This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-72 
entitled 'Information Technology: HUD Needs to Better Define 
Commitments and Disclose Risks for Modernization Projects in Future 
Expenditure Plans' which was released on November 23, 2010. 

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: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

November 2010: 

Information Technology: 

HUD Needs to Better Define Commitments and Disclose Risks for 
Modernization Projects in Future Expenditure Plans: 

Information Technology: 

GAO-11-72: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-72, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Information technology (IT) is critical to the Department of Housing 
and Urban Developmentís (HUD) ability to carry out its home ownership 
and community development mission. By statutory mandate, HUD is to 
develop and submit to Congress an expenditure plan for its efforts to 
modernize the departmentís IT environment that satisfies certain 
conditions, including being reviewed by GAO. GAOís objectives were to 
determine the extent to which (1) HUDís expenditure plan meets 
statutory conditions and (2) HUD has in place key institutional IT 
modernization management capabilities. To accomplish this, GAO 
assessed the plan against the statutory conditions and assessed 
department documentation of efforts to institutionalize IT 
modernization management capabilities against open GAO recommendations. 

What GAO Found: 

The extent to which the fiscal year 2010 HUD expenditure plan met 
statutory conditions placed on the use of appropriated funds varied by 
IT modernization project. Specifically, the plan varied in the degree 
to which it described capabilities, expected mission benefits, 
estimated lifecycle costs, and key milestones for each of its eight 
modernization projects. Overall, however, it did not adequately 
satisfy all elements of the first of two conditions. For example, the 
plan described the expected mission benefits for three projects, but 
did not present specific and measurable benefits for the other five. 
Moreover, the plan, in combination with project management 
documentation, did not satisfy the second statutory condition that 
each project demonstrate that it is compliant with HUDís enterprise 
architecture, being managed in accordance with applicable lifecycle 
management policies, subject to HUDís capital planning and control 
requirements, and supported by an adequately staffed project office. 
Specifically, neither of the two projects assessed by GAO fully 
satisfied more than one of the elements of this condition. Officials 
attributed limitations in the planís scope and content to the department
ís interpretation of the statutory requirements, as well as the 
unavailability of certain project documentation, and they stated that 
more detailed information would be included in future plans. 
Nevertheless, the plan is limited as a congressional oversight and 
decision-making mechanism. 

HUD has a range of actions under way to address GAOís prior 
recommendations and to evolve and strengthen its IT modernization 
management capabilities. However, it has yet to institutionalize these 
controls. Officials attributed the state of its controls largely to 
the fact that its new IT leadership team had only recently been 
established, and it is still in the process of introducing management 
improvements. Specifically, HUD: 

* is redefining its enterprise architecture around core business 
functions, which is consistent with its modernization plans. However, 
the development of this new version has yet to commence, and HUD has 
not established a date for when it will be available. 

* has developed a conceptual construct for a new investment and 
lifecycle management framework, but is still developing the policies 
and process guidance needed to understand and consistently implement 
it. 

* is developing an approach to controlling investment portfolios and 
expects to begin implementing this approach by October 2010. 

* has begun developing a strategic IT human capital management plan, 
but it has not yet defined skill gap closure strategies and 
established milestones for completing and implementing the plan. 
The absence of institutionalized controls introduces risk to the 
success of HUDís modernization projects, and to the extent that future 
plans provide for expanded investment in the existing eight projects 
and additional ones, the risks associated with HUDís modernization 
efforts will increase. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that HUD ensure that future expenditure plans (1) 
fully satisfy all statutory conditions or disclose why any condition 
is not satisfied, along with any associated project risks and 
mitigation plans; and (2) describe the status of HUDís efforts to 
institutionalize key modernization management controls. GAO is also 
recommending that the number and scope of HUDís IT projects reflect 
the departmentís institutional capacity to manage them. In written 
comments on a draft of this report, HUD concurred with GAOís 
recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-72] or key 
components. For more information, contact Randolph C. Hite at (202) 
512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Briefing for Staff Members of the Subcommittees on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, 
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

EA: enterprise architecture: 

FHA: Federal Housing Administration: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IT: information technology: 

NGVMS: Next Generation Voucher Management System: 

OCIO: Office of the Chief Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

November 23, 2010: 

The Honorable Patty Murray: 
Chair: 
The Honorable Christopher Bond: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John W. Olver: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Latham: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) submitted to 
Congress on April 26, 2010, the first of a planned series of 
incremental expenditure plans for information technology (IT) 
modernization pursuant to the provisions in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010.[Footnote 1] IT plays a critical role in 
HUD's ability to carry out its home ownership and community 
development mission. For instance, the department reports that its 
business areas rely on IT to process over 50,000 loan requests per 
week, over 12,000 service calls per month, and more than 7,000 grant 
requests annually for each of its grant programs. Despite this role, 
HUD's current IT environment does not effectively support its ongoing 
business operations. As we recently reported,[Footnote 2] its 
information systems are overlapping and duplicative, are not 
integrated, necessitate manual workloads, and employ antiquated 
technologies that are costly to maintain. HUD is currently working to 
address these issues and stated that its incremental IT expenditure 
plans will allow the department to develop a strategy and operating 
plan for enterprise transformation while beginning targeted new 
projects and existing system modifications that are needed to respond 
to pressing mission needs and statutory mandates. 

As required by the appropriations act, we reviewed HUD's first 
incremental fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan. We also reviewed the 
department's capacity for IT modernization management. Our objectives 
were to determine the extent to which (1) HUD's expenditure plan meets 
statutory conditions[Footnote 3] and (2) HUD has in place key 
institutional IT modernization management capabilities. On August 24, 
2010, we provided the results of our review, including our findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations, in a written briefing to the staffs 
of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, 
and we met with them on September 16, 2010, to discuss the briefing. 
This letter summarizes and transmits the written briefing, which is 
reprinted in appendix I. 

We performed this performance audit from March 2010 to November 2010 
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. Details on our 
scope and methodology are in the briefing, which is reprinted in 
appendix I. 

In summary, we made the following major points: 

* The extent to which HUD has satisfied the statutory conditions 
placed on its expenditure plan varies by modernization project, but 
overall the plan is limited as a congressional oversight and decision-
making mechanism. Specifically: 

- According to the statute, the plan is to identify functional and 
performance capabilities, expected mission benefits, estimated 
lifecycle costs, and key milestones for all IT modernization projects 
[Footnote 4] covered in the plan. However, the plan does not 
adequately satisfy all elements of the statutory condition for all 
projects. The HUD Deputy Chief Information Officer (CIO) attributed 
these limitations in the information provided by the plan to the 
department's interpretation and understanding of the project-level 
information needed to satisfy the conditions of the appropriations 
act. The Deputy CIO further stated, and we confirmed, that additional 
detailed capability, benefit, cost, and milestone information on 
several projects exists. According to the CIO, HUD intends to include 
this more detailed information in future plans. 

- According to the statute, the plan is to demonstrate that each IT 
modernization project is, among other things, being managed in 
accordance with applicable lifecycle management policies and guidance, 
subject to HUD's capital planning and investment control requirements, 
and supported by an adequately staffed project office. However, the 
plan, in combination with project management documentation, does not 
fully satisfy this statutory condition. Specifically, neither of the 
two projects[Footnote 5] that we assessed fully satisfied more than 
one of the condition's elements. This can be attributed to the fact 
that HUD has yet to institutionalize each of the IT management 
controls that are needed to meet this condition (as discussed below). 
In the interim, HUD officials have employed compensatory measures to 
minimize projects' exposure to risk, but neither the risks nor the 
compensating measures are addressed in the expenditure plan. 

* HUD has yet to institutionalize key IT modernization management 
capabilities. We previously reported that an organization's ability to 
effectively modernize its IT environment greatly depends on the extent 
to which it has established and implemented a number of institutional 
management controls or capabilities, including enterprise architecture 
development and use, systems lifecycle management, IT investment 
management, and IT human capital management.[Footnote 6] In July 2009, 
we reported[Footnote 7] that HUD had to varying degrees established 
many of these controls but that none had been fully defined and 
implemented. Accordingly, we made recommendations aimed at defining 
and implementing them. HUD's actions to evolve and strengthen each of 
these controls and implement our recommendations are discussed below: 

- Enterprise architecture: We previously reported that HUD's prior 
version of its architecture had identified segments aligned with HUD 
business units (e.g., single-family housing) and that only a few 
segment architectures had been developed. Since then, HUD has moved to 
defining its enterprise architecture around cross-department business 
functions, and intends to develop a new version of its architecture. 
However, development of this new version has yet to commence, although 
related efforts are under way that should help to inform this new 
version. HUD has to yet to establish when a new version of its 
enterprise architecture will be available. 

