Information Technology
Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects Gao ID: GAO-06-647 June 15, 2006In August 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum directing agencies to identify high risk information technology (IT) projects and provide quarterly reports on those with performance shortfalls--projects that did not meet criteria established by OMB. GAO was asked to (1) provide a summary identifying by agency the number of high risk projects, their proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, agency reasons for the high risk designation, and reported performance shortfalls; (2) determine how high risk projects were identified and updated and what processes and procedures have been established to effectively oversee them; and (3) determine the relationship between the high risk list and OMB's Management Watch List--those projects that OMB determines need improvements associated with key aspects of their budget justifications.
In response to OMB's August 2005 memorandum, the 24 major agencies identified 226 IT projects as high risk, totaling about $6.4 billion in funding requested for fiscal year 2007. Agencies identified most projects as high risk because their delay or failure would impact the essential business functions of the agency. In addition, agencies reported that about 35 percent of the high risk projects--or 79 investments--had a performance shortfall, meaning the project did not meet one or more of these four criteria: establishing clear baselines, maintaining cost and schedule variances within 10 percent, assigning a qualified project manager, and avoiding duplication with other investments. Although agencies, with OMB's assistance, generally evaluated their IT portfolio against the criteria specified by OMB to identify their high risk projects, the criteria were not always consistently applied. Accordingly, GAO identified several projects that appeared to meet OMB's definition for high risk but were not determined by agencies to be high risk. In addition, OMB does not define a process for updating high risk projects. As a result, agencies had inconsistent updating procedures. Regarding oversight of these projects, agencies either established special procedures or used their existing investment management processes. OMB staff stated that they review the projects' performance and corrective actions planned. However, OMB has not compiled the projects into a single aggregate list, which would serve as a tool to analyze and track the projects on a governmentwide basis. High risk projects and Management Watch List projects are identified using different criteria. The former is meant to track the management and performance of projects, while the latter focuses on an agency's project planning. Both sets of projects require attention because of their importance in supporting critical functions and the likelihood that their performance problems could potentially result in billions of taxpayers' dollars being wasted if the problems are not detected early.
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: Team: Phone:GAO-06-647, Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-647
entitled 'Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen
Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects' which was
released on July 17, 2006.
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.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2006:
Information Technology:
Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and
Overseeing High Risk Projects:
High Risk IT Projects:
GAO-06-647:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-647, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
In August 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a
memorandum directing agencies to identify high risk information
technology (IT) projects and provide quarterly reports on those with
performance shortfalls”projects that did not meet criteria established
by OMB. GAO was asked to (1) provide a summary identifying by agency
the number of high risk projects, their proposed budget for fiscal year
2007, agency reasons for the high risk designation, and reported
performance shortfalls; (2) determine how high risk projects were
identified and updated and what processes and procedures have been
established to effectively oversee them; and (3) determine the
relationship between the high risk list and OMB‘s Management Watch
List”those projects that OMB determines need improvements associated
with key aspects of their budget justifications.
What GAO Found:
In response to OMB‘s August 2005 memorandum, the 24 major agencies
identified 226 IT projects as high risk, totaling about $6.4 billion in
funding requested for fiscal year 2007. Agencies identified most
projects as high risk because their delay or failure would impact the
essential business functions of the agency. In addition, agencies
reported that about 35 percent of the high risk projects”or 79
investments”had a performance shortfall, meaning the project did not
meet one or more of these four criteria: establishing clear baselines,
maintaining cost and schedule variances within 10 percent, assigning a
qualified project manager, and avoiding duplication with other
investments (see figure).
Figure: Number of High Risk Projects with and without Performance
Shortfalls (as of March 2006):
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of 24 CFO agencies' March 2006 high risk reports.
[End of Figure]
Although agencies, with OMB‘s assistance, generally evaluated their IT
portfolio against the criteria specified by OMB to identify their high
risk projects, the criteria were not always consistently applied.
Accordingly, GAO identified several projects that appeared to meet
OMB‘s definition for high risk but were not determined by agencies to
be high risk. In addition, OMB does not define a process for updating
high risk projects. As a result, agencies had inconsistent updating
procedures. Regarding oversight of these projects, agencies either
established special procedures or used their existing investment
management processes. OMB staff stated that they review the projects‘
performance and corrective actions planned. However, OMB has not
compiled the projects into a single aggregate list, which would serve
as a tool to analyze and track the projects on a governmentwide basis.
High risk projects and Management Watch List projects are identified
using different criteria. The former is meant to track the management
and performance of projects, while the latter focuses on an agency‘s
project planning. Both sets of projects require attention because of
their importance in supporting critical functions and the likelihood
that their performance problems could potentially result in billions of
taxpayers‘ dollars being wasted if the problems are not detected early.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that the Director of OMB (1) direct agencies to
consistently apply the criteria for designating projects as high risk,
(2) establish a structured, consistent process to update high risk
projects, and (3) develop a single list of high risk projects and their
deficiencies. In comments on a draft of this report, OMB disagreed with
the need for our recommendations. GAO continues to believe they are
needed to reinvigorate the high risk process.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-647].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David A. Powner at (202)
512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal Agencies Identified 226 Projects as High Risk:
Processes Exist to Identify and Oversee High Risk Projects, but
Opportunities Exist to Improve These Processes:
High Risk and Management Watch List Projects Identified Using Different
Criteria:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:
Appendix III: Summary of High Risk IT Projects by Department or Agency:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Management Watch List Budget for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007:
Table 2: Number of Projects on Management Watch List for Fiscal Years
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007:
Table 3: Number of High Risk Projects and Funding by Department/Agency:
Table 4: Reasons for High Risk Designation by Department/Agency:
Table 5: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of
Agriculture:
Table 6: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Commerce:
Table 7: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Defense:
Table 8: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Education:
Table 9: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Energy:
Table 10: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Health
and Human Services:
Table 11: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Homeland
Security:
Table 12: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development:
Table 13: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Interior:
Table 14: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Justice:
Table 15: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Labor:
Table 16: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of State:
Table 17: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of
Transportation:
Table 18: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Treasury:
Table 19: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Veterans
Affairs:
Table 20: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Environmental
Protection Agency:
Table 21: Summary of High Risk Projects for the General Services
Administration:
Table 22: Summary of High Risk Projects for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration:
Table 23: Summary of High Risk Projects for the National Science
Foundation:
Table 24: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission:
Table 25: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Office of Personnel
Management:
Table 26: Summary of High Risk Projects for Small Business
Administration:
Table 27: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Social Security
Administration:
Table 28: Summary of High Risk Projects for the U.S. Agency for
International Development:
Figures:
Figure 1: Reported Data for Projects with Performance Shortfalls:
Figure 2: Number of Agencies High Risk Projects with and without
Performance Shortfalls (as of March 2006):
Abbreviations:
CFO: chief financial officer:
CIO: chief information officer:
EVM: earned value management:
IT: information technology:
LOB: line of business:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 15, 2006:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The federal government increasingly relies on information technology
(IT) systems to provide essential services affecting the health,
economy, and defense of the nation. To assist in providing these
important services, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2007
proposed approximately $64 billion for IT projects. In the budget
request, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated that about 30
percent of 857 major IT projects needed improvements in key aspects of
their budget justifications and consequently were placed on the
Management Watch List. OMB began using this tool, initially referred to
as the At-Risk List, in the fiscal year 2004 budget request, as a means
to monitor the performance of agencies' IT investments.
In April 2005,[Footnote 1] we reported on OMB's processes and criteria
for including IT projects on its Management Watch List. We reported
that although these processes allowed OMB to identify opportunities to
strengthen investments and promote improvements in IT management, OMB
had not compiled a single, aggregate list identifying these projects
and their weaknesses, nor had it developed a structured, consistent
process for deciding how to follow up on corrective actions.
Accordingly, we recommended that OMB develop a central list of projects
and their deficiencies.
To continue to ensure that taxpayers' dollars were being invested
wisely, in August 2005 OMB issued a memorandum directing federal
agencies to identify high risk IT projects--those requiring special
attention from oversight authorities and the highest level of agency
management because of one or more of four reasons. The reasons are (1)
the agency failed to demonstrate the ability to manage complex
projects; (2) the projects had exceptionally high development,
operating, or maintenance costs; (3) the projects are addressing
deficiencies in the agencies' ability to perform mission critical
business functions; or (4) the projects' delay or failure would impact
the agencies' essential business functions. The memorandum also
required agencies to begin, in September 2005, to provide quarterly
reports to OMB on identified high risk projects that had performance
shortfalls, meaning that they did not meet one or more of four
performance evaluation criteria. The performance criteria are (1)
establishing baselines with clear cost, schedule, and performance
goals; (2) maintaining the project's cost and schedule variances within
10 percent; (3) assigning a qualified project manager; or (4) avoiding
duplication by leveraging interagency and governmentwide investments.
To gain insight into the processes for identifying and overseeing these
high risk projects, our objectives were to (1) provide a summary of
high risk projects that identifies by agency the number of high risk
projects, their proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, agency reasons
for the high risk designation, and reported performance shortfalls;
(2) determine how high risk projects were identified and updated and
what processes and procedures have been established to effectively
oversee them; and (3) determine the relationship between the high risk
list and OMB's Management Watch List. To address these objectives, we
reviewed quarterly performance reports on high risk projects from each
of the 24 chief financial officer (CFO) departments and
agencies.[Footnote 2] These reports were self-reported, and we did not
independently verify the data. However, we asked all agencies to
confirm the data in appendix III on their high risk projects. We also
reviewed and analyzed OMB's policies and procedures and interviewed
officials from OMB's Office of E-Government and Information Technology.
Moreover, we obtained information from each of the 24 CFO agencies to
determine how high risk projects were identified and updated and what
policies and procedures had been established to effectively monitor the
projects. We performed our work from October 2005 through May 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I contains details about our objectives, scope, and
methodology.
