Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation
Gao ID: GAO-05-960R September 27, 2005Federal government purchases of goods and services have grown to more than $300 billion annually. The Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) is the only governmentwide system for obtaining information on how these funds are being spent. The FPDS-NG was intended to improve the prior FPDS system in several ways, including providing more timely and accurate data; enabling users to generate their own reports; and providing easier user access to data. The system was developed by Global Computer Enterprises, Inc., (GCE) under contract with the General Services Administration (GSA). The FPDS-NG is currently in a transition period, which is scheduled to end by October 2005. We initiated a review to assess the extent to which FPDS-NG has demonstrated the intended improvements, and to determine whether the FPDS-NG is currently capable of collecting and reporting on interagency contracting data. We reviewed documents related to FPDS-NG; held discussions with officials from GSA, GCE, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and with private sector and government users. We also made numerous attempts to use the system to generate reports.
Our review raised concerns regarding whether the FPDS-NG has achieved its intended improvements. The following examples reflect our key areas of concern regarding the new system. Timeliness and accuracy of data: Interviews with several users indicate a lack of confidence in the system's ability to provide timely and accurate data. Ease of use and access to data: The FPDS-NG Web site provides users the ability to generate reports at any time through standard report templates or an "ad hoc" reporting tool. Although GAO analysts attended contractor-provided training on these reporting tools, we did not find either easy to use. Over the last decade, Congress has repeatedly called for DOD to report on certain types of interagency contracting and financial data. Recently, the Senate Armed Services Committee conveyed its expectation that DOD business systems have the capability to track basic information about interagency transactions. This information includes the following: number and dollar value of transactions under each interagency contracting vehicle; the status of open transactions; the status of funds under interagency transactions (including appropriation type and year, and fund balance received, obligated, expended, and available); and the amount of any funds returned or to be returned to DOD or to the Department of the Treasury. DOD officials have indicated that they plan to use FPDS-NG to track interagency contracting data and to request changes to the system to capture more specific information in this regard. GSA documentation indicates that the vision for FPDS-NG included system capability that was flexible enough to change as new data collection needs arose, such as those related to interagency contracting activities. GSA officials told us that some interagency contracting data are available in FPDS-NG. However, our efforts to obtain data and to generate reports on interagency contracting transactions were unsuccessful. GSA officials also expressed concerns that FPDS-NG may not be the appropriate system to collect certain types of data on interagency transactions. Given these circumstances, it is unclear whether FPDS-NG has the flexibility to address these new data needs and whether it is the appropriate system for this purpose.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: William T. Woods Team: Government Accountability Office: Acquisition and Sourcing Management Phone: (202) 512-8214GAO-05-960R, Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-960R
entitled 'Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-
Next Generation' which was released on September 27, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
September 30, 2005:
The Honorable Joshua B. Bolten:
Director, Office of Management and Budget:
Subject: Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-
Next Generation:
Dear Mr. Bolten:
Federal government purchases of goods and services have grown to more
than $300 billion annually.[Footnote 1] The Federal Procurement Data
System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) is the only governmentwide system for
obtaining information on how these funds are being spent. The FPDS-NG
was intended to improve the prior FPDS system in several ways,
including providing more timely and accurate data; enabling users to
generate their own reports; and providing easier user access to data.
The system was developed by Global Computer Enterprises (GCE) under
contract with the General Services Administration (GSA). The FPDS-NG is
currently in a transition period, which is scheduled to end by October
2005.
We initiated a review to assess the extent to which FPDS-NG has
demonstrated the intended improvements, and to determine whether the
FPDS-NG is currently capable of collecting and reporting on interagency
contracting data. As discussed more fully in the Scope and Methodology
section of this letter, we reviewed documents related to FPDS-NG; held
discussions with officials from GSA and GCE, and private sector and
government users. We also made numerous attempts to use the system to
generate reports.
Based on our review, we have concerns regarding whether the new system
has achieved the intended improvements in the areas of timeliness and
accuracy of data, as well as ease of use and access to data. We also
are concerned whether the FPDS-NG system has the flexibility to capture
data on interagency contracting transactions. Completion of the FPDS-NG
transition provides an opportunity for assessing the implementation of
the system to date and to make needed adjustments prior to exercising
options for additional periods of performance by the FPDS-NG
contractor.[Footnote 2] We are recommending actions to help achieve the
intended improvements for FPDS-NG, which should be considered as part
of that assessment.
BACKGROUND:
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974 required that the
Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) establish a system for
collecting and developing information about federal procurement
contracts.[Footnote 3] Subsequently, the FPDS was implemented in 1978.
