Information Technology
Further Improvements Needed to identify and Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects Gao ID: GAO-07-1211T September 20, 2007The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a key role in overseeing federal information technology (IT) investments. The Clinger-Cohen Act, among other things, requires OMB to establish processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments in information systems made by agencies and to report to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as a result of these investments. OMB has developed several processes to help carry out its role. For example, OMB began using a Management Watch List several years ago as a means of identifying poorly planned projects based on its evaluation of agencies' funding justifications for major projects, known as exhibit 300s. In addition, in August 2005, OMB established a process for agencies to identify high risk projects and to report on those that are performing poorly. GAO testified last year on the Management Watch List and high risk projects, and on GAO's recommendations to improve these processes. GAO was asked to (1) provide an update on the Management Watch List and high risk projects and (2) identify OMB's efforts to improve the identification and oversight of these projects. In preparing this testimony, GAO summarized its previous reports on initiatives for improving the management of federal IT investments. GAO also analyzed current Management Watch List and high risk project information.
OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 227 IT projects--totaling at least $10.4 billion in expenditures for fiscal year 2008--as being poorly planned (on the Management Watch List), poorly performing (on the High Risk List with performance shortfalls), or both. OMB has taken steps to improve the identification and oversight of the Management Watch List and High Risk projects by addressing recommendations previously made by GAO, however, additional efforts are needed to more effectively perform these activities. Specifically, GAO previously recommended that OMB take action to improve the accuracy and reliability of exhibit 300s and consistent application of the high risk projects criteria, and perform governmentwide tracking and analysis of Management Watch List and high risk project information. In response to these recommendations, OMB, for example, started publicly releasing aggregate lists of Management Watch List and high risk projects by agency in September 2006 and has been updating them since then on a quarterly basis. However, OMB does not publish the reasons for placing projects on the Management Watch List, nor does it specifically identify why high risk projects are poorly performing. Providing this information would allow OMB and others to better analyze the reasons projects are poorly planned and performing, take corrective actions, and track these projects on a governmentwide basis. Such information would also help to highlight progress made by agencies or projects, identify management issues that transcend individual agencies, and highlight the root causes of governmentwide issues and trends. Until OMB makes further improvements in the identification and oversight of poorly planned and poorly performing IT projects, potentially billions in taxpayer dollars are at risk of being wasted.
GAO-07-1211T, Information Technology: Further Improvements Needed to identify and Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1211T
entitled 'Information Technology: Further Improvements Needed to
Identify and Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects' which was
released on September 21, 2007.
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.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1211T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a key role in
overseeing federal information technology (IT) investments. The Clinger-
Cohen Act, among other things, requires OMB to establish processes to
analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital
investments in information systems made by agencies and to report to
Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as a result
of these investments. OMB has developed several processes to help carry
out its role. For example, OMB began using a Management Watch List
several years ago as a means of identifying poorly planned projects
based on its evaluation of agencies‘ funding justifications for major
projects, known as exhibit 300s. In addition, in August 2005, OMB
established a process for agencies to identify high risk projects and
to report on those that are performing poorly.
GAO testified last year on the Management Watch List and high risk
projects, and on GAO…s recommendations to improve these processes. GAO
was asked to (1) provide an update on the Management Watch List and
high risk projects and (2) identify OMB‘s efforts to improve the
identification and oversight of these projects. In preparing this
testimony, GAO summarized its previous reports on initiatives for
improving the management of federal IT investments. GAO also analyzed
current Management Watch List and high risk project information.
What GAO Found:
OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 227 IT
projects”totaling at least $10.4 billion in expenditures for fiscal
year 2008”as being poorly planned (on the Management Watch List),
poorly performing (on the High Risk List with performance shortfalls),
or both. The figure below shows the distribution of these projects as
well as their associated dollar values.
Figure: Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing IT Projects (as of June
2007):
Management Watch List:
Total: 136 ($8.6B);
Poorly planned: 103 ($4.5B);
Both poorly planned and poorly performing: 33 ($4.1B); Poorly
performing: 0.
High Risk List with shortfalls: Total: 124 ($6.0B);
Poorly planned: 0;
Both poorly planned and poorly performing: 33 ($4.1B); Poorly
performing: 91 ($1.8B).
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[End of figure]
OMB has taken steps to improve the identification and oversight of the
Management Watch List and High Risk projects by addressing
recommendations previously made by GAO, however, additional efforts are
needed to more effectively perform these activities. Specifically, GAO
previously recommended that OMB take action to improve the accuracy and
reliability of exhibit 300s and consistent application of the high risk
projects criteria, and perform governmentwide tracking and analysis of
Management Watch List and high risk project information. In response to
these recommendations, OMB, for example, started publicly releasing
aggregate lists of Management Watch List and high risk projects by
agency in September 2006 and has been updating them since then on a
quarterly basis. However, OMB does not publish the reasons for placing
projects on the Management Watch List, nor does it specifically
identify why high risk projects are poorly performing. Providing this
information would allow OMB and others to better analyze the reasons
projects are poorly planned and performing, take corrective actions,
and track these projects on a governmentwide basis. Such information
would also help to highlight progress made by agencies or projects,
identify management issues that transcend individual agencies, and
highlight the root causes of governmentwide issues and trends. Until
OMB makes further improvements in the identification and oversight of
poorly planned and poorly performing IT projects, potentially billions
in taxpayer dollars are at risk of being wasted.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www/GAO-07-1211T]. For more information, contact
David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office: GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
Information Technology: Further Improvements Needed to Identify and
Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects:
Statement of David A. Powner: Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, September 20, 2007:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government‘s key
processes for improving the management of information technology (IT)
investments totaling $65 billion for fiscal year 2008. Effective
management of these investments is essential to the health, economy,
and security of the nation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
plays a key role in overseeing federal IT investments. In particular,
as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act, OMB must establish processes to
analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital
investments in information systems made by executive agencies and to
report to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as
a result of these investments.
To help carry out its oversight role, OMB has developed several
processes, including its Management Watch List and high risk projects
[Footnote 1]. The Management Watch List identifies projects that are
poorly planned (projects with weaknesses in their funding
justifications, known as exhibit 300s). High risk projects require
special attention from oversight authorities and the highest level of
agency management, and include projects that are poorly performing
(projects experiencing performance shortfalls, meaning that they do not
meet one or more of four performance evaluation criteria)[Footnote 2].
