This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-511T 
entitled 'Information Technology: Continued Improvements in Investment 
Oversight and Management Can Yield Billions in Savings' which was 
released on April 12, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee 
on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT: 
Tuesday, April 12, 2011: 

Information Technology: 

Continued Improvements in Investment Oversight and Management Can Yield
Billions in Savings: 

Statement of David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 

GAO-11-511T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-511T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal 
Services, and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security 
and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The federal government anticipates spending $79 billion on information 
technology (IT) in fiscal year 2011. The Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and 
management of federal IT investments. Given the size of these 
investments and their importance to the health, economy, and security 
of the nation, it is critical for OMB and federal agencies to provide 
appropriate program oversight and ensure adequate transparency. Over 
the past several years, GAO has issued a number of reports and 
testimonies on OMB’s initiatives to improve troubled projects, justify 
IT investments, and use project management tools. Partly in response 
to this prior work, in 2009 OMB deployed a public Web site-—known as 
the IT Dashboard—-that provides detailed information on approximately 
800 major federal IT investments, including assessments of these 
investments’ performance against cost and schedule targets (referred 
to as ratings). 

GAO was asked to testify on OMB’s key efforts to improve the oversight 
and management of federal IT investments through the use of the 
Dashboard and other efforts. To prepare this statement, GAO drew on 
previously published work on IT investments, including OMB’s 
Dashboard, agencies’ oversight boards, and agencies’ use of project 
management tools. 

What GAO Found: 

OMB has improved the oversight and management of IT investments 
through multiple initiatives. By establishing the IT Dashboard, OMB 
has drawn additional attention to over 300 troubled IT investments at 
federal agencies, totaling $20 billion, which is an improvement from 
the previously used oversight mechanisms. The Federal Chief 
Information Officer (CIO) recognized that the Dashboard has increased 
the accountability of agency CIOs and established much-needed 
visibility into investment performance. However, GAO has found that 
the data on the Dashboard are not always accurate. Specifically, in 
reviews of selected investments from 10 agencies, GAO found that the 
Dashboard ratings were not always consistent with agency cost and 
schedule performance data. In these reports GAO made a number of 
recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to improve the accuracy of 
Dashboard ratings. Agencies agreed with these recommendations, while 
OMB agreed with all but one. Specifically, OMB disagreed with the 
recommendation to change how it reflects current investment 
performance in its ratings because Dashboard data are updated on a 
monthly basis. However, GAO maintained that current investment 
performance may not always be as apparent as it should be; while data 
are updated monthly, ratings include historical data, which can mask 
more recent performance. 

In addition to the Dashboard, beginning in January 2010 the Federal 
CIO began leading reviews—known as “TechStat” sessions—of selected IT 
investments involving OMB and agency leadership to increase 
accountability and transparency and improve performance. OMB officials 
stated that, as of December 2010, 58 sessions had been held and 
resulted in improvements to or termination of IT investments with 
performance problems. For example, the June 2010 TechStat session for 
a National Archives and Records Administration investment resulted in 
the halting of development funding pending the completion of a 
strategic plan. In addition, OMB identified 26 additional high-
priority IT projects and plans to develop corrective action plans with 
agencies at future TechStat sessions. According to the Federal CIO, OMB’
s efforts to improve management and oversight of IT investments have 
already resulted in $3 billion in savings. 

Additionally, in December 2010, OMB issued an 18-month plan for 
reforming federal IT management that has five major goals, including 
strengthening program management, streamlining governance and 
improving accountability, and using shared solutions, among others. 
These goals and the plans in place to support them are consistent with 
GAO’s work highlighting IT management and governance weaknesses, as 
well as work to identify duplicative activities in the government. As 
part of this plan, OMB has initiatives under way to strengthen agencies’
investment review boards and to consolidate federal data centers. 

GAO has ongoing work to review the Dashboard and other OMB 
initiatives. Continued OMB oversight and the implementation of its 18-
month plan along with outstanding GAO recommendations, could result in 
further significant savings and increased efficiency. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-511T] or key 
components. For more information, contact David A.Powner at (202) 512-
9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

IT: information technology: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

[End of section] 

April 12, 2011: 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the
Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government’s
key activities and efforts to improve the management of information
technology (IT) investments, totaling an estimated $79 billion for
fiscal year 2011. Given the size of these investments and the
criticality of many of these systems to the health, economy, and
security of the nation, it is important that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies provide appropriate
oversight of and adequate transparency into these programs. 

During the past several years, we have issued multiple reports and
testimonies on OMB’s initiatives to highlight troubled projects,
justify IT investments, and encourage the use of project
management tools.[Footnote 1] We made numerous recommendations to OMB
and to federal agencies to improve these initiatives to further
enhance the transparency, oversight, and management of IT
projects. 

As part of its response to our prior work, OMB deployed a public
Web site in June 2009, known as the IT Dashboard, which provides 
detailed information on federal agencies’ major IT investments, 
[Footnote 2] including assessments of actual performance against cost 
and schedule targets (referred to as ratings) for approximately 800 
major federal IT investments. The Dashboard is intended to improve the
transparency and oversight of these investments. 

You asked us to testify on OMB’s key efforts to improve the
oversight and management of federal IT projects. Specifically, my
testimony covers OMB’s efforts to improve IT management—in
particular, through the use of the Dashboard and its recently
announced IT reform plan.[Footnote 3] In preparing this testimony, we 
relied on prior GAO reports and testimonies that assessed the 
government’s management of IT investments, including OMB’s Dashboard,
agencies’ oversight boards, and agencies’ use of project management 
tools.[Footnote 4] All of our work for these reports and testimonies 
was performed in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

Background: 

Each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine
how much the government plans to spend on IT projects and how
these funds are to be allocated. The President’s Budget for fiscal
year 2011 totaled an estimated $79.4 billion for IT investments.
Figure 1 displays the breakdown of agencies’ planned IT
expenditures for fiscal year 2011. 

Figure 1: Breakdown of $79.4 Billion in Planned IT Investments for 
Fiscal Year 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Defense: $36.534 billion; 
Homeland Security: $6.412 billion; 
Health and Human Services: $6.212 billion; 
Veterans Affairs: $3.356 billion; 
Transportation: $3.351 billion; 
Treasury: $3.263 billion; 
Justice: $3.017 billion; 
Agriculture: $2.704 billion; 
Commerce: $2.437 billion; 
Energy: $2.200 billion; 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $1.596 billion; 
Social Security Administration: $1.396 billion; 
State: $1.219 billion; 
Education: $1.082 billion; 
Interior: $982 million; 
All other civilian agencies: $3.612 billion. 

Source: OMB data. 

[End of figure] 

OMB plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and management 
of federal IT investments. To improve oversight, Congress enacted the 
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which requires OMB to establish processes 
to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital 
investments in information systems made by federal agencies and report 
to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as a 
result of these investments.[Footnote 5] Further, the act places 
responsibility for managing investments with the heads of agencies and 
establishes chief information officers (CIO) to advise and assist 
agency heads in carrying out this responsibility. 

To help carry out its oversight role, in 2003 OMB established the
Management Watch List, which included mission-critical projects
that needed to improve performance measures, project management, IT 
security, or overall justification. Further, in August 2005, OMB 
established a High-Risk List, which consisted of projects identified 
by federal agencies, with the assistance of OMB, as requiring special 
attention from oversight authorities and the highest levels of agency 
management. Our reviews of these efforts have highlighted many issues 
regarding the accuracy and usefulness of these lists.[Footnote 6] To 
address these issues, we made multiple recommendations to OMB, 
including disclosing risks and deficiencies of troubled projects and 
reporting to Congress on remediation plans for these projects. 

More recently, in June 2009, OMB replaced the Management Watch List 
and High-Risk List with a public Web site-—known as the IT Dashboard-—
to further improve the transparency into and oversight of agencies’ IT 
investments. It displays detailed information on federal agencies’ 
major IT investments, including assessments of actual performance 
against cost and schedule targets (referred to as ratings) for 
approximately 800 major federal IT investments. According to OMB, 
these data are intended to provide a near realtime perspective of the 
performance of these investments, as well as a historical perspective. 
Further, the public display of these data is intended to allow OMB, 
other oversight bodies, including Congress, and the general public to 
hold government agencies accountable for results and progress. 

Prior Reviews of Agencies’ IT Investment Governance Have Identified 
Weaknesses: 

We have previously reported on the enduring challenges that agencies 
have faced in effectively managing IT investments. Specifically, we 
found that agencies had weaknesses in several areas relating to the 
oversight, budget justification, planning and management of these 
investments, among others. 

* In January 2004, we reported that agencies did not always have the
mechanisms in place for investment review boards to effectively
control their investments.[Footnote 7] Among other things, we reported 
that selected agencies largely had IT investment management boards,
but these boards did not have key policies and procedures in place for 
ensuring that projects are meeting expectations. Agencies cited a 
variety of reasons for not having these mechanisms in place, such as
that the CIO position had been vacant, a requirement was not included 
in guidance, or that the process was being revised. We made 
recommendations to the agencies regarding those practices that were 
not fully in place. 

* In January 2006, we reported that the underlying support for agencies’
 IT budget justifications for IT investments (OMB’s Capital Asset Plan 
and Business Case, also known as the exhibit 300) was often 
inadequate.[Footnote 8] Specifically, we found weaknesses in all 29 of 
the exhibit 300s that we reviewed. For example, 21 investments were 
required to use a specific management system as the basis for the
cost, schedule, and performance information in the exhibit 300, but
only 6 did so following OMB-required standards. We made 
recommendations aimed at improving related guidance and training
and at ensuring the disclosure and mitigation of limitations on
reliability. 

* In July 2008, we reported that approximately half of the federal
government’s major IT projects had been rebaselined-—i.e., had
modifications made to their cost, schedule, and performance goals to 
reflect changed circumstances.[Footnote 9] Reasons for these 
rebaselines included changes in project goals, changes in funding, or 
inaccurate original baselines. We also found that agencies lacked 
comprehensive rebaselining policies and that without such policies, 
baseline changes could be used to mask cost overruns or schedule 
delays. We recommended that OMB issue guidance for rebaselining 
policies and that the major agencies develop policies that address 
identified weaknesses. Consequently, OMB issued a memorandum in June 
2010 on baseline management that provided this guidance.[Footnote 10] 

* In June 2009, we reported that about half of the projects we
examined did not receive selection reviews (to confirm that they
support mission needs) or oversight reviews (to ensure that they are
meeting expected cost and schedule targets).[Footnote 11] 
Specifically, 12 of the 24 reviewed projects that were identified by 
OMB as being poorly planned did not receive a selection review; and 13 
of 28 poorly performing projects we reviewed did not receive an 
oversight review by a department-level board. To address these 
weaknesses, we made recommendations to selected agencies to improve 
their department-level board representation and selection and oversight
processes. 

* In October 2009, we reported that selected agencies’ policies were
not fully consistent with best practices for a key program
management tool.[Footnote 12] Specifically, most agencies’ policies 
lacked appropriate earned value management training requirements and did
not adequately define criteria for revising baselines. Earned value
management is a project management approach that, if implemented
appropriately, provides objective reports of project status, produces
early warning signs of impending schedule delays and cost overruns,
and provides unbiased estimates of anticipated costs at completion.
Additionally, we reported that for 13 of 16 selected investments, key
practices necessary for sound earned value management execution had 
not been implemented. Finally, we estimated the total cost overrun of 
these investments to be about $3 billion at program completion. We 
recommended that the selected agencies modify policies to be 
consistent with best practices, implement practices that address 
identified weaknesses, and manage negative earned value trends. 

OMB Has Several Initiatives Under Way to Improve the Oversight and 
Management of IT Investments, but Continued Attention Is Needed: 

OMB has initiated several efforts that have improved the oversight and 
transparency of IT investments. As discussed earlier, OMB deployed its 
IT Dashboard in June 2009, providing detailed information, including 
performance ratings, for over 800 major investments at federal 
agencies. Each investment’s performance data are updated monthly, 
which is a major improvement from the quarterly reporting cycle used 
by OMB’s prior oversight mechanisms. 

As of March 2011, the Dashboard provided visibility into over 300 IT
investments, totaling almost $20 billion, in need of management
attention (rated “yellow” to indicate the need for attention or “red”
to indicate significant concerns). (See figure 2.) 

Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the 
Dashboard, as of March 2011: 

Normal: 494 investments, $21.5 billion; 
Needs attention: 272 investments, $17.7 billion; 
Significant concerns: 39 investments, $2.0 billion. 

Source: OMB's dashboard. 

[End of figure] 

The Federal CIO stated that the Dashboard has greatly improved
oversight capabilities compared to previously used mechanisms,
increased the accountability of agencies’ CIOs, and established
much-needed transparency. 

However, in a series of reviews, we have found that the data on the
Dashboard are not always accurate. Specifically, in reviews of 
selected investments from 10 agencies, we found that the Dashboard 
ratings were not always consistent with agency performance data. 

* In July 2010, we reported that cost and schedule performance ratings 
were not always accurate for selected investments.[Footnote 13] 
Specifically, we reviewed investments at the Departments of 
Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Justice 
and found that the cost and schedule ratings on the Dashboard were not 
accurate for 4 of 8 selected investments and the ratings did not take 
into consideration current performance. For example, the Dashboard 
rated a Justice investment’s cost performance as “green” from July 
2009 through January 2010, but our analysis showed the investment’s 
cost performance was equivalent to a “yellow” rating, meaning it 
needed attention. We also found that there were large inconsistencies 
in the number of investment activities that agencies report on the 
Dashboard. 

* In March 2011, we also reported that agencies and OMB need to do 
more to ensure the Dashboard’s data accuracy.[Footnote 14] 
Specifically, we reviewed investments at the Departments of Homeland 
Security, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the Social
Security Administration and found that cost ratings were inaccurate
for 6 of 10 selected investments and schedule ratings were inaccurate 
for 9 of 10. We also found weaknesses in agency and OMB practices 
contributing to the inaccuracies on the Dashboard. In particular, we 
found that agencies had uploaded inconsistent or erroneous data, 
failed to submit data, and/or used unreliable source information. 
Additionally, we found that OMB’s ratings understated some schedule 
variances and did not emphasize current performance. 

In these reviews, we made recommendations to the agencies and OMB 
aimed at improving data accuracy on the Dashboard. Specifically, we 
recommended that the selected agencies comply with OMB’s guidance to 
standardize activity reporting, provide complete and accurate data to 
the Dashboard on a monthly basis, and ensure that CIO ratings disclose 
issues that could undermine the accuracy of investment data. These 
agencies generally concurred with our recommendations. We also 
recommended that OMB improve how it rates investments related to current
performance and schedule variance. Further, we recommended that OMB 
report on the effect of planned changes to the Dashboard and provide 
guidance to agencies to standardize reporting. OMB agreed with most of 
these recommendations but disagreed with the recommendation to change 
how it reflects current investment performance in its ratings because 
Dashboard data are updated on a monthly basis. However, we maintained 
that current investment performance may not always be as apparent as 
it should be; while data are updated monthly, ratings include 
historical data, which can mask more recent performance. 