- Systems lifecycle management: Thus far, HUD has developed the 
conceptual construct for a new integrated investment and lifecycle 
management framework, but the policies and process guidance needed to 
understand and consistently implement it are under development. HUD 
reports that this framework will be defined to the point that projects 
can consistently implement it by October 2010. 

- IT investment management: We previously reported that while HUD had 
defined and implemented IT investment management policies and 
procedures to support the selection of investment portfolios, it had 
yet to define and implement policies and procedures to control the 
execution of these portfolios of investments. Since then, HUD reports 
that while it is working to define and implement portfolio-based 
investment control policies and procedures, it does not expect to 
begin implementing them until October 2010. 

- IT human capital: We previously reported that HUD had analyzed gaps 
in its IT workforce but that this analysis was based on an incomplete 
and outdated skills inventory. Since then, HUD has begun to develop a 
strategic IT human capital plan, which includes an updated assessment 
of knowledge and skills of current staff, but it has yet to define 
skill gap closure strategies. Further, it has not established 
milestones for completing and implementing this plan. 

HUD officials attribute the state of the department's institutional 
controls largely to the fact that the new HUD IT leadership team has 
only recently been put in place, and it is still in the process of 
introducing IT modernization management improvements. 

Conclusions: 

HUD has fallen short of the statutorily-mandated conditions placed on 
its fiscal year 2010 IT modernization expenditure plan. As a result, 
the utility of HUD's first incremental plan as an oversight, decision- 
making, and accountability tool is limited. Until HUD can submit an 
expenditure plan that satisfies the statutory conditions, as well as 
discloses the risks associated with each project and plans for 
mitigating them, its House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees 
will not have the information that they need to oversee HUD's 
modernization projects and hold the department accountable for project 
results. 

Beyond the plan, and notwithstanding HUD's efforts to date to 
establish key IT modernization management capabilities, much remains 
to be accomplished before these capabilities can be considered 
sufficiently institutionalized to reasonably ensure that each 
modernization project is successfully completed. While HUD's new IT 
leadership team has made important progress in developing these 
capabilities, the extent to which future expenditure plans provide for 
expanded investment in the eight modernization projects covered in the 
first plan, while also proposing investment in additional projects, 
will increase the risks associated with HUD's near-term modernization 
efforts. As a result, it is important for HUD to balance the number of 
projects in the plan, and the extent to which they are allowed to 
proceed beyond definition and early design, with its institutional 
capacity to execute them. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To increase the usability and value of HUD's next expenditure plan to 
its House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees, we recommend that 
the Secretary of HUD direct the CIO to ensure that future plans 
satisfy each element of each statutory condition for each project in 
the plan, or disclose why any element is not satisfied, along with any 
associated project risks and plans for addressing those risks. 
Furthermore, we recommend that the Secretary direct the CIO to ensure 
that future plans clearly describe the status of HUD's efforts to 
establish and implement each of these modernization management 
controls, along with the project-specific risks and mitigation plans 
associated with this status. In addition, we recommend that the 
Secretary ensure that the number and scope of HUD's modernization 
projects are commensurate with the department's institutional capacity 
to execute them. 

Agency Comments: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, signed by the CIO, and 
reprinted in appendix II, HUD concurred with our recommendations and 
stated that the agency comments section of the transmitted briefing 
adequately represented HUD's position and that the appropriate 
clarifications and comments regarding HUD's compensating controls had 
been incorporated into the report. Moreover, HUD commented that it 
remained committed to establishing the key IT management and 
modernization controls needed to ensure that its IT environment 
supports mission-critical operations. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairs and Ranking Members 
of other Senate and House committees and subcommittees that have 
authorization and oversight responsibilities for HUD IT modernization. 
We are also sending copies to the Secretary of HUD and the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget. Copies of this report will also 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this 
report, please contact me at (202) 512-3439 or at hiter@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who 
have made significant contributions to this report are listed in 
appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Randolph C. Hite: 
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Briefing for Staff Members of the Subcommittees on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, 
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations: 

Information Technology: HUD Needs to Better Define Commitments and 
Disclose Risks for Modernization Projects in Future Expenditure Plans: 

Briefing for staff members of the Subcommittees on Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Senate and House 
Committees on Appropriations: 

August 24, 2010: 

Contents: 

Introduction; 
Scope and Methodology; 
Results in Brief; 
Background; 
Results; 
Conclusions; 
Recommendations for Executive Action; 
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation; 
Attachment 1: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology. 

Introduction: 

Information technology (IT) plays a critical role in the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) ability to carry out its home 
ownership and community development mission. For instance, the 
department reports that its business areas rely on IT to process over 
50,000 loan requests per week, over 12,000 service calls per month, 
and more than 7,000 grant requests annually for each of its major 
grant programs. 

Despite this role, HUD's current IT environment does not effectively 
support its ongoing business operations. As we recently reported, 
[Footnote 8] its information systems are overlapping and duplicative, 
are not integrated, necessitate manual workloads, and employ 
antiquated technologies that are costly to maintain. 

HUD is currently working to address these issues through its 
Transformation Initiative. This initiative consists of four related 
components, one of which focuses on modernizing the department's IT 
environment. For fiscal year 2010, the department intends to invest 
$138 million in its modernization efforts, which is about one-half of 
the total expected Transformation Initiative funding for the fiscal 
year ($258 million). 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010,[Footnote 9] states that HUD 
may not obligate more than 25 percent of the funds made available for 
IT modernization until the Senate and House Committees on 
Appropriations receive a plan for expenditure that meets the following 
sets of statutory conditions. 

First, the plan must identify the following four elements for each 
modernization project: 

* functional and performance capabilities to be delivered, 

* expected mission benefits, 

* estimated lifecycle costs, and, 

* planned key milestones. 

Second, the plan must demonstrate the following four elements for each 
modernization project: 

* compliance with the department's enterprise architecture (EA), 

* management in accordance with applicable lifecycle management 
policies and guidance, 

* conformance to the department's capital planning and investment 
control requirements, and, 

* support by an adequately staffed project office. 

On April 26, 2010, HUD submitted what it described as the first in a 
planned series of incremental expenditure plans to the House and 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development, and Related Agencies. According to HUD, the 
incremental approach will allow it to develop a strategy and operating 
plan for enterprise transformation while beginning targeted, high-
priority new projects and existing system modifications that are 
needed to respond to pressing mission needs and statutory mandates. 

The act also requires that GAO review this plan. As agreed with HUD's 
appropriations subcommittees, our review objectives were to determine 
the extent to which: 

* HUD's expenditure plan meets statutory conditions, and, 

* HUD has in place key institutional IT modernization management 
capabilities. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To accomplish the first objective, we compared the information for the 
IT modernization projects provided in the plan with each element of 
the two sets of conditions, as specified in the act. For both 
conditions, we determined whether the plan satisfied, partially 
satisfied, or did not satisfy each[Footnote 10] element of the 
condition. 

* For the first condition, our scope included all eight projects in 
the plan and focused on the contents of the plan because the act 
required that the plan itself contain information to address each 
element of the condition. 

* For the second condition, we focused on two projects, the Federal 
Housing Administration (FHA) Transformation: Infrastructure and the 
Next Generation Voucher Management System (NGVMS). In doing so, we 
analyzed information in the plan and relevant project management 
documents to determine whether each element of the condition was 
addressed. We focused on FHA Transformation: Infrastructure and NGVMS 
because these projects were specifically cited in the act. 

To accomplish the second objective, we compared available information, 
including HUD IT management reports and departmental policies and 
procedures, in draft and final form, for each of the institutional IT 
modernization management capabilities cited in the act with our open 
recommendations made in a prior report[Footnote 11] on the 
department's management capacity in these areas. 

For both of our objectives, we also interviewed cognizant officials. 
(See attachment 1 for more detailed information on our objectives, 
scope, and methodology.) 

