Information Technology
Status and Challenges of Employee Exchange Program Gao ID: GAO-07-216 December 15, 2006Recognizing the importance of human capital to information technology (IT) and the need to improve the skills of federal IT workers, Congress created the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) as part of the E-Government Act of 2002. ITEP aims to improve federal IT skills through exchanges of staff between the government and the private sector. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was required to issue implementing regulations, which it did in September 2005, and to report semiannually to the Congress. OPM's regulations require that each participating agency develop an ITEP plan before proceeding with exchanges. Agencies' opportunity to begin exchanges ends in December 2007. GAO is required to evaluate the program by December 2006. As agreed, GAO's objectives were to determine (1) the status of the program and (2) challenges facing agencies. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed key documents and interviewed OPM, participating agencies, and others.
With only 1 year remaining to begin exchanges under the ITEP program, the seven agencies that volunteered to participate are still initiating their programs, and no exchanges have taken place. All participating agencies have drafted plans, but only three--Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and Department of Commerce--have finalized them. Further, only Homeland Security has attempted to negotiate an exchange, but it was unsuccessful. In its last two semiannual reports, OPM has reported on the status of agency plans, but has not reported that no exchanges have taken place to date. OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will confront agencies as they finish their plans and begin to implement ITEP programs. First, employees with desired skills are in short supply in both the federal government and the private sector, particularly in enterprise architecture, project management, and information security, according to industry representatives. Second, companies are concerned that employee exchanges could hinder future business, since a company with an employee at an agency might be seen as having an unfair advantage in bidding on agency procurements. Third, federal ethics requirements, especially financial disclosure, could discourage private-sector employees from participating. And lastly, Federal agencies' current marketing through a Web site has not been productive, according to participating agencies; suggested improvements include using the media and making personal contacts with companies. OPM and the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and acknowledge that they need to be addressed. However, given the short time remaining before authority to begin new exchanges ends (see figure), it will be essential to expeditiously address the challenges to enable a significant number of successful exchanges.
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-07-216, Information Technology: Status and Challenges of Employee Exchange Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-216
entitled 'Information Technology: Status and Challenges of Employee
Exchange Program' which was released on December 15, 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 Congressional Committees:
December 2006:
Information Technology:
Status and Challenges of Employee Exchange Program:
GAO-07-216:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-216, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Recognizing the importance of human capital to information technology
(IT) and the need to improve the skills of federal IT workers, Congress
created the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) as part of
the E-Government Act of 2002. ITEP aims to improve federal IT skills
through exchanges of staff between the government and the private
sector. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was required to issue
implementing regulations, which it did in September 2005, and to report
semiannually to the Congress. OPM‘s regulations require that each
participating agency develop an ITEP plan before proceeding with
exchanges. Agencies‘ opportunity to begin exchanges ends in December
2007.
GAO is required to evaluate the program by December 2006. As agreed,
GAO‘s objectives were to determine (1) the status of the program and
(2) challenges facing agencies. To address these objectives, GAO
analyzed key documents and interviewed OPM, participating agencies, and
others.
What GAO Found:
With only 1 year remaining to begin exchanges under the ITEP program,
the seven agencies that volunteered to participate are still initiating
their programs, and no exchanges have taken place. All participating
agencies have drafted plans, but only three”Department of Homeland
Security, Department of Defense, and Department of Commerce”have
finalized them. Further, only Homeland Security has attempted to
negotiate an exchange, but it was unsuccessful. In its last two
semiannual reports, OPM has reported on the status of agency plans, but
has not reported that no exchanges have taken place to date. OPM,
agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will confront
agencies as they finish their plans and begin to implement ITEP
programs:
* Employees with desired skills are in short supply in both the federal
government and the private sector, particularly in enterprise
architecture, project management, and information security, according
to industry representatives.
* Companies are concerned that employee exchanges could hinder future
business, since a company with an employee at an agency might be seen
as having an unfair advantage in bidding on agency procurements.
* Federal ethics requirements, especially financial disclosure, could
discourage private-sector employees from participating.
* Federal agencies‘ current marketing through a Web site has not been
productive, according to participating agencies; suggested improvements
include using the media and making personal contacts with companies.
