GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA, annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals, and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance information. These annual plans, issued after transmittal of the president’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an agency’s longer term goals and mission and day-to-day activities. Annual performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance reports, due by March 31, represents a new and potentially more substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to assess federal agencies’ reported performance for the prior fiscal year and to consider what steps are needed to improve performance and reduce costs in the future. GSA’s overall mission is to provide policy leadership and expert solutions in services, space, and products at the best value to enable federal employees to accomplish their work-related responsibilities. As part of this mission, GSA recognizes that it must provide federal agencies with the highest quality service at a competitive cost. In its September 2000 strategic plan, GSA discussed the major goals related to its mission, which are to promote responsible asset management, compete effectively for the federal market, excel at customer service, meet federal social and environmental objectives, and anticipate future workforce needs. For the three key selected outcomes—quality products and services are provided to federal agencies at competitive prices and significant price savings to the government; federal buildings are safe, accessible, and energy efficient; and federal buildings are adequately maintained—GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report indicated that GSA met or exceeded 21 of the 34 performance goals related to the 3 outcomes. For the remaining 13 goals, GSA did not meet 11 goals and was unable to measure 2 goals. In its report, GSA (1) typically described various strategies it planned to implement for achieving the unmet goals and (2) generally discussed the effects of fiscal year 2000 performance on estimated fiscal year 2001 performance for many goals. For such goals, the report discussed fiscal year 2000 performance and what performance could be expected in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 performance plan included discussions of strategies for each of the goals that supported the three outcomes. As in fiscal year 1999, GSA’s performance report showed that it had achieved mixed results for this outcome in fiscal year 2000. GSA’s 31 performance goals for this outcome were typically outcome-oriented, measurable, and quantifiable. The goals addressed a wide range of issues involving products and services in such areas as supply and procurement, real property operations, vehicle acquisition and leasing, travel and transportation, information technology (IT), and telecommunications. GSA reported that it exceeded or met 19 of the 31 goals in fiscal year 2000 in such areas as leasing operations, real property disposal and operations, supply and procurement, vehicle acquisition and leasing, travel and transportation, personal property management, and network services. For the remaining 12 goals, GSA did not meet 10 goals and was unable to measure its performance on 2 goals. GSA cited reasons for not meeting or measuring the goals or explained that it was analyzing data to determine the reasons. GSA also discussed to some extent various approaches, including plans, actions, and time frames, to achieve most of the unmet goals. The unmet goals were in such areas as leasing and real property operations, supply and procurement, and vehicle acquisition and leasing; the unmeasured goals were in the vehicle acquisition and leasing and travel and transportation areas. As it did in the fiscal year 1999 report, GSA revised many goals and measures for this key outcome in the fiscal year 2000 performance report. The revisions ranged from updating target performance levels to broadening the scope of various goals to include services as well as products. In addition, in its fiscal year 2000 report, GSA described the effects of the fiscal year 2000 performance on the estimated fiscal year 2001 performance for 15 of the 31 goals related to this outcome. GSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also had 31 goals related to this outcome. The plan had strategies for all the goals, which covered a wide range of activities that clearly described major steps to reach the goals. For example, to help achieve the goal of maximizing cost avoidance through reutilization and donation of excess federal personal property, GSA’s strategies included making the property visible through the Federal Disposal System, which is an information system that identifies available surplus property. Also, to achieve the goal of increasing the number of products and services available to federal customers on the Internet, GSA’s strategies included a requirement that starting in October 2001, all new schedule contractors had 6 months to include their products and services on GSA Advantage!™, the on-line service for obtaining products and services. For the goals related to this outcome, GSA discussed data validation and verification efforts in both the fiscal year 2000 report and the fiscal year 2002 plan. For the second key outcome, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report, like the fiscal year 1999 report, had one goal related to building security. Specifically, the goal was to reduce the number of buildings that have costs in the high range of the benchmark set by private sector experts while maintaining effective security in government buildings. In addition to this goal, GSA discussed the issue of building security in a separate section of the performance report. The section explained that GSA is changing its approach from a reactive posture of patrol and incident response to a proactive stance of crime prevention and threat reduction. The section also said that GSA seeks to identify and reduce risk through automated risk assessment surveys and a comprehensive nationwide risk threat assessment. For the security goal, GSA had initially established a measure that would compare the agency’s protection costs with similar costs in the private sector. However, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report recognized, as did its fiscal year 1999 report, that security could not be measured by costs alone. Thus, GSA did not use its initial cost-related measure but relied on customer satisfaction as an interim measure of the quality of protection services at government buildings while it developed a new measure. As it did in fiscal year 1999, GSA reported that it exceeded its fiscal year 2000 customer satisfaction target. The fiscal year 2000 report explained that GSA was developing a national security measure that is intended to assess the overall risk of threats to government buildings more comprehensively. The new threat assessment measure is being developed to consider the motives, opportunities, and means that outside groups or individuals may possess to threaten the security of government buildings. GSA also will include customer satisfaction in developing the measure. GSA’s fiscal year 2000 report said that this information is quantifiable and can be used to calculate risk scores for specific buildings. Building scores can be combined to establish a national threat assessment index, which can be used over time to help measure GSA’s efforts to reduce the level of threat or risk to government buildings. GSA anticipated implementing the new measure in fiscal year 2001. GSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes a new security goal related to its overall efforts to reduce threats to buildings. As part of this goal, GSA developed a regional threat composite index, which was designed to help identify and quantify the level of risk or threat to federal buildings located in specific geographical areas and assess GSA’s performance in reducing such threats. GSA expects that by fiscal year 2002, the regional indexes will be used to establish a national threat assessment index baseline. Strategies related to this goal clearly described major steps to reach the goal and included such efforts as obtaining timely criminal intelligence information, reducing the number of violent incidents, and partnering with security contractors. By developing and implementing the new security goal and its related measure, GSA has taken steps to address the recommendation in our June 2000 GPRA report. This recommendation called for GSA to develop security goals and measures that are more programmatic, that hold agency officials more accountable for results, and that allow GSA to determine if security strategies are working as intended. In addition, the plan continues to have a customer satisfaction goal, which includes such strategies as (1) using focus groups at buildings to help GSA better understand what is needed to improve customer satisfaction with security; and (2) sharing practices that have enhanced customer satisfaction scores among building managers, law enforcement security officers, and other building personnel nationwide. GSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also included a goal related to the conservation of energy consumption in federal buildings. Executive Order 13123, dated June 3, 1999, stated that energy consumption is to be reduced by 35 percent by fiscal year 2010 compared with the 1985 baseline. In the fiscal year 2002 plan, GSA identified various energy conservation strategies, such as pursuing methods that would help GSA facilities to be recognized by DOE and EPA for achievements in effective environmental design and construction and using utility management techniques to enhance building operations’ efficiency. For the goals related to this outcome, GSA discussed data validation and verification efforts in both the fiscal year 2000 report and the fiscal year 2002 plan. Neither the report nor the plan included any performance goals directly related to federal building accessibility. For the third key outcome, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report, like the fiscal year 1999 report, included two goals under this outcome, which showed mixed performance results. The goals, which were related to the timeliness of and cost controls over repairs and alterations to GSA buildings, were objective, measurable, and quantifiable. The measures generally indicated progress toward meeting the goals. GSA reported that for fiscal year 2000, its performance exceeded the cost control goal but did not meet the timeliness goal. For the unmet goal, GSA discussed reasons why the goal was not met and described actions it has taken to facilitate meeting the goal in the future. Although GSA did not specifically discuss the effects of fiscal year 2000 performance on estimated fiscal year 2001 performance for the two goals, it did say that it is planning to develop more comprehensive measures for each goal. We recently issued two reports that discussed some aspects of GSA’s efforts to maintain its buildings. Specifically, in March 2000 and April 2001, we reported, among other things, that GSA’s buildings needed billions of dollars for unfunded repairs and alterations; funding limitations were a major obstacle to reducing these needs; and serious consequences, including health and safety concerns, resulted from delaying or not performing repairs and alterations at some buildings. In its fiscal year 2002 performance plan, GSA included three goals related to this outcome. Two of these goals were similar to the goals in the fiscal year 2000 performance report, which involved improving the timeliness of building repairs and alterations and reducing cost escalations for repairs and alterations. In its fiscal year 2002 plan, GSA identified various strategies that clearly described major steps to be taken to achieve the two goals. For the goal related to improving the timeliness of repairs and alterations, GSA identified such strategies as implementing a Web-based program to streamline its building evaluation reports and optimizing the inventory tracking system to better monitor the backlog of work items. For the goal related to reducing cost escalations, GSA identified such strategies as (1) limiting project changes by obtaining up-front commitments from client agencies on the scope, schedules, and costs associated with building repairs and alterations; and (2) using design options that allow for adjusting repair and alteration projects to meet unforeseen events, such as budget reductions or higher-than-anticipated contractor bids. GSA’s fiscal year 2002 plan also had a third goal related to this outcome that involved estimating the government’s financial liabilities for environmental clean-up costs in its properties, such as owned and leased buildings. GSA stated that federal agencies are required to identify, document, and quantify the environmental financial liabilities related to all owned and leased properties within their inventories. In the fiscal year 2002 plan, GSA described its overall strategy for achieving this new goal. GSA explained its strategy as a multiphased approach; the first step of this approach will be to conduct “due care” assessments that will identify the federal properties that pose environmental hazards. GSA expects these assessments to be completed by 2002. For properties with documented environmental contamination, subsequent phases of the approach will involve identifying the nature and extent of such contamination. Using this information, GSA’s overall strategy is to establish environmental financial liability baselines that will help the agency set targets for reducing such liabilities in future years. For the goals related to this outcome, GSA discussed data validation and verification efforts in both the fiscal year 2000 report and the fiscal year 2002 plan. Generally, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan had some significant differences that made the current documents more descriptive and informative than GSA’s fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2001 performance plan. In addition to a more explicit discussion of approaches for achieving unmet goals and the effects of fiscal year 2000 performance on estimated fiscal year 2001 performance, the fiscal year 2000 report included expanded discussions of (1) the data sources that GSA relied on to measure performance for specific goals; and (2) the management challenges identified by GSA’s IG, which included two issues we identified as governmentwide high-risk areas—strategic human capital management and information security. Also, a recent study prepared by university researchers noted some overall improvement of GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report compared with its fiscal year 1999 report. Although GSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan was similar in some respects to the fiscal year 2001 plan, the fiscal year 2002 plan was a more informative document, primarily because it included more detailed discussions of GSA’s data validation and verification efforts and the management challenges identified by GSA’s IG. Also, the fiscal year 2002 plan contained new information that enhanced the plan, including discussions of (1) a new strategic goal related to meeting federal social and environmental objectives that was included in GSA’s September 30, 2000, strategic plan; (2) governmentwide reforms established by OMB; and (3) performance goals for three GSA staff offices that were not included in the fiscal year 2001 plan. The fiscal year 2000 performance report made strides toward addressing the recommendation in our June 2000 GPRA report that identified the need for better implementation of GPRA guidance. In contrast with its fiscal year 1999 performance report, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 report either discussed for all unmet goals the reasons why the goals were not achieved or explained that GSA was studying these matters. In addition, the report typically discussed the various approaches needed for achieving the goals in the future. Also, unlike the fiscal year 1999 report, the fiscal year 2000 report described the impact of fiscal year 2000 performance on estimated 2001 performance for many of the goals related to the three outcomes. The fiscal year 2000 performance report also included an enhanced discussion of data sources and the quality of data that GSA used to measure performance. Unlike the fiscal year 1999 performance report, the fiscal year 2000 report included an expanded discussion of the data sources used by its four major organizational components—the Public Buildings Service (PBS), Federal Supply Service (FSS), Federal Technology Service (FTS), and Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP). For example, PBS identified a number of systems from which it obtained performance data, such as the System for Tracking and Administering Real Property, which is its primary source of real property data. In some cases, these discussions went a step beyond identifying systems and gave some information on data validity and verification. For example, PBS mentioned that its National Electronic and Accounting System is independently audited and has received an unqualified opinion for 13 consecutive years; its customer satisfaction measures from the Gallup Organization, a management consulting firm, come with a 95 percent statistical confidence level. In addition, FTS stated that it has purchased a system for collecting and evaluating performance measurement data and plans to implement the system in 2001. GSA stated in the report that it considers its performance data to be generally complete and reliable. However, GSA recognized that data improvements may be needed and said it is currently reviewing its data collection procedures. GSA’s efforts in this area are well founded because GSA’s IG recently reported that GSA has not implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that appropriate levels of management understand and are performing the necessary reviews of performance data to enable them to make assertions about the completeness and existence of the data and systems supporting the measures. Unlike the fiscal year 1999 performance report, GSA discussed the GSA IG’s management challenges in the fiscal year 2000 report. The six challenges were (1) management controls, (2) information technology solutions, (3) procurement activities, (4) human capital, (5) aging federal buildings, and (6) protection of federal facilities and personnel. The fiscal year 2000 report highlighted major issues related to the challenges and discussed GSA’s approaches to address them. Also, we noted that two of the six challenges addressed issues related to two governmentwide high- risk areas—strategic human capital management and information security—that were in our January 2001 high-risk update. The fiscal year 2000 report explained that GSA intended to address the management challenges more fully in its fiscal year 2002 performance plan, which is discussed later in this report. In May 2001, a study by university researchers cited overall improvement in GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report compared with its fiscal year 1999 report. The study, which was prepared by researchers who worked under the Mercatus Center’s Government Accountability Project at George Mason University, compared fiscal years 1999 and 2000 GPRA performance reports for 24 federal agencies primarily in the 3 areas of transparency, public benefits, and leadership. On the basis of numerical scores that the researchers assigned to the three areas, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report showed improvement in all three areas over its fiscal year 1999 report. The improvements, which we also recognized, were related to such matters as (1) data sources, (2) explanations of why GSA failed to meet various performance goals, and (3) management challenges. In some respects, GSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan was similar to the fiscal year 2001 plan. Both plans discussed such matters as (1) GSA’s overall mission, strategic plan, and related strategic goals; and (2) performance goals with related measures and strategies to achieve the goals, links to GSA’s budget, and data validation and verification efforts. Also, both performance plans provided highlights of the extent to which its four major organizational components—PBS, FSS, FTS, and OGP— contributed to the accomplishment of GSA’s overall mission. In addition, we noted that both the fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 plans included information about cross-cutting issues, which are issues in which GSA’s organizational components work collaboratively with each other and with other federal agencies outside GSA. For example, FSS and PBS collaborate in meeting customers’ real and personal property needs in dealing with relocations or setting up new office facilities. Another example involved FSS’ work with DOE and EPA to make it easier for agencies to comply with the requirements of environmentally related Executive Orders. GSA’s fiscal year 2001 and 2002 plans discussed evaluations and studies of agency programs. For example, FSS included in both plans information on various ongoing and completed program evaluations and major studies, which are generally intended to help FSS determine how it can best accomplish its overall mission of providing supplies and services to federal agencies. These evaluations and studies covered a wide range of topics, such as providing efficient and effective supply chains that can best meet customers’ needs; maintaining appropriate controls over various purchases associated with GSA vehicles, such as fuel; and monitoring the quality of contractor-performed audits of transportation bills. We also identified some differences between the two plans that enhanced the fiscal year 2002 plan and made it a more descriptive and informative document compared with the fiscal year 2001 plan. Most notably, these differences involved expanded and more explicit discussions of data validation and verification and management challenges. We also noted that the fiscal year 2002 plan contained some new information that enhanced the plan, including discussions of a new strategic goal related to meeting federal social and environmental objectives that was included in GSA’s September 30, 2000, strategic plan; efforts to implement governmentwide reforms established by OMB; and performance goals for the three GSA staff offices of CFO, CIO, and CPO that were not included in the fiscal year 2001 plan. The fiscal year 2002 plan included an expanded discussion of GSA’s data validation and verification activities. In fact, GSA added an agencywide data validation and verification section to the plan that discusses, among other things, general controls and procedures used to validate and verify data. In discussing this issue, GSA described the types of performance data used, procedures for collecting such data, controls to help verify and validate each type of data used, and efforts to increase confidence in the data. For example, GSA explained that it has undertaken an extensive effort to review, certify, and clean up data in its larger computer systems, such as PBS’ System for Tracking and Administering Real Property, to help ensure that the systems operate as intended. In addition, GSA stated that it helps maintain data quality through ongoing staff training. Also, GSA stated that for its manual or smaller computer systems, the importance of data confirmation is stressed, which involves having more than one person responsible for the data. GSA’s fiscal year 2002 plan also included a more explicit discussion of its efforts to address the six management challenges that GSA’s IG identified. In discussing the challenges, GSA generally recognized the importance of continued attention to the challenges and described its overall efforts to address them. For example, in discussing the human capital challenge, GSA described various programs, such as a succession plan for PBS leadership designed to help ensure that GSA can continue to meet its future responsibilities despite impending employee turnover due to retirements. Also, in discussing the challenge of dealing with aging federal buildings, GSA explained that its first capital priority is to fund repairs and alterations for its buildings and said it is currently studying ways to better determine the appropriate level of funding for the repair and alteration program. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 plan included more performance goals that appeared to be related to the management challenges, including the issues of strategic human capital management and information security, which we identified as governmentwide high-risk areas. Also, the plan included a new goal that involved federal building security, which appears to respond to the recommendation in our June 2000 GPRA report that GSA develop security goals and measures. In addition, we noted that in GSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan, new information was included that enhanced the plan. For instance, the plan discusses a new strategic goal related to meeting federal social and environmental objectives, which was included in GSA’s September 30, 2000, strategic plan. Overall, this goal is aimed at fulfilling the intent of socioeconomic laws and executive orders and helping GSA’s customers to do so as well. As part of this strategic goal, GSA stated that it takes steps to safeguard the environment and conserve energy, help the disabled and disadvantaged to become more productive, consider the environment in its business decisions, and use natural resources in a sustainable manner. In the fiscal year 2002 plan, GSA established some performance goals that are related to this strategic goal, which involved, among other things, providing opportunities for small businesses and minority- and women- owned businesses to obtain GSA contracts. Also, the fiscal year 2002 performance plan discusses GSA’s ongoing and planned efforts to implement five governmentwide reforms established by OMB. In a February 14, 2001, memorandum to the heads and acting heads of federal departments and agencies, OMB explained that in order to help achieve the President’s vision of improving government functions and achieving operational efficiencies, agencies should include in their fiscal year 2002 plans some performance goals related to the five reforms that would significantly enhance agencies’ administration and operation. These reforms are delayering management levels to streamline organizations, reducing erroneous payments to beneficiaries and other recipients of government funds, making greater use of performance-based contracts, expanding the application of on-line procurement and other e-government services and information, and expanding OMB Circular A-76 competitions and more accurate inventories as required by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act. GSA identified various performance goals that focused on implementing some of the governmentwide reforms. For example, for the reform that deals with expanding the application of on-line procurement and other e- government services and information, GSA stated that it established Federal Business Opportunities, also known as FedBizOpps, to provide government buyers with convenient, universal access for posting and obtaining information about acquisitions on the Internet. GSA said that the establishment of FedBizOpps is discussed under its performance goal for providing a “single point of entry” to vendors that wish to do business with the federal government. In some instances, GSA did not identify performance goals that addressed the reforms, but it provided reasons for not doing so. For example, for the reform concerning the reduction of erroneous payments, GSA explained that it has not yet established performance goals related to this reform but plans to establish such goals in next year’s performance plan. Also, GSA’s fiscal year 2002 plan included performance goals for three staff offices that were not in the fiscal year 2001 plan. Responsibility for these goals falls within the jurisdiction of three staff offices that report directly to GSA’s Administrator; these are the offices of CFO, CIO, and CPO. The plan had 10 goals for these offices that covered (1) financial matters that CFO oversees, such as electronic collections and payments of invoices; (2) information technology matters that CIO oversees, such as costs and schedules associated with information technology capital investment projects; and (3) human capital matters that CPO oversees, such as the use of on-line university training courses to help improve employee skills. It should be noted that 5 of the 10 goals appeared to be related to the 2 areas of strategic human capital management and information security, which we identified as governmentwide high-risk areas The following section provides more information on GSA’s efforts to address the two high-risk areas. GAO has identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human capital management and information security. Regarding the first area, we noted that GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report discussed actions it has taken or plans to take to address strategic human capital management issues, which primarily involved training and developmental opportunities for employees. Also, we noted that GSA’s fiscal year 2002 plan had goals and measures related to strategic human capital management matters, which involved such activities as training and developing employees and improving the cycle time for recruiting. Regarding information security, we noted that GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report did not identify actions to address information security issues. However, our analysis showed that GSA’s fiscal year 2002 plan had a goal and measure related to information security, which involved GSA’s efforts to resolve in a timely manner all high-risk vulnerabilities and conditions detected by audits and reviews. The plan also states that FTS has an Office of Information Security, which provides federal agencies with services that are designed to develop a secure government information infrastructure. A more detailed discussion of GSA’s efforts to address the two high-risk areas identified by GAO, along with the GSA IG’s management challenges, can be found in appendix I. Our analysis indicates that both the fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan were more informative and useful documents than GSA’s prior year report and plan. As we recommended in our June 2000 GPRA report, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan responded more fully to GPRA implementing guidance and made a concerted effort to address the issue of building security. We recognize that tracking and reporting on intended performance results is an iterative process and that GSA needs to continually review and adjust its plans and reports to be responsive to an ever-changing environment. Given the complexities associated with preparing GPRA plans and reports, it is our view that GSA is making overall progress in responding to the annual GPRA planning and reporting requirements. Therefore, we are not making additional recommendations at this time. As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of GPRA; the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000; guidance to agencies from OMB for developing performance plans and reports, including OMB Circular A-11, Part 2; previous reports and evaluations by us and others; our knowledge of GSA’s operations and programs; our identification of best practices concerning performance planning and reporting; and our observations on GSA’s other GPRA-related efforts. We also discussed our review with officials in GSA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Office of the Inspector General. The agency outcomes that were used as the basis for our review were identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs as important mission areas for the agency and generally reflect the outcomes for GSA’s key programs and activities. We examined and reviewed all performance goals in GSA’s fiscal year 2000 report and focused on those goals that were directly related to the three key outcomes. Also, we reviewed the fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan and compared them with the agency’s prior year performance report and plan for these outcomes. In addition, we reviewed the fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan for information related to the major management challenges confronting GSA that were identified by GSA’s Office of the Inspector General in November 2000. These challenges included the issues of strategic human capital management and information security, which GAO identified as governmentwide high-risk areas in our January 2001 performance and accountability series and high-risk update. We did not independently verify the information contained in GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan, although we did draw from other GAO work in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of GSA’s performance data. We conducted our review from April through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from GSA’s Administrator. On July 25, 2001, GSA officials in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer provided us oral comments on a draft of this report. Specifically, GSA’s Deputy Budget Director and the Managing Director for Planning told us that they agreed with the contents of the report. Also, the officials told us that the name of FTS’ Office of Information Security has been changed to the Office of Information Assurance and Critical Infrastructure Protection. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, GSA; and the Director, OMB. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-8387 or notify me at ungarb@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were William Dowdal, Anne Hilleary, David Sausville, and Gerald Stankosky. The following table identifies the six major management challenges confronting the General Services Administration (GSA), which were identified by GSA’s Inspector General (IG). Two of the six challenges also addressed two issues—strategic human capital management and information security—that GAO identified as governmentwide high-risk areas. The first column lists the challenges identified by GSA’s IG and highlights the two agency challenges—human capital and information technology solutions—that addressed issues related to our two governmentwide high-risk areas. The second column discusses GSA’s progress in resolving its challenges, which was discussed in the agency’s fiscal year 2000 performance report. The third column discusses the extent to which GSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes performance goals and measures to address the two high-risk areas that GAO identified and the management challenges that GSA’s IG identified. In reviewing GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan, we found that both documents included expanded discussions of the GSA IG’s challenges, which represented a general improvement over the fiscal year 1999 report and fiscal year 2001 plan. In the fiscal year 2000 report and the fiscal year 2002 plan, GSA recognized the importance of continued attention to the challenges and described overall efforts to address them. Furthermore, GSA’s fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan included various goals that appeared to be related to most or all of the challenges. Specifically, the performance report contained various goals that appeared to be related to four of the six challenges, and the performance plan had goals and measures that appeared to be related to all six challenges.

Summary: This report reviews the General Services Administration's (GSA) performance report for fiscal year 2000 and its performance plan for fiscal year 2002 to assess GSA's progress in achieving key outcomes important to its mission. GAO found that some goals were met or exceeded and others were not met. For fiscal year 2002, GSA set up a strategy to better meet these goals. Overall, GSA's fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 plan were more informative and useful than its report and plan from last year.