The Management Watch List and high risk processes are instrumental in
helping to identify and improve oversight of poorly planned and poorly
performing projects. Last September, we testified on OMB‘s oversight of
federal IT projects. We highlighted the number and dollar value of the
projects identified as poorly planned and/or poorly performing as a
result of the Management Watch List and high risk processes. Given the
importance of OMB‘s oversight processes, you asked us to (1) provide an
update on the Management Watch List and High Risk projects, and (2)
identify OMB‘s efforts to improve the identification and oversight of
these projects. In preparing this testimony, we summarized our previous
reports on initiatives for improving the management of federal IT
investments and interviewed OMB staff on their efforts to better
identify and oversee Management Watch List and high risk projects
[Footnote 3]. We also analyzed current Management Watch List and high
risk project information. We performed our work in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 227 IT
projects”totaling at least $10.4 billion in expenditures for fiscal
year 2008”as being poorly planned, poorly performing, or both.
Specifically, through the Management Watch List process, OMB determined
that 103 projects (totaling about $4.5 billion) are poorly planned. In
addition, agencies reported that 91 of their high risk projects
(totaling about $1.8 billion) were poorly performing. Thirty three
projects (totaling about $4.1 billion) are both poorly planned and
poorly performing. For example, the Department of Treasury‘s Electronic
Fraud Detection System was identified as being poorly planned, the
Social Security Administration‘s Disability Service Improvement project
was identified as being poorly performing, and the Department of
Homeland Security‘s Secure Border Initiative Net Technology Program was
identified as being both poorly planned and poorly performing.
OMB has taken steps to improve the identification and oversight of the
Management Watch List and High Risk projects by addressing some of the
recommendations that we had made previously. However, additional
efforts are needed to more effectively perform these activities.
Specifically, we previously recommended that OMB take action to improve
the accuracy and reliability of exhibit 300s, of application of the
high risk projects criteria, and perform governmentwide tracking and
analysis of Management Watch List and high risk project information. In
response to our recommendations, OMB, for example, started publicly
releasing aggregate lists of Management Watch List and high risk
projects by agency in September 2006 and has been updating them since
then on a quarterly basis by posting them on their website. However,
OMB does not publish the reasons for placing projects on the Management
Watch List, nor does it specifically identify why high risk projects
are poorly performing. Providing this information would allow OMB and
others to better analyze the reasons projects are poorly planned and
performing, take corrective actions, and track these projects on a
governmentwide basis. Such information would also help to highlight
progress made by agencies or projects, identify management issues that
transcend individual agencies, and highlight the root causes of
governmentwide issues and trends. Until OMB makes further improvements
in the identification and oversight of poorly planned and poorly
performing IT projects, potentially billions in taxpayer dollars are at
risk of being wasted.
Background:
Each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how much
the government plans to spend for IT and how these funds are to be
allocated. Federal IT spending has risen to an estimated $65 billion in
fiscal year 2008.
OMB plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and management of
federal IT investments. To improve this oversight, Congress enacted the
Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, expanding the responsibilities delegated to
OMB and agencies under the Paperwork Reduction Act [Footnote 4]. Among
other things, Clinger-Cohen requires agency heads, acting through
agency chief information officers, to 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.
The act also requires that agencies engage in capital planning and
performance and results-based management [Footnote 5]. OMB‘s
responsibilities under the act include establishing processes to
analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital
investments in information systems made by executive agencies. OMB must
also 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 6].
In response to the Clinger-Cohen Act and other statutes, OMB developed
policy for planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of federal
capital assets. This policy is set forth in OMB Circular A-11 (section
300) and in OMB‘s Capital Programming Guide (supplement to Part 7 of
Circular A-11), which directs agencies to develop, implement, and use a
capital programming process to build their capital asset portfolios.
Among other things, OMB‘s Capital Programming Guide directs agencies to:
* evaluate and select capital asset investments that will support core
mission functions that must be performed by the federal government and
demonstrate projected returns on investment that are clearly equal to
or better than alternative uses of available public resources;
* institute performance measures and management processes that monitor
actual performance and compare to planned results; and:
* establish oversight mechanisms that require periodic review of
operational capital assets to determine how mission requirements might
have changed and whether the asset continues to fulfill mission
requirements and deliver intended benefits to the agency and customers.
To further support the implementation of IT capital planning practices
as required by statute and directed in OMB‘s Capital Programming Guide,
we have developed an IT investment management framework [Footnote 7],
that agencies can use in developing a stable and effective capital
planning process. Consistent with the statutory focus on selecting
[Footnote 8}, controlling [Footnote 9], and evaluating [Footnote 10]
investments, this framework focuses on these processes in relation to
IT investments specifically. It is a tool that can be used to determine
both the status of an agency‘s current IT investment management
capabilities and the additional steps that are needed to establish more
effective processes. Mature and effective management of IT investments
can vastly improve government performance and accountability. Without
good management, such investments can result in wasteful spending and
lost opportunities for improving delivery of services to the public.
Prior Reviews on Federal IT Investment Management Have 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 11]. Specifically, we reported that
although most of the agencies had IT investment boards responsible for
defining and implementing the agencies‘ investment management
processes, agencies did not always have important mechanisms in place
for these 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. 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.
In previous work using our investment management framework, we reported
that the use of IT investment management practices by agencies was
mixed. For example, a few agencies that have followed the framework in
implementing capital planning processes have made significant
improvements [Footnote 12]. In contrast, however, we and others have
continued to identify weaknesses at agencies in many areas, including
immature management processes to support both the selection and
oversight of major IT investments and the measurement of actual versus
expected performance in meeting established performance measures
[Footnote 13]. For example, we recently reported that the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Treasury did not have the
processes in place to effectively select and oversee their major
investments [Footnote 14].
OMB‘s Management Watch List Is Intended to Correct Project Weaknesses
and Business Case Deficiencies:
To help ensure that investments of public resources are justified and
that public resources are wisely invested, OMB began using its
Management Watch List in the President‘s fiscal year 2004 budget
request, as a means to oversee the justification for and planning of
agencies‘ IT investments. This list was derived based on a detailed
review of the investments‘ Capital Asset Plan and Business Case, also
known as the exhibit 300.
The exhibit 300 is a reporting mechanism intended to enable an agency
to demonstrate to its own management, as well as OMB, that a major
project is well planned in that it has employed the disciplines of good
project management; developed a strong business case for the
investment; and met other Administration priorities in defining the
cost, schedule, and performance goals proposed for the investment.
