This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-495T 
entitled 'Electronic Government: Success of the Office of Management 
and Budget's 25 Initiatives Depends on Effective Management and 
Oversight' which was released on March 13, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.



Testimony:



Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:



Thursday, March 13, 2003:



Electronic Government:



Success of the Office of Management and Budget’s 25 Initiatives Depends 

on Effective Management and Oversight:



Statement of Joel C. Willemssen, 

Managing Director, Information Technology Issues:



GAO-03-495T:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-495T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the 

Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives



Why GAO Did This Study:



A key element of the President’s Management Agenda is the expansion of 

electronic government (e-government) to enhance access to information 

and services, particularly through the Internet. In response, the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established a task force that 

selected a strategic set of initiatives to lead this expansion. GAO 

previously reviewed the completeness of the information used for 

choosing and overseeing these initiatives, including business cases 

and funding plans.



What GAO Found:





E-government offers many opportunities to better serve the public, 

make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. To 

achieve these goals, the 25 e-government initiatives selected by OMB’s 

Quicksilver task force focus on a wide variety of services, aiming to 

simplify and unify agency work processes and information flows, 

provide one-stop services to citizens, and enable information to be 

collected on line once and reused, rather than being collected many 

times. For example, Recreation One-Stop is a Web portal for a single 

point of access to information about parks and other federal, state, 

and local recreation areas. Other initiatives are being pursued that 

do not necessarily rely on the Internet, such as the e-Payroll 

initiative to consolidate federal payroll systems. 



GAO’s review of the initial planning documents for the initiatives 

highlights the critical importance of management and oversight to 

their success. Important aspects—such as collaboration and customer 

focus—had not been addressed in early program plans for many of the 

projects, and major uncertainties in funding and milestones were not 

uncommon. As shown by GAO’s comparison of the content of the 

initiatives’ business cases with best practices, all the business 

cases included key information, but many elements were missing 

(see figure). In particular, fewer than half addressed collaboration 

and customer focus, despite the importance of these topics to 

e-government strategy and goals. Similarly, the accuracy of 

estimated costs in the funding plans was questionable: between May 

and September 2002, these estimates for 12 of the initiatives 

changed significantly—by more than 30 percent. Accurate cost, 

schedule, and performance information is essential to ensure that 

projects are on schedule and achieve their goals.



What GAO Recommends:



GAO is not making new recommendations in this testimony, but a 

recent report, on which this testimony is based, recommended that 

the OMB Director ensure that the managers of the e-government 

initiatives solicit input from the public and conduct user needs 

assessments, work with partner agencies to develop and document 

effective collaboration strategies, and provide OMB with adequate 

cost, schedule, and performance information. 



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-495T



To view the full testimony, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Joel Willemssen at (202) 512-6222 or 

willemssenj@gao.gov.



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:



I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee’s 

hearing on e-government progress. Now that the Internet has become such 

a ubiquitous element of our lives, it is more important than ever that 

we take full advantage of information technology (IT) to vastly improve 

the way our government serves its citizens--and to do so much more 

efficiently and economically.



Generally speaking, electronic government refers to the use of IT, 

particularly Web-based Internet applications, to enhance the access to 

and delivery of government information and service to citizens, to 

business partners, to employees, and among agencies at all levels of 

government. A variety of actions have been taken in recent years to 

enhance the government’s ability to realize the potential of e-

government, culminating in the recent enactment of the E-Government Act 

of 2002,[Footnote 1] which includes provisions addressing everything 

from funding of e-government initiatives to measures for ensuring 

security and privacy.



The President has embraced e-government as one of five priorities 

delineated in his management agenda for making the federal government 

more focused on citizens and results. Under the leadership of the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a team known as the Quicksilver 

task force identified a set of high-profile initiatives to lead the 

federal government’s drive toward e-government transformation. These 

initiatives--now numbering 25[Footnote 2]--have ambitious goals, 

including eliminating redundant, nonintegrated business operations and 

systems; achieving this result, according to OMB, could produce several 

billions of dollars in savings from improved operational efficiency. To 

obtain such savings--and significantly improve service to citizens--it 

will be critically important that these initiatives are well managed as 

the government undertakes the challenging task of turning good ideas 

into real-world results.



As requested, in my remarks today, I will summarize the results of a 

review we recently conducted to assess OMB’s process for selecting the 

e-government initiatives and monitoring their initial 

progress.[Footnote 3] I will focus on some of the key aspects of 

initiatives that must be closely monitored to ensure that they meet 

their goals. Specifically, after reviewing the overall scope and 

objectives of the initiatives, I will discuss issues concerning the 

completeness of the planning documents prepared for them, including 

initial business cases as well as work and funding plans developed last 

spring. To provide additional information, I have included an 

attachment that details the partner agencies and proposed performance 

metrics for each project. I have also included, as a second attachment, 

a list of other pertinent GAO publications on e-government 

issues.[Footnote 4]



Background:



Government agencies at all levels have already implemented a broad 

array of e-government applications: through the Internet, government 

agencies collect and disseminate information and forms; government and 

businesses order and pay for goods and services; and businesses and the 

public apply for licenses, grants, and benefits, and submit bids and 

proposals. Despite this substantial progress, the federal government 

has not yet taken full advantage of the potential that electronic 

government offers. As we have previously testified,[Footnote 5] the 

government faces significant challenges in this area, including 

sustaining executive leadership, protecting personal privacy, 

implementing appropriate security controls, using enterprise 

architectures[Footnote 6] effectively, and managing IT human capital.



