Telecommunications
Full Adoption of Sound Transition Planning Practices by GSA and Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning Efforts Gao ID: GAO-06-476 June 6, 2006With the current governmentwide telecommunications contracts set to expire, the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Technology Service (FTS) and its customer agencies must prepare to transition their services to a new contract vehicle. The previous federal effort to transition telecommunications services proved to be a large, complex task. GAO was asked to determine to what extent (1) selected agencies used sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) GSA's FTS has prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons learned and providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning.
The agencies GAO reviewed--Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and GSA--were generally planning to employ sound transition planning practices. However, officials at two agencies stated they did not plan to fully identify necessary resources. Specifically, officials from the Department of Justice indicated they would not need additional funding for the transition, even though they could not provide an analytical basis for their decision, and officials from the Department of Energy believed their transition planning efforts would not require the identification of human capital needs. Without addressing all of the sound practices, agencies risk entering into a complex transition without the level of preparation necessary to ensure a smooth transition. FTS has addressed the majority of the lessons learned from the previous transition. Areas that have not yet been fully addressed are securing incumbent contractor cooperation and establishing guidance on inventory management and validation processes. FTS plans to address all remaining lessons prior to contract award. FTS has also provided agencies with guidance that fully reflects two of the five sound transition planning practices. However, guidance has not addressed all aspects of the remaining three, including establishing an inventory maintenance process, using key management processes, identifying measures of success, and performing transition-specific risk assessments. Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with individual agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate the transition. As a result, unless it works with agencies to address the full range of sound transition planning practices, agencies may not address the practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect their level of preparation.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-476, Telecommunications: Full Adoption of Sound Transition Planning Practices by GSA and Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-476
entitled 'Telecommunications: Full Adoption of Sound Transition
Planning Practices by GSA and Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning
Efforts' which was released on July 6, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2006:
Telecommunications:
Full Adoption of Sound Transition Planning Practices by GSA and
Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning Efforts:
GAO-06-476:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-476, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
With the current governmentwide telecommunications contracts set to
expire, the General Services Administration‘s (GSA) Federal Technology
Service (FTS) and its customer agencies must prepare to transition
their services to a new contract vehicle. The previous federal effort
to transition telecommunications services proved to be a large, complex
task.
GAO was asked to determine to what extent (1) selected agencies used
sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) GSA‘s FTS has
prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons learned and
providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning.
What GAO Found:
The agencies GAO reviewed”Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and GSA”were generally planning to employ sound
transition planning practices (see table below). However, officials at
two agencies stated they did not plan to fully identify necessary
resources. Specifically, officials from the Department of Justice
indicated they would not need additional funding for the transition,
even though they could not provide an analytical basis for their
decision, and officials from the Department of Energy believed their
transition planning efforts would not require the identification of
human capital needs. Without addressing all of the sound practices,
agencies risk entering into a complex transition without the level of
preparation necessary to ensure a smooth transition.
FTS has addressed the majority of the lessons learned from the previous
transition. Areas that have not yet been fully addressed are securing
incumbent contractor cooperation and establishing guidance on inventory
management and validation processes. FTS plans to address all remaining
lessons prior to contract award. FTS has also provided agencies with
guidance that fully reflects two of the five sound transition planning
practices. However, guidance has not addressed all aspects of the
remaining three, including establishing an inventory maintenance
process, using key management processes, identifying measures of
success, and performing transition-specific risk assessments.
Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with
individual agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility
to plan and coordinate the transition. As a result, unless it works
with agencies to address the full range of sound transition planning
practices, agencies may not address the practices fully or
consistently, which could, in turn, affect their level of preparation.
Table: Sound Transition Planning Practices:
Establish an accurate telecommunications inventory and an inventory
maintenance process.
Perform a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements and use
this to shape the agency's management approach and guide efforts when
identifying resources and developing a transition plan.
Establish a structured management approach that includes a dedicated
transition management team, key management process (project management,
configuration management, and change management), and clear lines of
communication.
Identify the funding and human capital resources that the transition
effort will require.
Develop a transition plan that includes transition objectives, measures
of success, a risk assessment, and a detailed time line.
Source: GAO.
[End of Table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Energy
perform the analyses necessary to identify required transition
resources for their agencies.
In addition, GAO recommends that the Administrator of General Services
provide guidance to GSA‘s customer agencies that reflects all of the
sound transition planning practices.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the General Services
Administration, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy,
and the Department of the Interior generally agreed with our
recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-476].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives, March 24, 2006:
Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
DOE: Department of Energy:
DOI: Department of the Interior:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FTS: Federal Technology Service:
GSA: General Services Administration:
IMC: Interagency Management Council:
RFP: Request for Proposal:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 6, 2006:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman,
As you know, the previous effort by federal agencies to transition
telecommunications services to a new contract proved to be difficult.
We reported in 2001[Footnote 1] that the transition to the current
federal telecommunications contracts, known as FTS2001, encountered
delays and increased telecommunications costs. The effort took more
than 24 months and lost an estimated $74 million in savings. As a
result, we noted that the process of planning and managing future
telecommunications acquisitions will be improved by applying lessons
learned from the transition to FTS2001[Footnote 2]. We also noted the
need for comprehensive program management, accurate inventories, and
defined contractor and government responsibilities.
As the FTS2001 contracts approach expiration, General Service
Administration's (GSA) Federal Technology Service (FTS) and its
customer agencies have begun to prepare for the transition to new
contracts, known as Networx. Past experience has shown that the
importance of this planning process should not be underestimated.
At your request, we reviewed the extent to which (1) selected agencies
used sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) GSA's FTS
has prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons learned
and providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning.
To achieve our first objective, we obtained FTS2001 billing information
and identified the 50 departments and agencies with the highest total
charges for 1 month billed. From these, we selected six that would
ensure a representation of (1) departments, bureaus, and head agency/
subagency relationships; (2) complexity based on the number of current
vendors used; and (3) varying levels of attendance in an agency forum
that is assisting FTS in its efforts to plan for the transition. The
departments and agencies selected for review were the Department of the
Interior, the Bureau of Land Management (within the Department of the
Interior), Department of Energy, Department of Justice, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (a component of the Department of Justice), and
GSA.
We then researched available literature on telecommunications
transitions and interviewed those with experience in telecommunications
transitions, including industry experts, telecommunications vendors,
and private sector companies. We analyzed the results of our research
and interviews, synthesized common themes and issues, and identified
five sound transition planning practices against which agency efforts
could be measured:
* establishing a telecommunications inventory,
* performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements,
* establishing a structured transition management approach,
* identifying resources, and:
* developing a transition plan.
Once compiled, we provided these practices to the industry experts and
FTS for comment and general agreement.
Next, we obtained and reviewed documentation--including strategic
plans, telecommunications inventories, and transition related plans--
and interviewed officials from each of the selected agencies. We
assessed this information against the five sound transition planning
practices.
To achieve our second objective, we reviewed transition guidance and
other Networx documentation[Footnote 3] developed by FTS and the
Interagency Management Council[Footnote 4]. We also interviewed FTS
Networx program officials to identify any planned guidance or
activities for the Networx transition. We assessed this information
against the published lessons learned from the FTS2001 transition, and
determined whether FTS was providing guidance to agencies that
correlated with the identified sound transition planning practices.