Our recent and ongoing work has identified additional opportunities 
for using the Dashboard to increase operational efficiency and realize 
cost savings. As part of our first report responding to a statutory 
requirement that GAO identify duplicative goals or activities in the 
federal government, we reported on the potential for further 
significant savings if OMB implements planned improvements to the 
Dashboard, along with outstanding GAO recommendations.[Footnote 15] We 
also have ongoing work to evaluate the data provided by the Dashboard 
in order to determine the extent to which agencies may be investing in 
similar projects, as well as OMB’s efforts to identify and act on such 
duplicative investments. 

Recent OMB Efforts Have Resulted in Improved Management of Troubled IT
Investments: 

Drawing on the visibility into federal IT investments provided by the
Dashboard, OMB has initiated efforts to improve the management of IT 
investments needing attention. In particular, in January 2010, the 
Federal CIO began leading TechStat sessions—a review of selected IT 
investments between OMB and agency leadership to increase 
accountability and transparency and improve performance. OMB has 
identified factors that may result in a TechStat session, such as 
policy interests, Dashboard data inconsistencies, recurring patterns
of problems, or an OMB analyst’s concerns with an investment. 

As of December 2010, OMB officials stated that 58 TechStat sessions
have been held with federal agencies. According to OMB, these sessions 
have enabled the government to improve or terminate IT investments 
that are experiencing performance problems. For example, the June 
2010, TechStat on the National Archives and Records Administration’s 
Electronic Records Archives investment resulted in six corrective 
actions, including halting fiscal year 2012 development funding 
pending the completion of a strategic plan. In January 2011, we 
reported that the National Archives and Records Administration had not 
been positioned to identify potential cost and schedule problems 
early, and has not been able to take timely actions to correct 
problems, delays, and cost increases on this system acquisition 
program.[Footnote 16] Moreover, we estimated that the program would 
likely overrun costs by between $205 and $405 million if the agency 
completed the program as originally designed. We made multiple 
recommendations to the Archives, including establishing a 
comprehensive plan for all remaining work, improving the accuracy of 
key performance reports, and engaging executive leadership in 
correcting negative performance trends. The Archivist of the United 
States generally concurred with our recommendations. 

OMB has also identified 26 additional high-priority IT projects and
plans to coordinate with agencies to develop corrective actions for
these projects at future TechStat sessions. According to OMB 
officials, OMB and agency CIOs identified these projects using 
Dashboard data, TechStat sessions, and other forms of research. For
example, OMB directed the Department of the Interior to establish
incremental deliverables for its Incident Management Analysis and
Reporting System, which will accelerate delivery of services that
will help 6,000 law enforcement officers protect the nation’s natural
resources and cultural monuments. 

According to OMB, the TechStat sessions and other OMB management 
reviews have resulted in a $3 billion reduction in lifecycle costs, as 
of December 2010. Further, OMB officials stated that, as a result of 
these sessions, 11 investments have been reduced in scope and 4 have 
been canceled. Additional opportunities for potential cost savings and 
efficiencies exist with the use of the Dashboard by executive branch 
agencies to identify and make decisions about poorly performing 
investments, as well as its continued use by congressional committees 
to support critical oversight efforts. 

Recent OMB Plan Aims to Reform IT Management: 

In addition to the efforts already described, in December 2010, OMB
issued its 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information 
Technology Management, a plan spanning 18 months to reform IT 
management throughout the federal government. The plan contains five 
major goals: 

* strengthen program management, 

* align the acquisition and budget processes with the technology cycle, 

* streamline governance and improve accountability, 

* increase engagement with industry, and, 

* apply “light technology” and shared solutions. 

Many of these major goals, and their supporting reform initiatives, 
are consistent with our body of work on IT acquisition issues—-which 
has shown a lack of implementation or execution of critical project 
management and executive governance activities. For example, as 
previously discussed, in a June 2009 review[Footnote 17] of 24 IT 
projects identified by OMB as needing the most attention, about half 
did not receive selection or oversight reviews by agency governance 
boards. OMB’s plan acknowledges this issue and calls for agency 
Investment Review Boards to be restructured according to OMB’s
TechStat session model, in support of the goal to streamline
governance and improve accountability. 

Additionally, in support of the goal to apply “light technology” and
shared solutions, the plan outlines OMB’s Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative to guide federal agencies in developing and
implementing data center consolidation plans. According to OMB, the 
number of federal data centers grew from 432 in 1998 to more than 
2,000 in 2010. These data centers often house similar types of 
equipment and provide similar processing and storage capabilities.
These factors have led to concerns associated with the provision of
redundant capabilities, the underutilization of resources, and the
significant consumption of energy. In our March 2011 report[Footnote 
18] on duplicative goals or activities within the federal government, we
noted that data center consolidation makes sense economically and
as a way to achieve more efficient IT operations. However, we also
described key challenges associated with this effort, such as agencies’
ability to ensure the accuracy of their inventories and plans and 
integrate consolidation plans into fiscal year 2012 agency budget 
submissions (as required by OMB). 

In October 2010, OMB reported that all federal agencies had submitted 
consolidation plans. OMB plans to monitor agencies’ progress through 
annual reports and has established a goal of closing 800 of the over 
2,100 federal data centers by 2015. We are currently evaluating the 
data center initiative as well as agencies’ efforts to develop and 
implement consolidation plans. 

In summary, OMB’s recent efforts have resulted in greater oversight
and management of federal IT investments, but continued attention
is necessary to build on the progress that has been made. For
example, OMB and federal agencies need to improve the accuracy of
information on the Dashboard, and continue to use OMB’s TechStat
sessions to address troubled investments. In addition, the full 
implementation of OMB’s 18-month roadmap to reform federal IT 
management, along with outstanding GAO recommendations, should result 
in more effective IT management and delivery of mission-critical 
systems, as well as further reduction in wasteful spending on poorly 
managed investments. 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer 
any questions at this time. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact 
me at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who 
made key contributions to this testimony are Carol Cha, Assistant 
Director; Lee McCracken; and Kevin Walsh. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See for example, GAO, Information Technology: OMB Has Made 
Improvements to Its Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies 
and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 15, 
2011); Information Technology: OMB’s Dashboard Has Increased 
Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 16, 
2010); Information Technology; Federal Agencies Need to Strengthen 
Investment Board Oversight of Poorly Planned and Performing Projects, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566] (Washington, D.C.; 
June 30, 2009); Information Technology: Management and Oversight of 
Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-624T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 
2009); Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen 
Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-647] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 15, 2006). 

[2] Major IT Investment means a system or an acquisition requiring 
special management attention because it: has significant importance to 
the mission or function of the agency, a component of the agency, or 
another organization; is for financial management and obligates more 
than $500,000 annually; has significant program or policy 
implications; has high executive visibility; has high development, 
operating, or maintenance costs; is funded through other than direct 
appropriations; or is defined as major by the agency's capital
planning and investment control process. 

[3] OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information 
Technology Management (Washington, D.C., 2010). 

[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701]; GAO, Information Technology: 
Agencies Need to Improve the Implementation and Use of Earned Value 
Techniques to Help Manage Major System Acquisitions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-2] (Washington, D.C.; Oct. 8, 
2009); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566]; 
Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive 
Policies to Address Changes to Projects’ Cost, Schedule, and 
Performance Goals, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-925] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 31,2008); Information Technology: Agencies 
Need to Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of Investment 
Information, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-250] 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2006); Information Technology Management: 
Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and 
Investment Management Can Be Further Improved, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-49] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 
2004). 

[5] 40 U.S.C. § 11302(c). 

[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-624T]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1051T]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1211T]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1099T]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-647], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-571T]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-276]. 

[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-49. 

[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-250]. 

[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-925]. 

[10] OMB Memorandum, M-10-27. 

[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566]. 

[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-2]. 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701]. 

[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262]. 

[15] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 1, 
2011). 

[16] GAO, Electronic Records Archive: National Archive Needs to 
Strengthen Its Capacity to Use Earned Value Techniques to Management 
and Oversee Development, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-86] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 
2011). 

[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566]. 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: