Over the last 15 years, the federal government’s increasing demand for IT has led to a dramatic rise in operational costs to develop, implement, and maintain systems and services. Annually, the federal government spends more than $80 billion on IT. While the use of IT has the potential to greatly improve service for federal employees and American taxpayers, it has also led to federal agencies’ reliance on custom IT systems that can—and have—become risky, costly, and unproductive mistakes. As part of a comprehensive effort to increase the operational efficiency of federal IT systems and deliver greater value to taxpayers, federal agencies are being required by OMB to shift their IT services to a cloud computing option when feasible. According to NIST, cloud computing is a means “for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” NIST also states that an application should possess five essential characteristics to be considered cloud computing: on-demand self service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, and measured service. Essentially, cloud computing applications are network-based and scalable on demand. According to OMB, cloud computing offers these benefits to federal agencies: Economical: cloud computing is a pay-as-you-go approach to IT, in which a low initial investment is required to begin, and additional investment is needed only as system use increases. Flexible: IT departments that anticipate fluctuations in user demand no longer need to scramble for additional hardware and software. With cloud computing, they can add or subtract capacity quickly and easily. Fast: cloud computing eliminates long procurement and certification processes, while providing a near-limitless selection of services. According to NIST, cloud computing offers three service models: Infrastructure as a service—the service provider delivers and manages the basic computing infrastructure of servers, software, storage, and network equipment on which a platform (i.e., operating system and programming tools and services) to develop and execute applications can be developed by the consumer. Platform as a service—the service provider delivers and manages the underlying infrastructure (i.e., servers, software, storage, and network equipment), as well as the platform (i.e., operating system, and programming tools and services) on which the consumer can create applications using programming tools supported by the service provider or other sources. Software as a service—the service provider delivers one or more applications and the computational resources and underlying infrastructure to run them for use on demand as a turnkey service. As can be seen in figure 1, each service model offers unique functionality, with consumer control of the environment decreasing from infrastructure to platform to software. NIST has also defined four deployment models for providing cloud services: private, community, public, and hybrid. In a private cloud, the service is set up specifically for one organization, although there may be multiple customers within that organization and the cloud may exist on or off the customer’s premises. In a community cloud, the service is set up for organizations with similar requirements. The cloud may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on or off the organization’s premises. A public cloud is available to the general public and is owned and operated by the service provider. A hybrid cloud is a composite of two or more of the above deployment models (private, community, or public) that are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability. According to federal guidance, these deployment models determine the number of consumers and the nature of other consumers’ data that may be present in a cloud environment. A public cloud should not allow a consumer to know or control other consumers of a cloud service provider’s environment. However, a private cloud can allow for ultimate control in selecting who has access to a cloud environment. Community clouds and hybrid clouds allow for a mixed degree of control and knowledge of other consumers. Additionally, the cost for cloud services typically increases as control over other consumers and knowledge of these consumers increase. According to OMB, the federal government needs to shift from building custom computer systems to adopting cloud technologies and shared services, which will improve the government’s operational efficiencies and result in substantial cost savings. To help agencies achieve these benefits, OMB required agencies to immediately shift to a “Cloud First” policy and increase their use of available cloud-based and shared services whenever a secure, reliable, and cost-effective cloud service exists. In order to accelerate the adoption of cloud computing services across the government, in December 2010, OMB made cloud computing an integral part of its 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management. The plan specified six major goals: align the acquisition process with the technology cycle, align the budget process with the technology cycle, and apply “light technology” and shared services. strengthen program management, streamline governance and improve accountability, increase engagement with industry, To achieve these goals, the plan outlined 25 action items for agencies, such as completing plans to consolidate 800 data centers by 2015 and developing a governmentwide strategy to hasten the adoption of cloud computing services. To accelerate the shift, OMB required agencies to identify, plan, and fully migrate three services to a cloud-based one by June 2012. In February 2011, OMB issued the Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, as called for in its 25-Point Plan. The strategy provided definitions of cloud computing services; benefits of cloud services, such as accelerating data center consolidations; a decision framework for migrating services to