Telecommunications
GSA Has Made Progress in Planning Governmentwide Program but Challenges Remain Gao ID: GAO-04-1085T September 15, 2004The General Services Administration (GSA) has begun planning for a governmentwide telecommunications program known as Networx. GSA issued a request for information in October 2003 that proposed two acquisitions: Networx Universal, which was to provide a full range of national and international network services across the United States, and Networx Select, which was to provide agencies with leading-edge services with less extensive geographic coverage. Contracts under the Select acquisition were to be awarded 9 months after the Universal In February, we testified on GSA's initial plans and identified four key challenges GSA faced in ensuring a successful outcome for the program: structure and scheduling, transition planning, service inventories, and performance measures. GAO assessed GSA's progress in addressing the challenges identified as well as GSA's efforts to address long-standing issues related to billing.
GSA has addressed several of the significant challenges facing the Networx program. Work is either planned or underway on other challenges, but additional efforts will be necessary to fully address them. Specifically, GSA has addressed concerns about the structure and scheduling of the two acquisitions, now known as Universal and Enterprise. Instead of a 9-month lag between acquisitions that might complicate agency decision-making, GSA now plans to issue the requests for proposal (RFP) for the contracts simultaneously. In addition, the Universal contracts will now require that offerors provide services only where federal agencies are located, rather than in the entire country, to allow more potential industry participants to compete--a concern raised in prior comments. GSA has solicited for contractor support to assist with the development of plans to transition to the Networx contracts. However, GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that lessons from past transitions are applied, or established a transition strategy. GSA worked with agencies to develop a service-level inventory as input into the requirements for the new contracts. In addition, it plans to work with agencies to build a more detailed inventory of currently-used telecommunications services for use during transition. GSA plans to implement performance measures that evaluate progress against the program's goals. However, some of the measures are still under development, and it does not have a strategy for using the measures to monitor ongoing program performance. GSA has reduced the number of billing elements it will track and has begun a study designed to identify potential improvements in the billing process, but it lacks a strategy for addressing agency concerns about the usability of billing data. Until GSA develops and applies strategies for addressing the outstanding challenges facing Networx, it risks not being able to deliver all of the operations and cost improvements outlined in the program's goals.
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-04-1085T, Telecommunications: GSA Has Made Progress in Planning Governmentwide Program but Challenges Remain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-1085T
entitled 'Telecommunications: GSA Has Made Progress in Planning
Governmentwide Program but Challenges Remain' which was released on
September 15, 2004.
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 Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at time 10 a.m. EDT September 15, 2004:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS:
GSA Has Made Progress in Planning Governmentwide Program but Challenges
Remain:
Statement of Linda D. Koontz,
Director, Information Management Issues:
GAO-04-1085T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-1085T, a testimony before the Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The General Services Administration (GSA) has begun planning for a
governmentwide telecommunications program known as Networx. GSA issued
a request for information in October 2003 that proposed two
acquisitions: Networx Universal, which was to provide a full range of
national and international network services across the United States,
and Networx Select, which was to provide agencies with leading-edge
services with less extensive geographic coverage. Contracts under the
Select acquisition were to be awarded 9 months after the Universal
contracts.
In February, we testified on GSA‘s initial plans and identified four
key challenges GSA faced in ensuring a successful outcome for the
program: structure and scheduling, transition planning, service
inventories, and performance measures. At the committee‘s request, GAO
assessed GSA‘s progress in addressing the challenges identified as
well as GSA‘s efforts to address long-standing issues related to
billing.
What GAO Found:
GSA has addressed several of the significant challenges facing the
Networx program. Work is either planned or underway on other
challenges, but additional efforts will be necessary to fully address
them. Specifically:
* GSA has addressed concerns about the structure and scheduling of the
two acquisitions, now known as Universal and Enterprise. Instead of a
9-month lag between acquisitions that might complicate agency decision-
making, GSA now plans to issue the requests for proposal (RFP) for the
contracts simultaneously (See figure below). In addition, the Universal
contracts will now require that offerors provide services only where
federal agencies are located, rather than in the entire country, to
allow more potential industry participants to compete”a concern raised
in prior comments.
* GSA has solicited for contractor support to assist with the
development of plans to transition to the Networx contracts. However,
GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that lessons from past
transitions are applied, or established a transition strategy.