Recognizing the magnitude of challenges facing the federal government, 

the Congress has enacted important legislation to guide the development 

of e-government. In 1998, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

(GPEA) was enacted,[Footnote 7] establishing a requirement that by 

October 21, 2003, federal agencies provide the public, when 

practicable, the option of submitting, maintaining, and disclosing 

required information electronically. More recently, the Congress passed 

the E-Government Act of 2002, which includes provisions to promote the 

use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide 

government services electronically; strengthen agency information 

security; and define how to manage the federal government’s growing IT 

human capital needs. In addition, this act established an Office of 

Electronic Government within OMB to provide strong central leadership 

and full-time commitment to promoting and implementing e-government.



The executive branch has also acted to enhance and accelerate the 

development of electronic government. The President made e-government 

expansion one of five top priorities in his fiscal year 2002 management 

agenda, which outlines a number of specific electronic government 

projects. For example, the FirstGov Web portal--which is intended to 

serve as a single consolidated source for government services to 

citizens--was targeted for expansion and improvement to offer services 

better organized according to citizens’ needs. Also targeted for 

enhancement was the FedBizOpps portal, designed to be a single point of 

entry for information about federal government procurement 

opportunities. Further, the agenda endorsed the establishment of a 

federal public key infrastructure to ensure that electronic 

transactions with and within the federal government would be private 

and secure.[Footnote 8]



A major element of the President’s management agenda was establishment 

of the Quicksilver Task Force, which was charged with identifying 

(1) systematic barriers that had blocked the deployment of e-government 

advances and (2) electronic government projects that could deliver 

significant productivity and performance gains across government.



Together, the federal government’s e-government initiatives are 

expected to:



* provide high-quality customer services regardless of whether the 

citizen contacts the agency by phone, in person, or on the Web;



* reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with the 

government;



* cut government operating costs;



* provide citizens with readier access to government services;



* increase access for persons with disabilities to agency Web sites and 

E-government applications; and



* make government more transparent and accountable.



The 25 E-Government Initiatives Address a Broad Range of Electronic 

Services:



In its e-government strategy, released in 2002, OMB stated that the 25 

e-government initiatives were selected on the basis of (1) value to 

citizens, (2) potential improvement in agency efficiency, and 

(3) likelihood of deploying within 18 to 24 months. The selected 

initiatives would achieve their results by simplifying and unifying 

agency work processes and information flows, providing one-stop 

services to citizens, and enabling information to be collected on line 

once and reused, rather than being collected many times.



The initiatives are aimed at providing a wide variety of services. For 

example, some are focused on setting up Web sites or portals that 

channel information more effectively to citizens, businesses, or other 

government entities. Recreation One-Stop is one such example, a Web 

portal for a single point of access to information about parks and 

other recreation venues at the federal, state, and local levels. One-

Stop Business Compliance provides an analogous service to businesses, 

giving them a single Web site to consult regarding the multitude of 

government regulations that may affect their activities. Other 

initiatives strive for more ambitious services that may not necessarily 

rely on the Internet for delivery. SAFECOM, for example, seeks to 

impose order and standards on wireless communications among emergency 

responders across all levels of government. The e-Payroll initiative is 

intended to consolidate the federal government’s many incompatible 

payroll systems into just two that would service all government 

employees.



As shown in figure 1, OMB has divided these efforts into five broad 

categories that reflect the different customer groups targeted by each 

of the initiatives:



1.	 government to individual citizens,



2.	 government to business,



3.	 government to government,



4.	 internal efficiency and effectiveness, and:



5.	 cross cutting.



Figure 1: E-government Initiatives by Category:



[See PDF for image]



Note: GAO analysis of information provided by OMB.



[End of figure]



* Government to individual citizens. One of the major benefits of on-

line and Internet-based services is that they provide opportunities for 

greater citizen access to and interaction with the federal government. 

An example is GovBenefits.gov, a Web site designed to assist users in 

locating and determining potential eligibility for government benefits 

and services. Other initiatives in this category aim to improve 

customer service. USA Services, for example, is intended to deploy 

tools, such as call centers and coordinated E-mail systems linked to 

the FirstGov Web site, that will enable citizens to ask questions and 

receive responses from the federal government without having to know in 

advance which specific departments or bureaus have responsibilities 

related to their areas of interest.



* Government to business. Initiatives in this category seek to reduce 

the reporting burden on businesses by adopting processes that eliminate 

redundant data collection, provide one-stop access to information, and 

enable communication using electronic business standards, such as the 

Extensible Markup Language.[Footnote 9] The Expanding Electronic Tax 

Products for Businesses initiative, for example, seeks to reduce the 

number of tax-related forms businesses must file. The Federal Asset 

Sales initiative aims to create a single electronic interface for 

businesses to find and buy government assets.



* Government to government. The primary goal of these initiatives is to 

enable federal, state, and local governments to more easily work 

together to better serve citizens within key lines of business. For 

example, Geospatial One-Stop seeks to provide a single portal for 

accessing standardized and coordinated federal, state, and local 

geospatial data. The Disaster Management initiative seeks to provide 

federal, state, and local emergency managers on-line access to disaster 

management information, planning, and response tools.



* Internal efficiency and effectiveness. The initiatives in this 

category seek to improve the performance and reduce the costs of 

federal government administration by using e-business best practices. 

For example, the Integrated Acquisition Environment initiative seeks to 

consolidate business processes and information to facilitate cost-

effective acquisition of goods and services across the federal 

government. Lastly, e-Travel is planned to streamline the 

administration of government travel by creating a governmentwide Web-

based travel management process.



* Cross-cutting initiative. The e-Authentication initiative is to 

develop common interoperable authentication techniques to support all 

the other initiatives. Authentication refers to the critical process of 

confirming the identity of the participants in an electronic 

transaction. Without a means to satisfactorily establish identities, e-

government transactions are too risky, and the potential of e-

government to transform citizen services remains severely constrained. 

