Telecommunications: Fully Implementing Established Transition Planning Practices Would Help Agencies Reduce Risk of Costly Delays
Released: 2020-03-04T00:00:00

Letter

Background

GSA’s existing government-wide telecommunications program is called Networx. As part of this program, in 2007 GSA awarded two sets of Networx contracts—called Networx Universal and Networx Enterprise— which had an estimated combined value of $20 billion. These contracts provide similar services, such as voice and data services, wireless services, video and audio conferencing, as well as mobile and fixed satellite services. One differing characteristic between the contracts is that Networx Enterprise contracts have a focus on internet-based services. The Networx Enterprise contracts also require telecommunications services to be available in a smaller geographic area than Networx Universal.

Networx Universal contracts were set to expire in March 2017 and Networx Enterprise contracts were set to expire in May 2017; however, GSA has twice extended these Networx contracts. According to GSA officials, the most recent extension, which GSA announced in November 2018, is to include one base year and two 1-year options, plus an additional option for the number of months required for the contracts to reach May 31, 2023. If the extension is executed and all options are exercised, the Networx contracts will expire in May 2023.

In addition, GSA provides telecommunications services through programs called Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3 and Regional Local Service Agreements:

Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3: These contracts support a variety of telecommunications services available to all federal agencies in Washington, D.C., and surrounding Maryland and Virginia counties. For example, among other things, these contracts provide data and voice services, as well as cloud services. These contracts were set to expire on or before May 2020. As of December 2019, GSA planned to extend these contracts. GSA officials stated that the extension is to include one base year and two 1-year options, plus an additional option for the number of months required for the contracts to reach May 31, 2023. If the extension is executed and all options are exercised, the contracts will expire in May 2023.

Regional Local Service Agreements: These contracts provide local telecommunications services in every state and major city in the United States. According to GSA officials, the expiration dates for these contracts ranged from October 2019 through March 2023. As of December 2019, GSA was in the process of extending these contracts. Specifically, GSA officials reported that certain contracts had already been extended to May 2023, and the officials planned to extend the remaining contracts through May 2023, as well.

According to data provided by GSA officials, in fiscal year 2019, federal agencies spent approximately $2.5 billion on services acquired through Networx, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3, and Regional Local Service Agreements contracts. About $2 billion of this spending was on services acquired through Networx alone.

Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions Provides Contracts for Agencies to Acquire IT and Telecommunications Services

GSA’s EIS program is the replacement for the agency’s Networx, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3, and Regional Local Service Agreements telecommunications contracts. GSA intends for EIS to address federal agencies’ global telecommunications and IT infrastructure requirements.

GSA plans for EIS to provide agencies with traditional and emerging services to meet current and future requirements by, among other things: simplifying the government’s process of acquiring IT and telecommunications products and services; providing cost savings to each agency through aggregated volume buying and pricing (with generally lower costs for services on EIS compared to the costs for similar services on Networx), and spending visibility; and providing updated and expanded security services to meet current and future government cybersecurity requirements.

In addition, GSA has identified several benefits that EIS is expected to provide to the agencies that participate in its telecommunications programs. These projected benefits include streamlined contract administration, a possible 15-year period of performance, simplified pricing, and enhanced management and operations support.

On August 1, 2017, GSA announced that it had awarded EIS contracts to 10 vendors. These contracts have a combined value of up to $50 billion and are for a possible period of up to 15 years (one 5-year base period and two 5-year option periods). According to GSA’s plans as of November 2019, the transition to EIS is expected to be completed by May 2023, when the current Networx, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3, and Regional Local Service Agreements telecommunications contracts are expected to expire (if all contract options are exercised, as discussed earlier).

To help ensure that agencies’ services are fully transitioned to EIS before the current contracts expire, GSA issued guidance that identified several critical milestones that agencies should meet. These milestones include: (1) releasing all planned fair opportunity solicitations to EIS vendors by March 31, 2019; (2) issuing all planned task orders by September 30, 2019; and (3) achieving 100 percent transition of services by September 30, 2022.

Figure 1 provides a timeline of the planned transition to EIS, including GSA’s critical milestones, as of November 2019.

GSA, Agencies, and Contractors Have Transition Responsibilities

Central to the successful transition from GSA’s current telecommunications services contracts to EIS are transition planning and execution activities that involve GSA, federal agencies, the incumbent telecommunications contractors, and EIS contractors. GSA serves as the facilitator for all transition management activities. The agency is using contractors to assist in tracking transition activities, in order to avoid delays and other problems that can arise throughout the process.

In particular, GSA’s primary responsibility is to provide program management for the current telecommunications programs (Networx, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3, and Regional Local Service Agreements) and EIS. As part of this, GSA is responsible for conducting government-wide strategy and project management; providing tailored assistance to agencies for transition planning and help with contractor selection and ordering; tracking and reporting the use of metrics that convey the relative complexity and transition progress; and providing customer support, training, and self-help tools and templates.

GSA developed two contracting vehicles to provide transition assistance to agencies: (1) a Transition Coordination Center vehicle that includes assistance with inventory validation, transition planning, and solicitation development; and (2) a Transition Ordering Assistance vehicle that addresses tasks including requirements development and source selection assistance, and proposal evaluation. The Coordination Center vehicle was put in place in January 2016 and the Ordering Assistance vehicle was initially awarded in September 2016, but was not finalized until March 2017, after the conclusion of a bid protest.

Agencies have principal responsibility for the transition. They are responsible for coordinating transition efforts with the incumbent contractors and EIS contractors to ensure that existing telecommunications services are disconnected and that new services are ordered under EIS. According to GSA, agencies’ responsibilities under EIS include, among other things: identifying key personnel, chiefly a Senior Transition Sponsor, Lead Transition Manager, and Transition Ordering Contracting Officer; engaging expertise from Chief Information Officers, Chief Acquisition Officers, and Chief Financial Officers to build an integrated transition team of telecommunications managers, acquisition experts, and financial staff; analyzing and confirming the accuracy of the inventory of active services that must be transitioned; developing a transition plan that describes technological goals, a transition schedule that includes GSA’s major transition milestones (e.g., releasing all fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019, and issuing all task orders by September 30, 2019), strategy for issuing task orders on EIS, and any constraints or risks; preparing solicitations for task orders; placing task and service orders; and reviewing, accepting or rejecting, and paying for services.

At the agencies we reviewed, the staff responsible for the transition were part of their agencies’ offices that were headed by the Chief Information Officers.

Finally, the incumbent and EIS contractors are responsible for disconnecting existing services under the current contracts and installing new services that agencies order under EIS. They are also to collaborate with GSA and agencies to (1) share transition planning and execution best practices and (2) help resolve issues.

GAO’s Prior Work Has Examined Agencies’ Efforts to Plan for Transitioning between Telecommunications Contracts

We have previously reported on efforts by GSA and agencies to transition from one telecommunications program to another. In a June 2006 report, we identified a range of transition planning practices that can help agencies reduce the risk of experiencing adverse effects of moving from one broad telecommunications contract to another. These planning practices were to: (1) develop an accurate inventory of telecommunications assets and services, (2) perform a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements, (3) develop a structured transition management approach, (4) identify the resources needed for the transition, and (5) develop a transition plan.

Since that June 2006 report, we have reported multiple times on the extent to which selected agencies were following the transition planning practices. We have generally found that the selected agencies in our reviews had not fully implemented some of the key activities of the practices. For example, in 2008, we noted that one agency was not planning to clearly define all key transition roles and responsibilities and another agency was not planning to identify local and regional points of contact. In addition, in 2017, we reported that, among other things, the five agencies we selected had yet to fully apply most of the five planning practices. In each of our reports we made recommendations to the selected agencies focused on addressing the gaps in transition planning. All five agencies in our 2017 review undertook efforts to address our recommendations, but had not yet fully implemented them as of November 2019.