Results in Brief:
In response to OMB's memorandum, the 24 CFO agencies identified 226 IT
projects as high risk, totaling about $6.4 billion and representing
about 10 percent of the President's total IT budget request for fiscal
year 2007. According to the agencies, these projects were identified as
such mainly because of one or more of the four reasons provided in
OMB's August 2005 memorandum. The most frequent reason reported by
agencies for a project being designated as high risk was because its
delay or failure would impact the agency's essential business
functions, comprising about 70 percent of the projects identified. In
addition, agencies reported that 79 of the 226 high risk projects,
representing about 35 percent or collectively totaling about $2.2
billion in fiscal year 2007 planned funding, had a performance
shortfall primarily in one of the four performance areas to be reported
on--maintaining the project's cost and schedule variances within 10
percent.
Although agencies, with OMB's assistance, generally evaluated their IT
portfolio against the four criteria specified by OMB to identify their
high risk projects, the criteria were not always consistently applied.
In addition, OMB has not defined a process for updating the list,
specifically,
* OMB's criteria were not always consistently applied. As a result,
some agencies reported using reasons other than OMB's criteria to
identify high risk projects. Further, we identified several projects
that appeared to meet OMB's criteria for high risk, but agencies did
not identify them as such.
* OMB's guidance does not define a process for updating high risk
projects, including identifying new projects and removing current ones.
As a result, agencies had different procedures for updating the list.
To oversee high risk projects, agencies reported having either
established special procedures or using existing investment management
processes. However, we have previously reported on numerous weaknesses
associated with agencies' existing investment management processes and
made several recommendations to improve them. Until these
recommendations are implemented, agencies may not be able to
effectively monitor their investments' performance. To perform
oversight of high risk projects, OMB analysts review the quarterly
performance reports of these projects to determine how well the
projects are progressing and whether the actions described in the
planned improvement efforts are adequate. However, OMB does not compile
a single aggregate list of high risk projects. By not maintaining a
single list, OMB is not fully exploiting the opportunity to use the
quarterly reports as a tool for analyzing high risk projects on a
governmentwide basis and is limiting its ability to identify and report
on the full set of IT investments across government that requires
special oversight and greater agency management attention.
The high risk projects and the Management Watch List projects are
identified using different sets of criteria. The high risk projects are
meant to track the execution of projects while the Management Watch
List focuses on project planning. However, agencies identified 37 high
risk projects that were also on OMB's Management Watch List. While the
criteria for the two types of projects differ, both require close
attention because of their importance in supporting critical functions
and the likelihood that performance problems associated with them could
potentially result in billions of taxpayers' dollars being wasted if
they are not detected early.
To improve the way high risk projects are identified and updated, we
are recommending that the Director of OMB direct agencies to ensure
that they are consistently applying the criteria for the high risk
designation. We also recommend the Director of OMB establish a process
for agencies to update high risk projects on a regular basis. Finally,
we are recommending OMB develop a single aggregate list of high risk
projects aimed at improving the reporting and oversight of high risk
projects on a governmentwide basis.
In commenting on a draft of this report, OMB's Administrator for E-
Government and Information Technology stated that she appreciated our
careful review of OMB's process for identifying and overseeing high
risk projects. However, OMB disagreed with our recommendations.
Specifically, regarding our recommendations to direct agencies to
consistently apply the criteria for designating projects as high risk
and to establish a structured, consistent process to update the initial
list of high risk projects, OMB stated that the process and criteria
for designating projects as high risk are clear and that some
flexibility in the application of the criteria is essential. While some
flexibility in the application of the criteria may be appropriate, we
believe these criteria should be applied more consistently so that
projects that clearly appear to meet them, such as those we mention in
the report, are identified.
OMB also disagreed with our recommendation to develop a single
aggregate list of projects and their deficiencies to perform adequate
oversight and management. As noted in the report, we believe that, by
not having this list, OMB is not fully exploiting the opportunity to
use the agencies' quarterly reports as a tool for analyzing high risk
projects on a governmentwide basis and for tracking governmentwide
progress. In addition, OMB is limiting its ability to identify and
report on the full set of IT investments across the federal government
that require special oversight and greater agency management attention.
Background:
Each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how much
government plans to spend for IT and how these funds are to be
allocated. Over the past decade, federal IT spending has risen to an
estimated $64 billion in fiscal year 2007.
OMB plays a key role in overseeing these IT investments and how they
are managed, stemming from its predominant mission: to assist the
President in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to
supervise budget administration in Executive Branch agencies. In
helping to formulate the President's spending plans, OMB is responsible
for evaluating the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and
procedures; assessing competing funding demands among agencies;
and setting funding priorities. OMB also ensures that agency reports,
rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are consistent with the
President's budget and with administration policies. In carrying out
these responsibilities, OMB depends on agencies to collect and report
accurate and complete information; these activities depend, in turn, on
agencies having effective IT management practices.
To drive improvement in the implementation and management of IT
projects, Congress enacted the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996 to further
expand the responsibilities of OMB and the agencies under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.[Footnote 3] In particular, the act requires agency
heads, acting through agency chief information officers (CIO), to,
among other things, better link their IT planning and investment
decisions to program missions and goals and to implement and enforce IT
management policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines. OMB is
required by the Clinger-Cohen Act to establish processes to analyze,
track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments
in information systems made by executive agencies. OMB is also required
to report to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved
as a result of major capital investments in information systems that
are made by executive agencies.[Footnote 4]
OMB is aided in its responsibilities by the Chief Information Officers
Council as described by the E-Government Act of 2002.[Footnote 5] The
council is designated the principal interagency forum for improving
agency practices related to the design, acquisition, development,
modernization, use, operation, sharing, and performance of federal
government information resources. Among the specific functions of the
CIO Council are the development of recommendations for the Director of
OMB on government information resources management policies and
requirements and the sharing of experiences, ideas, best practices, and
innovative approaches related to information resources management.
Prior Review on Governmentwide IT Investment Management Has Identified
Weaknesses:
Only by effectively and efficiently managing their IT resources through
a robust investment management process can agencies gain opportunities
to make better allocation decisions among many investment alternatives
and further leverage their investments. However, the federal government
faces enduring IT challenges in this area. For example, in January 2004
we reported on mixed results of federal agencies' use of IT investment
management practices.[Footnote 6] Specifically, we reported that
although most of the agencies had IT investment boards responsible for
defining and implementing the agencies' IT investment management
processes, no agency had fully implemented practices for monitoring the
progress of its investments. Executive-level oversight of project-level
management activities provides organizations with increased assurance
that each investment will achieve the desired cost, benefit, and
schedule results. Accordingly, we made several recommendations to
agencies to improve their practices.
OMB's Management Watch List Intended to Correct Project Weaknesses and
Business Case Deficiencies:
In carrying out its responsibilities to assist the President in
overseeing the preparation of the federal budget, OMB reported in the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget that there were 771 IT investment
projects on what was called the At-Risk List (later referred to as the
Management Watch List). This list included mission-critical projects
that did not successfully demonstrate sufficient potential for success
based on the agency Capital Asset Plan and Business Case, also known as
the exhibit 300, or did not adequately address IT security. To identify
projects for inclusion on the Management Watch List, OMB used scoring
criteria contained in OMB Circular A-11[Footnote 7] that the agency
established for evaluating the justifications for funding that federal
agencies submitted for major investments[Footnote 8] and for ensuring
that agency planning and management of capital assets is consistent
with OMB policy and guidance. This evaluation is carried out as part of
OMB's responsibility to help ensure that investments of public
resources are justified and that public resources are wisely invested.
In presenting the fiscal year 2005 budget, OMB reported that there were
621 major projects on the Management Watch List, consisting of mission-
critical projects that needed to improve performance measures, project
management, and IT security. OMB staff described this assessment as
again being based on evaluations of the exhibit 300s that agencies
submitted to justify project funding. Agencies were required to
successfully correct identified project weaknesses and business case
deficiencies; otherwise, they risked OMB's placing limits on their
spending.
In April 2005,[Footnote 9] we reported on OMB's development of its
Management Watch List. We concluded that OMB's scoring of the exhibit
300s addressed many critical IT management areas and promoted the
improvement of investments. However, because OMB did not compile a
single aggregate list[Footnote 10] and had not developed a structured,
consistent process for deciding how to follow up on corrective actions
being taken by the agencies, the agency missed the opportunity to use
its scoring process more effectively to identify management issues that
transcended individual agencies, to prioritize follow-up actions, and
to ensure that high-priority deficiencies were addressed. To take
advantage of this potential benefit, we recommended that OMB compile a
single aggregate list and use the list as the basis for selecting
projects for follow up and for tracking follow-up activities by
developing specific criteria for prioritizing the IT projects included
on the list.
OMB has continued to report on its Management Watch List in the most
recent President's budget request. Table 1 shows the budget information
for projects on the Management Watch List for fiscal years 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007.
Table 1: Management Watch List Budget for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007:
Fiscal years (in billions): Fiscal year 2004 budget;
Total IT budget: $59.0;
IT budget for Management Watch List projects: $20.9;
Percentage of budget for Management Watch List projects: 35%.
Fiscal years (in billions): Fiscal year 2005 budget;
Total IT budget: $60.0;
IT budget for Management Watch List projects: $22.0;
Percentage of budget for Management Watch List projects: 37%.
Fiscal years (in billions): Fiscal year 2006 budget;
Total IT budget: $65.0;
IT budget for Management Watch List projects: $15.0;
Percentage of budget for Management Watch List projects: 23%.
Fiscal years (in billions): Fiscal year 2007 budget request;
Total IT budget: $64.0;
IT budget for Management Watch List projects: $9.9;
Percentage of budget for Management Watch List projects: 15%.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[End of table]
Table 2 shows the number of projects on the Management Watch List for
fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Table 2: Number of Projects on Management Watch List for Fiscal Years
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007:
Fiscal year: Fiscal year 2004;
Total IT projects: 1400;
Management Watch List projects: 771;
Percentage of projects on Management Watch List: 55%.
Fiscal year: Fiscal year 2005;
Total IT projects: 1200;
Management Watch List projects: 621;
Percentage of projects on Management Watch List: 52%.
Fiscal year: Fiscal year 2006;
Total IT projects: 1087;
Management Watch List projects: 342;
Percentage of projects on Management Watch List: 31%.