OPM and the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and
acknowledge that they need to be addressed. However, given the short
time remaining before authority to begin new exchanges ends (see
figure), it will be essential to expeditiously address the challenges
to enable a significant number of successful exchanges.
Figure: OPM and Participating Agencies' ITEP Actions:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that the Director of OPM include in its upcoming
semiannual reports the number of exchanges that have occurred and the
status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing
ITEP. In comments on a draft of the report, OPM agreed to report on
exchanges but not on challenges.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-216].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David A. Powner at (202)
512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Seven Agencies Are Initiating Programs, but No Exchanges Have Taken
Place:
Agencies Face Implementation Challenges:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Agency ITEP Plan Status and Skills as of November 2006:
Figure:
Figure 1: OPM and Participating Agencies' ITEP Actions:
Abbreviations:
CIO: Federal Chief Information Officer:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
E-Gov Act: E-Government Act of 2002:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
IAC: Industry Advisory Council:
IT: information technology:
ITEP: Information Technology Exchange Program:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
December 15, 2006:
The Honorable Susan M. Collin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Recently, assessments of the federal information technology (IT)
workforce, as called for in the Clinger Cohen Act,[Footnote 1] have
resulted in the identification of skills gaps in key areas such as
project management. Recognizing the importance of human capital to IT
and the need to improve the skills of the federal IT workforce, the
Congress created the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) as
part of the E-Government Act of 2002 (E-Gov Act).[Footnote 2] The
program is envisioned as a vehicle to promote the interchange of IT
employees between federal executive agencies and the private sector and
to develop, supplement, and modernize IT skills while improving overall
competencies in the federal IT workforce.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is required under the act to
issue implementing regulations for the program and to report
semiannually to the Congress on the operation of the program. OPM
issued the required implementing regulations in September 2005. OPM's
regulations require that each participating agency develop an ITEP
plan, approved by the agency head, before proceeding with exchanges.
Agencies' opportunity to begin exchanges ends in December 2007.
The act required GAO to provide an evaluation of the program by
December 17, 2006. As agreed with your offices, we determined (1) the
status of the ITEP program and (2) challenges facing agencies in
implementing ITEP. To conduct our work, we analyzed ITEP regulations
and guidance, agencies' ITEP plans, and OPM status reports. We also
conducted interviews with ITEP officials at the seven participating
agencies--Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of the Treasury,
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Health and Human
Services, and OPM--and with the Industry Advisory Council (IAC), which
includes about 500 companies as members. We performed our work from
July 2006 to November 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Details of our objectives, scope, and
methodology are included in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
With only 1 year remaining to begin exchanges under the ITEP program,
the seven agencies that volunteered to participate are still initiating
their programs, and no exchanges have taken place. The participating
agencies all have drafted plans, but only three--DHS, DOD, and
Commerce--have finalized them. Only DHS has attempted to negotiate an
exchange, but it was unsuccessful in exchanging staff with a potential
private-sector partner. In its last two semiannual reports OPM has
reported on the status of agency plans, but has not reported that no
exchanges have taken place to date.
OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will
confront agencies as they finish their plans and implement ITEP
programs:
* Employees with desired skills are in short supply in both the federal
government and the private sector, particularly in enterprise
architecture, project management, and information security, according
to industry representatives.
* Companies are concerned the employee exchanges could hinder future
business, since a company with an employee at an agency might be seen
as having an unfair advantage in bidding on agency procurements.
* Federal ethics requirements, especially financial disclosure
requirements, could discourage private-sector employees from
participating.
* Federal agencies' current marketing through a Web site has not been
productive, according to participating agencies; suggested improvements
include using the media and making personal contacts with companies.
OPM and the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and
acknowledge that they need to be addressed. However, in the short time
remaining before the authority to begin exchanges ends, it will be
essential to expeditiously address the challenges to enable a
significant number of successful exchanges. Given this, we are
recommending that the Director of OPM include in its upcoming
semiannual reports to the Congress the status of efforts to address
challenges and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges, and the
number of exchanges that have occurred.
