United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters February 2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Departments of Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments GAO-12-241 February 2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Departments of Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments Highlights of GAO-12-241, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The federal government spends Although the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) use various billions of dollars on information investment review processes to identify duplicative investments, GAO found that technology (IT) each year, with such 37 of its sample of 810 investments were potentially duplicative (see table). investments accounting for at least $79 These investments account for about $1.2 billion in total information technology billion in fiscal year 2011. Given the (IT) spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. For example, GAO identified size of these investments, it is four DOD Navy personnel assignment investments—one system for officers, one important that federal agencies avoid for enlisted personnel, one for reservists, and a general assignment system— duplicative investments when possible each of which is responsible for managing similar functions. While GAO did not to ensure the most efficient use of identify any potentially duplicative investments at the Department of Homeland resources. GAO has previously Security (DHS) within its sample, DHS officials have independently identified reported on initiatives under way to address potentially duplicative IT several duplicative investments and systems. investments—i.e., investments Potentially Duplicative Investments providing similar functions across the Department Purpose Number of Planned and actual government. GAO was asked to review investments expenditures ($ in millions) the extent to which potentially DOD Acquisition Management 4 $407 duplicative IT investments exist within Aviation Maintenance and Logistics 2 $85 three categories at selected agencies Civilian Personnel Management 2 $504 (the Departments of Defense (DOD), Contract Management 10 $58 Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security Housing Management 2 $5 (DHS)) and actions these agencies are Personnel Assignment Management 6 $40 taking to address them. To accomplish Promotion Rating 2 $3 this, GAO analyzed budget data on Workforce Management 3 $109 agency IT investments, reviewed agency information related to efforts to DOE Back-end Infrastructure 3 $1 address duplication, and interviewed Electronic Records and Document 3 $7 Management agency officials. Total 37 $1,219 What GAO Recommends Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data. GAO recommends that DOD and DOE DOD and DOE officials offered a variety of reasons for the potential duplication, report on the progress of efforts to such as decentralized governance and a lack of control over certain facilities. identify and eliminate duplication, Further complicating agencies’ ability to identify and eliminate duplicative where appropriate. GAO is also investments is that investments are, in certain cases, misclassified by function. recommending that DOD, DOE, and Until agencies correctly categorize their investments, they cannot be confident DHS correct misclassifications of that their investments are not duplicative. investments. DOD and DHS agreed with the recommendations. DOE DHS has taken action to improve its processes for identifying and eliminating generally agreed with the first duplicative investments. For example, through reviewing portfolios of IT recommendation, but disagreed with investments, DHS has identified much, and eliminated some, duplicative parts of the second recommendation functionality in certain investments. Additionally, DOD and DOE have recently regarding the number of misclassified initiated plans to address potential duplication in many of the investments GAO investments. However, GAO believes identified, which include consolidating or eliminating systems. While these efforts the number is accurate. may eventually yield results, they have not yet led to the elimination of duplication. For example, while DOD and DOE have specific plans to improve their IT investment review processes, officials did not provide examples of duplicative investments that had been consolidated or eliminated. Until DOD and View GAO-12-241. For more information, DOE demonstrate progress on these efforts, the agencies will be unable to contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or provide assurance that they are avoiding investment in unnecessary systems. firstname.lastname@example.org. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 3 Selected Agencies Have Potentially Duplicative Investments; DOD and DOE Need to Do More to Address Them 16 Conclusions 23 Recommendations for Executive Action 23 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24 Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 30 Appendix II Further Information on Potentially Duplicative Investments 33 Appendix III Miscategorized Investments 38 Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 43 Appendix V Comments from the Department of Energy 45 Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 49 Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51 Tables Table 1: FEA Primary Functions for Investments, for Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Submissions 11 Table 2: Examples of FEA Primary Functions and Corresponding Sub-Functions 13 Table 3: Potentially Duplicative Investments 18 Table 4: DHS Investments Consolidated or Eliminated to Reduce Duplicative Functionality 20 Page i GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 5: Unaddressed Potentially Duplicative DOD Investments 22 Table 6: Agency Plans to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments 22 Table 7: FEA Primary Functions and Sub-Functions Used to Select IT Investments 30 Table 8: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOD 33 Table 9: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOE 37 Table 10: Miscategorized Air Force Investments at DOD 38 Table 11: Miscategorized Army Investments at DOD 38 Table 12: Miscategorized Navy Investments at DOD 39 Table 13: Miscategorized Enterprisewide Investments at DOD 40 Table 14: Miscategorized Investments at DOE 41 Table 15: Miscategorized Investments at DHS 42 Figures Figure 1: Breakdown of Number of Federal IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011 (as of July 2011) 6 Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the Dashboard, as of August 2011 9 Figure 3: Number of Government IT Investments by Primary Function, as of July 2011 12 Page ii GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Abbreviations CIO chief information officer DHS Department of Homeland Security DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture IT information technology NARA National Archives and Records Administration OMB Office of Management and Budget 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. Page iii GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 February 17, 2012 Congressional Requesters The United States government spends billions of taxpayer dollars on information technology (IT) investments each year, with such investments accounting for at least $79 billion in fiscal year 2011. 1 Given the size of these investments, it is important that federal agencies avoid investing in duplicative investments, whenever possible, to ensure the most efficient use of resources. Last year, we issued a comprehensive report that identified federal programs or functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists; the actions needed to address such conditions; and the potential financial and other benefits of doing so. 2 More recently, we reported on the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) and federal agencies’ oversight of IT investments and the initiatives under way to address potentially duplicative IT investments. 3 Specifically, we recently reported that there are hundreds of IT investments providing similar functions across the federal government. For example, agencies reported about 1,500 investments that perform general information and technology functions, about 775 supply chain management investments, and about 620 human resource management investments. At your request, this report provides the results of our review to identify the extent to which potentially duplicative IT investments exist within these three categories. 4 Specifically, you asked us to identify potentially duplicative IT investments at selected agencies and the actions these 1 As we previously reported, this amount does not include the IT investments of 58 independent executive branch agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, or of the legislative or judicial branches. See GAO, Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments, GAO-11-826 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2011). 2 GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 3 GAO-11-826. 4 For the purposes of our analysis, we considered “duplication” to occur when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. Page 1 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments agencies are taking to address them. We selected for review three of the largest agencies with respect to number of investments–the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS). To identify potentially duplicative IT investments within each of the selected agencies, we analyzed a subset of investment data from OMB’s exhibit 53 to identify investments with similar functionality. 5 Specifically, we reviewed 810, or 11 percent, of the approximately 7,200 IT investments federal agencies report to OMB through the exhibit 53. Our review represents approximately 24 percent of DOD’s IT portfolio in terms of the number of investments that they report to OMB, 19 percent of DOE’s, and 16 percent of DHS’s. We then reviewed the name and narrative description of each investment’s purpose to identify similarities among related investments within each agency (we did not review investments across agencies). 6 This formed the basis of establishing groupings of similar investments. We discussed the groupings with each of the selected agencies, and we obtained further information from agency officials and reviewed and assessed agencies’ rationales for having multiple systems that perform similar functions. Additionally, when analyzing each investment’s description, we compared the investment’s designated Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) 7 primary category and sub-category with OMB’s definitions for each FEA primary category and sub-category and determined whether the investment was placed in the correct FEA category. We obtained additional information from agency officials about these discrepancies. We also interviewed officials to discuss actions agencies have taken to address the potentially duplicative investments and reviewed supporting documentation. 5 The exhibit 53 identifies all IT projects—both major and non-major—and their associated costs within a federal organization. Information included on agency exhibit 53s is designed, in part, to help OMB better understand what agencies are spending on IT investments. 6 Certain investments were not placed in groups because the investment descriptions were too broad. Additionally, IT investments identified as Funding Contributions were not included, since they are managed by other agencies. 7 The FEA is intended to provide federal agencies and other decision-makers with a common frame of reference or taxonomy for informing agencies’ individual enterprise architecture efforts and their planned and ongoing investment activities, and to do so in a way that identifies opportunities for avoiding duplication of effort and launching initiatives to establish and implement common, reusable, and interoperable solutions across agency boundaries. Page 2 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. See appendix I for a complete description of our objective, scope, and methodology. Information technology should enable government to better serve the Background American people. However, according to OMB, despite spending more than $600 billion on IT over the past decade, the federal government has achieved little of the productivity improvements that private industry has realized from IT. 8 Too often, federal IT projects run over budget, behind schedule, or fail to deliver promised functionality. In combating this problem, proper oversight is critical. Both OMB and federal agencies have key roles and responsibilities for overseeing IT investment management. OMB is responsible for working with agencies to ensure investments are appropriately planned and justified. Additionally, each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how much the government plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds are to be allocated. Required Roles and Congress enacted several laws to assist the federal government in better Responsibilities for IT managing IT investments. The three key laws are the Paperwork Investment Oversight Reduction Act of 1995, 9 the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 10 and the E-Government Act of 2002: 11 • The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 specified OMB and agency responsibilities for managing information resources, including the management of IT. Among its provisions, this law established agency responsibility for assessing and managing the risks of major 8 OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: December 2010). 9 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. 10 40 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. 11 Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002). Page 3 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments information systems initiatives. 12 It also required that OMB develop and oversee policies, principles, standards, and guidelines for federal agency IT functions, including periodic evaluations of major information systems. • The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 placed responsibility for managing investments with the heads of agencies and established chief information officers (CIO) to advise and assist agency heads in carrying out this responsibility. Additionally, this law required OMB to establish processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments in information systems made by federal agencies and report to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as a result of these investments. • The E-Government Act of 2002 established a federal e-government initiative, which encouraged the use of web-based Internet applications to enhance the access to and delivery of government information and service to citizens, to business partners, to employees, and among agencies at all levels of government. The act also required OMB to report annually to Congress on the status of e- government initiatives. In these reports, OMB is to describe the administration’s use of e-government principles to improve government performance and the delivery of information and services to the public. OMB’s IT Oversight OMB uses the following mechanisms to help it fulfill its required oversight Mechanisms responsibilities of federal IT spending during the annual budget formulation process. 12 According to OMB guidance, a major investment is a system or acquisition requiring special management attention because of its importance to the mission or function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization; is for financial management and obligates more than $500,000 annually; has significant program or policy implications; has high executive visibility; has high development, operating, or maintenance costs; is funded through other than direct appropriations; or is defined as major by the agency’s capital planning and investment control process. Page 4 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments • OMB requires 27 federal departments and agencies 13 to provide information related to their IT investments, including agency IT investment portfolios (called exhibit 53s) and capital asset plans and business cases (called exhibit 300s). 14 • In June 2009, OMB publicly deployed the IT Dashboard, which is intended to display near real-time information on the cost, schedule, and performance of all major IT investments. For each major investment, the Dashboard provides performance ratings on cost and schedule, a CIO evaluation, and an overall rating. The CIO evaluation is based on his or her evaluation of the performance of each investment and takes into consideration multiple variables. This evaluation is to be updated when new information becomes available that would affect the assessment of a given investment. The CIO also has the ability to provide written comments regarding the status of each investment. The Dashboard replaced OMB’s Management Watch List and High-Risk List, which were previously used to highlight poorly planned or poorly performing investments on a quarterly basis. As of August 2011, the Dashboard displayed information on the cost, schedule, and performance of 797 major federal IT investments at 27 federal agencies. According to OMB, the public display of investment data on the IT Dashboard is intended to allow OMB, other oversight bodies, and the general public to hold government agencies accountable for results and progress. In addition, the Dashboard allows users to download exhibit 53 data, which provide details on the more than 7,200 federal IT investments (totaling $78.8 billion in planned spending for fiscal year 2011). Figure 1 shows the number of IT investments and planned spending by federal agency. 13 The 27 agencies are the Agency for International Development; the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Army Corps of Engineers; the Environmental Protection Agency; the General Services Administration; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Archives and Records Administration; the National Science Foundation; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Office of Personnel Management; the Small Business Administration; the Smithsonian Institution; and the Social Security Administration. 14 The exhibit 300s provide a business case for each major IT investment and allow OMB to monitor IT investments once they are funded. Agencies are required to provide information on each major investment’s cost, schedule, and performance. Page 5 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Figure 1: Breakdown of Number of Federal IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011 (as of July 2011) As we have previously reported, while the IT Dashboard provides IT investment information for 27 federal agencies, it does not include any information about 61 other agencies’ investments. 15 Specifically, it does not include information from 58 independent executive branch agencies 15 GAO-11-826. Page 6 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Communications Commission) and 3 other agencies (such as the Legal Services Corporation). It also does not include information from the legislative or judicial branch agencies. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB specify which executive branch agencies are included when discussing the annual federal IT investment portfolio. OMB disagreed with this recommendation, stating that the agencies included in the federal IT portfolio are already identified in OMB guidance and on the IT Dashboard. However, we maintained that the recommendation had not been fully addressed because OMB officials frequently refer to the federal IT portfolio without clarifying that it does not include all agencies. Agencies Spend Billions on Despite required roles and responsibilities and OMB’s oversight Poorly Performing IT mechanisms, the federal government spends billions of dollars on poorly Investments performing IT investments, as the following examples illustrate: • In April 2008, due to problems identified during testing and cost overruns and schedule slippages, the Secretary of Commerce announced a redesign of the 2010 Census, resulting in a $205 million increase in life-cycle costs. • In February 2010, the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System was canceled after 10 years of development and approximately $850 million spent, due, in part, to a lack of strategic alignment, governance, and requirements management, as well as the overall size and scope of the effort. 16 • In July 2010, OMB directed the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to halt development of its Electronic Records Archive system at the end of fiscal year 2011 (1 year earlier than planned). OMB cited concerns about the system’s cost, schedule, and 16 Advance Policy Questions for Testimony of Elizabeth A. McGrath to be Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense, http://armed- services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/McGrath%2003-23-10.pdf (Washington, D.C.: March 2010). Page 7 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments performance and directed NARA to better define system functionality and improve strategic planning. Through fiscal year 2010, NARA had spent about $375 million on the system. • In January 2011, the Secretary of Homeland Security ended the Secure Border Initiative Network program after spending about $1.5 billion because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards. 17 • In February 2011, the Office of Personnel Management canceled its Retirement Systems Modernization program, after several years of trying to improve the implementation of this investment. 18 According to the Office of Personnel Management, it spent approximately $231 million on this investment. • In March 2011, we reported that while DOD’s Navy Next Generation Enterprise Network investment’s first increment is estimated to cost $50 billion, the program was not well positioned to meet its cost and schedule estimates. 19 As such, we recommended DOD limit further investment until it conducts an interim review to reconsider the selected acquisition approach and addresses its investment management issues. DOD stated that it did not concur with the recommendation to reconsider its acquisition approach, but we maintain that without doing so, DOD cannot be sure it is pursuing the most cost-effective approach. Additionally, as of August 2011, according to the IT Dashboard, 261 of the federal government’s approximately 800 major IT investments— totaling almost $18 billion—are in need of management attention (rated 17 GAO, Border Security: Preliminary Observations on the Status of Key Southwest Border Technology Programs, GAO-11-448T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011). 18 GAO, OPM Retirement Modernization: Longstanding Information Technology Management Weaknesses Need to Be Addressed, GAO-12-226T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2011). 19 GAO, Information Technology: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on Navy’s Next Generation Enterprise Network Acquisition, GAO-11-150 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2011). Page 8 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments “yellow” to indicate the need for attention or “red” to indicate significant concerns). 20 (See fig. 2.) Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the Dashboard, as of August 2011 In recognizing that wasteful spending continues to plague IT investment management, OMB has recently implemented additional efforts to address this problem. These efforts include the following: • TechStat reviews. In January 2010, the Federal CIO began leading reviews—known as “TechStat” sessions—of selected IT investments involving OMB and agency leadership to increase accountability and transparency and improve performance. OMB officials stated that, as 20 The approximately 800 major IT investments total about $40.6 billion for fiscal year 2011. Page 9 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments of December 2010, 58 sessions had been held and resulted in improvements to or termination of IT investments with performance problems. For example, the June 2010 TechStat session for NARA’s Electronic Records Archive investment (mentioned above) resulted in the halting of development funding pending the completion of a strategic plan. In addition, OMB has identified 26 additional high-priority IT projects and plans to develop corrective action plans with agencies at future TechStat sessions. According to the former Federal CIO, OMB’s efforts to improve management and oversight of IT investments have resulted in $3 billion in savings. • IT reform. In December 2010, the Federal CIO issued a 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management. This 18-month plan specified five major goals: strengthening program management, streamlining governance and improving accountability, increasing engagement with industry, aligning the acquisition and budget processes with the technology cycle, and applying “light technology” and shared solutions. As part of this plan, OMB outlined actions to, among other things, strengthen agencies’ investment review boards and consolidate federal data centers. The plan stated that OMB will work with Congress to consolidate commodity IT spending (e.g., e-mail, data centers, content management systems, and web infrastructure) under agency CIOs. Further, the plan called for the role of federal agency CIOs to focus more on IT portfolio management. Categorization of IT In addition to these efforts to improve government spending on IT, Investments Is Intended to avoiding unnecessary duplicative investments is critically important. In Facilitate Identification of February 2002, OMB established the FEA initiative. According to OMB, the FEA is intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement through Similar IT Investments cross-agency analysis and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across agency programs. The FEA is composed of five “reference models” describing the federal government’s (1) business (or mission) processes and functions, independent of the agencies that perform them; (2) performance goals and outcome measures; (3) means of service delivery; (4) information and data definitions; and (5) technology standards. Since the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, OMB has required agencies to categorize their IT investments in their annual exhibit 53s according to primary function and sub-function as identified in the FEA reference models. For fiscal year 2012 submissions, agencies chose from the primary functions listed in table 1. Page 10 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 1: FEA Primary Functions for Investments, for Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Submissions Administrative Management Income Security Community and Social Services Information and Technology Management Controls and Oversight Intelligence Operations Correctional Activities Internal Risk Management and Mitigation Defense and National Security International Affairs and Commerce Disaster Management Law Enforcement Economic Development Legislative Relations Education Litigation and Judicial Activities Energy Natural Resources Environmental Management Planning and Budgeting Financial Management Public Affairs General Government Regulatory Development General Science and Innovation Revenue Collection Health Supply Chain Management Homeland Security Transportation Human Resource Management Workforce Management Source: OMB. In their fiscal year 2011 submissions, agencies reported the greatest number of IT investments in Information and Technology Management (1,536 investments), followed by Supply Chain Management (777 investments), and Human Resource Management (622 investments). Similarly, planned expenditures on investments were greatest in Information and Technology Management, at about $35.5 billion. Figure 3 depicts, by primary function, the total number of investments within the 27 federal agencies that report to the IT Dashboard. Page 11 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Figure 3: Number of Government IT Investments by Primary Function, as of July 2011 Additionally, agencies were required to choose a sub-function for each investment related to the primary function. These sub-functions are to be selected from the business reference model. Table 2 provides examples of primary functions and their corresponding sub-functions. Page 12 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 2: Examples of FEA Primary Functions and Corresponding Sub-Functions Primary function Sub-functions Information and Technology System Development Management Lifecycle/Change Management System Maintenance IT Infrastructure Maintenance Information Security Record Retention Information Management Information Sharing System and Network Monitoring Supply Chain Management Goods Acquisition Inventory Control Logistics Management Services Acquisition Human Resource Management HR Strategy Staff Acquisition Organization and Position Management Compensation Management Benefits Management Employee Performance Management Employee Relations Labor Relations Separation Management Human Resources Development Source: FEA Consolidated Reference Model. Page 13 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments GAO Has Previously During the past several years, we have issued multiple reports and Reported on Potential testimonies and made numerous recommendations to OMB and federal Duplication and the agencies to identify and reduce duplication within the federal government’s portfolio of IT investments. 21 Challenges of Identifying Duplicative Investments In March 2011, we reported an overview of federal programs and functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation existed. 22 Specifically, we identified 34 areas where agencies, offices, or initiatives had similar or overlapping objectives or provided similar services to the same populations, or where government missions were fragmented across multiple agencies or programs. These areas spanned a range of government missions: agriculture, defense, economic development, energy, general government, health, homeland security, international affairs, and social services. Within and across these missions, the report touched on hundreds of federal programs, including IT programs, affecting virtually all major federal departments and agencies. We reported that overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities could be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Thus, the reduction or elimination of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services. For example, we reported that, according to OMB, the number of federal data centers (defined as 21 GAO, IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and Additional Efforts Are Under Way to Better Inform Decision Making, GAO-12-210 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2011); GAO-11-826; Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, GAO-11-262 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); Information Technology: OMB’s Dashboard Has Increased Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, GAO-10-701 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2010); Information Technology: Management and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention, GAO-09-624T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2009); Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to Improve Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars, GAO-08-1051T (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008); Information Technology: Further Improvements Needed to Identify and Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects, GAO-07-1211T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2007); Information Technology: Improvements Needed to More Accurately Identify and Better Oversee Risky Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars, GAO-06-1099T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006); Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects, GAO-06-647 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006). 22 GAO-11-318SP. Page 14 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments data processing and storage facilities) grew from 432 in 1998 to more than 2,000 in 2010. These data centers often house similar types of equipment and provide similar processing and storage capabilities. These factors have led to concerns associated with the provision of redundant capabilities, the underutilization of resources, and the significant consumption of energy. Operating such a large number of centers places costly demands on the government. In an effort to address these inefficiencies, in February 2010, OMB launched the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative to guide federal agencies in consolidating data centers. Specifically, OMB and agencies plan to close over 950 of the more than 2,100 federal data centers by 2015. As of November 2011, agencies reported that a total of 149 data centers have been closed across the federal government. For example, 16 DOD data centers, 3 DOE centers, and 7 DHS centers have been closed. In September 2011, we reported that limitations in OMB’s guidance hindered efforts to identify IT duplication. 23 Specifically, OMB guidance stated that each IT investment needs to be mapped to a single functional category within the FEA to allow for the identification and analysis of potentially duplicative investments across agencies. We noted that this limits OMB’s ability to identify potentially duplicative investments both within and across agencies because similar investments may be organized under different functions. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB revise guidance to federal agencies on categorizing IT investments to ensure that the categorizations are clear and that it allow agencies to choose secondary categories, where applicable, which will aid in identifying potentially duplicative investments. OMB officials generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that they plan to update the FEA reference models in the fall of 2011 to provide additional clarity on how agencies should characterize investments in order to enhance the identification of potentially duplicative investments. We also reported that results of OMB initiatives to identify potentially duplicative investments were mixed and that several federal agencies did not routinely assess their entire IT portfolios to identify and remove or consolidate duplicative systems. Specifically, we said that most of OMB’s recent initiatives have not yet demonstrated results, and several agencies did not routinely assess legacy systems to determine if they are 23 GAO-11-826. Page 15 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments duplicative. As a result, we recommended that OMB require federal agencies to report the steps they take to ensure that their IT investments are not duplicative as part of their annual budget and IT investment submissions. OMB generally agreed with this recommendation. Although the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security Selected Agencies utilize various processes to prevent and reduce investment in duplicative Have Potentially programs and systems, potentially duplicative IT investments exist. Further complicating agencies’ ability to identify and address duplicative Duplicative investments is miscategorization of investments within agencies. Each of Investments; DOD the agencies has recently initiated plans to address many of these and DOE Need to Do investments. DHS’s efforts have resulted in the identification and elimination of duplication, but DOD’s and DOE’s initiatives have not yet More to Address led to the elimination or consolidation of duplicative investments or Them functionality. Until DOD and DOE demonstrate progress on their efforts to identify and eliminate duplicative investments, and correctly categorize investments, it will remain unclear whether they are avoiding investment in unnecessary systems. Potentially Duplicative IT Each of the agencies we reviewed has IT investment management Investments Exist at processes in place that are, in part, intended to prevent, identify, and Selected Agencies eliminate unnecessary duplicative investments. For example, DOD’s Information Technology Portfolio Management Implementation guide requires the evaluation of existing systems to identify duplication and determine whether to maintain, upgrade, delete, or replace identified systems. Similarly, DOE’s Guide to IT Capital Planning and Investment Control specifies that investment business case summaries should be reviewed for redundancies and opportunities for collaboration. Additionally, according to DHS’s Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide, proposed investments must be reviewed at the department level to determine if the proposed need is, among other things, being fulfilled by another DHS program, or already fulfilled by an existing capability. Page 16 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Even with such investment review processes, of the 810 investments we reviewed, 24 we identified 37 potentially duplicative investments at DOD and DOE within three FEA categories (Human Resource Management, Information and Technology Management, and Supply Chain Management). 25 These investments account for about $1.2 billion in total IT spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. Specifically, we identified • 31 potentially duplicative investments totaling approximately $1.2 billion at DOD, and • 6 potentially duplicative investments totaling approximately $8 million at DOE. The 37 investments comprise 12 groups of investments that appear to have duplicative purposes based on our analysis of each investment’s description, budget information, and other supporting documentation from agency officials (see table 3). For example, we identified three investments at DOE that were each responsible for managing the back- end infrastructure at three different locations. We also identified four DOD Navy personnel assignment investments—one system for officers, one for enlisted personnel, one for reservists, and a general assignment system—each of which is responsible for managing similar assignment functions. Additionally, the Air Force has five investments that are each responsible for contract management, and within the Navy there are another five contract management investments. Table 3 summarizes the 12 groups of potentially duplicative investments we identified by purpose and agency. (See app. II for details on each of the 37 potentially duplicative investments.) 24 We reviewed 11 percent of the total number of IT investments that agencies report to OMB through the IT Dashboard (810 of 7,227). The investments we reviewed represent approximately 24 percent of DOD’s IT portfolio in terms of the number of investments reported to the Dashboard, 19 percent of DOE’s, and 16 percent of DHS’s. See appendix I for a complete description of our objective, scope, and methodology. 25 Within the three selected functions, we narrowed our review to the following seven sub- functions: Benefits Management, Organization and Position Management, Employee Performance Management, Information Management, Information Security, Inventory Control, and Goods Acquisition. Page 17 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 3: Potentially Duplicative Investments Dollars in millions Planned and actual spending Number of fiscal years 2007- Department Branch or bureau Purpose investments 2012 DOD Air Force Contract Management 5 $41 Army Personnel Assignment Management 2 $12 Navy Acquisition Management 4 $407 Aviation Maintenance and Logistics 2 $85 Contract Management 5 $17 Housing Management 2 $5 Personnel Assignment Management 4 $28 Promotion Rating 2 $3 Workforce Management 3 $109 DOD Enterprisewide Civilian Personnel Management 2 $504 DOE Energy Programs Back-end Infrastructure 3 $1 Energy Programs & Environmental Electronic Records and Document 3 $7 and Other Defense Activities Management Total 37 $1,219 Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data. We did not identify any potentially duplicative investments at DHS within our sample; however, DHS has independently identified several duplicative investments and systems. Specifically, DHS officials have identified and, more importantly, reduced duplicative functionality in four investments by consolidating or eliminating certain systems within each of these investments. DHS officials have also identified 38 additional systems that they have determined to be duplicative. For example, officials identified multiple personnel action processing systems that could be consolidated. Officials from the three agencies reported that duplicative investments exist for a number of reasons, including decentralized governance within the departments and a lack of control over contractor facilities. For example, DOE investments for the management of back-end infrastructure are for facilities which DOE oversees but does not control. In addition, DOD officials indicated that a key reason for potential duplication at the Department of the Navy is that it had traditionally used a decentralized IT management approach, which allowed offices to develop systems independent of any other office’s IT needs or acquisitions. Page 18 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Further complicating the agencies’ ability to prevent investment in duplicative systems or programs is the miscategorization of investments. Among the 810 investments we reviewed, we identified 22 investments where the selected agencies assigned incorrect FEA primary functions or sub-functions. 26 Specifically, we identified 13 miscategorized investments at DOD, 4 at DOE, and 5 at DHS. Examples are as follows: • DOD’s Computer Aided Procurement System was initially categorized within the Information and Technology Management primary function, but DOD agreed that this investment should be classified within the Supply Chain Management primary function. • DOE’s Environmental Management Headquarters Central Internet Database was initially categorized within the Information and Technology Management primary function, but DOE agreed that this investment could be assigned the Environmental Management primary function and the Environmental Monitoring and Forecasting sub-function. • DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency—Minor Personnel/Training Systems investment was initially categorized within the Employee Performance Management sub-function, but DHS agreed that this investment should be assigned to the Human Resources Development sub-function. Agency officials agreed that they had inadvertently miscategorized 15 of the 22 investments we identified. However, proper categorization is necessary in order to analyze and identify duplicative investments, both within and across agencies. Each improper categorization represents a possible missed opportunity to identify and eliminate an unjustified duplicative investment. Until agencies correctly categorize their investments, they cannot be confident that their investments are not duplicative and are justified, and they may continue expending valuable resources developing and maintaining unnecessarily duplicative systems. 26 See appendix III for a complete listing of these investments. Page 19 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Agencies Have Recently DHS has taken action to improve its processes for identifying and Initiated Plans to Address eliminating duplicative investments, which has produced tangible results. Potential Duplication in Specifically, in 2010 and 2011, the DHS CIO conducted program and portfolio reviews of hundreds of IT investments and systems. DHS Many Investments, but evaluated portfolios of investments within its components to avoid Results Have Yet to Be investing in systems that are duplicative or overlapping, and to identify Realized at DOD and DOE and leverage investments across the department. Among other things, this effort contributed to the identification and consolidation of duplicative functionality within four investments. DHS also has plans to further consolidate systems within these investments by 2014, which is expected to produce approximately $41 million in cost savings. The portfolio reviews also contributed to the identification of 38 additional systems that are duplicative. Additionally, the DHS CIO and Chief Human Capital Officer are coordinating to streamline and consolidate the department’s human resources investments. A summary of the investments for which DHS eliminated duplicative functionality and systems is provided in table 4 below. Table 4: DHS Investments Consolidated or Eliminated to Reduce Duplicative Functionality Cost savings Investment title Action estimate DHS—Integrated Security Consolidated six personnel security-related systems into DHS’s $2 million annually a Management System enterprisewide security suitability system. Federal Emergency Management Eliminated this investment and now provides time and attendance $284,000 over 2 years Agency—Time And Attendance functionality through DHS’s enterprisewide time and attendance system. Collection and Reporting Homeland Security Information Consolidated two DHS components’ portals (e.g., the Federal Emergency $1 million over 5 years Network Management Agency’s Fire Services Portal) into the Homeland Security b Information Network. Human Resources Information Consolidated five time and attendance systems into DHS’s Not available Technology enterprisewide time and attendance system, as well as the Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center system. Source: DHS. a DHS reported that another personnel security-related system is scheduled to be consolidated into this investment during fiscal year 2012. b DHS reported that an additional 12 portals will be consolidated into this investment before 2014. DHS officials estimate that these efforts will result in another approximately $41 million in savings. DOD has begun taking action to address 29 of the 31 duplicative investments we identified. For example, according to DOD officials, four of the DOD Navy acquisition management investments—two for Naval Sea Systems Command and two for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Page 20 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Command—will be reviewed to determine whether these multiple support systems are necessary. In addition, DOD reported that the Air Force is in the process of developing a single contract writing system to replace the five potentially duplicative investments we have identified. Moreover, the Department of the Navy has implemented an executive oversight board that is chaired by the Navy CIO, and it is now the Navy’s single senior information management and technology policy and governance forum. The Department of the Navy also required all IT expenditures greater than $100,000 to be centrally reviewed and approved by the Navy CIO to ensure that they are not duplicative. 27 Officials reported that these initiatives will include the review of Navy’s 22 potentially duplicative investments that we identified. Similarly, DOE has plans under way to address each of the 6 investments we identified as potentially duplicative. Specifically, DOE officials established working groups that are addressing the two groups of duplicative investments we identified. These working groups are to address records management and back-end infrastructure, and are looking across the department to minimize redundancy in each of these areas. In addition, the CIO stated that DOE has developed a departmental strategy for electronic records management whereby a small number of approved records management applications will be identified for departmentwide use. Moreover, in a broader effort to reduce duplication across the department, in September and October 2011, DOE held technical strategic reviews, known as “TechStrat” sessions, which are aimed at exploring opportunities to consolidate DOE’s commodity IT services, such as e-mail and help desk support, among the various DOE offices. The first two sessions provided opportunities for DOE bureaus to identify and share lessons learned, and established action items to improve DOE’s IT investment portfolio. While these efforts could eventually yield results, DOD’s and DOE’s initiatives have not yet led to the consolidation or elimination of duplication. For example, while DOD provided us with documented milestones—several of which have passed—for improving the Department of the Navy’s IT investment review processes, officials did 27 Under Secretary of the Navy’s memo of December 3, 2010, “Department of the Navy Information Technology (IT)/Cyberspace Efficiency Initiatives and Realignment” and September 19, 2011, “Department of the Navy Secretariat Information Technology Expenditure Approval Authority (lTEAA).” Page 21 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments not provide us with any examples of duplicative investments that they had consolidated or eliminated. Similarly, while DOE officials have documented time frames for consolidating DOE’s commodity IT services, electronic records management investments, and identity management investments, officials were unable to demonstrate that they have consolidated or eliminated unjustified duplicative investments. Additionally, DOD does not have plans under way to address the remaining 2 of the 31 potentially duplicative investments. DOD officials stated that they do not have plans to address these investments because they do not agree that they are potentially duplicative. However, agency officials were unable to demonstrate that investing in these systems and programs was justified. Table 5 provides more information on the unaddressed potentially duplicative investments at DOD. Table 5: Unaddressed Potentially Duplicative DOD Investments Dollars in millions Total IT spending Similar Investment for fiscal years purpose Branch title Description 2007-2012 Civilian DOD Executive Civilian personnel management system that will become the $0.591 Personnel Enterprise- Performance and enterprisewide automated solution for senior professional Management wide Appraisal Tool performance management. Defense Civilian Corporate human resources system for civilian employees $503.280 Personnel Data supporting the military departments and defense agencies. System Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Table 6 summarizes the number of potentially duplicative investments for which Defense and Energy have actions under way, as well as the number of investments that remain unaddressed. Table 6: Agency Plans to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments Potentially Plans under way duplicative to address No plans Agency investments duplication under way DOD 31 29 2 DOE 6 6 0 Total 37 35 2 Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data. Page 22 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Until DOD and DOE demonstrate, through existing transparency mechanisms such as OMB’s IT Dashboard, that they are making progress in identifying and eliminating duplicative investments, it will remain unclear whether they are avoiding investment in unnecessary systems. While agencies have various investment review processes in place that Conclusions are partially designed to avoid investing in systems that are duplicative, we have identified 37 potentially duplicative investments at DOD and DOE. These investments account for about $1.2 billion in total IT spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. Given that our review covered 11 percent (810 investments) of the total number of IT investments that agencies report to OMB, it raises questions about how much more potential duplication exists. DHS’s recent efforts have resulted in the identification and consolidation of duplicative functionality in several investments and related systems. DOD and DOE have also recently initiated plans to address many investments that we identified, but these recent initiatives have not yet resulted in the consolidation or elimination of duplicative investments or functionality. Further complicating agencies’ ability to prevent, identify, and eliminate duplicative investments is miscategorization of investments within agencies. Without demonstrating the progress of efforts to identity and eliminate duplicative investments, DOD and DOE will be unable to provide assurance that they are avoiding investment in unnecessary systems. Similarly, until DOD, DOE, and DHS, correctly categorize their investments, they are limiting their ability to identify opportunities to consolidate or eliminate duplicative investments. To better ensure agencies avoid investing in duplicative investments, we Recommendations for recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the CIO to take the Executive Action following two actions: • utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard, to report on the results of the department’s efforts to identify and eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment we have identified, as well as any other duplicative investments; and Page 23 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments • correct the miscategorizations for the DOD investments we identified and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency submissions. We recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the CIO to take the following two actions: • utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard, to report on the results of the department’s efforts to identify and eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment we have identified, as well as any other duplicative investments; and • correct the miscategorizations for the DOE investments we identified and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency submissions. We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the CIO to take the following action: • correct the miscategorizations for the DHS investments we identified and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency submissions. We provided a draft of our report to the three departments selected for Agency Comments our review and to OMB. In commenting on the draft, DOD and DHS and Our Evaluation generally concurred with our recommendations. DOE generally agreed with our first recommendation and disagreed with parts of our second recommendation. In addition, OMB provided oral technical comments that we incorporated, where appropriate. Each department’s comments are discussed in more detail below, and the written comments are reprinted in appendixes IV, V, and VI. DOD’s Deputy CIO for Information Management, Integration, and Technology within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration provided written comments, which stated that the department agreed with both of our recommendations. DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, where appropriate. The Director of DHS’s Departmental GAO/Office of Inspector General Liaison Office provided written comments, which stated that the department agreed with our recommendation to correct the Page 24 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments miscategorized investments and ensure that investments are correctly categorized. Additionally, DHS provided documentation showing that the department had recently corrected the miscategorizations in response to our recommendation. The department also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The DOE CIO provided written comments in which the department generally agreed with the first recommendation and disagreed with parts of the second recommendation. Regarding our first recommendation, to identify and eliminate potentially duplicative investments as appropriate, DOE generally agreed with the recommendation and stated that the Office of the CIO is committed to increasing its IT investment oversight. The department added that for the non-major investments that GAO identified as being potentially duplicative, it will update GAO on its progress through means other than the IT Dashboard, since non-major investments are not individually tracked on the Dashboard. However, DOE also indicated that it does not believe certain investments that we identified are potentially duplicative. Specifically, DOE did not agree that the two card issuance and maintenance, and three logical access control investments were potentially duplicative. Rather, it stated that the investments in these groups were listed individually on the exhibit 53 for reporting purposes, in order to show how the funding was being distributed at various locations. According to DOE, these costs were for the labor involved in deploying the technology, and could not be avoided given the separate geographical locations. We reviewed this additional information, and subsequently removed these five investments from our list of potentially duplicative investments. Regarding our second recommendation to correct miscategorizations and ensure that investments are correctly categorized, DOE disagreed with parts of this recommendation. Specifically, DOE agreed that two of the four investments could be recategorized. However, it disagreed that the two training center investments should be recategorized, and stated that they should continue to be categorized under the Employee Performance Management FEA sub-function because of how they are funded. However, OMB guidance defines Employee Performance Management as activities that enable managers to make distinctions in performance and link individual performance to agency goals and mission accomplishment. In other words, this sub-function involves enabling managers to assess the performance of personnel—and does not involve providing training to personnel. In contrast, the Human Resources Development sub-function—which OMB guidance defines as administering, delivering, and designing employee development Page 25 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments programs—is a more appropriate category. 28 Therefore, we maintain our position. Additionally, DOE stated that we identified only 4 miscategorized investments from its total population of 876 investments. However, this implies we reviewed all 876 investments. As stated in our report, we looked at 19 percent of DOE’s reported IT investment population, or 167 investments, and identified 4 miscategorized investments from that subset. In addition, DOE stated that in our September 2011 report we highlighted limitations in OMB’s guidance regarding proper categorization of investments and further stated that, while OMB agreed to make improvements to the guidance, agencies and OMB did not have time to implement the changes before our new audit began. In our September report, we noted that, under OMB’s guidance, agencies were unable to designate a secondary category, in addition to the primary category for each of the investments. However, in this report, our concern is with the accuracy of agencies’ selections of the primary categories for certain investments. These are two independent concerns with investment categorization—both of which need to be addressed and are not necessarily dependent on each other. In other words, regardless of whether agencies are able to designate a secondary category, in addition to a primary category, it is still critically important that the primary category is accurate. DOE made several additional comments that we address below: • The department stated that it has implemented various investment review processes to help identify potentially duplicative investments and to manage these investments. We acknowledge in the report that DOE has such processes in place, and we provide examples of the department’s existing IT investment management processes that are, in part, intended to prevent, identify, and eliminate duplicative investments. 28 OMB, FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document Version 2.3 (Washington, D.C., October 2007). Page 26 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments • DOE stated that our draft report mentions the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative but that we did not specifically discuss DOE’s accomplishment in this area. In response, we added the number of federal data centers that DOE reportedly closed. • The department stated that prior to the GAO audit, DOE officials realized potential duplicative investments may exist in back-end infrastructure and that a working group has been meeting regularly to identify duplicative investments and investigate the possibility of consolidating. We agree with this statement, and we acknowledge the working group’s efforts in the report. However, as we report, this initiative has not yet resulted in the consolidation or elimination of duplicative investments or functionality. • According to DOE, it had developed a departmental strategy for electronic records management whereby a small number of approved records management applications will be identified for department- wide use. It added that the three records management investments cited in our report will remain in place while the departmental strategy is being implemented. In response to this comment, we updated the report to acknowledge that the CIO stated that DOE has developed a departmental strategy, in addition to establishing an electronic records management working group. However, similar to the back-end infrastructure, these efforts have not yet resulted in the consolidation or elimination of duplicative investments or functionality, and thus, DOE may continue investing in unnecessary systems until such actions are taken. • Lastly, DOE noted that in our report we discuss the Department’s TechStrat sessions related to commodity IT services but did not discuss the TechStrat sessions conducted by its Office of Environmental Management on its major investments. We did not add this activity to the report, because supporting documentation was not provided to indicate that this session was conducted to specifically reduce duplication, rather than to review major investments with performance problems. Finally, OMB’s Chief Architect provided comments regarding the office’s efforts to oversee IT investments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. Page 27 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 11 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. In addition, the report also will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions on the matters discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or email@example.com. 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. David A. Powner Director, Information Technology Management Issues Page 28 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments List of Requesters The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman The Honorable Susan M. Collins Ranking Member Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Thomas R. Carper Chairman Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Darrell Issa Chairman The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Government Reform United States House of Representatives The Honorable Ben Quayle United States House of Representatives Page 29 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology Our objective was to identify potentially duplicative information technology (IT) investments at selected agencies and actions these agencies are taking to address them. To select agencies for review, we used the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) fiscal year 2011 exhibit 53. Specifically, we downloaded this data from OMB’s IT Dashboard and used it to identify the agencies and their number of IT investments as reported on the Dashboard. We used this analysis to select for review three of the agencies with the highest number of IT investments—the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS). To identify potentially duplicative investments, we further narrowed our analysis of the exhibit 53 data to the largest Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) 1 primary functions, by number of investments. Within each of the selected primary functions, we selected the two sub-functions with the most investments. Table 7 identifies the FEA primary functions and FEA sub-functions used to select the investments for review. Table 7: FEA Primary Functions and Sub-Functions Used to Select IT Investments FEA primary function FEA sub-function Human Resource Management Benefits Management a Employee Performance Management a Organization and Position Management Information and Technology Management Information Management Information Security Supply Chain Management Goods Acquisition Inventory Control Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. a Within the Human Resource Management function, our selection criteria resulted in a tie for the second-highest sub-function; we elected to include both of these sub functions. This resulted in a nongeneralizable sample of 810 IT investments, which is 11 percent of the total number of IT investments that agencies report to OMB through the IT Dashboard (810 of 7,227).The investments we 1 According to OMB, the FEA is intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement through cross-agency analysis and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across agency programs. Page 30 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments reviewed represent approximately 24 percent of DOD’s IT portfolio in terms of number of investments that it reports to the Dashboard, 19 percent of DOE’s, and 16 percent of DHS’s. To determine the reliability of the data on the IT Dashboard, we reviewed recent GAO reports that identified issues with the accuracy and reliability of agency data on the IT Dashboard. 2 We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report, which was to identify selected investments to include in our review. We then reviewed the name and narrative description of each investment’s purpose to identify similarities among related investments within each agency (we did not review investments across agencies). 3 This formed the basis of establishing groupings of similar investments. We discussed the groupings with each of the selected agencies, and we obtained further information from agency officials. We also reviewed and assessed agencies’ rationales for having multiple systems that perform similar functions. Additionally, when analyzing each investment’s description, we compared each investment’s designated FEA primary category and sub-category to OMB’s definitions for each FEA primary category and sub-category and determined whether the investment was placed in the correct FEA category. We obtained additional information from agency officials about these discrepancies. To identify the actions agencies have taken to address the potentially duplicative investments we identified, we reviewed agency documentation, such as agency memos and working group charters, and interviewed officials. We also reviewed documentation and interviewed agency officials to identify what investments were consolidated, eliminated, or modified to decrease duplication and the estimated cost savings (if available) associated with these actions. We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards required that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 2 GAO-12-210, GAO-11-262, and GAO-10-701. 3 Certain investments were not placed in groups because the investment descriptions were too broad. Additionally, IT investments identified as Funding Contributions were not included, since they are managed by other agencies. Page 31 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments 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 objective. Page 32 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix II: Further Information on Potentially Duplicative Investments The tables in this appendix provide information on the 37 investments that we identified as potentially duplicative within the three selected FEA functions (Human Resource Management, Information and Technology Management, and Supply Chain Management). 