oversight

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)

                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.
pownerd@gao.gov.

                                                                                                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
pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in
appendix VII.




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 pownerd@gao.gov
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: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.