We conducted this performance audit at HUD offices in Washington, 
D.C., from March 2010 to August 2010 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. 

Results in Brief: 

The extent to which HUD has satisfied the statutory conditions 
associated with its expenditure plan varies by modernization project, 
but overall HUD's plan is limited as a congressional oversight and 
decision-making mechanism. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Summary of HUD's Satisfaction of Expenditure Plan Statutory 
Conditions: 

IT project: FHA Transformation: Infrastructure; 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [A]; 
Statutory condition 2: EA compliance; [C]; 
Statutory condition 2: Project lifecycle management: [B]; 
Statutory condition 2: Capital planning and control: [C]; 
Statutory condition 2: Project staffing: [C]. 

IT project: NGVMS (Phase 1); 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [A]; 
Statutory condition 2: EA compliance; [C]; 
Statutory condition 2: Project lifecycle management: [B]; 
Statutory condition 2: Capital planning and control: [C]; 
Statutory condition 2: Project staffing: [A]. 

IT project: Development Application Processing System; 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [C]. 

IT project: FHA Transformation: Multifamily Housing Development and 
Automated Underwriting Business Process Reengineering; 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [A]. 

IT project: HUD Integrated Core Financial Management Improvement 
Project; 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [C]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [C]. 

IT project: Human Resources End-to-End Solution (Phase 1); 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [C]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [B]. 

IT project: Improvement to Current Tenant-based Rental Assistance 
System (Sept. 2010 Release); 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [C]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [A]. 

IT project: Transformation Initiative/IT Project Assessment and 
Program Support Services; 
Statutory condition 1: Capabilities: [B]; 
Statutory condition 1: Mission benefits: [C]; 
Statutory condition 1: Lifecycle costs: [A]; 
Statutory condition 1: Key milestones: [C]. 

Source: GAO analysis based on HUD data. 

[A] Satisfies all aspects of this element. 

[B] Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element. 

[C] Does not satisfy any aspect of this element. 

[End of table] 

Results in Brief: 

HUD's Deputy Chief Information Officer (CIO) attributed limitations in 
the plan's scope and content to the department's interpretation and 
understanding of the project-level information needed to satisfy the 
act's conditions as well as the unavailability of project management 
documentation for several projects. The CIO also stated, and we 
confirmed, that more detailed capability, benefit, cost, and milestone 
information exists for several of the eight projects, and added that 
such information is to be included in future expenditure plans. 

Without an expenditure plan that provides HUD's appropriations 
committees with sufficient insight and visibility into key aspects of 
the modernization projects under way, or otherwise discloses the 
unavailability of this information and the associated risks and plans 
to mitigate these risks, the committees will lack the means for 
effectively overseeing and making informed funding decisions.
	
HUD has a range of actions under way to evolve and strengthen its IT 
governance approach; however, it has yet to institutionalize key IT 
modernization management capabilities. Specifically: 

* HUD intends to award a contract to develop a new version of its EA 
because the current version is business-unit-based (e.g., single-
family housing) rather than core business function-based (e.g., grants 
management), and thus is not consistent with its modernization plans. 
However, this contract's award was recently protested, and thus HUD 
does not yet know when it will have the first version of its new EA. 
In the interim, HUD has EA-related work under way to analyze its 
existing portfolio of 29 Transformation Initiative projects to, among 
other things, identify potential duplication across the projects and 
develop a target architecture, including an enterprise data management 
strategy and a project transition strategy. According to HUD, this 
work will, among other things, help to inform the next version of its 
EA. 

* HUD has developed the conceptual construct for a new integrated 
investment and lifecycle management framework, but all the policies 
and process guidance needed to understand and consistently implement 
it are under development. HUD reports that this framework will be 
defined to the point that projects can consistently implement it by 
October 2010. 

* HUD has defined and implemented IT investment management policies 
and procedures to support selection of investment portfolios, but not 
to control these portfolios of investments. HUD expects to have 
defined and to begin implementing portfolio-based investment control 
policies and procedures by October 2010. 

* HUD has begun to develop a strategic IT human capital management 
plan (e.g., it has mapped existing IT staff skill sets to its 
strategic Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) goals). 
However, it has yet to define skill gap closure strategies. Further, 
it has not established milestones for completing and implementing this 
human capital management plan. 

HUD's Deputy CIO attributed the state of the department's 
institutional IT management controls to the limited amount of time 
that the new IT leadership team has had to correct longstanding 
weaknesses in the each of the areas, as well as competing demands for 
key OCIO staff. The CIO also stated that these governance reforms are 
significant in nature and thus will take time to accomplish. 

The absence of any one of these institutional IT management controls 
introduces an element of risk to each modernization project; however, 
the combination of these missing capabilities introduces greater risk 
that projects will not perform as intended and will cost more and take 
longer than necessary to implement. While this risk is mitigated 
somewhat by OCIO actions to implement interim, compensatory IT 
management steps, such as the work on an enterprise transformation 
operating plan which will inform the direction of the new EA, as well 
as the fact that five of the eight projects in the expenditure plan 
are still early in their lifecycles, it is nevertheless extremely 
important for HUD to move quickly to follow through on its intentions 
to establish and implement more robust IT governance before its 
projects advance much further in their lifecycles. 

To assist HUD in developing its next expenditure plan and striking a 
proper balance between its need to introduce modernized systems and 
prudently manage the risks inherent in doing so, we are recommending 
that future expenditure plans (1) fully satisfy each set of statutory 
conditions or otherwise disclose why any element of a statutory 
condition is not satisfied, along with any associated project risks 
and mitigation plans, and (2) describe the status of HUD's efforts to 
institutionalize key modernization management controls, along with any 
associated project risks and mitigation plans. We are also 
recommending that HUD ensure that future plans reflect its 
institutional capacity to manage the number and scope of projects in 
the plans. 

In commenting on a draft of this briefing, HUD officials did not 
explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendations. However, they 
emphasized that our findings and conclusions relative to the plan's 
satisfaction of the statutory conditions do not indicate that the 
projects in the plan are being poorly managed. Further, they stated 
that the draft briefing did not sufficiently recognize the 
compensatory measures that have been taken to mitigate risks 
associated with the lack of institutionalized governance controls, and 
they provided clarifying statements and documentation relative to 
these measures, as well as a range of technical comments. 

We agree with HUD's first comment on our findings relative to the 
plan's satisfaction of statutory conditions. Accordingly, our 
conclusions and recommendations are confined to the plan's value as an 
oversight and accountability tool. With respect to the second comment 
on compensatory measures, we have incorporated the additional 
information that HUD provided, as appropriate, throughout the briefing. 

Background: HUD Organization: 

To carry out its mission, HUD is organized into five main components. 
In carrying out their mission duties, these offices perform a range of 
core business functions, such as grants management and voucher 
processing management. The five components and their missions are 
described below. 

* Office of Housing Contributes to building and preserving healthy 
neighborhoods and communities; maintains and expands home ownership, 
rental housing, and health care opportunities; and stabilizes credit 
markets in times of economic disruption. This office is composed of 
two mission areas: 

- Single-family housing programs provide mortgage insurance on loans 
to purchase homes and refinance existing mortgages. 

- Multifamily programs provide mortgage insurance to lenders on loans 
for the development of housing projects and health care facilities. 

* Office of Community Planning and Development: Provides housing, 
living environment, and economic opportunities for people of low and 
moderate income through partnerships with all levels of government, 
the private sector, and nonprofit organizations. 

* Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity: Administers and 
enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in housing, such as 
the Fair Housing Act of 1968[Footnote 12] and the Civil Rights Act of 
1964.[Footnote 13] Establishes and enforces policies intended to 
ensure that all Americans have equal access to housing of their choice. 

* Office of Public and Indian Housing: Administers and manages 
programs authorized by the Housing Act of 1937[Footnote 14] to provide 
housing to approximately 3.4 million households in order to ensure 
housing and create opportunities for residents' self-sufficiency and 
economic independence. 

* Government National Mortgage Association: Expands affordable housing 
by linking global capital markets to the nation's housing markets. 
Guarantees investors timely payment and interest on mortgage-backed 
securities backed by federally insured or guaranteed loans. 

HUD also consists of a number of mission support offices, such as the 
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control and the Office of 
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, as well as administrative 
offices, such as the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of 
Chief Procurement Officer, and the OCIO. Figure 1 provides a 
simplified view of the department's organizational structure. 