a cloud environment; case studies to support agencies’ migration to cloud computing services; and roles and responsibilities for federal agencies. For example, the strategy states that NIST’s role is to lead and collaborate with federal, state, and local government agency chief information officers, private sector experts, and international bodies to identify standards and guidance and prioritize the adoption of cloud computing services. In a December 2011 memo, OMB established the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), a governmentwide program to provide joint authorizations and continuous security monitoring services for cloud computing services for all federal agencies. Among other things, the memo required the General Services Administration (GSA) to issue a concept of operations, which was completed in February 2012. The concept of operations states that FedRAMP is to: ensure that cloud computing services have adequate information eliminate duplication of effort and reduce risk management costs; and enable rapid and cost-effective procurement of information systems/services for federal agencies. GSA initiated FedRAMP operations, which the agency referred to as initial operational capabilities, in June 2012. We have previously reported on federal agencies’ efforts to implement cloud computing services, and on progress oversight agencies have made to help federal agencies in those efforts. These include: In May 2010, we reported on the efforts of multiple agencies to ensure the security of governmentwide cloud computing services. We noted that, while OMB, GSA, and NIST had initiated efforts to ensure secure cloud computing services, OMB had not yet finished a cloud computing strategy; GSA had begun a procurement for expanding cloud computing services, but had not yet developed specific plans for establishing a shared information security assessment and authorization process; and NIST had not yet issued cloud-specific security guidance. We recommended that OMB establish milestones to complete a strategy for federal cloud computing and ensure it addressed information security challenges. These include having a process to assess vendor compliance with government information security requirements and division of information security responsibilities between the customer and vendor. OMB agreed with our recommendations and subsequently published a strategy in February 2011 that addressed the importance of information security when using cloud computing, but it did not fully address several key challenges confronting agencies, such as the appropriate use of attestation standards for control assessments of cloud computing service providers, and division of information security-related responsibilities between customer and provider. We also recommended that GSA consider security in its procurement for cloud services, including consideration of a shared assessment and authorization process. GSA generally agreed with our recommendations and has since developed its FedRAMP program, an assessment and authorization process for systems shared among federal agencies. Finally, we recommended that NIST issue guidance specific to cloud-based computing security. NIST agreed with our recommendations and has since issued multiple publications that address such guidance. In April 2012, we reported that more needed to be done to implement OMB’s 25-Point Plan and measure its results. Among other things, we reported that, of the 10 key action items that we reviewed, 3 had been completed and 7 had been partially completed by December 2011. In particular, OMB and agencies’ cloud-related efforts only partially addressed requirements. Specifically, agencies’ plans were missing key elements, such as a discussion of needed resources, a migration schedule, and plans for retiring legacy systems. As a result, we recommended, among other things, that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General direct their respective CIOs to complete elements missing from the agencies’ plans for migrating services to a cloud computing environment. Officials from each of the agencies generally agreed with our recommendations and have taken steps to implement them. In July 2012, we reported that the seven federal agencies we reviewed had made progress in meeting OMB’s requirement to implement three cloud computing services by June 2012. Specifically, the seven agencies had implemented 21 cloud computing services and spent a total of $307 million for cloud computing in fiscal year 2012, about 1 percent of their total IT budgets. However, two agencies reported that they did not have plans to meet OMB’s deadline to implement three services by June 2012, but would do so by calendar year’s end. Agencies also shared seven common challenges that they experienced in moving services to cloud computing. The seven challenges included: Meeting federal security requirements: Cloud service vendors may not be familiar with security requirements that are unique to government agencies, such as continuous monitoring and maintaining an inventory of systems. Obtaining guidance: Existing federal guidance for using cloud services may be insufficient or incomplete. Agencies cited a number of areas where additional guidance is needed, such as purchasing commodity IT and assessing Federal Information Security Management Act security levels. Acquiring knowledge and expertise: Agencies may not have the necessary tools or resources, such as expertise among staff, to implement cloud services. Certifying and accrediting vendors: Agencies may not have a mechanism for certifying that vendors meet standards for security, in part because FedRAMP had not yet been made operational (i.e., reached initial operating capabilities). Ensuring data portability and interoperability: To preserve their ability to change vendors in the future, agencies may attempt to avoid platforms or technologies that “lock” customers into a particular