The initiative plans to provide authentication services through an 

electronic “gateway,” which will offer different assurance levels to 

meet the varying needs of the other projects.



Management Issues Highlight the Need for Oversight:



While several of the projects have already achieved tangible results, 

not all of them are making the same degree of progress. For example, 

some have had major management changes--management of the SAFECOM 

initiative, for example, was transferred from Treasury to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. Major management changes such as this have 

led to delays in project milestones and changes in objectives.



We believe that fluctuations such as these indicate a need for 

oversight to ensure that the larger goal--to realize the full potential 

of e-government--is not jeopardized. When we reviewed project-planning 

documentation collected by OMB from each of the initiatives, we found 

indications that important aspects of some of the initiatives had not 

been addressed and that, for many of them, funding strategies and 

milestones were in a state of flux. These findings add urgency to our 

concern that the initiatives be carefully monitored to ensure that 

implementation challenges are identified and addressed as quickly as 

possible. I would like to go through some of the specific results of 

our analysis now.



Many Initial Business Cases Omitted Critical Elements:



As part of OMB’s selection process, the Quicksilver task force screened 

over 350 project ideas during the summer of 2001 and selected 34 

potential project proposals for more in-depth consideration. In 

September 2001, task force members developed brief (or “mini”) business 

cases for each of the 34 proposals. According to OMB officials, these 

mini business cases were to include all the information necessary to 

enable sound selection decisions. The task force reviewed the mini 

business cases and the final selections were made in October.



We analyzed the mini business cases, which were prepared for 23 of the 

25 initiatives,[Footnote 10] to determine whether they were complete. 

To conduct our analysis, we first identified e-government business case 

“best practices” as cited by federal agencies, private sector and 

academic researchers, and state and local governments. From these 

sources, we compiled the most frequently cited elements of a complete 

business case, such as a description of the proposed concept for 

improved future processes and a discussion of the benefits of 

implementing it. We also included elements identified by OMB as 

important to e-government business cases--whether an initiative is 

driven by identified customer needs and whether it contains a strategy 

for successful collaboration.



As shown in figure 2, our analysis of the mini business cases showed 

that although they addressed some of the required elements, the 

majority of them did not include some key elements identified by OMB 

and best practice guidance.



Figure 2: Completeness of 23 Initial Business Cases:



[See PDF for image]



Note: GAO analysis of information provided by OMB. At the time of the 

review, Integrated HR and e-Clearance were considered a single 

initiative, and a business case was not prepared for e-Payroll.



[End of figure]



All the business cases we reviewed included a discussion of the 

expected benefits of the proposed initiative, and all but one included 

a discussion of the initiatives’ objectives and planned future 

conditions. However, only 9 of the 23 initiatives’ business cases 

discussed how customer needs were to be identified and addressed, and 

only 8 addressed collaboration among agencies and other government 

entities, even though OMB considered these elements fundamental to its 

e-government strategy.



Mr. Chairman, addressing how a proposed project links to the needs of 

its potential customers is key to the success of that project, and 

should be discussed in the project’s business case. Without a plan to 

assess users’ needs, there is a greater risk that the project will 

focus too heavily on issues that customers do not consider important or 

disrupt processes that are already working well and accepted by users. 

In the case of the e-government initiatives, the result could be that 

the Internet sites and services created might not be useful to those 

customers they are intended to serve.



Collaboration across agencies and other organizations is likewise a key 

component of most of the initiatives, and therefore a discussion of 

strategies for collaboration is essential to a complete e-government 

business case. As the government attempts to integrate services across 

organizations--particularly in cases where federal agencies overlap in 

providing similar services to customers--the issue of how agencies 

collaborate can determine an initiative’s success or failure. To help 

mitigate the risk of failure, the business case needs to provide a 

convincing argument that collaboration can be accomplished and a plan 

for how collaboration will be carried out.



Let me point out that the initial “mini” business cases that we 

reviewed are not the latest ones in existence for the 25 initiatives. 

More extensive business cases were developed for each of the projects 

in fall 2002, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2004 budget process. 

We have not yet had an opportunity to review these documents.



Spring 2002 Project Plans Revealed Cost and Schedule Uncertainties:



OMB required the managing partners of the e-government initiatives to 

prepare and submit work plans and funding plans in May 2002. We 

assessed the completeness of these plans, which provided the most up-

to-date cost and schedule information available at the time of our 

review.[Footnote 11] To conduct our analysis, we identified best 

practices from GAO and OMB guidance[Footnote 12] for the effective 

oversight and implementation of IT projects and compared those best 

practice elements to the information contained in the May 2002 plans. 

In addition, several months later, we obtained updated status 

information from 23 of the initiatives’ project managers.



According to the guidance we reviewed, project implementation documents 

should include components such as cost estimates, a schedule with 

milestones, identification of project deliverables, and an overall 

strategy for obtaining needed funding and staff resources.



As shown in figure 3, four of the five best practice elements we 

identified were included in a majority of the project plans. Plans for 

all but two of the initiatives contained a schedule with milestones, 

and all the plans identified project deliverables. However, other best 

practice elements were not included in some of the plans. For example, 

only 9 identified a strategy for obtaining needed funds, and only 16 

contained information about how staffing commitments would be obtained.



Figure 3: Completeness of Work and Funding Plans:



[See PDF for image]



Note: GAO analysis of information provided by OMB.



[End of figure]



In addition to the findings shown in figure 3, our analysis of the 

plans showed uncertainties about milestones for many of the 

initiatives. Ten of the 24 did not identify a final completion date for 

the initiatives, resulting in inadequate information to determine 

whether they were moving forward in a timely manner. Further, 6 of the 

initiatives were not planned to be completed within the 18 to 24 month 

time frame originally established by OMB as a criterion for inclusion 

in its e-government effort.



Accurate cost information was also generally lacking. The updated 

information we obtained from project managers in September 2002 on 

estimated costs revealed significant changes--changes of more than 30 

percent--for about half of the initiatives. These changes, occurring 

within such a short period of time, rendered the funding plans outdated 

soon after they were developed. This uncertainty about how much the 

initiatives would cost, combined with the fact that only 9 of the 24 

plans identified a strategy for obtaining these needed funds, led us to 

conclude that OMB was not receiving adequate information to properly 

oversee the e-government projects and ensure that they would have the 

resources to meet their objectives efficiently and economically.



Given the challenges we’ve identified, OMB’s oversight role takes on 

critical importance. Each of the e-government initiatives needs a well-

thought-out strategy for directly addressing its biggest challenges, 

such as getting relevant government agencies to effectively 

collaborate. And each also needs detailed and stable project plans, so 

that they can be held accountable for achieving realistic results 

within budget and according to schedule. Accordingly, in our report, we 

recommended that OMB take steps as overseer of the e-government 

initiatives to reduce the risk that the projects would not meet their 

objectives. Specifically, we recommended that OMB ensure that the 

managing partners for all the initiatives:



* focus on customers by soliciting input from the public and conducting 

user needs assessments,



* work with partner agencies to develop and document effective 

collaboration strategies, and



* provide OMB with adequate information to monitor the cost, schedule, 

and performance of the e-government initiatives.



In following up on our recommendations, we requested from OMB updated 

business cases that were submitted as part of the fiscal year 2004 

budget process. These updated business cases should provide not only 

indications of whether key topics such as collaboration and customer 

focus are now being addressed, but also updated cost and schedule 

information. As noted in our report, OMB agreed to provide us this 

information once it was updated after release of the 2004 

budget.[Footnote 13] However, we have not yet received this 

information. OMB officials (from the Office of General Counsel and the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) stated earlier this week 

that the business cases still needed to be reviewed before they could 

be released to us.



In summary, e-government offers many opportunities to better serve the 

public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. 

Legislation such as GPEA and the E-Government Act of 2002 have laid a 

strong foundation for building on these opportunities, and the federal 

government continues to make strides in taking advantage of them. 

Overall, few can argue that the 25 e-government projects are not worthy 

initiatives with commendable objectives. Nevertheless, many critical 

details remain to be fully addressed before the promise of e-government 

is fully realized.



Because the 25 projects represent such a broad range of activities, it 

is difficult to gauge their progress collectively. Some of their 

objectives may be much easier to attain than others. However, our 

review of the initial planning documents associated with the projects 

led us to conclude that important aspects--such as collaboration and 

customer focus--had not been thought out for all the projects, and 

major uncertainties in funding and milestones were not uncommon. 

Priority should now be given to ensuring that the agencies managing 

these initiatives tackle these issues and gain cost and schedule 

stability so that they can ultimately succeed in achieving their 

potential. We believe that careful oversight--on the part of OMB as 

well as the Congress--is crucial to ensuring this success.



Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at 

this time.



Contact and Acknowledgements:



If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact 

me at (202) 512-6222 or via E-mail at willemssenj@gao.gov. Other major 

contributors to this testimony included Shannin Addison, Barbara 

Collier, Felipe Colón, Jr., John de Ferrari, Neha Harnal, and Elizabeth 

Roach.



[End of section]



Attachment I. E-Government Initiatives:



Type: G2C; Initiative name: Recreation One-Stop www.recreation.gov 

www.volunteer.gov/ gov; Description: Provides citizens with a single 

point 

of access to a Web-based resource, offering information and access to 

government recreational sites in a user-friendly format.; Managing 

partner: Interior; Federal partners: Bureau of Land Management, Bureau 

of Reclamation, Federal Highway Administration, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, Smithsonian 

Institution, Tennessee Valley Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Geological Survey; OMB-

reported performance metrics: * Number of partners sharing data via 

Recreation.gov (target: 35 partners added); * Number of facilities 

listed in Recreation.gov (target: 25% increase); * Number of on-line 

reservations; * Customer satisfaction.



Type: G2C; Initiative name: GovBenefits.gov www.govbenefits.gov; 

Description: Provides a single point of access for citizens to locate 

and determine potential eligibility for government benefits and 

services.; Managing partner: Labor; Federal partners: Departments of 

Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and 

Urban Development, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs; Christopher 

Columbus Fellowship Foundation; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Railroad Retirement Board, Social Security Administration; OMB-

reported performance metrics: * Hits to site per month (target: 

350,000); * Number of referrals to partner benefit sites (target: 10% 

increase); * Average time to find benefits and determine eligibility 

(target: 20 minutes or less).



Type: G2C; Initiative name: Online Access for Loans; Description: 

Creates a single point of access for citizens to locate loans.; 

Managing partner: Education; Federal partners: Departments of 

Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs; Small 

Business Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of 

clicks to access relevant loan information; * Improved agency access to 

risk-mitigation data; * Customer satisfaction.



Type: G2C; Initiative name: USA Services; Description: Develops and 

deploys governmentwide citizen customer service using industry best 

practices that provides citizens with timely, consistent responses 

about government information and services.; Managing partner: General 

Services Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, 

Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 

Labor, and Veterans Affairs; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Small 

Business Administration, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported 

performance metrics: * Average time to respond to inquiries through 

Firstgov.gov and Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC) (target: 

100% of inquiries responded to within 24 hours); * Average time to 

resolve inquiries through Firstgov.gov and FCIC; * Number of 

government-wide inquiries that call center and E-mail systems can 

handle (target: 3.3M calls per year and 150,000 emails peryear); * 

Customer satisfaction.



Type: G2C; Initiative name: IRS Free Filing www.irs.gov; Description: 

Creates a single point of access to free on-line preparation and 

electronic tax filing services.; Managing partner: Internal Revenue 

Service; Federal partners: None; OMB-reported performance metrics: * 

Percentage of coverage of tax filing public (target: minimum of 60%); * 

Number of citizens filing electronically (target: 15% increase).



Type: G2B; Initiative name: e-Rulemaking www.regulations.gov; 

Description: Allows citizens to access and participate in the 

rulemaking process through a cross-agency front-end Web application.; 

Managing partner: Environmental Protection Agency; Federal partners: 

Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Agriculture, and 

Transportation; Federal Communications Commission, General Services 

Administration, National Archives and Records Administration; OMB-

reported performance metrics: * Number of electronic comments submitted 

through regulations.gov; * Number of on-line docket systems 

decommissioned with the associated cost savings and cost avoidance; * 

Number of downloads of rules and regulations; * Number of public 

participants in rulemaking process.



Type: G2B; Initiative name: Expanding Electronic Tax Products for 

Businesses; Description: Reduces the number of tax-related forms that 

businesses must file, provides timely and accurate tax information to 

businesses, increases the availability of electronic tax filing, and 

models simplified federal and state tax employment laws.; Managing 

partner: Internal Revenue Service; Federal partners: None; OMB-reported 

performance metrics: * Burden reduction for corporations per return, 

application filed, or both; * Administrative cost to federal government 

per return filed; * Cycle time to grant Employer Identification Number 

(EIN)--interim EIN granted immediately; * Number of electronic tax-

related transactions (all forms).



Type: G2B; Initiative name: Federal Asset Sales www.firstgov.gov; 

Description: Creates a single, one-stop access point for businesses to 

find and buy government assets.; Managing partner: General Services 

Administration; Federal partners: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, Department of Agriculture; OMB-reported performance 

metrics: * Cycle time reduction for asset disposition; * Dollar cost 

avoidance for personal property; * Return on assets (ROA).



Type: G2B; Initiative name: International Trade Process Streamlining 

www.export.gov; Description: Makes it easy for small and medium 

enterprises (SME) to obtain the information and documents needed to 

conduct business abroad.; Managing partner: Commerce; Federal partners: 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce; Small Business Administration, 

Export-Import Bank, Trade Development Agency, Agency for International 

Development; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Time to fill out 

export forms and locate information (target: 10% annual reduction); * 

Number of unique visitors to Export.gov (target: 15% increase); * 

Number of trade leads accessed by SMEs through Export.gov (target: 10% 

increase); * Number of registered businesses on Export.gov.



Type: G2B; Initiative name: One-Stop Business Compliance 

www.businesslaw.gov; Description: Reduces the burden on businesses by 

making it easy to find, understand, and comply with relevant laws and 

regulations at all levels of government.; Managing partner: Small 

Business Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Energy, the 

Interior, Labor, and Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency, 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, General Services 

Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Internal 

Revenue Service; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Time savings for 

business compliance and filing (target: 50% reduction); * Regulatory 

agency savings through transition to compliance from enforcement 

through automated processes (target: 25% increase); * Number of days 

reduced for issuing permits and licenses; * Cycle time to issue permits 

and licenses (target: within 24 hours); * Number of visitors per page 

views (target: 10-20% increase); * Reduction in redundant information 

technology investments.



Type: G2G; Initiative name: Consolidated Health Informatics; 

Description: Adopts a portfolio of existing health information 

interoperability standards enabling all agencies in the federal health 

enterprise to communicate based on common enterprisewide business and 

information technology architectures.; Managing partner: Health and 

Human Services; Federal partners: Departments of Defense, Health and 

Human Services, and Veterans Affairs; General Services Administration, 

Social Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * 

Number of federal agencies and systems using the standards to store 

and/or share health information; * Number of contracts requiring the 

standards; * Impact on patient service, public health, and research; * 

Increase in common data available to be shared by users.



Type: G2G; Initiative name: Geospatial Information One-Stop; 

Description: Provides federal and state agencies with a single point of 

access to map-related data, enabling consolidation of redundant data.; 

Managing partner: Interior; Federal partners: Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Transportation; Environmental 

Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration; OMB-reported performance 

metrics: * Number of data sets posted to portal; * Number of users; * 

Number of cost-sharing partnerships for data-collection activities; * 

Number of data-set hits.



Type: G2G; Initiative name: e-Grants www.fedgrants.gov; Description: 

Creates a single, on-line portal for all federal grant customers to 

access and apply for grants.; Managing partner: Health and Human 

Services; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Defense, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and 

Transportation; Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Science 

Foundation; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of grant-making 

agencies publishing grant opportunities in portal; * Number of grant 

programs available for electronic application; * Percentage of reusable 

information per grant application; * Number of applications received 

electronically.



Type: G2G; Initiative name: Disaster Management www.disasterhelp.gov; 

Description: Provides federal, state, and local emergency managers on-

line access to disaster management-related information and planning and 

response tools.; Managing partner: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 

Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Housing 

and Urban Development, Justice, Commerce, Education, Health and Human 

Services, the Interior, Labor, State, the Treasury, Transportation, and 

Veterans Affairs; Appalachian Regional Commission, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, General Services 

Administration, Interstate Commerce Commission, Office of Personnel 

Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Postal Service, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Small Business Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Geological Survey; OMB-reported performance metrics: * 

Response recovery time (target: reduce by 15%); * Situational awareness 

planning capability (target: improve by 25%); * Number of first 

responders using disaster management information system tools (target: 

increase by 10%).