Figure 1: Simplified HUD Organizational Chart: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organizational chart] 

Top level: 
* Secretary[A]. 

Second level, reporting to Secretary: 
* Deputy Secretary. 

Third level, reporting to Deputy Secretary: 
* Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; 
* Housing; 
* Chief Procurement Officer; 
* Chief Financial Officer; 
* Community Planning and Development; 
* Government National Mortgage Association; 
* Public and Indian Housing; 
* Chief Information Officer; 
* Other support offices[B]. 

Source GAO based on HUD data. 

[A] Other offices exist that directly report to the Office of the 
Secretary, such as the Office of Hearings and Appeals. 

[B] Other support offices include: Administration, Center for Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives, Congressional and Intergovernmental 
Affairs, Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, Departmental 
Operations and Coordination, Field Policy and Management, General 
Counsel, Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Inspector General, 
Policy Development and Research, and Public Affairs. 

[End of figure] 

Background: HUD OCIO: 

HUD's OCIO is responsible for the department's IT environment. To this 
end, OCIO has established four IT strategic goals: (1) rapidly 
modernizing IT to support key HUD business initiatives; (2) 
transforming the IT infrastructure to adapt to and adopt emerging 
technologies; (3) developing a cadre of highly capable IT 
professionals with mission critical competencies; and (4) providing 
secure, rapid, and reliable data and information to customers, 
citizens, and business partners. 

To accomplish these goals, OCIO is in the process of being 
reorganized, and according to OCIO officials, the new organization 
structure is being used to manage the IT modernization projects. 
Further, they stated that the reorganization reflects an improved 
focus on OCIO service to HUD's mission areas and a more streamlined 
and transparent approach to investment decision-making. 

Background: Institutional IT Modernization Management Controls and 
Risks: 

As we have previously reported, an organization's ability to 
effectively and efficiently maintain and modernize its existing IT 
environment depends in large part on how well it employs certain IT 
management controls or disciplines that are embodied in statutory 
requirements, federal guidance, and best practices. Key components of 
an effective management structure include (1) IT strategic planning, 
(2) EA development and use, (3) IT investment management, (4) systems 
development and acquisition management, (5) information security 
management, (6) information management, and (7) IT human capital 
management.[Footnote 15] Further, the severity of the risks associated 
with investing in IT systems without these management controls in 
place and operating depends on where projects are in their lifecycles. 
[Footnote 16] While such risks are not as severe early in a project's 
lifecycle, when it is being planned (project definition and 
preliminary system design), they escalate as a project is designed, 
developed, and deployed. 

Background: HUD Expenditure Plan: 

HUD submitted the first incremental expenditure plan to its House and 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on April 26, 2010. This plan seeks 
to obligate about $28.1 million in Transformation Initiative funding 
across eight projects, which HUD officials described as those projects 
that are most critical to their transformation efforts. (See table 3 
for a description of the eight projects, along with each project's 
estimated obligations under the first incremental plan and total 
estimated use of fiscal year 2010 appropriated funds.) According to 
HUD officials, several of these projects receive additional funds 
through HUD's Working Capital Fund. For example, the HUD Integrated 
Core Financial Management Improvement Project is also receiving about 
$26 million in working capital funds for fiscal year 2010. 

Table 3: Summary of the April 2010 HUD Expenditure Plan: 

IT modernization project: FHA Transformation: Infrastructure; 
Purpose: To define a future technical infrastructure to support FHA 
and related HUD services; 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $2.0 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $18.5 million. 

IT modernization project: NGVMS (Phase 1)[A]; 
Purpose: To define a future technical infrastructure to support HUD 
services related to rental housing assistance (phase 1). The other two 
phases are the development and implementation of the system (phase 2), 
and the independent validation and verification testing of the system 
(phase 3); 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $6.5 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $28.0 million. 

IT modernization project: Development Application Processing System; 
Purpose: To enhance the existing system with the ability to identify 
the various HUD offices processing FHA insurance applications; ensure 
the accuracy of the amount of funds being awarded; and ensure that all 
available funds are awarded in accordance with published criteria; 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $0.4 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $0.4 million. 

IT modernization project: FHA Transformation: Multifamily Housing 
Development and Automated Underwriting Business Process Reengineering; 
Purpose: To analyze current environment and make recommendations on IT 
solutions that streamline and optimize Office of Multifamily Housing 
operations; 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $2.0 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $2.0 million. 

IT modernization project: HUD Integrated Core Financial Management 
Improvement Project[A]; 
Purpose: To implement an integrated financial management system to 
bring HUD into full compliance with the relevant financial management 
laws and regulations; 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $10.0 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $10.0 million. 

IT modernization project: Human Resources End-to-End Solution (Phase 
1)[A]; 
Purpose: To replace HUDís current human resources system provided by 
the Department of the Treasury with an in-house system using a phased 
migration approach; phase one is to provide staffing and 
classification services across HUD; 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $3.6 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $10.0 million. 

IT modernization project: Improvement to Current Tenant-based Rental 
Assistance System (Sept. 2010 Release)[A]; 
Purpose: To incrementally modify the current Voucher Management 
System. The first release of the modified system, set for Sept. 17, 
2010, is to include the addition of new fields, enhancements to the 
user interface, and the addition of forecasting and reporting 
capability; 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $0.6 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $3.0 million. 

IT modernization project: Transformation Initiative/IT Project 
Assessment and Program Support Services[B]; 
Purpose: To provide analytical and consulting services related to 
architecture development and also to provide management support to HUDí
s modernization project teams. Among other things, it includes 
analysis of the scope and potential duplication across the 29 
modernization projects in the Transformation Initiative portfolio, 
development of target architecture concepts and direction, and 
development of a Transformation Initiative Operating Plan; 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $3.0 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $3.0 million. 

Total: 
Estimated obligations for the first increment: $28.1 million; 
Total estimated fiscal year 2010 appropriations[C]: $74.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. 

[A] This project also receives HUD Working Capital Funds. 

[B] According to HUD officials, this effort is not a project in the 
sense of delivering a modernized system solution, and it was included 
as a project in the expenditure plan because they wanted to ensure 
transparency of all Transformation Initiative funding. 

[C] These appropriations are available for obligation through 
September 30, 2012. 

[End of table] 

Objective 1: Statutory Conditions: First Set of Conditions: 

Condition 1. The expenditure plan varies in the degree to which it 
describes functional and performance capabilities, expected mission 
benefits, estimated lifecycle costs, and key milestones for each of 
the eight IT projects, but overall does not adequately satisfy all 
elements of the condition for all projects. (See table 4.) 

Table 4: Summary of GAO Assessment of HUD's Expenditure Plan against 
Statutory Condition 1: 

IT project: FHA Transformation: Infrastructure; 
Capabilities: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Mission benefits: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Key milestones: Satisfies all aspects of this element. 

IT project: NGVMS (Phase 1); 
Capabilities: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Mission benefits: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Key milestones: Satisfies all aspects of this element. 

IT project: Development Application Processing System; 
Capabilities: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Mission benefits: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Key milestones: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element. 

IT project: FHA Transformation: Multifamily Housing Development and 
Automated Underwriting Business Process Reengineering; 
Capabilities: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Mission benefits: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Key milestones: Satisfies all aspects of this element. 

IT project: HUD Integrated Core Financial Management Improvement 
Project; 
Capabilities: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element; 
Mission benefits: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Key milestones: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element. 

IT project: Human Resources End-to-End Solution (Phase 1); 
Capabilities: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Mission benefits: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: 
Key milestones: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element. 

IT project: Improvement to Current Tenant-based Rental Assistance 
System (Sept. 2010 Release); 
Capabilities: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Mission benefits: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element; 
Key milestones: Satisfies all aspects of this element. 

IT project: Transformation Initiative/IT Project Assessment and 
Program Support Services; 
Capabilities: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of this element; 
Mission benefits: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element; 
Lifecycle costs: Satisfies all aspects of this element; 
Key milestones: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. 

[End of table] 

Functional and Performance Capabilities: 

As we have previously reported,[Footnote 17] system capabilities can 
be viewed in terms of what the system is to do (functions) and how 
well the system is to perform these functions (performance). To 
facilitate project oversight, decision-making, and accountability, 
information about these capabilities should be defined to a level that 
permits meaningful understanding of what capabilities are to be 
delivered and measurement of progress in doing so. For four of the 
eight projects, the plan describes the functional and performance 
capabilities that are to be delivered. For example, the plan states 
that the Development Application Processing System project is to 
modify the first 11 reports generated by this system to clearly 
identify the name of the field office that processed a case. 

However, the plan does not include similarly detailed information for 
the other four projects. For example, for the Improvements to Current 
Tenant-based Rental Assistance Systems (Sept. 2010 Release) project, 
the plan only states that it is to provide unspecified enhancements to 
the user interface and forecasting/reporting capabilities. Similarly, 
for the HUD Integrated Core Financial Management Improvement Project, 
the plan states that the project will deliver a modern IT 
infrastructure for current and future financial management 
applications, and that the resulting system will be fully compliant 
with relevant financial management laws and regulations and will 
provide accurate and timely information. However, it does not provide 
any information on what constitutes modern capabilities, such as the 
processing capacity, and it does not specify any of the functions 
needed to comply with applicable laws and regulations or what the 
relevant laws and regulations are. Further, it does not specify the 
performance levels needed for the information to be accurate and 
timely. 

Mission Benefits: 

As we have previously reported,[Footnote 18] the benefits to accrue 
from a proposed system solution should be specific and measurable, and 
they should be linked to specific capabilities. The plan describes 
expected mission benefits for three of the eight projects. For 
example, the Human Resource End-to-End Solution project links 
measurable benefits to explicit system capabilities. Specifically, the 
plan states that this project is to deliver a reengineered staff 
acquisition process that will decrease the number of the customer 
complaints to no more than three per employee during a rating period 
and will reduce the average time to hire candidates from 110 days to 
79 days. 

However, the plan does not present benefits that are specific and 
measurable for the other five projects. For example, the plan states 
that the Transformation Initiative/IT Project Assessment and Program 
Support Services project will improve employee skills in program and 
project management and consolidated business requirements. However, 
these improved skills are not linked to expected outcomes (i.e., 
benefits) that can be measured, such as reductions in project and 
program cost and schedule variances. 

Estimated lifecycle costs: 

As we have previously reported,[Footnote 19] a project's lifecycle 
cost estimate should include all direct and indirect costs associated 
with planning, designing, developing, procuring, deploying, operating 
and maintaining, and disposing of the system. To support project 
oversight, decision-making, and accountability, information about this 
estimate should include enough detail to understand and measure the 
expenditure funds for major project work activities and deliverables. 
The plan contains estimated lifecycle costs for three of the eight 
projects. For example, for the FHA Transformation: Multifamily Housing 
Development and Automated Underwriting Business Process Reengineering 
project, a $2 million lifecycle cost estimate is provided. Moreover, 
this estimate is decomposed into meaningful work activities, such as 
the following three phases: business process reengineering, change 
management, and program management support. 
	
For the remaining five projects, the plan cites estimated project 
costs for just fiscal year 2010, as well as what portion of these 
costs are for a given lifecycle phase (e.g., definition or acquisition 
phases). However, a total lifecycle cost estimate is not provided for 
these projects. Further, the decomposition of each project's costs is 
not consistent. For example, the Development Application Processing 
System project's costs are broken down by general work areas, such as 
design specifications, development (coding), and testing, while the 
Human Resources End-to-End Solution project's costs are broken down by 
the contract's base year and option years. 

Milestones: 

As we have previously reported,[Footnote 20] project milestones should 
be tied to the capabilities to be delivered and should permit progress 
to be measured. The plan describes key milestones for four of the 
eight projects. For example, for the Improvements to Current Tenant-
based Rental Assistance Systems (Sept. 2010 Release) project, the plan 
shows a schedule that contains a series of key milestones, including 
system design (April 20, 2010óApril 30, 2010), integration and test 
(June 10, 2010óAugust 31, 2010), and installation and deployment 
(August 30, 2010óSeptember 30, 2010). 

For the other four projects, the plan does not sufficiently specify 
key milestones. For example, the plan shows that the development phase 
for the Development Application and Processing System project is to be 
completed sometime between June 1, 2010, and November 15, 2010. 
Moreover, it does not cite interim milestones associated with 
completing system development activities, such as when key test events 
will occur. 

HUD's Deputy CIO attributed these limitations in the plan's scope and 
content to the department's interpretation and understanding of the 
project-level information needed to satisfy the act's conditions and 
to the unavailability of more detailed project management information 
for several projects. The CIO also stated, and we confirmed, that more 
detailed capability, benefit, cost, and milestone information on 
several projects, such as the HUD Integrated Core Financial Management 
Improvement Project, does exist. Further, the CIO stated that HUD 
intends to include this more detailed project information in future 
expenditure plans. 

Objective 1: Statutory Conditions: Second Set of Conditions: 

Condition 2. The expenditure plan, in combination with project 
management documentation, does not satisfy the statutory condition 
that each project demonstrate that it is (a) compliant with the 
department's EA, (b) being managed in accordance with applicable 
lifecycle management policies and guidance, (c) subject to the 
department's capital planning and control requirements, and (d) 
supported by an adequately staffed project office. Specifically, 
neither the FHA Transformation: Infrastructure nor the NGVMS project 
fully satisfies more than one of the elements of the condition. (See 
table 5.) 

Table 5: Summary of GAO Assessment of Two HUD Modernization Projects 
against Statutory Condition 2: 

IT Project: FHA Transformation: Infrastructure; 
EA compliance: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element; 
Project	lifecycle management: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of 
this element; 
Capital	planning and control: Does not satisfy any aspect of this 
element; 
Project staffing: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element. 

IT Project: NGVMS (Phase 1); 
EA compliance: Does not satisfy any aspect of this element; 
Project	lifecycle management: Satisfies some, but not all, aspects of 
this element; 
Capital	planning and control: Does not satisfy any aspect of this 
element; 
Project staffing: Satisfies all aspects of this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. 

[End of table] 

The degree to which the plan and project management documentation 
satisfy this condition can be attributed to the fact that each of the 
four corporate IT management controls that are needed to meet this 
condition has yet to be institutionalized, as discussed later in this 
briefing. In the interim, HUD officials have employed compensatory 
measures to minimize the project's exposure to risk, which are also 
described later in this briefing. However, neither this risk exposure 
nor the compensating measures are addressed in the expenditure plan. 

The extent to which the plan and project management documentation 
meets each element of the condition is discussed in more detail below. 

EA Compliance: 

Neither the plan nor available project documentation demonstrates that 
the FHA Transformation: Infrastructure and NGVMS projects are 
currently in compliance with the HUD EA because the department's 
current version of its EA is no longer operative and a new version has 
yet to be developed. (The status of HUD's EA is discussed later in 
this briefing.) Specifically, 

* The plan does not address EA compliance for the FHA Transformation: 
Infrastructure project, and according to FHA officials, the project 
has not been assessed for compliance. However, the project has defined 
the FHA "as-is" and "to-be" (or target) architectures, and conducted 
market research of commercially available system solutions. In 
addition, officials stated that the HUD Chief Architect is a member of 
the FHA integrated project team and that FHA has an active leadership 
role in the new EA development effort. 

* The plan states that NGVMS EA compliance will not be determined 
until October 2011. NGVMS officials told us that EA compliance 
analysis any sooner than this would be premature since the project is 
very early in its lifecycle (e.g., business process reengineering and 
requirements definition have yet to begin). However, given that 
project definition activities are currently under way, and are to 
produce a number of artifacts that should be traceable to and aligned 
with the EA, such as business processes and requirements, data 
requirements and definitions, process performance measures, and a 
technology architecture, it is not clear why a compliance 
determination will not occur for more than a year.
	
Lifecycle Management: 

The plan, in combination with project documentation, partially 
demonstrates that these two projects are being managed in accordance 
with applicable lifecycle management policies and guidance. 
Specifically, 

* The plan provides a schedule for the FHA Transformation: 
Infrastructure project that reflects the lifecycle phases in HUD's 
recently defined conceptual framework for integrated investment 
lifecycle management. For example, the plan states that the FHA 
Concept of Operations, a key deliverable under this framework for 
exiting the need/concept phase, was to be completed in May 2010. Based 
on project documentation, it was completed in May 2010. 

* The plan discusses the NGVMS project in the context of HUD's prior 
systems development methodology framework. However, project officials 
told us that the project is transitioning to the new lifecycle 
management framework. To this end, project documentation shows that 
the project work breakdown structure has been revised to reflect the 
new lifecycle phases and work activities. 
	
However, because HUD has not yet fully defined key aspects of its new 
lifecycle management process, as is discussed in the next section of 
this briefing, these projects' adoption of this process remains a work 
in progress. 
	
Capital Planning and Investment Control: 

The plan does not provide any information as to whether the FHA 
Transformation: Infrastructure or NGVMS projects are subject to HUD's 
capital planning and investment control requirements. Moreover, OCIO 
officials told us that neither project was subject to HUD's new 
investment management process (details of which are discussed later in 
this briefing). According to these officials, this is because the 
expenditure plan was submitted while its revised IT governance 
approach was being established, and thus these projects could not be 
subjected to the formal executive reviews and investment evaluation 
criteria associated with this new structure and approach. 

Instead, OCIO officials explained that these projects were subject to 
compensatory management control measures. Specifically, they were 
managed and reviewed by the HUD Integrated Product Team, which is a 
review body comprised of various technical, programmatic, financial, 
and procurement officials. According to these officials, this team 
determined each project's readiness to proceed based on the completion 
and quality of their respective project plans, detailed budgets, and 
requirements. 

OCIO officials further stated that the HUD Integrated Product Team 
continues to review these projects and provides progress updates and 
recommendations on the advancement of these projects to the oversight 
boards that are part of HUD's new in-process governance structure. 
Nevertheless, these compensatory measures were not described
in the plan. 
	
Project Office Staffing: 

While the plan does not demonstrate that the FHA Transformation: 
Infrastructure project or the NGVMS project is currently supported by 
an adequately staffed project office, project management documentation 
does show that this latter project is at least adequately staffed for 
the current fiscal year. Specifically, 

* The plan does not provide information as to whether the FHA 
Transformation: Infrastructure project is adequately staffed. Instead, 
the plan identifies the names of key project management personnel, 
including the executive sponsor and IT project manager. While project 
officials told us that they believe that the project is adequately
staffed, this position was not supported by any documented analysis of 
strategic gaps in staffing needs versus capabilities. According to 
project officials, should additional staff be needed, they will work 
with OCIO informally to address these needs. 

* The plan does not provide information on the adequacy of NGVMS 
project staffing. However, the project office completed an analysis of 
its staffing levels for fiscal years 2010 through 2016, and based on 
this analysis, the project is adequately staffed in 2010, but may not 
be in future years. Specifically, the analysis shows that multiple 
staff will be expected to perform tasks well in excess of a normal 
work day in later stages of the project, which is an indication of 
future staffing challenges. 

Objective 2: HUD's Institutional IT Modernization Capabilities: 

HUD Has Yet to Fully Establish Key Institutional IT Modernization 
Management Capabilities: 

As we have previously reported,[Footnote 21] an organization's ability 
to effectively modernize its IT environment greatly depends on the 
extent to which it has established and implemented a number of 
institutional IT modernization management controls or capabilities. 
These controls include EA development and use, systems lifecycle 
management, IT investment management, and IT human capital management.
To date, HUD has yet to adequately establish any of these corporate IT 
management controls, in large part because a new HUD IT leadership 
team has only recently been put in place, and it is still in the 
process of introducing a new approach to IT governance, which HUD 
described as significant in nature and requiring time to accomplish. 

Nevertheless, HUD continues to invest in multiple IT modernization 
projects, and may expand on the number of projects in the near term. 
As we have previously reported,[Footnote 22] the absence of these 
institutional modernization management controls introduces an 
unnecessary element of modernization risk that while manageable early 
in a project's lifecycle, increases exponentially as a project 
progresses to later lifecycle stages. 

With regard to HUD's first expenditure plan, five of the eight 
projects are very early in their lifecycles, and thus their exposure 
to risk is not as significant as the other three. However, it is 
extremely important for HUD to expeditiously establish and implement 
each of these institutional controls across its projects before any of 
the projects proceed beyond early definition and design, and before 
more projects are initiated. To do less increases the risk that the 
projects will ultimately encounter cost, schedule, and performance 
shortfalls. According to the CIO, pursuit of its institutional IT 
governance reforms in parallel with its modernization projects will be 
challenging, and to address this challenge its OCIO will work closely 
with the mission-area teams that are responsible for the projects to 
minimize the associated risks. 

Enterprise Architecture: 

An EA is a corporate blueprint for modernizing IT systems and 
transforming mission operations and serves as a bridge between an 
organization's strategic plans and its implementation of individual 
programs and system solutions. As such, it provides the information 
details needed to guide and constrain investments in a consistent, 
coordinated, and integrated fashionóthereby improving 
interoperability, reducing duplicative efforts, and optimizing mission 
operations. One approach to developing the EA content needed to 
adequately inform program and system solution implementations is to 
divide the architecture into segments and to develop more detailed 
architectures for each segment. 

In July 2009, we reported[Footnote 23] that HUD had a version of its 
EA that identified and prioritized segments that were aligned with HUD 
business units (e.g., single-family housing, multifamily housing 
finance). However, only a few segment architectures had been 
developed, segment priorities were not being adhered to, and those 
segments that had been developed were out of date and did not reflect 
important elements of federal guidance. Accordingly, we made 
recommendations aimed at improving HUD's segment architectures.
Since then, HUD's OCIO has decided to reexamine and redefine the 
department's EA segments based on HUD business functions that 
transcend business units (e.g., business intelligence, grants 
management, and workflow management). To accomplish this, HUD intended 
to award a contract to develop a new version of its EA in March 2010. 
However, this contract's award was recently protested, and thus HUD 
does not yet know when it will have an initial version of its new EA. 

In the interim, HUD has EA-related work under way as part of its 
Transformation Initiative/IT Project Assessment and Program Support 
Services project, which is to among other things, develop an 
enterprise transformation operating plan and inform the direction of 
the new EA. According to the statement of work, the contractor is to 
analyze HUD's existing portfolio of 29 Transformation Initiative 
projects to, among other things, identify potential duplication across 
the projects and develop a target architecture, including (1) an 
enterprise data management strategy, (2) project transition strategy, 
and (3) restructured EA segments. HUD officials stated that this work 
will be completed by October 2010. 

Notwithstanding the value of this work in informing HUD's EA, it is 
not clear when the department will have an initial version of this EA. 
Without it to guide and constrain IT modernization projects, HUD will 
be at increased risk of investing in systems that are not well 
integrated, are potentially duplicative, and do not support optimized 
mission operations. 
	
Systems Lifecycle Management: 

Following a disciplined lifecycle management process in which key 
activities and phases of a project are conducted in a logical and 
orderly process and are fully documented helps ensure that IT 
modernization programs achieve intended goals within acceptable levels 
of cost and risk.[Footnote 24] Such a process typically begins with 
initial concept definition and continues through requirements 
determination and system design and development, including testing, 
and concludes with final testing, deployment, and operations and 
maintenance. 

HUD has not yet fully defined and implemented comprehensive lifecycle 
management policies and procedures. Specifically, HUD has developed a 
conceptual construct for a new integrated investment management 
lifecycle framework that identifies eight major phases: need/concept, 
definition, financial planning, acquisition, design, development, 
deployment, and operations and maintenance. This conceptual framework 
specifies some of the activities and project artifacts associated with 
each of these phases, such as an IT project planning template to 
support standardization across new projects. 

However, work is still under way to define the remaining process 
guidance needed to understand and consistently implement the 
framework. Among other things, OCIO officials told us the majority of 
project tools and standard templates expected to be used by the IT 
project teams have not been developed. They also said the framework 
will be defined to the point that projects can begin to consistently 
implement it by October 2010. However, the CIO also acknowledged that 
the project-related contracts already in place are aligned to the 
prior lifecycle model, and thus while new contracts and option year 
actions on existing contracts will incorporate the new lifecycle 
management language, OCIO will need to work with the project teams on 
a one-on-one basis to ensure appropriate practices are employed to the 
extent possible to minimize risks on other existing contracts. 

Until the framework is defined and consistently implemented, HUD will 
not have the kind of repeatable process needed to ensure that each 
modernization project is executed in a rigorous and disciplined manner 
across the department. 

IT Investment Management: 

Investment management includes the selection and control of 
investments to ensure that they produce business value in the 
investment decision-making process. If managed effectively, IT 
investments can have a dramatic impact on an organization's 
performance and accountability. Our framework[Footnote 25] for 
assessing federal agencies' IT investment management practices 
consists of five progressive stages of maturity, with Stage 1 
representing immature and undisciplined processes, and Stage 5 
representing optimized maturity focused on continuous improvement. 
Stage 3, which is the focus of our review, is where an organization 
moves from project-centric to portfolio-based investment processes. 
Through a portfolio-based approach, the organization can consider new 
investment proposals, along with previously funded investments, and 
identify the appropriate mix and synergies of these investments to 
best meet mission needs. This level of investment involves the 
implementation of four critical processes: (1) defining the portfolio 
criteria; (2) creating the portfolio; (3) evaluating (i.e., 
controlling) the portfolio; and (4) conducting post-implementation 
reviews. 

In July 2009, we reported[Footnote 26] that HUD had executed all but 
one of these four critical investment processes. In particular, HUD 
had established the IT investment management policies and procedures 
for developing investment portfolios but not for effectively 
controlling them. As such, we made recommendations aimed at improving 
HUD's IT portfolio evaluation processes. 

HUD is in the process of addressing our recommendations. For example, 
work is under way to establish a new IT governance structure intended 
to increase portfolio transparency and facilitate portfolio decision-
making. Specifically, 

* The Executive Investment Board (also called the Transformation 
Initiative Fund Board), which is chaired by the HUD Secretary and 
includes the Chief Financial Officer, CIO, and Chief Operating 
Officer, has been established. This board is responsible for 
developing and implementing HUD's strategic plan and making final 
funding decisions. 

* The Customer Care Committee, which is chaired by the CIO and 
includes the General Deputy Assistant Secretaries, Associate CIOs, and 
program/mission representatives, has been established. This board is 
responsible for ensuring investments and projects are aligned to HUD's 
strategic plan by managing and monitoring the performance of the IT 
portfolio and providing portfolio and funding recommendations to the 
Executive Investment Board. 

* Investment Review and Technical Review Subcommittees, which are 
comprised of OCIO and project leadership, have been established. These 
two subcommittees are responsible for providing all necessary analysis 
to the Customer Care Committee related to IT investment and portfolio 
reviews and IT project control gate reviews, respectively.
	
The charters for these governing boards (outlining their membership 
and detailed roles and responsibilities) have been drafted but are not 
yet approved. However, we have confirmed that, with the exception of 
the Technical Review Subcommittee, these boards have been actively 
meeting since February 2010 as an interim control measure. According 
to OCIO, approved charters for these groups, as well as the 
implementation of the remaining subcommittee, will occur by October 
2010. OCIO officials stated that until the Technical Review 
Subcommittee is in place, the HUD Integrated Product Team (as 
discussed earlier in this briefing) serves as the review body to 
determine the completion and quality of tasks and documentation for 
each phase of the integrated investment management lifecycle. 

HUD is also in the process of restructuring and combining its 
inventory of modernization and business mission projects under a 
single IT investment portfolio, which it reports should be completed 
by October 2010. In addition, OCIO stated that they have drafted 
procedures for evaluating portfolios, and expect department-level 
approval by late August 2010, and to define and begin implementing 
criteria for assessing portfolio performance by October 2010. 

Notwithstanding these efforts to improve IT investment portfolio 
governance, the department will continue to be limited in its ability 
to control the risks and achieve the benefits associated with its 
portfolios until it has institutionalized its governance boards and 
defined and implemented IT investment portfolio control practices, 
including criteria for assessing portfolio performance. 

IT Human Capital Management: 

Having a sufficient IT workforce is essential to a successful systems 
modernization program. As we have previously reported, accomplishing 
this involves determining the critical skills and competencies needed 
to deliver current and future project results, analyzing the gaps 
between current skills and future needs, and developing strategies for 
filling gaps.[Footnote 27] If performed effectively, these activities 
can ensure that organizations have the right people, at the right 
time, and with the right skills to execute projects and portfolios of 
projects. 

We previously reported[Footnote 28] that HUD had analyzed gaps in its 
IT workforce in fiscal year 2008 and developed a strategy for 
addressing them but that this analysis was based on an incomplete and 
outdated inventory of human capital skill levels. Accordingly, we 
recommended that HUD establish and execute IT human capital gap 
closure strategies based on a complete and current inventory of its 
existing IT workforce skills. 

In May 2010, HUD began work on a strategic IT human capital management 
plan. Thus far, OCIO has mapped the knowledge and skills of its 
current staff to its four strategic goals to determine whether 
resource gaps exist, and has awarded a contract for expert advice and 
assistance in preparing this plan. Among other things, the contractor 
is expected to review and provide guidance on IT human capital gap 
closure strategies. However, a timeframe for completing this plan has 
yet to be established. 

As an interim measure, OCIO officials told us that the Transformation 
Initiative/IT Project Assessment and Program Support Services project 
contractor is to provide basic project management training to existing 
IT staff to prepare them to implement the new IT institutional 
management controls. Nevertheless, until HUD adopts a strategic 
approach to IT human capital management, it will likely not have the 
people it needs to successfully deliver modernized systems. 

HUD has fallen short of the statutorily-mandated conditions associated 
with its fiscal year 2010 IT modernization expenditure plan. As a 
result, the utility of HUD's first incremental plan as an oversight, 
decision-making, and accountability tool is limited. Until HUD can 
submit an expenditure plan that satisfies the statutory conditions, as 
well as discloses the risks associated with each project and plans for 
mitigating them, its House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees 
will not have the information that they need to oversee HUD's 
modernization projects and hold the department accountable for project 
results. 

Beyond the plan, and notwithstanding HUD's efforts to date to 
establish key IT modernization management capabilities, much remains 
to be accomplished before these capabilities can be considered 
sufficiently institutionalized to reasonably ensure that each 
modernization project is successfully completed. While HUD's new OCIO 
leadership team has made important progress in developing these 
capabilities, it also plans to submit the next incremental expenditure 
plan. To the extent that this next plan provides for expanded 
investment in the eight modernization projects covered in the first 
plan, while also proposing investment in additional projects, the 
risks associated with HUD's near-term modernization efforts will 
increase. As a result, it is important for HUD to balance the number 
of projects in the plan, and the extent to which they are allowed to 
proceed beyond definition and early design, with its institutional 
capacity to execute them. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To increase the usability and value of HUD's next expenditure plan to 
its House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development direct the CIO to 
ensure that future plans satisfy each element of each statutory 
condition for each project in the plan, or disclose why any element is 
not satisfied, along with any associated project risks and plans for 
addressing those risks. 

Because we have previously made recommendations addressing each of the 
four IT modernization management controls discussed in this briefing, 
we are not making additional recommendations at this time relative to 
institutionalizing them. However, we recommend that the Secretary 
direct the CIO to ensure that future plans clearly describe the status 
of HUD's efforts to establish and implement each of these 
modernization management controls, along with the project-specific 
risks and mitigation plans associated with this status. In addition, 
we recommend that the Secretary ensure that the number and scope of 
HUD's modernization projects are commensurate with the department's 
institutional capacity to execute them. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 
	
In commenting on a draft of this briefing, HUD officials, including 
the CIO, did not explicitly agree or disagree with our 
recommendations. However, they emphasized that our findings and 
conclusions relative to the plan's satisfaction of the statutory 
conditions do not mean that the projects addressed in the plan are not 
being effectively managed. Further, they stated that the draft 
briefing did not sufficiently recognize their management actions to 
compensate for the fact that new IT governance controls were not yet 
in place, and they provided clarifying statements and documentation 
relative to these compensatory governance controls. In addition, they 
provided a range of technical comments to improve the accuracy and 
currency of the briefing. 

We agree with HUD's first comment on our findings relative to the 
plan's satisfaction of statutory conditions, which is why our 
conclusions and recommendations relative to the plan's scope and 
content are explicitly confined to the plan's value as a tool for the 
appropriation subcommittees in overseeing HUD's modernization and 
holding the department accountable for results. With respect to the 
second comment on compensatory measures, we have modified the 
briefing, as appropriate, to incorporate the clarifying statements, 
documentation, and technical comments provided. As a result, we 
believe that this briefing fully recognizes both the correct status of 
HUD's efforts to institutionalize key IT management controls and the 
range of interim measures to compensate for this status. 