1 Specifically, we identified 31 potentially duplicative IT investments at DOD and 6 at DOE. Highlighted investments indicate the instances in which the agency does not currently have plans under way to address the potential duplication. Table 8: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOD Dollars in millions Total IT spending for Bureau—investment FEA primary fiscal years Similar purpose title Description function 2007-2012 Contract Management Air Force–Contract Contract writing system for weapons systems and Supply Chain $4.663 Writing System science and technology. Management Air Force–Automated Provides management and preparation of purchase Supply Chain $22.604 Contract Preparation requests and amendments, solicitations and Management System amendments, offers, contracts, orders, modifications, supporting documents relating to the acquisition process, required management reports, and interfacing capabilities. Air Force–Contracting Online reporting tool for logistics contracting data. Supply Chain $9.952 Information Database Management System Air Force–Acquisition Single repository of information for items centrally Supply Chain $2.290 and Due In System procured at the Air Logistics Center; maintains and Management processes data for contracting and requirements activities from purchase requirements initiation through life cycle. Air Force–Contract Provides decision support and calculation Supply Chain $1.183 Profit Reporting assistance and reporting functions for Air Force Management Systems and Army procurement actions to DOD and other major commands and government agencies. 1 Within the three selected functions, we narrowed our review to the following seven sub- functions: Benefits Management, Organization and Position Management, Employee Performance Management, Information Management, Information Security, Inventory Control, and Goods Acquisition. Page 33 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Dollars in millions Total IT spending for Bureau—investment FEA primary fiscal years Similar purpose title Description function 2007-2012 Personnel Assignment Army–Enlisted Supports the management of the enlisted force to Human $11.545 Management Distribution and include assignments, deletions, and deferments. Resource Assignment System Users can create, validate, and modify requisitions. Management It provides enlisted strength management information, forecasting, and online query capability. Army–Assignment Self service web-based system that enables active Human $0.006 Satisfaction Key Army enlisted soldiers to directly update Resource assignment preferences and allows soldiers to Management volunteer for duty locations and special duty. Acquisition Navy–Naval Sea Naval Sea Systems Command miscellaneous Supply Chain $3.347 Management Systems Command subsystems, projects, programs, special interest Management Acquisition Capabilities items, IT organizations, and sub-initiatives in support of acquisition capabilities not delineated elsewhere. Navy–Space and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Supply Chain $129.149 Naval Warfare miscellaneous subsystems, projects, programs, Management Systems Command special interest items, IT organizations, and sub- Acquisition Capabilities initiatives in support of acquisition capabilities not delineated elsewhere. Navy–Naval Sea Naval Sea Systems Command miscellaneous Supply Chain $3.486 Systems Command subsystems, projects, programs, special interest Management Systems Acquisition items, IT organizations, and sub-initiatives in Management support of systems acquisition management Capabilities capabilities not delineated elsewhere. Navy–Space and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Supply Chain $271.084 Naval Warfare miscellaneous subsystems, projects, programs, Management Systems Command special interest items, IT organizations, and sub- Systems Acquisition initiatives in support of systems acquisition Management management capabilities not delineated elsewhere. Capabilities Aviation Maintenance Navy–Decision Functions as an inventory management, current Supply Chain $50.195 and Logistics Knowledge and historical flight, maintenance, engine, and Management Programming for aircraft data repository and warehouse. It is also Logistics Analysis and planned to replace other logistical or tracking Technical Evaluation systems as investment funds are made available. Navy–Airborne Central repository of airborne weapons Supply Chain $34.308 Weapons Info System maintenance and logistics information. It also Management provides full life cycle management of weapons systems. Page 34 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Dollars in millions Total IT spending for Bureau—investment FEA primary fiscal years Similar purpose title Description function 2007-2012 Contract Management Navy–Integrated System that supports the processing of Supply Chain $10.267 Technical Item procurement actions from requirements generation Management Management Program to the completion or termination of the contractual cycle. Includes all involved work from interactive information to generate procurement documentation. Navy–Space and Application used to administer information related Supply Chain $0.858 Naval Warfare to procurement solicitations, solicitation Management Systems Command amendments, large and small contracts, delivery Contract Information orders, contract closeout actions, and simplified Management System acquisition information. Navy–Space and Internal contract management information system Supply Chain $0.022 Naval Warfare that provides real-time data on procurement Management Systems Command acquisitions that are in the process of being Systems Center awarded and all major activities in the contracting Atlantic Contract field supporting Space and Naval Warfare Systems Information Center Atlantic. Management System Navy–Contract Data Part of Navy’s paperless process that allows for the Supply Chain $0.539 Requirements List electronic preparation of Contract Data Management Requirements List required for contracting documents. Navy–Acquisition Automated procurement system for the Supply Chain $4.889 Management management of all procurement activities. Management Automation System Housing Management Navy–APPLY/SLATER Online means for junior and senior officers to apply Human $0.671 for housing in the Navy Reserve. Resource Management Navy–Commander, Systems that support Manpower/Billet housing Human $4.154 Navy Installations applications for Naval Installations Command. Resource Command Management Manpower/Billets Personnel Assignment Navy–Career Integrated web-based architecture framework that Human $14.180 Management Management System will allow fleet personnel to manage distributions, Resource Interactive Detailing requisitions, and assignments. Management Navy–Officer Online officer personnel information and order- Human $1.014 Assignment writing capabilities for use by officer assignment Resource Information System II and placement personnel. Management Navy–Enlisted Online enlisted personnel information and order- Human $1.408 Assignment writing capabilities for use by enlisted assignment Resource information System and placement personnel. Management Navy–Reserve Order Standard Navy order-writing system for active and Human $11.527 Writing System reserve officer and enlisted personnel. Resource Management Page 35 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Dollars in millions Total IT spending for Bureau—investment FEA primary fiscal years Similar purpose title Description function 2007-2012 Promotion Rating Navy–Fleet Rating Provides a comprehensive assessment of sailors Human $2.749 Identification System and their eligibility and/or qualification for ratings or Resource jobs for specialized skills. Additionally, it supports Management the management of accessions for entry-level personnel, entry-level career path, and administration of the reenlistment process. Navy–Departmental Applications support the management of Human $0.610 Systems performance, performance evaluation, physical Resource fitness program, human resources, personnel Management promotion, and the administration of recognition programs. For example, the Enlisted Selection Board System provides eligibility files for active duty and reserve senior enlisted members, and the Officer Promotion Administrative System maintains officer personnel data applicable to the promotion and selection board process. Workforce Navy–Total Force Family of systems that support specific functions Human $89.601 Management Administration System within the hire-to-retire end-to-end business Resource processes to include functional areas such as Management permanent change of station assignments, retention, mobilization, manpower planning, personnel and pay, promotion and performance, family advocacy, and civilian workforce development. Navy–Manpower Comprised of 13 models supporting core Human $13.819 Models manpower planning processes of accessing, Resource classifying, retaining, promoting, mobilizing, Management distributing, and assigning Marines. Navy–Total Workforce Web-based application that is used by human Human $5.704 Management System resources management officials to track and Resource manage their workforce data requirements. Management Civilian Personnel DOD enterprisewide– Civilian personnel management system that will Human $0.591 Management Executive Performance become the enterprisewide automated solution for Resource and Appraisal Tool senior professional performance management. Management DOD enterprisewide– Corporate human resources system for civilian Human $503.280 Defense Civilian employees supporting the military departments and Resource Personnel Data defense agencies. Management System Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Page 36 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 9: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOE Dollars in millions Total IT spending for FEA primary fiscal years Similar purpose Bureau—investment title Description function 2007-2012 Back-end Energy Programs–Office of Management of back-end Information and $0.250 Infrastructure Science Headquarters Back-end infrastructure at headquarters. Technology Infrastructure Management Energy Programs–Office of Management of back-end Information and $0.648 Science Oak Ridge Back-end infrastructure at the Oak Ridge, Technology Infrastructure Tennessee, field site. Management Energy Programs–Office of Management of back-end Information and $0.093 Science Chicago Back-end infrastructure at the Chicago field site. Technology Infrastructure Management Electronic Records Environmental and Other Defense Electronic records and document Information and $4.337 and Document Activities–Environmental management system that is to ensure Technology Management Management Carlsbad Field the capture, preservation, and indexing Management Office Electronic Records and of information created either manually Document Mgmt System or electronically in support of all Carlsbad, New Mexico, field office programs. Environmental and Other Defense Allows reviewers to track the review, Information and $1.418 Activities–Health and Safety redaction, and disposition of document Technology Electronic Document Review review requests. Management System Environmental and Other Defense Includes the Office of Legacy Information and $1.003 Activities–Office of Legacy Management Records Management Technology Management Record System and the Hummingbird Records Management Management System Management System. It also covers the operations and maintenance services for Hummingbird Records and Document Management System. Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. Page 37 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix III: Miscategorized Investments The tables in this appendix provide information on the 22 investments that we identified as incorrectly categorized by the selected agencies according to OMB’s FEA. 1 Specifically, we identified 13 miscategorized investments at DOD (2 within Air Force, 2 within Army, 3 within Navy, and 6 enterprisewide), 4 at DOE, and 5 at DHS. Highlighted investments indicate the seven instances in which the agency did not agree that the investments were miscategorized. Table 10: Miscategorized Air Force Investments at DOD Original Suggested Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function Agency IT Resources Budget for IT resources that Information and Information Information and IT satisfy most IT hardware and Technology Management Technology Infrastructure software requirements, such Management Management Maintenance as computers and scanners, not handled locally. Hill Ogden Air A grouping of the flight Information and Information Human Resource Human Logistics Center 508 simulator training systems. Technology Management Management Resources Anti-Submarine Management Development Warfare Warfighting Mission Area 2 Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Table 11: Miscategorized Army Investments at DOD Original Suggested Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function Army Wide Provides resources that improve Information and Information Information and IT Information System and assure the reliability of Technology Management Technology Infrastructure Service Support electric power and other utilities. Management Management Maintenance It also supports enterprise software licensing agreements. Personnel Enterprise IT infrastructure maintenance in Information and Information Information and IT Support-Automation support of a range of human Technology Management Technology Infrastructure resource activities. Management Management Maintenance Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 1 Additional details of OMB’s FEA can be found at this address: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea. Page 38 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 12: Miscategorized Navy Investments at DOD Original Suggested Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function ADT Picture An access control and security Information and Information Information and Information Picture management system that offers a Technology Management Technology Security high performance database, Management Management detailed history, and active reporting generation. It also keeps access control records for buildings, rooms, facilities, turn- styles, doors, lockers, and equipment. Judge Advocate Overall architecture for all Judge Information and Information Information and IT General’s Advocate General system support Technology Management Technology Infrastructure Services services and applications. Management Management Maintenance System Secured Provides single sign-on through Information and Information Information and Information Enterprise common access card-based public Technology Management Technology Security Access Tool key infrastructure certificates to a Management Management number of Pacific Fleet-Area of Responsibility web-based applications. Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Page 39 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 13: Miscategorized Enterprisewide Investments at DOD Original Suggested Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function Computer Aided Application that converts Information and Information Supply Chain Services Procurement telecommunications service Technology Management Management Acquisition System requests and orders into Management telecommunications requirements that are used for vendor solicitation. Global Surface Port opening capability that Information and Information Information and IT Infrastructure Distribution provides the facility, automated Technology Management Technology Maintenance Management tools, and communication Management Management infrastructure. Industrial A centralized web-based platform Information and Information Administrative Security Security Facility that manages the industrial Technology Management Management Management Database security facility clearance Management process. Infostructure Centrally procures IT hardware Information and Information Information and IT Infrastructure and logically consolidates certain Technology Management Technology Maintenance transportation command Management Management systems. Additionally, it develops IT solutions to rapidly meet gaps in distribution processes. National Funds for the day-to-day Information and Information Information and IT Infrastructure Defense operations and maintenance of Technology Management Technology Maintenance University’s IT the National Defense University Management Management Sustainment network, related software and its maintenance, information security and assurance of the network, and development of systems. Rates and Used to update Information and Information Supply Chain Services Tariffs File telecommunications contracts Technology Management Management Acquisition System information with defined tariffs Management and tariff charges. Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Page 40 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 14: Miscategorized Investments at DOE Original Suggested Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function Environmental Management Designed to give the Information and Information Environmental Environmental Headquarters Central general public access to Technology Management Management Monitoring Internet Database information about DOE’s Management and nuclear waste Forecasting management and cleanup program. National Nuclear Security This lab’s software Human Resource Employee Human Resource Human Administration Los Alamos applications training Management Performance Management Resources National Laboratory center. Management Development Software Applications Training Center National Nuclear Security This lab’s virtual training Human Resource Employee Human Resource Human Administration Los Alamos center. Management Performance Management Resources National Laboratory Virtual Management Development Training Center Office of Nuclear Energy Provides for the Information and Information Information and Information Idaho National Laboratory management of data calls Technology Security Technology Management Classified Cyber Life Cycle from DOE, the Inspector Management Management Management General, and other federal entities. Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. Page 41 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Table 15: Miscategorized Investments at DHS Original Suggested Investment title Description Primary function Sub-function Primary function Sub-function United States Customs Satellite television Human Resource Employee Human Resource Human and Border Protection– broadcasting system that Management Performance Management Resources Television supports mission-critical Management Development programs for the Office of Training and Development. Federal Emergency Minor personnel and training Human Resource Employee Human Resource Human Management Agency– systems such as Employee Management Performance Management Resources Minor Personnel/Training Knowledge Center and Management Development Systems Complaints. United States Supports the centralized Information and Information Information and Information Immigration and issuance of user Technology Management Technology Security Customs Enforcement– identification numbers and Management Management Password Issuance and passwords to valid users of Control System United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement application systems. Transportation Security Provides delivery and Human Resource Employee Human Resource Human Administration–Online maintenance of training Management Performance Management Resources Learning Center records for Transportation Management Development Security Administration employees and contractors. United States Coast A ship-handling simulator Human Resource Employee Human Resource Human Guard–Ship Control and used to train personnel on Management Performance Management Resources Navigation Training navigation, bridge team Management Development System coordination, restricted water transits, and emergency procedures. Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. Page 42 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix IV: Comments from the Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense Department of Defense Page 43 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense Page 44 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix V: Comments from the Department Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy of Energy Page 45 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy Page 46 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy Page 47 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy Page 48 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix VI: Comments from the Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security Page 49 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security Page 50 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments Acknowledgments David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286, or firstname.lastname@example.org GAO Contact In addition to the individual named above, the following staff made key Staff contributions to this report: Shannin O’Neill, Assistant Director; Cortland Acknowledgments Bradford; Javier Irizarry; Lee McCracken; and Kevin Walsh. (311251) Page 51 GAO-12-241 Information Technology Investments GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no Obtaining Copies of cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO Reports and GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, Testimony go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. Connect with GAO Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. Contact: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: email@example.com Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, firstname.lastname@example.org, (202) 512- Congressional 4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room Relations 7125, Washington, DC 20548 Chuck Young, Managing Director, email@example.com, (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, DC 20548 Please Print on Recycled Paper.
Information Technology: Departments of Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-02-17.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)