Agencies Have Various Plans for, and Are in Different Stages of, Transitioning from Their Current Telecommunications Contracts to Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions

Based on our ongoing work, our preliminary results indicated that the 19 selected agencies have varied plans for transitioning from their current telecommunications contracts to EIS program contracts. As of October 2019, these agencies were also in different stages of their EIS transitions. All of the selected agencies reported that they plan to fully transition their telecommunications services to EIS before the current contracts are set to expire in May 2023.

However, over half of the selected agencies did not plan to complete the transition by GSA’s September 30, 2022, milestone. In addition, the majority of selected agencies did not meet GSA’s two critical EIS transition milestones in 2019—to (1) release all fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019, and (2) issue all task orders by September 30, 2019.

Selected Agencies Had Varied Plans for Completing Their Transitions to Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions

As of November 2019, the 19 selected agencies had various plans for completing their transitions to EIS. Specifically,

Eight of the selected agencies reported that they planned to finish their transitions to EIS by GSA’s September 30, 2022, milestone.

The 11 remaining agencies did not plan to complete their transitions by that date.

Officials from the 11 agencies that did not plan to finish their transitions to EIS by GSA’s September 30, 2022, milestone reported that they planned to complete the transitions before the current telecommunications contracts are set to expire in May 2023. However, four of these 11 agencies planned to complete their transitions in May 2023, just before the current telecommunications contracts are set to expire.

In addition, the planned scope and amount of effort that is expected to be required to fully transition to EIS varied among the selected agencies. Specifically, agencies varied in the scope of their planned efforts related to two of GSA’s critical transition milestones—to release EIS fair opportunity solicitations and issue EIS task orders:

One selected agency planned to release 54 EIS fair opportunity solicitations. The eighteen other selected agencies planned to release between one and six solicitations.

Six agencies planned to issue more than five task orders. The other thirteen agencies planned to issue between one and five EIS task orders.

Further, the selected agencies had different plans for the types of transitions that they would implement. Specifically,

Four of the selected agencies planned to implement primarily a like- for-like transition of their services.

The remaining 15 agencies planned to conduct a combination of a like-for-like transition and upgrading or transforming services.

Selected Agencies Were in Different Stages of Their Transitions to Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions

As of October 2019, the 19 selected agencies were in different stages of their EIS transitions. Eighteen of the agencies were in the acquisition planning and/or acquisition decision phases, during which the agencies release fair opportunity solicitations for vendor proposals and issue task orders to selected vendors, respectively. GSA established two critical milestones for agencies to complete these acquisition activities: (1) release all fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019, and (2) issue all task orders by September 30, 2019.

Regarding the first milestone—to release all EIS fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019:

Five of the 19 selected agencies reported that they released all of their solicitations by this date.

The 14 remaining selected agencies reported that they did not release all of their solicitations by this date.

Officials from each of the five agencies that met GSA’s milestone to finish releasing all of their planned EIS solicitations by March 31, 2019, reported that their agencies released either one or two solicitations.

We asked officials from the 14 selected agencies that did not release all of their planned EIS solicitations by March 31, 2019, to identify the key factors that contributed to their agencies’ delays in releasing these solicitations. In response, agency officials cited numerous key factors for the delays, including the complexity of their telecommunications requirements, changes to the agency’s or GSA’s contracting strategy, and insufficient staff availability. Figure 2 identifies the key factors that contributed to delays in releasing all EIS solicitations by GSA’s March 31, 2019, milestone, as identified by agency officials.

In addition, regarding GSA’s second milestone—to issue all EIS task orders by September 30, 2019—one of the selected agencies reported that it issued all of its task orders by this date. The 18 other agencies reported that they did not issue all of their EIS task orders by this date.

We asked officials from the 18 agencies that did not issue all of their EIS task orders by September 30, 2019, to identify the key factors that contributed to their agencies’ delays in issuing these task orders. In response, agency officials cited 19 key factors that led to the delays. Nine of the identified factors were the same factors that officials cited for their agencies’ delays in releasing EIS solicitations, including the complexity of requirements and having insufficient staff available.

The officials also identified 10 other factors unique to their delays in issuing EIS task orders. For example, officials from two agencies reported that the EIS vendors needed clarification on the agencies’ requests for proposals. In addition, officials from three agencies reported that they needed clarification from the EIS vendors on the proposals that the agencies received. Figure 3 identifies the key factors that contributed to delays in issuing all EIS task orders by GSA’s September 30, 2019, milestone, as identified by agency officials.

Several of the identified factors, such as the partial government shutdown and the need for vendors to receive authorities to operate, have subsequently been resolved. For other factors, agencies can leverage GSA’s available EIS training and customer support to help minimize delays in meeting GSA’s transition milestones. Nevertheless, given that the majority of the selected agencies did not meet these transition milestones in 2019, it will be important for agencies to meet the remaining transition milestones to ensure that they complete the transition before the current telecommunications contracts expire in May 2023.

Selected Agencies Had Taken Steps to Implement Established Transition Planning Practices, but None Had Fully Implemented Them

In a June 2006 report, we identified five transition planning practices that can help agencies reduce the risk of experiencing adverse effects of moving from one broad telecommunications contract to another. Implementing these transition planning practices represents a comprehensive and rigorous management approach that can help agencies make the most of the opportunity for change that such a major telecommunications transition provides.

Each of the five transition planning practices that we identified consists of various activities that should be implemented to fully address the planning practices. Table 1 identifies the five established transition planning practices and their associated activities.

Based on our ongoing work, our preliminary results indicated that all five selected agencies had taken steps to implement the five established transition planning practices. However, consistent with our prior reviews of selected agencies’ efforts to implement these planning practices, none of the selected agencies had fully implemented any of the practices.

All of the Selected Agencies Had Developed Telecommunications Inventories, but None Were Complete

The five selected agencies had all partially implemented the first established transition planning practice—to develop an accurate inventory of telecommunications assets and services. In particular, all of the selected agencies had partially implemented the two activities associated with this practice. Table 2 summarizes the extent to which the selected agencies had implemented the transition practice to develop an accurate inventory of telecommunications services.

Identify a complete telecommunications inventory at every site, facility, and component. The five selected agencies had all partially implemented this activity. While all of these agencies had developed inventories of their telecommunications assets and services, none of the inventories were complete.

Establish a documented process for updating and maintaining the inventories. All five selected agencies partially implemented this activity by taking steps to document their inventory update and maintenance processes. However, none of the agencies had fully documented these processes.

Agency officials cited various reasons for partially implementing this first planning practice. For example, officials from three of the selected agencies—all of whom were responsible for their agencies’ transitions to EIS—stated that they did not track all of the assets and services ordered by the agencies. The officials added that they were not responsible for maintaining inventories of all of their agencies’ assets and services. Officials from another agency attributed their agency’s lack of a complete telecommunications inventory and associated maintenance procedures to the agency’s decentralized structure. Specifically, the officials stated that the agency’s components were responsible for managing the services that are unique to them. However, the officials stated that the agency did not have a policy that required its components to maintain an inventory of telecommunications assets and services that they acquired independently.

Without complete and accurate telecommunications inventories, the selected agencies may be unable to avoid unnecessary transition delays related to an inability to plan for services not identified in the inventory. In addition, without documented processes for maintaining their telecommunications inventories, the agencies may not be able to consistently and accurately incorporate into these inventories any changes made during and after the transition (e.g., adding new services or removing disconnected services), thus hindering their ability to ensure that they are billed appropriately by the vendor.

The Selected Agencies Took Steps to Strategically Analyze Their Telecommunications Requirements, but None Used a Complete Inventory to Determine Needs

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the second established transition planning practice—to perform a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements. In particular, at least four agencies had partially, but not fully, implemented two of the four activities associated with this practice. For the other two activities, at least one agency had partially implemented each activity. Table 3 summarizes the extent to which the selected agencies had conducted strategic analyses of their telecommunications requirements.

Identify current and future telecommunications needs using an inventory of existing services. All of the selected agencies had partially implemented this activity by identifying certain current and future telecommunications needs. However, as discussed earlier, none of the agencies had a complete inventory of current services. As a result, the agencies could not use such an inventory to fully identify their needs.

Identify areas for optimization or sharing of telecommunications and IT resources. Three agencies had fully implemented this activity by completing strategic analyses to identify areas for optimization or sharing of telecommunications resources. The two remaining agencies had partially implemented this activity. For example, one of the two agencies had developed a draft analysis to justify the potential optimization and sharing across the agency of a telecommunications service for how hardware devices connect to the internet, but it had not yet finalized this analysis. Officials from the other agency had identified potential areas for the sharing of resources across the agency. However, the agency did not provide a documented analysis to justify the sharing of those resources.

Evaluate the costs and benefits of any new technology and alternative options. Four agencies had fully implemented this activity by evaluating the costs and benefits of various technologies and alternative options for telecommunications services that they could implement as part of the transition. The one remaining agency had partially implemented this activity by evaluating the costs and benefits of upgrading one service by which hardware devices connect to the internet. While two of this agency’s components had also analyzed the costs and benefits of implementing another type of service for connecting to networks, the agency’s remaining components had not conducted such analyses.

Determine that identified telecommunications needs and opportunities are aligned with the agency’s mission, long-term IT plans, and enterprise architecture plans. One agency had fully implemented this activity by determining that its telecommunications needs aligned with its mission and plans. The four remaining agencies partially implemented this activity and did not demonstrate that they had fully aligned their telecommunications needs with their agency’s mission, long-term IT plans, or enterprise architecture plans.

Agency officials cited several reasons for not fully implementing the activities associated with this practice. For example, officials from one agency explained that they had not conducted and documented an analysis to identify areas for the sharing of telecommunications resources because they did not believe that there were any additional agency telecommunications resources that could be shared. The officials attributed this to the agency’s security requirements and regulations, and noted that services on the agency’s classified network may not be shared with services on its unclassified network. However, the agency did not provide documentation that demonstrated that it had determined that there were no additional resources that could be shared on its unclassified network.

Officials from another agency stated that they thought their telecommunications needs were aligned with the agency’s long-term IT plans. However, the officials did not provide documentation demonstrating this alignment.

Agencies that do not use complete inventories of their current telecommunications services to identify their future needs are likely not fully identifying these needs. They may also miss out on opportunities to optimize or share services by consolidating them on EIS. In addition, without aligning their telecommunications needs and opportunities with their missions and plans, agencies risk missing opportunities to use the new contract to address their highest priorities, or may make decisions that are not aligned with their long-term goals.

All of the Selected Agencies Had Begun to Develop a Structured Management Approach, but None Had Fully Implemented It

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the third transition planning practice—to develop a structured management approach for the telecommunications transition. Specifically, four of the agencies had partially, but not fully, implemented two of the three activities associated with this practice. Three agencies had partially implemented the other activity. Table 4 summarizes the extent to which the selected agencies had established a structured management approach.

Establish a transition management team and clearly define responsibilities for key transition roles. One agency had fully implemented this activity by establishing a transition management team and defining all key transition responsibilities for the planning and execution phases of the transition, including for project, asset, human capital, and information security management; and contract and legal expertise. The remaining four agencies had partially implemented this activity by establishing transition management teams, but none of these agencies had defined all key roles and responsibilities for their transitions.

Develop transition communications plans in order to facilitate information sharing during transition planning and execution. Two agencies had fully implemented this activity by developing transition communications plans and identifying all key parties that need to be involved during the agency’s transition effort. The remaining three agencies partially implemented this activity by identifying stakeholders responsible for communicating transition information to other stakeholders. However, these three agencies had not identified the key local and regional agency transition officials responsible for disseminating information about the transition to employees and working with the vendor to facilitate transition activities.

Use established project, configuration, and change management processes in the agency’s transition planning efforts. One agency had fully implemented this activity by demonstrating the use of all established management processes called for in the activity. The four remaining agencies had partially implemented this activity by demonstrating the use of project management processes for their transitions, such as tracking transition costs and developing schedules and risk logs. However, one of these four agencies did not demonstrate that it was applying approved cost and schedule management processes to its transition. The three remaining agencies did not demonstrate that they were applying established configuration management processes to their transitions, and two of the three also did not demonstrate that they had implemented change management processes for their transitions.

Officials from the selected agencies generally attributed their lack of full implementation of this practice to the fact that, at the time of our review, the agencies were early in their transition planning processes. For example, officials from one agency stated that they had not defined a role or responsibilities related to human capital management because their human capital needs for the transition will depend on the vendors selected (at the time of our review, the agency had not yet selected all of the vendors for its EIS task orders). Officials from another agency also explained that they planned to work with their selected EIS vendors to implement all of the key management processes for the transition.

While the selected agencies were early in their transition planning processes at the time of our review, the limited time remaining to complete the transition makes it critical that agencies conduct early planning with the information that is available. Agencies that do not define all key roles and related responsibilities for their transition management teams risk extending their transition period as they attempt to assign appropriate personnel and update them on transition progress and issues. Further, without identifying all of the key officials that need to be involved with the transition, including the local and regional agency points of contact, agencies may lack the information that is necessary for comprehensive understanding, accountability, and shared expectations among all those with transition responsibilities.

All of the Selected Agencies Had at Least Partially Identified Their Transition Resource Needs, but None Had Fully Determined These Needs

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the fourth established transition planning practice—to identify their transition resource needs. In particular, all of the agencies had partially implemented three of the four activities associated with this practice. For the remaining activity, four of the agencies had partially implemented it and one agency had fully implemented it. Table 5 summarizes the extent to which the selected agencies had identified their transition resource needs.

Identify the level of funding needed to support transition planning. One of the selected agencies had fully implemented this activity by identifying the costs needed to support its transition management team and all years of its transition planning efforts. The four other agencies partially implemented this activity by developing partial cost estimates for the transition, but none of these estimates were complete.

Identify the organizational need for investments and justify resource requests. The five selected agencies had all partially implemented this activity by identifying the need for investments, including funding to obtain GSA transition assistance; however, none of the agencies had fully justified their resource requests for the transition. For example, four agencies had not justified their resource requests related to transition program management staff and one agency lacked justification for its requests for hardware and software upgrades.

Identify human capital needs for the entire transition effort. All of the selected agencies had partially implemented this activity by identifying the need for certain staff to work on the transition, including government and contractor staff. However, none of the agencies had conducted and documented analyses of their human capital needs, to determine the total number of staff required to support their entire transition efforts.

Identify and require training for the transition. All of the agencies had partially implemented this activity by identifying training needed by certain transition management staff. However, four agencies had not conducted and documented analyses to identify all of the training needed for their transitions, including training for staff carrying out the transition or operating and maintaining new equipment or services. The final agency had developed a draft analysis to identify training needed by staff carrying out the transition, but it had not finalized this analysis.

Officials from the selected agencies generally explained that they were too early in their transition efforts to identify all of the funding, human capital, and training needed for their transitions. However, there is limited time remaining to complete the transition before the current telecommunications contracts expire. If the agencies do not conduct early planning to identify and justify all of their resources needed for the transition, they may underestimate the complexity and demands of their transition efforts.

In addition, without using a rigorous management approach to analyze and document the total number of staff required to support the transition and to identify all of the required training for transition staff, agencies risk having insufficient staff available or may experience gaps in staff competencies. Such gaps may lead to delays and unexpected costs as the agencies try to quickly address the lack of resources during the transition’s limited time frame.

All of the Selected Agencies Had Begun to Develop Transition Plans, but These Plans Were Not Complete

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the fifth established transition planning practice—to develop transition plans. Specifically, all of the agencies had fully implemented one of the three activities associated with this practice and partially implemented another of the activities. For the remaining activity, three agencies had fully implemented it and two had partially implemented it. Table 6 summarizes the extent to which the selected agencies had developed transition plans.

Identify agency-specific transition objectives and measures of success. Three agencies had fully implemented this activity by identifying transition objectives and associated measures of success that were based on the transition objectives. The remaining two agencies had partially implemented this activity by identifying transition objectives and measures of success. However, their measures were unable to be used to assess transition progress. In particular, the identified measures could be used to determine success at the completion of the transition (e.g., all planned services have been transitioned to EIS). However, the measures did not enable the agencies to compare expected performance with actual results in order to track progress during the course of the transition (e.g., identifying the expected number of services that would be moved to EIS during each year of the transition).

Identify risks that could affect transition success, including information security risks, and evaluate the importance of these risks relative to the agency’s mission critical systems and continuity of operations plans. All of the selected agencies had fully implemented this activity. Specifically, each of the agencies had identified transition risks and evaluated the importance of those risks relative to the agencies’ mission critical priorities.

Clearly define transition preparation tasks and develop a time line that takes into account the agency’s mission critical systems, contingency plans, and identified risks. All of the selected agencies partially implemented this activity by developing time lines with clearly defined transition preparation tasks. However, none of these time lines accounted for all key priorities identified in the activity.

Officials from all of the selected agencies generally said that they had not yet developed complete transition time lines because they were focused on activities associated with the acquisition planning phase of the transition, including developing their EIS solicitations. Officials from all of the agencies said that they planned to develop complete transition time lines after they issue their EIS task orders.

While agencies’ lack of issued EIS task orders contributed to delays in developing complete transition plans, the limited time remaining to complete the transition makes it critical that agencies conduct early planning with the information that is available.

In summary, although the 19 selected agencies reported that they plan to fully transition to EIS before the current telecommunications contracts expire in May 2023, over half of the agencies do not plan to complete the transition by GSA’s September 30, 2022, milestone to do so. By waiting until close to the end of the current contracts to finish the transition, these agencies are at risk of experiencing disruptions in service if any issues arise that result in transition delays, such as inadequate human capital resources or the need to transition previously unidentified services. Agencies also face a financial risk. During the last transition, significant delays in moving to Networx—which offered generally lower rates than its predecessor—led to hundreds of millions of dollars in missed savings.

Should agencies experience similar delays in the current transition, the missed savings could also be significant.

In addition, five agencies we reviewed had taken steps to prepare for the transition of their telecommunications services to EIS contracts. However, these agencies’ lack of full implementation of established planning practices increases the risk that they will experience adverse effects— such as schedule delays or cost increases—while transitioning to the new contracts. Several agencies stated that they intend to implement the planning practices after they have issued their EIS task orders. However, limited time remains to complete the transition before the current telecommunications contracts expire.

Further, inadequate project planning was a key factor that contributed to delays during the prior transition to Networx. Thus, it is critical for agencies to apply a rigorous management approach from the start of the current transition using the information that is currently available, even though changes may be necessary as conditions evolve. Agencies that do not fully adopt the comprehensive approach captured in these planning practices may not make the most of the opportunity for change, and the potential to save costs, that such a major telecommunications transition provides.

Accordingly, our draft report contains 25 planned recommendations to the five selected agencies. By implementing our recommendations, the agencies should be better positioned to reduce their risk of experiencing the types of delays that occurred during previous transition efforts. Because of the generally lower rates available on EIS, significant delays would lead to agencies being unable to take advantage of readily available cost savings.

Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.

Contact and Acknowledgments

If you have any questions concerning this statement, please contact Carol C. Harris, Director, Information Technology Acquisition Management Issues, at (202) 512-4456 or HarrisCC@gao.gov. Other individuals who made key contributions include James R. Sweetman, Jr. (Assistant Director); Emily Kuhn (Analyst-in-Charge); Christopher Businsky; Rebecca Eyler; and Javier Irizarry.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.