We reported in 2005 that OMB analysts evaluate agency exhibit 300s by
assigning scores to each exhibit 300 based on guidance presented in OMB
Circular A-11 [Footnote 15]. As described in this circular, the scoring
of a business case consists of individual scoring for 10 categories, as
well as a total composite score of all the categories. The 10
categories are:
* acquisition strategy;
* project (investment) management;
* enterprise architecture;
* alternatives analysis;
* risk management;
* performance goals;
* security and privacy;
* performance-based management system (including the earned value
management system)[Footnote 16];
* life-cycle costs formulation, and;
* support of the President‘s Management Agenda.
Projects are placed on the Management Watch List if they receive low
scores (3 or less on a scale from 1 to 5) in the areas of performance
goals, performance-based management systems, security and privacy or a
low composite score.
According to OMB, agencies with weaknesses in these three areas are to
submit remediation plans addressing the weaknesses. OMB officials also
stated that decisions on follow-up and monitoring the progress are
typically made by staff with responsibility for reviewing individual
agency budget submissions, depending on the staff‘s insights into
agency operations and objectives. According to OMB officials, those
Management Watch List projects that receive specific follow-up
attention receive feedback through the passback process, targeted
evaluation of remediation plans designed to address weaknesses, the
apportioning of funds so that the use of budgeted dollars was
conditional on appropriate remediation plans being in place, and the
quarterly e-Gov Scorecards. OMB removes projects from the Management
Watch List as agencies remediate the weaknesses identified with these
projects‘ business cases.
OMB‘s High Risk Projects Process Intended to Correct and Improve
Project Performance:
As originally defined in OMB Circular A-11 and subsequently reiterated
in an August 2005 memorandum, high risk projects are those that require
special attention from oversight authorities and the highest levels of
agency management. These projects are not necessarily ’at risk“ of
failure, but may be on the list 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.
Most agencies reported that to identify high risk projects, staff from
the Office of the Chief Information Officer compare the criteria
against their current portfolio to determine which projects met OMB‘s
definition. They then submit the list to OMB for review. According to
OMB and agency officials, after the submission of the initial list,
examiners at OMB work with individual agencies to identify or remove
projects as appropriate. According to most agencies, the final list is
then approved by their Chief Information Officer.
For the identified high risk projects, beginning September 15, 2005,
and quarterly thereafter, Chief Information Officers are to assess,
confirm, and document projects‘ performance. Specifically, agencies are
required to determine, for each of their high risk projects, whether
the project was meeting one or more of four performance evaluation
criteria:
* establishing baselines with clear cost, schedule, and performance
goals;
* maintaining the project‘s cost and schedule variances within 10
percent;
* assigning a qualified project manager; and
* avoiding duplication by leveraging inter-agency and governmentwide
investments.
If a high risk project meets any of 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. Upon submission, 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 using other performance data already
received on IT projects such as the e-Gov Scorecards, earned value
management data, and the exhibit 300.
Poorly Planned and Performing Projects Total at Least $10 Billion in
Estimated Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2008:
OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 227 IT
projects”totaling at least $10.4 billion in expenditures for fiscal
year 2008”as being poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. Figure 1
shows the distribution of these projects and their associated dollar
values.
Figure 1: Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing IT Projects (as of June
2007):
Management Watch List:
Total: 136 ($8.6B);
Poorly planned: 103 ($4.5B);
Both poorly planned and poorly performing: 33 ($4.1B); Poorly
performing: 0.
High Risk List with shortfalls: Total: 124 ($6.0B);
Poorly planned: 0;
Both poorly planned and poorly performing: 33 ($4.1B); Poorly
performing: 91 ($1.8B).
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[End of figure]
Hundreds of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Are Placed on the
Management Watch List Annually:
Each year, OMB places hundreds of projects totaling billions of dollars
on the Management Watch List. Table 1 provides a historical perspective
of the number of these projects and their associated budget since OMB
started reporting on the Management Watch List in the President‘s
budget request for 2004. The table shows that while the number of
projects and their associated budget have generally decreased since
then, they increased by 83 projects this year, and represent a
significant percentage of the total budget.
Table 1: Management Watch List Budget for Fiscal Years 2004-2008 (in
billions):
Fiscal years: 2004;
Total federal IT projects (associated budget): 1400 ($59.0);
Management Watch List projects (associated budget): 771
($20.9);
Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch
List (percentage of budget): 55% (35%);
Fiscal years: 2005;
Total federal IT projects (associated budget): 1200 ($60.0);
Management Watch List projects (associated budget): 621
($22.0);
Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch
List (percentage of budget): 52% (37%);
Fiscal years: 2006;
Total federal IT projects (associated budget): 1087 ($65.0);
Management Watch List projects (associated budget): 342
($15.0);
Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch
List (percentage of budget): 31% (23%);
Fiscal years: 2007;
Total federal IT projects (associated budget): 857 ($64.0);
Management Watch List projects (associated budget): 263
($9.9);
Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch
List (percentage of budget): 31% (15%);
Fiscal years: 2008;
Total federal IT projects (associated budget): 840 ($65.0);
Management Watch List projects (associated budget): 346
($14.0);
Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch
List (percentage of budget): 41% (22%);
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[End of table]
As of July 2007 [Footnote 17], 136 projects, representing $8.6 billion,
still remained on the Management Watch List (see appendix 1 for
complete list). We determined that 29 of these projects were on the
Management Watch List as of September 2006.
Poorly Performing Projects Total About $6 Billion in Estimated
Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2008:
As of June 2007, when agencies last reported on their high risk
projects to OMB, the 24 major agencies identified 438 IT projects as
high risk, of which 124 had performance shortfalls collectively
totaling about $6.0 billion in funding requested for fiscal year 2008.
Table 2 shows that the number of projects, as well as the number of
projects with shortfalls increased this year. OMB attributes this rise
to increased management oversight by agencies.
Table 2: High Risk Projects with Performance Shortfalls for Fiscal
Years 2007 and 2008 (associated budget in billions):
Fiscal years: 2007;
Total federal IT projects: 857 ($64.0);
High risk projects (associated budget): 226 ($6.4)[a];
High risk projects with shortfalls (associated budget): 79 ($2.2)[a];
Percentage of high risk projects shortfalls (percentage of budget): 9% (3.4% of total IT
budget).