Since 1982, GSA has administered the system on OFPP's behalf. The
Congress, GAO, executive branch agencies, and the public rely on FPDS
data for information on agency contracting actions, governmentwide
procurement trends, and achievement of goals related to small business.
Since 2000, efforts have been underway to modernize the FPDS. In April
2003, GSA awarded the FPDS-Next Generation contract to Global Computer
Enterprises. The FPDS-NG became operational in October 2003 and entered
into a 2-year transition period during which the contractor has worked
with federal agencies to review and transfer their data, and validate
and connect their contract writing systems to FPDS-NG.[Footnote 4] The
FPDS-NG became available to the public in December 2004.
GAO has reported on its concerns regarding the FPDS almost since the
system's beginning.[Footnote 5] In December 2003, we reiterated our
concerns regarding long-standing inaccuracies and incomplete data in
the system, and made specific recommendations to OMB to help improve
the successor system, FPDS-NG, as it was being implemented.[Footnote 6]
Subsequently, OMB issued a memorandum requiring federal departments and
agencies to take certain steps to ensure their full participation in
the FPDS-NG initiative.[Footnote 7]
KEY CONCERNS:
Our review raised concerns regarding whether the FPDS-NG has achieved
its intended improvements. The following examples reflect our key areas
of concern regarding the new system:
* Timeliness and accuracy of data: Interviews with several users
indicate a lack of confidence in the system's ability to provide timely
and accurate data. The FPDS-NG vision included improving the timeliness
and accuracy of data by requiring agencies and departments to connect
to FPDS-NG via contract writing systems. These systems enable the real-
time electronic submission of data, thereby reducing the risk of errors
by eliminating or reducing manual re-keying into FPDS-NG. Although GSA
and contractor officials believe that roughly 90 percent of agencies
with contract writing systems have completed their connections to the
FPDS-NG, this is not the case for the Department of Defense (DOD)--by
far the largest contracting entity in the government. In fact, DOD has
delayed its timeframes for connecting to the system at least twice, and
currently estimates it will not be fully connected until sometime in
fiscal year 2006 given the complexity of its reporting needs and other
requirements.[Footnote 8] Given that DOD data represent about 60
percent of the contracting actions that will be captured within FPDS-
NG, this delay significantly affects the ability of FPDS-NG to reflect
timely and accurate procurement data.
Additionally, prior to transferring data and connecting their contract
writing systems to FPDS-NG, agencies and departments were to review
their data and identify and correct any deficiencies, as well as to
"certify" the accuracy and completeness of their fiscal year 2004 data
with the FPDS-NG contractor. GSA officials informed us that the data
review process, including certification of accuracy and completeness of
fiscal year 2004 data, has been more rigorous than in prior years and
that this might become an annual process. Although GSA officials told
us that many agencies have reviewed and verified their data, GSA has
not informed users about the extent to which agencies' data are
accurate and complete. This lack of confirmation perpetuates a lack of
confidence in the system's ability to provide quality data.
* Ease of use and access to data: The FPDS-NG website provides users
the ability to generate reports at any time through standard report
templates or an "ad hoc" reporting tool. Although GAO analysts attended
contractor-provided training on these reporting tools, we did not find
either easy to use.[Footnote 9] We repeatedly encountered significant
performance problems, including system time-outs and delays, when
trying to generate both kinds of reports. Additionally, while the ad
hoc reporting capability is a potentially useful new feature that
allows users to create their own reports, it takes time and effort to
build a customized report query, which then cannot be saved and must be
rebuilt every time this feature is utilized. With respect to access,
our interviews with private sector users, GSA officials, and the FPDS-
NG contractor indicated that repeated requests have been made for
governmentwide procurement data and a summary report, such as the prior
FPDS Federal Procurement Report; however, such a report is not
currently available. GSA officials have indicated that they are
exploring ways to improve the ad hoc reporting tool and provide
governmentwide procurement reports, but the timeframe for implementing
these potential improvements is uncertain.
While FPDS-NG has enabled users to access government procurement data
more readily through its web-based reporting features, some users have
more complex data needs that require the ability to access and download
raw data.[Footnote 10] These users can access data through archived
files from the FPDS-NG website or through Web services, which provides
an interface between external systems and the FPDS-NG. In either case,
FPDS-NG presents the data in an XML format, which is a way to present
data in a simple and machine-readable format.[Footnote 11] However, our
attempts to extract contracting data across multiple government
agencies using current XML-compliant software were unsuccessful. Data
had to be extracted separately for each agency from multiple archived
files, involving over 1,000 tables for fiscal year 2004 alone.
Subsequent discussions with the FPDS-NG contractor indicated this is
the only means currently available for accessing the raw data.
Obtaining this data through multiple XML files involves a significant
increase in time and effort, and does not facilitate user access to
data to meet information needs.
INTERAGENCY CONTRACTING TRANSACTIONS:
The need for collecting and tracking data on interagency contracting
transactions has become increasingly important. In recent years,
federal agencies have been making greater use of existing contracts
provided by other agencies, such as multiple award schedules and
governmentwide acquisition contracts, as well as interagency
acquisition services provided through the use of franchise funds.
However, total spending using other agencies' contracting vehicles and
services is unknown because there is currently no system that tracks
and reports this information. Challenges associated with these
acquisition vehicles and their management led GAO to designate
interagency contracting as a governmentwide high-risk area in January
2005.[Footnote 12]
Over the last decade, Congress has repeatedly called for DOD to report
on certain types of interagency contracting and financial data. More
recently, the Senate Armed Services Committee conveyed its expectation
that DOD business systems have the capability to track basic
information about interagency transactions. This information includes
the following: number and dollar value of transactions under each
interagency contracting vehicle; the status of open transactions; the
status of funds under interagency transactions (including appropriation
type and year, and fund balance received, obligated, expended, and
available); and the amount of any funds returned or to be returned to
DOD or to the Department of Treasury.[Footnote 13] DOD officials have
indicated that they plan to use FPDS-NG to track interagency
contracting data and request changes to the system to capture more
specific information in this regard.
GSA documentation indicates that the vision for FPDS-NG included system
capability that was flexible enough to change as new data collection
needs arose, such as those related to interagency contracting
activities. GSA officials told us that some interagency contracting
data are available in FPDS-NG. However, our efforts to obtain data and
to generate reports on interagency contracting transactions were
unsuccessful. GSA officials also expressed concerns that FPDS-NG may
not be the appropriate system to collect certain types of data on
interagency transactions. Given these circumstances, it is unclear
whether FPDS-NG has the flexibility to address these new data needs and
whether it is the appropriate system for this purpose.
CONCLUSION:
The FPDS-NG is currently the only system providing information on over
$300 billion in annual government spending, yet concerns remain
regarding the timeliness, accuracy, accessibility, and ease of use of
the system. Additionally, the growth in interagency contracting and the
associated challenges involved heightens the need for data in this area
to provide sufficient oversight. Given that the FPDS-NG transition
period is ending, the opportunity exists to address key areas of
concern as the system's implementation to date is assessed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In order to help achieve the intended improvements for FPDS-NG, we
recommend that the Director of OMB:
* Ensure that DOD, and any other agencies that have not yet moved to an
electronic data submission environment, connect to FPDS-NG via contract
writing systems as soon as possible, and provide confirmation of
agencies' review and verification of the accuracy and completeness of
their data in FPDS-NG.
* Develop a plan to improve ease of use and access to data, including
report generation, governmentwide reporting needs, and accessing raw
data through more efficient means.
* Determine whether the FPDS-NG currently has the capability to collect
and report on interagency contracting data and whether it is the
appropriate system to capture this data in the future.
AGENCY COMMENTS:
We provided a draft of this letter to OMB and GSA for comment. OMB and
GSA officials commented orally that their respective agencies concurred
with the recommendations, and OMB stated that it would take into
consideration the findings of the report, including whether the use,
access and capability of FPDS-NG appropriately meets the government's
needs. Officials from both agencies indicated that ensuring DOD
connects its contracting writing systems to FPDS-NG as soon as possible
is a top priority. Additionally, GSA agreed that an overall statement
about the agencies‘ verification of the accuracy and completeness of
the data in FPDS-NG could be made now that most agencies have completed
that process. OMB and GSA officials stated that new software is
expected to improve reporting capability and that additional
improvements are being explored to improve ease of use of the system.
GSA added that additional reports and improved capability are planned
for early in fiscal year 2006.
Regarding interagency contracting, OMB stated that currently FPDS-NG
has a limited role in identifying and reporting information on
interagency contracting transactions. GSA stated that FPDS-NG was not
intended to collect information on financial transactions between
government agencies and that OMB would need to decide whether FPDS-NG
should be modified so that the system could collect and report on this
type of information.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY:
The information in this letter is based on previous GAO reviews and
limited additional work conducted from February 2005 through August
2005, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. In conducting our work, we reviewed relevant GAO reports and
audit documentation. We also held discussions with officials at GSA,
the FPDS-NG contractor (GCE), and with several private sector and
government users. We attended training at the GCE facility on FPDS-NG
report generation; we attempted to generate standard reports and to
build several ad hoc report queries using the FPDS-NG system; and we
reviewed relevant documents concerning FPDS and FPDS-NG.
We are sending copies of this letter to the Chairs and Ranking Members
of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the
House Government Reform Committee, and other interested congressional
committees, as well as to the Administrator of General Services. We
will provide copies to others upon request. This letter will also be
available on GAO's home page at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your
staff has any questions about this letter, please contact me at (202)-
512-4841 or woodsw@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 contributions to this letter
were Amelia Shachoy, Assistant Director; Art James; Julia Kennon;
William McPhail; Lisa Simon; Shannon Simpson; and Robert Swierczek.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
William T. Woods, Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
Enclosure:
ENCLOSURE I: Related GAO Products:
GAO, Contract Management: Impact of Strategy to Mitigate Effects of
Contract Bundling on Small Business Is Uncertain, GAO-04-454
(Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004).
GAO, Reliability of Federal Procurement Data, GAO-04-295R (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 30, 2003).
GAO, Contract Management: No Reliable Data to Measure Benefits of the
Simplified Acquisition Test Program, GAO-03-1068 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 30, 2003).
GAO, Contract Management: Civilian Agency Compliance with Revised Task
and Delivery Order Regulations, GAO-03-983 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29,
2003).
GAO, Small Business: HUBZone Program Suffers from Reporting and
Implementation Difficulties, GAO-02-57 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 26,
2001).
GAO, OMB and GSA: FPDS Improvements, GAO/AIMD-94-178R (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 19, 1994).
GAO, The Federal Procurement Data System--Making It Work Better,
GAO/PSAD-80-33 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 1980).
GAO, The Federal Procurement Data System Could Be an Effective Tool for
Congressional Surveillance, GAO/PSAD-79-109 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12,
1979).
(120409):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The total dollar value of contracting actions reported in the
Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation exceeded $300 billion
in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
[2] According to GSA, the FPDS-NG contract was for an initial 2-year
and 5-month base period for development and maintenance. Additionally,
the contractor can receive up to five 1-year contract options based on
performance.
[3] Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-400
(1974).
[4] Contract writing systems are computer software that, among other
things, allow agencies to report their contracting data electronically
to FPDS-NG through a machine-to-machine interface. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) directed federal agency and department
heads to identify and allocate funds to ensure that their contract
writing systems were capable of electronically transferring data
directly to FPDS-NG no later than the end of fiscal year 2005. The
reliability of data in FPDS-NG is expected to improve because agency
submissions to FPDS-NG will be based on data already entered into the
contract writing systems, reducing or eliminating separate data entry
requirements and providing contracting data in "real-time."
[5] See Enclosure I for a list of GAO reports regarding FPDS issues.
[6] GAO, Reliability of Federal Procurement Data, GAO-04-295R
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30, 2003).
[7] OMB memorandum: Timely and Accurate Procurement Data, August 25,
2004.
[8] DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum,
Transition to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, July
8, 2004; DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense memoranda,
Update on Transition to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next
Generation, Dec. 6, 2004; Jan. 24, 2005; and Aug. 1, 2005.
[9] There are three ways to access FPDS-NG data: (1) direct website
access, which includes a data query search tool, over 50 standard
report templates, and an ad hoc reporting capability; (2) downloading
fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 data files archived on the
website; and (3) Web services access, which allows external systems to
access data and "real-time" data updates. Access to the raw data
through option (2) or (3) allows users to manipulate and present the
data in different ways than is available through the FPDS-NG standard
templates or ad hoc reporting features. There is a one-time integration
fee for the Web services option, which is typically used by commercial
companies.
[10] Raw data are data that have not been processed; the data appear in
the original format as entered into agencies' contract writing systems
and then reported electronically to FPDS-NG.
[11] XML (Extensible Markup Language) is a flexible way to create
common information formats and share both the format and the data on
the World Wide Web, intranets, and elsewhere. While XML has been
successful as a markup language for documents and data, the overhead
associated with generating, parsing, transmitting, storing, or
accessing XML-based data has hindered its use in some environments.
[12] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005).
[13] S. Rep. No. 109-69 at 352 (2005), accompanying S. 1042, 109th
Cong. (2005).