* GSA worked with agencies to develop a service-level inventory as
input into the requirements for the new contracts. In addition, it
plans to work with agencies to build a more detailed inventory of
currently-used telecommunications services for use during transition.
* GSA plans to implement performance measures that evaluate progress
against the program‘s goals. However, some of the measures are still
under development, and it does not have a strategy for using the
measures to monitor ongoing program performance.
* GSA has reduced the number of billing elements it will track and has
begun a study designed to identify potential improvements in the
billing process, but it lacks a strategy for addressing agency
concerns about the usability of billing data.
Until GSA develops and applies strategies for addressing the
outstanding challenges facing Networx, it risks not being able to
deliver all of the operations and cost improvements outlined in the
program‘s goals.
GSA‘s original and revised key contract dates:
[See PDF for image]
[1] In its RFI, GSA previously used the name Select to describe the
contract now known as Enterprise.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
To prevent unresolved challenges from hampering GSA‘s efforts to
provide agencies with the services they need, we recommend that it
finalize and implement processes for managing transition efforts,
measuring program performance, and resolving agency concerns over the
usability of billing data.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1085T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda D. Koontz at (202)
512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to participate in the Committee's hearing on the General
Services Administration's (GSA) next generation governmentwide
telecommunications acquisition program, known as Networx. As you know,
GSA's planning for this program is taking place within an environment
of tremendous change--in the telecommunications industry, in underlying
services and technology, and potentially in the regulatory environment.
In this context, the Networx initiative can be viewed as a significant
opportunity for federal agencies--GSA's customers--to flexibly acquire
and apply innovative telecommunications services offered by industry to
improve their operations.
As you know, GSA issued a request for information (RFI) in October 2003
describing the strategy of the proposed Networx program. At that time,
GSA proposed two acquisitions. Networx Universal was to provide a full
range of national and international network services; offerors were to
provide ubiquitous service across the United States. Networx Select was
to provide agencies with leading edge services and solutions with less
extensive geographic and service coverage than required by Universal.
Contracts under the Select acquisition were to be awarded 9 months
after the Universal contracts. Last February, we testified on GSA's
initial planning efforts and identified four challenges GSA faced in
ensuring a successful outcome for the program. These challenges related
to the structure and timing of the proposed contracts, and the need for
transition plans, an inventory of current services, and effective
measures of performance.[Footnote 1]
In April, you requested that we assess GSA's progress in addressing the
challenges that we identified, as well as GSA's efforts to address
long-standing issues related to billing. My testimony today presents
our results to date on these topics.
Results in Brief:
In brief, GSA has taken steps to address several of the significant
challenges facing the Networx program. Work is either planned or
underway on other challenges, but additional efforts will be necessary
to fully address these challenges. Specifically:
* GSA has addressed concerns about the time period between contracts by
planning to award all contracts simultaneously. In addition, the
Universal contracts will now require that offerors provide services
where federal agencies are currently located, rather than across the
entire country, to potentially allow more industry participants to
compete.
* GSA has solicited quotations for contractor support to assist with
the development of plans to transition to the Networx contracts.
However, GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that lessons
from past transitions are applied, nor has it established a transition
timeline.
* GSA worked with agencies to develop a service-level inventory as
input into the requirements for the new contracts. In addition, GSA
plans to work with agencies to build a more detailed inventory of
currently-used telecommunications services for use during transition.
* GSA plans to implement performance measures that evaluate progress
against the program's goals. However, some of the measures are still
under development, and it does not have a strategy for using the
measures to monitor ongoing program performance.
* GSA has reduced the number of billing elements it will track, and has
begun a study designed to identify potential improvements in the
billing process and associated administrative costs. However, it lacks
a strategy for addressing agency concerns about the usability of
billing data.
To prevent unresolved challenges from hampering GSA's efforts to
provide agencies with the services they need, we recommend that it
finalize and implement processes for managing transition efforts,
measuring program performance, and resolving agency concerns over the
usability of billing data.
My remarks today are based on audit work conducted at GSA headquarters,
where we reviewed program planning documents and public presentations,
interviewed program officials, and attended a public industry forum on
August 11, 2004. We also reviewed analyses conducted by GSA and its
contractors as well as our previous work on the Federal
Telecommunications System 2001 (FTS2001) and related contracts. We
conducted our work between May and September 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Background:
GSA's Federal Technology Service is responsible for ensuring that
federal agencies have access to the telecommunications services and
solutions needed to meet mission requirements. Currently, GSA uses a
series of contracts intended to meet agency needs for various services.
Specifically, it awarded two large, governmentwide contracts for long-
distance services--one to Sprint in December 1998 and one to MCI
WorldCom in January 1999. Under the terms of these contracts, known
together as FTS2001, each firm was guaranteed minimum revenues of $750
million over the life of the contracts, which run for four base years
and have four 1-year extension options. If all contract options are
exercised, those contracts will expire in December 2006 and January
2007, respectively. According to GSA, federal agencies spent
approximately $614 million on FTS2001 services during fiscal year 2003.
Related governmentwide telecommunications services are provided
through other additional GSA contracts: the Federal Wireless
Telecommunications Service contract and the FTS Satellite Service
contracts. The wireless contract was awarded in 1996 to provide
wireless telecommunications products and services to all federal
agencies, authorized federal contractors, and other users. It is
scheduled to expire in November of this year. Satellite services are
provided through a series of contracts for a variety of commercial off-
the-shelf satellite communications products and services, including
mobile, fixed, and broadcast services. These contracts will expire in
2007.
We have periodically reviewed the development and implementation of the
FTS2001 program and assessed its progress. In March 2001 we reported to
you on the delays encountered during the government's efforts to
transition from the previous FTS2000 to the FTS2001 contracts, the
reasons for those delays, and the effects of the delays on meeting
FTS2001 program goals of maximizing competition for services and
ensuring best service and price.[Footnote 2] We recommended that GSA
take numerous actions to facilitate those transition efforts. In April
2001 testimony before you, we reiterated those recommendations and
noted that the process of planning and managing future
telecommunications service acquisition would benefit from an accurate
and robust inventory of existing telecommunications services.[Footnote
3] Ultimately, GSA acted on our recommendations and the transitions
were successfully completed.
GSA is now planning its Networx acquisition to replace the contracts
that are expiring. GSA has worked with representatives of federal
agencies, the telecommunications industry, and other interested parties
to lay the groundwork for the new program. Agencies work directly with
GSA and through the Interagency Management Council (IMC), a group of
senior federal information resource officials who advise GSA on issues
related to telecommunications contracts. GSA and the IMC proposed eight
goals for the Networx program, including an emphasis on ongoing support
and performance-based contracts. The table lists each of the program
goals.
Table 1: Program Goals Proposed for Networx:
Service Continuity: Contracts should include all services currently
available under FTS2001 to facilitate a smooth transition.
Competitive prices: Prices should be better than those available
elsewhere in the telecommunications marketplace.
High quality services: Contracts should ensure a high quality of
service throughout the life of the contracts.
Full service vendors: Vendors should be capable of providing a broad
array of services to avoid duplication of administrative and
contracting costs.
Alternate sources: Agencies should be able to choose from a greater
number of vendors and have access to emerging technologies.
Operations Support: GSA should provide fully integrated ordering,
billing, and inventory management.
Transition assistance and support: Contracts should include provisions
for transition support.
Performance-based contracts: Contracts should be performance based and
include service level agreements where possible.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
In October 2003, GSA released a RFI describing its initial strategy for
the Networx program. In the RFI, GSA proposed two acquisitions--Networx
Universal and Networx Select. The Universal acquisition was expected to
satisfy requirements for a full range of national and international
network services. According to GSA, this acquisition was intended to
ensure the continuity of services and prices found under expiring
contracts that provide broad-ranging service with global geographic
coverage. Universal offerors were to provide a full range of voice and
data network services, managed networking services and solutions, and
network access, wireless, and satellite communications services. In
addition, offerors were to provide these services at all locations
across the United States. Consequently, this acquisition was expected
to result in multiple contract awards to relatively few offerors
because few were expected to be able to satisfy the geographic coverage
and comprehensive service requirements.
By contrast, GSA planned to award multiple contracts for a more
geographically limited set of services under the Select acquisition.
These contracts were to provide agencies with leading edge services and
solutions with less extensive geographic and service coverage than that
required by Universal. Awards under the Universal and Select
acquisitions were to be staggered; the Select contracts were to be
awarded 9 months after the Universal contracts.
In February 2004, we testified on GSA's initial planning efforts in
support of FTS Networx.[Footnote 4] After reviewing the RFI and the
comments submitted in response, we identified four major challenges
that GSA was likely to face as it proceeded:
* structuring and scheduling the Networx contracts to ensure that
federal agencies have available to them the competitively priced
telecommunications services they need to support their mission
objectives;
* initiating the implementation planning actions needed to ensure a
smooth transition from current contracts to Networx;
* ensuring that adequate inventory information is available to planners
to provide an informed understanding of governmentwide requirements;
and:
* establishing measures of success to aid acquisition decision making
and enable effective program management.
We noted that addressing these challenges would take solid leadership
from GSA and stakeholder commitment. Without such actions, we
concluded, the potential of Networx may not be realized.
We have also previously reported on billing difficulties in GSA's
telecommunications programs. For example, during the transition to
FTS2001, we found that several agencies were billed at improper rates.
Several agencies delayed their transition to the new contract because
resources planned for the transition were redirected to deal with the
billing errors.[Footnote 5] We recommended numerous actions to improve
the transition process, which GSA successfully implemented.
Structure and Timing of Contracts Have Been Revised in Response to
Comments:
As we testified in February, the responses to the RFI identified a
series of concerns about GSA's proposed acquisition strategy. Some
respondents commented that only the traditional long-distance companies
would be able to meet the requirements of the larger contract. Others
were concerned that the 9-month lag between contracts would complicate
decision making by asking agencies to decide on a vendor for the more
comprehensive contract before being able to review the options
available under the more limited contracts.
GSA recently revised its contracting strategy in response to these
concerns. GSA still intends to meet the proposed program goals through
two sets of contracts. The first, known as Networx Universal, requires
offerors to provide 39 services everywhere a federal office is locate,
as well as anywhere else the company offers those services
commercially. Required services include toll-free telecommunications,
Internet services, and cellular services. Ten other services, including
satellite communications and paging services, can be offered but are
not required. The second, now known as Networx Enterprise, requires
offerors to provide nine mandatory services in nearly 300 locations
nationwide specified by GSA; another 42 services can be offered at the
option of the company. The services required under the Enterprise
contracts focus on Internet-based offerings and related security and
management services. GSA intends to structure the contracts so that the
Universal offering meets the program goals of service continuity and
full service vendors, while the Enterprise contracts meet the goal of
providing alternative sources. Both sets of contracts are intended to
meet the other five goals, and each is planned to run for 4 years with
three 2-year options.
The main difference between its current strategy and the plan outlined
in the RFI is that the geographic coverage requirements for the
Universal contracts are less stringent. Instead of having to offer
services in the entire country, service providers need only offer
service where federal offices are located (as well as where the
provider offers the service commercially) to qualify to compete for the
contracts. This change resulted in a 76 percent reduction in the
locations carriers must serve to be eligible to compete for the
contracts. In turn, this increased the percentage of the anticipated
service area that carriers could reach with their own networks.
According to program officials, they discussed the changes with
industry representatives, who are satisfied with the changes. In
addition, industry representatives did not raise any questions about
the new structure at the August industry forum.
GSA has also addressed the concern over the time between contracts, by
changing the proposed 9-month lag between the two types of contracts.
GSA currently plans to issue the requests for proposal (RFP) for both
the Universal and the Enterprise contracts simultaneously. This table
lists the key dates from the old and new contract schedules.
Table 2: GSA's original and revised key contract dates:
Draft RFP release;
Original Universal contract schedule: Spring 2004;
Original Select contract schedule[1]: Winter 2005;
Current schedule (both contracts): November 2004.
Final RFP release;
Original Universal contract schedule: Fall 2004;
Original Select contract schedule[1]: Summer 2005;
Current schedule (both contracts): April 2005.
Contract award;
Original Universal contract schedule: Winter 2005;
Original Select contract schedule[1]: Fall 2006;
Current schedule (both contracts): April 2006.
[1] In its RFI, GSA previously used the name Select to describe the
contract now known as Enterprise.
Source: GSA:
[End of table]
Transition Planning is Just Beginning:
As we reported to you in March 2001, the current FTS2001 contracts got
off to a rocky start as significant delays in transitioning to the new
contracts hindered timely achievement of program goals.[Footnote 6]
Factors contributing to delays in that transition included a lack of
data needed to accurately measure and effectively manage the
transitions, inadequate resources, and other process and procedural
issues. In testimony before you in April 2001 we stated that the value
of that critical program to customer agencies would be improved through
the application of identified lessons learned. Those in industry who
commented on the Networx RFI also noted the need for strong and
comprehensive program management to ensure a successful transition,
including issues such as the availability of accurate inventories and
well-defined contractor and government responsibilities.
The IMC has established various subgroups to assist it in carrying out
its responsibilities. One of these subgroups--the Transition Working
Group--looked at transition issues from past transitions, and in April
2003 identified 22 lessons learned. Some of the lessons identified
include the need for accurate inventory information and the need to be
flexible in transition planning. The group also drafted a document
intended to clearly define the responsibilities of GSA and the agencies
for transition-related costs, with the goal of eliminating some of the
confusion experienced in the past transition.
However, GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that lessons
from past transitions are applied, nor has it established a timeline of
actions needed during the transition process. GSA released a request
for quotations on August 16 to solicit contract help with developing a
transition plan, including procedures intended to prevent the types of
errors that happened in the previous transition. GSA expects to award a
contract to the selected contractor by October. According to program
officials, GSA will be able to make more progress on this issue when
the contractor begins. They also agree that a transition timeline is an
important management tool, and that they will begin developing such a
timeline soon. GSA believes that with almost 2 years until agencies are
scheduled to choose carriers under the new contracts, there is still
time to plan for an effective transition. However, until GSA completes
these planned actions, it risks repeating the transition problems
experienced in the past. To prevent such an occurrence, and to ensure
that transition plans are developed with adequate time to be
implemented, we are recommending that GSA develop a transition timeline
and procedures to prevent the reoccurrence of identified difficulties
from previous transitions.
GSA Has Developed an Inventory of Current Services, and Has Begun
Planning for a More Detailed Inventory:
We testified in February that it is important that GSA and its customer
agencies have a clear understanding of agency service requirements in
order to make properly informed acquisition planning decisions.
According to our ongoing research on best practices in
telecommunications acquisition and management, clear understanding
comes at least in part from having an accurate baseline inventory of
existing services and assets. More specifically, an inventory allows
planners to make informed judgments based on an accurate analysis of
current requirements and capabilities, emerging needs that must be
considered, and the current cost of services. In addition, the FTS2001
transition lessons learned document identified the lack of a good
starting inventory as the cause of problems in a number of areas and a
contributor to the slow start on the FTS2001 transition. Specifically,
the IMC's Transition Working Group identified accurate inventories as a
requirement for conducting an efficient transition.
GSA is addressing the need for inventory information in two ways.
First, GSA developed an inventory of the services currently used by its
customers by reviewing the existing contracts, modifications to them,
and billing information. Agencies then verified this information to
ensure the listed services meet their current and anticipated future
needs. According to GSA officials, this inventory was used in
acquisition planning, for example, to justify its decision on which
services to include in the proposed Networx contracts and which to make
mandatory. Second, GSA is planning to work with its customer agencies
to develop more detailed inventories for transition purposes. For
example, the transition inventory would not only identify which
services are used, but it would also identify where those services are
used and how much. According to program officials, GSA plans to provide
agencies with initial information based on billing and ordering data in
November. Agencies will then verify the GSA data using their own data
sources. Because service changes are expected to continue to occur, GSA
expects this process to continue until January 2006. Program officials
also told us that once it is in place, the inventory process could be
used as an ongoing management tool.
GSA Is Developing Performance Measures, but not a Strategy for Applying
Them:
Our research into recommended program and project measurement practices
highlights the importance of establishing clear measures of success to
aid acquisition decision making as well as to provide the foundation
for accountable program management. As we testified earlier in the
year, such internal measures define what must be done for a project to
be acceptable to the stakeholders and users affected by it; these
internal measures enable measurement of progress and effectiveness in
meeting objectives. Further, in keeping with the principles of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), programs can be more
effectively measured if their goals and objectives are outcome-oriented
(i.e., focused on results or impact) rather than output-oriented (i.e.,
focused on activities and processes).
According to agency officials, GSA plans to measure its performance
against each of the program's goals. For some of these goals, GSA has
already determined how it will measure progress. For example, GSA will
measure progress towards the goal of competitive prices using the same
process it currently uses--a direct comparison of contract rates to
market rates. For other goals, GSA officials stated that performance
will be evident from the contract selections. For example, the outcome
of the goal of using full-service providers will be known when the
providers are selected. However, for some goals, GSA has not yet
determined how it will measure progress. For the goals of high quality
service and operations support, GSA officials stated that specific
metrics are still in development as part of their efforts to develop
service level agreements for vendors.[Footnote 7]
While the approach described by program officials seems reasonable, GSA
has not determined when it will finalize the measures still under
development. In addition, GSA has not developed a strategy outlining
how it will use key measures to monitor ongoing program performance.
Until GSA develops a firm strategy, it lacks assurance that the
required program measures will be in place at the appropriate time. As
a result, its measures may have limited effect as a program management
tool. We therefore recommend that GSA finalize its efforts to identify
measures to evaluate progress towards program goals and develop a
strategy for using those measures for ongoing program management.
Number of Billing Elements Has Been Reduced, but Other Billing Issues
Are Unresolved:
Clear, accurate, and complete billing records are an important internal
control: they record the detail of each telecommunications transaction
for later verification and management oversight. However, bills and
billing systems have been a problem in the current generation of FTS
programs and thus continue to be a concern for their proposed
replacement. In addition to the previous experiences discussed earlier,
both the telecommunications carriers and GSA's customer agencies have
more recently raised concerns about billing. Carriers asked GSA to
address inconsistent and sometimes conflicting billing requirements in
different regions. Some also questioned whether the number of billing
elements--the data fields tracked in the billing system--was excessive.
Agencies commented that the way in which they currently receive billing
information hampers their efforts to reconcile invoices and produces
inaccurate and incomplete bills. A few agencies commented that billing
difficulties have cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In response to industry's concern about the number of billing elements,
GSA reduced the number of elements required under the Networx
contracts. In its RFI, GSA proposed the use of 513 billing elements.
Working in collaboration with the IMC and the Industry Advisory
Council, GSA reduced the number of billing data elements to 196 (a
reduction of 62 percent), with 54 elements being government specific.
In response to the concerns about the accuracy of billing information,
GSA plans to introduce service level agreements with the carriers to
hold the carriers accountable for the accuracy of the billing data they
provide.
GSA has also begun examining potential alternatives to the way it
currently consolidates carrier billing data and provides it to some
agencies. The study is considering several options, including the
option of contracting out bill consolidation, and the potential costs
and benefits of the options. According to program officials, one of the
goals of the study is to identify potential savings in administrative
costs.
However, GSA has not undertaken any similar efforts to identify the
causes of agency difficulties in billing and address them. GSA
officials attributed part of the uncertainty over future billing
procedures to a lack of consensus among industry on how to improve the
process. Regardless of the plans of industry, if GSA does not develop a
billing process that better meets the needs of its customers, the
agencies are likely to continue to experience difficulties in managing
their telecommunications costs. To better address this challenge, we
are recommending that GSA develop and implement a strategy for
addressing the billing data issues raised by its customer agencies.
Summary:
Mr. Chairman, the Networx program represents a significant opportunity
for GSA and the federal government to both expand the menu of
telecommunications services available to agencies and continue to
provide quality and value in the services that agencies select. The
size and scope of the planned contracts present a formidable management
challenge, and GSA is to be commended for working with its customers
and industry to collaboratively address concerns about the structure
and timing of the contracts and the need for a current service
inventory for use in identifying contract requirements. GSA has begun
efforts to address other challenges, such as the need for transition
plans, the use of performance measures, and an effective billing
system, but it lacks strategies for ensuring that each of these issues
is adequately addressed. As the planned release of RFPs approaches, GSA
will have less time to finalize those decisions still outstanding and
implement the resulting actions. To demonstrate the appropriate level
of planning and commitment necessary to ensure that agencies have
access to necessary telecommunications services, we are recommending
that GSA take additional steps to resolve these issues in a timely
manner.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other members of the Committee may have at
this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgements:
Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact me
by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov or James Sweetman at sweetmanj@gao.gov. We
can also be reached at (202) 512-6240 and (202) 512-3347, respectively.
Other major contributors to this testimony were Jamey Collins, Samuel
Garman, and Nancy Glover.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Telecommunications: GSA Faces Challenges in Planning for New
Governmentwide Program, GAO-04-486T, (Washington, D.C.: February 26,
2004).
[2] GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-
01-289 (Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001).
[3] GAO, FTS2001: Contract Transition Delays and Their Impact on
Program Goals, GAO-01-544T (Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2001).
[4] GAO-04-486T.
[5] GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-
01-289, (Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001).
[6] GAO-01-289.
[7] These are agreements between suppliers and customers to provide
business services under specific terms.