In written comments on a draft of this report, OPM said that it
supports the ITEP and will continue to promote it as a tool available
to agencies in the training and development of the Federal IT
workforce. OPM agreed with our recommendation that future semi-annual
reports to Congress include the number of exchanges that have occurred
or a statement that no exchanges have occurred. However, it disagreed
with our recommendation that it include in the semiannual reports the
status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing
the program and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges. OPM
said that current reporting to Congress fully meets its statutory
obligation to report on the operations of the ITEP. However, we
continue to believe that it should include in the semiannual reports to
Congress the status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in
implementing the program. Confronting these challenges is key to
determining whether the program will be successful and whether it
should continue beyond 2007. OPM also provided technical comments that
we have incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
The E-Gov Act created ITEP to improve the skills of the federal
workforce in using information technology. The act authorizes federal
executive agencies that volunteer to participate to temporarily detail
IT staff to private-sector companies and to accept individuals from the
private sector.[Footnote 3] Assignments can last up to a year and are
extendable for another year. Federal employees could be exposed to
private industry best management practices, while private-sector
employees could gain a greater understanding of federal information
management practices and of how the government does its work. The
opportunity to begin exchanges is due to end in December 2007.
OPM was required to issue implementing regulations for ITEP and to
report semiannually to the Congress on the number of individuals
assigned to and from each agency, including a brief description of each
assignment and other information as appropriate.
Between 2003 and 2005, OPM developed implementing regulations for the
program, including soliciting public comments. OMB reviewed and
approved OPM's draft regulations as part of its normal regulatory
process.
The final ITEP regulations were not issued until August 2005, and
became effective in September 2005, almost 3 years into the program.
OPM reported to the Congress that the delay in the issuance of the
regulations was due to the complexity of the issues involved, including
various ethics and standard of conduct issues that could complicate
exchanges, especially from private industry to the federal government.
In addition to OMB, OPM worked with the Department of Justice and the
Office of Government Ethics to finalize the regulations.
In the ITEP regulations, OPM established a requirement that each
participating agency develop an ITEP plan. These plans are to be
approved by the head of each agency before beginning exchanges.
Agencies, companies, and individual participants are also required to
sign a written agreement before any exchanges can begin. Each
participating agency has primary responsibility for planning and
directing its own ITEP program but must adhere to the act and OPM
regulations in implementing exchanges.
In December 2005, 3 months after the ITEP regulations went into effect,
OPM issued additional guidance to assist agencies in implementing their
programs and in drafting plans. The guidance included an overview of
the program, templates for ITEP plans and written agreements, and
answers to frequently asked questions and is available to agencies
through the OPM.gov Web site.
To help promote the program, OPM partnered with the Federal Chief
Information Officers Council and with the Industry Advisory
Council[Footnote 4] and conducted outreach with several other IT
professional organizations to reach private-sector companies. OPM
assists the agencies in marketing their ITEP programs through its
USAJOBS Web site. To facilitate the exchange of information, OPM has
been conducting weekly teleconferences with participating agencies and
the IAC. Additionally, the CIO of OPM co-chairs the CIO Council's
Information Technology Workforce Committee, which helps to promote the
program and shares status updates during monthly meetings.
The E-Gov Act specifically addresses ethics and reimbursement issues.
The law states that private-sector employees assigned to a federal
agency under ITEP are deemed to be employees of the federal agency in
terms of Title 5, U.S.C., Chapter 73 (Suitability, Security, and
Conduct) as well as various other laws. For example, federal employees
detailed to the private sector would remain subject to all federal
ethics rules and would continue to be paid by their agencies. Private-
sector employees detailed to a federal agency would become subject to
federal ethics rules, such as those involving conflict of interest and
financial disclosure, and would continue to be paid by their companies.
The act permits the federal government to reimburse some expenses, such
as travel and per diem and leaves open the possibility that agencies
might reimburse the company for some of its employees' salaries, but it
specifically prohibits companies from charging the government for an
employee's salary or benefits as a direct or indirect cost under a
federal contract.
Seven Agencies Are Initiating Programs, but No Exchanges Have Taken
Place:
With only 1 year to go before the opportunity to begin exchanges ends,
the seven agencies participating are still initiating their programs,
and no exchanges have taken place. All seven agencies have drafted
plans, but only three--DHS, DOD, and Commerce--have finalized them.