We performed our work from June 2005 through March 2006 at the
Washington, D.C., area offices of the selected agencies in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
On March 24, 2006, we provided your office with a detailed briefing on
the results of this work, which is included as appendix I. The purpose
of this letter is to provide the briefing slides to you and officially
transmit our recommendations to the Administrator of General Services,
the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Energy.
In summary, the agencies we reviewed were generally planning to employ
the five sound planning practices in their transition management
efforts. However, officials at two of the agencies stated they did not
plan to fully identify necessary resources. Specifically, officials
from the Department of Justice indicated they would not need additional
financial resources for the transition, even though they could not
provide an analytical basis for their decision, and officials from the
Department of Energy believed that because the agency's transition will
be straightforward, identifying human capital resource needs would not
be necessary. However, without addressing all of the sound practices,
agencies risk entering into a complex transition without the level of
preparation necessary to ensure a smooth transition.
FTS, in preparing for the transition, has addressed the 21 out of 27
lessons learned from the previous transition. For example, it has made
efforts to clarify which parties are responsible for transition costs
and to ensure that contractors have adequate operations support systems
in place before the transition begins. FTS has not yet addressed
lessons pertaining to securing incumbent contractor cooperation and
developing guidance on establishing inventory management and validation
processes. FTS stated that it plans to address the remaining lessons
prior to contract award. Specifically, FTS stated it is currently
working with the incumbent contractors to ensure cooperation and that
high-level guidance on inventory maintenance will be provided in the
last few months leading up to contract award.
FTS has also provided agencies with guidance on performing a strategic
analysis of telecommunications requirements and identifying necessary
resources for the transition, two of the five sound transition planning
practices. However, it did not provide comprehensive guidance on the
remaining three practices (establishing a telecommunications inventory,
establishing a structured management approach, and developing a
transition plan). The specific aspects of the practices that its
guidance does not address are establishing an inventory maintenance
process, using key management processes (project management,
configuration management, and change management), developing measures
of success, and performing transition-specific risk assessments. As
stated above, FTS plans to provide high-level guidance on inventory
maintenance in the last few months leading up to contract award.
Enough time remains for agencies to effectively address all the issues
we identified, but they need to identify telecommunications inventories
and conduct strategic analyses soon because these practices provide
inputs for other sound practices. Further, although principal
responsibility for the transition rests with individual agencies, FTS
has an important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate
the transition. As a result, it is important that FTS work with its
customer agencies to ensure that they fully and consistently address
the full range of sound transition planning practices.
Recommendations:
To ensure that the agencies we reviewed adequately prepare themselves
for the transition, we recommend:
* that the Attorney General ensure that the Department of Justice's
planning efforts include an analysis of the extent to which current
financial resources will be sufficient to conduct an effective
transition;
* that the Secretary of Energy ensure that the department's planning
efforts include identification of human capital resources needed to
conduct an effective transition.
To ensure that agencies are adequately prepared for the transition, we
recommend that the Administrator of General Services, in working with
the Interagency Management Council, develop and distribute guidance to
ensure that our identified sound practices of transition planning are
utilized. In particular, FTS should ensure that guidance addresses:
* the use of project management, configuration management, and change
management processes in transition planning efforts;
* the establishment of measures of success to help agencies' managers
assess progress toward the objectives stated in their plans; and:
* the development of a transition-specific risk assessment that would
allow an agency to lessen problems and delays during the transition.
Agency Comments:
In comments on a draft of this report, officials from the General
Services Administration and the Departments of Justice, Energy, and the
Interior generally agreed with our recommendations.
The GSA's acting Administrator, in written comments, stated that the
agency will work with the IMC to address our recommendations. The
acting Administrator also stated that GSA has initiated discussions and
planning activities to address our recommendations and that processes
and guidelines for these issues will be included in a transition
planning guide expected to be distributed to all agencies before
December 2006. These comments are reproduced in appendix II.
A Department of Justice Audit Liaison Specialist commented via e-mail
that the agency agreed with our recommendation and findings.
A Department of Energy Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer
commented via e-mail that the agency will be in a position to determine
if additional human capital resources are warranted once Networx has
been awarded and a review and analysis of available services have been
completed.
The Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary of Policy,
Management, and Budget, in written comments, stated that the agency
generally agreed with our recommendations and findings. He also
expressed concern with the difficulty of the upcoming transition and
stated that the department relies on GSA actions in order to timely
allocate resources for this effort. These comments are reproduced in
appendix III.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies
of this report to interested congressional committees, the
Administrator of General Services, the Attorney General, the Secretary
of the Interior, and the Secretary of Energy. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your offices have any questions about matters discussed
in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at
koontzl@gao.gov. Key contributions to this report were made by James R.
Sweetman, Jr., Assistant Director; Jamey Collins; Alison Holland; David
Hong; Teresa M. Neven; Kelly Shaw; and Amos Tevelow.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Linda D. Koontz:
Director, Information Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives, March 24, 2006:
Telecommunications: Agencies Have Begun Planning for Transition to New
Governmentwide Program, but Unresolved Issues Remain[5]:
Briefing to the Staff of the Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
Outline of Briefing:
Introduction:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Selected Agencies Are in the Early Stages of Preparing for the
Transition:
* Establish a Telecommunications Inventory:
* Perform a Strategic Analysis of Telecommunications Requirements:
* Create a Structured Transition Management Approach:
* Identify Resources:
* Establish a Transition Plan:
The General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Technology Service
(FTS) Is Providing Transition Guidance, but Issues Remain:
* FTS has Addressed the Majority of FTS2001 Lessons Learned in Its
Planning for Networx:
* FTS Has Provided Guidance That at Least Partially Addresses All of
the Sound Practices Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Attachment 1: Comments from GSA:
Introduction:
Innovations in telecommunications services continue to transform the
way the federal government conducts business, allowing it to streamline
processes, reduce paperwork and delays, increase efficiency, and
improve interaction with the public. With the current set of
governmentwide telecommunications contracts due to expire soon, the
proposed replacement contracts, known as the Networx program, can offer
federal agencies the opportunity to apply innovative services and
solutions to their operations. However, to maximize the benefits to
taxpayers, it is important that the transition to new programs like
Networx be adequately planned.
The importance of transition planning is underscored by the previous
federal effort to transition telecommunication services to new
contracts, which proved to be a large and complex task. In 2001, we
reported[6] that:
the transition to the current federal telecommunications contracts,
known as FTS2001, encountered delays and took more than 24 months,
which hindered the timely achievement of program goals; and:
transition delays resulted in raised telecommunications costs. In
total, an estimated $74 million in savings was lost due to delays in
completing the transition to FTS2001.
As a result, we noted that the process of planning and managing future
telecommunications acquisitions will be improved by applying lessons
learned from the transition to FTS2001. We also noted the need for
comprehensive program management, including accurate inventories as
well as defined contractor and government responsibilities.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
Our objectives were to determine to what extent (1) selected agencies
used sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) the
General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Technology Service
(FTS) has prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons
learned and providing agencies with guidance on sound transition
planning.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which selected agencies are preparing for
the transition from FTS2001, we first selected six agencies for review.
Using FTS2001 billing data provided by FTS, we identified the 50
agencies with the highest total charges for 1 month billed. From this
group of agencies we selected 6 that would ensure a representation of
(1) departments, bureaus, and head agency/sub-agency relationships (2)
complexity based on the number of current vendors used, and (3) varying
levels of attendance in an agency forum that is assisting FTS in its
efforts to plan for the transition.
The agencies selected for review were the Department of the Interior
(DOI); Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a bureau of DOI; Department of
Energy (DOE); Department of Justice (DOJ); Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), a component of DOJ; and GSA[7].
To identify sound transition planning practices against which agency
planning efforts could be measured, we researched available literature
on telecommunications transitions and held a series of interviews with
individuals experienced in telecommunications transitions, including
the prior transition to FTS2001. We met with:
industry experts from the Washington Management Group, Council for
Excellence in Government, Federal Sources Inc., and Gartner;
telecommunications vendors such as Level3, MCI, and WilTel; and:
private sector companies such as CGI-AMS, Computer Sciences
Corporation, Hewlett-Packard, and Allstate, which had just undergone
its own telecommunications transition.
We analyzed the results of these interviews to synthesize common themes
and issues and identified five sound transition planning practices.
Once compiled, we provided these practices to the four industry experts
and FTS for comment and general agreement.
To refine our approach and gauge the time required to assess each
agency, we pretested our evaluation methodology at two agencies, the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
To determine the extent to which agencies are using the identified
sound practices, we took the following actions:
We obtained and reviewed agency documentation, including strategic
plans, telecommunications inventories, and transition-related plans,
and interviewed agency officials.
We then assessed this information against the five sound transition
planning practices.
Based on our initial assessment, we classified the status of agency
transition planning efforts as "completed" (finished and integrated
into planning for the transition), "started" (begun but not fully
integrated into planning for the transition), "planned" (not begun but
planned, according to agency officials), or "not planned" (not begun
and agency officials indicated they do not plan to address in their
transition planning).
We discussed our assessments with agency officials and made adjustments
as appropriate.
Because we judgmentally selected the agencies in our review, we cannot
conclude that our results represent the entire federal government's
level of preparation. However, the six cases studied illustrate various
challenges that agencies may face in planning for a telecommunications
transition.
To determine the extent to which FTS has prepared for the transition by
addressing previous lessons learned and providing agencies with
guidance on sound transition planning, we:
reviewed transition guidance and other Networx documentation developed
by FTS and the Interagency Management Council's Transition Working
Group, including presentations, meeting minutes, projected time lines,
FTS2001 lessons learned, the Networx Request for Proposals (RFP), and
the Networx Transition Guide (Pre-Award);
interviewed FTS Networx program officials to identify any planned
guidance or activities for the Networx transition;
assessed the identified guidance and other Networx documentation
against the published lessons learned from the FTS2001 transition; and:
assessed whether the identified guidance and other Networx
documentation is aiding agency efforts in implementing sound practices
for transition planning.
We performed our work from June 2005 through March 2006 at the
Washington, D.C., area offices of the Departments of Energy, Interior,
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the General Services
Administration. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief Objective 1: Agency Preparation:
The agencies we reviewed were generally planning to employ sound
transition planning practices in their transition management efforts,
such as establishing a structured transition management approach,
identifying resource requirements, and developing transition plans. For
example,
GSA and DOE had committed staff to plan the transition, and the
remaining four agencies planned to do so;
officials at the six agencies indicated that a transition plan will be
developed for the transition.
However, we also identified instances where agency officials stated
they did not plan to fully address specific practices. For example,
officials from DOE stated that their transition will be
straightforward, and do not believe it will require identification of
human capital needs; and:
officials at DOJ indicated that they will not need additional funding
for the transition, even though DOJ has yet to conduct a strategic
analysis of its telecommunications requirements, and agency officials
did not provide any analytical basis for their decision.
Without addressing all of the sound practices, agencies risk entering
into a complex transition without the level of preparation necessary to
ensure a smooth transition. This could lead agencies to incur avoidable
costs.
Results in Brief Objective 2: FTS Preparation:
FTS has addressed the majority of the lessons learned from its previous
transition and has provided guidance that at least partially addresses
all sound transition planning practices.
FTS has addressed 21 out of 27 lessons learned from the previous
transition, and plans to address the remaining six prior to contract
award. For example, it has made efforts to clarify which parties are
responsible for transition costs and to ensure that contractors have
adequate operations support systems in place before the transition
begins. Areas that have not yet been fully addressed are securing
incumbent contractor cooperation and guidance on establishing an
inventory management and validation processes. FTS stated it is
currently working with the incumbent contractors to ensure cooperation
and that high-level guidance on inventory maintenance will be provided
in the last few months leading up to contract award.
FTS has provided agencies with guidance that fully reflects two of the
five sound transition planning practices. Specifically, it provided
guidance on performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications
requirements and identifying necessary resources for the transition.
Guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three remaining
practices, including establishing and maintaining telecommunications
inventories, developing measures of success, and performing transition-
specific risk assessments. FTS officials stated that they would provide
agencies guidance on maintaining inventories in the months leading up
to contract award. However, they do not intend to provide guidance that
addresses establishing measures of success, the use of key management
processes, or performing transition-specific risk assessments because
they believe it is not their responsibility and agencies should
determine their own approach to these issues.
Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with
individual agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility
to plan and coordinate the transition. Unless it works with agencies to
address the full range of sound practices, agencies may not address the
practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect their
level of preparation. Agencies' experience with the previous transition
demonstrates that inadequate preparation can lead to service delays and
increased costs.
Results in Brief:
Recommendations and Agency Comments:
To help ensure that the agencies reviewed adequately prepare themselves
for the transition, we are making recommendations to the Secretary of
Energy and the Attorney General to perform the analyses necessary to
identify required transition resources for their agencies.
In addition, to ensure that the federal government adequately prepares
the participating agencies, we recommend that the Administrator of
General Services work with the Interagency Management Council to
provide agencies guidance reflecting all of the sound transition
planning practices.
In commenting on a draft of this briefing, the General Services
Administration, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Energy
generally agreed with our recommendations and stated that they intend
to address them. The Department of the Interior provided technical
comments that we incorporated into the briefing as appropriate.
Background FTS and Networx:
FTS is responsible for ensuring that federal agencies have access to
the telecommunications services and solutions needed to meet mission
requirements. To meet current agency needs for various
telecommunication services, it awarded two large governmentwide
contracts one to Sprint[8] in December 1998 and one to MCI[9] in
January 1999- known together as FTS2001. Under the terms of these
contracts, each firm was guaranteed minimum revenues of $750 million
over the life of the eight-year contracts. These contracts are to
expire in December 2006 and January 2007, respectively. According to
program officials, federal agencies spent approximately $614 million on
FTS2001 services during fiscal year 2003, $780 million during fiscal
year 2004, and $902 million during fiscal year 2005.
FTS2001 is the successor to a line of programs that has traditionally
provided long-distance telecommunications to the federal government.
With the FTS2001 contracts set to expire, FTS released a request for
information in October 2003 announcing its plans for a new
governmentwide telecommunications program known as Networx.
The principal differences between Networx and its predecessors are
summarized in the table below.
The Networx program consists of two governmentwide acquisitions named
Networx Universal and Networx Enterprise. FTS expects Networx Universal
to offer a full range of voice and data network services, managed
networking services and solutions, wireless, and satellite
communications services. This acquisition is expected to result in
multiple contract awards to relatively few bidders because few
companies are expected to be able to satisfy its geographic coverage
and comprehensive service requirements. In contrast, FTS expects
Networx Enterprise to offer leading-edge services and solutions using
contractors that are required to cover a more geographically limited
area than Networx Universal. FTS plans to award multiple Enterprise
contracts to a greater number of bidders than Networx Universal.
Federal telecommunications services programs:
Service features;
FTS 2000 (1989-2001);
FTS2001 (1998-);
Networx (2007-).
Means of Delivery;
Mandatory commercial services;
Non-mandatory commercial services;
Non-mandatory commercial services.
Type;
Long distance voice, high-speed and switched data, and video services;
Long distance voice, video, and additional data services, and
international services;
Long distance voice, video, data, international, management and
application, security, IP-based, satellite, and wireless service.
Technology;
Analog and digital;
Predominantly digital;
Predominantly digital and IP-based.
Source: GAO analysis of FTS Information.
[End of Table]
Award of the Networx contracts has been delayed several times, pushing
back the expected start of the transition from FTS2001 to Networx. In
May 2005, the final Networx requests for proposals were released, with
contract award for both acquisitions expected in April 2006. Shortly
thereafter, as a result of amendments made to the RFPs, the vendor
proposal due dates were extended by two months. Then, in January 2006,
bidders were informed that delays had moved the Networx award date to
March 2007 for Universal and May 2007 for Enterprise. Based on the new
award dates, a transition from FTS2001 to Networx is, as of March 2006,
over a year away.
As a result of these delays, FTS recently announced its intent to
negotiate sole-source contracts with MCI and Sprint. These contracts
are expected to last between 24 and 42 months[10] to give FTS and its
customer agencies the time needed to finalize the Networx acquisitions
and complete the transition.
The original schedule and current schedules for both Networx contracts
are shown in the table below.
Contract Milestone: Final RFP[A];
Networx Enterprise: Original: Summer 2005;
Networx Enterprise: Revised (or Actual): May 2005 [check];
Networx Universal: Original: Fall 2004;
Networx Universal: Revised (or Actual): May 2005 [check].
Contract Milestone: Vendor Proposals Due;
Networx Enterprise: Original: Fall 2005;
Networx Enterprise: Revised (or Actual): October 2005 [check];
Networx Universal: Original: Winter 2004;
Networx Universal: Revised (or Actual): October 2005 [check].
Contract Milestone: Contract Award(s);
Networx Enterprise: Original: Fall 2006;
Networx Enterprise: Revised (or Actual): May 2007;
Networx Universal: Original: Winter 2005;
Networx Universal: Revised (or Actual): May 2007.
[A] Request for Proposals:
[check] Actual Completion:
Source: GAO analysis of FTS information.
[End of Table]
Background:
Transition Responsibilities:
FTS, its customer agencies, and the incumbent and awarded contractors
all have identified responsibilities for the upcoming transition.
FTS has important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate
the transition from FTS2001. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 gives FTS
responsibility for managing the FTS 2000 program and implementing its
follow-on programs (FTS2001 and Networx) on behalf of and with the
advice of participating agencies. This responsibility includes the
development, maintenance, and dissemination, as requested by the Office
of Management and Budget or the agencies, of recommended methods and
strategies for the development and acquisition of IT, and managing
outreach programs in cooperation with the agency managers. FTS is also
responsible for providing general guidance on the Federal Acquisition
Regulation with respect to its FTS2001 and Networx programs.
FTS works with its customer agencies through the Interagency Management
Council, a group of senior federal information resource officials. The
council was established in 1992 to provide a forum and focal point for
agency participation in planning and overseeing FTS's long-distance
telecommunications services. In dealing with a multitude of matters,
the council established subgroups to be responsible for specific
issues. For example, one subgroup, the Transition Working Group, is
helping FTS plan for the transition, advising and assisting with issues
such as developing a Networx pre-award transition guide.
The Transition Working Group also documented, in conjunction with FTS,
lessons learned from the FTS2001 transition. This FTS2001 Transition
Lessons Learned document addresses topics such as transition resources,
transition inventories, enforcing contractual performance requirements,
and transition roles and responsibilities. It identifies a total of 27
issues with the intent of avoiding unnecessary delays during future
transitions.
FTS's customer agencies-those federal agencies using the FTS2001
contract-have principal responsibility for the transition. These
agencies are responsible for coordinating transition efforts with the
incumbent and awarded contractors to ensure that existing services
under FTS2001 are disconnected and new services are ordered. FTS has
asked each of its customer agencies to appoint a transition manager and
establish a transition team that will:
manage the agency's internal transition planning, preparation, and
execution efforts; and:
be responsible for interfacing with FTS, the Interagency Management
Council, and officials within the agency.
Both the Networx contractors and incumbent FTS2001 contractors are
responsible for supporting agencies in their transition planning and
execution efforts:
Networx contractors will be responsible for delivering services
ordered, developing program-level and agency-level transition plans,
and communicating the status of transition activities with scheduled
notices and reports.
The incumbent FTS2001 contractors are expected to complete all FTS2001
service disconnect orders requested by agencies and assist agency
efforts to prepare for the transition by, for example, helping to
identify inventory information and system requirements.
Objective 1: Agency Preparation Sound Transition Planning Practices:
Based on our research, we identified five sound transition planning
practices that agencies can utilize to improve the likelihood of a
smooth transition. Regardless of the complexity of each agency's
transition, these sound practices can help agencies make the most of
the opportunity for change that accompanies a major telecommunications
transition.
Establish a Telecommunications Inventory:
Perform Strategic Analysis of Telecommunications Requirements *
Establish a Structured Transition Management Approach:
Identify Resources:
Develop a Transition Plan:
Sound transition planning includes establishing an accurate inventory
of current telecommunications assets and services.
First, agencies should have a detailed and complete transition
inventory that represents all of its facilities, components, field
offices, and any other managed sites. It should include information
such as telecommunications services, traffic volumes, equipment, and
applications being utilized. Agencies can use their transition
inventory to identify opportunities for optimizing their current
technology during strategic planning.
Second, agencies should have a documented inventory maintenance process
that can be utilized to ensure that inventories remain current and
reflect changes leading up to, during, and after the transition. Once
established, an inventory maintenance process can ensure that changes
are captured and allow agencies to audit vendor bills against their
inventories throughout the life of the contract.
Agencies should begin efforts to establish a telecommunications
inventory early because the development of an accurate and reliable
inventory is important to ensuring that the agency will be prepared to
transition quickly. Further, current inventories should be established
by the agency prior to determining strategic telecommunications
requirements, when the information can be used to help determine
current and future telecommunications needs and areas for optimization
and/or sharing of IT resources across the agency.
The selected agencies were at different stages in preparing
telecommunications inventories.
BLM, GSA, and DOE provided inventories of their telecommunication
services. These three inventories included the type of information that
could assist agencies in conducting an effective transition. However
because inventories change as services are added, changed, or removed,
all three will have to be updated prior to transition execution.
The remaining three agencies did not yet have complete inventories, but
officials stated that they planned to develop them. FBI officials
stated they had not yet been able to provide complete and accurate
inventories because the management of their telecommunications services
was decentralized and, therefore, they could not readily compile the
necessary information.
GSA had a documented process for updating and maintaining its
inventories that it indicated it follows when ordering or changing
circuits.
The other five agencies did not have a documented inventory maintenance
process, but their officials said they did have staff responsible for
updating and maintaining their inventories. These officials also stated
they plan to formally document an inventory maintenance process.
If agencies do not establish accurate and complete telecommunications
inventories prior to transition execution, they risk not having
information during transition planning that will allow them to address
strategic considerations, and may face transition delays while proper
inventory information is gathered. Further, without an established
inventory process, agencies may not consistently and accurately capture
the changes to their telecommunications inventories, hindering their
ability to ensure that they are charged only for the services
requested.
The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward
establishing an accurate inventory of current telecommunications assets
and services.
Telecommunications inventory:
Does the agency have a telecommunications inventory for the transition
and a process to maintain that inventory?
Has the agency identified its telecommunications inventories at every
site, facility, and component for the transition from FTS2001?
Completed: 3;
Started: 0;
Planned: 3;
Not Planned: 0.
Does the agency have a documented process for updating and maintaining
its inventories?
Completed: 1;
Started: 0;
Planned: 5;
Not Planned: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of Table]
Objective 1: Agency Preparation Strategic Requirements:
Sound transition planning includes performing a strategic analysis of
telecommunications requirements and incorporating the results into
transition planning. To accomplish this, agencies should determine
current and future telecommunications needs using an identified
inventory of existing services. Agencies should also use the transition
as an opportunity to identify areas for optimization and/or sharing of
telecommunications resources across the agency. The costs and benefits
of introducing new technology and alternatives for meeting the agency's
telecommunications needs should be evaluated. Further, the identified
needs and opportunities should be aligned with the agency's mission,
long-term IT plans, and enterprise architecture plans.
The results of the agency's strategic analysis of telecommunications
requirements should shape the agency's management approach to the
transition and guide other efforts such as identifying and allocating
resources and developing a transition plan.
Most of the agencies planned to identify and incorporate strategic
requirements into their transition planning.
BLM had identified strategic requirements for its current and future
telecommunications needs through a recently completed analysis that
considered the convergence of its voice, video, and data services into
a single IP-based network.
FBI had begun to identify its current and future needs in an IT
strategic plan not specific to the transition. According to an official
from this agency, any identified needs will be incorporated into the
strategic requirements developed for the transition. FBI plans to
complete its analysis in March 2006.
The remaining four intend to identify their strategic requirements for
the transition, but believed it was too early to have done so already.
If agencies do not incorporate strategic requirements into their
planning, they risk making decisions which are not aligned with the
long-term goals of the organization and may not be able to take full
advantage of opportunities during the transition, such as upgrading and
optimizing their telecommunications services, or shifting service to
more cost-effective technology.
The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward
incorporating strategic requirements into their planning.
Strategic Analysis of telecommunications requirements:
Has the agency performed a strategic analysis of telecommunications
requirements for the transition?
Has the agency determined current and future telecommunications needs?
Completed: 1;
Started: 1;
Planned: 4;
Not Planned: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
Objective 1: Agency Preparation Structured Transition Management
Approach:
Sound transition planning includes establishing a structured transition
management approach. This entails:
establishing a transition management team involved in all phases of the
transition and clearly defining responsibilities for key transition
roles such as project management, asset management, contract and legal
management, human capital management, and security issues;
utilizing the agency's established project management, configuration
management, and change management processes. Project management
processes are utilized to plan and manage transition-related
activities, providing a structure that incorporates performance
measurement and project-level control. Configuration management
processes are used to help ensure integrity and traceability as change
occurs. Change management processes help employees prepare for the
procedure and technology changes that may accompany a transition,
reducing the risk that improvement efforts will fail; and:
ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the transition by identifying
which parties will be involved and how transition plans, including
transition objectives, will be communicated. The agency should identify
what is going to happen and when, including the frequency of status
updates and meetings, and should alert and educate end users to changes
or disruptions. This also includes identifying key local and regional
transition officials and points of contact responsible for
disseminating information to employees and working with the vendor to
facilitate transition execution.
The six agencies were in the early stages of establishing a structured
transition management approach.
DOE and GSA had formally committed staff to manage transition planning
by identifying a transition program manager in a project charter or
planning guide. They had also begun to assign responsibilities for key
transition roles and issues.
Officials at the remaining four agencies believed it was too soon to
have committed staff to manage the transition.
While all indicated that they have established management processes to
guide their planning efforts, officials stated it was too early for
these processes to have been implemented. For example, an FBI official
stated that their policies require the use of the key management
processes we identified and that they would utilize these once
transition-related activities get under way.
GSA had identified some of its plans for communication, including the
frequency of reports, presentations, and reviews; and the parties
responsible for issuing them. However, the plans had not yet been
communicated to those beyond the transition management team.
Officials at all of the agencies reviewed stated that they plan to
establish lines of communication for the transition and identify key
local and/or regional transition officials, but that it was too early
in their planning to have done so.
Without a structured transition management approach, agencies risk
additional financial costs, extended time lines, and disruptions to the
continuity of their telecommunication systems. Further, without
establishing lines of communication and identifying local and regional
points of contact, agencies may lack the quality of information that is
necessary for comprehensive understanding, accountability, and shared
expectations at all levels.
The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward
establishing a structured transition management approach.
Structured transition management approach:
Has the agency established a structured transition management approach?
Has the agency committed staff to manage the transition and clearly
defined responsibilities for key transition roles?
Completed: 0;
Started: 2;
Planned: 4;
Not Planned: 0.
Is the agency using key management processes in the management of its
transition planning efforts?
Completed: 0;
Started: 0;
Planned: 6;
Not Planned: 0.
Has the agency identified lines of communication in order to facilitate
information information sharing during transition planning and
execution?
Completed: 0;
Started: 1;
Planned: 5;
Not Planned: 0;
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of table]
Objective 1: Agency Preparation Resource Identification:
Sound transition planning includes identifying the resources that the
transition effort requires. To do so, the agency should take the
following steps:
Identify funding requirements to ensure that planning efforts for the
telecommunications transition have the necessary resources. The agency
should identify the organizational need for investments and assess
benefits versus costs to justify any resource requests. Cost benefit
analyses and return-on-investment calculations are common methods used
to justify requests. Transition costs that should be considered include
transition project management, software and hardware upgrades, and the
establishing reliable inventories.
Ensure that personnel with the right skills are in place to support the
transition effort. Some of the skills that are needed are, as
identified earlier, contract expertise, legal expertise, asset
management, and program management. Further, the agency should identify
and require training for those carrying out the transition or operating
and maintaining newly transitioned technology. The agency should also
address staffing levels that may be required during transition.
Identifying the need for resources early in the planning process will
help to avoid unnecessary spending and delays during the transition.
Further, the resources allocated to the transition effort should
reflect the level of change identified in the agency's strategic
analysis of telecommunications requirements; that is, if the agency
chooses to implement new technology, it must budget resources
accordingly.
The agencies reviewed had placed varying levels of emphasis on
identifying and allocating resources to support transition efforts.
BLM had developed a network convergence business case that outlined
benefits and costs, and provided a return-on-investment calculation to
justify requests. This agency was awaiting approval of this request.
Officials at four of the agencies stated that they will identify
funding requirements as part of their transition planning efforts.
Officials at DOJ indicated that they will not need additional funding
for the transition. However, DOJ has yet to conduct a strategic
analysis of its telecommunications requirements, and agency officials
did not provide any analytical basis for its decision.
Five agencies planned to address human capital and training needs.
However, officials at DOE stated that they do not plan to identify
human capital needs for the transition. They stated such plans would
not be necessary because their agency faces a relatively
straightforward like-for-like transition and will not require extensive
planning and/or heightened staffing levels. However, the agency had not
identified its strategic requirements to determine if a like-for-like
transition was the optimal approach, nor had it performed any other
analysis to determine the required staffing levels.
Agencies that do not analyze needs for transition related costs and
allocate resources commensurate with those needs may be underestimating
the complexity and demands of the transition effort. Further, as the
transition gets under way, unexpected costs may arise that cause
previously avoidable delays and unnecessary spending.
The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward
identifying and allocating resources.
Resource identification:
Has the agency identified and allocated all resources necessary to
facilitate a successful transition?
Has the agency identified the level of funding needed to support
transition planning?
Completed: 1;
Started: 0;
Planned: 4;
Not Planned: 4.
Has the agency identified human capital and training needs for the
transition?
Completed: 0;
Started: 0;
Planned: 5;
Not Planned: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of Table]
Objective 1: Agency Preparation Transition Plan:
Sound transition planning includes developing a transition plan that
identifies transition objectives, measures of success, and risks, and
approaches the transition planning process as a critical project with a
detailed time line. To facilitate this practice, agencies' transition
management teams should take the following steps:
Identify transition objectives and measures of success. Objectives
should be based on the agency's strategic analysis of
telecommunications requirements and aligned with the agency's overall
mission and business objectives. Measures of success should be based on
these transition objectives and are a key tool to help managers assess
progress.
Identify agency-specific risks that could affect transition success.
The importance of the risks should be evaluated relative to the
agency's mission critical systems and continuity of operations plans.
Knowing what risks exist and how to mitigate them appropriately will
lessen problems and delays during the transition. This risk assessment
should also include an analysis of information security risks to
determine what controls are required to protect networks and what level
of resources should be expended on controls.
Develop a transition plan that depicts a management strategy with
clearly defined transition preparation tasks and includes a time line
that allows for periodic reporting. This time line should take into
account priorities relative to the agency's mission critical systems,
contingency plans, and identified risks.
The six agencies indicated that measurable objectives and clearly
defined transition management tasks will be developed.
DOE and GSA had identified transition-specific objectives. For example,
in its transition planning guide, DOE had identified objectives such as
(a) maintain the continuity of service with no outages, (b) optimize
service inventory by disconnecting services not required, and (c)
maximize the rate at which existing users' services are transitioned.
Officials at the other four agencies stated that they planned to
develop objectives as a part of their transition planning efforts. None
had established measures of success to be used to assess progress
toward their objectives, but all planned to do so.
Officials at all of the agencies indicated that risk assessments will
be performed for this transition, but that it was too early to have
completed this task already.
Efforts had begun at DOE to document transition planning activities
that must occur prior to the award of the Networx contracts, but
officials there indicated that these tasks would be further developed
in their transition project management plan.
Officials at the other five agencies indicated that they planned to
identify and document necessary transition planning activities, but
that it was too early to have done so at this point.
Agencies that do not document measurable objectives and clearly define
transition tasks that take into account agency priorities and risks may
find it difficult to provide those involved in the transition with
clear expectations of the tasks required, provide status updates of
progress and risks, and ultimately ensure transition success.
The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward
developing a transition plan.
Transition plan:
Has the agency developed a transition plan?
Has the agency identified and documented agency-specific transition
objectives and measures of success?
Completed: 0;
Started: 2;
Planned: 4;
Not Planned: 0.
Has the agency identified agency-specific risks that could affect
transition success?
Completed: 0;
Started: 0;
Planned: 6;
Not Planned: 0.
Has the agency clearly defined transition preparation tasks and
developed a time line based on priorities and risks?
Completed: 0;
Started: 1;
Planned: 5;
Not Planned: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of table]
Objective 2: FTS Preparation:
FTS has addressed the majority of the FTS2001 lessons learned and
provided guidance that at least partially addresses all of the sound
transition planning practices. Specifically, it has addressed 21 of the
27 lessons learned, such as clarifying which parties are responsible
for transition costs, incentivizing agencies to transition quickly, and
requiring verification of the functionality of vendor operations
support systems prior to processing orders. However, the office is
still working to address the remaining six lessons, such as defining
incumbent contractor roles and providing guidance for agency inventory
management and validation. FTS has also provided to agencies guidance
that correlates with two of our five sound transition planning
practices: performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications
requirements and identifying necessary resources for the transition.
However, guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three
remaining practices. For example, guidance does not fully address
establishing a structured transition management approach or developing
a transition plan.
Objective 2: FTS Preparation FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned:
In planning for the upcoming transition to Networx, FTS has addressed
21 of the 27 lessons.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: The magnitude of the effort
necessary for the transition was not fully appreciated;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: In 2003, the Interagency
Management Council established a Transition Working Group to address
transition issues. The group developed a Networx pre-award transition
guide that emphasizes agency preparation for a transition effort of
this magnitude.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Unique government requirements
cannot always be met by commercial services or operations support
systems;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx includes
government-specific requirements, such as a unique billing indicator
that lists each billed service separately from all other billed
services.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: FTS and agency plans for funding the
transition should be determined early: The budget impact of transition
on agencies should be identified;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS and the Transition
Working Group developed a Taxonomy and Allocation of Transition Costs
in October 2004 that assigns responsibilities for transition costs. FTS
officials indicated that this document can be used to budget for
transition costs but that final calculations cannot be performed until
Networx prices are known.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: The Transition Fund[11] was critical
to transition execution;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS officials stated
that, based on costs identified in the taxonomy document, they
determined FTS would have the funding needed for transition program
management costs, and no additional funding from agencies would be
required.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Activities needed for transition
should be started as soon as possible to ensure a rapid transition
effort;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Early planning was
encouraged in a May 2004 letter to agency CIOs and in a pre-award guide
dated August 5, 2005, before an expected award date of April 2006.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Mandatory network optimization
during transition was largely infeasible;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: This is no longer a
requirement of contractors during transition. Network optimization
reports are still required after transition is complete.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Program management approach relied
extensively on agency action, while agency capabilities to manage it
varied;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires vendors
to work with agencies to develop transition plans that agencies can
tailor according to their capabilities. FTS also asked agency
transition managers to develop agency transition strategies and plans.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Program management approach relied
heavily on FTS2001 contractor actions;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx includes
requirements that will permit FTS to exercise oversight of contractor
performance and compliance. FTS also provided guidance recommending
that agency transition managers review and approve Networx contractor
management plans.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Flexibility is needed to account for
the impact of external events on planning;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx provides
flexibility by allowing agencies to specify when they would like
ordered services to be delivered. This can be used by each agency to
account for their specific planning considerations.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Contractors should be held to the
contracts‘ performance requirements during transition;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx includes service
level agreements to hold contractors to expected levels of performance
throughout the transition.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: There were problems obtaining access
to local facilities;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Before the contractor
commits to a date to install services for an agency, Networx requires
contractors to first obtain commitment from the local access provider
to avoid potential delays.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Contractors did not provide
sufficient staff to meet contract terms;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires
contractors to describe their ability to meet transition staffing
requirements; those that are not able to support their transition
workload will incur a financial penalty.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Some agency sites experienced
transition execution delays due to a lack of preparation;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS indicated that it is
preparing checklists for all FTS2001 service types that will be
transitioned and an agency site preparation checklist.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Agencies should anticipate the need
to upgrade services during transition;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Networx Pre-Award
Transition Guide finalized in August 2005 provides guidance on planning
for upgrades.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Agencies were slow to select service
providers: Agencies were slow to place orders: Agencies responsible for
delays should bear the costs of those delays;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Taxonomy and
Allocation of Transition Costs developed by FTS and the Transition
Working Group stipulates that reimbursements for certain transition
costs can only be realized if the agency chooses a service provider and
places orders within a predefined time frame. FTS indicated that
qualifying for such transition credits should encourage agencies to
make timely decisions and avoid transition delays.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Transition began before contractors
had acceptable operations support systems in place: Inaccurate vendor
billing contributed to transition delays;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires
verification of the functionality of contractors‘ operations support
systems prior to processing transition orders or bills. Networx also
includes a billing accuracy service level agreement that allows for
agency credits if the contractor fails to meet accuracy requirements.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Relatively high minimum revenue
guarantees of $1.5 billion impacted incentives for timely transition;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx minimum revenue
guarantees were set at $575 million. FTS officials believe that the
relatively lower minimum revenue guarantee (compared to FTS2001) should
not be an impediment to agency selection or a disincentive to winning
contractors.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: An accurate inventory prior to
contract award is needed and inventory management and validation should
be an ongoing effort throughout the life of the contract;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Networx Pre-Award
Transition Guide provides guidance on establishing an accurate
inventory prior to contract award. However, FTS has not yet provided
guidance to agencies on inventory management or validation.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Roles and responsibilities of FTS,
agencies, and service providers for transition activities were not
clearly defined;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS has clearly defined
the roles and responsibilities of parties involved”in briefings, the
Networx RFPs, and guidance”but it has not yet clearly defined the roles
and responsibilities of the incumbent contractors.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Need for adequate coordination
between the gaining and losing vendors should be incorporated in both
the incumbent and new vendor contracts;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires vendors
to coordinate and synchronize transition activities with incumbents,
however, incumbent requirements are not yet clearly defined.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Measurement of the progress of
transition should focus on phase-out as well as phase-in: Metrics for
monitoring of the installation of new services should be established
prior to contract award;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: While FTS has indicated
that it will track the progress made by agencies through the
disconnection of current services and the installation of new services,
it has not documented its methodology for monitoring and tracking the
transition.
FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Information from service providers
required to measure transition should be specified;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Networx RFPs include
detailed transition reporting requirements, however, incumbent
transition reporting requirements have not been finalized.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of Table]
FTS officials stated they plan to address all unresolved lessons
learned. They stated they are currently working with the FTS2001
contractors to clarify transition roles and responsibilities,
responsibilities for reporting requirements, and the coordination and
synchronization procedures to be used during transition. In addition,
officials stated that guidance on inventory maintenance and a
documented transition tracking methodology will be provided in the last
few months leading up to contract award.
Enough time remains that FTS should be able to address these unresolved
issues. However, until they are resolved it risks facing the very same
delays the FTS2001 lessons learned were developed to avoid. Further,
until agreements are reached with the incumbent contractors regarding
reporting requirements and the incumbents' role in the transition, FTS
cannot guarantee that incumbents will comply or be able to comply with
FTS's expectations.
Objective 2: FTS Preparation Guidance Based on Sound Practices:
FTS has provided transition planning guidance that fully addresses two
of our sound practices.
Sound transition planning practice: Strategic Analysis of
Telecommunications Requirements;
Example of how the practice has been addressed: Available guidance
recommends that agencies involve the enterprise architect to ensure
that planning is consistent with enterprise architecture guidance and
to determine, based on the level of complexity of the transition,
whether any changes should be made before or after the transition.
Sound Transition Planning Practice: Resource Identification;
Example of how the practice has been addressed: Available guidance
indicates that necessary staffing and financial resources should be
anticipated early and accurately and that agencies should develop a
forecast of required resources throughout the transition to Networx.
Available guidance also suggests that agencies examine current
resources to determine if adequate personnel exists; address shortfalls
that may require contractor support; and identify personnel to receive
training, and the desired schedule and locations of training.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of Table]
Guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three remaining
practices.
Sound transition planning practice: Telecommunications Inventory;
Aspect of the practice not addressed: FTS is compiling a baseline
inventory to aid agencies during the transition, but has not provided
guidance on establishing an inventory process that can be utilized to
maintain telecommunications inventories during and after the
transition.
Sound transition planning practice: Structured Transition Management
Approach;
Aspect of the practice not addressed: Guidance provided suggests that
transition managers should ensure that agencies have adequate internal
project management support for the expected transition workload, and,
if appropriate, a hierarchy of transition teams at the sub-agency
level. However, the guidance reviewed does not address the importance
of agency use of project management, configuration management, and
change management processes.
Sound transition planning practice: Transition Plan;
Aspect of the practice not addressed: Available guidance indicates that
agencies should identify transition goals and develop a prioritized
list of tasks and a schedule with key dates to assist in transition
management. However, none of the guidance reviewed addressed agencies
establishing measures of success or performing a transition-specific
risk assessment.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of Table]
FTS officials stated that they would provide guidance explaining how
agencies can use Networx contractor information to maintain and
validate their Networx inventories, and that more detailed guidance
will be provided if requested by agencies. Officials stated that they
believe it is not their responsibility to provide guidance on
establishing measures of success, using key management processes, and
performing risk assessments, and that approaches to these issues should
be decided independently by each agency.
Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with
individual agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility
to plan and coordinate the transition. To fulfill this responsibility,
it has been actively working with agencies through the Interagency
Management Council's Transition Working Group to, for example, address
lessons learned and develop pre-transition guidance. However, unless it
works with the Interagency Management Council to address the full range
of sound practices, the risk exists that agencies may not address these
practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect agency's
level of preparation and the overall success of the transition. In
particular, without guidance on measures of success and the use of key
management processes, FTS risks conducting a transition with agencies
susceptible to additional costs, delays, and employee resistance to
change due to unstructured management approaches to the transition.
Further, without guidance on the importance of performing transition-
specific risk assessments, FTS risks working with agencies that have
not been advised of the importance of implementing appropriate controls
to cost-effectively reduce risks and help ensure a smooth transition.
Conclusions:
The agencies reviewed generally plan to employ the sound transition
planning practices identified through our research. However, gaps in
agency preparation remain. Specifically, DOJ has decided that it will
not need additional funding and DOE does not plan to identify human
capital needs, even though neither has performed a strategic analysis
of their telecommunications requirements. This puts them at risk of
underestimating the complexity and demands of the transition effort,
and of suffering avoidable disruption of service as a result of
unexpected costs or inadequate human capital resources. Enough time
remains for agencies to effectively address all the issues we
identified, but they need to identify telecommunications inventories
and conduct strategic analyses soon because these practices provide
inputs for other sound practices.
FTS efforts to prepare for the transition have addressed the majority
of the identified FTS2001 lessons learned, and the guidance it has
provided at least partially addresses all of the sound transition
planning practices we identified. Officials have indicated that they
are working to address all lessons learned prior to contract award.
However, they do not intend to fully address all sound transition
planning practices. Without the development of guidance for utilizing
key management practices, establishing measures of success, and
performing risk assessments, the federal government risks attempting a
transition with inadequately prepared management at FTS and its
customer agencies. Adequate, timely guidance is essential to ensuring
that all parties involved are aware of the gamut of issues and
activities that need to be addressed.
Recommendations:
To ensure that the agencies we reviewed adequately prepare themselves
for the transition we recommend:
that the Attorney General ensure that the Department of Justice's
planning efforts include an analysis of the extent to which current
financial resources will be sufficient to conduct an effective
transition; and:
that the Secretary of Energy ensure that the department's planning
efforts include identification of human capital resources needed to
conduct an effective transition.
To ensure that agencies are adequately prepared for the transition, we
recommend that the Administrator of General Services, in working with
the Interagency Management Council, develop and distribute guidance to
ensure that our identified sound practices of transition planning are
utilized. In particular, FTS should ensure that guidance addresses:
the use of project management, configuration management, and change
management processes in transition planning efforts;
the establishment of measures of success to help agencies' managers
assess progress toward the objectives stated in their plans; and:
the development of a transition-specific risk assessment that would
allow an agency to lessen problems and delays during the transition.
Agency Comments:
Written comments on a draft of this briefing were provided by the
General Services Administration. The Departments of Justice and Energy
provided comments via E-mail. All three generally agreed with our
recommendations and intend to address them. We received technical
comments via E-mail from the Department of the Interior that were
incorporated as appropriate.
The acting Administrator of General Services agreed with our
recommendations and stated that the agency will work with the
Interagency Management Council's Transition Working Group to (1)
identify key management practices that could be of value to all
agencies, (2) establish measures of success that could be of value in
assessing progress toward objectives, and (3) develop risk assessment
guidelines. Guidance on these issues will be included in a transition
planning guide expected to be published in fiscal year 2006.
An Audit Liaison Specialist from the Department of Justice's Audit
Liaison Group commented, in response to our recommendation, that the
department's policies will guide its planning and execution of the
transition from expiring FTS2001 services including the identification
of the appropriate strategy, funding, and resource elements. While the
agency intends to leverage existing resources to support the
transition, any additional funding or resources needed will be
addressed during planning.
The Audit Liaison Specialist also commented that a 2002 DOJ IT
strategic plan identified strategic telecommunications requirements and
described a strategic objective to transition to a single, national
data network-an effort which is currently underway.
We acknowledge that in 2002 DOJ identified strategic requirements in
2002 related to its data networks, however, these requirements did not
address its non-data telecommunications services, which it will have to
transition when the FTS2001 contracts expire.
The Associate CIO for IT Operations at the Department of Energy
commented that the agency generally agrees with our recommendation and
intends to address it.
Attachment 1:
Comments from the General Services Administration:
March 17, 2006:
GSA Administrator:
The Honorable David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed briefing
entitled, "Telecommunications: Agencies Have Begun Planning for
Transition to New Govemmentwide Program, But Unresolved Issues Remain",
received on March 10, 2006. We are pleased to provide the following
response.
In the draft report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommends that the Administrator of the General Services
Administration (GSA) work with members of the Interagency Management
Council (IMC) to develop and distribute guidance to ensure that GAO's
identified sound practices of transition planning are followed. In
response to GAO's recommendation, GSA will work closely with the IMC
Transition Working Group to:
1. Identify key management practices in the management of transition
planning efforts that could be of value to all Agencies in the
implementation of Agency-specific plans and processes,
2. Establish measures of success that could be of value to Agencies in
assessing progress toward the objectives stated in their transition
plans, and:
3. Develop risk assessment guidelines that could be of value to
Agencies in the implementation of Agency-specific transition plans.
These practices, measures and guidelines will be included in the next
revision to the IMC Transition Working Group Transition Planning Guide,
which we anticipate will be published this fiscal year. Once revised,
the Transition Planning Guide will be distributed to all Agencies. GSA
believes that this approach will meet the requirements of GAO's
recommendation in a way that can be most effectively implemented by the
Agencies. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the draft
document.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David L. Bibb:
Acting Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA Administrator:
May 24, 2006:
The Honorable David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed report entitled,
"Telecommunications: Full Adoption of Sound Transition Planning
Practices by GSA and Agencies Could Improve Planning Efforts," received
on May 12, 2006. We are pleased to provide the following response.
In the draft report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommends that the Administrator of the General Services
Administration (GSA) work with members of the Interagency Management
Council (IMC) to develop and distribute guidance to ensure that GAO's
sound practices of transition planning are followed. In response to
GAO's recommendation, GSA will work closely with the IMC Transition
Working Group (TWG) to:
1. Disseminate GAO's sound practices of transition planning through the
IMC TWG and post them on the planned GSA Networx - Transition website.
2. Reach consensus on transition planning definitions for. key
management processes of project management, configuration management,
change management, measures of success, and risk assessments.
3. Develop general guidance for each process for dissemination to all
agencies in the implementation of agency specific plans and processes.
4. Establish measures of success to be used by agency managers in
assessing progress toward achieving the objectives stated in their
transition plans.
5. Develop risk assessment guidelines for use by agencies in the
preparation of agency-specific transition plans that will lessen
problems and delays during the transition.
Discussions and planning activities have been initiated in the IMC TWG
to address GAO's recommendations. Processes and guidelines developed by
GSA and the TWG will be included in the next revision of the IMC TWG
Transition Planning Guide to be distributed to all Agencies before
December 2006.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review this proposed document.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David L. Bibb:
Acting Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, DC 20240:
May 26 2006:
Take Pride in America:
Mr. James Sweetman:
Assistant Director, Information Management Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Sweetman:
The Department of the Interior (DOI) reviewed the GAO Draft Report
entitled, "Telecommunications: Full Adoption of Sound Transition
Planning Practices by GSA and Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning
Efforts" and generally agrees with the findings and recommendations.
DOI agrees with the assessment that the General Services Administration
(GSA) address all lessons learned from the FTS2000 to FTS2001
transition. Of specific concern is that GSA provide accurate and
meaningful inventory detail and tools to adequately facilitate the
acquisition and vendor selection process. DOI, through the Interagency
Management Council participation, will continue to work with GSA to
support its strategic direction and complete outstanding planning
tasks.
DOI is implementing the five guiding principles GAO identified as sound
transition planning practices. Nevertheless, DOI has concerns with the
difficulty of transitioning services from the FTS2001 to Networx
contracts. DOI is reliant on GSA actions in order to timely allocate
resources for the transition.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. W. Hord Tipton, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, at 202-208-6194.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
R Thomas Weimer:
Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget:
[End of Section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-
01-289 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2001).
[2] GAO, FTS2001: Contract Transition Delays and Their Impact on
Program Goals, GAO-544T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2001).
[3] These included presentations, meeting minutes, projected time
lines, FTS2001 lessons learned, the Networx Request for Proposals, and
the Networx Transition Guide (Pre-Award).
[4] The Interagency Management Council is a group of senior federal
information resource officials that was established in 1992 to provide
a forum and focal point for FTS to work with its customer agencies in
planning and overseeing FTS's long-distance telecommunications
services.
[5] Various technical clarifications have been made to the original
slides.
[6] GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-
01-289 (Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001).
[7] GSA was reviewed as a customer agency of FTS.
[8] Sprint Corporation merged with Nextel Communications, Inc. to form
Sprint Nextel Corporation in August 2005.
[9]MCI merged with Verizon to form Verizon Business in January 2006.
[10] FTS indicated that it intends to negotiate sole-source contracts
for a 24-month base period with three 6-month optional periods for a
total of 42 months.
[11] During the last several years of the FTS 2000 contract, agencies
agreed to pay a surcharge, in addition to the FTS management fee, that
was set aside to account for program management costs associated with
the transition to FTS2001.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
