cost estimate using OMB’s cost model, but the effort was not yet complete. Further, Interior’s consolidation plan describes several efforts to estimate costs that the department ultimately did not include in their plan and indicates that the department will address this in a future deliverable. In May 2012, Interior officials stated that they recently provided this information to OMB. VA officials stated that they did not provide previous cost estimate documentation because the department expected to revise its cost estimate using new information regarding cost assumptions and that this information would affect life- cycle cost estimates. The DHS consolidation program manager noted that the department is now taking a different approach towards cost estimates through the use of enterprisewide contracts. Regarding Transportation, although it reported FDCCI-related estimated savings of over $26 million in its 2010 plan, the department’s updated consolidation plan states that the original cost estimates were no longer relevant and the department is in the process of conducting a new estimating effort that was not completed in time for the plan’s submission. Further, in March 2012, a department official confirmed that Transportation no longer felt comfortable with the original savings estimate and that planned cost savings were being reevaluated. The official further stated the department intends to complete a new cost-benefit analysis.

Between the five agencies that we reviewed, there are plans to consolidate 375 data centers of all sizes. In the absence of reliable cost estimates, these five agencies are exposed to the types of risks that we have reported to be recurring problems in our program reviews—namely cost overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. Because of the importance of a high-quality cost estimate to consolidation efforts as significant as these, it will be important for these agencies to work to improve their cost estimates, thus providing information on which management can make well-informed decisions as the agencies move towards their 2015 targets.

OMB Developed a Model to Help Agencies Plan Consolidations, but Does Not Require Its Use

To assist agencies in their data center consolidation efforts, the FDCCI Data Center Consolidation Task Force developed a standard Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model in order to provide a comprehensive tool to help to inform consolidation decision making, model consolidation paths, and assist with the development of cost savings figures and funding needs. OMB provided the model to agencies for voluntary use starting in January 2012, noting that it is intended to provide a uniform and consistent method to derive agency cost savings figures and a modeling and simulation tool to inform consolidation decisions.

At a high level, agencies load their raw agency inventory data into the spreadsheet-based model to develop three outputs: an “as is” view of current costs; a 5-year projection of costs based on maintaining current equipment and facilities at current growth rates; and a 5-year projection of costs, including equipment and facilities counts, based on the agency’s planned data center closure and efficiency targets.

The model relies on a number of built-in assumptions—based on best practices in the public and private sectors and grouped into categories such as facilities, hardware, and software—to provide its outputs. The model also recognizes some limitations, such as an inability to capture costing data for individual facilities and an inability to recognize individual costs for hardware and software. To compensate, the model applies universal values for such information, while recognizing the inaccuracies this may cause in some costing elements. The model further allows agencies to adjust specific variables to input costs that are atypical or not already anticipated by the model. According to an official from the GSA program management office that maintains the cost model, while not intended to capture comprehensive program costs, the model does provide agencies with the ability to customize the input information to make it as comprehensive as they need it to be. As a result, agencies could use this tool to provide more consistent and reliable cost estimates. Moreover, the model provides standardized cost calculations, adjustment for inflation, and a scenario-analysis tool that agencies can use to analyze alternatives and develop plans. Thus, it can be used as a tool to help agencies improve their consolidation planning.

Officials from several agencies told us that they plan to use the TCO model in future cost estimating efforts. For example, a Transportation official told us that the department intends to use the model as it recalculates its cost-benefit estimate. Additionally, the Interior consolidation program manager stated that the department planned to use the model to determine power estimates. Officials from other agencies, such as SSA and EPA, told us that the model was being considered for future use.

Use of the TCO model could provide more consistent and reliable cost estimates, but using the model is currently voluntary. In light of the limitations identified above in our review of the five agencies’ cost estimates, the deployment of a standardized tool for planning consolidation efforts could help ensure that agencies develop consistent and uniform projections. Until OMB requires agencies to use the model, agencies will likely continue to use a variety of methodologies and assumptions in establishing consolidation estimates, and it will remain difficult to summarize projections across agencies.

Agencies Have Experienced Consolidation Successes and Continue to Report Challenges

Agencies reported experiencing multiple areas of success in their consolidation efforts. Specifically, 20 agencies identified 34 areas of success, with the number of agencies reporting a particular success ranging from 9 to 1. However, only 3 successes were identified by multiple agencies and, of those, 2 represent over 45 percent of the total reported successes. Four agencies—Justice, Transportation, NSF, and SSA—did not report any successes. Table 10 details the reported successes as well as the number of agencies identifying that area of success; the two most common areas are further discussed after the table.

Virtualization is a technology that allows multiple, software-based machines with different operating systems, to run in isolation, side-by- side, on the same physical machine. Cloud computing is an emerging form of computing that relies on Internet-based services and resources to provide computing services to customers, while freeing them from the burden and costs of maintaining the underlying infrastructure. OMB suggests both technologies as agency approaches, along with decommissioning and consolidation. Nine agencies reported that focusing on virtualization and cloud computing have proven successful for their consolidation efforts.

The Interior consolidation program manager cited virtualization as the department’s greatest consolidation success, noting the efforts of the department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs as an example. Specifically, Interior has documented virtualization as a key enabler in the efforts of the bureau to close data centers. After closing 11 data centers in fiscal year 2011, the bureau turned its attention to remote sites with more than three servers. Through virtualization, the bureau was able to reduce all remote sites to either one or two physical servers. Additionally, on a site-by-site basis, other application and database servers were either virtualized or migrated to one of two primary bureau data centers. In doing so, the bureau’s virtualization effort reportedly produced over $114,000 in cost avoidance savings for fiscal year 2011, is expected to produce over $66,000 in savings for fiscal year 2012, and is planned to produce further savings of $66,000 annually. Table 11 details reductions and savings that the bureau has already realized and plans for the future.

Other agencies also reported virtualization as a key factor in being able to realize resource reductions. For example, EPA officials told us that the agency was using virtualization to optimize their IT infrastructure. In 2011, the agency virtualized over 360 servers, increasing the agency’s virtualization by 6 percent. In 2012, the agency plans to consolidate and virtualize email hosting services, allowing the agency to decommission 14 percent (or over 300) of its physical servers, and migrate the agency’s email gateways to cloud services. In one EPA facility, the agency will migrate over 100 servers from eight server rooms to one primary data center. Additionally, NRC reports that it used virtualization to exceed its 2011 goals for Windows server reductions. Specifically, the agency was able to exceed its goal of reducing 13 servers and actually reduced 33 physical servers, a reduction of more than 10 percent from its baseline of 288 servers. Further, OPM officials reported that within 15 months, the agency was able to increase the virtualization of its Windows servers from 15 percent to 50 percent, resulting in cost savings for the agency.

Other agencies reported on the less tangible, but still significant, importance of virtualization to their efforts. An Education official told us that the department’s biggest success has come from focusing on virtualization, rather than physical consolidation. DHS reported that the increased implementation of virtualization will reduce the overall costs of the department’s migration and postmigration operations. Further, officials from Labor told us that they expect virtualization to have an impact on the results of their consolidation, but that they had not yet documented any of those results.

Officials from three agencies also shared with us the advantages of moving their organizations to cloud services. Specifically, a DHS official told us that the department’s cloud services technology was becoming operational and as a result, costs savings were becoming evident versus traditional consolidation. Whereas 2 years ago, the department had nothing in the cloud, a large percentage of services were now moving in that direction. The official specifically noted a DHS component that was originally only going to move to its own physical infrastructure, but was now joining with other components because of the benefits of moving services to the cloud. A HUD official stated that the department’s successes were related to higher efficiency and utilization of computing and storage resources. Essentially, HUD embarked on a cloud-like solution—by means of the department’s existing outsourcing contract— before cloud computing really existed as a service. As a result, the official noted that the department has been receiving a number of benefits such as green IT, regular technology refreshes, and high utilization of resources. A second HUD official noted that the department has been rated across the government as having the third-highest computing utilization and the second-most efficient use of storage capacity. Further, and as mentioned earlier, an EPA official noted that the migration of EPA’s email gateways to cloud services will enable the agency to decommission 14 percent (over 300) of the agency’s physical servers.

Eight agencies reported consolidation successes that had been realized through agencies working together, both within and outside of their department, to identify consolidation opportunities. For example, several of the agencies that reported success with virtualization, as discussed earlier, also reported working with other departmental components as a key enabler of resulting savings. Specifically, Interior reported that as part of the department’s closing of 11 Bureau of Indian Affairs data centers in fiscal year 2011, two facilities were consolidated with other Interior bureaus, resulting in a reduction of 43 of the bureau’s 65 servers and producing immediate cost avoidance savings of over $114,000. Defense noted the willingness of its components to adopt the departmental strategy of first looking to the Defense Information Systems Agency for application and data hosting before pursuing any other options. Further, a SBA official told us that one success from the consolidation effort was that agencies have been looking for ways to work together. Specifically, the official cited the SBA’s effort to reach out to another agency in order to craft an interagency agreement to work together and move part of their operations into the hosting agency’s systems. A second agency official noted that because of this, the hosting agency has contacted SBA to make sure that it included SBA’s needs in its planning and requests. Additionally, a DHS official told us that departmental components were joining together to move services to the cloud.

There were also reported successes in working with external agencies. For example, VA reported that the department was successful in working with the Defense Information Systems Agency on an agreement to consolidate mission critical enterprise IT systems into the agency’s Defense Enterprise Computing Centers. The department noted that considerable cost savings could be realized by entering into such an interagency agreement, as opposed to leasing from a commercial site, for mission critical health record systems. Additionally, a HHS official similarly reported that the department’s Indian Health Service, which has small data centers that cannot close because of communication difficulties in their locations, recognized that Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs had a data center in close proximity to an Indian Health Service facility. Consequently, the service was able to share space with the bureau and consolidate one of its data centers and the service is now looking for similar opportunities that will allow HHS to consolidate further. Further, Labor officials told us that the department was consolidating small server rooms in regional offices to co-located facilities and that this approach was expected to reduce costs.

The consolidation successes experienced by agencies indicate that aspects of FDCCI are moving forward as planned. Further, almost half of these reported accomplishments directly relate to key tenets of OMB’s plans for the initiative, demonstrating that OMB has developed a consolidation road map that provides realistic means by which agencies can achieve their goals.

Agencies Continue to Report Consolidation Challenges, but the Types of Challenges Are Evolving

In 2011, we reported on the challenges that agencies were facing during data center consolidations. These included challenges related to FDCCI as well as those that were cultural, funding related, operational, and technical. In 2012, agencies have continued to report many of the same challenges, have reported new challenges, and have stopped reporting challenges they previously identified. As we found in 2011, some challenges are more common than others. Specifically, the number of agencies reporting a particular challenge range from 15 to 1. Additionally, 25 challenges reported in 2011 were not reported in 2012. Two agencies, HUD and NSF, did not report any challenges. Table 12 details the reported challenges, the numbers of agencies experiencing that challenge, and identifies the challenges no longer being reported by agencies. The table is followed by a discussion of the most prevalent challenges.

Agencies reported seven challenges that are specific to FDCCI, including obtaining power usage and providing good quality asset inventories, both as required by OMB. Specifically, 15 agencies reported that obtaining power usage information was a challenge, which is less than the 19 agencies that reported this challenge last year. For example, a NASA official told us that the agency only had one data center (out of 79) that was fully metered, but that the agency was working to establish metering capabilities at several more locations. An SBA official told us that the agency was still working to complete a power audit, but that it was questionable whether such an audit would be worth the amount of work required to install separate power meters in leased facilities. A USAID official reported that none of the agency’s facilities were metered and that the agency was not a landlord for any of its facilities, making power information difficult to obtain. Further, 10 agencies reported that providing good quality inventories was a challenge, which is more than the 4 agencies that reported this challenge last year. For example, an EPA official told us that the agency had trouble determining cost information for its server rooms because most were facilities within office spaces and which were part of larger federal leases or within GSA buildings. As a result, EPA focused their efforts on facilities greater than 500 square feet. Additionally, a Defense official reported that that gathering and verifying inventory information for an organization the size of the department was challenging.

Agencies reported three cultural challenges to data center consolidation, including accepting cultural change that is part of consolidation and obtaining enterprise buy-in to the consolidation effort. One of the most prevalently reported cultural challenges, accepting cultural change, was cited by 5 agencies, which is 10 fewer agencies than last year. For example, Energy found that there was a perceived need for each facility or departmental organization to have “ownership” of their own data centers and server rooms in order to support their business or mission needs. Justice recognized that moving from the department’s current environment to a more unified, standardized, and cost-efficient approach for providing data center services requires change and consequently, efforts were underway to drive more significant consolidation. Another commonly reported cultural challenge was obtaining enterprise buy-in to the consolidation effort, which was reported by 5 agencies—an increase from the single agency that reported this last year. For example, DHS reported their consolidation effort to be a multistakeholder operation that required immense amounts of coordination and found that delays and issues arose when various stakeholders maintained differing visions, expectations, and commitment to the effort. Further, NRC reported that one of its main challenges was managing the level of coordination required by the number of internal and external entities involved in planning and the related activities that need to happen simultaneously.

Agencies reported two funding challenges: acquiring the funding needed for consolidation and identifying cost savings to be realized by consolidation. Nine agencies reported challenges with acquiring funding, which is slightly fewer than the 11 agencies that reported this challenge last year. For example, Energy reported that the department had little or no funding available to invest in data center measurement systems, server utilizations assessments, or consolidation projects. Additionally, both Justice and Transportation reported challenges in providing upfront funding for consolidation efforts before cost savings accrue. Two agencies reported challenges with identifying cost savings, a decrease from the 9 agencies that reported this challenge last year. For example, an Interior official noted that the department would likely not be able to report on savings for 2011 because most bureaus absorbed the cost of consolidation within their budgets. Although site-specific plans were required by the department, most did not address costs. Additionally, an SSA official noted that the agency currently had too many uncertainties surrounding its consolidation effort to perform a cost-benefit analysis.

Agencies reported eight operational challenges, including difficulties with procurement and technology and resource constraints, neither of which had been reported in 2011. Three agencies encountered challenges with procurement, including DHS, which had to create a team to streamline projects through the department’s procurement process. GSA reported encountering construction contracting challenges on all three of the agency’s calendar year 2011 data center consolidations. These contract challenges included: vendors that could not meet award schedules, nonresponsive vendors, and long lead times for some IT equipment. To counter such delays, GSA increased the time allotted for planned contracting efforts and vendor delivery schedules. Additionally, two agencies reported challenges with technology and resource constraints. Specifically, EPA reported encountering minor delays in consolidation plan execution due to such constraints and NRC reported another of its main challenges to consolidation being available resources and the impact on its critical path to consolidation, which is the timely completion of the agency’s new headquarters building.

Agencies reported only one technical challenge to consolidation, planning a migration strategy. Specifically, this was reported by seven agencies, an increase from the two agencies that reported this in 2011. For example, Transportation’s consolidation plan notes that in the department’s organization, it is a long process to identify possible consolidations, present them to management, then to users, and then work the technical side of migrations. Transportation’s plan also noted that application mapping is a very difficult and time-consuming activity, but cannot be skipped in a successful completion of a migration. Further, an Education official told us that the department had to develop a two- step approach for migrating files after encountering technical issues with an earlier migration effort. Finally, Commerce reported in its consolidation plan that detailed consolidation planning was critical due to the number of moving parts and potential impact on applications and customers.

As we have previously reported, one approach agencies can use to manage challenges such as the ones described above is through risk management processes. In 2011, we reported that less than half of the agencies included a discussion of risk management in their data center consolidation plans. As we stated earlier, 18 of the agencies, or 75 percent, now fully address risk management. By addressing consolidation risk, agencies have better positioned themselves to manage the challenges they have identified.

In any significant IT initiative, it is important that both successes and challenges be highlighted. In the case of FDCCI, a success highlights approaches and strategies that are helping agencies to meet their consolidation targets and fulfill the intent of the initiative. Conversely, a challenge identifies an area where agencies are struggling to meet the requirements and intent of this governmentwide effort. The two most reported consolidation successes are both key tenets of OMB’s FDCCI: the use of virtualization and cloud services, and working with other agencies to find consolidation opportunities. Alternately, the three most reported challenges directly impact the ability of FDCCI to meet its goals: gathering power usage information, developing good quality data center inventories, and acquiring the funding needed for consolidation. In light of how closely the successes and challenges reported by agencies relate to FDCCI, it will be important for OMB to continue to provide leadership and guidance to the initiative. This includes, as we have previously recommended, utilizing the existing accountability infrastructure of the Data Center Consolidation Task Force to assess agency consolidation plans to ensure they are complete and to monitor the agencies’ implementation of their plans.

Conclusions

With agencies reporting having closed 286 data centers by the end of 2011 and planning to close an additional 346 centers by the end of 2012, the data center consolidation initiative is expected to realize about $2.4 billion in cost savings through 2015. OMB now requires agencies to annually update both their data center inventories and their consolidation plans and has expanded the required content of both. However, agencies’ consolidation and savings goals continue to be built on incomplete inventories and plans. To better ensure that FDCCI improves governmental efficiency and achieves promised cost savings, we are reiterating our prior recommendation to the department secretaries and agency heads of the 24 departments and agencies participating in the federal data center consolidation initiative to fully complete their consolidation inventories and plans expeditiously.

As OMB refines its approach to the data center consolidation initiative, it provides updated guidance to agencies. However, three agencies did not learn of the most recent changes in OMB’s required formats, in part because the guidance was provided in meetings and not in a formal letter from the Federal CIO to agency CIOs or disseminated on the website where all prior guidance had been disseminated. Until OMB uses more structured mechanisms to disseminate its guidance, it runs the risk that agencies will not learn of important changes in format or approach.

Additionally, basic consolidation plan requirements, such as the need for schedules and cost estimates, are still unmet by almost 70 percent of the agencies. Among the five agencies selected for a detailed review, none of the agencies’ master schedules and estimates were completed in a manner consistent with best practices. For example, none of the agencies was able to demonstrate that its cost estimates were accurate, credible, or comprehensive. OMB’s cost of ownership model should help address a number of planning concerns. As more agencies use the model, OMB can use the model to ensure consistent planning and reporting on consolidation efforts across FDCCI. However, agencies’ use of the model is still voluntary. Until OMB requires agencies to use the model, it may miss opportunities to ensure consistency among agencies and it will remain difficult to summarize projections across agencies.

As the federal consolidation effort matures, agencies are beginning to realize successes. These constructive experiences, which stem from OMB’s recommended consolidation strategies, indicate that FDCCI is moving in the right direction. However, as agencies work towards their consolidation goals, many continue to report challenges related to gathering the necessary technical information and funding the consolidation itself. While these challenges are consistent with those reported in the past, over 25 previous challenges were no longer reported by the agencies. Such a dynamic environment reinforces the need for agencies to remain in communication in order to facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer and for OMB to continue to provide leadership and guidance.

Recommendations for Executive Action

In addition to reiterating our prior recommendation to agencies to complete the missing elements of their inventories and plans, we are making two recommendations to OMB. Specifically, we recommend that the Director of OMB direct the Federal CIO to ensure that all future revisions to the guidance on data center consolidation inventories and plans are defined in OMB memorandum and posted to the FDCCI public website in a manner consistent with the guidance published in 2010, and ensure agencies utilize OMB’s Total Cost of Ownership model as a standardized planning tool across the consolidation initiative.

In addition, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture, Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs direct their component agencies and their data center consolidation program managers to implement recognized best practices when completing required program schedules and cost-benefit analyses.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received comments on a draft of our report from OMB, the 5 agencies to which we made recommendations, and the other 19 agencies mentioned in the report. Specifically, OMB and the 5 agencies to which we made recommendations either agreed with, or had no comment on, the recommendations and the other 19 agencies had no specific comments on our recommendations. Multiple agencies also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Each agency’s comments are discussed in more detail below.

In oral comments, OMB officials, including the Deputy Federal CIO and staff from the Office of E-government and Information Technology and the Office of the General Counsel, stated that they generally agreed with, and described planned actions to implement, our recommendations. These officials also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

In written comments, Agriculture’s Acting CIO stated that the department concurred with the content of the report and had no comments. The department offered no comments on our recommendations. The department also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Agriculture’s written comments are provided in appendix III.

In written comments, DHS’s Director of the Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office concurred with our recommendation, commented on the current and planned state of the department’s consolidation efforts, and outlined actions the department plans to take to implement our recommendation and update its data center inventory and consolidation plan. The department also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. DHS’s written comments are provided in appendix IV.

In written comments, Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated the department concurred with the report’s finding and recommendations, commented on the current status of the department’s consolidation efforts, and described the department’s plans to develop savings and cost avoidance projections. The department also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Interior’s written comments are provided in appendix V.

In comments provided via e-mail, Transportation’s Deputy Director of Audit Relations wrote that the department had no comments on the draft. The department offered no comments on the recommendations.

In written comments, VA’s Chief of Staff stated that the department generally agreed with our conclusions, concurred with our recommendation, and described planned actions to address our recommendation. The department also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. VA’s written comments are provided in appendix VI.

In written comments, Commerce’s Acting Secretary concurred with the report’s general findings as they applied to the department and with the specific reporting on the department’s consolidation plan. Commerce’s written comments are provided in appendix VII.

In comments provided via e-mail, an audit liaison from Defense’s Office of the CIO wrote that the department had no comments on the report.

In comments provided via e-mail, an official from Education’s Office of the Secretary wrote that the department had no comments on the report.

In written comments, the Director of Energy’s Corporate IT Project Management Office stated that the department concurred with the findings reported for Energy and noted steps being taken by the department to address a consolidation challenge discussed in our report. The department also elaborated on facilities that we cited as not having been reported in Energy’s FDCCI inventory. Energy’s written comments are provided in appendix VIII.

In written comments, HHS’ Assistant Secretary for Legislation stated our report was an accurate representation of the department’s 2011 data center inventory and consolidation plan and outlined actions the department plans to take to complete missing inventory and plan elements. HHS’ written comments are provided in appendix IX.

In comments provided via e-mail, a HUD audit liaison wrote that the department had no comments or concerns regarding the report.

In comments provided via e-mail, an official from Justice’s Office of the CIO wrote that the department had no comments on the report.

In written comments, Labor’s Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management stated that the department did not have any comments on the draft to contribute. Labor’s written comments are provided in appendix X.

In comments provided via e-mail, an official from State’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer wrote that the department had no comments on the report.

In comments provided via e-mail, Treasury’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems agreed with our report. The department also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

In written comments, the Director of EPA’s Office of Technology Operation and Planning provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. The agency did not comment on the report’s findings.

In comments provided via e-mail, an official from GSA’s GAO/IG Audit Response Division wrote that the agency had no comments on the report.

In comments provided via e-mail, the team lead for NASA’s GAO/OIG Audit Liaison wrote that the agency was providing no comments on the report.

In written comments, NSF’s CIO stated that the agency generally agreed with our characterization of their consolidation plan, but disagreed with our assessment of the agency’s master program schedule. The CIO asserted that we were provided with such a schedule, while also acknowledging that the schedule was inherently less detailed than those of agencies and departments with multiple components, but that it identified all NSF consolidation activities in the format and level of detail prescribed by OMB. However, OMB’s guidance on master program schedules states that such schedules are to be created from the detailed implementation schedules provided by data center managers, as well as driven by related federal government activities, such as OMB reporting and budgeting. While we acknowledge that NSF’s consolidation scope is less than that of some agencies, the high-level timeline presented as a master program schedule consists only of a single line item that states the fiscal year when NSF’s data center will be decommissioned. Further, this timeline does not include any of the detailed implementation activities or key baseline milestones required by OMB. As such, we believe our evaluation is reasonable and appropriate. NSF’s written comments are provided in appendix XI.

In comments provided via e-mail, the NRC OIG and GAO Liaison wrote that the agency had reviewed the report and had no comments. The liaison also provided an update on NRC’s plans to move to a single data center.

In comments provided via e-mail, an official from OPM’s Office of Internal Oversight and Compliance wrote that the agency had no comments on the report.

In comments provided via e-mail, the program manager for SBA’s Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

In comments provided via e-mail, a SSA audit liaison wrote that the agency had no comments on the report.

In comments provided via e-mail, an official from USAID’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer wrote that the agency had no comments on the report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees; the secretaries and agency heads of the departments and agencies addressed in this report; 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 your staffs have any questions on the matters discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix XII.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the extent to which agencies have updated and verified their data center inventories and data center consolidation plans, (2) evaluate the extent to which selected agencies have adequately completed key elements of their consolidation plans, and (3) identify agencies’ notable consolidation successes and challenges.

For this governmentwide review, we assessed the 24 departments and agencies (agencies) that were identified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) to be included in the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI). Table 13 lists these agencies.

To evaluate the agencies’ updated data center inventories and consolidation plans, we reviewed OMB’s guidance and identified key required elements for each type of document. We compared agency consolidation inventories and plans to OMB’s required elements, and identified gaps and missing elements. We rated each element as “Yes” if the agency provides complete information; “Partial” if the agency provides some, but not all, of the information; and “No” if the agency does not provide the information. We followed up with agencies to clarify our initial findings and to determine why parts of the inventories and plans were incomplete or missing, as applicable. We also compared our findings with those reported in 2011. To assess the reliability of the data agencies provided in their data center inventories and plans, we reviewed the letters agencies were required to submit attesting to the completeness and reliability of their inventories and plans, we interviewed agency officials about the actions taken to verify their data, and reviewed those results against our past reviews of agency inventories and plans. We concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes, which was to report on the completeness of the inventories and plans.

GAO-11-565. each practice as having been fully, partially, or not addressed. We discussed our findings with agency officials to determine why the schedules did not address all aspects of the best practices. To assess the agencies’ cost estimates, we compared documentation supporting the cost and savings estimates found in the agencies’ consolidation plans with relevant best practices. These practices include ensuring that each estimate is comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible. In doing so, for each estimate, we rated each practice as having been met, substantially, partially, minimally, or not met. We also discussed our findings with agency officials to determine why the estimates did not address all aspects of the best practices. To assess the reliability of the data the five agencies provided in their master program schedules and cost estimates, we reviewed the schedules and estimates, compared them to our guidance on scheduling and estimating, and interviewed officials about how the schedules and estimates were constructed. We concluded that the schedules and estimates were generally unreliable and our report includes findings related to those assessments. The results of our evaluation at these five agencies cannot be generalized to other agencies.

To identify the key successes and challenges encountered by agencies in consolidating data centers, we reviewed agency consolidation plans and interviewed agency officials. We then determined which successes and challenges were encountered most often. To assess the reliability of cost savings data reported by Interior, we confirmed that the information was included in the department’s updated consolidation plan, which the Interior CIO attested was assessed and determined to be accurate and complete. In doing so, we concluded that the quality of the information was sufficient for our purposes.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to July 2012, 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.

Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies’ Completion of Key Consolidation Planning Elements, Arranged by Agency

As part of its data center consolidation initiative, OMB required 24 federal departments and agencies to submit an updated data center inventory and consolidation plan. Key elements of the inventory were to include, for each data center, information on physical servers, virtualization, IT facilities and energy, network storage, and data center information. However, 3 agencies reported their inventories based on 2010 guidance, in which case they included information for each data center on IT hardware, IT software, facilities/energy/storage, and geographic location.

Key elements of the updated plan were to include information on quantitative goals, qualitative impacts, consolidation approach, consolidation scope, timeline, performance metrics, master schedule, cost-benefit analysis, risk management, consideration of a communications plan, inventory and plan verification, consolidation progress, and cost savings.

For each of the agencies, the following sections provide a brief summary of the agencies’ goal for reducing the number of data centers, and an assessment of the completeness of their inventories and plans, as compared to what we reported in 2011. In the case of agencies that reported using the new inventory format, we have related the old key elements, where possible. Agencies that reported using the old format are directly compared to their previous results.

The following information describes the key that we used in tables 14 through 37 to convey the results of our assessment of the agencies’ compliance with OMB’s requirements for the FDCCI. ● – the agency provides complete information for this element. ◐ – the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the element. ○ – the agency does not provide information for this element.

Department of Agriculture

Agriculture plans to consolidate from 95 data centers (40 large and 55 small) to 27 centers (8 large and 19 small) by December 2015. However, the agency’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements.

Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Agriculture provides complete information for 9 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides partial information for the remaining 4 elements. An Agriculture official stated that the agency is dependent on component agencies to report complete inventory information. The official also stated the agency intended to provide the missing utilization plan information, as well as greater discussion of consolidation challenges in future consolidation plan updates. Table 14 provides our assessment of Agriculture’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) plans to consolidate from 55 data centers (33 large and 22 small centers) to 30 data centers (21 large and 9 small centers) by December 2015. However, Commerce’s asset inventory remains incomplete, while its consolidation plan is now complete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Commerce provides complete information for all 13 elements evaluated. A Commerce official stated that energy information is incomplete due to the lack of metering in its facilities and the inability of data center providers to supply agency-specific energy usage and cost information. Table 15 provides our assessment of Commerce’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Defense (Defense) plans to consolidate from 936 data centers to 392 by December 2015. However, Defense’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides partial information for all 5 key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Defense provides complete information for 5 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for 5 elements. A Defense official stated that the agency’s next inventory update would include more complete information. In addition, the official stated that it was a challenge for Defense to collect all of the required information because of the scope and size of the agency’s consolidation effort. Table 16 provides our assessment of Defense’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Education (Education) plans to consolidate from five data centers (three large and two small centers) to four data centers (three large and one small center) by December 2012. However, Education’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Education provides complete information for 8 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for 1 element. Education officials stated that 2 elements were not applicable because of the small scope of the agency’s effort. Table 17 provides our assessment of Education’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Energy (Energy) plans to consolidate from 56 data centers (26 large and 30 small centers) to 50 data centers (21 large and 29 small centers) by December 2015. However, Energy’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Energy provides complete information for 8 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for 2 elements. An Energy official stated that the agency’s next inventory update would include more complete information. In addition, the official stated that a risk management plan was under development and that the agency planned to work with OMB’s cost model to formulate better cost and savings information. Table 18 provides our assessment of Energy’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to consolidate from 181 data centers (43 large and 138 small centers) to 145 data centers (36 large and 109 small centers) by December 2015. However, HHS’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 1 key element and provides partial information for the remaining 4 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, HHS provides complete information for 11 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides only partial information for the remaining 2 elements. An HHS official noted that it was difficult to gather every inventory element for all of its data centers. Table 19 provides our assessment of HHS’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

DHS plans to consolidate from 101 data centers (40 large and 61 small data centers) to 37 data centers (3 large and 34 small centers) by December 2015. However, DHS’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides partial information for all 5 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, DHS provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for 1 element. DHS officials stated that the completeness of inventory information has improved since 2011 and that they have developed performance metrics. They also noted that they do not expect to fully realize their cost savings until consolidation activities are complete. Table 20 provides our assessment of DHS’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has achieved its goal of consolidation prior to the start of the FDCCI and does not plan further consolidation of its existing base of contracts. Since 2005, the agency has operated in a fully outsourced infrastructure mode with two vendors providing consolidated departmental IT operations in hosting, storage, data transport, user environments, and systems integration, with off-site disaster recovery provided by one vendor. The agency’s asset inventory is complete, but its consolidation plan is not. Specifically, HUD provides complete information for 5 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides partial information for 1 element. A HUD official stated that 7 elements were not applicable because the agency has reached its consolidated end-state architecture. Table 21 provides our assessment of HUD’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Interior plans to consolidate from 232 data centers (158 large and 74 small data centers) to 135 data centers (90 large and 45 small centers) by December 2015. However, Interior’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Interior provides complete information for 9 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for 1 element. An Interior official stated that the agency expects to report more complete inventory information for the next inventory update and will report cost savings when it can more accurately estimate the agency’s expected savings. Table 22 provides our assessment of Interior’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Justice (Justice) plans to consolidate from 105 data centers (33 large and 42 small centers and 30 centers of unknown size) to 66 data centers (27 large and 39 small centers and no centers of unknown size) by December 2015. However, Justice’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides only partial information for all 5 key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Justice provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide any information for 1 element. A Justice official stated that the agency did not know it was required to report the missing inventory information, but that the agency had the information and would include it in the next inventory update. The official did not know when the agency’s savings and utilization goals would be updated. Table 23 provides our assessment of Justice’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of Labor (Labor) plans to consolidate from 89 data centers (20 large and 69 small centers) to 54 data centers (20 large and 34 small centers) by December 2015. However, Labor’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Labor provides complete information for 4 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 6 elements, and does not provide information for 3 elements. A Labor official stated that the agency had difficulty obtaining energy information because of the lack of metering in its facilities. The official also noted that cost information would not be available until the end of fiscal year 2012 while savings information would not be available until fiscal year 2013. Table 24 provides our assessment of Labor’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of State (State) plans to consolidate from 363 data centers (12 large and 351 small data centers) to 355 data centers (4 large and 351 small centers) by December 2015. According to agency officials, the 351 small data centers are located overseas and there are no current plans to consolidate these locations because of the resulting impact on information technology operations. However, State’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 1 key element and provides partial information for the remaining 4 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, State provides complete information for 9 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for 1 element. State officials stated that the agency focused on inventorying its larger domestic facilities and noted that it was difficult to capture inventory-related information, such as energy usage and costs, for its foreign posts. The officials added that State has since completed a cost-benefit analysis, the results of which would be included in the next update, and has developed detailed schedules for each year’s activities. Table 25 provides our assessment of State’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Transportation plans to consolidate from 328 data centers (33 large and 295 small centers) to 265 data centers (24 large and 241 small centers) by December 2015. However, Transportation’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Transportation provides complete information for 8 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for 2 elements. A Transportation official stated that the agency did not expect to see significant improvements for the energy-related information because not all facilities have meters. The official added that it was a challenge for the agency to collect inventory data for its small data centers. Table 26 provides our assessment of Transportation’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) plans to consolidate from 55 data centers (42 large and 13 small centers) to 40 data centers (29 large and 11 small centers) by December 2015. However, Treasury’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Treasury provides complete information for 6 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 4 elements, and does not provide information for 3 elements. A Treasury official stated that installing meters to gather all inventory power information would be cost prohibitive. In addition, the official stated that the agency is working to complete the missing plan elements, including the master program schedule, risk management plan, and communications plan. Table 27 provides our assessment of Treasury’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

VA plans to consolidate from 97 data centers (51 large and 46 small centers) to 14 data centers (11 large and 3 small centers) by December 2015. However, VA’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 of the key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, VA provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide any information for the remaining 1 element. A VA official stated that installing equipment to gather all inventory power information would be cost prohibitive. Another official stated that the agency would more fully report on cost savings in future versions of their consolidation plan. Table 28 provides our assessment of VA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to consolidate from 78 data centers (4 large and 74 small centers) to 53 data centers (4 large and 49 small centers) by December 2015. However, EPA’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 of the key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, EPA provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide any information for the remaining 1 element. An EPA official stated that the agency planned to develop energy estimates for the missing inventory information and to work with OMB’s cost model to develop better cost and savings information. Table 29 provides our assessment of EPA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The General Services Administration (GSA) plans to consolidate from 21 data centers (21 large and no small centers) to 9 data centers (9 large and no small centers) by December 2015. However, GSA’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides partial information for all 5 key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, GSA provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides partial information for the 3 remaining elements. A GSA official stated that the agency had now completed all missing IT facilities and energy information, but that there were continuing difficulties in calculating savings information due to changing schedules and lack of energy metering information for some GSA facilities. Table 30 provides our assessment of GSA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to consolidate from 79 data centers (75 large and 4 small data centers) to 22 large data centers by December 2015. However, NASA’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, NASA provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for the remaining element. A NASA official stated that currently only one facility has power metering and, as a result, it is difficult to determine costs. The official also noted that NASA expects to reach its 2012 consolidation targets. Table 31 provides our assessment of NASA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) currently has only one onsite, centrally managed data center. Since 2007, the agency has been transitioning from owning and operating a data center to the use of commercial data center services and emerging cloud computing options. The agency’s plan is to complete transition of major legacy IT systems in a phased approach, with completion coinciding with the expiration of the NSF headquarters building lease, currently set for fiscal year 2014. The agency’s asset inventory is complete, but its consolidation plan is not. Specifically, NSF provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 1 element, and does not provide information for 2 elements. An NSF official stated that the agency interpreted the guidance for consolidation progress and cost savings to apply only to ongoing or completed consolidations. However, the official noted that the agency would more fully report on these elements in future versions of its consolidation plan. Table 32 provides our assessment of NSF’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to consolidate from three data centers (three large and no small centers) to one large data center by December 2015. However, NRC’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 4 of the key elements and partial information for the remaining 1 element. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, NRC provides complete information for 8 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for the remaining 2 elements. An NRC official stated that the agency planned to gather missing data center information and that the agency’s planned single data center would be able to provide much of NRC’s missing energy information. The official also stated that both performance metrics and a master program schedule have now been developed. Table 33 provides our assessment of NRC’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) plans to consolidate from 4 data centers (one large and three small centers) to 3 centers (one large and two small centers) by December 2015. However, the agency’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 1 key element and provides partial information for the remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, OPM provides complete information for 6 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for 3 elements. Two elements were determined to be not applicable to the agency. An OPM official stated that several missing elements, such as more detailed and complete inventory information and a summary of the agency’s cost-benefit analysis would be provided in future updates. The official also stated that the agency was not aware that it had to include consolidation progress and cost savings information in its updated consolidation plan. Another OPM official indicated the agency intended to provide information required by OMB’s guidance in the future. Table 34 provides our assessment of OPM’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) plans to consolidate from four large data centers to two large centers by December 2015. However, the agency’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, SBA provides complete information for 6 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for the remaining 5 elements. SBA officials stated that several missing elements, such as performance metrics, a schedule, and a risk management strategy, were either developed after the plan’s completion or would be developed in the future. Table 35 provides our assessment of SBA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has two large data centers and plans to replace one of them with a new facility. The agency expects the transition to begin in February 2015 and be complete in August 2016. However, SSA’s consolidation plan remains incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for all 5 key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, SSA provides complete information for 7 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 4 elements, and does not provide information for the remaining 2 elements. An SSA official stated that the missing utilization plan elements and the plan verification information were unintentionally omitted and that those items would be included in the next update. Table 36 provides our assessment of SSA’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) plans to consolidate from six data centers (two large and four small data centers) to two small data centers by December 2012. However, USAID’s asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, USAID provides complete information for 7 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 4 elements, and does not provide information for the remaining 2 elements. A USAID official stated that missing server information would be included in the next inventory update and that the agency has completed a new cost- benefit analysis and taken steps to verify its inventory data. The official also said that power-related information is difficult to obtain since the agency leases its data centers. Table 37 provides our assessment of USAID’s compliance with OMB’s requirements in 2010 and 2011.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix XI: Comments from the National Science Foundation

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, individuals making contributions to this report included Colleen Phillips (Assistant Director), Justin Booth, Kathleen Lovett Epperson, Rebecca Eyler, Dave Hinchman, Fatima Jahan, Jason Lee, John Ockay, Karen Richey, and Jessica Waselkow.