Information Technology
Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals Gao ID: GAO-08-925 July 31, 2008The federal government plans to spend about $70 billion on information technology (IT) projects during fiscal year 2008. Consequently, it is important that projects be managed effectively to ensure that public resources are wisely invested. At times, a project's cost, schedule, and performance goals--known as its baseline--are modified to reflect changed development circumstances. These changes--called a rebaselining--can be done for valid reasons, but can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays. GAO was asked to (1) determine the extent of and the primary reasons for IT project rebaselining and (2) determine whether federal agencies have sound policies for rebaselining projects. To do this, GAO surveyed the managers of a random sample of 180 projects selected from the 778 major IT projects the 24 major agencies plan to invest in during fiscal year 2008. GAO also compared agencies' rebaselining policies to best practices.
Based on GAO's survey, approximately 48 percent of the federal government's major IT projects have been rebaselined, and projects are rebaselined for several reasons, including changes in project goals, changes in funding, or inaccurate original baselines. Of the rebaselined projects, 51 percent were rebaselined twice or more, and 11 percent were rebaselined 4 times or more. The most commonly cited reasons for rebaselining were changes in project requirements, objectives, or scope (55 percent of IT projects), and changes in funding stream (44 percent of IT projects). While major agencies have all established rebaselining policies, these policies are not comprehensive. Specifically, none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices, such as describing a process for developing a new baseline. Agencies' policies vary in part because the Office of Management and Budget, which plays a key role in overseeing the federal government's IT investments and how they are managed, has not issued guidance specifying what elements these policies are to include. Without comprehensive policies to guide them, agencies may not be optimizing the effectiveness of rebaselining as a tool to improve performance management. In addition, their rebaselining processes may lack the transparency needed to ensure effective oversight.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-925, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-925
entitled 'Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish
Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule,
and Performance Goals' which was released on August 1, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2008:
Information Technology:
Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to
Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals:
GAO-08-925:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-925, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government plans to spend about $70 billion on information
technology (IT) projects during fiscal year 2008. Consequently, it is
important that projects be managed effectively to ensure that public
resources are wisely invested. At times, a project‘s cost, schedule,
and performance goals”known as its baseline”are modified to reflect
changed development circumstances. These changes”called a
rebaselining”can be done for valid reasons, but can also be used to
mask cost overruns and schedule delays.
GAO was asked to (1) determine the extent of and the primary reasons
for IT project rebaselining and (2) determine whether federal agencies
have sound policies for rebaselining projects. To do this, GAO surveyed
the managers of a random sample of 180 projects selected from the 778
major IT projects the 24 major agencies plan to invest in during fiscal
year 2008. GAO also compared agencies‘ rebaselining policies to best
practices.
What GAO Found:
Based on GAO‘s survey, approximately 48 percent of the federal
government‘s major IT projects have been rebaselined, and projects are
rebaselined for several reasons, including changes in project goals,
changes in funding, or inaccurate original baselines. Of the
rebaselined projects, 51 percent were rebaselined twice or more, and 11
percent were rebaselined 4 times or more (see figure). The most
commonly cited reasons for rebaselining were changes in project
requirements, objectives, or scope (55 percent of IT projects), and
changes in funding stream (44 percent of IT projects).
While major agencies have all established rebaselining policies, these
policies are not comprehensive. Specifically, none of the policies are
fully consistent with best practices, such as describing a process for
developing a new baseline. Agencies‘ policies vary in part because the
Office of Management and Budget, which plays a key role in overseeing
the federal government‘s IT investments and how they are managed, has
not issued guidance specifying what elements these policies are to
include. Without comprehensive policies to guide them, agencies may not
be optimizing the effectiveness of rebaselining as a tool to improve
performance management. In addition, their rebaselining processes may
lack the transparency needed to ensure effective oversight.
Figure: Estimated Frequency of the Number of Times that Rebaselined
Major IT Projects were Rebaselined:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Times rebaselined: 1;
Percentage of projects: 49%.
Times rebaselined: 2
Percentage of projects: 29%.
Times rebaselined: 3;
Percentage of projects: 11%.
Times rebaselined: 4.
Percentage of projects: 5%.
Times rebaselined: 5;
Percentage of projects: 4%.
Times rebaselined: 6;
Percentage of projects: 1%.
Times rebaselined: 7;
Percentage of projects: 1%.
Source: GAO survey of major IT projects.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that Office of Management and Budget issue guidance
for rebaselining policies and that the major agencies develop policies
that address identified weaknesses. Most of the agencies who commented
on a draft of this report generally agreed with GAO‘s results and/or
recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-925]. For more
information, contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or
pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
About Half of the Federal Government's Major IT Projects Have Been
Rebaselined for Several Reasons:
Agencies' Rebaselining Policies Are Not Comprehensive:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Agency of International Development:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Environmental Protection
Agency:
Appendix X: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix XI: Surveyed Projects with Number of Times Rebaselined and
Reasons for Most Recent Rebaseline:
Appendix XII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Projects Rebaselined Four or More Times:
Table 2: Estimated Frequency of Reasons for the Most Recent
Rebaselining of Projects:
Table 3: Rebaselined Projects Cost and Schedule Changes (dollars in
millions):
Table 4: Summary of Rebaselining Policy Assessment:
Table 5: Extent to Which Agencies' Policies Are Consistent with Best
Practices:
Table 6: Number of Times Each Project was Rebaselined and Reasons for
Most Recent Rebaseline:
Figures:
Figure 1: Estimated Percentage of Major FY2008 Funded IT Projects
Rebaselined:
Figure 2: Estimated Frequency of the Number of Times that Rebaselined
Projects were Rebaselined:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
FASA: Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act:
IT: information technology:
MD: Management Directive:
NPOESS: National Polar-orbiting Operational Environment Satellite
System:
OMB: Office of Budget and Management:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
July 31, 2008:
The Honorable Tom Carper:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United State Senate:
The federal government plans to spend about $70 billion on information
technology (IT) projects during fiscal year 2008. Given the size of
this investment, it is important that projects be managed effectively
to ensure that public resources are wisely invested. Effectively
managing projects involves pulling together essential cost, schedule,
and performance goals in a meaningful, coherent fashion so that
managers have an accurate view of the program's development status. At
times these cost, schedule, and performance goals--known as a baseline-
-need to be modified to reflect new circumstances. While these changes-
-generally referred to as rebaselining--can be done for valid reasons,
they can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays.
As agreed with your staff, our objectives were to (1) determine the
extent of and primary reasons for IT project rebaselining and (2)
determine whether agencies have sound policies for rebaselining
projects. To address these objectives, we sent a structured
questionnaire to the 24 major federal agencies[Footnote 1] asking them
to provide rebaselining information on a random sample of 180 projects
from the total of 778 major IT projects they expect to invest in during
fiscal year 2008. We achieved a response rate of 99%.
We also obtained rebaselining policies from each of the agencies and
compared these policies to best practices identified in the Cost
Assessment Guide.[Footnote 2] Appendix I contains details about our
objectives, scope, and methodology. Our work was performed between
January and July 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Based on our survey, we estimate that about 48 percent[Footnote 3] of
the federal government's major IT projects have been rebaselined and
that projects are rebaselined for several reasons, including changes in
project goals and changes in funding. Of those rebaselined projects, 51
percent were rebaselined at least twice and about 11 percent were
rebaselined 4 times or more. The most commonly cited reason for
rebaselining was changes in project requirements, objectives, or scope-
-55 percent.[Footnote 4] Another frequently cited reason was changes in
funding stream--44 percent. Examples of rebaselined projects we have
identified show that rebaselining can result in significant changes to
projects' cost and schedule goals. The U.S. Coast Guard's Rescue 21
system, for example, is projected to experience cost increases of 184
percent and schedule delays of 5 years after rebaselining.
While the major agencies have all established rebaselining policies,
these policies are not comprehensive. Specifically, none of the
policies were fully consistent with best practices, including
describing a process for developing a new baseline and requiring the
validation of the new baseline, identified in the Cost Assessment
Guide. Agencies' policies vary in part because the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), which plays a key role in overseeing the federal
government's IT investments and how they are managed, has not issued
guidance specifying what elements these policies are to include.
Without comprehensive policies to guide them, agencies may not be
optimizing the effectiveness of rebaselining as a tool to improve
performance management. In addition, their rebaselining processes may
not have the transparency needed to ensure effective oversight.
To address the weaknesses identified with agencies' rebaselining
policies, we are recommending that the Director of OMB issue guidance
for rebaselining policies that would include a minimum set of key
elements. In doing so, the Director should consider the criteria used
in our report. We are also recommending that the heads of the 24 major
agencies direct the development of comprehensive rebaselining policies
that address the weaknesses we identified.
We received comments on a draft of our report from 20 of the major
agencies--4 of which stated that they had no comments. Of the remaining
16 agencies, 10 generally agreed with our findings and/or
recommendations, and 6 disagreed with our assessment of certain
practices associated with their rebaselining policies. The Departments
of Commerce, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, and State, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of
Homeland Security, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the General Services
Administration provided written responses which are reprinted in
appendices II through X.
Background:
The federal government plans to spend about $70 billion on IT projects
during fiscal year 2008, the bulk of this amount on 778 major projects
being developed by the 24 major agencies. Major projects are those
investments that require special management attention because of their
importance to an agency's mission or because they are an integral part
of the agency's enterprise architecture, have significant program or
policy implications, have high executive visibility, or are defined as
major by the agency's capital planning and investment control process.
[Footnote 5]
Given the size and significance of the government's investment in IT,
it is important that projects be managed effectively to ensure that
public resources are wisely invested. Effectively managing projects
entails, among other things, pulling together essential cost, schedule,
and performance goals in a meaningful, coherent fashion so that
managers have an accurate view of the program's development status. At
times these cost, schedule, and performance goals--known as a baseline-
-need to be modified to reflect new circumstances. While these changes-
-generally referred to as rebaselining--can be done for valid reasons-
-including, for example, changes in a project's objectives, scope,
requirements, or funding stream, they can also be used to mask cost
overruns and schedule delays. The purpose of a rebaselining is to
ensure that project managers have realistic benchmarks for tracking the
status of the project.
OMB plays a key role in overseeing federal agencies' IT investments and
how they are managed, stemming from its functions: to assist the
President in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to
supervise budget administration in Executive Branch agencies. In
helping to formulate the President's spending plans, OMB evaluates the
effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures; assesses
competing funding demands among agencies; and sets funding priorities.
It also ensures that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed
legislation are consistent with the President's budget and with
administration policies. In carrying out these responsibilities, OMB
depends on agencies to collect and report accurate and complete
information; these activities depend, in turn, on agencies having
effective IT management practices.
Laws and Guidance on Project Oversight Reference Rebaselining:
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-11 and its
accompanying Capital Programming Guide[Footnote 6] establish guidance
for implementing a disciplined capital programming process as well as
techniques for planning and budgeting, acquisition, and management and
disposition of capital assets for federal agencies. For major
acquisitions (which includes major IT systems), OMB requires that the
agency head approve or define the cost, schedule, and performance
goals. OMB specifies that agencies are expected to achieve, on average,
90 percent of the cost, schedule and performance goals for major
acquisitions. Further, OMB states that the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994 requires agency heads to review major
acquisitions not achieving 90 percent of their goals to determine
whether there is a continuing need for them and what corrective action
should be taken.[Footnote 7]
OMB requires that all proposed changes to baselines be submitted to it
prior to an agency's budget request (and that proposed changes should
not be assumed to be approved). The information OMB requires of
agencies includes costs and milestones from both the initial baseline
as well as the current baseline (if the program has been rebaselined).
It also asks agencies whether the investment was rebaselined during the
past fiscal year and, if so, if it was approved by the agency head. The
Capital Programming Guide also notes that OMB reviews the reasons for
deviation from goals, the reasonableness of the corrective actions
proposed, and the validity of increased cost estimates. The guide
further states that OMB is to consider approving a rebaseline proposal
only when the agency has provided justification based on an integrated
baseline review,[Footnote 8] demonstrates that the new goals have a
high probability of attainability, and shows that the acquisition will
still have a benefit-cost ratio that justifies continued funding after
comparing it with the other projects in the portfolio and considering
budget limitations.
Staff from OMB's Office of E-government and Information Technology and
the Acting Chief of OMB's Information Policy and Technology Branch told
us that they review agencies' earned value management policies to
determine their compliance with the provisions of the Presidential
Management Agenda[Footnote 9] for E-government. They stated that, in
reviewing these policies, they determine whether rebaselining is
adequately addressed.
In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) has statutory requirements
involving rebaselining. Each major defense acquisition program is
required by statute to establish an approved program baseline before
entering into the system development and demonstration phase of the
acquisition cycle. The statute also requires DOD to prescribe
regulations addressing the content of the baseline, reports of
deviations from the baseline, procedures for reviewing such deviations
within DOD, and procedures for submission to and approval by the
Secretary of Defense of revised baselines. Another statute, known as
Nunn-McCurdy (10 U.S.C. § 2433), requires the baseline to be used by
DOD in reporting program cost growth while another statute (10 U.S.C. §
2432) requires the baseline to be used to report annually to Congress
on program status in selected acquisition reports.
In a recent report on DOD acquisition program rebaselining,[Footnote
10] we found that then-existing reporting requirements provided limited
oversight information to Congress because rebaselining shortens the
period of performance that is reported and resets the measurement of
cost growth to zero. We also stated that DOD did not report the
cumulative unit cost growth that a program has experienced since the
first full baseline was established. Further, DOD was not required to
report programs' rebaselines to Congress, and the revised status of
such programs was not expeditiously reflected in reports to Congress.
Subsequently, Congress revised the baseline statute to establish an
"original baseline estimate" and the parameters for its revision.
[Footnote 11] The original baseline, along with the current baseline,
is now required to be used in reporting program cost growth and in
annual reporting of program status to Congress. Congress also recently
established baseline requirements specifically for major DOD automated
information systems in the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007.[Footnote 12] These requirements were
effective January 1, 2008, and establish the elements of a baseline for
major DOD automated information system programs, to include:
* the development schedule, including major milestones;
* the implementation schedule, including estimates of milestone dates,
initial operational capability, and full operational capability;
* estimates of development costs and full life-cycle costs; and;
* a summary of key performance parameters.
The new statute requires that this information be included in DOD's
budget justification documents and deems the initial submittal to
Congress for each program to be the original baseline for that program.
The statute then establishes procedures for reporting to Congress
significant and critical changes to the program measured from the
original baseline. If certain thresholds are crossed, DOD is required
to certify the program to Congress, similar to the Nunn-McCurdy process
mentioned above. The statute allows a rebaselining in the event of a
critical change in the program and requires notification to Congress of
such a change.
GAO Guide Includes Practices Applicable to Rebaselining:
We also recently issued the draft Cost Assessment Guide on best
practices for estimating and managing program costs[Footnote 13] which,
among other things, discusses considerations for rebaselining programs.
For example, the guide identifies key cost, schedule, project execution
risk, and data accuracy indicators that can serve as warning signs that
a program may need to be rebaselined. These indicators include: a
significant difference between the estimated cost to complete and the
budget for remaining work (cost); unrealistic activity durations
(schedule); a risk management analysis that shows significant changes
in risk levels (project execution risk); and frequent or significant
current or retroactive changes (data accuracy). The guide also
identifies best practices that are relevant to rebaselining policies.
These practices are: (1) describing reasons when a rebaseline is
warranted, (2) describing the process for developing a new baseline,
(3) requiring validation of the new baseline, (4) requiring management
review, and (5) requiring that decisions associated with the
rebaselining process are documented. We have performed assessments at
several agencies using this guide, including assessments of National
Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite programs and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's Case Management System.[Footnote 14]
About Half of the Federal Government's Major IT Projects Have Been
Rebaselined for Several Reasons:
Based on our survey, an estimated 48 percent of the federal
government's major IT projects have been rebaselined, and projects are
rebaselined for several reasons, including changes in project goals and
changes in funding. Of the rebaselined projects, about 51 percent were
rebaselined two or more times and 9 were rebaselined 4 or more times.
The most commonly cited reason for rebaselining was changes in project
requirements, objectives, or scope--55 percent. Another frequently
cited reason was changes in funding stream--44 percent. Examples of
rebaselined projects we have identified show that rebaselining can
result in significant changes to projects' cost and schedule goals. For
example, the U.S. Coast Guard's Rescue 21 system is projected to have
cost increases of 184 percent and schedule delays of 5 years after
rebaselining.
About Half of IT Projects Rebaselined:
Our survey of 24 agencies' major IT projects funded for fiscal year
2008 indicates that 48 percent of these projects have been rebaselined
and about half of those have been rebaselined at least twice. Figure 1
summarizes the percentage of projects rebaselined and figure 2
summarizes the estimated frequencies of the number of times rebaselined
major IT projects were rebaselined.
Figure 1: Estimated Percentage of Major FY 2008 Funded IT Projects
Rebaselined:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Estimated Percentage of Major FY 2008 Funded IT Projects Rebaselined:
Rebaselined: 49%;
Not rebaselined: 51%.
Source: GAO survey of major IT projects.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Estimated Frequency of the Number of Times that Rebaselined
Projects were Rebaselined:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Times rebaselined: 1;
Percentage of projects: 49%.
Times rebaselined: 2
Percentage of projects: 29%.
Times rebaselined: 3;
Percentage of projects: 11%.
Times rebaselined: 4.
Percentage of projects: 5%.
Times rebaselined: 5;
Percentage of projects: 4%.
Times rebaselined: 6;
Percentage of projects: 1%.
Times rebaselined: 7;
Percentage of projects: 1%.
Source: GAO survey of major IT projects.
[End of figure]
The detailed list of surveyed projects and the number of times agencies
reported rebaselining them is found in appendix XI.
Table 1 lists the nine projects in our sample that agencies reported
having been rebaselined four or more times.[Footnote 15]
Table 1: Projects Rebaselined Four or More Times:
Department: Department of Defense;
Project: Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System;
Number of times rebaselined: 4.
Department: Department of Energy;
Project: Licensing Support Network;
Number of times rebaselined: 4.
Department: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: Coast Guard Rescue 21;
Number of times rebaselined: 4.
Department: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Project: Integrated Human Resources and Training System;
Number of times rebaselined: 4.
Department: U.S. Department of Agriculture;
Project: Program Fund Control System;
Number of times rebaselined: 5.
Department: Department of Commerce;
Project: Patent and Trade Office Revenue and Account Management System;
Number of times rebaselined: 5.
Department: Department of Commerce;
Project: Commerce Business Environment;
Number of times rebaselined: 5.
Department: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: Health Admin Center IT Operations;
Number of times rebaselined: 6.
Department: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Project: Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System;
Number of times rebaselined: 7.
Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.
[End of table]
Changes in Goals and Funding Stream Reported as Primary Reasons for
Rebaselining:
Agency officials reported that the key reasons for the most recent
rebaselinings were changes in project requirements, objectives, or
scope, and changes in funding stream. Table 2 shows the estimated
frequencies of each of these reasons.
Table 2: Estimated Frequency of Reasons for the Most Recent
Rebaselining of Projects:
Category of Reasons: Change in project requirements, objectives, or
scope;
Percentage of times reported: 55%.
Category of Reasons: Change in funding stream;
Percentage of times reported: 44%.
Category of Reasons: Original baseline was inaccurate;
Percentage of times reported: 14%.
Category of Reasons: Cost or schedule overruns due to project
performance;
Percentage of times reported: 4%.
Category of Reasons: Cost or schedule overruns due to contractor
performance;
Percentage of times reported: 4%.
Category of Reasons: Other;
Percentage of times reported: 41%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.
Note: Percentages do not total 100 percent because multiple reasons
could be provided for rebaselining projects.
[End of table]
Examples of projects that have been rebaselined for each of the agency-
provided primary reasons include: the Bureau of Land Management's
Automated Fluid Mineral Support System, which, according to officials,
was rebaselined in part due to changes in project requirements stemming
from the Energy Policy Act of 2005; the Department of Veterans Affairs'
My HealtheVet program, which was rebaselined due to changes made in the
project's requirements, objectives, or scope in order to integrate
newly available technology; the Environmental Protection Agency's
Integrated Compliance Information System, which was rebaselined in part
because of funding constraints resulting from a continuing resolution
from October 2006 through April 2007 that slowed down planned
development; and the Office of Personal Management's USA Jobs, which
was rebaselined because changes in schedule and approved costs made the
original baseline inaccurate. Appendix XI provides a detailed list of
the reasons given for each rebaselined project.
Respondents to our survey also cited other reasons for rebaselining.
For example, the Transportation Security Administration's Secure Flight
program was reportedly rebaselined in part due to additional
requirements imposed to address congressional concerns about the
security and privacy of personal data. The Department of Defense's
Global Decision Support System was reportedly rebaselined due to
changed requirements resulting from recommendations of the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission. Additionally, the Department of
Agriculture's Resource Ordering and Status System was reportedly
rebaselined due to cost changes associated with changing economic
conditions.
Several Rebaselined Projects Have Experienced Significant Cost and
Schedule Changes:
Several rebaselined projects we have performed detailed reviews of have
experienced significant cost or schedule changes. For example, the U.S.
Coast Guard's Rescue 21 system is projected to have cost increases of
184 percent and schedule delays of 5 years after rebaselining. The
following table provides additional examples of projects we have
reviewed that experienced significant cost or schedule changes.
Table 3: Rebaselined Projects Cost and Schedule Changes (dollars in
millions):
Project: National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System[A];
Original cost: $7000;
Cost after rebaseline(s): $12500;
Dollar change: $5500;
Percent change: 79%;
Original completion date: 2018;
Completion date after rebaseline: 2026;
Delay: 8 years.
Project: Navy Enterprise Resource Planning;
Original cost: $1993;
Cost after rebaseline(s): $2445;
Dollar change: $452;
Percent change: 23%;
Original completion date: Jun. 2011;
Completion date after rebaseline: Aug. 2013;
Delay: 2.2 years.
Project: FAA Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System;
Original cost: $940;
Cost after rebaseline(s): $2770;
Dollar change: $1830;
Percent change: 195%;
Original completion date: Oct. 2005;
Completion date after rebaseline: Dec. 2007;
Delay: 2.2 years.
Project: FAA Wide Area Augmentation System;
Original cost: $1001;
Cost after rebaseline(s): $3340;
Dollar change: $2339;
Percent change: 234%;
Original completion date: Aug. 1999;
Completion date after rebaseline: Dec. 2008;
Delay: 9.3 years.
Project: US Coast Guard Rescue 21;
Original cost: $250;
Cost after rebaseline(s): $711;
Dollar change: $461;
Percent change: 184%;
Original completion date: 2006;
Completion date after rebaseline: 2011;
Delay: 5 years.
Source: GAO reports and agency data.
[A] Only a portion of this program's costs are included in the federal
government's $70 billion estimated IT expenditures for fiscal year
2008. The rest is not considered to be an IT investment.
[End of table]
Agencies' Rebaselining Policies Are Not Comprehensive:
Although the 24 major agencies have rebaselined about half of the major
IT projects that they plan to invest in during fiscal year 2008, they
have not been guided by comprehensive rebaselining policies.
Specifically, while major agencies have all established rebaselining
policies, none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices
such as describing a process for developing a new baseline.
Our recently issued draft Cost Assessment Guide[Footnote 16] includes
five practices that are relevant to rebaselining policies:
1. Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted. A rebaselining
policy should require valid reasons for rebaselining such as that the
baseline is no longer useful as a management tool (e.g., cost/schedule
variances are so high that they lose meaning; program scope has
significantly changed).
2. Describe the process for developing a new baseline. A rebaselining
policy should describe the development of a new cost estimate and a new
project plan that details the scope of the remaining work along with
schedule and resource allocation.
3. Require validating the new baseline. A rebaselining policy should
identify who can validate the new baseline and how the validation is to
be done.
4. Require management review. A rebaselining policy should identify the
authority who decides whether the rebaselining is warranted and the
rebaselining plan is acceptable. In addition, the policy should outline
decision criteria used by the decision authority to determine if the
rebaseline plan is acceptable.
5. Require that the process is documented. A rebaselining policy should
identify and document rebaselining decisions, including the reasons for
rebaselining; changes to the approved baseline cost, schedule, and
scope; management review of the rebaseline request; and approval of new
baseline. The policy should also require an explanation of why the
current plan is no longer feasible, identify the problems that led to
the need for a new plan of the remaining work, and discuss measures in
place to prevent recurrence.
Our analysis shows that agencies do not have comprehensive rebaselining
policies. Specifically, none of the agencies' rebaselining policies are
fully consistent with all of the five practices mentioned above. Most
policies fully or partially addressed describing reasons for
rebaselining, requiring management review, and requiring that the
rebaselining process be documented (79 percent, 96 percent, and 88
percent, respectively), while describing the process for developing the
new baseline, and requiring validation of the new baseline were
addressed the least (46 percent and 54 percent of the policies,
respectively, did not address these practices). Table 4 summarizes our
assessment of agencies' rebaselining polices and table 5 provides a
detailed assessment by agency.
Table 4: Summary of Rebaselining Policy Assessment:
Extent to Which Policy Addressed Best Practices:
Practice: Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted;
Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 14
(58%);
Number (and percent) of policies that partially addressed the practice:
5 (21%);
Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 5
(21%).
Practice: Describe process for developing a new baseline;
Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 0
(0%);
Number (and percent) of policies that partially addressed the practice:
13 (54%);
Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 11
(46%).
Practice: Require validating the new baseline;
Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 5
(21%);
Number (and percent) of policies that partially addressed the practice:
6 (25%);
Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 13
(54%).
Practice: Require management review;
Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 9
(38%);
Number (and percent) of policies that partially addressed the practice:
14 (58%);
Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 1
(4%).
Practice: Require that the process is documented;
Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 6
(25%);
Number (and percent) of policies that partially addressed the practice:
15 (63%);
Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 3
(13%).
Source: GAO analysis of agencies' rebaselining policies.
[End of table]
Table 5: Extent to Which Agencies' Policies Are Consistent with Best
Practices:
Agency: Agency for International Development;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: fully addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Agriculture;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: partially addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Commerce;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: not addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Defense;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: fully addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: fully addressed.
Agency: Homeland Security;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: not addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: not addressed;
Require that the process is documented: not addressed.
Agency: Education;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: fully addressed.
Agency: Energy;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: fully addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: fully addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: General Services Administration;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: fully addressed.
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: not addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Housing and Urban Development;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: partially addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Interior;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: partially addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: fully addressed.
Agency: Justice;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Labor;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: partially addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: partially addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: not addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: not addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: partially addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: not addressed.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: not addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: not addressed.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: partially addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: fully addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Small Business Administration;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: partially addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: fully addressed.
Agency: State;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Transportation;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: partially addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: partially addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Treasury;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: partially addressed;
Require management review: partially addressed;
Require that the process is documented: partially addressed.
Agency: Veteran Affairs;
Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted: fully addressed;
Describe process for developing a new baseline: partially addressed;
Require validating the new baseline: not addressed;
Require management review: fully addressed;
Require that the process is documented: fully addressed.
Source: GAO analysis of agencies' rebaselining policies.
Note: A practice was determined to be fully addressed if the policy
addressed all aspects of the practice, partially addressed if the
policy only addressed some aspects of the practice, or not addressed if
the policy did not address any aspect of the practice.
[End of table]
Agencies' policies vary in part because no guidance has been issued
specifying what elements these policies are to include. As previously
noted, OMB has issued guidance which, among other things, requires
baseline change requests to be approved by the agency heads and
submitted to OMB for approval. However, this guidance does not
specifically address how agencies are to implement their rebaselining
activities, including the key elements that should be addressed in
their policies. In addition, officials from OMB's Office of E-
government and Information Technology and the Acting Chief of OMB's
Information Policy and Technology Branch told us that, in their
oversight function, they review agencies' earned value management
policies, and in doing so determine whether these policies address
rebaselining. However, they noted that they have not established
specific criteria to evaluate the earned value management policies (and
therefore their rebaselining aspects) and acknowledged that having such
criteria would improve consistency among the policies and facilitate
their oversight process.
Without comprehensive policies to guide their rebaselining activities,
agencies may not be optimizing the effectiveness of rebaselining as a
tool to improve performance management. In addition, their rebaselining
processes may lack the transparency needed to ensure effective
oversight.
Conclusions:
Based on our sample of the federal government's major IT projects, an
estimated 48 percent of these projects have been rebaselined, and, of
these, a large number more than once. The frequency with which projects
are rebaselined highlights the importance of sound policies to guide
this process. However, agencies' rebaselining policies do not include
several important elements of a comprehensive policy, and OMB has
acknowledged that it has not established specific criteria to evaluate
agencies' earned value management policies, which include rebaselining.
Without specific and comprehensive policies, new baselines may be
inaccurate and fail to provide the necessary transparency to agency
officials, OMB, and other oversight organizations.
Recommendations:
To address the weaknesses identified in agencies' rebaselining
policies, we are making recommendations to the Director of OMB and to
the 24 major agencies. Specifically, we recommend that:
* the Director of OMB issue guidance for rebaselining policies that
would include a minimum set of key elements, taking into consideration
the criteria used in this report, and:
* each of the heads of the 24 major agencies direct the development of
comprehensive rebaselining policies that address the weaknesses we
identified.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received comments on a draft of our report from 20 of the major
agencies--four of which stated that they had no comments (the
Departments of Agriculture, Education, Justice, and the Treasury). Of
the remaining 16 agencies, 10 generally agreed with our results and/or
recommendations, 6 disagreed with our assessment of their rebaselining
policies and provided information which we have incorporated into the
report as appropriate. Several of the agencies also provided technical
comments which we incorporated as appropriate. We did not receive
comments from the Departments of Health and Human Services, the
Interior, and Veterans Affairs, or from the Small Business
Administration, or the Office of Management and Budget.
The comments of the 10 agencies that generally agreed with our results
and/or recommendations are summarized below:
* In written comments on a draft of the report, the Department of
Commerce's Chief Information Officer concurred that managing project
baselines is key to the effective management of IT projects and stated
that the department is revising its policy to ensure that it fully
reflects the five practices that we cite in the report as relevant to
rebaselining policies. The Department of Commerce's written comments on
a draft of this report are printed in appendix II.
* In written comments on a draft of our report, the Department of
Defense's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, and
Communication, and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
agreed with our findings and recommendations. The Department of
Defense's written comments on a draft of this report are printed in
appendix III.
While the Departments of Commerce and Defense agreed with our findings
and recommendations, both disagreed with our use of the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) as an
example of a rebaselined IT project. NPOESS is jointly funded by the
Department of Commerce and DOD. In its comments, the Department of
Commerce stated that NPOESS is a space system acquisition and that it
only considers a portion of the program--the ground segment--to be an
IT system. The department also noted that, while the ground segment
accounted for some of the cost and schedule changes associated with the
program's rebaselining effort, it did not experience the degree of cost
and schedule issues that the NPOESS space segment did. In addition, in
its comments, DOD stated that it does not consider NPOESS to be an IT
system and that NPOESS--like other space-based assets--is not reported
in the Department's IT budget. The department recommended that we
remove NPOESS from the report. We acknowledge that the departments do
not include the entire NPOESS program when reporting to OMB on their IT
systems, and have modified the report to acknowledge this. Further,
while we focused on IT systems for this report, OMB's guidance
governing rebaselining applies to all major acquisitions and therefore
would include NPOESS regardless of how a department reports it to OMB.
* In written comments on a draft of the report, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's Acting Chief Information Officer stated
that the department is in agreement with the findings and
recommendations. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's
written comments on a draft of this report are printed in appendix IV.
* In e-mail comments on a draft of this report, the Department of
Labor's Deputy Chief Information Officer stated that, as the department
continues to mature its rebaselining policies and practices, it will
reference practices identified in GAO's Cost Assessment Guide.
* In written comments on a draft of the report, the Department of
State's Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer stated that the department had already begun updating its IT
rebaselining policies and would ensure that best practices were
included in the update. The Department of State's written comments on a
draft of this report are printed in appendix V.
* In e-mail comments on a draft of this report, the Department of
Transportation's Director of Audit Relations stated, on behalf of the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, that the department agrees
that more comprehensive OMB guidance can help address agency
inconsistencies with respect to rebaseline justifications and policy.
In addition, the department stated that it agreed that each agency
should take responsibility for developing its own comprehensive
rebaselining policies.
* In written comments on a draft of the report, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Deputy Administrator concurred
with our recommendation. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's written comments on a draft of this report are printed
in appendix VI.
* In e-mail comments on a draft of the report, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Chief Information Officer and Deputy Executive Director
for Corporate Management stated that the agency agreed with the thrust
of the recommendations.
* In e-mail comments on a draft of this report, the National Science
Foundation's Chief Information Officer stated that the agency plans to
clarify its policy to address the specific areas of IT rebaselining
cited in our report, in accordance with our recommendations.
* In e-mail comments on a draft of the report, the Social Security
Administration stated that the administration agreed with the report as
written.
Specific comments and our responses from the six agencies that
disagreed with our assessment of their rebaselining policies and
provided information which we have incorporated into the report as
appropriate follow:
* In e-mail comments on a draft of the report, the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Associate Chief Information Officer for IT Planning,
Architecture, and E-government disagreed with our assessments of the
department's rebaselining policy for three practices--describe the
process for developing the new baseline, require management review, and
require that the process is documented--and provided references to its
DOE Manual 413 Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets
and to three supplemental guides which we had not received before--DOE
Performance Baseline Guidance, DOE External Independent Review Standard
Operating Procedures, and DOE Guidance for Developing Scheduling and
Cost Baselines--to support claims that the agency's policy fully
addresses these elements. After reviewing these documents, we changed
two of our initial assessments.
* Specifically, for describe the process for developing the new
baseline, we changed our assessment from a "not addressed" to a
"partially addressed" in light of the fact that the documentation
provided calls for a new cost estimate and a new project plan that
details the scope of work remaining with schedule and resource
allocation. We are not changing our "partially addressed" assessment
for the require management review practice because, while DOE's
guidance identifies the authorities who are to decide whether the
rebaselining is warranted and whether the rebaselining plan is
acceptable, it does not outline the criteria to be used in making these
decisions. Regarding the require that the process is documented
practice, while DOE's policy addresses the need for documentation and
even includes a template that program managers must submit, it does not
specifically require documentation of the reasons for rebaselining;
changes to the approved baseline cost, schedule, and scope; and
management review of the rebaseline request and approval of new
baseline. It also does not call for documenting measures in place to
prevent recurrence. The new documentation provided by DOE also provides
additional information on require validation of the new baseline which
changes our assessment of that practice from a "partially addressed" to
a "fully addressed." We have adjusted the department's ratings in table
5 of our report according to our new assessments.
* In written comments on a draft of the report, the Department of
Homeland Security's Director for the Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison
Office disagreed with our assessment that none of the rebaselining
practices were addressed in the department's policy and provided
references to acquisition program baseline guidance that it believed
fully addressed the practices. However, we did not reconsider our
ratings because the department did not provide this guidance to us. In
addition, when we requested the department's rebaselining policy in
February, we were told that the department's Chief Information Officer
was collaboratively working with the Chief Procurement Officer to re-
engineer its investment review process currently codified in its
Management Directive (MD) 1400 policy document and that rebaselining
would be addressed in this new policy. We were told that, as part of
the MD 1400 revision, the department would also be revising its
acquisition program baseline guidance to address rebaselining. The
Department of Homeland Security's written comments on a draft of this
report are printed in appendix VII.
* In written comments on a draft of the report, the Agency for
International Development's Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Bureau Management stated that he believed that the agency's policy and
guidance fully address GAO's criteria, and provided specific documents
to support this claim. When we initially reviewed the agency's
rebaselining policy, it was in draft form and we therefore rated three
out of the five practices as "partially addressed." We received the
final policy and a document titled Management Services ADS 577 -
Information Technology Capital Planning and Investment Control, which
we had not received during our review. Based on our review of these
documents, we determined describe reasons when a rebaseline is
warranted, require validating the new baseline, and require management
review to be fully addressed. We also determined describe process for
developing a new baseline, and require that the process is documented
to be "partially addressed." We have adjusted our ratings in the report
accordingly. The Agency for International Development's written
comments on a draft of this report are printed in appendix VIII.
* In written comments on a draft of the report, the Environmental
Protection Agency's Assistant Administrator and Chief Information
Officer agreed with GAO that government rebaselining policies should be
constructed to optimize the effectiveness of rebaselining as a tool to
improve performance management of IT projects. However, the Assistant
Administrator disagreed with our assessment that their rebaselining
policy does not address require validating the new baseline and only
partially addresses require that the process is documented and provided
specific references to its EPA EVM Procedures believed to fully address
these practices. After reviewing these references, we determined that
the policy fully addresses the first practice, and we adjusted the
rating accordingly. However, we did not change our assessment of the
second practice because the policy does not the require documenting
reasons why the current plan is no longer feasible. The Environmental
Protection Agency's written comments on a draft of this report are
printed in appendix IX.
* In written comments on the a draft of the report, the General
Services Administration's Acting Administrator partially agreed with
our recommendation but stated he believed the administration
rebaselining policy partially met the practice associated with
describing the process for developing a new baseline and provided a
reference in the GSA Quarterly Control Review User Guide which we
analyzed during our review. We agree with this assessment and have
adjusting our rating accordingly. The General Services Administration's
written comments on a draft of this report are printed in appendix X.
* In e-mail comments on a draft of this report, the Office of Personnel
Management's (OPM) Chief Information Officer stated that the agency
disagreed with our ratings for three of the five practices used to
assess its rebaselining policy. Specifically, the agency stated that
(1) the rating for describe the reasons when a rebaseline is warranted
should have been at least a "partially addressed" instead of a "not
addressed," (2) the rating for the require management review should
have been "fully addressed" instead of "partially addressed," and (3)
the rating for require that the process is documented should be "fully
addressed" instead of "partially addressed." In addition, OPM provided
references to its OPM Earned Value Management System Description to
support its claims. After reviewing the references, we are changing the
rating for describe the reasons when a rebaseline is warranted to
"partially addressed": while OPM's policy generally states that
rebaselining should occur when analysis shows that the remaining budget
is not adequate to complete the remaining work and provide for
meaningful performance measurement, it does not provide specific
reasons that would cause this condition (e.g., change in requirements).
We have adjusted the report to reflect this change. We disagree,
however, that any other rating should change. Specifically, while the
earned value management policy specifies who is to review the
rebaselining request, it does not identify the criteria to be used by
the review authority to determine whether the rebaselining plan is
acceptable, and the require management review rating should therefore
remain as "partially addressed." In addition, while the policy calls
for documenting items such as the reasons for rebaselining and changes
to the approved baseline cost, schedule, and scope, it does not call
for documenting measures to prevent reoccurrence of the conditions that
lead to the rebaselining. The require that the process is documented
practice should therefore remain "partially addressed."
We will be sending copies of this report to other interested
congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on our Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions on the matters discussed in
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at
pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix XII.
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
[End of section]
Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent of and primary reasons
for IT project rebaselining; and (2) whether agencies have sound
policies for rebaselining projects.
To determine the extent of and primary reasons for IT rebaselining, we
sent a questionnaire to each of the managers of a random sample of 180
projects selected from the population of 778 major IT projects the 24
major agencies plan to fund in during fiscal year 2008. Our population
list of 778 major projects was developed from the Office of Management
and Budget's Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and
2009 (this is generally referred to as the exhibit 53).
All of the survey results that appear in this report are estimates of
characteristics of the major IT projects the 24 major federal agencies
plan to invest in during fiscal year 2008. Our questionnaire gathered
information on (a) whether the sampled project had been rebaselined,
(b) the number of times the project had been rebaselined, and (c)
reasons for the project's most recent rebaselining. We followed up with
many agencies to ensure accuracy and completeness of the responses and
obtained completed surveys for 178 of the 180 sampled projects, for an
overall response rate of 99 percent.
Since our sample of IT projects is only one of a large number of
samples that we might have drawn, and each sample could have provided
different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This
is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95
percent of the samples we could have drawn. All proportion estimates
from this sample used in this report have 95 percent confidence
intervals of within plus or minus 11 percentage points, unless
otherwise noted.
We also selected a sample of rebaselined projects we have previously
reviewed for Congress to provide examples of the cost and schedule
changes experienced by rebaselined projects. We selected projects for
which original and new cost and schedule information was readily
available.
To determine whether agencies have sound policies for rebaselining
projects, we drew best practices from an exposure draft version of the
Cost Assessment Guide.[Footnote 17] While one section of the guide
specifically addresses rebaselining, sections describing reliable
processes for developing cost estimates were also relevant as
rebaselining involves establishing new cost estimates. To validate the
soundness of these criteria, we sought feedback from GAO cost
estimating experts and others. The five best practices for rebaselining
policies that we identified are: (1) describing reasons when a
rebaseline is warranted, (2) describing processes for developing a new
baseline, (3) requiring validation of the new baseline, (4) requiring
management review, and (5) requiring that decisions associated with the
rebaselining process are documented. We obtained agencies' rebaselining
policies and determined whether they were consistent with the practices
we identified. We determined a practice to be fully addressed if the
policy addressed all aspects of the practice. We determined a practice
to be partially addressed if the policy only addressed some aspects of
the practice. We determined a practice to be not addressed if the
policy did not address any aspect of the practice. We shared our
assessments of the rebaselining policies with agencies and followed up
with them to identify additional documentation to address the
weaknesses we identified.
During our review, we also interviewed staff from the Office of
Management and Budget's Office of E-government and Information
Technology and the Acting Chief for the Information Policy and
Technology Branch, to understand their role in guiding and overseeing
agencies' rebaselining activities.
We conducted this performance audit in Washington, D.C., from January
2008 to July 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce:
United States Department Of Commerce:
Chief Information Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
July 23, 2008:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the General Accountability
Office's (GAO) draft report entitled Information Technology: Agencies
Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to
Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals (GAO-08-925).
We concur that it is important that information technology projects be
managed effectively to ensure that public resources are wisely invested
and that managing project baselines is key to that effort. To this end,
the Department of Commerce has in place an Information Technology (IT)
Investment Performance Management Policy, which addresses cost,
schedule, and performance baselines. We are revising that policy to
ensure that it fully reflects the five practices that GAO cites in the
report as relevant to rebaselining policies.
The draft report highlights the National Polar Orbiting Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) on pages 3, 9, and 10 as an example of how
rebaselining can result in significant changes to a project's cost and
schedule goals. No other project in the report is so highlighted.
Because the report focuses on the rebaselining of IT projects, it
should not highlight NPOESS as an example of a rebaselined IT project.
The final report should not include references to NPOESS cost growth
and schedule slippage because they refer to the space segment and not
the NPOESS IT component and thus are highly misleading. The reader
would erroneously conclude that NPOESS is an example of an IT project
that experienced significant cost growth and schedule slippage.
NPOESS, reported in many GAO space program evaluations, is a space
system acquisition. NPOESS has a major IT component, the ground
segment, the rebaselining of which NOAA reported to GAO in completing
the GAO survey used as the basis for the draft report. However, this IT
system, or ground segment, has not experienced the degree of cost and
schedule issues associated with the NPOESS space segment. The GAO
report Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (GAO-07-498)
cited in the subject draft report noted, "Development of the ground
segment-which includes the interface data processing system, the ground
stations that are to receive satellite data, and the ground-based
command, control, and communications system-is under way and on track."
Rebaselining of the ground system did occur, driven by changes in the
overall program. However, ground system rebaselining accounted for only
12% of total program rebaselining cost growth. The ground system
schedule slipped three years (vs. eight for total program rebaselining)
and was delivered ahead of the operational need.
The draft report draws a distinction between the guidance covering
rebaselining of major defense acquisitions (the Nunn-McCurdy statute)
and a more recent requirement governing Department of Defense major
automated information system programs (the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007). That the NPOESS space segment
drove a rebaselining under Nunn-McCurdy is another reason why that
rebaselining should not be associated with IT project management.
Signed by:
Suzanne Hilding:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of Defense:
Networks And Information Integration:
6000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-6000:
July 25, 2008:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GAO Draft Report, GAO-
08-925, "Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish
Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule,
and Performance Goals". I concur with the overall findings of the
report and enclosed general comments on the report as well as comments
to your specific recommendations.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Timothy J. Halp:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense:
(C3ISR & IT Acquisition):
Enclosure: As stated.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development:
Office Of Chief Information Officer:
Washington, DC 20410-3000:
July 24, 2008:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U. S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
This letter is in response to the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft Report issued on July 10, 2008
entitled Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish
Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule,
and Performance Goals (GAO-08-925).
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD) is in agreement
with the findings and recommendations identified in this report. GAO's
main recommendation is for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
issue guidance, and for agencies to "direct the development of
comprehensive rebaselining policies" to address areas of weakness
identified in the report. Rebaselining is an issue that we are well
aware of and according to the draft report HUD appears to be above
average compared to other agencies' rebaselining policies. The Office
of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is already actively planning to
improve the Department's rebaselining processes as well as strengthen
those practices where further improvements can be made.
We thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report and look forward in receiving the final document. In the
interim, if you or your staff should have any questions, please contact
Shelia Fitzgerald, Acting Director, Investment Strategy Policy and
Management at 202-402-2432 or Wanda Taylor, Audit Liaison at 202-402-
8085.
Sincerely,
Signed by: [Illegible]
For:
Joseph M. Milazzo:
Acting Chief Information Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
July 24, 2008:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Information
Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to
Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals,"
GAO Job Code 310867.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Frank Bowers, Information Technology Specialist, Bureau of Information
Resource Management at (202) 453-8743.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc: GAO - Sabine Paul:
IRM - Susan Swart:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive
Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and
Performance Goals:
(GAO-08-925, GAO Code 310867):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on GAO's
draft report "Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish
Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule,
and Performance Goals."
Recommendations:
1. provide a fuller description of the process for developing a new
baseline;
2. identify who can validate the new baseline and how the validation is
to be done; and;
3. provide a fuller identification and documentation of rebaselining
decisions.
State Response:
The Department of State has already begun updating the Information
Technology (IT) rebaselining policies to fully describe the process for
new baseline development, validation by whom and how the new baseline
will be accomplished, and more fully identify and document rebaselining
decisions. The Department will ensure that the GAO Cost Assessment
Guide's practices related to baseline policies are included in these
updates.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Office of the Administrator:
Washington, DC 20546-0001:
July 22, 2008:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report
entitled, "Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish
Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule,
and Performance Goals" (GAO-08-925), dated July 10, 2008. I appreciate
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) interest in ensuring
changes to cost, schedule, and performance goals of information
technology projects are made with appropriate transparency and
oversight. This is fully consistent with current NASA efforts to
implement more effective information technology governance and
supporting policies.
In the draft report, GAO made two recommendations regarding the
development of guidance and policies for rebaselining, one of which was
addressed to NASA as well as 23 other major agencies.
Recommendation 2: Each of the heads of the 24 major agencies direct the
development of comprehensive rebaselining policies that address the
weaknesses we identified.
Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA will ensure that
Agency policies for information technology program and project
management include a comprehensive rebaselining policy that describes
reasons when a rebaseline is warranted, describes the process for
developing a new baseline, requires validating the new baseline,
requires management review, and requires that the process is
documented.
My point of contact for this matter is Gary Cox, Associate Chief
Information Officer for Policy and Investments. He may be contacted by
e-mail at gary.cox-1@nasa.gov or by telephone at (202) 358-0413.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Shana Dale:
Deputy Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink, http://wwww.dhs.gov]:
July 24, 2008:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report GAO-08-925 entitled
Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive
Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and
Performance Goals. The draft report cites the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) as lacking sound policies for rebaselining projects.
Table 5: Extent to Which Agencies' Policies Are Consistent with Best
Practices depicts each of the best practices as "not addressed" by DHS.
The legend for the table notes that `"not addressed" is if the policy
did not address any aspect of the practice. However, DHS's current APB
guidance for rebaselining (also referred to within the Department as
remediation of cost, schedule, and performance breaches) aligns with
these best practices. DHS requests that the assigned ratings be
revisited upon review of this response.
The DHS APB breach process is aligned with the best practices cited by
GAO, though cited in the GAO report as not having addressed any of the
five areas: (1) Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted; (2)
Describe process for developing a new baseline; (3) Require validating
the new process; (4) Require management review; (5) Require that the
process is documented. The Department's APB Guidance at a minimum
partially addresses all of these areas. DHS is in the process of
establishing a comprehensive rebaselining policy and on April 4, 2008,
an official memorandum describing the Acquisition Program Baseline
(APB) process was released. The memo was accompanied by a comprehensive
guidance document for APBs. This includes guidance on breaches, defined
by DHS as the conditions requiring a program to rebaseline.
The DHS guidance on APB rebaselining cites similar reasons for a
program to consider rebaselining (referred to as "warning signs" in the
GAO report), including:
* An indication of not meeting key performance parameters;
* Estimated cost not equaling the budget required for the remaining
work, particularly, program cost increases greater than or equal to 8%
are required to be brought to management's attention immediately;
* Unrealistic activity durations resulting in schedule milestones not
being met.
The Department has in place policy/guidance that addresses the
requirements noted in GAO's recommended rebaselining practices. The
specific DHS approaches to each of these practice areas are outlined
below:
1. Describe reasons why a rebaseline is warranted. The APB guidance
describes the requirements for rebaselining as any breach of
performance, schedule, or cost. An APB breach of performance or
schedule is defined as failure to meet the Threshold value of the
specific parameter. An APB cost breach is defined as cumulative program
cost increases greater than or equal to 8% from the approved cost
baseline. Breaches to the APB can be driven by multiple causes, many of
which are fact-of life changes in requirements, resources or schedule
that are beyond the Program Manager's/Component's control.
Additionally, DHS currently monitors program APBs and is headed towards
improved oversight and management of program baselines through a
monthly periodic reporting process that takes into account project
level information. The intent is to be alerted sooner rather than later
in those instances that a program is headed towards a breach. The
Department is diligently conducting APB reviews to determine whether
programs are meeting cost, schedule, and performance objectives. Any
program breach in cost, schedule or program objectives triggers a
comprehensive APB review. Component leadership works with the program
manager to develop and submit a remediation plan, which includes an
approach to rebaselining (as defined in the GAO report), to submit to
the Department. The APB is a living document that includes an audit
trail for any changes made to the baselines and serves as the contract
between the program and the Department. A remediation plan for the APB
must be submitted within 30 days of the breach notification.
2. Describe the process for developing a new baseline. The process for
addressing a breach which will require a rebaseline is described in the
APB Guide and specific policy surrounding the development of a new cost
estimate fully aligns with GAO's cost estimation methods. The
Department has adopted the draft GAO Cost Assessment Guide as its
guidance for developing new cost estimates.
According to the APB Guide, if a program breaches an approved APB
parameter threshold, (or the Program Manager determines that the
program will so breach in the near future), the Program Manager must
promptly notify the Component leadership and MDA via a formal memo. The
Program Manager must submit (1) a remediation plan both explaining
circumstances of the breach and proposing corrective action within 30
days of breach notification and (2) if required, a revised APB for MDA
approval within 90 days of breach notification. The program is required
to provide the justification for rebaselining in the recovery plan.
3. Require validating the new baseline. Several safeguards are in place
to validate new baselines for DHS programs. The Component's Review
Authority serves as the initial reviewer and must validate the changes
made by the Program Manager before submitting to the Department.
Additionally, the Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB) must validate the
changes made prior to submitting for management review. The CPO, CFO,
CIO, CAO, collectively known as the CXOs (report to USM) can require
independent government cost estimates for further validation. DHS'
Investment Review Board (IRB) is another layer of oversight and
management that validates the information provided by programs when
rebaselining.
4. Require management review. DHS clearly delineates in its APB Guide
that an Acquisition Decision Memo (ADM) signed by the Milestone
Decision Authority (usually the Deputy Secretary or his designee) must
decide whether the rebaselining is warranted and the rebaselining plan
is acceptable. Programs must also undergo a review by the Investment
Review Board prior to having a rebaselined APB approved. Also, the
Department's Management Directive 0007.1 defines approval authorities
for IT programs. The Directive institutionalizes the Enterprise
Architecture Board responsible for validating the requirements within
the APBs and any changes to the APBs based on reviews of program
performance and alignment with enterprise architecture.
5. Require that the process is documented. The APB is a living document
that keeps record of all changes or adjustments made to the program's
plan. Efforts are underway to automate the management and oversight of
APBs within the Department's new Periodic Reporting System to ensure
appropriate controls are in place and that an audit trail is available
and visible to leadership. The system will also record date of review,
reviewer, justification for changes, decision made, approval authority,
and track progress towards obtaining approval, etc. The system will
provide workflow support from the time an APB is first developed,
through the management of the program against the baselines. The system
will have a record of all decisions, changes, updates, made to the APB.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report and
we look forward to working with you on further homeland security
issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Agency for International Development:
USAID:
From The American People:
U.S. Agency for International Development:
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW:
Washington, DC 20573:
[hyperlink, http://www/usaid.gov]:
July 24, 2008:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID) formal response on the draft GAO report entitled "Information
Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive (Policies to
Address Changes to (Projects' Cost, Schedule and Performance Goals"
(GAO-08-925).
We agree with GAO's premise that baseline control is a critical
component of project management, which is why our policy and supporting
project guidance documents address how a project must establish, review
and obtain approval for baseline changes. We believe that USAID policy
and guidance fully address GAO's criteria, and have provided specific
document and section references in the enclosed table.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
review.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Drew W. Luten:
Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
Enclosure:
Reference Page GAO-08-925 Draft Report 17, Table 5.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office Of Environmental Information:
Washington, D.C. 20460
July 24, 2008:
Mr. David Powner:
Director:
IT Management Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner::
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide comments on the General Accountability Office
(GAO) draft report, "Information Technology (IT): Agencies Need to
Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes in Projects' Cost,
Schedule, and Performance Goals" (GAO-08-925) (Engagement 310867).
EPA agrees with GAO that government re-baselining policies should be
constructed to optimize the effectiveness of re-baselining as a tool to
improve performance management of IT projects. We further agree with
GAO's assessment that the Agency's re-baselining policy, which is
included in "EPA's Earned Value Management (EV) Procedures," is
consistent with GAO's best practices with regard to "Describe reasons
when a re-baseline is warranted" and "Require management review," and
that our policy could be improved with regard to "Describe the process
for developing a new baseline."
We do not agree, however, with GAO's assessment that EPA's re-
baselining policy does not address "Require validating the new
baseline." On page 5 in Section 6.1.2, "Integrated Baseline Reviews,"
of "EPA's EV Procedures," we state that "The Integrated Baseline
Reviews must occur before development/modemization/enhancement (DAME)
starts and before any re-baseline request is sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)." The key purpose of an Integrated Baseline
Review is to validate the baseline, as required by GAO's best practice.
A copy of EPA's EV Procedures is enclosed.
We also do not agree with GAO's assessment that EPA's re-baselining
policy only partially addresses "Require that the process is
documented." On page 12 in Section 6.3, "Baseline Change Control
Process," of "EPA's EV Procedures," we state that the documentation
required for review and approval of a re-baselining is "Precise
justification, Revised milestones with new cost and schedule goals, and
Revised Summary of Spending table of the proposed schedule." On page 11
of that same section, we state that "All re-baseline change requests
are reviewed and approved by the Senior Information Official (SIO) for
the requesting office, and the Information Investment Subcommittee
(IIS) [made up of EPA's senior managers] before being submitted to
OMB." These requirements go directly to GAO's description of best
practice documentation of re-baselining requests.
Although we believe our re-baselining policy is more robust than the
level assessed by GAO, we agree it could be enhanced, and intend to
improve it to more fully address GAO's recommendations when OMB issues
the needed guidance GAO recommends.
If you have questions about the Agency's response please contact Odelia
Funke, Director of EPA's Mission Investment Solutions Division, at 202-
566-0667, or at funke.odelia@epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Signed by: [Illegible]
For:
Molly A. O'Neill:
Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the General Services Administration:
U.S. General Services Administration:
GSA Administrator:
1800 F Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20405-0002:
[hyperlink, http://www.gsa.gov]
July 24, 2008:
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro:
Acting Comptroller General of the United States:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
The General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft report, "Information Technology:
Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to
Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals' (GAO-08-925). The
Government Accountability Office recommends that GSA address the
weaknesses identified with rebaselining policies.
We partially agree with the findings and recommendations. Technical
comments that update and clarify statements in the draft report are
enclosed and incorporated herein by reference.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Staff inquiries can be
directed to Mr. Kevin Messner, Associate Administrator, Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 501-0563.
Signed by:
David L. Bibb:
Acting Administrator:
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. David A. Powner, Director Information Technology Issues:
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report:
Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive
Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and
Performance Goals:
GAO-08-925 - Dated July 2008:
General Services Administration Comments to the Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: GAO recommends that the Director of OMB issue
guidance for rebaselining policies that would include a minimum set of
key elements, taking into consideration the criteria used in this
report.
Recommendation 2: GAO recommends that the Acting Administrator direct
the development of comprehensive rebaselining policies that address the
weaknesses identified.
GSA Response: Partially concurs with recommendation GAO should specify
that OMB rebaseline policies be developed before agency rebaseline
policies. This would avoid agency rebaselining policies being
potentially inconsistent with OMB's policies.
Additionally, GSA believes that based on information provided in GSA's
Quarterly Control Review User Guide - FY2008 Guidance, rebaselining
practice #2 is partially met. As a result, GSA respectfully requests
GAO to make appropriate correction to Table 5 in the final report.
[End of section]
Appendix XI: Surveyed Projects with Number of Times Rebaselined and
Reasons for Most Recent Rebaseline:
Table 6: Number of Times Each Project was Rebaselined and Reasons for
Most Recent Rebaseline:
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: ICE (FFMS);
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: FEMA - Integrated Financial Management Information System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: USCIS - Integrated Document Production;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: CBP - Automated Targeting System Maintenance;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: CBP - Traveler Enforcement Compliance System - Modernization;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: CBP (WHTI);
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: Secure Flight;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Check];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: Alien Flight Student Program;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology; Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: FAMS Air to Ground Communications System and Tactical
Information Sharing System; Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: NPPD - IICP - Infrastructure Information Collection Program;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: NPPD - Integrated Common Analytical Viewer;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: Rescue 21; Times rebaselined: 4;
Reasons: Project performance: [Check];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Check];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: FEMA - eNEMIS; Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Project: DHS - Homeland Secure Data Network;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: Commerce Business Systems;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: USPTO Revenue and Account Management System;
Times rebaselined: 5;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: Economic Census and Surveys;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic
Encoding and Referencing Enhancements;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards Weather Network;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Check];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: NDBC Ocean Observing System of Systems;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: NPOESS Data Exploitation;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: NOAA Research Scientific Computing Support;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: GOES Ground System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: NPOESS Ground System;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: NCEP Weather and Climate Computing Infrastructure Services;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: BIS Legacy Export Control;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: Commerce Business Environment;
Times rebaselined: 5;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Project: NIST-wide Grant Management Information System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Justice;
Project: FBI Biometric Interoperability;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Justice;
Project: FBI Law Enforcement National Data Exchange;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Justice;
Project: JMD Integrated Wireless Network;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: OSTXX001: Delphi;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: FAAXX600 (ATOP);
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: Survey FAAXX603: Traffic Mgmt Advisor-single Cntr;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: FAAX711-(DataComm);
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: FAAXX610: Aviation Safety Knowledge Management, incorporates:
FAAXX196, FAAXX264, FAAXX471, FAAXX487;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: NHTSA020: Artemis;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: FAAXX169: Wide Area Augmentation System;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: NHTSA304: EDS;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: PHMSA018: National Pipeline Mapping System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: FAAXX704: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, of the
Surveillance and Broadcast Services Program;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Project: DOTXX070: DOT IT Combined Infrastructure;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Commissary Advanced Resale Transaction System;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Check];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Defense Information System For Security;
Times rebaselined: 0; [Empty];
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Defense Travel System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Global Decision Support System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Net Centric Enterprise Services;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Navy Enterprise Resource Planning;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: JTRS - Airborne, Maritime And Fixed Radios;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Navy Marine Corps Intranet;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Future Combat Systems-Advanced Collaborative Environment;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System;
Times rebaselined: 4;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Warfighter Information Network-Tactical;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System-Air Force;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Integrated Strategic Planning And Analysis Network;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Defense;
Project: Joint Precision Approach And Landing System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Education;
Project: Financial Management Support System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Education;
Project: Contracts and Purchasing Support System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Education;
Project: Common Services for Borrowers-Legacy;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Education;
Project: E-Authentication;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Education;
Project: National Student Loan Data System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Education;
Project: Advance-AID Delivery;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Education;
Project: Combined Office Automation -EDUCATE;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Project: Legacy Financial Systems;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Project: Storage and Retrieval Information System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Project: Integrated Compliance Information System;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Project: Enterprise Content Management System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Project: Integrated Contracts Management System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Energy;
Project: NNSA STA Transportation Command and Control System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Energy;
Project: NNSA ASC LLNL Purple Platform;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Energy;
Project: ETTP Contractor Business and Administrative Systems;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Energy;
Project: RW DOE Licensing Support Network;
Times rebaselined: 4;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Energy;
Project: SC Lattice Quantum ChromoDynamics Computing;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Energy;
Project: HS Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: General Services Administration;
Project: Financial Management Line of Business Managing Partner;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: General Services Administration;
Project: Human Capital Information Technology Services;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: General Services Administration;
Project: IT Infrastructure Initiative Line of Business;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: General Services Administration;
Project: Rent Estimate;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: General Services Administration;
Project: Sales Automation System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: General Services Administration;
Project: GSA Advantage;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: General Services Administration;
Project: GSA Enterprise Infrastructure Operations;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: NIH CIT Central Accounting System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: OS ASAM Debt Management and Collection System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: IHS Resource and Patient Management System - Maintenance &
Enhancements;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CMS Modernized IT Infrastructure;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CMS Beneficiary Enrollment and Plan Payment for Part C & D;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CMS Durable Medical Equipment Claims Processing;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CMS Medicare Appeals System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CMS Q-net;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: Mission Accomplishments and Regulatory Compliance Services;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CDC Public Health Information Network;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: HHS Asset - Property Management Information System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CMS Medicare Program Integrity Modernization - One PI System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: Grants.gov - Find and Apply;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: FDA Consolidated Infrastructure;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: CMS IT Infrastructure;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Project: ACF GrantSolutions.gov/Grants Administration Tracking
Evaluation System - Grants Center for Excellence;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Project: HSG - 251780 - Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System;
Times rebaselined: 7;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Project: ADM - 202750 - HUD Integrated Human Resources and Training
System;
Times rebaselined: 4;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: E-DOI - NBC FMLoB Shared Service Provider;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: BOR1-CDW (Corporate Data Warehouse);
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: E-DOI - Geospatial One-Stop;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: BLM-Incident Qualifications and Certification System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: USGS - National Water Information System;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: BLM-Automated Fluid Mineral Support System;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: BOR1-GCPO SCADA (Grand Coulee Power Office Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition System);
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: NPS - NPS.gov Internet/Intranet Portal;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: BIA - Integrated Records Management System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: OST - Trust Funds Accounting System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty]. .
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: OSM - Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Project: FWS - Federal Aid Information Management System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: ESA - OWCP-Black Lung Automated Support Package;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: OCFO - PeoplePower;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: BLS - CPI Maintenance;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: ESA - OFCCP - Federal Contractor Compliance System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: MSHA - Information Processing - MSHA Standardized Information
System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: ETA - UI Database Management System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: PBGC - Risk Management and Early Warning/Legal Management;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: OPA - DOL-National Contact Center Initiative;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Labor;
Project: PBGC - IT Business Transformation;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Project: NASA Integrated Enterprise Management - Human Capital
Information Environment;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Project: JSC Integrated Planning System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Project: ESMD - Integrated Collaborative Environment;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Project: KSC Shuttle Launch Control System;
Times rebaselined:
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Project: KSC Shuttle Processing Support;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Project: NASA Data Center;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Regulatory Commission;
Project: Time and Labor Modernization;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: National Regulatory Commission;
Project: Reactor Program System;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Regulatory Commission;
Project: Licensing Support Network;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Project: Grants Management Line of Business;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Project: Agency Financial System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Project: USAJOBS;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Project: e-QIP;
Times rebaselined:
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Small Business Administration;
Project: GCBD: Business Development Management Information System;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Small Business Administration;
Project: OCIO: OA/T/I Meta 300;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Project: DDS Automation;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Project: Access to Financial Institution Information;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of State;
Project: Joint Financial Management System;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of State;
Project: Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of State;
Project: Consular Support & Visa Applications;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of State;
Project: A/LM ILMS;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of State;
Project: Global Network;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of State;
Project: Global IT Modernization;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Travel Reimbursement and Accounting System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Fiscal Management 09;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Integrated Customer Communications Environment;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Counsel Automated Systems Environment;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management Services;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Criminal Investigation Management Information System - Major;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Pay.gov;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Government-Wide Accounting and Reporting Modernization;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Automated Standard Application for Payments;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Treasury Automated Auction Processing System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Appeals Automated Environment;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Individual Master File;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Examination Desktop Support System - Release 2 - Major;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Modernized e-File;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Project: Common Services-Enterprise Application Integration Broker;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Agency for International Development;
Project: ISS LOB Center of Excellence;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: Corporate Financial Management Systems;
Times rebaselined: 2;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: Consolidated Financial Management Information Systems;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: Program Fund Control System - #0082;
Times rebaselined: 5;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: National Financial Applications;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: ROSS - Resource Ordering and Status System;
Times rebaselined: 3;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: RMA-01 - Financial Management Systems;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: Farm Program Modernization;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: USDA (PHICP);
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Project: Consolidated Infrastructure, Office Automation, and
Telecommunications;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: Health Admin Center IT Operations;
Times rebaselined: 6;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Check];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Check].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: VistA Imaging;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: Learning Management System;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: Enrollment Enhancements;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: My HealtheVet;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Check];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: Veterans Benefits Delivery;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: Payroll/HR Systems;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: IT Infrastructure;
Times rebaselined: 0;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Project: Document and Correspondence Management System;
Times rebaselined: 1;
Reasons: Project performance: [Empty];
Reasons: Contractor performance: [Check];
Reasons: Original baseline inaccurate: [Empty];
Reasons: Change in requirements: [Check];
Reasons: Change in funding Stream: [Empty];
Reasons: Other: [Empty].
Source: Office of Management and Budget's Report on IT Spending for
Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for project names and GAO survey
responses and additional agency data for number of times rebaselined
and reasons.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix XII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286, or pownerd@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgements:
In addition to the contact named above, Carol Cha, Melinda L Cordero,
Neil Doherty, Joel Grossman, Ethan Iczkovitz, Kaelin Kuhn, Lee
McCracken, Paul Middleton, Sabine Paul, Mark Ramage, and Eric Winter
made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The 24 major agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor,
State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the
Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science
Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel
Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security
Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
[2] GAO, Cost Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Estimating and
Managing Program Costs, exposure draft, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP] (Washington, D.C.:
July 2007).
[3] All percentage estimates based on our survey have 95 percent
confidence intervals that are within +/-11 percentage points of the
estimate itself. See Appendix I for additional information on the
sample design and sampling error.
[4] Agencies provided reasons for each project's most recent
rebaseline.
[5] Definition in OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, sec. 53.
[6] OMB, Capital Programming Guide, Supplement to OMB Circular A-11,
Part 7, version 2.0, Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital
Assets, June 2006.
[7] These OMB requirements reflect provisions in FASA, codified at 41
U.S.C. § 263 for civilian agencies. A similar requirement in 10 U.S.C.
§ 2220 applied to the Department of Defense but was later amended to
remove the 90 percent measure. The department has its own major program
performance oversight requirements in Chapters 144 (Major Defense
Acquisition Programs) and 144A (Major Automated Information System
Programs) of title 10, U.S. Code, including the Nunn-McCurdy cost
reporting process at 10 U.S.C. § 2433. Further, 40 U.S.C. § 11317
(formerly 40 U.S.C. § 1427) requires agencies to identify in their
strategic information resources management plans any major information
technology acquisition program, or phase or increment of that program,
that has significantly deviated from cost, performance, or schedule
goals established for the program.
[8] An integrated baseline review is an evaluation of a program's
baseline plan to determine whether all program requirements have been
addressed, risks have been identified, mitigation plans are in place,
and available and planned resources are sufficient to complete the
work.
[9] The President's Management Agenda is a program that was instituted
in 2002 to improve the management and performance of the federal
government. It addresses five governmentwide initiatives, including E-
government, that agencies are supposed to implement to achieve
improvements.
[10] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Information for Congress on Performance
of Major Programs Can Be More Complete, Timely, and Accessible,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-182] (Washington,
D.C.: March 2005).
[11] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L.
No. 109-163,§ 802(d), (Jan. 6, 2006), amending 10 U.S.C. § 2435.
[12] Pub. L. No. 109-364 § 816 (Oct. 17, 2006), adding a new chapter
144A to title 10 of the U.S. Code on major automated information system
programs (10 U.S.C. §§ 2445a - 2445d).
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP].
[14] GAO, Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites:
Restructuring is Under Way, but Technical Challenges and Risks Remain,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-498] (Washington,
D.C.: April 2007); GAO, Information Technology: FBI Following a Number
of Key Acquisition Practices on New Case Management System, but
Improvements Still Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-912] (Washington, D.C.: July 2007); GAO, Chemical
Demilitarization: Additional Management Actions Needed to Meet Key
Performance Goals of DOD's Chemical Demilitarization Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-134] (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 2007); GAO, Air Traffic Control: FAA Uses Earned Value
Techniques to Help Manage Information Technology Acquisitions, but
Needs to Clarify Policy and Strengthen Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-756] (Washington, D.C.: July
18, 2008); GAO, Air Traffic Control: FAA Uses Earned Value Techniques
to Help Manage Information Technology Acquisitions, but Needs to
Clarify Policy and Strengthen Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-756] (Washington, D.C.: July
18, 2008).
[15] This lists only the projects in our sample that have been
rebaselined at least four times. Additional projects in the full
population of 778 major IT projects may also have been rebaselined at
least four times.
[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP].
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP].
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, 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 "E-mail 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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