Fiscal year: Fiscal year 2007 (proposed);
Total IT projects: 857;
Management Watch List projects: 263;
Percentage of projects on Management Watch List: 31%.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[End of table]
OMB's August 2005 Memorandum on Improving Performance of High Risk IT
Projects:
To continue improving IT project planning and execution, OMB issued a
memorandum in August 2005 to all federal chief information officers,
directing them to begin taking steps to identify IT projects that are
high risk and to report quarterly on their performance. As originally
defined in OMB Circular A-11 and subsequently reiterated in the August
2005 memorandum, high risk projects are those that require special
attention from oversight authorities and the highest levels of agency
management because of one or more of the following four reasons:
* The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
* The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
* The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
* Delay or failure of the project would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization.
As directed in the memorandum, by August 15, 2005, agencies in
collaboration with OMB were required to initially identify their high
risk IT projects using these criteria. In addition, OMB subsequently
provided additional instructions through e-mails to agencies. Through
these instructions, OMB directed agencies to declare all e-government
and line of business (LOB) initiatives managed by their agency[Footnote
11] as high risk. In addition, the instructions specified that partner
agencies[Footnote 12] consider investments associated with migrations
to an e-government or LOB initiative as high risk until they have
completed migration or OMB determines they should no longer be
designated as high risk.
For the identified high risk projects, beginning September 15, 2005,
and quarterly thereafter, CIOs were to assess, confirm, and document
projects' performance. Specifically, agencies were required to
determine, for each of their high risk projects, whether the project
was meeting one or more of four performance evaluation criteria: (1)
establishing baselines with clear cost, schedule, and performance
goals; (2) maintaining the project's cost and schedule variances within
10 percent; (3) assigning a qualified project manager; and (4) avoiding
duplication by leveraging inter-agency and governmentwide investments.
If a high risk project meets these four performance evaluation
criteria, agencies are instructed to document this using a standard
template provided by OMB and provide this template to oversight
authorities (e.g., OMB, agency inspectors general, agency management,
and GAO) on request.
If any of the identified high risk projects have performance
shortfalls, meaning that the project did not meet one or more of the
four performance evaluation criteria, agencies are required to document
the information on these projects on the standard template and provide
it to OMB along with copies to the agency inspector general. For each
of these projects, agencies must specify, using the template, (1) the
specific performance shortfalls, (2) the specific cause of the
shortfall, (3) a plan of action and milestones actions needed to
correct each shortfall, and (4) the amount and source of additional
funding needed to improve performance.
Federal Agencies Identified 226 Projects as High Risk:
In response to OMB's August 2005 memorandum, as of March 2006, the 24
CFO agencies identified 226 IT projects as high risk, totaling about
$6.4 billion and representing about 10 percent of the President's total
IT budget request for fiscal year 2007. According to the agencies,
these projects were identified as such mainly because of one or more of
the four reasons provided in OMB's memorandum. About 70 percent of the
projects identified were reported as high risk because their delay or
failure would impact the agency's essential business functions.
Moreover, about 35 percent of the high risk projects--or 79
investments, totaling about $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2007 planned
funding, were reported as having performance shortfalls primarily
because of cost and schedule variances exceeding 10 percent.
High Risk Projects Identified Total About $6.4 Billion for Fiscal Year
2007:
As of March 2006, the 24 CFO agencies identified 226 IT investments as
high risk. Collectively, five agencies--the Small Business
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office
of Personnel Management, and the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Homeland Security--identified about 100 of these projects.[Footnote 13]
According to the President's most recent budget, about $6.4 billion has
been requested for fiscal year 2007 by the 24 CFO agencies for the 226
high risk projects. Five of these agencies--the Departments of Defense,
Homeland Security, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and Justice,
account for about 70 percent of the total high risk budget, totaling
about $4.5 billion. Table 3 shows the number of high risk projects and
associated funding reported by each of the 24 CFO agencies.
Table 3: Number of High Risk Projects and Funding by Department/Agency:
Department/agency: Department of Agriculture;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 12;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): $133.5.
Department/agency: Department of Commerce;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 4;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 183.0.
Department/agency: Department of Defense;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 6;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 782.2.
Department/agency: Department of Education;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 12;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 157.1.
Department/agency: Department of Energy;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 5;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 82.2.
Department/agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 9;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 458.0.
Department/agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 17;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 910.7.
Department/agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 3;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 18.0.
Department/agency: Department of Interior;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 3;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 67.4.
Department/agency: Department of Justice;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 9;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 503.3.
Department/agency: Department of Labor;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 8;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 62.3.
Department/agency: Department of State;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 5;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 43.8.
Department/agency: Department of Transportation;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 13;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 1,385.6.
Department/agency: Department of Treasury;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 8;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 266.9.
Department/agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 33;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 871.7.
Department/agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 6;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 46.6.
Department/agency: General Services Administration;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 9;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 97.4.
Department/agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 16;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 55.1.
Department/agency: National Science Foundation;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 1;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 2.5.
Department/agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 4;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 1.7.
Department/agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 15;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 116.7.
Department/agency: Small Business Administration;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 21;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 15.2.
Department/agency: Social Security Administration;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 6;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 106.8.
Department/agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 1;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): 11.4.
Department/agency: Total;
Number of high risk projects (as of March 2006): 226;
Total high risk FY2007 request (in millions): $6,379.1.
Source: GAO analysis of agencies' March 2006 high risk performance
reports.
[End of table]
Most Projects Reported as High Risk Because Their Delay or Failure
Could Impact Mission Performance:
Agencies reported 195 of the 226 projects as meeting one or more of the
reasons defined by OMB. Specifically, more than half of the agencies
reported that their IT projects were identified as high risk because
delay or failure of the project would result in inadequate performance
or failure of an essential mission function. About one fourth of the
projects were determined to be high risk because of high development,
operating, or maintenance costs. In addition, three agencies identified
11 projects as high risk because of the inability to manage complex
projects. Table 4 summarizes the OMB reasons for high risk
designations.
Table 4: Reasons for High Risk Designation by Department/Agency:
Department/agency: Department of Agriculture;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 6;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 2;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 1;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 3.
Department/agency: Department of Commerce;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 3;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 4.
Department/agency: Department of Defense;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 6;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 6;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 6.
Department/agency: Department of Education;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 3;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 5;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 9.
Department/agency: Department of Energy;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 2;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 1;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 3.
Department/agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 5;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 4;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 8.
Department/agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 3.
Department/agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 2;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 0.
Department/agency: Department of Interior;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 1;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 1;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 3.
Department/agency: Department of Justice;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 4;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 6;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 1.
Department/agency: Department of Labor;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 1;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 3;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 6.
Department/agency: Department of State;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 1;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 1;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 4.
Department/agency: Department of Transportation;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 4;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 4.
Department/agency: Department of Treasury;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 4;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 4;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 3;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 4.
Department/agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 3;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 1;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 31.
Department/agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 6.
Department/agency: General Services Administration;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 2;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 6.
Department/agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 2;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 2;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 14.
Department/agency: National Science Foundation;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 1.
Department/agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 4.
Department/agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 1;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 1;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 14.
Department/agency: Small Business Administration;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 2;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 19.
Department/agency: Social Security Administration;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 3;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 0;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 1.
Department/agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 0;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 1;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 0.
Department/agency: Totals;
Reasons[A]: The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to
manage complex projects: 11;
Reasons[A]: The project has exceptionally high development, operating,
or maintenance costs: 51;
Reasons[A]: The project was addressing deficiencies in the agencies'
ability to perform mission critical business functions: 35;
Reasons[A]: The projects' delay or failure would impact the agencies'
essential business functions[B]: 154.
Source: GAO analysis based on agency information.
[A] In selected cases, departments or agencies identified more than one
reason for the designated high risk projects.
[B] According to OMB staff, projects identified as high risk per OMB's
additional instructions on e-government or lines of business
initiatives met this reason.
[End of table]
A total of 31 projects were identified as high risk using rationale
other than OMB's four criteria. In these cases, agencies reasons
included that the business cases had weaknesses or approved baselines
were not established.
Agencies Identified 79 Projects with Performance Shortfalls:
Agencies identified about 35 percent of the high risk projects as
having performance shortfalls. Specifically, for the last reporting
quarter--March 2006--agencies identified 79 investments, totaling about
$2.2 billion in fiscal year 2007 planned funding, as having performance
shortfalls. The most frequent reason provided for the shortfalls was
cost and schedule variances exceeding 10 percent. By contrast, only two
projects were reported by agencies as having an overlapping or
duplicative IT investment.
Since September 2005, the number of projects with performance
shortfalls has increased--from 58 projects in September 2005 to 67
projects in December 2005 to the 79 in March 2006. For the September
and December 2005 and March 2006 reporting periods, figure 1
illustrates that agencies have reported that most of the weaknesses
were in cost and schedule variances not within 10 percent and that
there was an increase in projects that do not have clear baseline
information on cost, schedule, and performance goals.
Figure 1: Reported Data for Projects with Performance Shortfalls:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of 24 CFO agencies' September and December 2005
and March 2006 high risk reports.
[End of figure]
Figure 2 illustrates the number of agency high risk projects with and
without shortfalls as of March 2006. The majority of the agencies
reported that their high risk projects did not have performance
shortfalls in any of the four areas identified by OMB. In addition, six
agencies--the departments of Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban
Development, and Labor, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the National Science Foundation--reported that none
of their high risk projects experienced any performance shortfalls.
Figure 2: Number of Agencies High Risk Projects with and without
Performance Shortfalls (as of March 2006):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of 24 CFO agencies' March 2006 high risk reports.
[End of figure]
For the identification of all high risk projects by agency including
funding, reasons for the high risk designation, specific performance
shortfalls, and planned improvement efforts, see appendix III.
Processes Exist to Identify and Oversee High Risk Projects, but
Opportunities Exist to Improve These Processes:
Although agencies, with OMB's assistance, generally identified their
high risk projects by evaluating their IT portfolio against the four
criteria specified by OMB, the criteria were not always consistently
applied. In addition, OMB did not define a process for updating the
list. To oversee high risk projects, agencies reported having
investment management practices in place; however, we have previously
reported on agencies' maturing investment management processes and have
made several recommendations to improve them. OMB staff perform their
oversight of high risk projects by reviewing the quarterly performance
reports, but they do not have a single aggregate list to analyze
projects and for tracking progress on a governmentwide basis. Unless
they address the issues regarding the identification, update, and
oversight of high risk projects, OMB and agencies could be missing
opportunities to perform these activities more effectively.
High Risk Projects Identified Primarily Using OMB's Criteria, but
Criteria Not Always Consistently Applied:
Agencies primarily used the criteria defined in OMB's August 2005
memorandum in determining the initial list of high risk projects;
however, the criteria were not always consistently applied.
Specifically, most agencies reported that officials from the Office of
the CIO compared the criteria against their current portfolio to
determine which projects met OMB's definition. They then submitted the
list to OMB for review. According to OMB and agency officials, after
the submission of the initial list, examiners at OMB worked with
individual agencies to identify or remove projects as appropriate.
According to most agencies, the final list was then approved by their
CIO.
However, OMB's criteria for identifying high risk projects were not
always consistently applied.
* In several cases, agencies did not use OMB's criteria to identify
high risk projects. As previously discussed, some agencies reported
using other reasons to identify a total of 31 high risk projects. For
example, the Department of Homeland Security reported investments that
were high risk because they had weaknesses associated with their
business cases based on the evaluation by OMB. The Department of
Transportation reported projects as high risk because two did not have
approved baselines, and four had incomplete or poor earned value
management[Footnote 14] (EVM) assessments.
* Regarding the first criterion for high risk designation--the agency
has not demonstrated the ability to manage complex projects--only three
agencies reported having projects meeting this criterion. This appears
to be somewhat low, considering that we and others have previously
reported on weaknesses in numerous agencies' ability to manage complex
projects. For example, we have reported in our high risk series on
major programs and operations that need urgent attention and
transformation in order to ensure that our federal government functions
in the most economical, efficient, and effective manner
possible.[Footnote 15] Specifically, the Department of Defense's
efforts to modernize its business systems have been hampered because of
weaknesses in practices for (1) developing and using an enterprise
architecture, (2) instituting effective investment management
processes, and (3) establishing and implementing effective systems
acquisition processes. We concluded that the Department of Defense, as
a whole, remains far from where it needs to be to effectively and
efficiently manage an undertaking with the size, complexity, and
significance of its departmentwide business systems modernization. We
also reported that, after almost 25 years and $41 billion, efforts to
modernize the air traffic control program of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Department of Transportation's largest component,
are far from complete and that projects continue to face challenges in
meeting cost, schedule, and performance expectations.[Footnote 16]
However, neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of
Transportation identified any projects as being high risk because of
their inability to manage complex projects.
* While agencies have reported a significant number of IT projects as
high risk, we identified other projects on which we have reported and
testified that appear to meet one or more of OMB's criteria for high
risk designation including high development or operating costs and
recognized deficiencies in adequate performance but were not identified
as high risk. Examples we have recently reported include the following
projects:
* The Decennial Response Integration System of the Census Bureau is
intended to integrate paper, Internet, and telephone responses. Its
high development and operating costs are expected to make up a large
portion of the $1.8 billion program to develop, test, and implement
decennial census systems. In March 2006,[Footnote 17] we testified that
the component agency has established baseline requirements for the
acquisition, but the bureau has not yet validated the requirements or
implemented a process for managing them. We concluded that, until these
and other basic contract management activities are fully implemented,
this project faced increased risks that the system would experience
cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls.
* The National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System--an initiative managed by the Departments of Commerce and
Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--is to
converge two satellite programs into a single satellite program capable
of satisfying both civilian and military requirements. In November
2005,[Footnote 18] we reported that the system was a troubled program
because of technical problems on critical sensors, escalating costs,
poor management at multiple levels, and the lack of a decision on how
to proceed with the program. Over the last several years, this system
has experienced continual cost increases to about $10 billion and
schedule delays, requiring difficult decisions about the program's
direction and capabilities. More recently, we testified[Footnote 19]
that the program is still in trouble and that its future direction is
not yet known. While the program office has corrective actions under
way, we concluded that, as the project continues, it will be critical
to ensure that the management issues of the past are not repeated.
* The Rescue 21 project is a planned coastal communications system of
the Department of Homeland Security. We recently reported[Footnote 20]
that inadequacies in several areas contributed to Rescue 21 cost
overruns and schedule delays. These inadequacies occurred in
requirements management, project monitoring, risk management,
contractor cost and schedule estimation and delivery, and executive
level oversight. Accordingly, the estimated total acquisition cost has
increased from $250 million in 1999 to $710.5 million in 2005, and the
timeline for achieving full operating capability has been extended from
2006 to 2011.
For the projects we identified as appearing to meet OMB's criteria for
high risk, the responsible agencies reported that they did not consider
these investments to be high risk projects for reasons such as (1) the
project was not a major investment; (2) agency management is
experienced in overseeing projects; or (3) the project did not have
weaknesses in its business case. In particular, one agency stated that
their list does not include all high risk projects, it includes only
those that are the highest priority of the high risk investments.
However, none of the reasons provided are associated with OMB's high
risk definition.
While OMB staff acknowledged that the process for identifying high risk
projects might not catch all projects meeting the criteria, they stated
that they have other mechanisms for determining the performance of all
IT projects, including high risk projects, such as the review of earned
value management data. Nevertheless, without consistent application of
the high risk criteria, OMB and executives cannot have the assurance
that all projects that require special attention have been identified.
Process for Updating High Risk Projects Is Not Defined:
OMB's guidance does not define a process for updating high risk
projects that have been identified including identifying new projects
and removing current ones. In the absence of such guidance, agencies
use different procedures, for example, for removing projects from the
list. Specifically, some agencies reported removing projects from the
list if they no longer meet OMB's criteria and other agencies reported
removing a project if it (1) is completed or moves into operations; (2)
has become compliant with its cost and schedule baseline goals; (3) is
no longer considered a major IT investment; (4) becomes on track and
maintains this status within specific cost, schedule and performance
for a minimum of two quarters; or (5) addresses major weaknesses such
as earned value management requirements.
While OMB staff acknowledge that there is no defined process for
updating the set of projects, they stated that agencies are in constant
communication with individual analysts at OMB through e-mails, phone
calls, or meetings to identify new high risk projects if they meet the
definition or remove old ones if they no longer meet the criteria.
Nevertheless, without guidance for updating high risk projects on a
continuing basis, OMB and agency executives cannot be assured they have
identified the appropriate projects that should be designated as high
risk.
OMB and Agencies Can Further Improve Oversight of High Risk Projects:
All 24 CFO agencies reported having procedures for overseeing high risk
projects. While some agencies reported using their current investment
management processes for specific oversight, other agencies established
additional oversight procedures. For example, one agency developed and
documented specific procedures for sending a quarterly data call to the
program offices that have high risk investments. The program office
then completes a template capturing current performance information and
sends it to the Office of the CIO for review and feedback. The CIO
office forwards it to OMB, as required. In contrast, some other
agencies reported that these projects are managed as part of their
current investment review process--requiring the investment review
board to perform control reviews along with other investments.
While procedures for overseeing high risk projects are positive steps,
we have previously reported that agencies generally have weaknesses in
project oversight. In particular, we reported that agencies did not
always have important mechanisms in place for agencywide investment
management boards to effectively control investments, including
decision-making rules for project oversight, early warning mechanisms,
and/or requirements that corrective actions for underperforming
projects be agreed upon and tracked.[Footnote 21] To remedy these
weaknesses, we have made several recommendations to improve processes
for effective oversight, many of which remain open. Until agencies
establish the practices needed to effectively manage IT investments
including those that are high risk, OMB, agency executives, and
Congress cannot be assured that investments are being properly managed.
OMB's oversight of high risk projects, in turn, entails reviewing the
performance reports on a quarterly basis. Specifically, according to
OMB staff, individual analysts review the quarterly performance reports
of projects with shortfalls to determine how well the projects are
progressing and whether the actions described in the planned
improvement efforts are adequate. These officials also stated that the
OMB analysts review the quarterly reports for completeness and
consistency with other performance data already received on IT
projects. This includes quarterly e-Gov Scorecards,[Footnote 22]earned
value management data, and the exhibit 300. For projects without
shortfalls, officials stated that while the memorandum does not direct
agencies to submit these reports, agencies communicate the status of
these projects to the appropriate officials. According to OMB, the
reporting requirement for high risk projects enhances oversight by
capturing all key elements in a single report and providing oversight
authorities and agency management early indicators of any problems or
shortfalls since the reporting is conducted on a quarterly basis.
However, OMB does not maintain a single aggregate list of high risk
projects. OMB staff told us they do not construct a single list because
they did not see such an activity as necessary in achieving the intent
of the guidance--to improve project planning and execution. Consistent
with our Management Watch List observations and
recommendations,[Footnote 23] we believe that by not having a single
list, OMB is not fully exploiting the opportunity to use the quarterly
reports as a tool for analyzing high risk projects on a governmentwide
basis and for tracking governmentwide progress. It is limiting its
ability to identify and report on the full set of IT investments across
the federal government that require special oversight and greater
agency management attention.
High Risk and Management Watch List Projects Identified Using Different
Criteria:
The high risk projects and Management Watch List projects are
identified using different sets of criteria. In addition, while the
identification of high risk projects centers on an agency's oversight
of the project's performance, the Management Watch List focuses more on
a project's planning.
As discussed previously, the high risk list consists of projects
identified by the agencies with the assistance of OMB, using specific
criteria established by OMB, including memorandum M-05-23. As discussed
previously, these projects are reported quarterly by the agencies to
OMB on a template focusing on each project's performance in four
specified areas[Footnote 24] and noted shortfalls. The agencies are
also to report planned corrective actions addressing the shortfalls.
On the other hand, OMB determines projects to be included on its
Management Watch List based on an evaluation of exhibit 300 business
cases that agencies submit for major projects as part of the budget
development process. This evaluation is part of OMB's responsibility
for helping to ensure that investments of public resources are
justified and that public resources are wisely invested. Each exhibit
300 is assigned a score in 10 different categories, the results of
which determine whether an individual project (or investment) warrants
being included on the Management Watch List. This may result in OMB's
asking the agency to submit a remediation plan to address the
weaknesses identified in the agency's business case.
While the criteria for identifying the Management Watch List projects
and high risk projects differ, Management Watch List projects can also
be high risk. For example, of the 226 total number of high risk
projects, agencies identified 37 of these projects as being on OMB's
Management Watch List,[Footnote 25] with 19 of these projects having
performance shortfalls. According to OMB staff, identifying and
addressing poorly planned projects as part of the Management Watch List
process could result in fewer projects with performance shortfalls over
time. Nevertheless, both types of projects require close attention
because of their importance in supporting critical functions and the
likelihood that performance problems associated with them could
potentially result in billions of taxpayers' dollars being wasted if
they are not detected early.
Conclusions:
OMB and agencies' efforts to identify 226 high risk projects are
important steps in helping focus management attention on critically
important IT projects. Although many projects were appropriately
identified as high risk initiatives consistent with OMB's guidance,
OMB's criteria were not always consistently applied. As a result,
projects that appear to be high risk were not always identified as
such. Further, because OMB has not provided guidance on how the initial
set of high risk projects list should be updated, agencies do not have
a consistent process for doing so.
Agencies and OMB have both taken actions to ensure oversight of the
high risk projects. Specifically, agencies are using existing oversight
procedures or ones they have specifically established for the high risk
projects and OMB is reviewing quarterly reports. However, weaknesses
remain: agencies need to implement specific recommendations we have
previously made to improve their practices for overseeing projects.
Finally, OMB has not developed a single aggregate list of high risk
projects to track progress, perform governmentwide analysis, and report
the results to Congress.
While the criteria for high risk projects and those on the Management
Watch List differ, both types of projects support critical business
functions and could experience performance problems that could become
costly to address if they are not detected early. Given this, the
Management Watch List projects and the high risk projects both require
continued attention.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order for OMB to take advantage of the potential benefits of using
the quarterly performance reports as a tool for identifying and
overseeing high risk projects on a governmentwide basis, we are
recommending that the Director of OMB take the following three actions:
* Direct federal agency CIOs to ensure that they are consistently
applying the criteria defined by OMB.
* Establish a structured, consistent process to update the initial list
of high risk projects on a regular basis, including identifying new
projects and removing previous ones to ensure the list is current and
complete.
* Develop a single aggregate list of high risk projects and their
deficiencies and use that list to report to Congress progress made in
correcting high risk problems, actions under way, and further actions
that may be needed. OMB could consider using the information we have
developed in appendix III as a starting point for developing this
single list.
In implementing these recommendations, OMB should consider working with
the CIO Council to help ensure governmentwide acceptance of these
actions.
Because we have outstanding recommendations aimed at (1) improving
agencies' investment management practices[Footnote 26] and (2) using
the Management Watch List as a tool for analyzing, setting priorities,
and following up on IT projects,[Footnote 27] we are not making any new
recommendations in this report regarding these issues.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
OMB's Administrator for the E-Government and Information Technology
provided written comments on a draft of this report (reprinted in app.
II). In these comments, OMB stated that it appreciated our careful
review of OMB's process for identifying and overseeing high risk
projects. However, the agency disagreed with our recommendations and
made other observations.
In its comments, OMB stated that it is concerned about our
interpretation of the goals and intent of the high risk process in
comparison to GAO's high risk list. Our intent is not to confuse the
goals and intent of the two efforts. Nevertheless, as noted in our
report, some major programs and operations have been placed on our high
risk list because of weaknesses in key agency management practices, and
this is consistent with OMB's first criterion for high risk
designation--the agency has not demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
In its comments, OMB also observed that the policy for identifying and
overseeing high risk projects is separate and apart from OMB's
Management Watch List and presents oversight authorities with
information that differs in focus, timing, and expected results. While
we agree with OMB that the two policies are different and acknowledge
this in our report, we also noted in the report that Management Watch
List projects can also be high risk. We believe projects from both
lists warrant close attention because of their importance in supporting
critical functions and the likelihood that performance problems
associated with them could potentially result in billion of taxpayers'
dollars being wasted if they are not detected early.
Regarding our recommendations to direct agencies to consistently apply
the criteria for designating projects as high risk and to establish a
structured, consistent process to update the initial list of high risk
projects, OMB stated that the process and criteria for designating
projects as high risk are clear and that some flexibility in the
application of the criteria is essential. While some flexibility in the
application of the criteria may be appropriate, we believe these
criteria should be applied more consistently so that projects that
clearly appear to meet them, such as those we mention in the report,
are identified.
OMB also disagreed with our recommendation to develop a single
aggregate list of projects and their deficiencies to perform adequate
oversight and management. As noted in the report, we believe that, by
not having this list, OMB is not fully exploiting the opportunity to
use the agencies' quarterly reports as a tool for analyzing high risk
projects on a governmentwide basis and for tracking governmentwide
progress. In addition, OMB is limiting its ability to identify and
report on the full set of IT investments across the federal government
that requires special oversight and greater agency management
attention.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
other interested congressional committees, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. Copies will
also be made available at no charge on our Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at 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 IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) provide a summary of high risk projects that
identifies by agency the number of high risk projects, their proposed
budget for fiscal year 2007, agency reasons for the high risk
designation, and reported performance shortfalls; (2) determine how
high risk projects were identified and updated and what processes and
procedures have been established to effectively oversee them; and (3)
determine the relationship between the high risk list and OMB's
Management Watch List.
We conducted our work at OMB and the 24 chief financial officer (CFO)
agencies in Washington, D.C. The 24 agencies are 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; and the Environmental Protection Agency, General
Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security
Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development.
To address the first objective, we requested and reviewed documentation
that identifies, for each agency, the number of high risk projects,
their proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, agency reasons for the high
risk designation, and reported performance shortfalls. In particular,
we reviewed agency performance reports on high risk projects for
September and December 2005 and March 2006 that identified high risk
projects and planned improvement efforts, if any. We did not
independently verify the information contained in these performance
reports. However, we asked all 24 CFO agencies to confirm the data in
appendix III regarding their high risk projects. Furthermore, we
obtained the funding information for all high risk projects for fiscal
years 2005, 2006, and 2007 from the Report on IT Spending for the
Federal Government, Exhibit 53. We did not verify these data.
To address the second objective, we used a structured data collection
instrument to better understand the 24 CFO agencies' processes and
procedures for identifying and overseeing high risk projects. All 24
agencies responded to our structured questionnaire. We did not verify
the accuracy of the agencies' responses; however, we reviewed
supporting documentation that selected agencies provided to validate
their responses. We contacted agency officials when necessary for
follow-up information. We then analyzed the agencies' responses.
Moreover, we identified and reviewed prior GAO reports on projects with
weaknesses that met OMB's high risk definition. Finally, to gain
insight into OMB's processes and procedures to oversee the high risk
list, we reviewed related policy guidance, including its Memorandum on
Improving IT Project Planning and Execution (M-05-23, dated August 4,
2005), and the Clinger-Cohen Act. We also interviewed OMB staff
including the chief of the Information Technology and Policy Branch.
To address the third objective, we interviewed OMB staff who are
responsible for developing and monitoring the high risk list and
Management Watch List, including the chief of the Information
Technology and Policy Branch. In addition, we reviewed our prior work
on OMB's Management Watch List, (GAO-05-276), to better understand the
processes for placing projects on the Management Watch List and
following up on their corrective actions. Finally, we requested
information from the 24 CFO agencies on which of their high risk
projects were also on the Management Watch List. Two of the 24 agencies
did not identify how many of their high risk projects were also on the
Management Watch List.
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from October 2005 through
May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:
Executive Office Of The President:
Office Of Management And Budget:
Washington, D.C. 20503:
June 9, 2006:
Mr. David A. Powner Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report titled, "Information
Technology: Agencies and OMB should Strengthen Processes for
Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects" (GAO-06-647).
We appreciate GAO's careful review of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) policy for improving information technology project
planning and execution, specifically the process for identifying and
overseeing high risk projects. However, we remain concerned regarding
GAO's interpretation of the goals and intent of the high risk process
with GAO's own "high risk list." Our high risk policy allows for
oversight authorities and agency management to have information on how
high risk projects are performing at least quarterly to ensure improved
execution and performance.
For proper context of the report, it is important to note this is a new
policy process and is designed to supplement and complement existing
oversight and internal agency processes, not replace them.
Additionally, it is important to note our policy is focused on
management and oversight activities with the goal of managing risk and
avoiding problems before taxpayers' dollars are wasted. As we noted
during GAO's review, this policy is separate and apart from OMB's
Management Watch List and presents oversight authorities (e.g., OMB,
agency Inspectors General, agency management, and GAO) with information
differing in focus, timing, and expected results.
The draft report recommends OMB direct agencies to consistently apply
the criteria for designating projects as high risk and to establish a
structured, consistent process to update the initial list of high risk
projects. We believe the process and the criteria for designating
projects as high risk are clear in the policy and some flexibility in
the application of the criteria is essential. We do not believe
flexibility in the process equals inconsistency in the application of
the criteria. The report incorrectly implies agencies will not be able
to oversee their own projects without additional guidance on this
narrowly-focused process when in fact, the report itself suggests
agencies are using this policy as an opportunity to improve their
internal oversight.
The draft report also recommends OMB develop a single list of high risk
projects and their deficiencies. We disagree with your assessment that
an aggregated government-wide list is necessary for OMB to perform
adequate oversight and management. As noted above, the intent of the
policy is to ensure agency and oversight authority efforts result in
improved execution and performance. OMB uses the high risk reports in
the larger context of OMB's budget and program oversight processes.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft
report on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Karen S. Evans:
Administrator for E-Government and Information Technology:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary of High Risk IT Projects by Department or Agency:
Table 5: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of
Agriculture:
Investment name: National Animal Identification System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $7.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $7.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): $4.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Financial Management Modernization Initiative;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 52.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Financial Management Systems;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A[B].
Investment name: Corporate Insurance Information Systems;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 4.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A[B].
Investment name: Infrastructure Modernization, Support, and Training;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): N/A;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 11.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 9.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/ A[B].
Investment name: Strategic Data Analysis;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A[B].
Investment name: Emerging Information Technology Architecture;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 1.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 2.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Common Information Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, schedule variance not within
10 percent, and qualified project manager is not in place;
Planned improvement efforts: Component agency has 20 people currently
enrolled in project management training and revising business case. The
investment has been elevated to the Undersecretary level to address
management issues;
Action date: ongoing.
Investment name: Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $2.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): $16.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, schedule variance not within
10 percent, and qualified project manager is not in place;
Planned improvement efforts: Revising business case and addressing
project management issues;
Action date: ongoing.
Investment name: ConnectHR;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 12.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 36.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 28.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Duplication with other investments;
Planned improvement efforts: Component agency has signed agreements for
conversion to enterprise human resource integration;
Action date: 9/ 30/06.
Investment name: Human Resources LOB: Service Center;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 4.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 9.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 8.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Human Resources LOB: ePayroll migration;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 4.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Agriculture documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[B] While USDA officials reported that there are no specific
performance shortfalls in these investments, they stated that, due to
poor project management, these business cases have been consistently
weak and that they are continuing to try and remediate the weaknesses
in the documentation.
[End of table]
Table 6: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Commerce:
Investment name: Master Address File/Topologically Integrated
Geographic Encoding and Referencing Enhancements;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $81.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $79.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): $73.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 49.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 46.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 50.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Field Data Collection Automation;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 35.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 59.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: e-Travel;
Investment type: IT migration investment portion of a larger asset;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall[B];
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Commerce documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[B] According to agency officials, this initiative is on hold.
[End of table]
Table 7: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Defense:
Investment name: Joint Tactical Radio SystemCluster 1;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $131.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $191.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): $10.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Defense Acquisition Executive established
a Joint Program Executive Officer with acquisition authority across all
product lines in 2nd quarter fiscal year 2005. This officer
commissioned an independent assessment of program cost, schedule, and
performance, and technical maturity in spring 2005. The Defense
Acquisition Executive last reviewed progress on the project's planning
on November 22, 2005.
Investment name: Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 68.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 104.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 51.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: On December 1, 2005, Deputy Secretary of
Defense determined project is a viable solution for Army personnel and
pay and transferred the program to the new Business Transformation
Agency;
Air Force assessment will be briefed to the Defense Business Systems
Management Committee on March 23, 2006. The Navy assessment will start
March 13, 2006, followed by the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2007;
Completion date is to be determined.
Investment name: Expeditionary Combat Support System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $54.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $80.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): $212.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Systems Integrator Source Selection under
way. Program will realign schedule subsequent to systems integrator
contract award in June 2006.
Investment name: Global Combat Support SystemArmy;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 182.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 141.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 219.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A[B].
Investment name: Logistics Modernization Program;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 65.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 111.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 109.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines;
Planned improvement efforts: An Army 3-star level review was conducted
on February 1, 2006, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Networks and Information Integration, Overarching Integrated Product
Team was briefed on February 2, 2006. The program office will undergo
another Overarching Integrated Product Team review in June 2006 and
will submit for Office of the Secretary of Defense approval a baseline
that includes metrics for cost, schedule, and performance.
Investment name: Navy Enterprise Resource Planning;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 66.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 115.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 178.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: The prime contract was fully defined on
January 2, 2006. The program rebaselining is planned to be completed in
the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2006.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Defense documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[B] This program is undergoing predevelopment activity and awaiting
approval to begin development. Program to be restructured to fit within
budget.
[End of table]
Table 8: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Education:
Investment name: Advance (Aid Delivery);
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $92.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $145.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): $95.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: The use of earned value management
techniques will closely monitor the project's development and
production schedule. Project schedule agreed to by upper management,
constantly overseen;
Action date: 6/15/06.
Investment name: Common Services for Borrowers;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 33.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 31.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 28.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Data Strategy;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Authentication;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Project manager is not yet qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: The project manager is attending IT
project manager certification program;
Action date: 6/ 15/06.
Investment name: ID Access Control System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 1.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Rebaseline the cost and schedule based on
changing requirements;
Action date: 6/15/06.
Investment name: Education Resource Information Center;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $6.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $6.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): $6.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Education Data Exchange Network;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 14.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 5.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C, D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent and project manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: The project manager is serving in a
temporary capacity as the office is going through reorganization;
Action date: 6/15/06.
Investment name: Financial Management Support System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 8.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 12.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Grants Administration and Payment System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 2.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C, D;
Performance shortfall: Project manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: The project manager is attending IT
project manager certification program;
Action date: 6/15/ 06.
Investment name: G5Grants Management Re-Design;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent and project manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: The project manager is scheduled to
complete IT project manager certification program;
Action date: 6/15/06.
Investment name: Migrant Student Information Exchange;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 2.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C, D;
Performance shortfall: Project manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: The project manager is attending IT
project manager certification program;
Action date: 6/15/ 06.
Investment name: Travel Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 1.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Education documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 9: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Energy:
Investment name: EE State Grants Administration;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $1.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $1.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): $1.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Management Navigation System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 34.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 29.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 27.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Advanced Simulation and Computing Future Platform;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 25.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Cyber Security Initiative;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 10.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 23.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 25.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Security System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 3.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Energy documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 10: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Health
and Human Services:
Investment name: CDC Public Health Information Network: BioSense;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $50.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $49.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): $47.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: CMS Healthcare Integrated General Ledger Accounting
System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 99.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 149.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 139.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: CMS MMA Title I and II applications;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 108.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 114.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 103.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: HHS Unified Financial Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 62.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 57.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 64.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: IHS Resource and Patient Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 47.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 45.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 54.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines and project manager is not
qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Baseline revision is completed and will be
submitted to the agency Investment Review Board for review/approval
3/14/06;
Project manager has completed 2 courses of a 7 course master's
certification program.
Investment name: NIH OD Electronic Research Administration;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 44.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 42.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 43.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Federal Health ArchitectureManaging Partner;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Grants.govFind and Apply;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: HHS Human Resources Line of Business (LOB);
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $0.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines;
Planned improvement efforts: Governance issues remain unclear.
Specifically, it is imperative that a financing strategy be in place
and that migrations be adequately funded before the Shared Service
Centers start servicing new customers.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Health and Human
Services documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 11: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Homeland
Security:
Investment name: United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $341.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $341.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): $407.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: SBInet;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 84.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 38.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 139.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Project is in initial phase;
therefore, baselines have not been approved and earned value management
is not yet required. Program manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Project manager enrolled in training to
achieve level III certification.
Investment name: eNEMIS;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 14.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 13.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 14.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines;
Planned improvement efforts: Corrective actions not reported.
Investment name: Disaster Management;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 14.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 10.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 10.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Program manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Certification application to be submitted
to DHS by 1/31/06.
Investment name: Homeland Security Information Network;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 9.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 20.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 22.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines and program manager is not
qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Conducting internal Investment Review
Board making "within threshold adjustments" to key work breakdown
structure by 6/1/06 and assign a fully qualified project manager by
3/15/06.
Investment name: National Asset Data Base;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 12.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 12.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 12.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines and program manager is not
qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Appropriate resources have been contacted
to complete the approval of the baseline documentation and project
manager certification by 5/24/06.
Investment name: Priority Telecommunications Service;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $116.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $118.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): $120.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, project manager is not
qualified, and duplication exists between other investments;
Planned improvement efforts: Submit baseline documents by 3/1/06 and
project manager certification by 2/15/06 to prepare for the Investment
Review Board briefing scheduled for 4/26/06.
Investment name: Information Systems Security LOB;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall[B];
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: SAFECOM;
Investment type: non-IT;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 8.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D, E;
Weakness in the area of performance goals;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Create detailed project plans to satisfy
earned value management criteria;
Action date: 10/1/05.
Investment name: Alien Flight Student Program;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 9.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 10.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 10.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Briefing to the component agency's
administrator on need for funding;
Action date: 4/14/06.
Investment name: Hazmat Threat Assessment Program;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 10.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 28.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 27.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Program manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Project manager has developed and is
implementing a training plan to achieve certification;
Action date: 7/31/07.
Investment name: Registered Traveler;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 15.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 23.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 35.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Program manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Training plan in place and program office
is looking to backfill position;
Action date: 12/30/06.
Investment name: Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 10.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 20.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines and schedule variance not
within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Revised deployment schedule is contingent
on completing the investment review process;
Action date: fiscal year 2006, 3rd quarter.
Investment name: Secure Flight[C];
Investment type: IT program;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 44.9.
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 94.3.
FY2007 request (in millions): 54.7.
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines;
Planned improvement efforts: Currently rebaselining program;
Action date: 3/25/06.
Investment name: Crew Vetting[C];
Investment type: major;
FY 2005 actuals (in millions): [C];
FY2006 enacted (in millions): [C];
FY2007 request (in millions) [C];
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: [Empty];
Planned improvement efforts: Component agency officials are giving
technical assistance to develop and present an approved baseline to DHS
by 3/15/06 and project manager certification to be granted April 2006.
Investment name: Nationwide Automatic Identification System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 24.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 27.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 19.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Weaknesses in business case;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines;
Planned improvement efforts: Corrective actions not reported.
Investment name: eMerge2;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 49.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 17.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 17.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Project manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Since current project manager is acting,
DHS will hire an individual with appropriate certification level.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Homeland Security
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project exceptionally high development, operating, or maintenance
costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the agency's
total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[B] According to agency officials, this investment is in the initial
concept phase and therefore has not been approved or funded.
[C] According to agency officials, since Secure Flight and Crew Vetting
were considered as one investment in the fiscal year 2007 budget
submission, the 2005 actuals, 2006 enacted and 2007 request are the
same for both projects. They will be separate investments in fiscal
year 2008.
[End of table]
Table 12: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development:
Investment name: FHA Subsidiary Ledger;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $11.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $11.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): $6.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: HUD Integrated Financial Management Project;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 4.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 4.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 9.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Enterprise Income Verification;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 4.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 2.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Supports the presidential initiative for a citizen- centered, results-
oriented, market-based government;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Housing and Urban
Development documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 13: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Interior:
Investment name: Recreation One-Stop;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $5.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): $11.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Geospatial One-Stop;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 9.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 6.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Financial Business Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 50.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 49.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 52.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: New contract was awarded that includes
requirement for contractor to use an ANSI Standard 748-compliant EVMS.
An Integrated Baseline Review is under way and will be completed by
March 31, 2006. Project will request DOI Investment Review Board
approval of new baseline in April.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Interior documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 14: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Justice:
Investment name: Integrated Wireless Network;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $159.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $89.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): $180.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Unified Financial Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 66.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 82.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 118.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Litigation Case Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 6.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 13.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Grants.gov (managing partner);
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Sentinel;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 4.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 197.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 100.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Next Generation IAFIS;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 14.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 60.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 57.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Law Enforcement National Data Exchange;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 28.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 15.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 24.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines;
Planned improvement efforts: The planned contract award of the
development contract is January 2007. The ANSI/EIA-748 compliance will
occur in April 2007;
Action date: 1/22/07.
Investment name: Regional Data Exchange;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 5.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Terrorist Screening Database Upgrade;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 3.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 4.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Justice documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 15: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Labor:
Investment name: New Core Financial Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $9.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $6.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): $14.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: GovBenefits;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 4.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 4.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: EFAST;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 19.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 21.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 19.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: EFAST2;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 17.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall[B];
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Technical Information Retrieval System;
Investment type: non-major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Grants;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Enterprise HR Integration;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 4.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Travel;
Investment type: non-major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Labor documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[B] According to agency officials, this investment is not an active
program.
[End of table]
Table 16: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of State:
Investment name: State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $32.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $39.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): $3.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: On October 17, 2005, the Under Secretary
for Management signed a task order authorizing the initiation of a
detailed contingency planning effort for this investment. A report on
this planning effort was submitted by the Chief Information Officer to
the Under Secretary for Management on February 13, 2006.
Investment name: Joint Financial Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 7.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 16.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 13.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Interagency;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: e-Travel;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: OMB and the General Services
Administration, the managing partner of this e-government initiative,
have been consistently apprised of the problems with the vendor's
software and the efforts the Department of State has made to help the
vendor design the needed functionality;
The international version of the software is scheduled to be released
by the vendor near the end of fiscal year 2006. Department of State
anticipates a significant amount of testing prior to using the
international capabilities of this software in a production
environment. As a result, this will push the first overseas pilot into
fiscal year 2007.
Investment name: Consolidated American Payroll System and Interagency e-
Payroll Migration;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $5.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $5.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): $1.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: The National Finance Center is assessing
the impact of system modifications to meet the Department of State's
payroll processing requirements. System development efforts by the
National Finance Center will determine the implementation schedule for
the agency and the center's migration activities and overall costs for
both agencies;
The National Finance Center has committed to providing a written cost
estimate by March 17, 2006.
Investment name: Integrated Personnel Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 23.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 24.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 25.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of State documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The projects is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies
in the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function
of the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 17: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of
Transportation:
Investment name: Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $106.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $91.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): $82.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Incomplete EVM assessment, behind schedule;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: En Route Automation Modernization;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 261.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 330.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 376.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Wide Area Augmentation System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 122.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 117.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 133.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, E;
Incomplete EVM assessment and historically behind schedule and/or over
cost;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Terminal Automation Mod. & Rep;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 19.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 32.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Terminal Radar Digitizing, Replacement, and
Establishment;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 93.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 69.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 77.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Poor EVM quality;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Automated Weather Observation System/Automated Surface
Observing System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 27.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 25.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 27.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Poor EVM quality;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 143.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 232.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 246.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, E;
Poor EVM quality, out of variance;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Corrective actions taken to put the
program back on track to meet fiscal year 2007 target date for full
implementation.
Investment name: Next Generation Vhf Air/Ground Communications (Segment
1);
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 29.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 34.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 26.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Out of variance;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Program rebaselined in December 2005 and
corrective actions taken that bring it within variance limits.
Investment name: Traffic Flow ManagementModernization;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 48.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 92.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 106.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Out of variance;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $132.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $119.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): $86.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, D, E;
Poor EVM quality;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Consolidated Financial Management;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 65.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 63.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 50.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: System-Wide Information Management;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 7.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 13.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 24.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
No approved baselines;
Performance shortfall: Investment Review Board has not baselined this
project;
Planned improvement efforts: Requires a baseline;
Action date: 6/2006.
Investment name: Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 7.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 22.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 117.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
No approved baselines;
Performance shortfall: Investment Review Board has not baselined this
project;
Planned improvement efforts: Requires a baseline;
Action date: 6/2006.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Transportation
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 18: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Treasury:
Investment name: BSA Direct;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $9.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $7.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): $3.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Customer Account Data Engine;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 105.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 113.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 120.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A, B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Filing and Payment Compliance (Blended);
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 32.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 20.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A, B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: HR Connect;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 23.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 24.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 23.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 9.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 18.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 18.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A, B;
Performance shortfall: Cost variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: The development, modernization,
enhancement costs are expected to fall within tolerance as a result of
closeout costs being reported.
Investment name: Modernized e-File;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 69.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 67.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 55.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: A, B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Oracle Federal Financial Systems;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 4.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 3.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 16.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 21.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: The corrective action for the schedule
variance is being handled as part of the restructuring and re-planning
activity in 1st quarter fiscal year 2006.
[End of table]
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Treasury documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
Table 19: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Department of Veterans
Affairs:
Investment name: Health Admin Center;
IT Operations2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $9.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $13.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): $11.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Fee Basis Replacement2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 8.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 7.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: This project is being terminated.
Investment name: VistA Legacy2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 437.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 451.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 460.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: VistA Imaging2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 79.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 67.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 51.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Scheduling Replacement Project2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 18.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 12.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 12.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Health Data Repository2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 40.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 24.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 26.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Enrollment (Includes Income Verification)2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 12.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 14.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 11.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: VistA Laboratory IS System Re-engineering2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 18.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: HealtheVet VistA2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $45.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $42.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): $71.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: MyHealtheVet2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 21.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 13.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 16.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Medical and Prosthetic Research2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 20.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 23.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 23.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Decision Support System Legacy2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 19.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 19.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 19.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Allocation Resource Center2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 4.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 2.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Patient Financial Services System2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 36.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 9.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Decision Support System Modernization2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: This project is being terminated.
Investment name: Pharmacy Re-Engineering and IT Support2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 17.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 16.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 16.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Payroll/HR Systems2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 12.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 14.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 14.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Financial Management System2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 13.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 16.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 16.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: e-Payroll2007;
Investment type: IT migration investment portion of a larger asset;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $6.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $5.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): $7.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: VA wide e-Travel Solution2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 4.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: VA-Learning Management System2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: Federal Health Information Exchange2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 4.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 4.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 4.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: BDN Maintenance and Operations2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 20.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 21.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 21.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new operational baseline with associated
cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB approval.
Investment name: BIRLS/VADS2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 2.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: An operational baseline with associated
cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB approval.
Investment name: C&P Maintenance and Operations (non-BDN)2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 54.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 17.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 15.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: No planned improvement efforts reported.
Investment name: Education Maintenance and Operations (non-BDN)2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 7.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: An operational baseline with associated
cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB approval.
Investment name: Insurance System Maintenance and Operations2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $8.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $7.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): $7.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Loan Guaranty Maintenance and Operations2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 9.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 10.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 10.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new operational baseline with associated
cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB approval.
Investment name: Program Integrity/Data Management2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 10.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 9.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 9.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: An operational baseline with associated
cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB approval.
Investment name: The Education Expert System2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A new performance measurement baseline
with associated cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB
approval.
Investment name: VR&E Maintenance and Operations (non-BDN)2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 2.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: An operational baseline with associated
cost and schedule variances will be submitted for OMB approval.
Investment name: Burial Operations Support System2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 1.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Automated Monument Application System2007;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Department of Veterans Affairs
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 20: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Environmental
Protection Agency:
Investment name: PeoplePlusHR;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $3.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $2.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): $2.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: e-Rulemaking;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 10.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 1.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: A rebaseline will be requested and
monitored by operational analysis rather than earned value management
until development funds are reauthorized.
Investment name: EZ-Hire;
Investment type: non-major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Financial Replacement System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 19.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 28.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 37.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Contracts Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 3.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Grants Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 1.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Environmental Protection Agency
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 21: Summary of High Risk Projects for the General Services
Administration:
Investment name: CHRIS;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $5.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $7.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): $6.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: eAuthentication;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Enterprise Customer Relationship Management System;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 12.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 17.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 18.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
This is a large project in the initial stage;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: eTravel;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 10.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 9.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 9.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Federal Asset Sales Program;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 2.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 2.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: FMLoB COE/Pegasys;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 28.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 39.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 40.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: GSA Preferred;
Investment type: non-major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 10.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 18.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 3.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, cost, and schedule variances
not within 10 percent and project manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Based on the results of an independent
assessment, GSA has determined that this investment is not meeting the
current and future business objectives. As a result, GSA is terminating
this investment;
GSA has initiated a data migration initiative that will enable
migration of the two regions to the legacy system. Will provide
quarterly updates on progress of migration activity;
Action date: fiscal year 2007, 4th.
Investment name: Integrated Acquisition Environment;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $9.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $4.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): $3.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost variance not within 10 percent and project
manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Update task planned start and end dates on
protest resolution and project manager will continue required training
to meet CIO program manager certification criteria;
Action date: fiscal year 2006, 4th quarter.
Investment name: USA Services;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 11.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 11.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 11.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and General Services Administration
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 22: Summary of High Risk Projects for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration:
Investment name: E-Rulemaking;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $0.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Business Gateway;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Geospatial One-Stop;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Grants.Gov;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Training;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $1.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Recruitment One Stop;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Payroll;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Travel;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Acquisition Environment;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 1.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 1.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 1.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Records Management;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Authentication;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Financial Management Line of Business;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Human Resource Management Lines of Business;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Information Systems Security Line of Business;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Core Financial;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 38.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 87.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 37.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Contract Management Module;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 16.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 37.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 14.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 23: Summary of High Risk Projects for the National Science
Foundation:
Investment name: E-Human Capital;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.7;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $1.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): $2.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and National Science Foundation
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 24: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission:
Investment name: e-Travel;
Investment type: non-major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Disaster Management Information System;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): N/A;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): N/A;
FY2007 request (in millions): N/A;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Learning Management System;
Investment type: non- major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.5;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Complete security certification and
accreditation process;
Action date: pending.
Investment name: Electronic Information Exchange;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project exceptionally high development, operating, or maintenance
costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the agency's
total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 25: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Office of Personnel
Management:
Investment name: Information Systems Security Line of Business;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, cost and schedule variances
not within 10 percent, and project manager is not qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: The Office of Personnel Management's
project coordinator will work with OMB staff and interagency
Information Systems Security Line of Business participants to clarify
governmentwide and agency goals. Once the goals are clarified, the
baseline cost and schedule will be developed. Agency will assess the
project manager against the agency's qualification guidelines.
Investment name: Retirement Systems Modernization;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 52.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 43.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B, C, D;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baselines, and cost and schedule
variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: This project is still in the planning
phase and a baseline is being developed.
Investment name: Financial Management Line of Business;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Corrective actions not reported.
Investment name: Human Resources Management Line of Business;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 8.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 6.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Enterprise Human Resources Integration;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 12.8;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 36.8;
FY2007 request (in millions): 36.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Training;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $3.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $3.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): $3.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Schedule variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: The Human Resources Management Line of
Business/ Human Resource Development Project Management Office will
closely monitor the delivery of activities on the enterprise
architecture, Workforce Development Roadmap, and performance management
sub- projects. OPM requested the completion of remaining baseline
corrections to resolve located schedule errors.
Investment name: Recruitment One Stop/USA Jobs;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 6.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 7.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 7.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Clearance;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 6.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 5.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variances not within 10
percent;
Planned improvement efforts: For both the cost/ and schedule variances,
the agency is updating out estimate to complete to reflect a realistic
timeline given the current circumstances with external stakeholders.
Investment name: Personnel Investigations Processing Systems;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 9.9;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 12.9;
FY2007 request (in millions): 13.3;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Designated by OMB;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: e-Rulemaking;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Fed Asset Sales;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Business Gateway;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Disaster Management;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Travel;
Investment type: IT migration investment portion of a larger asset;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Authentication;
Investment type: IT migration investment portion of a larger asset;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Office of Personnel Management
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project exceptionally high development, operating, or maintenance
costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the agency's
total IT portfolio.
C=The projects is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies
in the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function
of the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 26: Summary of High Risk Projects for Small Business
Administration:
Investment name: GovBenefits.gov;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): N/A;
FY2006 request (in millions): N/A;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: USA Services;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Rulemaking;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.2;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.2;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Federal Asset Sales;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Geospatial One-Stop;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Disaster Management;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Grants.gov;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.2;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Training;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Recruitment One-Stop;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): N/A;
FY2006 request (in millions): N/A;
FY2007 request (in millions): N/A;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Enterprise Human Resources Integration;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Clearance;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): N/A;
FY2006 request (in millions): N/A;
FY2007 request (in millions): N/A;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Travel;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: E-Authentication;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.4;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.5;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Financial Management Line of Business;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.1;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Human Resources Management Line of Business;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): $0.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.7;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Project manager is not yet qualified;
Planned improvement efforts: Original project deliverable for fiscal
year 2006 was deferred, with no project manager required. New project
manager is receiving training as part of Office of CIO directed formal
training activity.
Investment name: WinZip SmartBUY;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): N/A;
FY2006 request (in millions): N/A;
FY2007 request (in millions): N/A;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Grants Management LOB;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Integrated Acquisition Environment;
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Business Gateway (e-GOV);
Investment type: Joint effort for more than one agency;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.1;
FY2006 request (in millions): 0.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 0.1;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Business Gateway (Managing Partner)[B];
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 8.9;
FY2006 request (in millions): 10.3;
FY2007 request (in millions): 7.9;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Disaster Credit Management System[B];
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 5.0;
FY2006 request (in millions): 5.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 5.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Small Business Administration
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[B] According to agency officials, the fiscal year 2006 request was
enacted for these investments.
[End of table]
Table 27: Summary of High Risk Projects for the Social Security
Administration:
Investment name: E-Vital;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $1.1;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $1.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): $0.8;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: D;
Performance shortfall: Cost variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: None, as fixed price contract cost
variances at successful project completion will be zero.
Investment name: e-Dib;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 79.3;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 22.7;
FY2007 request (in millions): 8.4;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Disability Process Improvements;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 6.2;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 35.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): 28.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Improve SSA's Disability Service;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: Medicare Modernization;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 99.0;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 61.4;
FY2007 request (in millions): 7.6;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: E;
Legislation;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A.
Investment name: IT Operations Assurance;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 22.6;
FY2007 request (in millions): 28.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: Cost variance not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: Contract to be awarded for the second data
center facility;
Action date: pending.
Investment name: Voice over IP;
Investment type: major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): 0.4;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): 41.1;
FY2007 request (in millions): 33.5;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: B;
Performance shortfall: No performance shortfall;
Planned improvement efforts: N/A. =
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and Social Security Administration
documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
Table 28: Summary of High Risk Projects for the U.S. Agency for
International Development:
Investment name: Joint Acquisition and Assistance Management System/
Procurement System Improvement Project;
Investment type: major & non- major;
FY2005 actuals (in millions): $0.0 & 10.6;
FY2006 enacted (in millions): $6.0 & 0.0;
FY2007 request (in millions): $11.4 & 0.0;
Reasons for high risk designation[A]: C;
Performance shortfall: Baselines not yet established and cost and
schedule variances not within 10 percent;
Planned improvement efforts: To collect information from various
sources at the agency and the Department of State in order to validate
milestones;
Action date: 6/1/ 06.
Source: OMB FY2007 Exhibit 53 and U.S. Agency for International
Development documents.
[A] Reasons for high risk designation include:
A=The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage
complex projects.
B=The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or
maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the
agency's total IT portfolio.
C=The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in
the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of
the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization.
D=The projects' delay or failure would introduce for the first time
unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential
mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another
organization. (Note: According to OMB staff, projects identified as
high risk per OMB's additional instructions on e-government or lines of
business initiatives met this reason.)
E=Other.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286, pownerd@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, the following people made key
contributions to this report: William G. Barrick, Nancy Glover,
Nnaemeka Okonkwo, Sabine Paul, and Niti Tandon.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Can Make More Effective Use of Its
Investment Reviews, GAO-05-276 (Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2005).
[2] The 24 CFO agencies are 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;
and the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National
Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel
Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security
Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development.
[3] 44 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1)(B)(vi)(OMB);
44 U.S.C. § 3506(h)(5) (agencies).
[4] These requirements are specifically described in the Clinger-Cohen
Act, 40 U.S.C. § 11302 (c).
[5] 44 U.S.C. § 3603.
[6] GAO, Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic
Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be
Further Improved, GAO-04-49 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2004).
[7] These scoring criteria are presented in Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-11, Part 7, Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition, and
Management of Capital Assets (June 2005). The criteria consist of 10
categories, including acquisition strategy, project management,
enterprise architecture, alternative analysis, risk management,
performance goals, security and privacy, performance-based management
system (including the earned value management system), life-cycle costs
formulation, and support for the President's Management Agenda. A total
composite score of all the categories is also derived.
[8] OMB Circular A-11 defines a major IT investment as an investment
that requires special management attention because of its importance to
an agency's mission or because it is an integral part of the agency's
enterprise architecture, has significant program or policy
implications, has high executive visibility, or is defined as major by
the agency's capital planning and investment control process.
[9] GAO-05-276.
[10] According to OMB management, individual analysts were responsible
for evaluating projects and determining which projects met the criteria
to be on the Management Watch List for their assigned agencies. To
derive the total number of projects on the list that were reported for
fiscal year 2005, OMB polled the individual analysts and compiled the
numbers. OMB staff said that they did not aggregate these projects into
a single list describing projects and their weaknesses. According to
these officials, they did not construct a single list of projects
meeting their Watch List criteria because they did not see such an
activity as necessary in performing OMB's predominant mission: to
assist in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to
supervise agency budget administration.
[11] In 2001, under the leadership of OMB, a team known as the E-
Government Task Force identified a set of high-profile initiatives to
lead the federal government's drive toward e-government transformation.
These initiatives--now numbering 25--cover a wide spectrum of
government activities, ranging from centralizing various types of
government information on the Web to eliminating redundant,
nonintegrated business operations and systems. For additional details
on these e-government initiatives see GAO, Electronic Government:
Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-Government Act
of 2002, GAO-05-12 (Washington, D.C: Dec. 10, 2004).
[12] For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency to be the
initiative's "managing partner," responsible for leading the
initiative, and assigned other federal agencies as "partners" in
carrying out the initiative.
[13] Among these five agencies, many of their projects were either e-
government or line of business initiatives.
[14] EVM is a project management tool that integrates the investment
scope of work with schedule and cost elements for investment planning
and control. This method compares the value of work accomplished during
a given period with that of the work expected in the period.
Differences in expectations are measured in both cost and schedule
variances. OMB requires agencies to use EVM as part of their
performance-based management system for any investment under
development or with system improvements under way.
[15] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.,
Jan. 2005).
[16] GAO-05-207.
[17] GAO, Census Bureau: Important Activities for Improving Management
of Key 2010 Decennial Acquisitions Remain to be Done, GAO-06-444T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006).
[18] GAO, Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites:
Technical Problems, Cost Increases, and Schedule Delays Trigger Need
for Difficult Trade-Off Decisions, GAO-06-249T (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
16, 2005).
[19] GAO, Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites: Cost
Increases Trigger Review and Place Program's Direction on Hold, GAO-06-
573T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2006).
[20] GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management
and Oversight of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-632 (Washington,
D.C.: May 31, 2006).
[21] GAO-04-49.
[22] The quarterly e-Gov Scorecards are reports that use a red/yellow/
green scoring system to illustrate the results of OMB's evaluation of
agencies' implementation of e-government criteria in the President's
Management Agenda. The scores are determined in quarterly reviews,
where OMB evaluates agency progress toward agreed-upon goals along
several dimensions, and provides input to the quarterly reporting on
the President's Management Agenda.
[23] GAO-05-276.
[24] As discussed earlier, these four areas are (1) baseline with clear
goals, (2) cost and schedule variance within 10 percent, (3) qualified
project manager, and (4) avoiding duplication.
[25] Two of the 24 agencies did not identify how many of their high
risk projects were also on the Management Watch List.
[26] GAO-04-49.
[27] GAO-05-276.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