Only one agency, DHS's Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center,[Footnote 5] has attempted to negotiate an exchange, but it was
not able to reach an agreement with a potential private-sector partner.
Agencies Are Establishing ITEP Plans:
When the CIO Council called for agencies to volunteer for ITEP, nine
agencies volunteered to participate; seven agencies--the Department of
Commerce, DOD, DHS, Department of the Treasury, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Health and Human Services, and OPM--committed to
implementing programs. Participating agencies began developing their
ITEP plans after OPM issued regulations in August 2005. Agency
officials told us that the OPM guidance was useful and that they worked
closely with their agencies' human resources and general counsel staffs
to develop their plans.
Of those seven, DHS, DOD, and Commerce have approved plans as required
by OPM regulations, and the other four agencies have draft plans that
are awaiting agency head approval. DHS's plan was approved in March
2006; DOD's plan was approved in August 2006; and Commerce's plan was
approved in October 2006 (see fig. 1). Officials from the agencies with
draft plans estimated that additional time required for review and
approval of these draft plans could range from a few days to an
indefinite amount of time.
Figure 1: OPM and Participating Agencies' ITEP Actions:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
OPM requires that plans address how the program will be carried out
(e.g., processes and procedures); how many exchanges the agency plans
to have; how employees are selected; which officials may approve
exchanges; and employee rights to return to the agency. Agencies are
given the flexibility to tailor their ITEP plans to meet their
individual needs and the workforce skills they want to reinforce.
In addition, agencies have identified key skills they would like to
strengthen through ITEP exchanges. The skills most frequently
identified by agency officials were enterprise architecture, project
management, and information security. Table 1 shows the status of
agencies' plans and the specific skills agencies have identified.
Table 1: Agency ITEP Plan Status and Skills as of November 2006:
Agency: Commerce;
Plan approved: 4;
Plan drafted: [Empty];
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, project management,
information security.
Agency: DHS (FLETC);
Plan approved: 4;
Plan drafted: [Empty];
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, information security.
Agency: DOD;
Plan approved: 4;
Plan drafted: [Empty];
Skills identified: To be determined at the component level.
Agency: FBI;
Plan approved: [Empty];
Plan drafted: 4;
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, project management, systems
engineering, continuity of operations planning.
Agency: HHS;
Plan approved: [Empty];
Plan drafted: 4;
Skills identified: To be determined.
Agency: OPM;
Plan approved: [Empty];
Plan drafted: 4;
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, information security, IT
policy, capital planning and investment control.
Agency: Treasury;
Plan approved: [Empty];
Plan drafted: 4;
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, project management, cyber
security, counterfeiting protection.
Source: GAO analysis of agency ITEP plans and interviews.
[End of table]
No ITEP Exchanges Have Occurred:
As of November 2006, no exchanges have occurred. Officials from the
participating agencies stated that they have had few inquiries and
little interest from private-sector companies regarding the ITEP
program. DHS, the first agency to have an approved plan, has attempted
to implement an exchange with a private-sector partner; however, the
company did not go ahead with the exchange because, as prohibited by
the act, it could not charge the government for its employee's salary
as an indirect cost on its government contracts. DOD recently finalized
its ITEP plan in August 2006 and is proceeding with program
implementation, but has not begun negotiating agreements.
OPM has reported to the Congress on the status of its development of
the regulations and activities to promote the program. In its last two
semiannual reports, in April and October 2006, OPM has reported on the
status of agency plans but has not reported that no exchanges have
taken place.
Agencies Face Implementation Challenges:
OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will
confront agencies as they finish their plans and implement ITEP
programs, including limited availability of private-sector employees
with the skills agencies want, concern that sending employees to
agencies may hinder companies' ability to bid on future contracts,
possible reluctance of private-sector employees to be subject to
federal ethics rules, and more effectively marketing the program. These
challenges will make it difficult to find willing and qualified
participants and negotiate agreements with companies. OPM and
participating agencies' officials are aware of the challenges and
acknowledge that they need to be addressed, but these challenges have
not been reported to the Congress in the semiannual reports.
Desired Skills Are in Short Supply in Both the Federal Government and
the Private Sector:
Federal agencies face a challenge in finding employees from the private
sector with the skills they are most interested in pursuing. Although
agencies have identified their target skills--enterprise architecture,
project management, and information security--these skills are also in
short supply in the private sector. According to the IAC, which
represents about 500 companies, companies would be reluctant to give up
the services of staff members with these valuable skills. The IAC
believes the federal government is more likely to attract staff from
private-sector companies if the agencies focus on other skill areas
where the government is a leader, such as electronic learning.
Companies Are Concerned That Employee Exchanges Could Hinder Future
Business:
Both the IAC, representing its member companies, and agencies told us
of their reluctance to undertake exchanges because of a risk that an
exchange could interfere with future federal contracting opportunities.
Although the act specifically prohibits private-sector employees from
having access to any nonpublic information of commercial value to their
company, they might still obtain or appear to obtain information that
would give them an unfair competitive advantage, and their companies
might then be disqualified from bidding on future contracts. According
to the IAC, this is a major issue with the program, because it is not
easy to determine what information is appropriate for private-sector
employees. FBI program officials also told us that this issue was a
particular concern to them. The Human Resource Manager for DHS's Office
of the CIO told us that DHS components were not interested in accepting
an employee from a DHS contractor, because they did not want to risk
damaging their relationship with the company.
Federal Ethics Requirements Could Discourage Private-Sector Employees
from Participating:
Another challenge identified by federal agencies and IAC is that
private-sector employees considering an assignment to a government
agency could be discouraged by the numerous federal ethics rules they
would need to comply with to participate in the program. The
regulations specified by the act, such as those governing claims
against the government, political contributions, post-employment
activities, disclosure of confidential information, and, especially,
financial disclosure could make a detail to a federal agency
unattractive. For example, although this has not yet occurred, agencies
and IAC agreed that the need to file a financial disclosure statement
could discourage some potential private company participants.
Effectively Marketing the Program:
Federal agencies face a challenge in determining how to effectively
promote ITEP to the private sector. IAC has actively marketed ITEP to
its member companies and other federal IT associations; however,
marketing efforts through OPM's USAJOBS Web site, have not been
productive, according to federal agencies. OPM has reported 23,000 hits
on USAJOBS, but participating agencies told us that contacts they
received from the Web site were almost all looking for permanent
federal positions and were unrelated to ITEP.
Several sources told us that a more proactive approach in reaching out
to private companies was needed to get companies to participate. For
example, IAC said that OPM and the participating agencies should
promote the program repeatedly through the media. The director of a
similar employee exchange program at the Department of Energy told us
that personal contact with companies was essential to recruiting
companies into the program. To attract companies, agencies will need to
convince them of the value of exchanges. However, only two of the seven
participating agencies had initiated direct contacts with private-
sector companies.
Conclusions:
Four years into ITEP, agencies are still initiating and planning their
programs and, accordingly, no exchanges have taken place. Agencies will
face several challenges in making exchanges, including shortages of
employees with key skills and concerns that exchanges could hinder
companies' ability to do future business with the government. OPM and
the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and acknowledge
that they need to be addressed. However, given the short time remaining
for beginning exchanges, it will be essential to expeditiously address
the challenges to enable a significant number of successful exchanges.
Reporting to the Congress on these challenges and the number of
exchanges that have occurred is key to determining the viability of the
program and whether it should continue beyond 2007.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that, as part of OPM's responsibilities under the E-Gov
Act, the Director of OPM include in its semiannual reports to the
Congress (1) the number of exchanges that have occurred, as required by
law, and (2) the status of efforts to address challenges facing
agencies in implementing ITEP exchanges and whether these efforts are
leading to exchanges.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, OPM's Director said that
OPM supports the ITEP and will continue to promote it as a tool
available to agencies in the training and development of the Federal IT
workforce. OPM agreed with our recommendation that future semiannual
reports to Congress include the number of exchanges that have occurred
or a statement that no exchanges have occurred. However, it disagreed
with our recommendation that it include in the semiannual reports the
status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing
the program and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges.
Further, OPM said that current reporting to Congress fully meets its
statutory obligation to report on the operations of the ITEP. However,
we continue to believe that it should include in the semiannual reports
the status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in
implementing the program. Confronting these challenges is key to
determining whether the program will be successful and whether it
should continue beyond 2007. OPM also provided technical comments that
we have incorporated as appropriate. OPM's comments are reprinted in
appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees. We also will make copies available to others on request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine the (1) status of the Information
Technology Exchange Program and (2) challenges facing the program.
To address our first objective, we reviewed the E-Government Act of
2002, regulations, and guidance to understand program requirements. We
analyzed approved plans for the Departments of Homeland Security,
Defense, and Commerce and draft plans for the Departments of Treasury
and Health and Human Services. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) did not provide us with copies of
their draft plans. We reviewed these plans to determine details about
administering the exchanges and assessed whether agencies followed OPM
guidance in developing them. We reviewed OPM's semiannual reports to
the Congress to assess progress reported on the status of federal
agencies' exchanges with the private sector. We interviewed program
staff at the seven participating federal agencies, including federal
Chief Information Officers (CIO) and human resource officials, OPM, and
Office of Management and Budget officials on program activities. We
also met with members of the Federal CIO Council Workforce Committee
and the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) to discuss their roles in
promoting the program to federal agencies and private-sector companies.
To address our second objective, we interviewed program staff at OPM
and the seven participating federal agencies and analyzed their
responses to identify future challenges they face in administering the
program. We contacted IAC officials--representing 500 member companies-
-to determine challenges to participating in the program identified by
companies. We also conducted research on the Department of Energy's
Acquisition Career Development Program.
We conducted our work from July through November 2006 in the
Washington, D.C., area in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
United States Office Of Personnel Management:
Washington, DC 204 P:
The Director:
December 1, 2006:
The Honorable David Walker:
Comptroller General:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20515:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the
Government Accountability Office draft report entitled Information
Technology: Status and Challenges of Employee Exchange Program (GAO-07-
216).
Section 209 of the E-Government Act of December 2002 (P.L. 107-347)
detailed the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) responsibilities
with regard to the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP). OPM
steadfastly supports the ITEP and will continue to promote it as
another tool available to agencies in the training and development of
the Federal IT workforce. We also recommend the authority be extended
beyond its current expiration date.
GAO's first recommendation is that OPM "include in its semi-annual
reports to the Congress the number of exchanges that have occurred." We
agree that future reports to the Congress will include the number of
exchanges that have occurred or a statement that no exchanges have
occurred.
GAO's second recommendation is that OPM "include in its semi-annual
reports to the Congress the status of efforts to address challenges
facing agencies in implementing ITEP exchanges and whether these
efforts are leading to exchanges." We disagree with this
recommendation. We believe our current semi-annual reports to Congress
fully meet OPM's statutory obligation to report on the operation of the
ITEP.
I am providing specific technical corrections to the draft report and
would ask for your consideration of these changes. Finally, I look
forward to providing to the Congress specific responses to your key
findings.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Linda M. Springer:
Director:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286, pownerd@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Neil Doherty, Nancy Glover,
Cynthia Scott, Teresa Smith, and Glenn Spiegel made key contributions
to this report.
(310818):
FOOTNOTES
[1] 40 U.S.C. 11101 - 11703 [P.L. 104-106, Div. E, sec. 5001 - 5703
(Feb. 10, 1996)].
[2] 5 U.S.C. Chapter 37 [P.L. 107-347, sec. 209(c) (Dec. 17, 2002)].
[3] To participate in the program, an individual must work in the field
of information technology management, must be considered an exceptional
employee by his or her current employer, and must be expected to assume
increased IT management responsibilities in the future. Only
individuals at grade GS-11 (or equivalent) and above are eligible.
[4] The Industry Advisory Council is a nonprofit educational
organization established in 1989 to assist the government in acquiring
and using information technology resources effectively and efficiently.
Its members include about 500 companies. IAC is part of the American
Council for Technology.
[5] DHS has decentralized ITEP implementation to its components because
of appropriations issues.
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:
