Information Technology
Continued Attention Needed to Accurately Report Federal Spending and Improve Management Gao ID: GAO-11-831T July 14, 2011A long-standing goal of Congress has been to improve the performance and transparency of the federal government through the use of information technology (IT). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a key role in improving the transparency and oversight of federal investments. Given the size of these investments and their importance to the health, economy, and security of the nation, it is critical for OMB and federal agencies to provide appropriate program oversight and ensure adequate transparency. GAO was asked to testify on IT systems used by federal agencies to report spending. To prepare this statement, GAO drew on previously published work on two government reporting mechanisms--an IT Dashboard and USAspending.gov. These public Web sites were deployed by OMB in June 2009 and December 2007, respectively. The Dashboard provides detailed information on approximately 800 major federal IT investments, including assessments of these investments' performance against cost and schedule targets (referred to as ratings). USAspending.gov contains data on federal awards (e.g., contracts, loans, and grants) across the federal government.
In June 2009, OMB deployed the IT Dashboard Web site to improve the transparency into and oversight of federal agencies' IT investments. This site displays detailed information on major IT investments, including assessments of actual performance against cost and schedule targets. According to OMB, these data are intended to provide a near real-time perspective on the performance of these investments. The Dashboard has drawn additional attention to over 300 troubled IT investments at federal agencies, totaling $20 billion. The Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) recognized that the Dashboard has increased the accountability of agency CIOs and established much-needed visibility into investment performance. However, GAO has found that the data on the Dashboard were not always accurate. Specifically, in reviews of selected investments from 10 agencies, GAO found that the Dashboard ratings were not always consistent with agency cost and schedule performance data. In these reports GAO made a number of recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to improve the accuracy of Dashboard ratings. Agencies and OMB agreed with almost all of these recommendations. Using the Dashboard, OMB initiated efforts to improve the management of IT investments needing attention. Specifically, beginning in January 2010, the Federal CIO initiated reviews--known as "TechStat" sessions--of selected IT investments involving OMB and agency leadership and which, according to OMB officials, have resulted in improvements to or termination of some investments. Further, OMB identified 26 high-priority IT projects and plans to develop corrective action plans with agencies at future TechStat sessions. According to the Federal CIO, OMB's efforts have already resulted in $3 billion in savings. Lastly, recent and ongoing GAO work has identified additional opportunities for using the Dashboard to increase operational efficiency and realize cost savings, such as by identifying duplicative investments. Continued OMB oversight, along with the implementation of outstanding GAO recommendations, could result in further significant savings and increased efficiency. In responding to a statutory requirement, OMB deployed USAspending.gov in December 2007. This site provides details on over $1 trillion in contracts and financial assistance awarded annually by federal agencies. However, in March 2010, GAO found that agencies did not always report awards on USAspending.gov and that numerous inconsistencies existed between USAspending.gov data and agency records. These errors were due to a reliance on voluntary agency compliance and a lack of specific guidance. Accordingly, GAO recommended that OMB ensure complete reporting and clarify guidance for verifying agency-reported data. OMB generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations. Since then, OMB has issued guidance to federal agencies on improving the data quality of federal spending information, including developing data quality plans.
GAO-11-831T, Information Technology: Continued Attention Needed to Accurately Report Federal Spending and Improve Management
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-831T
entitled 'Information Technology: Continued Attention Needed to
Accurately Report Federal Spending and Improve Management' which was
released on July 14, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives.
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 1:30 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, July 14, 2011:
Information Technology:
Continued Attention Needed to Accurately Report Federal Spending and
Improve Management:
Statement of Joel C. Willemssen:
Managing Director, Information Technology:
GAO-11-831T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-831T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and
Procurement Reform, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
A long-standing goal of Congress has been to improve the performance
and transparency of the federal government through the use of
information technology (IT). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
plays a key role in improving the transparency and oversight of
federal investments. Given the size of these investments and their
importance to the health, economy, and security of the nation, it is
critical for OMB and federal agencies to provide appropriate program
oversight and ensure adequate transparency.
GAO was asked to testify on IT systems used by federal agencies to
report spending. To prepare this statement, GAO drew on previously
published work on two government reporting mechanisms”an IT Dashboard
and USAspending.gov. These public Web sites were deployed by OMB in
June 2009 and December 2007, respectively.
The Dashboard provides detailed information on approximately 800 major
federal IT investments, including assessments of these investments‘
performance against cost and schedule targets (referred to as
ratings). USAspending.gov contains data on federal awards (e.g.,
contracts, loans, and grants) across the federal government.
What GAO Found:
In June 2009, OMB deployed the IT Dashboard Web site to improve the
transparency into and oversight of federal agencies‘ IT investments.
This site displays detailed information on major IT investments,
including assessments of actual performance against cost and schedule
targets. According to OMB, these data are intended to provide a near
real-time perspective on the performance of these investments. The
Dashboard has drawn additional attention to over 300 troubled IT
investments at federal agencies, totaling $20 billion. The Federal
Chief Information Officer (CIO) recognized that the Dashboard has
increased the accountability of agency CIOs and established much-
needed visibility into investment performance. However, GAO has found
that the data on the Dashboard were not always accurate. Specifically,
in reviews of selected investments from 10 agencies, GAO found that
the Dashboard ratings were not always consistent with agency cost and
schedule performance data. In these reports GAO made a number of
recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to improve the accuracy of
Dashboard ratings. Agencies and OMB agreed with almost all of these
recommendations.
Using the Dashboard, OMB initiated efforts to improve the management
of IT investments needing attention. Specifically, beginning in
January 2010, the Federal CIO initiated reviews”known as ’TechStat“
sessions”of selected IT investments involving OMB and agency
leadership and which, according to OMB officials, have resulted in
improvements to or termination of some investments. Further, OMB
identified 26 high-priority IT projects and plans to develop
corrective action plans with agencies at future TechStat sessions.
According to the Federal CIO, OMB‘s efforts have already resulted in
$3 billion in savings. Lastly, recent and ongoing GAO work has
identified additional opportunities for using the Dashboard to
increase operational efficiency and realize cost savings, such as by
identifying duplicative investments. Continued OMB oversight, along
with the implementation of outstanding GAO recommendations, could
result in further significant savings and increased efficiency.
In responding to a statutory requirement, OMB deployed USAspending.gov
in December 2007. This site provides details on over $1 trillion in
contracts and financial assistance awarded annually by federal
agencies. However, in March 2010, GAO found that agencies did not
always report awards on USAspending.gov and that numerous
inconsistencies existed between USAspending.gov data and agency
records. These errors were due to a reliance on voluntary agency
compliance and a lack of specific guidance. Accordingly, GAO
recommended that OMB ensure complete reporting and clarify guidance
for verifying agency-reported data. OMB generally agreed with GAO‘s
findings and recommendations. Since then, OMB has issued guidance to
federal agencies on improving the data quality of federal spending
information, including developing data quality plans.
View GAO-11-831T or key components. For more information, contact Joel
C. Willemssen at (202) 512-6253 or willemssenj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Abbreviations:
CIO: chief information officer:
FFATA: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act:
IT: information technology:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
[End of section]
July 14, 2011:
Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government's key
activities and efforts to improve the transparency and oversight of
information technology (IT) and other investments--IT spending in
particular totaled an estimated $79 billion in the President's Budget
for fiscal year 2011. Given the size of these investments and the
criticality of many of these systems to the health, economy, and
security of the nation, it is important that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies provide appropriate oversight of
and adequate transparency into these programs.
During the past several years, we have issued multiple reports and
testimonies on OMB's initiatives to highlight troubled projects,
justify IT investments, and encourage the use of project management
tools.[Footnote 1] We made numerous recommendations to OMB and to
federal agencies to improve these initiatives to further enhance the
transparency, oversight, and management of IT projects.
As part of its response to our prior work, OMB deployed a public Web
site in June 2009, known as the IT Dashboard, which provides detailed
information on federal agencies' major IT investments,[Footnote 2]
including assessments of actual performance against cost and schedule
targets (referred to as ratings) for approximately 800 major federal
IT investments.
In addition, Congress passed the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006,[Footnote 3] which, among other
things, required OMB to establish a free, publicly accessible Web site
containing data on federal awards (e.g., contracts, loans, and grants)
across the government. This site was deployed by OMB in December 2007
and is known as USAspending.gov.
You asked us to testify on IT systems that federal agencies use to
report spending, including performance relative to planned and actual
expenditures. In this regard, my testimony specifically covers the two
key government reporting mechanisms mentioned above. In preparing this
testimony, we relied on prior GAO reports and testimonies that
assessed the implementation of the IT Dashboard and USAspending.gov,
as well as the government's management of IT investments, including
agencies' oversight boards and use of project management tools.
[Footnote 4] All of our work for these reports and testimonies was
performed 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.
Background:
OMB assists the President in overseeing the preparation of the federal
budget and supervising budget administration in executive branch
agencies. In helping to formulate the President's spending plans, OMB
is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of agency programs,
policies, and procedures; assessing competing funding demands among
agencies; and setting funding priorities. Further, the agency ensures
that the federal budget is consistent with relevant statutes and
presidential objectives.
Each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how
much the government plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds
are to be allocated. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2011
included an estimated $79 billion for IT investments. Figure 1
displays the breakdown of agencies' planned IT expenditures for fiscal
year 2011.
Figure 1: Breakdown of $79 Billion in Planned IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Defense: $36.534 billion;
Homeland Security: $6.412 billion;
Health and Human Services: $6.212 billion;
Veterans Affairs: $3.356 billion;
Transportation: $3.351 billion;
Treasury: $3.263 billion;
Justice: $3.017 billion;
Agriculture: $2.704 billion;
Commerce: $2.437 billion;
Energy: $2.200 billion;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $1.596 billion;
Social Security Administration: $1.396 billion;
State: $1.219 billion;
Education: $1.082 billion;
Interior: $0.982 billion;
All other civilian agencies: $3.612 billion.
Source: OMB data.
[End of figure]
To improve IT investment oversight, Congress enacted the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996, which requires OMB to establish processes to analyze,
track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments
in information systems made by federal agencies and report to Congress
on the net program performance benefits achieved as a result of these
investments.[Footnote 5] Further, the act places responsibility for
managing investments with the heads of agencies and establishes chief
information officers (CIO) to advise and assist agency heads in
carrying out this responsibility.
Laws and Associated OMB Initiatives Seek to Improve Transparency and
Oversight of IT and Other Investments:
A long-standing goal of Congress has been to improve the performance
and transparency of the federal government through the use of IT. This
was, for example, a major goal of the E-Government Act of
2002.[Footnote 6] Under the act, the Administrator of OMB's Office of
Electronic Government (also known as the federal Chief Information
Officer) is responsible for assisting the Director of OMB in carrying
out the act and other e-government initiatives. Projects supported by
the act may include efforts to make federal government information and
services more readily available to members of the public. For example,
in June 2009, OMB deployed a public Web site--known as the IT
Dashboard--to improve the transparency into and oversight of agencies'
IT investments.
The Dashboard displays detailed information on federal agencies' major
IT investments, including assessments of actual performance against
cost and schedule targets (referred to as ratings) for approximately
800 major federal IT investments. According to OMB, these data are
intended to provide a near real-time perspective of the performance on
these investments, as well as a historical perspective. Further, the
public display of these data is intended to allow OMB, other oversight
bodies, including Congress, and the general public to hold government
agencies accountable for results and progress.
In addition, to increase the transparency of and accountability for
the over $1 trillion in contracts and financial assistance awarded
each year by federal agencies, Congress passed the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.[Footnote 7] Among other
things, the act required OMB to establish a free, publicly accessible
Web site containing data on federal awards (e.g., contracts, loans,
and grants) no later than January 1, 2008. In addition, OMB was
required to include data on subawards by January 1, 2009. The act also
authorized OMB to issue guidance and instructions to federal agencies
for reporting award information and requires agencies to comply with
that guidance. OMB launched the Web site--[hyperlink,
http://www.USAspending.gov]--in December 2007.
Prior Reviews of Agencies' IT Investment Governance Have Identified
Weaknesses:
We have previously reported on the enduring challenges that agencies
have faced in effectively managing IT investments, which demonstrate
the continuing need for more effective oversight and transparency.
Specifically, we found that agencies had weaknesses in several areas
relating to the oversight, budget justification, and planning and
management of these investments, among others.
* In January 2004, we reported that agencies did not always have the
mechanisms in place for investment review boards to effectively
control their investments.[Footnote 8] Among other things, we reported
that selected agencies largely had IT investment management boards,
but these boards did not have key policies and procedures in place for
ensuring that projects were meeting expectations. Agencies cited a
variety of reasons for not having these mechanisms in place, such as
that the CIO position had been vacant, a requirement was not included
in guidance, or that the process was being revised. We made
recommendations to the agencies regarding those practices that were
not fully in place.
* In January 2006, we reported that the underlying support for
agencies' budget justifications for IT investments (OMB's Capital
Asset Plan and Business Case, also known as the exhibit 300) was often
inadequate.[Footnote 9] Specifically, we found weaknesses in all 29 of
the exhibit 300s that we reviewed. For example, 21 investments were
required to use a specific management system as the basis for the
cost, schedule, and performance information in the exhibit 300, but
only 6 did so following OMB-required standards. We made
recommendations aimed at improving related guidance and training and
at ensuring the disclosure and mitigation of limitations on
reliability.
* In July 2008, we reported that approximately half of the federal
government's major IT projects had been rebaselined--i.e., had
modifications made to their cost, schedule, and performance goals to
reflect changed circumstances.[Footnote 10] Reasons for these
rebaselines included changes in project goals, changes in funding, or
inaccurate original baselines. We also found that agencies lacked
comprehensive rebaselining policies and that, without such policies,
baseline changes could be used to mask cost overruns or schedule
delays. We recommended that OMB issue guidance for rebaselining
policies and that the major agencies develop policies that address
identified weaknesses. Consequently, OMB issued a memorandum in June
2010 on baseline management that provided this guidance.[Footnote 11]
* In June 2009, we reported that about half of the projects we
examined did not receive selection reviews (to confirm that they
support mission needs) or oversight reviews (to ensure that they are
meeting expected cost and schedule targets).[Footnote 12]
Specifically, 12 of the 24 reviewed projects that were identified by
OMB as being poorly planned did not receive a selection review, and 13
of 28 poorly performing projects we reviewed did not receive an
oversight review by a department-level board. To address these
weaknesses, we made recommendations to selected agencies to improve
their department-level board representation and selection and
oversight processes.
* In October 2009, we reported that selected agencies' policies were
not fully consistent with best practices for a key program management
tool.[Footnote 13] Specifically, most agencies' policies lacked
appropriate earned value management training requirements and did not
adequately define criteria for revising baselines. Earned value
management is a project management approach that, if implemented
appropriately, provides objective reports of project status, produces
early warning signs of impending schedule delays and cost overruns,
and provides unbiased estimates of anticipated costs at completion.
Additionally, we reported that for 13 of 16 selected investments, key
practices necessary for sound earned value management execution had
not been implemented. Finally, we estimated the total cost overrun of
these investments to be about $3 billion at program completion. We
recommended that the selected agencies modify policies to be
consistent with best practices, implement practices that address
identified weaknesses, and manage negative earned value trends.
Continued Attention Is Needed to Accurately Report Federal Spending
and Improve Investment Management:
OMB's IT Dashboard, deployed in June 2009, provides detailed
information, including performance ratings, for over 800 major
investments at federal agencies. Each investment's performance data
are updated monthly, which is a major improvement from the quarterly
reporting cycle used by OMB's prior oversight mechanisms. As of March
2011, the Dashboard provided visibility into over 300 IT investments
in need of management attention (rated "yellow" to indicate the need
for attention or "red" to indicate significant concerns)--totaling
almost $20 billion. (See figure 2.)
Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the
Dashboard, as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Normal: 52%;
$21.5 billion; 494 investments.
Needs attention: 43%;
$17.7 billion; 272 investments.
Significant concerns: 5%;
$2.0 billion; 39 investments.
Source: OMB's dashboard.
[End of figure]
The Federal CIO stated that the Dashboard has greatly improved
oversight capabilities compared to previously used mechanisms,
increased the accountability of agencies' CIOs, and established much-
needed transparency.
However, in a series of reviews, we have found that the data on the
Dashboard are not always accurate. Specifically, in reviews of
selected investments from 10 agencies, we found that the Dashboard
ratings were not always consistent with agency performance data.
* In July 2010, we reported that cost and schedule performance ratings
were not always accurate for selected investments.[Footnote 14]
Specifically, we reviewed investments at the Departments of
Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Justice
and found that the cost and schedule ratings on the Dashboard were not
accurate for 4 of 8 selected investments and the ratings did not take
into consideration current performance. For example, the Dashboard
rated a Justice investment's cost performance as "green" from July
2009 through January 2010, but our analysis showed the investment's
cost performance was equivalent to a "yellow" rating, meaning it
needed attention. We also found that there were large inconsistencies
in the number of investment activities that agencies report on the
Dashboard.
* In March 2011, we also reported that agencies and OMB need to do
more to ensure the Dashboard's data accuracy.[Footnote 15]
Specifically, we reviewed investments at the Departments of Homeland
Security, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the
Social Security Administration and found that cost ratings were
inaccurate for 6 of 10 selected investments and schedule ratings were
inaccurate for 9 of 10. We also found weaknesses in agency and OMB
practices contributing to the inaccuracies on the Dashboard. In
particular, we found that agencies had uploaded inconsistent or
erroneous data, failed to submit data, and/or used unreliable source
information. Additionally, we found that OMB's ratings understated
some schedule variances and did not emphasize current performance.
In these reviews, we made recommendations to the agencies and OMB
aimed at improving data accuracy on the Dashboard. Specifically, we
recommended that the selected agencies comply with OMB's guidance to
standardize activity reporting, provide complete and accurate data to
the Dashboard on a monthly basis, and ensure that CIO's ratings of
investments disclose issues that could undermine the accuracy of
investment data. These agencies generally concurred with our
recommendations. We also recommended that OMB improve how it rates
investments related to current performance and schedule variance.
Further, we recommended that OMB report on the effect of planned
changes to the Dashboard and provide guidance to agencies to
standardize reporting. OMB agreed with most of these recommendations
but disagreed with the recommendation to change how it reflects
current investment performance in its ratings because Dashboard data
are updated on a monthly basis. However, we maintained that current
investment performance may not always be as apparent as it should be;
while data are updated monthly, ratings include historical data, which
can mask more recent performance.
Drawing on the visibility into federal IT investments provided by the
Dashboard, OMB has initiated efforts to improve the management of IT
investments needing attention. In particular, in January 2010, the
Federal CIO began leading TechStat sessions--a review of selected IT
investments between OMB and agency leadership to increase
accountability and transparency and improve performance. OMB has
identified factors that may result in a TechStat session, such as
policy interests, Dashboard data inconsistencies, recurring patterns
of problems, or an OMB analyst's concerns with an investment.
As of December 2010, OMB officials stated that 58 TechStat sessions
have been held with federal agencies. According to OMB, these sessions
have enabled the government to improve or terminate IT investments
that are experiencing performance problems. For example, the June 2010
TechStat on the National Archives and Records Administration's
Electronic Records Archives investment resulted in six corrective
actions, including halting fiscal year 2012 development funding
pending the completion of a strategic plan. In January 2011, we
reported that the National Archives and Records Administration had not
been positioned to identify potential cost and schedule problems
early, and had not been able to take timely actions to correct
problems, delays, and cost increases on this system acquisition
program.[Footnote 16] Moreover, we estimated that the program would
likely overrun costs by between $205 and $405 million if the agency
completed the program as originally designed. We made multiple
recommendations to the Archivist of the United States, including
establishing a comprehensive plan for all remaining work, improving
the accuracy of key performance reports, and engaging executive
leadership in correcting negative performance trends. The Archivist
generally concurred with our recommendations.
OMB has also identified 26 additional high-priority IT projects and
plans to coordinate with agencies to develop corrective actions for
these projects at future TechStat sessions. According to OMB
officials, OMB and agency CIOs identified these projects using
Dashboard data, TechStat sessions, and other forms of research. As an
example of these corrective actions, OMB directed the Department of
the Interior to establish incremental deliverables for its Incident
Management Analysis and Reporting System, which will accelerate
delivery of services that will help 6,000 law enforcement officers
protect the nation's natural resources and cultural monuments.
According to OMB, the TechStat sessions and other OMB management
reviews had resulted in a $3 billion reduction in life-cycle costs as
of December 2010. Further, OMB officials stated that, as a result of
these sessions, 11 investments have been reduced in scope and 4 have
been canceled. Additional opportunities for potential cost savings and
efficiencies exist through the use of the Dashboard by executive
branch agencies to identify and make decisions about poorly performing
investments, as well as its continued use by congressional committees
to support critical oversight efforts.
In addition, our recent and ongoing work has identified other
opportunities for using the Dashboard to increase operational
efficiency and realize cost savings. As part of our first report
responding to a statutory requirement that GAO identify duplicative
goals or activities in the federal government, we reported on the
potential for further significant savings if OMB implements planned
improvements to the Dashboard, along with outstanding GAO
recommendations.[Footnote 17] We also have ongoing work to evaluate
the publicly available data on the Dashboard in order to determine the
extent to which agencies may be investing in similar projects, as well
as efforts to identify and act on such duplicative investments. As
part of that ongoing work, we found that federal agencies invest in
hundreds of systems with similar functions, including 602 human
resources management systems, 741 supply chain management systems, 436
health systems, and 94 public affairs systems.[Footnote 18] Many of
these systems are within a single department. For example, 614 of the
741 supply chain management systems are within the Department of
Defense, and 331 of the 436 health systems are within the Department
of Health and Human Services. While OMB and selected agencies have
undertaken initiatives to reduce duplicative investments, there are
opportunities to do more to identify and address such systems. We plan
to issue a report on this body of work in September 2011.
While the Dashboard focuses on IT investments, OMB's other reporting
mechanism, USAspending.gov, is to provide detailed information on
federal awards, such as contracts, loans, and grants. This site was
deployed in December 2007 in response to statutory requirements
[Footnote 19] intended to increase the transparency of and
accountability for the over $1 trillion in contracts and financial
assistance awarded each year by federal agencies.
In March 2010, we reported that, of nine statutory requirements, OMB
had satisfied six, partially satisfied one, and had not yet satisfied
the remaining two.[Footnote 20] For example, USAspending.gov allowed
searches of data by all required data elements and provided for totals
and downloadable data. However, OMB had not yet included subaward data
on the Web site nor had it yet submitted a required annual report to
Congress detailing the use of the site and the reporting burden placed
on award recipients. Further, while USAspending.gov contained required
fiscal year 2008 data on grants from 29 agencies, 9 agencies did not
report a total of 15 awards as required. Moreover, OMB had not
implemented a process for identifying nonreporting agencies but
instead relied on voluntary agency compliance with its guidance to
ensure complete reporting.
In addition, we reported that, in a random sample of 100 awards,
numerous inconsistencies existed between USAspending.gov data and
records provided by awarding agencies. Each of the 100 awards had at
least one required data field that was blank or inconsistent with
agency records--or for which agency records lacked sufficient
information to evaluate their consistency with data on
USAspending.gov. The most common data fields with inconsistencies or
omissions included titles describing the purpose of the award and the
city where award-funded work was to be performed. These errors could
be attributed, in part, to a lack of specific OMB guidance on how
agencies should fill in these fields and how they should perform the
required validation of their data submissions. In addition, publicly
available information that OMB provides on the completeness of agency-
provided data did not address a required data field relating to the
city where work for the award was to be performed. Accordingly, we
recommended that OMB include all required data on the site, ensure
complete reporting, and clarify guidance for verifying agency-reported
data. OMB generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.
Subsequent to the completion of our USAspending.gov audit work, OMB
issued guidance intended to improve the quality of publicly
disseminated federal spending data. Specifically, in February 2010,
OMB issued a framework which called for agencies to establish internal
controls over the preparation and dissemination of financial data,
including data reported to USAspending.gov. Further, agencies are
expected to submit to OMB a data quality plan that describes the
current processes implemented at their respective agencies. Also, in
April 2010, OMB issued guidance which required agencies to report this
data to USAspending.gov. This guidance also called for agencies to
establish metrics for measuring the quality and completeness of data
reported to USAspending.gov and set goals for improvements in data
quality.
In summary, OMB's recent efforts have resulted in greater transparency
into and oversight of federal spending, but continued attention is
necessary to build on the progress that has been made. For example,
OMB and federal agencies need to improve the accuracy of information
on the Dashboard and USAspending.gov and continue to use OMB's
TechStat sessions to address troubled IT investments. In addition, the
expanded use of the Dashboard to identify duplicative goals or
activities in the federal government, along with the implementation of
outstanding GAO recommendations, should result in more effective IT
management and delivery of mission-critical systems, as well as
further reduction in wasteful spending on poorly managed or
unnecessary investments.
Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact
me at (202) 512-6253 or by e-mail at willemssenj@gao.gov. Individuals
who made key contributions to this testimony are Carol Cha, Assistant
Director; Kate Agatone; Eric Costello; Lee McCracken; Colleen
Phillips; James Sweetman; and Kevin Walsh.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See for example, GAO, Information Technology: OMB Has Made
Improvements to Its Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies
and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15,
2011); Information Technology: OMB's Dashboard Has Increased
Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 16,
2010); Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Strengthen
Investment Board Oversight of Poorly Planned and Performing Projects,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566] (Washington, D.C.:
June 30, 2009); Information Technology: Management and Oversight of
Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-624T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28,
2009); Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen
Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-647] (Washington, D.C.:
June 15, 2006).
[2] Major IT Investment means a system or an acquisition requiring
special management attention because it: has significant importance to
the mission or function of the agency, a component of the agency, or
another organization; is for financial management and obligates more
than $500,000 annually; has significant program or policy
implications; has high executive visibility; has high development,
operating, or maintenance costs; is funded through other than direct
appropriations; or is defined as major by the agency's capital
planning and investment control process.
[3] Pub. L. No. 109-282, §§ 1 to 4, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended Pub. L.
No. 110-252, § 6202(a), June 30, 2008 (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note).
[4] GAO-11-262; [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701];
GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-365], (Washington, D.C.: Mar.12,
2010); Information Technology: Agencies Need to Improve the
Implementation and Use of Earned Value Techniques to Help Manage Major
System Acquisitions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-2]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 8, 2009); [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566]; Information Technology:
Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes
to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-925] (Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2008); Information Technology: Agencies Need to Improve the Accuracy
and Reliability of Investment Information, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-250] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12,
2006); Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic
Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be
Further Improved, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-49]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2004).
[5] 40 U.S.C. § 11302(c).
[6] Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).
[7] Pub. L. No. 109-282, §§ 1 to 4, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended Pub. L.
No. 110-252, § 6202(a), June 30, 2008 (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note).
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-49].
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-250].
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-925].
[11] OMB Memorandum, M-10-27.
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566].
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-2].
[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701].
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262].
[16] GAO, Electronic Records Archive: National Archive Needs to
Strengthen Its Capacity to Use Earned Value Techniques to Management
and Oversee Development, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-86] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13,
2011).
[17] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1,
2011).
[18] These figures are as of March 2011.
[19] The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006,
Pub. L. No. 109-282, §§ 1 to 4, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended Pub. L. No.
110-252, § 6202(a), June 30, 2008 (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note).
[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-365].
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