Type: G2G; Initiative name: SAFECOM; Description: Provides 

interoperable wireless solutions for federal, state, and local public 

safety organizations and ensures they can communicate and share 

information as they respond to emergency incidents.; Managing partner: 

Federal Emergency Management Agency; Federal partners: Departments of 

Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and Justice; Coast Guard, National 

Guard, National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 

OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of agencies that can 

communicate with one another; * Response times for jurisdictions and 

disciplines to respond to an event; * Number of wireless grant programs 

that include SAFECOM-approved equipment; * Voice, data, and video 

convergence.



Type: G2G; Initiative name: e-Vital; Description: Establishes common 

electronic processes for federal and state agencies to collect, 

process, analyze, verify and share birth and death record information. 

Also promotes automating how deaths are registered with the states.; 

Managing partner: Social Security Administration; Federal partners: 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, State, 

and Veterans Affairs; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of 

Personnel Management; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Time for 

state to report death to Social Security Administration (target: 15 

days); * Number of verified death records; * Time to verify birth and 

death entitlement factors (target: 24 hours); * Number of false 

identity cases.



Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Training www.golearn.gov; Description: 

Provides a single point of on-line training and strategic human capital 

development solutions for all federal employees.; Managing partner: 

Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: Departments of 

Defense, Labor, Transportation, and the Treasury; General Services 

Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost avoidance: 

total tuition/travel cost reductions for participating agencies 

(target: minimum of $50M in reductions); * Percentage of executive 

branch agencies receiving their e-training via golearn.gov; * E-

Training is supplier of choice to fulfill human capital training at all 

cabinet-level agencies.



Type: IEE; Initiative name: Recruitment One-Stop; www.usajobs.opm.gov; 

Description: Outsources delivery of USAJOBS Federal Employment 

Information System to deliver state-of-the-art on-line recruitment 

services to job seekers that include intuitive job searching, on-line 

resume submission, applicant data mining, and on-line feed-back on 

status and eligibility.; Managing partner: Office of Personnel 

Management; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Defense, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, 

Transportation, and the Treasury; Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Social Security 

Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost per hire; * 

Time to fill vacancies; * Percentage of federal job applicants using 

Recruitment One-Stop (target: 80%); * Availability of applicant status 

(target: real time).



Type: IEE; Initiative name: Enterprise HR Integration; Description: 

Streamlines and automates the exchange of federal employee human 

resources information. Replaces official paper employee records.; 

Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Housing and 

Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, 

and the Treasury; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, 

National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Small Business Administration, Social Security 

Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost/cycle time 

savings per transaction due to reduction in manual paper processing; * 

Time for interagency transfers; * Usage of analytics by all cabinet-

level agencies in the human capital planning process.



Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Clearance; Description: Streamlines and 

improves the quality of the current security clearance process.; 

Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: 

Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, State, and the 

Treasury; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; OMB-reported performance 

metrics: * Cost per application; * Reciprocation between agencies; * 

Average time to process clearance forms; * Average time to complete 

clearance forms; * Time to locate and evaluate previous investigations 

and clearances.



Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Payroll; Description: Consolidates 22 

federal payroll systems to simplify and standardize federal human 

resources/payroll policies and procedures to better integrate payroll, 

human resources, and finance functions.; Managing partner: Office of 

Personnel Management; Federal partners: All executive branch agencies; 

OMB-reported performance metrics: * Payroll cost per transaction per 

employee (target: in line with industry averages); * Accuracy of 

Treasury disbursements, post payroll interfaces, and periodic 

reporting.



Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Travel; Description: Provides a common 

governmentwide end-to-end travel service that rationalizes, automates, 

and consolidates the travel process in a self-service Web-centric 

environment, covering all aspects of travel planning, from 

authorization and reservations to expense reporting and reimbursement.; 

Managing partner: General Services Administration; Federal partners: 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, Small Business Administration, Social 

Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * 

Administrative cost per trip (target: in line with industry averages); 

* Number of trips serviced through E-Travel; * Number of agencies and 

users using E-Travel services; * Percentage of use of E-Travel services 

within each agency; * Percentage improvement of time for traveler to 

get reimbursed.



Type: IEE; Initiative name: Integrated Acquisition Environment; 

Description: Creates a secure business environment that will facilitate 

and support cost-effective acquisition of goods and services by 

agencies, while eliminating inefficiencies in the current acquisition 

environment.; Managing partner: General Services Administration; 

Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the 

Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, Small Business Administration; OMB-reported 

performance metrics: * Percentage reduction in time for delivery of 

products and services; * Cost per spend; * Percentage of 

intragovernmental transactions going through the Integrated 

Acquisition Environment; * Percentage reduction in procurement 

transactions errors; * Percentage of vendors registered in central 

database.



Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Records Management; Description: Provides 

policy guidance to help agencies to better manage their electronic 

records, so that records information can be effectively used to support 

timely and informed decision making, enhance service delivery, and 

ensure accountability.; Managing partner: National Archives and Records 

Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, 

Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Navy, State, 

Transportation, and the Treasury; Environmental Protection Agency, 

Executive Office of the President, Federal Communications Commission, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, General Accounting Office, General 

Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

National Science Foundation, Patent and Trademark Office, Geological 

Survey; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Percentage of eligible data 

items archived/preserved electronically; * Consolidation of 

information technology investments for correspondence systems; * 

Document search/retrieval burden; * Document recovery burden.



Type: Cross-cutting; Initiative name: e-Authentication; Description: 

Minimizes the burden on businesses, public and government when 

obtaining services on line by providing a secure infrastructure for on-

line transactions, eliminating the need for separate processes for the 

verification of identity and electronic signatures.; Managing partner: 

General Services Administration; Federal partners: Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and 

the Treasury, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National 

Institutes of Health, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported 

performance metrics: * Cost savings from information technology 

expenditures on a coordinated and streamlined approach to E-

Authentication; * Percentage of GPEA burden using transactions that 

authenticate using the E-Authentication gateway; * Number of 

credentials by customer segment needed to interact with the federal 

government; * Percentage of citizens trusting transactions with the 

government (from existing surveys); * Time to access e-government 

applications.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Attachment II. Selected GAO Products Related to Electronic Commerce and 

Electronic Government:



Electronic Commerce:



Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues. GAO-03-89. Washington, 

D.C.: December 2, 2002.



International Electronic Commerce: Definitions and Policy 

Implications. GAO-02-404. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2002.



Electronic Commerce: Small Business Participation in Selected On-line 

Procurement Programs. GAO-02-1. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2001.



On-Line Trading: Investor Protections Have Improved but Continued 

Attention Is Needed. GAO-01-858. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2001.



Internet Pharmacies: Adding Disclosure Requirements Would Aid State and 

Federal Oversight. GAO-01-69. Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2000.



Sales Taxes: Electronic Commerce Growth Presents Challenges; Revenue 

Losses Are Uncertain. GGD/OCE-00-165. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000.



Commodity Exchange Act: Issues Related to the Regulation of Electronic 

Trading Systems. GGD-00-99. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2000.



Trade with the European Union: Recent Trends and Electronic Commerce 

Issues. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-46. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999.



Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking 

Activities. GAO/T-GGD-99-152. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 1999.



Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking 

Activities. GAO/GGD-99-91. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 1999.



Securities Fraud: The Internet Poses Challenges to Regulators and 

Investors. GAO/T-GGD-99-34. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 1999.



Retail Payments Issues: Experience with Electronic Check Presentment. 

GAO/GGD-98-145. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 1998.



Identity Fraud: Information on Prevalence, Cost, and Internet Impact is 

Limited. GAO/GGD-98-100BR. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1998.



Electronic Banking: Experiences Reported by Banks in Implementing On-

line Banking. GAO/GGD-98-34. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 1998.



Electronic Government--Agency-Specific Initiatives:



IRS’s 2002 Tax Filing Season: Returns and Refunds Processed Smoothly; 

Quality of Assistance Improved. GAO-03-314. Washington, D.C.: December 

20, 2002.



Tax Administration: Electronic Filing’s Past and Future Impact on 

Processing Costs Dependent on Several Factors. GAO-02-205. Washington, 

D.C.: January 10, 2002.



GSA On-Line Procurement Programs Lack Documentation and Reliability 

Testing. GAO-02-229R. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001.



U.S. Postal Service: Update on E-Commerce Activities and Privacy 

Protections. GAO-02-79. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001.



Computer-Based Patient Records: Better Planning and Oversight By VA, 

DOD, and IHS Would Enhance Health Data Sharing. GAO-01-459. Washington, 

D.C.: April 30, 2001.



USDA Electronic Filing: Progress Made, But Central Leadership and 

Comprehensive Implementation Plan Needed. GAO-01-324. Washington, 

D.C.: February 28, 2001.



Information Security: IRS Electronic Filing Systems. GAO-01-306. 

Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001.



U.S. Postal Service: Postal Activities and Laws Related to Electronic 

Commerce. GAO/GGD-00-188. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000.



U.S. Postal Service: Electronic Commerce Activities and Legal Matters. 

GAO/T-GGD-00-195. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000.



Defense Management: Electronic Commerce Implementation Strategy Can Be 

Improved. GAO/NSIAD-00-108. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2000.



Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in 

Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO/RCED-00-61. 

Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000.



National Archives: The Challenge of Electronic Records Management. GAO/

T-GGD-00-24. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 1999.



National Archives: Preserving Electronic Records in an Era of Rapidly 

Changing Technology. GAO/GGD-99-94. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 1999.



Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure: Status of Labor’s Efforts to 

Develop Electronic Reporting and a Publicly Accessible Database. GAO/

HEHS-99-63R. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 1999.



Acquisition Reform: NASA’s Internet Service Improves Access to 

Contracting Information. GAO/NSIAD-99-37. Washington, D.C.: February 

9, 1999.



Tax Administration: Increasing EFT Usage for Installment Agreements 

Could Benefit IRS. GAO/GGD-98-112. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 1998.



Electronic Government--General:



Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives. GAO-03-229. Washington, D.C.: 

November 22, 2002.



Electronic Government: Proposal Addresses Critical Challenges. GAO-02-

1083T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002.



Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 Electronic 

Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-02-493. Washington, D.C.: 

August 30, 2002.



Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed 

Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress. GAO-02-389T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2002.



Electronic Government: Challenges to Effective Adoption of the 

Extensible Markup Language. GAO-02-327. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 

2002.



Information Resources Management: Comprehensive Strategic Plan Needed 

to Address Mounting Challenges. GAO-02-292. Washington, D.C.: February 

22, 2002.



Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation. 

GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.



Electronic Government: Better Information Needed on Agencies’ 

Implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01-

1100. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.



Electronic Government: Challenges Must Be Addressed With Effective 

Leadership and Management. GAO-01-959T. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 

2001.



Electronic Government: Selected Agency Plans for Implementing the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01-861T. Washington, D.C.: 

June 21, 2001.



Information Management: Electronic Dissemination of Government 

Publications. GAO-01-428. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001.



Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic 

Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-01-378. Washington, D.C.: 

March 16, 2001.



Regulatory Management: Communication About Technology-Based 

Innovations Can Be Improved. GAO-01-232. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 

2001.



Electronic Government: Opportunities and Challenges Facing the FirstGov 

Web Gateway. GAO-01-87T. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 2000.



Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act Presents 

Challenges for Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-282. Washington, D.C.: September 

15, 2000.



Internet: Federal Web-based Complaint Handling. GAO/AIMD-00-238R. 

Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000.



Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to 

Facilitate Public Participation. GAO/GGD-00-135R. Washington, D.C.: 

June 30, 2000.



Electronic Government: Federal Initiatives Are Evolving Rapidly But 

They Face Significant Challenges. GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-00-179. Washington, 

D.C.: May 22, 2000.



Information Technology: Comments on Proposed OMB Guidance for 

Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO/AIMD-99-

228R. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 1999.



Electronic Signatures:



Bank Regulators’ Evaluation of Electronic Signature Systems. GAO-01-

129R. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2000.



Electronic Signature: Sanction of the Department of State’s System. 

GAO/AIMD-00-227R. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2000.



Internet:



Internet Management: Limited Progress on Privatization Project Makes 

Outcome Uncertain. GAO-02-805T. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2002.



Telecommunications: Characteristics and Competitiveness of the 

Internet Backbone Market. GAO-02-16. Washington, D.C.: October 16, 

2001.



Telecommunications: Characteristics and Choices of Internet Users. GAO-

01-345. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001.



Telecommunications: Technological and Regulatory Factors Affecting 

Consumer Choice of Internet Providers. GAO-01-93. Washington, D.C.: 

October 12, 2000.



Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for 

Assigned Names and Numbers. GAO/OGC-00-33R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 

2000.



Privacy:



Internet Privacy: Implementation of Federal Guidance for Agency Use of 

“Cookies.” GAO-01-424. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2001.



Record Linkage and Privacy: Issues in Creating New Federal Research and 

Statistical Information. GAO-01-126SP. Washington, D.C.: April 2001.



Internet Privacy: Federal Agency Use of Cookies. GAO-01-147R. 

Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000.



Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s 

Fair Information Principles. GAO-01-113T, Washington, D.C.: October 11, 

2000.



Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s 

Fair Information Principles. GAO/AIMD-00-296R. Washington, D.C.: 

September 11, 2000.



Internet Privacy: Agencies’ Efforts to Implement OMB’s Privacy Policy. 

GAO/GGD-00-191. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2000.



Social Security Numbers: Subcommittee Questions Concerning the Use of 

the Number for Purposes Not Related to Social Security. GAO/HEHS/AIMD-

00-253R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000.



Security:



Electronic Government: Progress in Promoting Adoption of Smart Card 

Technology. GAO-03-144. Washington, D.C.: January 3, 2003.



Computer Security: Weaknesses Continue to Place Critical Federal 

Operations and Assets at Risk. GAO-01-600T. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 

2001.



Information Security: Advances and Remaining Challenges to Adoption of 

Public Key Infrastructure Technology. GAO-01-277. Washington, D.C.: 

February 26, 2001.



Information Security: Serious and Widespread Weaknesses Persist at 

Federal Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-295. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2000.



Critical Infrastructure Protection: “ILOVEYOU” Computer Virus 

Highlights Need for Improved Alert and Coordination Capabilities. GAO/

T-AIMD-00-181. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2000.



Information Security: Subcommittee Questions Concerning the Melissa 

Computer Virus. GAO/AIMD-99-220R. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1999.



Information Security: The Melissa Computer Virus Demonstrates Urgent 

Need for Stronger Protection Over Systems and Sensitive Data. GAO/T-

AIMD-99-146. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1999.



FOOTNOTES



[1] P. L. No. 107-347.



[2] Based on analysis by the Quicksilver task force, 23 initiatives 

were originally selected in September 2001. A 24th, e-Payroll, was then 

added by the President’s Management Council. In 2002, a decision was 

made to separate the e-Clearance initiative from the Integrated Human 

Resources initiative, resulting in the current count of 25 projects.



[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Selection 

and Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s 24 

Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).



[4] These publications can be obtained through GAO’s World Wide Web 

page at www.gao.gov.



[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Challenges 
Must 

Be Addressed With Effective Leadership and Management, GAO-01-959T 

(Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001); U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Electronic Government: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed 

Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress, GAO-02-389T 

(Washington D.C.: March 21, 2002).



[6] Enterprise architectures are high-level blueprints for transforming 

how a given entity operates, whether it be a federal agency or a 

federal function that cuts across agencies. For more information see 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise 

Architecture Use Across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, 

GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002).



[7] P.L. No. 105-277, Div. C, tit. XVII.



[8] A public key infrastructure is a system of computers, software, 

policies, and people that relies on certain cryptographic techniques to 

provide a suite of information security assurances that are important 

in protecting sensitive communications and transactions. For more 

information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: 

Advances and Remaining Challenges to Adoption of Public Key 

Infrastructure Technology, GAO-01-277 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 

2001).



[9] For additional information about Extensible Markup Language, see 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Challenges to 

Effective Adoption of the Extensible Markup Language, GAO-02-327 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2002).



[10] At the time we conducted our review, there were only 24 
Quicksilver 

initiatives, and an initial business case had not been prepared for the 

e-Payroll initiative.



[11] At the time of our review, there were only 24 e-government 

initiatives; we reviewed the work and funding plans for each of them.



[12] This guidance included Information Technology Investment 

Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity 

(exposure draft) (GAO/AIMD-00-10.1.23); Executive Guide: Leading 

Practices in Executive Decision-Making (GAO/AIMD-99-32); and OMB 

Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources.



[13] GAO-03-229, p. 33.