Fiscal years: 2008;
Total federal IT projects: 840 ($65.0);
High risk projects
(associated budget): 438 ($14.0)[b];
High risk projects with
shortfalls (associated budget): 124 ($6.0)[b];
Percentage of high risk projects shortfalls (percentage of budget): 15% (9% of total IT
budget).
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[a] These number and dollar figures are from September 2006. [b] These
number and dollar figures are from June 2007.
[End of table]
The majority of projects were not reported to have had performance
shortfalls. In addition, five agencies”the departments of Energy,
Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and State, and the National
Science Foundation”reported that none of their high risk projects
experienced any performance shortfalls. Figure 2 illustrates the number
of high risk projects by agency as of June 2007, with and without
shortfalls.
Figure 2: Number of Agencies High Risk Projects with and without
Performance Shortfalls (as of June 2007):
This figure is a vertically stacked bar graph, with number of projects
on the vertical axis, and Agencies on the horizontal axis. Bars
represent the number of projects with either no performance shortfall
or with performance shortfall.
Agency: DHS;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 1 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 25 (approximate).
Agency: Treasury;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 55 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 25 (approximate).
Agency: Education;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 4 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 13 (approximate).
Agency: VA;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 30 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 11 (approximate).
Agency: DOT;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 11 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 7 (approximate).
Agency: USAID;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 9 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 7 (approximate).
Agency: SSA;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 5 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 5 (approximate).
Agency: GSA;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 14 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 5 (approximate).
Agency: USDA;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 15 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 5 (approximate).
Agency: SBA;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 4 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 4 (approximate).
Agency: DOD;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 10 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 3 (approximate).
Agency: EPA;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 10 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 3 (approximate).
Agency: NRC;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 10 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 3 (approximate).
Agency: OPM;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 10 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 2 (approximate).
Agency: HHS;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 17 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 2 (approximate).
Agency: Commerce;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 10 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 1 (approximate).
Agency: DOJ;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 12 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 1 (approximate).
Agency: NASA;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 13 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 1 (approximate).
Agency: NSF;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 4 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 0.
Agency: HUD;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 8 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 0.
Agency: State;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 5 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 0.
Agency: DOE;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 11 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 0.
Agency: DOL;
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 12 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 0.
Agency: DOI[a];
Number of projects with no performance shortfall: 15 (approximate);
Number of projects with performance shortfall: 0.
Notes: One project can have multiple shortfalls.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA); Department of Transportation (DOT); U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID); Social Security Administration (SSA); General
Services Administration (GSA); Department of Agriculture (USDA); Small
Business Administration (SBA); Department of Defense (DOD);
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC); Office of Personnel Management (OPM); Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS); Department of Justice (DOJ); National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA); National Science Foundation (NSF);
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Department of Energy
(DOE); Department of Labor (DOL); Department of Interior (DOI).
[a] The Department of Interior did not provide their June 2007 high
risk report to GAO.
[End of table]
Agencies reported cost and schedule variances that exceeded 10 percent
as the greatest shortfall. This is consistent with what they reported
about a year ago, and the distribution of shortfalls types is similar
to last year. Figure 3 illustrates the reported number and type of
performance shortfalls associated with high risk projects.
Figure 3: Reported Performance Shortfalls of 126 Projects (as of June
2007):
This figure is a vertical bar graph with number of projects on the
vertical axis and Type of High Risk List shortfalls on the horizontal
axis.
Type of High Risk List shortfall: Cost and schedule variance within
10%;
Number of projects: 101;
Type of High Risk List shortfall: Baseline with clear goals;
Number of projects: 41;
Type of High Risk List shortfall: Qualified project manager;
Number of projects: 33;
Type of High Risk List shortfall: Avoiding duplication;
Number of projects: 12;
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[End of table]
Appendix II identifies the shortfalls associated with each of the
poorly performing projects.
Twenty-two high risk projects have experienced performance shortfalls
for the past four quarters (see figure 4).
Figure 4: High Risk Projects with Shortfalls in the Last 4 Quarters
Sorted by Funding:
This figure is in table format, representing quarterly shortfalls for
agencies and projects.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Secure Border Initiative Net Technology Program;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 1,000;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005, December 2005,
March 2006, June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 144;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005, December 2005,
March 2006, June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Secure Flight;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 53;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005, March
2006, June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VistA Imaging;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 41;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005,
December 2005, March 2006, June 2006, September 2006, December 2006,
March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 38;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005, December 2005,
March 2006, June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Hazmat Threat Assessment Program;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 28;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): December 2005, March 2006,
June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial System;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 17;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): March 2006, June 2006,
September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: National Emergency Management Information System;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 17;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): March 2006, September 2006,
December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Disaster Management E-Gov;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 13;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): March 2006, June 2006,
September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: DOJ;
Investment name: Regional Data Exchange;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 10;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005, December 2005,
March 2006, June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 10;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2006, December 2006,
March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: Joint Assistance Management System/Procurement System
Improvement Project;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 1,000;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): December 2005, March 2006,
June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: ConnectHR;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 1,000;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005, December 2005,
June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: SBA;
Investment name: Business Gateway;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 6;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September
2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 3;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): March 2006, June 2006,
September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Common Information Management System;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005,
December 2005, June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007,
June 2007.
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: E-Authentication;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2006,
December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: E-Records;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2006,
December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: E-Travel;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2006,
December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Registered Traveler;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): December 2005, March 2006,
June 2006, September 2006, December 2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Patient Financial Services System;
Fiscal Year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Quarters in which project has shortfall(s): September 2005,
December 2005, March 2006, June 2006, September 2006, December
2006, March 2007, June 2007.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Agriculture
(USDA); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); Department of Justice
(DOJ); U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Small
Business Administration (SBA).
[End of figure]
Of these projects, the following six have had shortfalls since the High
Risk List was established in September 2005.
* Department of Homeland Security‘s (DHS) Secure Border Initiative Net
Technology Program, which is expected to provide on scene agents near
real-time information on attempted border crossings by illegal aliens,
terrorists, or smugglers;
* Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) Modernize and Innovate the
Delivery of Agricultural Systems, which is intended to modernize the
delivery of farm program benefits by deploying an internet-based self-
service capabilities for customers, and eliminating the department‘s
reliance on aging technology and service centers as the sole means of
delivering program benefits;
* Department of Veterans Affairs‘ (VA) VistA Imaging, which should
provide complete online patient data to health care providers, increase
clinician productivity, facilitate medical decision-making, and improve
quality of care;
* DHS‘s Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing, which is to
establish a system-wide common secure biometric credential, used by all
transportation modes, for personnel requiring unescorted physical
and/or logical access to secure areas of the transportation system;
* Department of Justice‘s (DOJ) Regional Data Exchange, which is
expected to combine and share regional investigative information and
provide powerful tools for analyzing the integrated data sets; and
* VA‘s Patient Financial Services System, which is expected create a
comprehensive business solution for revenue improvement utilizing
improved business practices, commercial software, and enhanced VA
clinical applications.
Several Projects are Both Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing:
Thirty-three projects are on both the Management Watch List and list of
high risk projects with shortfalls, meaning that they are both poorly
planned and poorly performing. They total about $4.1 billion in
estimated expenditures for fiscal year 2008. These projects are listed
in table 3 below.
Table 3: Projects on both the Management Watch List and the High Risk
List with Shortfalls:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: CBP Secure Border Initiative net Technology
Program;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,000.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: DHS Financial Management Transformation; E-Gov: E-
Travel Migr.; FM LoB Migr.; FM LoB Legacy Sys.
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: DHS HR IT; E-Gov: HR LoB Migr.; E-Training Migr.; EHRI
Migr.; E-Training Legacy Sys.; HR LoB Legacy Sys.
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: DHS Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,071.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: FEMA eNEMIS;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Consolidated Enforcement Environment;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 11.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Rescue 21;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Budget Formulation and Execution LoB;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Common Origination and Disbursement;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 8.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Common Services for Borrowers;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 15
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Data Warehouse;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Education Resources Information Center;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Integrated Enterprise Management – Core
Financial;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 22.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Electronic Information Exchange/E-Authentication
Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: OPM;
Investment name: E-Training;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Chief Counsel;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Enterprise IT Infrastructure Optimization
Initiative;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,638.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Financial Analysis & Reporting System
Applications;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Fiscal Management;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Collection System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Enterprise Systems;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Examinations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management
Services;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Food and Agriculture Bio-Surveillance Integration
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: –ConnectHR;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 10.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 144.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Financial & Logistics Integrated Technology
Enterprise;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 48.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Medical and Prosthetic Research Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 24.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: My HealtheVet;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Patient Financial Services System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Learning Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VistA Imaging;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 41.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA); Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC);
Office of Personnel Management (OPM); Department of Agriculture (USDA);
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
[End of table]
OMB Has Taken Steps to Improve the Identification and Oversight of
Management Watch List and High Risk Projects, but Additional Efforts
Are Needed:
OMB has taken steps to improve the identification and oversight of the
Management Watch List and high risk projects by addressing some of the
recommendations we previously made, but additional efforts are needed
to more effectively perform these activities and ultimately ensure that
potentially billions of taxpayer dollars are not wasted. Specifically,
we previously recommended that OMB take action to improve the accuracy
and reliability of exhibit 300s and application of the high risk
projects criteria, and perform governmentwide tracking and analysis of
Management Watch List and high risk project information. While OMB took
steps to address our concerns, more can be done.
Exhibit 300s Are Now Reported Publicly but Their Accuracy and
Reliability Issues Remain:
In January 2006, we noted that the underlying support for information
provided in the exhibit 300s was often inadequate and that, as a
result, the Management Watch List may be undermined by inaccurate and
unreliable data[Footnote 18]. Specifically, we noted that:
* documentation either did not exist or did not fully agree with
specific areas of all exhibit 300s;
* agencies did not always demonstrate that they complied with federal
or departmental requirements or policies with regard to management and
reporting processes; for example, no exhibit 300 had cost analyses that
fully complied with OMB requirements for cost-benefit and cost-
effectiveness analyses; and
* data for actual costs were unreliable because they were not derived
from cost-accounting systems with adequate controls; in the absence of
such systems, agencies generally derived cost information from ad hoc
processes.
We recommended, among other things, that OMB direct agencies to improve
the accuracy and reliability of exhibit 300 information.
To address our recommendation, in June 2006, OMB directed agencies to
post their exhibit 300s on their website within two weeks of the
release of the President‘s budget request for fiscal year 2008. While
this is a step in the right direction, the accuracy and reliability of
exhibit 300 information is still a significant weakness among the 24
major agencies [Footnote 19], as evidenced by a March 2007 President‘s
Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive Council on Integrity
and Efficiency study commissioned by OMB to ascertain the validity of
exhibit 300s [Footnote 20]. Specifically, according to individual
agency reports contained within the study, Inspectors General found
that the documents supporting agencies‘ exhibit 300s continue to have
accuracy and reliability issues. For example, according to these
reports, the Agency for International Development did not maintain the
documentation supporting exhibit 300s cost figures. In addition, at the
Internal Revenue Service, the exhibit 300s were unreliable because,
among other things, project costs were being reported inaccurately and
progress on projects in development was measured inaccurately.
High Risk Criteria Are Being Applied More Consistently, but Questions
Remain as to Whether All Projects Are Identified, Including Projects
with Shortfalls:
In June 2006, we noted that OMB did not always consistently apply the
criteria for identifying high risk projects. For example, we identified
projects that appeared to meet the criteria but that were not
designated as high risk [Footnote 21]. Accordingly, we recommended that
OMB apply their high risk criteria consistently. OMB has since
designated as high risk the projects that we identified. Further, OMB
officials stated that they have worked with agencies to ensure a more
consistent application of the high risk criteria. These are positive
steps, as they result in more projects receiving the management
attention they deserve.
However, questions remain as to whether all high risk projects with
shortfalls are being reported by agencies. For example, we have
reported in our high risk series [Footnote 22] that 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 remains
far from where it needs to be to effectively and efficiently manage an
undertaking of such size, complexity, and significance. Despite these
problems, Department of Defense (DOD), which accounts for $31 billion
of the government‘s $65 billion in IT expenditures, only reported three
projects as being high risk with shortfalls representing a total of
about $1 million. The dollar value of DOD‘s three projects represents
less than one tenth of one percent of high risk projects with
shortfalls. In light of the problems we and others have identified with
many of DOD‘s projects, this appears to be an underestimation. Given
the critical nature of high risk projects, it is particularly important
to identify early on those that are performing poorly, before their
shortfalls become overly costly to address.
Management Watch List and High Risk Projects Made Public, but
Governmentwide Analyses Still Not Performed:
Finally, to improve the oversight of the Management Watch List
projects, we recommended in our April 2005 report [Footnote 23] that
the Director of OMB report to Congress on projects‘ deficiencies,
agencies‘ progress in addressing risks of major IT investments, and
management areas needing attention. In addition, to fully realize the
potential benefits of using the Management Watch List, we recommended
that OMB use the list as the basis for selecting projects for follow-
up, tracking follow-up activities and analyze the prioritized list to
develop governmentwide and agency assessments of the progress and risks
of IT investments, identifying opportunities for continued improvement.
We also made similar recommendations to the Director of OMB regarding
high risk projects. Specifically, we recommended that OMB 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.
To its credit, OMB started publicly releasing aggregate lists of the
Management Watch List and high risk projects in September 2006, and has
been releasing updated versions on a quarterly basis by posting them on
their website. While this is a positive step, OMB does not publish the
specific reasons that each project is placed on the Management Watch
List, nor does it specifically identify why high risk projects are
poorly performing, as we have done in appendix II. Providing this
information would allow OMB and others to better analyze the reasons
projects are poorly planned and performing and take corrective actions
and track these projects on a governmentwide basis. Such information
would also help to highlight progress made by agencies or projects,
identify management issues that transcend individual agencies, and
highlight the root causes of governmentwide issues and trends. Such
analysis would be valuable to agencies in planning future IT projects,
and could enable OMB to prioritize follow-up actions and ensure that
high-priority deficiencies are addressed.
In summary, the Management Watch List and high risk projects processes
play important roles in improving the management of federal IT
investments by helping to identify poorly planned and poorly performing
projects that require management attention. As of June 2007, the 24
major agencies had 227 such projects totaling at least $10 billion. OMB
has taken steps to improve the identification of these projects,
including implementing recommendations related to improving the
accuracy of exhibit 300s and the application of the high risk projects
criteria. However, the number of projects may be understated because
issues concerning the accuracy and reliability of the budgetary
documents the Management Watch List is derived from still remain and
high risk projects with shortfalls may not be consistently identified.
While OMB can act to further improve the identification and oversight
of poorly planned and poorly performing projects, we recognize that
agencies must also take action to fulfill their responsibilities in
these areas. We have addressed this in previous reports and made
related recommendations. Until further improvements in the
identification and oversight of poorly planned and poorly performing IT
projects, potentially billions in taxpayer dollars are at risk of being
wasted.
GAO Contact and Acknowledgments:
If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact
me at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who
made key contributions to this testimony are Sabine Paul, Assistant
Director; Neil Doherty; Amos Tevelow; Kevin Walsh and Eric Winter.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Management Watch List Projects:
The following provides additional detail on the investments comprising
OMB‘s Management Watch List as of July 2007. Under the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996, agencies are required to submit business plans for IT
investments to OMB. If the agency‘s investment plan contains one or
more planning weaknesses, it is placed on OMB‘s Management Watch List
and targeted for follow-up action to correct potential problems prior
to execution.
We estimated the fiscal year 2008 request based on the data in the
Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 (generally
referred to as exhibit 53), and data provided by agencies.
Table 4: Management Watch List Projects by Agency:
Agency: The Corps;
Investment name: Project Management Information System II;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 15.
Agency: The Corps;
Investment name: Resident Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 Request (in millions): 3.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Non Intrusive Inspection System Program (Large
Scale);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0*.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Non Intrusive Inspection System Program (Small
Scale);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0*.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Secure Border Initiative net Technology
Program;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,000.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Unmanned Aircraft Systems;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0*.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Financial Management Transformation;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: HR IT;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,071.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Technical Operations Support;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: National Emergency Management Information
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Flood Map Modernization;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Risk Assessment Systems;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Integrated Financial Management Information
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Consolidated Enforcement Environment;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 11.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Computer Network Service Defense Provider;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Computer Forensics Laboratory;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Integrated Deepwater System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 7.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Rescue 21;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Central Index System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 10.
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Immigration - CLAIMS 4.0;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 16.
Agency: DOD;
Investment name: Defense Information System for Security;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 64.
Agency: DOL;
Investment name: Labor Executive Accountability Program;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 12.
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: IT Combined Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 233.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Budget Formulation and Execution Line of
Business;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Common Origination and Disbursement;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 8.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Common Services for Borrowers;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 15.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Data Warehouse;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Education Resources Information Center;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Integrated Technical Architecture/Enterprise
Application Integration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 8.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Migrant Student Information Exchange;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: National Student Loan Data System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 10.
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Student Aid Internet Gateway;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: HHS;
Investment name: IT Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 126.
Agency: HHS;
Investment name: Consolidated Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 102.
Agency: HHS;
Investment name: Commissioned Corps Force Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2.
Agency: HHS;
Investment name: Prototype Nationwide Health Information Network
Architectures;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 56.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Shared Capability Asset Program;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 41.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Payload Operations and Integration Center;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 20.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Integrated Collaborative Environment;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 21.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Earth Observing Sys Data Info Sys;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 131.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Center for Computational Sciences;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 15.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Space and Ground Network IT Support;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Flight Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 79.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Integrated Planning System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 14.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Mission Control Center;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 50.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Software Development/Integration Laboratory;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 132.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Space Shuttle Program Flight Software;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 86.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Space Shuttle Program Integration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Space Station Production Facility;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 7.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Shuttle Ground Camera;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Shuttle Ground Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 51.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Shuttle Integrated Logistics;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 11.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Shuttle Launch Control System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 51.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Shuttle Processing Support;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Integrated Enterprise Management - Aircraft Management
Module;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Integrated Enterprise Management - Core
Financial;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 22.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Integrated Enterprise Management - Integrated Asset
Management - Plant Property & Equipment Module;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Office Automation, IT Infrastructure, and
Telecommunications;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 547.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Deep Space Network;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 33.
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: Integrated Services Network;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 88.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Agency-wide Documents Access and Management
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 12.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Budget Formulation Application;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Cost Accounting System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Digital Data Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Human Resources Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Incident Response System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Infrastructure Services and Support;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 52.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: License Fee Billing System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: License Fee Billing System Replacement;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Licensing Support Network;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Licensing Tracking System/Web Based
Licensing;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: National Source Tracking System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Reactor Program System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Secure LAN and Electronic Safe;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: OPM;
Investment name: E-Training;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: SBA;
Investment name: Business Development Management Information System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Business Master File;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Chief Counsel;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Cross Border Funds Transmittal;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Electronic Fraud Detection System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 12.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Financial Analysis & Reporting System
Applications;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Fiscal Management;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Individual Master File;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Collection System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Enterprise Systems;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Examinations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Oracle e-Business Suite;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Tax Return Database;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: TreasuryDirect;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management
Solution;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Treasury-wide Integrated IT Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,638.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: ConnectHR;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 8.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Consolidated Infrastructure, Office Automation and
Telecommunications;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 843.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Farm Program Modernization;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 151.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Food & Agriculture Bio-Surveillance Integration
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Human Resources Line of Business: Service
Center;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 25.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Allocation Resource Center;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Automated Monument Application System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Benefits Delivery Network Maintenance and
Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 22.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: BIRLS/VADS;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Burial Operations Support System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: C&P Maintenance and Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 43.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Capital Asset Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Data Centric Transition for VR&E and
Education; Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Decision Support System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 20.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Document and Correspondence Management
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Education Maintenance and Ops;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Enrollment Operations and Maintenance;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: e-Payroll;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Federal Health Information Exchange;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Financial & Logistics Integrated Technology
Enterprise;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 48.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Financial Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 16.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Health Admin Center IT Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 11.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Health Data Repository;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 27.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Insurance System Maintenance and Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 7.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: IT Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 645.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Loan Guaranty Maintenance and Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Medical and Prosthetic Research Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 24.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: My HealtheVet;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Patient Financial Services System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Payroll/HR Systems;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 27.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Pharmacy Re-Engineering and IT Support;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Program Integrity/Data Management;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Rules-Based Claims Processing;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Scheduling Replacement Project;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 15.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: The Education Expert System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VA-Learning Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VA-Wide e-Travel Solution;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VBA Application Migration Project;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VistA Imaging;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 41.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VistA-Application Development;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 130.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VistA-Legacy;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 352.
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VR&E Maintenance and Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Defense
(DOD); Department of Energy (DOE); Department of Interior (DOI);
Department of Justice (DOJ); Department of Labor (DOL); Department of
Transportation (DOT); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); General
Services Administration (GSA); Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS); Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC); National Science Foundation (NSF); Office of
Management and Budget (OMB); Office of Personnel Management (OPM);
Small Business Administration (SBA); Social Security Administration
(SSA), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Department of
Agriculture (USDA); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
* Our research could not identify dollar amounts for these projects.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: High Risk Projects with Shortfalls:
The following provides additional detail on the high risk projects that
have performance shortfalls as of June 2007.
We estimated the fiscal year 2008 request based on the data in the
Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 (generally
referred to as exhibit 53), and data provided by agencies.
Table 5: High Risk Projects with Shortfalls by Agency:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: A&O Homeland Security Information Network;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 21;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule
variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: CBP Secure Border Initiative net Technology
Program;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,000;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Financial Management Transformation; E-Gov: E-Travel
Migr.; FM LoB Migr.; FM LoB Legacy Sys.;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: HR IT; E-Gov: HR LoB Migr.; E-Training Migr.; EHRI
Migr.; E-Training Legacy Sys.; HR LoB Legacy Sys.;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,071;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: E-Gov E-Authentication; E-Auth. Migr.; E-Auth. Shared
Serv. Prov.;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project
duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: E-Gov E-Rulemaking Migr.; E-Rulemaking Legacy
Sys.;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency:
Investment name: E-Gov FAS Migr.; FAS Sales Ctr.; FAS Legacy
Sys.;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: E-Gov IAE Migr.;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: National Emergency Management Information
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Consolidated Enforcement Environment;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 11;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: NPPD Information Systems Security Line of
Business;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: NPPD NS/EP Priority Telecommunications
Service;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 130;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Disaster Management E-Gov;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: SAFECOM;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and
schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall:
Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: US-VISIT;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 462;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Alien Flight Student Program;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Crew Vetting;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 115;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Hazmat Threat Assessment Program;
Fiscal year
2008 request (in millions): 28;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Registered Traveler;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Secure Flight;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 53;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Transportation Worker Identification
Credentialing;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 38;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Nationwide Automatic Identification System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 22;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Rescue 21;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DHS;
Investment name: Customer Service Portal;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: DOC;
Investment name: FM LoB Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check]; Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: DOD;
Investment name: Integrated Acquisition Environment Legacy System
(FedTeDS);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall:
Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOD;
Investment name: Integrated Acquisition Environment Shared Service
Provider (ORCA);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOD;
Investment name: Integrated Acquisition Environment Shared Service
Provider (PPIRS);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOJ;
Investment name: Regional Data Exchange;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 10;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: EHRI;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: E-Rulemaking Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 222;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: Terminal Automation Mod. & Rep.;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: SWIM;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 23;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: Traffic flow Management;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 121;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: DOT;
Investment name: Regulation and Certification Infrastructure for System
Safety;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 55;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: ADvance (Aid Delivery);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 65;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Advance Development;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 28;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Budget Formulation and Execution LoB;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Common Origination and Disbursement;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 8;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Common Services for Borrowers;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 15;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Data Strategy;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 14;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Data Warehouse;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: E-Authentication Migration;
Fiscal year 2008
request (in millions): 3;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not
within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Education Resources Information Center;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: E-GOV: E-Rulemaking Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: EHRI;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: ID Access Control System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Information Assurance;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not
within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Education;
Investment name: Integrated Partner Management;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: EPA;
Investment name: eRulemaking;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: EPA;
Investment name: E-Travel Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: EPA;
Investment name: FM LoB - Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 26;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: GSA;
Investment name: CHRIS-EHRI;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 7;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: GSA;
Investment name: EHRI Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: GSA;
Investment name: FAS Sales Center SSP (PP);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: GSA;
Investment name: IAE SSP (EPLS);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: GSA;
Investment name: IAE SSP (FPDS-NG);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: HHS;
Investment name: Federal Health Architecture;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check]; Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: HHS;
Investment name: Consolidated Acquisiton Solution;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 8;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: NASA;
Investment name: NASA Integrated Enterprise Management - Core
Financial;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 22;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: Electronic Information Exchange/E-Authentication
Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check]; Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: E-Training (Learning Management System);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: NRC;
Investment name: E-Travel Conversion;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: OPM;
Investment name: E-Training;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within
10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: OPM;
Investment name: GoLearn;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SBA;
Investment name: Business Gateway (Managing Partner);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within
10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SBA;
Investment name: Disaster Credit Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 13;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SBA;
Investment name: GCBD: Business Development Management Information
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SBA;
Investment name: OCA: Loan Management and Accounting System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SSA;
Investment name: Disability Service Improvement;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 54;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SSA;
Investment name: E-Travel Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SSA;
Investment name: GovBenefits Migration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SSA;
Investment name: IT Operations Assurance;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 30;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: SSA;
Investment name: Telephone Systems Replacement Project;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 26;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Chief Counsel;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions):1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Correspondence Examination Automated System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 8;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Debt Management Accounting System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check]; Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Enterprise IT Infrastructure Optimization
Initiative;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1,638;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Examination Desktop Support System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Excise Files Information Retrieval System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 7;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Excise Tax e-File & Compliance;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Filing and Payment Compliance;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check]; Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Financial Analysis & Reporting System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Financial Information and Reporting
Standardization;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 7;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Fiscal Management;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Collection System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 9;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Customer Communications
Environment;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 18;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions):17;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Integrated Submission and Remittance Processing
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: OCC Enterprise Systems;
Fiscal year 2008
request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: OCC Examinations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Payment Application Modernization;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 18;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: SaBRe;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 5;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Service Center Recognition Image Processing
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Travel Reimbursement and Accounting System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Automated Auction Processing System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 32;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Foreign Intelligence Network;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 3;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Secure Data Network;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 4;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: Treasury;
Investment name: Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management
Services;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: E-Authentication;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: E-Records;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: E-Travel;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: GLAS;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check]; Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: HR LoB - Legacy System: Time & Attendance (replace
AETA);
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 10;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USAID;
Investment name: Joint Assistance Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Corporate Property Automated Information
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 1;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Food and Agriculture Bio-Surveillance Integration
System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: ConnectHR;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 10;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another: [Check].
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural
Systems;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 144;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: USDA;
Investment name: RMA-17, Common Information Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: E-Gov: E-Authentication;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: E-Gov: Financial Management LOB;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: E-Gov: Human Resources Management LoB;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
[Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Enterprise Human Resources Integration;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 2;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Financial & Logistics Integrated Technology
Enterprise;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 48;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Medical and Prosthetic Research Operations;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 24;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: My HealtheVet;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 17;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%:
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Patient Financial Services System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 0;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: Learning Management System;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 6;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VistA Imaging;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 41;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Agency: VA;
Investment name: VistA-Foundations Modernization;
Fiscal year 2008 request (in millions): 92;
Performance shortfall: Unclear baseline:
Performance shortfall: Cost and schedule variance not within 10%: [Check];
Performance shortfall: Project manager not qualified:
Performance shortfall: Project duplicative of another:
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Defense
(DOD); Department of Energy (DOE); Department of Interior (DOI);
Department of Justice (DOJ); Department of Labor (DOL); Department of
Transportation (DOT); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); General
Services Administration (GSA); Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS); Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC); National Science Foundation (NSF); Office of
Management and Budget (OMB); Office of Personnel Management (OPM);
Small Business Administration (SBA); Social Security Administration
(SSA), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Department of
Agriculture (USDA); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] While not a subject of my testimony, OMB also uses the e-Gov
Scorecard as a mechanism for managing federal IT projects. 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. Key criteria used to score agencies e-
government process include acceptable business cases, cost and schedule
performance; and security accreditation. As of June 30, 2006, 21 of the
26 departments/major agencies were identified as having a yellow (mixed
results) or red (unsatisfactory) score.
[2] High risk projects are identified as having performance shortfalls
if one or more of the following performance evaluation criteria are not
met: establishing baselines with clear cost, schedule, and performance
goals; maintaining the project‘s cost and schedule variances within 10
percent; assigning a qualified project manager; and avoiding
duplication by leveraging inter-agency and governmentwide investments.
[3] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Can Make More Effective Use of Its
Investment Reviews, GAO-05-276 (Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2005);
Information Technology: Agencies Need to Improve the Accuracy and
Reliability of Investment Information, GAO-06-250 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan.12, 2006); Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should
Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects,
GAO-06-647 (Washington, DC, June 15, 2006).
[4] 44 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1)(B)(vi)(OMB); 44 U.S.C. § 3506(h)(5)
(agencies).
[5] 40 U.S.C. § 11312; 40 U.S.C. § 11313.
[6] These requirements are specifically described in the Clinger-Cohen
Act, 40 U.S.C. § 11302 (c).
[7] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for
Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004).
[8] During the selection phase, the organization (1) identifies and
analyzes each project‘s risks and returns before committing significant
funds to any project and (2) selects those IT projects that will best
support its mission needs.
[9] During the control phase, the organization ensures that, as
projects develop and investment expenditures continue, the project is
continuing to meet mission needs at the expected levels of cost and
risk. If the project is not meeting expectations or if problems have
arisen, steps are quickly taken to address the deficiencies.
[10] During the evaluation phase, actual versus expected results are
compared once projects have been fully implemented. This is done to (1)
assess the project‘s impact on mission performance, (2) identify any
changes or modifications to the project that may be needed, and (3)
revise the investment management process based on lessons learned.
[11] 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).
[12] These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
and the Interior.
[13] For example, GAO, Information Technology; Treasury Needs to
Strengthen Its Investment Board Operations and Oversight, GAO-07-865
(Washington, D.C.; Jul. 23, 2007); Information Technology: DHS Needs to
Fully Define and Implement Policies and Procedures for Effectively
Managing Investments, GAO-07-424 (Washington, D.C., Apr. 27, 2007);
Information Technology: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Needs
to Establish Critical Investment Management Capabilities, GAO-06-12
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005); Information Technology: Departmental
Leadership Crucial to Success of Investment Reforms at Interior, GAO-03-
1028 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2003); and United States Postal
Service: Opportunities to Strengthen IT Investment Management
Capabilities, GAO-03-3 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 2002).
[14] GAO-07-424 and GAO-07-865.
[15] GAO-05-276.
[16] Earned value management 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.
[17] This is the date of OMB‘s most recent Management Watch List
update.
[18] GAO-06-250.
[19] President‘s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive
Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
Assessments Of Federal Agencies‘ Exhibit 300s , (Washington, D.C.:
March 2007).
[20] President‘s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive
Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
Assessments Of Federal Agencies‘ Exhibit 300s , (Washington, D.C.:
March 2007).
[21] GAO-06-647.
[22] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005): High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2007).
[23] GAO, Information Technology: Improvements Needed to More
Accurately Identify and Better Oversee Risky Projects Totaling Billions
of Dollars, GAO-06-1099T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006).
GAO‘s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO‘s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO‘s Web site [hytperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select ’Subscribe to Updates.“
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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