product. Overcoming cultural barriers: Agency culture may act as an obstacle to implementing cloud services. Procuring services on a consumption (on-demand) basis: Because of the on-demand, scalable nature of cloud services, it can be difficult to define specific quantities and costs. These uncertainties make contracting and budgeting difficult due to the fluctuating costs associated with scalable and incremental cloud service procurements. While each of the seven agencies had submitted plans to OMB for implementing their cloud services, a majority of the plans were missing required elements. Agencies have also identified opportunities for future cloud service implementations, such as moving storage and help desk services to a cloud environment. We made recommendations to seven agencies to develop planning information, such as estimated costs and legacy IT systems’ retirement plans for existing and planned services. The agencies generally agreed with our recommendations and have taken actions to implement them. OMB’s Cloud First policy requires federal agencies to implement cloud computing services whenever a secure, reliable, and cost-effective cloud option exists. In July 2012, we found that all of the seven agencies had among other things, identified at least three services to implement in a cloud environment, and all but two had implemented three cloud computing services. Since then, the agencies have added more cloud computing services. In total, the number of cloud computing services implemented increased from 21 to 101, an increase of 80 services. Table 1 lists the number of cloud computing services implemented by each agency in 2012 and 2014. While the number of cloud computing services increased by 80 since 2012, the number implemented by each agency during that time varied. For example, since 2012, HHS had implemented 33 such services, while SBA, State, and Treasury had implemented 3, 11, and 2, respectively. (A brief description of the 101 cloud computing services implemented by each agency is included in app. II.) These agencies also increased the amount they budgeted and reported spending on cloud computing services. Specifically, the seven agencies, collectively, reported their spending increased by $222 million, from $307 million to $529 million. Table 2 shows the amount each agency (1) reported spending on cloud computing services in fiscal year 2012 and (2) planned to spend in fiscal year 2014. Although collectively the amount budgeted in 2014 by the agencies ($529 million) is an overall increase of 72 percent, the amounts and percentages varied significantly across the agencies. For example, USDA increased its planned cloud spending by $71 million (a 394 percent change over 2012), while Treasury budgeted $37 million more (a 22 percent increase over 2012). Further, the agencies also increased the collective percentage of their IT budgets allocated to cloud computing services. Specifically, as shown in table 3, the agencies collectively doubled the percentage of their IT budgets from 1 to 2 percent during the fiscal year 2012 -14 period. However, on an individual agency basis, the percentage increase varied. For example, GSA increased the percentage of its IT budget allocated to cloud computing from 2 to 5 percent while DHS increased its allocation from 1 to 2 percent. Even though the agencies collectively and individually increased the percentage of their IT budgets allocated to cloud services, our analysis showed that the agencies are still devoting a large portion of their IT budgets to non-cloud computing expenditures. Specifically, as shown in table 3, the agencies in 2014 were collectively budgeting 2 percent of their IT budgets to cloud services, while the remaining 98 percent were dedicated to non-cloud expenditures. Officials from OMB and the agencies attributed the agencies’ varying degrees of progress in part, to the following: in implementing its Cloud First policy, OMB has granted the agencies discretion in determining whether and which services are to be migrated. Specifically, officials from OMB’s Office of E-Government & Information Technology told us that they initially had established goals for the agencies but instead granted them the latitude to annually assess all their investments and identify those investments that were appropriate for their agency to migrate. As a result, some agencies have been more aggressive than others in moving services to the cloud. In addition, the agencies’ relatively low percentage of budget allocated to cloud spending is due in large part to the fact that the agencies have not assessed a majority of their investments, although OMB’s guidance calls for agencies to assess all their IT services for migration to the cloud irrespective of where each investment is in its life cycle. Specifically, as shown in table 4, the agencies collectively had not assessed about 67 percent of their 2000 investments. Table 4 provides further detail on the number of investments in fiscal year 2014 that were chosen for cloud computing services; the number of investments that were evaluated for cloud computing services, but an alternative was chosen; and the number not evaluated for cloud computing services. A key reason cited by the agency officials for why most of their investments had not been evaluated for cloud services was that they were largely legacy investments in operations and maintenance; the agencies had only planned to consider cloud options when the investments were to be modernized or replaced at the end of their life cycle. Agency officials added that it was a challenge to assess and ultimately replace such legacy systems because agency personnel were often reluctant to cede direct control of mission-critical IT resources. While we recognize the cultural challenge to moving investments to the cloud (which is discussed in more detail later in this report), OMB guidance nonetheless calls for agencies to continually assess all investments irrespective of where they are in their life cycle. Agency officials were aware of the OMB guidance and said they had plans to assess their unevaluated investments in the near future. Nevertheless, the agencies for the most part were not able to provide us with specific dates for when assessments of these investments were to be performed. Establishing such milestones is an important management tool to ensuring policy outcomes—including those envisioned by OMB’s cloud policy—are achieved in an efficient and effective manner. Until the agencies assess their IT investments that have yet to be evaluated for suitability for migration to the cloud, they will not know which services are likely candidates for migration to cloud computing services, and therefore will not gain the operational efficiencies and cost savings associated with using such services. Agencies reported that they had cost savings from implementing 22 out of 101 cloud computing services through fiscal year 2013. Specifically, they collectively saved about $96 million by implementing these 22 services. Table 5 lists the total number of cloud computing services reported by each agency, the number of cloud services with cost savings, and the total savings. These savings included both one-time savings and life-cycle savings. For example, GSA had a one-time cost savings of $2.6 million by migrating to a cloud customer service solution, which was a less expensive alternative than upgrading its existing system. DHS had a cumulate savings of $1.2 million through fiscal year 2013 for its collaboration platform that is used to build applications and manage documents, which was implemented in fiscal year 2011. According to agency officials, two major factors governed why the remaining services (79) did not achieve savings. First, a motivation for changing to some of the cloud-based services was not to reduce spending, but to improve service. Second, in selected cases, the cloud computing service opened up a new service or provided a higher quality of service; while this provided useful benefits to the agency, the associated costs negated any savings. In addition to these cost savings, agency officials identified the following benefits from migrating systems and services to a cloud computing service. Decreased time to deploy: A cloud computing service can be deployed more quickly and migrating a system to a cloud allows an agency to run it for a short period of time and then shut it down, without having to develop a unique infrastructure for it. Increased flexibility: Cloud computing services are useful for systems that have varying use throughout a year, as the cloud service can be easily scaled up when there is high demand. Reduced IT infrastructure: Implementation of cloud computing services reduces the amount of IT infrastructure required onsite, in particular, data center resources. Officials from the agencies we reviewed cited five challenges they have experienced in implementing cloud computing services. Of the five, two challenges—meeting federal security requirements and overcoming cultural barriers—were previously identified and discussed in our 2012 report. According to the officials, meeting federal security requirements was a continuing challenge because the requirements for new services are a moving target (i.e., the requirements are regularly being updated to address new threats, vulnerabilities, and technologies, and vendors may not be able to meet them). For example, NIST recently made revisions to its cloud security requirements and agencies are still in the process of getting familiar with them. As a result, agencies fear making mistakes that could negatively impact the security of systems and data. With regard to overcoming cultural barriers, DHS officials said that shifting to a new business model from a legacy business model requires cultural change, which continues to be a challenge at the department. In addition, GSA officials said that, as they move the management of servers and software off site, a continuing challenge is getting agency staff to adapt to an operational environment where they do not have direct control and access to agency IT resources. In addition to the two challenges repeated from 2012, officials reported these three new challenges. Meeting new network infrastructure requirements. Current network infrastructure, topology (network configuration), or bandwidth (data transmission rate) is often insufficient to meet new infrastructure needs when agencies transition to cloud computing services. For example, officials at State said that legacy systems with a particular infrastructure designed to meet certain federal requirements will need to be reengineered to work in a multi-tiered cloud environment. USDA officials stated that they would need to consider redesigning their network topology to accommodate new cloud service bandwidth requirements and traffic streams. Having appropriate expertise for acquisition processes. Migrating legacy systems to cloud computing services requires knowledgeable acquisition staff and appropriate processes. For example, HHS officials stated that while the department has the capability to purchase cloud services, it has found post award management to be a challenge. These officials added that to respond to this challenge, HHS is working with its personnel as well as other stakeholders, such as GSA, to develop best practices for cloud post award management and related acquisition activities. In addition, DHS officials said that efforts to transition from legacy systems to cloud computing services require streamlining their IT services supply chain, which requires an evaluation of the component processes and time to fully implement this transformation. Funding for implementation. Funding for the initial implementation of a cloud service can be a significant cost to agencies. For example, officials at State said that the cost of migrating an application to a cloud service poses a challenge in the current budget environment where IT budgets are declining. In addition, GSA officials stated that initial implementation requires additional funding that has not been made available. While these challenges are formidable, OMB and GSA have provided guidance and services to help agencies address many of these challenges. For example, GSA developed FedRAMP, which is a program to create processes for security authorizations and allow agencies to leverage security authorizations on a governmentwide basis in an effort to streamline the certification and accreditation process. GSA also provides continuous monitoring services for cloud computing services for all federal agencies. In addition, OMB’s Federal Cloud Computing Strategy addresses how agencies can overcome redesign and implementation challenges. In particular, the strategy states that agencies should ensure that their network infrastructure can support the demand for higher bandwidth before migrating to a cloud service. The strategy also directs agencies to assess readiness for migration to a cloud service by determining the suitability of the existing legacy application and data to either migrate to the cloud service (i.e., rehost an application in a cloud environment) or be replaced by a cloud service (i.e., retire the legacy system and replace with a commercial equivalent). Further, GSA provides services to assist agencies with procuring and acquiring cloud services. Specifically, GSA established contracts that the agencies can use to obtain commodity services such as cloud infrastructure as a service and cloud e-mail; these contracts—which were established in October 2010 and September 2012, respectively—are intended to reduce the burden on agencies for the most common IT services. GSA also created working groups to support commodity service migration by developing technical requirements for shared services to reduce the analytical burden on individual government agencies. Regarding funding, the strategy recommends that agencies reevaluate their technology sourcing strategy to include consideration and application of cloud computing services as part of their budget process. Officials stated that they consult the Federal Cloud Computing Strategy to guide them in their efforts to move services to the cloud. For example, SBA officials said that they consult this guidance as they plan for and prepare to move services to the cloud. In addition, State officials said that they use the strategy as part of their process to prepare them in their efforts to consider cloud services. Since we last reported on these seven agencies, they have made varying degrees of progress in implementing cloud computing services, and in doing so, have saved money and realized other benefits. While the collective and individual agency gains in implementing such services are commendable, the seven agencies are still only investing a small fraction of their IT budgets on cloud computing. The agencies’ modest level of cloud investment is attributable in part to the large number of legacy investments—nearly two thirds of all investments—that have yet to be considered for cloud migration. This is due in part to the agencies’ practice of not assessing these investments until they are to be replaced or modernized, which is inconsistent with OMB’s direction. Nonetheless, the large number of agency investments to be assessed provides ample opportunities for additional progress and substantial cost savings. An important step to realizing this progress and savings is ensuring these investments are assessed, which includes establishing milestones for when the assessments are to be performed. Until this is done and the investments are assessed, the agencies cannot know whether they are achieving the maximum benefits, including improved operational efficiencies and minimized costs, associated with using such services. Agencies continue to face formidable challenges as they move their IT services to the cloud. Two of the challenges—namely ensuring IT security and overcoming agency culture—have persisted since we last reported. OMB and GSA have issued guidance and established initiatives to address the challenges, which agencies can use to help mitigate any associated negative impacts. To help ensure continued progress in the implementation of cloud computing services, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; and the Administrators of the General Services Administration and Small Business Administration direct their respective Chief Information Officers to take the following actions: Ensure that all IT investments are assessed for suitability for migration to a cloud computing service. As part of this, establish evaluation dates for those investments identified in this report that have not been assessed for migration to the cloud. In commenting on a draft of this report, six agencies—DHS, GSA, HHS, SBA, State, and USDA—agreed with our recommendations, and one agency (Treasury) had no comments. The specific comments from each agency are as follows: DHS, in its written comments—which are reprinted in appendix III— stated that it concurred with our recommendations. The department also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in the report as appropriate. In its written comments, GSA stated it agreed with our findings and recommendations and will take appropriate action. GSA’s comments are reprinted in appendix IV. HHS, in comments provided via e-mail from its Audit Liaison within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, stated it concurred with our recommendations. The department also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in the report as appropriate. SBA, in comments provided via e-mail from its Program Manager within the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, stated that it concurred with our report. It also commented that of the 29 investments that SBA did not evaluate for cloud computing (identified in table 4), only 17 could be evaluated for cloud alternatives. SBA said the other 12 investments cannot be considered for a cloud alternative, but provided no documentation to support this statement. USDA, in comments provided via an e-mail from its GAO Agency Liaison within the Office of the Chief Information Officer, stated that it agreed with our recommendations and is committed to implementing OMB’s Cloud First policy. State, in its written comments (which are reprinted in appendix V), noted that it had already addressed our recommendations. Specifically, the department said it developed and communicated guidance to its IT investment owners on how to implement OMB’s Cloud First policy and that all investments are currently undergoing cloud computing alternatives analyses with the goal of having these assessments completed by the end of calendar year 2014. State also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in the report as appropriate. Treasury, in its written comments, stated that the department had no comments on the report and appreciated our efforts in developing it. Treasury’s written comments are reprinted in appendix VI. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; the Administrator of the General Services Administration and Small Business Administration; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget: and other interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions on 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 VII. Our engagement objectives were to (1) assess selected agencies’ progress in using cloud computing services, (2) determine the extent to which selected agencies have experienced cost savings when such services have been deployed, and (3) identify any challenges selected agencies are facing as they use cloud computing. To address our first objective, we selected the same seven agencies that were selected for our 2012 review so that we could compare the progress they have made. The seven agencies selected were the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), State, and the Treasury (Treasury); and the General Services Administration (GSA) and Small Business Administration (SBA). We analyzed budget and related documentation from the selected agencies, including data on the number of and funding for current cloud computing services and compared this information with our previous findings. In addition, we interviewed officials responsible for cloud services to corroborate progress. Further, we reviewed agency data on the extent to which they assessed new and ongoing investments for potential cloud computing services. We also interviewed OMB officials to understand cloud computing guidance for federal agencies. Based on the procedures described, we concluded that the data presented are sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To address our second objective, we analyzed agency data on cost savings and avoidances through fiscal year 2013 for those cloud services the agencies had implemented. We also interviewed agency officials to obtain information on other benefits the agencies had gained from adopting cloud-based services. To determine the reliability of the data on cost savings and avoidances, we analyzed agency documentation and interviewed appropriate officials to corroborate the cost savings and cost avoidances. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report, which was to identify the extent to which agencies had experienced cost savings for implemented cloud services. To address the third objective, we interviewed officials from each of the selected agencies and asked them to identify challenges associated with their implementation of cloud services. We then assessed and categorized the challenges and totaled the number of times each challenge was cited by agency officials. In order to identify the common challenges, we generalized challenges that were mentioned by two or more agencies. We also compared these challenges with the challenges that agencies reported in our 2012 review. In addition, we conducted a content analysis of the information we received in order to identify and categorize common challenges. To do so, three team analysts independently reviewed and drafted a series of challenge statements based on each agency’s records. They then worked together to resolve any discrepancies, choosing to report on challenges that were identified by two or more agencies. These common challenges were presented in the report. We also interviewed agency officials to corroborate the challenges identified. We conducted this performance audit from December 2013 through August 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix II: Brief Description of Cloud Computing Services Implemented by Seven Agencies Reviewed (as of July 2014) This appendix lists the cloud computing services implemented the seven agencies we reviewed; namely, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), State, and the Treasury (Treasury); and the General Services Administration (GSA) and Small Business Administration (SBA). It also includes as reported by the agencies, a description of each service to be provided, the service model, deployment model, and whether the cloud service is approved/compliant with the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). Cloud computing service E-mail as a Service Provide the infrastructure for the Description of service to be provided department’s enterprisewide e-mail and calendar functions. Enable DHS users to have virtual access to department desktop operating systems and applications anywhere in the world. Support DHS’s secure information technology (IT) development, test, and preproduction environment that mirrors the production environment. It also is to provide access to a suite of application life-cycle management and automated testing services. Ensure that DHS’s public-facing websites are always available. DHS adopted this service to protect against denial of service attacks, help manage surge requirements, and reduce hosting costs. Provide a secure platform that is to be used by DHS to build applications and manage documents. It also is to provide file management, user collaboration, and workflow routing capabilities. Enable DHS with rapid provisioning in a secure virtual operating environment and furnish hosting for applications and services, including operating systems, network, and storage. Provide components with access to a website that allows for the consolidation of projects. Description of service to be provided Allow department users to manage customer relationships and enable the user to make informed decisions and followup. FedRAMP approved/compliant? Provide DHS with decision-making information and promotes virtual consolidation by integrating business intelligence dashboards. Support all of the department’s public websites and provides software accessible through the public cloud. Provide individuals in the United States with a capability to check their employment eligibility status before formally seeking employment. FedRAMP is a governmentwide program initiated by the Office of Management and Budget to provide joint authorizations and continuous security monitoring services for cloud computing services. FedRAMP is intended to (1) ensure that cloud computing services have adequate information security; (2) eliminate duplication of effort and reduce risk management costs; and (3) enable rapid and cost-effective procurement of information systems/services for federal agencies. DHS reported this service as not being FedRAMP approved/compliant and said it did not need to be so because the service required a higher level of security—which DHS referred to as a Federal Information Security Management Act high baseline—than that provided by FedRAMP. Description of service to be provided Provide a tool to be used for budget planning and formulation, and performance reporting. The tool also is to provide the means to generate reports to respond to ad hoc queries from Congress and other stakeholders about the use of foreign assistance resources. FedRAMP approved/compliant? Allow program managers of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund access to agency data from any staff work location. Provide domestic and overseas agency staff with direct access to information in over 50 databases. The service is also to provide additional functionality including an integrated electronic catalog with other online libraries. Support a collaboration and knowledge management environment for the department which includes hosting for servers and applications, and an environment for application development and product testing. Provide a grants management system for the department which supports the full life cycle of the federal assistance process. Enable the hosting of public web sites for the Department of State, including its embassies. Provide a web-based travel management service for the department. Enable unclassified documents to be available worldwide regarding the history of the department, diplomacy, and foreign relations. Provide application services for the department, including application integration. Support the department's centralized electronic forms program. Provide support for a key departmental financial management system’s (the Joint Financial Management System) continuity of operations component. Description of service to be provided Support the Executive Secretariat's continuity of operations planning. Provide departmental personnel with the capability to remotely access e-mail worldwide. Provide the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security with an enterprise service operations center. Description of service to be provided Provide financial management services to the department via a web-enabled, integrated, accounting, budgeting, procurement, and reporting commercial off- the-shelf system. Enable web-based services to internal and external users, such as taxpayers, Internal Revenue Service employees, and other government agencies, as part of administering the federal tax code. Support an integrated system for managing the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's day- to-day business and manufacturing operations. Support the department’s internal and external web sites. If offers a full suite of web solutions including hosting, design, development, and deployment to web sites. Enable the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to manage bureau assets during their entire life cycle, from acquisition through decommissioning. yes risk management costs; and (3) enable rapid and cost-effective procurement of information systems/services for federal agencies. Description of service to be provided Service model Provide a cloud-based geospatial service that supports data and the geographic information system. It creates web map/feature services, asset exchange, versioning, templates, and cost controls for external publication of products and services. Provide an internal cloud-based geospatial shared service that supports data and the geographic information system. It improves cost controls by modernizing and/or creating functions of discovery and reuse, uniform web map/feature services, asset exchange, versioning, templates, group workflows and collaboration, and enables an integrated development environment. Maintain a government-owned, web- based application that is designed to help agencies in the management and control of their initiatives, portfolios, and investment priorities, as well as in the preparation and submission of budget data to OMB. Support an electronic training system for the department that provides online administration of curriculum by trainers, individualized training support, on- demand classroom registration, customized content, collaborative tools, and integrated back-end systems. Allow the department to track, process, and redact materials requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Microsoft Office 365 Provide IT communication services used by USDA organizations. It is to provide integrated communications tools for USDA’s approximately 120,000 employees and business partners. Provide customers with platform services to support the development and transition of business applications into standardized enterprise data center service offerings. Description of service to be provided Service model Provide operating platforms to securely host customer applications. As part of this, the National IT Center is to utilize advanced server virtualization technologies, strict standards, and economies of scale to enable rapid delivery of cost-effective, fully-managed operating platforms with expanded inheritable security controls. FedRAMP approved/compliant? Support a single system for tracking and managing correspondence across USDA, including Secretarial and agency correspondence. It is to include modern Customer Relationship Management features and mobile device access. Provide delivery benefits for all content types. It also is to provide increased availability and other performance benefits as well as a scalable on-demand network. FedRAMP is a governmentwide program initiated by the Office of Management and Budget to provide joint authorizations and continuous security monitoring services for cloud computing services. FedRAMP is intended to (1) ensure that cloud computing services have adequate information security; (2) eliminate duplication of effort and reduce risk management costs; and (3) enable rapid and cost-effective procurement of information systems/services for federal agencies. In addition to the contact name above, individuals making contributions to this report included Gary Mountjoy (assistant director), Gerard Aflague, Scott Borre, Nancy Glover, and Lori Martinez.

Summary: Cloud computing is a relatively new process for acquiring and delivering computing services via information technology (IT) networks. Specifically, it is a means for enabling on-demand access to shared and scalable pools of computing resources with the goal of minimizing management effort and service provider interaction. To encourage federal agencies to pursue the potential efficiencies associated with cloud computing, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a “Cloud First” policy in 2011 that required agency Chief Information Officers to implement a cloud-based service whenever there was a secure, reliable, and cost-effective option. GAO was asked to assess agencies' progress in implementing cloud services. GAO's objectives included assessing selected agencies' progress in using such services and determining the extent to which the agencies have experienced cost savings. GAO selected for review the seven agencies that it reported on in 2012 in order to compare their progress since then in implementing cloud services; the agencies were selected using the size of their IT budgets and experience in using cloud services. GAO also analyzed agency cost savings and related documentation and interviewed agency and OMB officials. Each of the seven agencies reviewed implemented additional cloud computing services since GAO last reported on their progress in 2012. For example, since then, the total number of cloud computing services implemented by the agencies increased by 80 services, from 21 to 101. The agencies also added to the amount they reported spending on cloud services by $222 million, from $307 million to $529 million. Further, the agencies increased the percentage of their information technology (IT) budgets allocated to cloud services; however, as shown in the table, the overall increase was just 1 percent. The agencies' relatively small increase in cloud spending as a percent of their overall IT budgets, is attributed in part, to the fact that these agencies collectively had not considered cloud computing services for about 67 percent of their investments. With regard to why these investments had not been assessed, the agencies said it was in large part due to these being legacy investments in operations and maintenance; the agencies had only planned to consider cloud options for these investments when they were to be modernized or replaced. This is inconsistent with Office of Management and Budget policy that calls for cloud solutions to be considered first whenever a secure, reliable, and cost-effective option exists regardless of where the investment is in its life cycle. Until the agencies fully assess all their IT investments, they will not be able to achieve the resulting benefits of operational efficiencies and cost savings. The agencies collectively reported cost savings of about $96 million from the implementation of 22 of the 101 cloud services. These savings included both one-time and multiyear savings. For example, the General Services Administration saved $2.6 million by migrating to a cloud customer service solution, and Homeland Security saved $1.2 million from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 by implementing a cloud-based collaboration service. Agency officials cited two major reasons for why the other services they had implemented did not save money. First, a motivation for changing to some of the cloud-based services was not to reduce spending, but to improve service. Second, in selected cases, the cloud computing service opened up a new service or provided a higher quality of service; while this provided useful benefits to the agency, the associated costs negated any savings. GAO is recommending, among other things, that the seven agencies assess the IT investments identified in this report that have yet to be evaluated for suitability for cloud computing services. Of the seven agencies, six agreed with GAO's recommendations, and one had no comments.