Attachment 1: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) expenditure plan 
meets statutory conditions specified in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010 and (2) HUD has in place key institutional IT 
modernization management capabilities. 

To accomplish our first objective, we determined whether the 
expenditure plan satisfies, partially satisfies, or does not satisfy 
the two sets of conditions, as specified in the act. Specifically, 

* For condition 1, we reviewed the plan to determine whether it 
contained, for each IT modernization project,[Footnote 29] the 
following four elements: a detailed accounting of the functional and 
performance capabilities to be delivered, expected mission benefits, 
estimated lifecycle costs, and planned key milestones. 

* For condition 2, we reviewed and analyzed information in the plan 
for two projects[Footnote 30] and other available programmatic 
documents (e.g., project plans, integrated master schedules, cost 
estimates, staffing plans), augmented as appropriate by interviews 
with cognizant officials to determine whether the plan, in combination 
with supporting documentation, contained sufficient basis for each of 
the four elements of the condition: compliance with the department's 
enterprise architecture (EA), management in accordance with applicable 
lifecycle policies and guidance, conformance with capital planning 
requirements, and support by an adequately staffed project office. 

To have satisfied, partially satisfied, or not satisfied a given 
element associated with condition 1, the plan had to meet all aspects 
of each element for a given condition, meet some (but not all) aspects 
of each element for a given condition, or not meet any aspect of each 
element for a given condition, respectively. To have satisfied, 
partially satisfied, or not satisfied a given element associated with 
condition 2, the plan, in combination with project management 
documentation, had to similarly meet all, some (but not all), or no 
aspects of each element for a given condition, respectively. 

To accomplish our second objective, we compared available department 
information related to each of the institutional IT modernization 
management capabilities cited in the act against our open 
recommendations made in a prior report[Footnote 31] on HUD's IT 
management controls: EA management, project lifecycle management, IT 
investment management, and IT human capital management. We interviewed 
cognizant officials to corroborate our understanding of the 
department's activities. More specifically: 

* For EA management, we reviewed available HUD architecture-related 
documentation, including contractor statement of work and project 
plans for EA-related assessment activities. 

* For project lifecycle management, we reviewed all relevant HUD 
planning documentation, where available, including the conceptual 
framework for the integrated investment lifecycle, project plan 
templates, and draft systems development methodology documents. 

* For IT investment management, we reviewed HUD's draft IT governance 
plan, past and current versions of the HUD IT Investment Management 
Process Guide, executive governance board charters, and meeting 
presentations and minutes. 

* For IT human capital management, we reviewed available relevant 
documents, including the HUD OCIO human capital assessment and program 
support vendor contract statement of work. 

We determined that project funding and schedule data provided by HUD 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this briefing. We based 
our decision on an assessment for each area by questioning cognizant 
HUD officials about the source of the data and policies and procedures 
to maintain the integrity of these data. 

We conducted this performance audit at HUD offices in Washington, 
D.C., from March 2010 to August 2010 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development: 
Chief Information Officer: 
Washington, DC 201410-3000: 

October 22, 2010: 

Mr. Randolph C. Hite: 
Director: 
Information Technology: 
Architecture and Systems Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Hite: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, Information 
Technology: HUD Needs to Better Define Commitments and Disclose Risks 
jOr Modernization Projects in Future Expenditure Plans (GAO-11-72). 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development reviewed the draft 
report and concurs with the recommendations for Executive Action. The 
"Agency Comments" in the draft report adequately represent HUD's 
position, and the appropriate clarifications and comments regarding 
HUD's compensating controls have been incorporated into the report. 

The Agency remains committed to the establishment of key IT management 
and modernization controls needed to ensure the IT environment 
maintains mission-critical operations. To this end, we will dedicate 
resources toward achieving the three Executive Actions recommended by 
GAO. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please 
contact Joyce M. Little, Director, Office of Investment Strategies 
Policy and Management at (202) 402-7404. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

[Illegible] for: 

Jerry E. Williams: 
Chief Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Randolph C. Hite, (202) 512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Carol Cha (Assistant 
Director), Clayton Brisson, Sher'rie Bacon, Elena Epps, Kendrick 
Johnson, Lee McCracken, and Freda Paintsil made key contributions to 
this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3093-94 (Dec. 16, 2009). 

[2] GAO, Information Technology: HUD Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity 
to Manage and Modernize Its Environment, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-675] (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 
2009). 

[3] According to the statute, not less than $80 million and not more 
than $180 million shall be available for IT modernization. The 
statutory conditions restrict HUD from obligating funds made available 
for IT modernization in the 2010 appropriation until HUD submits an 
expenditure plan that satisfies all of the conditions. 

[4] These projects are: Development Application Processing System; 
Federal Housing Administration Transformation: Infrastructure; Federal 
Housing Administration Transformation: Multifamily Housing Development 
and Automated Underwriting Business Process Reengineering; HUD 
Integrated Core Financial Management Improvement Project; Human 
Resources End-to-End Solution (Phase 1); Improvement to Current Tenant-
based Rental Assistance System (Sept. 2010 Release); Next Generation 
Voucher Management System (Phase 1); and Transformation Initiative/IT 
Project Assessment and Program Support Services. 

[5] These are the Federal Housing Administration Transformation: 
Infrastructure and Next Generation Voucher Management System (Phase 1) 
projects. 

[6] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Formidable Information and 
Technology Management Challenge Requires Institutional Approach, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-702] (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 27, 2004). 

[7] GAO-09-675. 

[8] GAO, Information Technology: HUD Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity 
to Manage and Modernize Its Environment, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-675] (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 
2009). 

[9] Pub. L No. 111-117 (Dec. 16, 2009). According to the act, not less 
than $80 million and not more than $180 million shall be available for 
IT modernization. 

[10] For the first condition, these are (1) performance and functional 
capabilities, (2) mission benefits, (3) estimated lifecycle costs, and 
(4) key milestones. For the second condition, these are (1) compliance 
with the department's EA, (2) management in accordance with applicable 
lifecycle policies and guidance, (3) compliance with capital planning 
and control requirements, and (4) support by an adequately staffed 
project office. 

[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-675]. 

[12] Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as 
amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing 
of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on 
race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status 
(including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal 
custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children 
under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). 

[13] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination 
on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and 
activities receiving federal financial assistance. 

[14] Under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, Congress created a federal 
public housing program to provide decent and safe rental housing for 
eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with 
disabilities. 

[15] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Formidable Information and 
Technology Management Challenge Requires Institutional Approach, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-702] (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 27, 2004). 

[16] GAO, Business Systems Modernization: IRS Needs to Better Balance 
Management Capacity with Systems Acquisition Workload, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-356] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 
2002). 

[17] GAO, Homeland Security: U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology Program Planning and Execution Improvements 
Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-96] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2008). 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-96]. 

[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-96]. 

[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-96]. 

[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-04-702]. 

[22] GAO, Information Technology: DHS Needs to Fully Define and 
Implement Policies and Procedures for Effectively Managing 
Investments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-424] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2007) and GAO-09-675. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-675. 

[24] GAO, Aviation Security: Significant Management Challenges May 
Adversely Affect Implementation of the Transportation Security 
Administration's Secure Flight Program, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-374T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 9, 
2006). 

[25] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework 
for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2004). 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-675]. 

[27] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 

[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-675]. 

[29] These projects are: (1) Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 
Transformation: Infrastructure, (2) Next Generation Voucher Management 
System (Phase 1), (3) Development Application Processing System, (4) 
FHA Transformation: Multifamily Housing Development and Automated 
Underwriting Business Process Reengineering, (5) HUD Integrated Core 
Financial Management Improvement Project, (6) Human Resources End-to-
End Solution (Phase 1), (7) Improvements to Current Tenant-based 
Rental Assistance System (Sept. 2010 Release), and (8) Transformation 
Initiative/Information Technology Project Assessment and Program 
Support Services. 

[30] FHA Transformation: Infrastructure and Next Generation Voucher 
Management System (Phase 1). 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-675]. 

[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 GAOís 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 GAOís 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: