This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-742 
entitled 'Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on 
Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed' which was 
released on July 19, 2012. 

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 Requesters: 

July 2012: 

Data Center Consolidation: 

Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to 
Be Completed: 

GAO-12-742: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-742, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2010, as focal point for information technology management across 
the government, OMB’s Federal Chief Information Officer launched the 
Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative-—an effort to consolidate 
the growing number of federal data centers. In July 2011, GAO 
evaluated 24 agencies’ progress on this effort and reported that most 
agencies had not yet completed data center inventories or 
consolidation plans and recommended that they do so. 

In this subsequent review, GAO was asked to (1) evaluate the extent to 
which the 24 agencies updated and verified their data center 
inventories and plans, (2) evaluate the extent to which selected 
agencies have adequately completed key elements of their consolidation 
plans, and (3) identify agencies’ notable consolidation successes and 
challenges. To address these objectives, GAO assessed the completeness 
of agency inventories and plans, analyzed the schedule and cost 
estimates of 5 agencies previously reported to have completed one or 
both estimates, and interviewed officials from all 24 agencies about 
their consolidation successes and challenges. 

What GAO Found: 

As of the most recent agency data submitted in September 2011, 24 
agencies identified almost 2,900 total centers, established plans to 
close 1,186 of them by 2015, and estimated they would realize over 
$2.4 billion in cost savings in doing so. However, while the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) required agencies to complete missing 
elements in their data center inventories and plans by the end of 
September 2011, only 3 agencies submitted complete inventories and 
only 1 agency submitted a complete plan. For example, in their 
inventories, 17 agencies do not provide full information on their 
information technology facilities and energy usage, and 8 provide only 
partial information on their servers. Further, in their consolidation 
plans, 13 agencies do not provide a full master program schedule and 
21 agencies do not fully report their expected cost savings. Officials 
from several agencies reported that some of this information was 
unavailable at certain facilities or that the information was still 
being developed. In a prior report, GAO recommended that agencies 
complete the missing elements from their inventories and plans. Until 
these inventories and plans are complete, agencies will continue to be 
at risk of not realizing anticipated savings, improved infrastructure 
utilization, or energy efficiency. 

OMB requires a master program schedule and a cost-benefit analysis (a 
type of cost estimate) as key requirements of agencies’ consolidation 
plans, but none of the five agencies GAO reviewed had a schedule or 
cost estimate that was fully consistent with the four selected 
attributes of a properly sequenced schedule (such as having identified 
dependencies), or the four characteristics that form the basis of a 
reliable cost estimate (such as being comprehensive and well-
documented). For example, the Departments of Interior and 
Transportation did not have schedules and the Department of Agriculture’
s schedule was consistent with three of four attributes. Additionally, 
cost estimates for the Departments of Homeland Security and Veterans 
Affairs were partially consistent with the four cost characteristics. 
In the absence of reliable schedules and estimates, these agencies are 
at risk of experiencing cost overruns, missed deadlines, and 
performance shortfalls. OMB has established a standardized cost model 
to aid agencies in their consolidation planning efforts, but use of 
the model is voluntary. 

Many federal agencies reported consolidation successes. Notably, 20 
agencies identified 34 areas of success, although only 3 of those 
areas were reported by more than 1 agency. The two most-reported 
successes were focusing on the benefits of key technologies and the 
benefits of working with other agencies and components to identify 
consolidation opportunities. However, agencies have continued to 
report a number of the same challenges that GAO first described in 
2011, while other challenges are evolving. For example, 15 agencies 
reported continued issues with obtaining power usage information and 9 
agencies reported that their organization continued to struggle with 
acquiring the funding required for consolidation. However, other 
challenges appear to be less prevalent, including challenges in 
identifying consolidation cost savings and meeting OMB’s deadlines. 
Overall, 25 challenges that were reported in 2011 were no longer 
reported in 2012. In light of these successes and challenges, it is 
important for OMB to continue to provide leadership and guidance, such 
as—-as GAO previously recommended-—using the consolidation task force 
to monitor agencies’ consolidation efforts. 

What GAO Recommends: 

OMB’s Federal Chief Information Officer should ensure that agencies 
use a standardized cost model to improve consolidation planning, and 
the 5 selected agencies should implement recognized best practices 
when establishing schedules and cost estimates for their consolidation 
efforts. OMB and 3 agencies agreed with, and 2 did not agree or 
disagree with, GAO’s recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. For more 
information, contact David Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Agencies Updated Inventories and Plans, but Key Elements Are Still 
Missing: 

Selected Agencies Have Incomplete Schedules and Cost Estimates: 

Agencies Have Experienced Consolidation Successes and Continue to 
Report Challenges: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies' Completion of Key Consolidation 
Planning Elements, Arranged by Agency: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix XI: Comments from the National Science Foundation: 

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in FDCCI: 

Table 2: Comparison of Original and Revised Requirements for Agency 
Inventories and Plans: 

Table 3: Data Center Closures by Calendar Year, as of September 2011: 

Table 4: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Updated Data Center 
Inventories: 

Table 5: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Updated 
Consolidation Plans: 

Table 6: Select Attributes of Properly Sequenced Schedule Activities: 

Table 7: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies' Schedules with 
Attributes of a Properly Sequenced Schedule: 

Table 8: Characteristics of a High-quality and Reliable Cost Estimate: 

Table 9: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies' Cost Estimates with 
Best Practices: 

Table 10: Agency Consolidation Successes: 

Table 11: Reported Savings from Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Virtualization: 

Table 12: Challenges Encountered by Agencies in 2011 and 2012, 
Including Those No Longer Reported: 

Table 13: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in FDCCI: 

Table 14: Assessment of Completeness of Agriculture's Updated Data 
Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 15: Assessment of Completeness of Commerce's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 16: Assessment of Completeness of Defense's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 17: Assessment of Completeness of Education's Updated Data 
Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 18: Assessment of Completeness of Energy's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 19: Assessment of Completeness of HHS's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 20: Assessment of Completeness of DHS's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 21: Assessment of Completeness of HUD's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 22: Assessment of Completeness of Interior's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 23: Assessment of Completeness of Justice's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 24: Assessment of Completeness of Labor's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 25: Assessment of Completeness of State's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 26: Assessment of Completeness of Transportation's Updated Data 
Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 27: Assessment of Completeness of Treasury's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 28: Assessment of Completeness of VA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 29: Assessment of Completeness of EPA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 30: Assessment of Completeness of GSA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 31: Assessment of Completeness of NASA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 32: Assessment of Completeness of NSF's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 33: Assessment of Completeness of NRC's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 34: Assessment of Completeness of OPM's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 35: Assessment of Completeness of SBA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 36: Assessment of Completeness of SSA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Table 37: Assessment of Completeness of USAID's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Twenty-one Agencies' Completion of Required Information for 
Data Center Inventory Key Elements, as of June 2011: 

Figure 2: Twenty-four Agencies' Completion of Required Information for 
Data Center Consolidation Plan Key Elements, as of September 2011: 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FDCCI: Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IT: information technology: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

NSF: National Science Foundation: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

SBA: Small Business Administration: 

SSA: Social Security Administration: 

TCO: total cost of ownership: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 19, 2012: 

Congressional Requesters: 

The federal government's demand for information technology (IT) is 
ever increasing. In recent years, as federal agencies modernized their 
operations, put more of their services online, and increased their 
information security profiles, they have demanded more computing power 
and data storage resources. Over time, this increasing demand has led 
to a dramatic rise in the number of federal data centers and a 
corresponding increase in operational costs. The Office of Management 
and Budget's (OMB) Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) has 
recognized the significance of this increase and in 2010, launched the 
Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI), a governmentwide 
effort to consolidate data centers. In July 2011, we reported on 24 
participating departments' and agencies' (agencies) progress on this 
effort, noting that most agencies had not yet completed the data 
center inventories or consolidation plans needed to implement their 
consolidation initiatives.[Footnote 1] We recommended agencies take 
steps to complete the missing elements from their inventories and 
plans. 

Given the importance of the consolidation initiative, this report 
responds to your request that we review the federal government's 
ongoing efforts to consolidate data centers. Specifically, our 
objectives were to (1) evaluate the extent to which agencies have 
updated and verified their data center inventories and consolidation 
plans; (2) evaluate the extent to which selected agencies have 
adequately completed key elements of their consolidation plans; and 
(3) identify agencies' notable consolidation successes and challenges. 

To address our objectives, we once again assessed the 24 agencies that 
were identified by OMB and the Federal CIO to be included in the FDCCI 
initiative. We reviewed the 24 agencies' most recent data center 
inventories and consolidation plans and assessed their completeness 
against key elements required by OMB. We selected 5 agencies that had 
previously reported completing cost and/or schedule estimates and 
compared these agencies' program scheduling and cost estimating 
documentation to best practices in program scheduling and cost 
estimating.[Footnote 2] Finally, we reviewed all 24 agencies' 
documentation and interviewed agency officials to determine what 
consolidation successes have been realized and what challenges 
continue to be faced. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to July 2012 
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. Appendix I 
contains further details about our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

Background: 

While the term "data center" can be used to describe any room used for 
the purpose of processing or storing data, as defined by OMB in 2010, 
a data center was a room greater than 500 square feet, used for 
processing or storing data, and which met stringent availability 
requirements.[Footnote 3] Other facilities were classified as "server 
rooms," which were typically less than 500 square feet and "server 
closets," which were typically less than 200 square feet. 

Several factors led OMB to urge agencies to consolidate federal data 
centers. According to OMB, the federal government had 432 data centers 
in 1998; more than 1,100 in 2009; and 2,094 in July 2010. Operating 
such a large number of centers places costly demands on the 
government. While the total annual federal spending associated with 
data centers has not yet been determined, OMB has found that operating 
data centers is a significant cost to the federal government, 
including hardware, software, real estate, and cooling costs. For 
example, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
electricity cost to operate federal servers and data centers across 
the government is about $450 million annually. According to the 
Department of Energy (Energy), data center spaces can consume 100 to 
200 times as much electricity as standard office spaces. Reported 
server utilization rates as low as 5 percent and limited reuse of 
these data centers within or across agencies lends further credence to 
the need to restructure federal data center operations to improve 
efficiency and reduce costs. In 2010, the Federal CIO reported that 
operating and maintaining such redundant infrastructure investments 
was costly, inefficient, and unsustainable. 

OMB and the Federal CIO Established the Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative: 

Concerned about the size of the federal data center inventory and the 
potential to improve the efficiency, performance, and environmental 
footprint of federal data center activities, in February 2010 OMB, 
under the direction of the Federal CIO, announced FDCCI. This 
initiative's four high-level goals are to: 

* promote the use of "green IT"[Footnote 4] by reducing the overall 
energy and real estate footprint of government data centers; 

* reduce the cost of data center hardware, software, and operations; 

* increase the overall IT security posture of the government; and: 

* shift IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and 
technologies. 

As part of FDCCI, OMB required 24 departments and agencies that 
participate on the Chief Information Officers Council (see table 1) to 
submit a series of documents that ultimately resulted in a data center 
consolidation plan. 

Table 1: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in FDCCI: 

Departments: 
Agriculture; 
Commerce; 
Defense; 
Education; 
Energy; 
Health and Human Services; 
Homeland Security; 
Housing and Urban Development; 
Interior; 
Justice; 
Labor; 
State; 
Transportation; 
Treasury; 
Veterans Affairs. 

Agencies: 
Environmental Protection Agency; 
General Services Administration; 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
National Science Foundation; 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Office of Personnel Management; 
Small Business Administration; 
Social Security Administration; 
U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[End of table] 

In addition to an initial data center inventory and preliminary 
consolidation plan, the departments and agencies were to provide the 
following: 

* An asset inventory baseline, which was to contain more detailed 
information and serve as the foundation for developing the final data 
center consolidation plans. The final inventory was also to identify 
the consolidation approach to be taken for each data center. 

* A data center consolidation plan, which was to be incorporated into 
the agency's fiscal year 2012 budget and was to include a technical 
roadmap and approach for achieving the targets for infrastructure 
utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency. 

In October 2010, OMB reported that all of the agencies had submitted 
their plans. OMB also announced plans to monitor agencies' 
consolidation activities on an ongoing basis as part of the annual 
budget process. 

Further, starting in fiscal year 2011, agencies were required to 
provide an annual updated data center asset inventory at the end of 
every third quarter and an updated consolidation plan (including any 
missing elements) at the end of every fourth quarter. Agencies were 
further required to provide a consolidation progress report at the end 
of every quarter. 

To manage the initiative, OMB designated two agency CIOs as executive 
sponsors to lead the effort within the Chief Information Officers 
Council.[Footnote 5] Additionally, the General Services Administration 
(GSA) has established the FDCCI Program Management Office, whose role 
is to support OMB in the planning, execution, management, and 
communication for FDCCI. In this role, GSA collected the responses to 
OMB-mandated document deliveries and reviewed the submissions for 
completeness and reasonableness. GSA also sponsored three workshops on 
the initiative for agencies and facilitated a peer review of the 
initial and final data center consolidation plans. 

With an Expanded Definition, OMB's Reported Inventory of Federal Data 
Centers Has Grown: 

OMB has utilized different definitions of a data center throughout the 
life of FDCCI. As discussed earlier, OMB originally defined these 
facilities as rooms that met certain size, purpose, and availability 
requirements. So, even though agencies included smaller facilities 
(such as server rooms and closets) in their inventories, these 
facilities were not included in the data center tallies. However, in 
October 2011, the Federal CIO announced an expansion of the definition 
to include facilities of any size. Using this broader definition, in 
December 2011, OMB reported that there were 3,133 federal data 
centers.[Footnote 6] OMB further clarified its definition in March 
2012 as follows: 

"...a data center is...a closet, room, floor or building for the 
storage, management, and dissemination of data and information and 
[used to house] computer systems and associated components, such as 
database, application, and storage systems and data stores [excluding 
facilities exclusively devoted to communications and network equipment 
(e.g., telephone exchanges and telecommunications rooms)]. A data 
center generally includes redundant or backup power supplies, 
redundant data communications connections, environmental controls…and 
special security devices housed in leased,…owned, collocated, or stand-
alone facilities."[Footnote 7] 

OMB's IT Reform Plan Sets Important Milestones for Data Center 
Consolidation: 

In December 2010, OMB published its 25-Point Implementation Plan to 
Reform Federal Information Technology Management as a means of 
implementing IT reform in the areas of operational efficiency and 
large scale IT program management. Among the 25 initiatives, OMB has 
included two goals that relate to data center consolidation: 

1. By June 2011, complete detailed implementation plans to consolidate 
at least 800 data centers by 2015. 

2. By June 2012, create a governmentwide marketplace for data center 
availability. 

To accomplish its first goal, OMB required each FDCCI agency to 
identify a senior, dedicated data center consolidation program 
manager. It also launched a Data Center Consolidation Task Force 
comprised of the data center consolidation program managers from each 
agency. OMB officials stated that this task force is critical to 
driving forward on individual agency consolidation goals and to 
meeting overall federal consolidation targets. OMB has also created a 
publicly available dashboard for observing agencies' consolidation 
progress. 

To accomplish its second goal, OMB and GSA launched a governmentwide 
data center availability marketplace in June 2012. This online 
marketplace is intended to match agencies that have extra capacity 
with agencies with increasing demand, thereby improving the 
utilization of existing facilities. The marketplace will help agencies 
with available capacity promote their available data center space. 
Once agencies have a clear sense of the existing capacity landscape, 
they can make more informed consolidation decisions. 

GAO Has Previously Reported on Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Efforts: 

We have previously reported on OMB's efforts to consolidate federal 
data centers. In March 2011, we reported on the status of the FDCCI 
and noted that data center consolidation makes sense economically and 
is a way to achieve more efficient IT operations, but that challenges 
exist.[Footnote 8] For example, agencies reported facing challenges in 
ensuring the accuracy of their inventories and plans, providing 
upfront funding for the consolidation effort before any cost savings 
accrue, integrating consolidation plans into agency budget submissions 
(as required by OMB), establishing and implementing shared standards 
(for storage, systems, security, etc.), overcoming cultural resistance 
to such major organizational changes, and maintaining current 
operations during the transition to consolidated operations. We 
further reported that mitigating these and other challenges will 
require commitment from the agencies and continued oversight by OMB 
and the Federal CIO. 

In July 2011, we reported that agency consolidation plans indicate 
that agencies anticipated closing about 650 data centers by fiscal 
year 2015 and saving about $700 million in doing so.[Footnote 9] 
However, we also found that only one of the 24 agencies submitted a 
complete inventory and no agency submitted complete plans. Further, 
OMB did not require agencies to document the steps they took, if any, 
to verify the inventory data. We noted the importance of having 
assurance as to the accuracy of collected data and specifically, the 
need for agencies to provide OMB with complete and accurate data and 
the possible negative impact of that data being missing or incomplete. 
We concluded that until these inventories and plans are complete, 
agencies may not be able to implement their consolidation activities 
and realize expected cost savings. Moreover, without an understanding 
of the validity of agencies' consolidation data, OMB could not be 
assured that agencies are providing a sound baseline for estimating 
consolidation savings and measuring progress against those goals. 
Accordingly, we made several recommendations to OMB, including that 
the Federal CIO require that agencies, when updating their data center 
inventories, state what actions have been taken to verify the 
inventories and to identify any associated limitations on the data. We 
also recommended that the Federal CIO require that agencies complete 
the missing elements in their consolidation plans and in doing so, 
consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned. We also made 
recommendations to the heads of agencies to complete the information 
missing from their inventories and plans. 

In response to our recommendations, OMB took several actions. 
Beginning in fiscal year 2011, in addition to the updated inventories 
due at the end of every third fiscal quarter, agencies are required to 
submit an updated consolidation plan by the end of every fourth fiscal 
quarter. Along with the updated plan, agencies are required to submit 
a signed letter from their CIOs, attesting to the completeness of the 
plan, stating what actions were taken to verify the inventory, and 
noting any limitations of inventory or plan data. The inclusion of 
this performance information will continue to be important to OMB as 
it makes decisions on how best to oversee the ongoing federal data 
center consolidations. By gathering this understanding of the validity 
and limitation on agencies' data, OMB will be better assured that 
agencies are providing a sound baseline for estimating savings and 
accurately reporting progress against their goals. The extent to which 
agencies have completed information missing from their inventories and 
plans is discussed in the following section. 

More recently, in February 2012, we updated our March 2011 work and 
reported that although OMB had taken steps to ensure the completion of 
agencies' consolidation plans, a preliminary analysis indicated that 
not all plans were complete.[Footnote 10] Also, in April 2012, we 
reported on the progress OMB and federal agencies made in implementing 
the IT Reform Plan, including one action item associated with data 
center consolidation.[Footnote 11] We reported that this goal was only 
partially completed, based on our conclusion that not all of the 
agencies' updated data center consolidation plans included the 
required elements. 

Agencies Updated Inventories and Plans, but Key Elements Are Still 
Missing: 

As discussed earlier, OMB required agencies to submit an updated data 
center inventory that included information on each center and its 
assets by the end of June 2011, and an updated consolidation plan that 
included key information on the agencies' consolidation approach by 
the end of September 2011. OMB subsequently issued revised guidance on 
the mandatory content of the data center inventories and consolidation 
plans, in May 2011 and July 2011, respectively. While the revised 
inventory guidance asked for different information from what was 
requested in 2010, it still required agencies to report on specific 
assets within individual data centers, as well as information about 
each specific data center. The revised guidance on consolidation plans 
was similar to the 2010 guidance, but included several additional 
requirements. Specifically, in addition to continuing to require 
information on key elements such as goals, approaches, schedules, cost-
benefit calculations, and risk management plans, the revised guidance 
also required agencies to address the data verification steps, 
consolidation progress, and cost savings. Table 2 compares the 
original and revised requirements for key elements to be included in 
agency inventories and plans. 

Table 2: Comparison of Original and Revised Requirements for Agency 
Inventories and Plans: 

2010 inventory element: IT software assets; 
2011 inventory element: [Deleted]. 

2010 inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
2011 inventory elements: Physical servers[A]; Virtualization[B]. 

2010 inventory elements: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
2011 inventory elements: IT facilities, energy; Network storage. 

2010 inventory element: Geographic location; 
2011 inventory element: Data center information. 

2010 plan element: Quantitative goals; 
2011 plan element: Quantitative goals. 

2010 plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
2011 plan element: Qualitative impacts. 

2010 plan element: Consolidation approach; 
2011 plan element: Consolidation approach. 

2010 plan element: Consolidation scope; 
2011 plan element: Consolidation scope. 

2010 plan element: High-level timeline; 
2011 plan element: High-level timeline. 

2010 plan element: Performance metrics; 
2011 plan element: Performance metrics. 

2010 plan element: Master program schedule; 
2011 plan element: Master program schedule. 

2010 plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
2011 plan element: Cost-benefit analysis. 

2010 plan element: Risk management; 
2011 plan element: Risk management. 

2010 plan element: Communications plan; 
2011 plan element: Communications plan. 

2011 plan element: Inventory/plan verification. 

2011 plan element: Consolidation progress. 

2011 plan element: Cost savings. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[A] The term "physical server" refers to a physical piece of hardware 
that can be used to run multiple software-based virtual machines with 
different operating systems in isolation and side-by-side. OMB 
captures information about such software-based virtual machines in the 
category called "virtualization." 

[B] "Virtualization" is a technology that allows multiple, software-
based machines, with different operating systems, to run in isolation, 
side-by-side, on the same physical machine. 

[End of table] 

While all agencies submitted updated inventories and plans in 2011, 
most of the agencies' documents are still not complete. As required, 
all 24 agencies[Footnote 12] submitted their inventories in June 2011 
and all but 2 submitted their updated consolidation plans in September 
2011. The Social Security Administration (SSA) submitted its updated 
consolidation plan in October 2011 and the Department of Defense 
(Defense) submitted an updated consolidation plan in November 2011. 
However, of the 24 agencies' submissions, only 3 of the inventories 
are complete and only 1 of the plans is complete. For example, while 
all 24 agencies report on their inventories to some extent, 8 agencies 
provide only partial information on the new category of physical 
servers and 17 provide only partial information on the new category of 
IT facilities and energy usage. Additionally, in their consolidation 
plans, 13 agencies do not provide a full master program schedule, 17 
agencies do not provide full cost-benefit analysis results, and 21 
agencies do not include all required cost savings information. In the 
absence of important information such as schedules and cost estimates, 
agencies are at risk of not realizing key FDCCI goals such as 
anticipated cost savings and improved infrastructure utilization. 

Agencies Continue to Report Significant Planned Facility Reductions 
and Cost Savings: 

While agencies' inventories and goals have changed since we last 
reported on FDCCI, agencies continue to report plans to significantly 
reduce the number of their centers and to achieve cost savings. Last 
year, we reported that as of April 2011, 23 agencies identified 1,590 
centers (using the large data center definition) and established goals 
to reduce that number by 652. Our most recent analysis of 24 agencies' 
documentation indicates that as of September 2011, agencies identified 
almost 2,900 total centers, and established plans to close over 1,185 
of them by 2015. The new total number of data centers includes 648 
large centers (500 square feet or more), 1,283 smaller centers (less 
than 500 square feet), and 966 centers of undetermined size.[Footnote 
13] The centers of undetermined size are primarily comprised of 936 
Defense facilities, a list of which was provided in a format that did 
not allow for an analysis of the size of the centers.[Footnote 14] An 
OMB official attributed the change in the number of large centers 
reported to agencies' improvements in data quality.[Footnote 15] 

Table 3 contains a further breakdown of actual and planned closures by 
calendar year, for both large and smaller centers. 

Table 3: Data Center Closures by Calendar Year, as of September 2011: 

Large centers (500 square feet); 
Total centers: 648; 
Closures by calendar year: 
Through 2011: 89; 
2012: 81; 
2013: 43; 
2014: 75; 
2015: 21; 
Total: 309. 

Smaller centers (<500 square feet); 
Total centers: 1,283; 
Closures by calendar year: 
Through 2011: 58; 
2012: 124; 
2013: 73; 
2014: 25; 
2015: 23; 
Total: 303. 

Centers of unknown classification; 
Total centers: 966; 
Closures by calendar year: 
Through 2011: 139; 
2012: 141; 
2013: 96; 
2014: 116; 
2015: 82; 
Total: 574. 

Total; 
Total centers: 2,897; 
Closures by calendar year: 
Through 2011: 286; 
2012: 346; 
2013: 212; 
2014: 216; 
2015: 126; 
Total: 1,186. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: OMB required agencies to report planned closures by calendar 
year in both the June 2011 inventory and September 2011 consolidation 
plan updates. However, several agencies reported planned closures on a 
fiscal year basis. We have attempted, where possible, to convert such 
information into the correct calendar year, but this was not always 
possible. As a result, the annual totals may differ slightly from the 
true targets. 

[End of table] 

The number of facilities in agencies' inventories has changed over 
time, and will likely continue to evolve. For example, in July 2011, 
we reported that agencies reported having 1,590 large centers in their 
inventories, whereas they now report only 648. There are multiple 
reasons for these fluctuations. Some agencies have reported confusion 
over the evolving definition of "data center," while officials from 
other agencies told us that some facilities have been reclassified or 
dropped from the inventory as more was learned about the facilities. 
Additionally, agencies have reported that their inventory totals are 
in a constant state of flux and changing on a regular basis as a 
result of their efforts to gather and refine information about data 
center inventories. 

Most agencies also continued to report expected savings from FDCCI. 
Specifically, 

* Nineteen agencies reported anticipating more than $2.4 billion in 
cost savings and more than $820 million in cost avoidances, between 
2011 and 2015.[Footnote 16] Additionally, as we also reported in 2011, 
actual savings may be even higher because 14 of these agencies' 
projections were incomplete.[Footnote 17] 

* One agency does not expect to accrue net savings until 2017. 

* One agency does not expect to attain net savings from its 
consolidation efforts. 

* Three agencies did not provide estimated cost savings. 

While we recognize that agencies' planned savings of over $2.4 billion 
may grow as agencies complete their cost and savings assessments, the 
President's budget for fiscal year 2013 states that FDCCI is expected 
to realize $3 billion in savings by 2015.[Footnote 18] This reflects a 
$600 million dollar disparity between what agencies are reporting and 
what OMB is expecting. Such a disparity highlights the need for 
agencies to continue to develop and refine their savings projections, 
in order to make clear an accurate picture of the goals to be realized 
by the governmentwide consolidation initiative. 

Asset Inventories Are Still Not Complete: 

In our July 2011 report, we recommended that agencies complete the 
missing elements from their inventories. Further, as part of FDCCI, 
OMB required agencies to update their data center inventories at the 
end of the third quarter of every fiscal year. In guidance provided to 
the agencies, the 2011 updated inventories were to address five key 
elements for each data center: (1) physical servers, (2) 
virtualization, (3) IT facilities and energy, (4) network storage, and 
(5) data center information. One information category from 2010, IT 
software assets, was no longer required. Table 4 provides a detailed 
description of each of the five key elements. 

Table 4: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Updated Data Center 
Inventories: 

Element: Physical servers; 
Guidance: The inventory should document the current rack count[A] and 
the number of mainframes and servers in each facility. 

Element: Virtualization; 
Guidance: The inventory should document the virtual host count and 
virtual operating system count for each facility.[B] 

Element: IT facilities and energy; 
Guidance: The inventory should document each facility's power 
capacity, electricity usage, electricity cost, and whether the 
facility's electricity is metered. 

Element: Network storage; 
Guidance: The inventory should document each facility's total storage 
capacity and utilization. 

Element: Data center information; 
Guidance: The inventory should document each facility's data center 
tier/type, size, cost (including whether electricity is included), 
consolidation status, and information on the number and cost of full-
time employees at the facility. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[A] A rack is a physical structure used to house computer servers. 

[B] Virtual hosts and virtual operating systems are software-based 
machines and tools that can run in isolation, side-by-side, on the 
same physical machine. 

[End of table] 

However, not all of the agencies used the revised format. 
Specifically, 21 of the 24 agencies submitted inventories in OMB's 
updated format and 3 agencies (the Department of Agriculture 
(Agriculture), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Small 
Business Administration (SBA)) used the former format.[Footnote 19] 
Officials from all 3 agencies stated that they thought they were using 
the correct format at the time. Further, these officials said they 
plan to submit information consistent with OMB's revised inventory 
template in the future. 

The confusion by selected agencies on which templates to use is due, 
in part, to a change in how OMB distributed its new guidance. While in 
prior years the Federal CIO wrote letters to agency CIOs and OMB 
posted its guidance on the FDCCI website, in conveying the direction 
to use a new template in spring 2011, the Federal CIO did not write 
letters to agency CIOs and OMB did not post its latest guidance 
online. Instead, the Federal CIO and OMB relied on more informal 
means, such as the FDCCI task force meetings, to disseminate the new 
guidance. Although the task force serves as an important 
communications conduit for FDCCI, the confusion we identified among 
agencies on which template to use demonstrates that the task force was 
not effective as the sole means of communication with the agencies. In 
providing guidance and direction, task force communications could be 
enhanced by leveraging other existing resources, such as sending 
letters from the Federal CIO to agency CIOs and posting the guidance 
on the initiative's website. 

In assessing agencies' inventories, we rated an element as complete if 
the agency provided all of the information required for the element, 
partial if the agency provided some, but not all, of the information 
for the element, and incomplete if the agency did not provide the 
information required for the element. A partial rating could result if 
an agency did not provide any information for selected facilities or 
if the agency did not fill in selected fields for its facilities. For 
example, both an agency providing data on two of five facilities and 
an agency providing incomplete data on energy usage across facilities 
would receive partial ratings. 

Of the 21 inventories in the new format, only 3 contain complete data 
for all five of the required elements. Additionally, while all 
agencies provide at least partial inventory data for all five elements, 

* one agency provides complete information for four of the five 
elements, 

* eight agencies provide complete information for three of the five 
elements, 

* three agencies provide complete information for two of the five 
elements, 

* two agencies provide complete information for one of the five 
elements, and: 

* four agencies do not have any complete elements in their inventories. 

Figure 1 provides an assessment of the completeness of agencies' 
inventories, by key element, and a discussion of the analysis of each 
element follows the figure. In addition, a detailed summary of each 
agency's completion of key elements is provided in appendix II. 

Figure 1: Twenty-one Agencies' Completion of Required Information for 
Data Center Inventory Key Elements, as of June 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Physical servers: 
Yes: the agency provides complete information on this inventory 
element: 62%; 
Partial: the agency provides some, but not all, of the information for 
this inventory element: 38%. 

Virtualization: 
Yes: the agency provides complete information on this inventory 
element: 81%; 
Partial: the agency provides some, but not all, of the information for 
this inventory element: 19%. 

IT facilities and energy: 
Yes: the agency provides complete information on this inventory 
element: 19%; 
Partial: the agency provides some, but not all, of the information for 
this inventory element: 81%. 

Network storage: 
Yes: the agency provides complete information on this inventory 
element: 67%; 
Partial: the agency provides some, but not all, of the information for 
this inventory element: 33%. 

Data center information: 
Yes: the agency provides complete information on this inventory 
element: 14%; 
Partial: the agency provides some, but not all, of the information for 
this inventory element: 86%. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of figure] 

* Physical servers. Thirteen agencies provide complete information on 
their physical servers and 8 agencies provide partial information. For 
example, the Department of Education (Education) provides complete 
information on its total rack count and counts of types of servers, 
while the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides 
complete counts of individual servers, but partial information on 
total rack count. Additionally, the Department of Justice (Justice) 
provides partial information for both its total rack count and types 
of servers. 

* Virtualization. Seventeen agencies provide complete information on 
their virtualization and 4 agencies provide partial information. For 
example, HUD, the Departments of State (State) and Veterans Affairs 
(VA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), all provide complete 
information on their virtual host count and virtual operating system 
count. In contrast, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security 
(DHS), Justice, and GSA provide partial information for both of those 
same elements. 

* IT facilities and energy. Four agencies provide complete information 
on their IT facilities and energy, while 17 provide partial 
information. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 
SSA fully provide such information as total data center power capacity 
and average data center electricity usage. However, VA fully reports 
on total data center power capacity, but partially on average data 
center electricity usage and total IT data center power capacity. 
Further, the Department of Labor (Labor) partially reports on total 
data center IT power capacity and average data center electricity 
usage and does not report any information on total data center power 
capacity. 

* Network storage. Fourteen agencies provide complete information on 
their network storage and 7 provide partial information. For example, 
the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and Transportation 
(Transportation), EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID) all fully report on their total and used network 
storage. Other agencies, such as Defense, HHS, and State partially 
report information in each of those two categories. 

* Data center information. Three agencies provide complete information 
on their individual data centers, while 18 provide partial 
information. For example, HUD and SSA both fully report on data center-
specific information such as data center type, gross floor area, and 
target date for closure. Other agencies, such as Energy and VA fully 
report on gross floor area and closure information, but partially 
report data center costs. Also, agencies such as Defense and DHS 
report partial information in all categories. 

Part of the reason the agencies' inventories remain incomplete stems 
from challenges in gathering data center power information, a key 
component of the IT facilities and energy component, and more broadly, 
problems providing good quality asset inventories, as OMB requires. 
These challenges are discussed in more detail later in this report. 
Because the continued progress of FDCCI is largely dependent on 
accomplishing goals built on the information provided by agency 
inventories, it will be important for agencies to continue to work on 
completing their inventories, thus providing a sound basis for their 
savings and utilization forecasts. 

Agencies Updated Consolidation Plans, but Most Plans Are Not Complete: 

In addition to the agencies' inventories, we previously recommended 
and OMB required agencies to update their consolidation plans to 
address any missing elements. OMB's revised guidance on the contents 
of the consolidation plans retains key elements from its prior 
guidance and adds requirements to discuss steps taken to verify 
inventory and plan data, consolidation progress, and consolidation 
cost savings. OMB has previously reported on the importance of 
agencies' consolidation plans in providing a technical road map and 
approach for achieving specified targets for infrastructure 
utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency. Table 5 provides 
a detailed description of each of these elements. 

Table 5: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Updated 
Consolidation Plans: 

Element: Quantitative goals; 
Guidance: The agency should define high-level asset reduction and IT 
infrastructure utilization improvement goals, which include agencywide 
savings and utilization forecasts through fiscal year 2015. These 
forecasts are to address projected reductions for data centers, 
aggregate gross floor area, total number of racks, total number of 
servers, and the corresponding utilization metrics (including server 
virtualization percentages). 

Element: Qualitative impacts; 
Guidance: Agency goals need to include qualitative impacts targeted by 
the agency (e.g., standardization, economies of scale, procurement 
improvements, security and operational efficiency improvements, etc.). 

Element: Summary of approach; 
Guidance: The agency needs to include a brief summary for each of the 
specific approaches that will be undertaken to achieve the stated 
goals. 

Element: Scope of consolidation; 
Guidance: The plan needs to include a clear, well-defined scope for 
implementing the FDCCI, by identifying the specific target 
agency/component/bureau data centers to be consolidated. 

Element: High-level timeline; 
Guidance: The plan needs to include a high-level timeline for data 
center consolidation. 

Element: Performance metrics; 
Guidance: The agency's governance framework for data center 
consolidation needs to include specific metrics that will be used in 
performance measurement. 

Element: Master program schedule; 
Guidance: A master program schedule needs to be created for the entire 
agency, from the detailed implementation schedules provided by each of 
the data center managers as well as driven by related federal 
government activities (e.g., OMB reporting, budget submission, or 
beginning of a new fiscal year). 

Element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
Guidance: The plan is to include a cost-benefit analysis stating, for 
each fiscal year included as part of the agency's final consolidation 
plan, aggregate year-by-year investment and cost savings calculations 
through fiscal year 2015. 

Element: Risk management plan; 
Guidance: A risk management plan needs to be developed and risks need 
to be tracked using templates. 

Element: Communications plan; 
Guidance: Depending on the scope and impact of the consolidation plan, 
the agency should consider developing a communications plan for the 
FDCCI implementation at the agency. Issues to consider in this 
communications plan include: key internal and external stakeholder 
needs/concerns; senior leadership briefing reports; and regular 
coordination with key parties involved in plan implementation. 

Element: Inventory/plan verification; 
Guidance: The plan should describe the steps taken to verify that 
inventory data and the consolidation plan are complete, accurate and 
consistent. Also the plan should identify any significant data 
limitations. 

Element: Consolidation progress; 
Guidance: The plan should document if the agency met data center 
consolidation targets through 9/30/11 and address whether the agency 
is prepared to meet calendar year 2012 targets. The plan should also 
highlight the agency's successes and challenges experienced to date. 
The plan should also consider any consolidation lessons learned. 

Element: Cost savings; 
Guidance: The plan needs to address cost savings realized in calendar 
year 2011and how those savings related to established targets. The 
plan should also provide what future savings will be based on 2011 
efforts, whether there were any unexpected costs, and whether the 
agency's fiscal year 2011 enacted budget had any impact on 
consolidation efforts. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[End of table] 

All 24 agencies submitted consolidation plans to OMB, but only 1 
agency has a complete plan. For the remaining 23 agencies, selected 
elements are missing from each plan. For example, among the 24 
agencies, all provide complete information on their qualitative 
impacts, but only 9 provide complete information on their quantitative 
goals. Further, 23 agencies specify their consolidation approach, but 
only 5 indicate that a full cost-benefit analysis was performed for 
the consolidation initiative. In many cases, agencies submitted some, 
but not all, of the required information. Figure 2 provides an 
assessment of the completeness of agencies' consolidation plans, by 
key element, and a discussion of each element follows the figure. In 
addition, a detailed summary of each agency's completion of key 
elements is provided in appendix II. 

Figure 2: Twenty-four Agencies' Completion of Required Information for 
Data Center Consolidation Plan Key Elements, as of September 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Quantitative goals: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
38%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 54%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 4%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 4%. 

Qualitative impacts: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
100%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 0; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 0; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 0. 

Summary of approach: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
96%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 0; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 0; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 4%. 

Scope of consolidation: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
92%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 4%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 4%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 0. 

High-level timeline: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
92%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 4%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 4%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 0. 

Performance metrics: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
75%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 4%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 
17%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 4%. 

Master program schedule: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
38%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 0; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 
54%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 8%. 

Cost-benefit analysis: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
21%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 42%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 
29%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 8%. 

Risk management: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
75%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 17%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 8%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 0. 

Communications plan: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
92%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 4%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 4%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 0. 

Inventory/plan verification: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
63%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 37%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 0; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 0. 

Consolidation progress: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
46%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 46%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 0; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 8%. 

Cost savings: 
Yes — the agency provides complete information for this plan element: 
5%; 
Partial — the agency provides some, but not all, of the information 
for this plan element: 54%; 
No — the agency does not provide information for this plan element: 
33%; 
N/A — this element is not applicable: 8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of figure] 

* Quantitative goals. Nine agencies provide complete savings and 
utilization forecasts, 13 agencies provide partial forecasts, 1 agency 
does not provide any information, and an official from 1 agency said 
that this element did not apply. For example, Agriculture and Labor 
were rated as providing partial forecasts because they provide 
complete savings forecasts, but incomplete utilization forecasts. 
State and NRC were rated as providing partial forecasts because they 
both provide incomplete savings and utilization forecasts. Some 
agencies identified reasons for not having completed these forecasts. 
Specifically, a Department of the Interior (Interior) official told us 
that it was not cost effective to gather the missing information, so 
it was not included. Officials from other agencies, such as Labor and 
NRC, told us of data quality problems or that their data centers 
lacked the ability to gather the required information. Further, a HUD 
official stated that the department did not have any quantitative 
goals because their consolidation effort was completed in 2005. 

* Qualitative impacts. All 24 agencies fully describe the qualitative 
impacts of their consolidation initiatives. For example, Commerce's 
plan describes goals such as controlling data center costs and 
shifting IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and 
technologies. Additionally, NASA reports that the consolidation effort 
will provide access to cost and power-efficient data centers that will 
meet all of the agency's computing needs, as well as transform the 
data center environment, in part through virtualization and the use of 
cloud services. Further, SBA describes goals such as reducing the 
amount of physical resources consumed by technology systems and 
modernizing and updating agency systems. 

* Summary of consolidation approach. Twenty-three agencies include a 
summary of the agencies' consolidation approaches and an official from 
1 agency said that this element did not apply. For example, Defense 
describes the department's reference architecture for use in guiding 
the consolidation effort and also provides examples of how the Air 
Force and the Army are approaching aspects of their respective 
consolidations. Additionally, State's plan details how the department 
will consolidate all domestic data centers into four enterprise data 
centers. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element was not 
applicable because the department's consolidation effort was completed 
in 2005. 

* Scope of consolidation. Twenty-two agencies' plans include a well-
defined scope for data center consolidation, 1 provides partial 
information on the scope of their consolidation efforts, and 1 does 
not provide this information. Specifically, the agencies that provide 
this information list the data centers included in the consolidation 
effort and what consolidation approach will be taken for each center. 
For example, EPA lists the 25 facilities for which either the servers 
will be moved or the site will be decommissioned. Similarly, Justice 
lists the 36 centers that will be either consolidated or 
decommissioned. However, Labor only partially addresses consolidation 
scope because it only provides information on about half of its data 
centers. According to an agency official, the centers that have been 
addressed constitute the bulk of the agency's computing power, but 
that the remaining facilities will be addressed in a later phase of 
the consolidation effort, the timing for which has not yet been 
determined. Additionally, Defense has not defined its consolidation 
scope. A Defense consolidation program official stated that the 
department was still working to better understand the full inventory 
for all departmental components. 

* High-level timeline. Twenty-two agencies include a high-level 
timeline for consolidation efforts, 1 agency includes partial 
information on its timeline, and 1 does not provide a timeline. For 
example, Justice and EPA both provide the year for which action will 
be taken on their centers to be consolidated and NRC lists the years 
its three centers will be consolidated before they are replaced by 
NRC's new data center. In contrast, Labor provides a timeline for 
about half of its data centers, and Defense does not provide a 
timeline because it has not fully defined the scope of its 
consolidation effort. 

* Performance metrics. Eighteen agencies identify specific performance 
metrics for their consolidation programs, 1 agency provides partial 
information on its metrics, 4 agencies do not identify specific 
metrics, and an official from 1 agency said that this element did not 
apply. Specifically, Agriculture's plan defines several key 
performance indicators such as the numbers of applications moved and 
physical servers eliminated. Additionally, several agencies, such as 
Commerce, Defense, and NSF, provide consolidation performance metrics 
based on quantitative savings and utilization goals. As an example of 
an agency with partial metrics, Education identifies metrics based on 
its savings goals, but is missing information on its progress in 
meeting utilization goals. Additionally, DHS and NRC do not identify 
any performance metrics. Officials from both DHS and NRC agreed that 
their agencies did not have such measures when their plans were 
published, but noted that the required metrics had since been 
developed or that they now have the resources to develop them. 
Further, a HUD official stated that this element was not applicable 
because the department's consolidation effort was completed in 2005. 

* Master program schedule. Nine agencies reference a completed master 
program schedule, 13 agencies do not reference such a schedule, and 
officials from 2 agencies said that this element did not apply. For 
example, HHS, VA, and GSA discuss their master program schedules, but 
other agencies, such as State and EPA do not reference schedules in 
their plans. State officials noted that the department has a schedule, 
but that it was not included in their consolidation plan due to a 
miscommunication. They stated that it would be included in their next 
plan update. Some agencies, such as Defense and Labor, are working to 
develop their schedules or will develop them in the future. A Defense 
official told us that the department has drafted a combined data 
center consolidation and cloud computing master schedule that is 
expected to be approved by the end of September 2012. Officials from 
Energy told us that their consolidation schedule existed, but that it 
was part of a larger departmental effort and did not provide detail 
down to the individual data center level. Officials from OPM 
questioned the utility of a master program schedule for relatively 
limited consolidation efforts. Two agencies reported that this 
requirement was not applicable to their situation. Specifically, 
officials from Education stated that this requirement was not 
applicable because of the small scale of their agency's consolidation 
efforts. Additionally, a HUD official stated that this element was not 
applicable because the department's consolidation effort was completed 
in 2005. 

* Cost-benefit analysis. Five agencies provide results from a complete 
cost-benefit analysis that encompasses their entire consolidation 
initiative, 10 agencies provide only selected elements of a cost-
benefit analysis, and 7 agencies do not provide a cost-benefit 
analysis. This element did not apply to 2 agencies. For example, 
Commerce details full annualized cost and savings estimates through 
fiscal year 2015, while other agencies, such as HHS and Interior 
provide only partial information. Specifically, HHS addresses 
projected savings, but not costs, and Interior acknowledges that an 
analysis has not yet been completed. Some agencies, such as Defense 
and Energy, plan to complete a cost-benefit analysis in the future. 
Officials from Transportation told us that the department was working 
on a new cost-benefit analysis, as the department no longer felt 
comfortable with their original savings projections. An Education 
official noted that the department's consolidation did not cost 
anything and that although data will be moved out of the department's 
one server room to be consolidated by the end of 2012, the facility 
would still operate as a network center. Additionally, a HUD official 
stated that this element was not applicable because the department's 
consolidation effort was completed in 2005. 

* Risk management plan. Eighteen agencies reference a consolidation 
risk management plan and require that risks be tracked, 4 agencies 
partially address risk management, and 2 agencies do not address risk 
management. For example, DHS describes its Data Center Services 
Project Risk Management Plan, including how risks are identified, 
assessed, and mitigated throughout the development life cycle. 
Additionally, Transportation addresses how its risk management plan 
identifies and tracks risks in three categories: people, process, and 
technology and administration. In contrast, agencies such as Energy 
and Interior are rated as partial because they are continuing to 
develop their risk management processes. An Interior official told us 
that the department's plan is scheduled to be completed by June 2012. 
Officials from both OPM and SBA acknowledged that their consolidation 
plans did not address a risk management plan, but noted that risk was 
either being managed as part of individual projects or within a larger 
context within their respective organizations. 

* Communications plan. Twenty-two agencies consider a communications 
plan for the agencies' consolidation initiatives, 1 agency does so 
partially, and 1 agency does not. For example, HHS describes a series 
of organizational responsibilities for gathering and reporting project 
information, as well as communicating with other departmental 
stakeholders. Additionally, GSA describes how its communications 
approach ensures that stakeholders both within and outside of the 
agency are kept informed as to consolidation progress. The Department 
of the Treasury (Treasury) partially addresses its communications 
plan, noting that it is maintained as part of a larger departmental 
effort. OPM makes no such reference. Further, an official from OPM 
told us that a communications plan was not as critical for a small 
agency. 

* Inventory and plan verification. Fifteen agencies fully describe the 
steps taken to ensure that inventories and plans were complete and 
accurate, and 9 agencies partially do so. For example, State describes 
how information was gathered and validated, addresses several 
limitations, and attests to the documents' completeness. Additionally, 
EPA describes how information was validated, describes limitations on 
inventory data, and attests to the currency of the agency's plans. 
However, other agencies, such as Agriculture, HUD, and SSA are rated 
as having partially completed this element because they note that 
information was validated, but do not address data limitations or the 
completeness of both the inventory and plan. A HUD official told us 
that the department was unaware of this requirement and agreed to 
consider what could be said in the next plan update. An SSA official 
acknowledged that this information was meant to be included, but was 
inadvertently omitted. 

* Consolidation progress. Eleven agencies fully report on progress 
meeting consolidation goals, 11 agencies do so partially, and this 
element does not apply to 2 agencies. Specifically, Justice addresses 
progress against consolidation goals, discusses consolidation 
challenges, and references consolidation successes, such as 
integrating lessons learned from other organizations. VA similarly 
describes progress against goals and challenges, and also notes the 
department's reliance on commercial and public best practices while 
updating its consolidation plan. However, both Education and NASA are 
rated as partially completing this element because they discuss 
progress against goals, but do not present specific successes or 
challenges. A NASA official agreed that this information was not 
included, but stated that the agency was aware of situations that 
addressed both categories of information. Additionally, a HUD official 
stated that this element was not applicable because the department's 
consolidation effort was completed in 2005. OPM officials stated that 
the agency followed OMB's original guidance when completing their 
updated consolidation plan, which did not include a requirement for 
reporting on consolidation progress. 

* Cost savings. Only 1 agency fully reports on consolidation cost 
savings, while 13 agencies do so partially, and 8 do not. This element 
does not apply to two other agencies. Specifically, Commerce discusses 
net savings, future savings, budgetary impacts, and that the 
consolidation effort did not incur any unexpected costs. In contrast, 
HHS and Justice address net and future savings, but not budgetary 
impacts or unexpected costs. Additionally, other agencies do not 
include this information for various reasons. Notably, a Defense 
official told us that it was challenging to gather savings information 
from all the department's components. An NSF official told us the 
information was not included because the agency had not yet realized 
any cost savings and so, had nothing to report. However, the agency 
expected to have more to report in the future. Additionally, a HUD 
official stated that this element was not applicable because the 
department's consolidation effort was completed in 2005. Further, as 
with reporting on consolidation progress, OPM officials stated that 
they followed OMB's original guidance, which did not include a 
requirement relating to cost savings. 

In the continued absence of completed consolidation plans, agencies 
are at risk of implementing their respective initiatives without a 
clear understanding of their current state and proposed end state. For 
example, OMB intends for agencies' master program schedules to provide 
an agencywide plan drawn from detailed implementation schedules for 
each data center. However, only nine agencies have fully completed 
this activity. Further, OMB intends agencies' cost-benefit analyses to 
assess planned investments and cost savings calculations on a year-by-
year basis, thus capturing realistic estimates of funding needed or 
savings realized from the closing of facilities and associated 
reduction in energy use. Nonetheless, only five agencies have 
completed such a study. Without completing this information, agencies 
may not realize anticipated cost savings, improved infrastructure 
utilization, or energy efficiency. The importance of these two 
practices is further discussed in the following section. 

Selected Agencies Have Incomplete Schedules and Cost Estimates: 

OMB requires both a master program schedule and a cost-benefit 
analysis as key elements of agencies' consolidation plans, but none of 
the agencies we evaluated had complete schedules or cost estimates. A 
comprehensive schedule is an important foundational element for 
initiative planning and provides a road map for systematic project 
execution. A credible cost-benefit analysis, which is one type of cost 
estimate, is a key tool for management to use in making informed 
decisions and includes information such as relative benefits and the 
effect and value of cost trade-offs. However, of five agencies 
(Agriculture, DHS, Interior, Transportation, and VA) selected for 
further analysis, none had a schedule or cost estimate that was fully 
consistent with best practices. Of the five agencies, two did not have 
schedules at all and one agency had previously completed a cost 
estimate but no longer had confidence in those calculations and 
therefore, planned to do a new cost-benefit analysis. OMB is 
sponsoring the development of a standardized cost model that could 
help agencies provide future estimates based on a common set of 
assumptions, estimates, and calculations. 

Selected Agencies' Master Program Schedules Are Not Complete: 

The success of a program depends in part on having an integrated and 
reliable master schedule that defines when and how long work will 
occur and how one activity is related to another. A program schedule 
provides not only a road map for systematic project execution but also 
the means by which to gauge progress, identify and resolve potential 
problems, and promote accountability at all levels of the program. A 
schedule also provides a time sequence for the duration of a program's 
activities and furthers an understanding of both the dates for major 
milestones and the activities that drive the schedule. Our research 
has identified four select attributes of properly sequenced schedule 
activities that are essential for a reliable schedule 
network.[Footnote 20] Table 6 provides a detailed description of these 
attributes. 

Table 6: Select Attributes of Properly Sequenced Schedule Activities: 

Attribute: Identified dependencies; 
Definition: Activities that are related within a schedule network are 
referred to as predecessors and successors (i.e., dependencies). The 
purpose of a dependency is to depict the sequence of occurrence 
between activities. Except for the start and finish milestones, every 
activity within the schedule should have at least one predecessor and 
at least one successor. Identifying all interdependencies between 
activities is necessary for the schedule to properly calculate dates 
and predict changes in the future. Without the right linkages, 
activities that slip early in the schedule do not transmit delays to 
activities that should depend on them. When this happens, the schedule 
will not provide a sufficient basis for understanding the program as a 
whole, and users of the schedule will lack confidence in the dates and 
the critical path. 

Attribute: No dangling activities; 
Definition: Dangling activities have scheduling relationships that are 
not properly tied to an activity's start or end date. Each activity's 
start date--other than the start and finish milestones--must be driven 
by a predecessor activity, and each activity's finish date must drive 
a successor activity's start or finish. Dangling activities, a form of 
incomplete schedule logic, can interfere with the valid forecasting of 
scheduled activities. 

Attribute: No start-to-finish links; 
Definition: A relationship linking a predecessor and successor 
activity can take one of three forms: finish-to-start, start-to-start, 
and finish-to-finish. A fourth combination, the start-to-finish link, 
has the effect of directing a successor activity not to finish until 
its predecessor activity starts, in effect reversing the expected flow 
of effort. (For example, instead of creating an activity sequence in 
which a system is developed and then deployed, the start-to-finish 
link would require that deployment cannot be completed until system 
development has begun.) Its use is widely discouraged because it is 
counterintuitive and it overcomplicates the schedule network. 

Attribute: No summary links; 
Definition: Summary activities should not have relationships because 
their start and finish dates are derived from lower-level activities. 
Therefore, there is no need for relationships on a summary activity in 
a properly networked schedule. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Of the five agencies selected, three agencies (Agriculture, VA, and 
DHS) provided their consolidation master program schedules and two 
agencies (Interior and Transportation) did not provide a master 
program schedule that we could evaluate.[Footnote 21] Of the three 
agencies that provided schedules, Agriculture and VA provided a single 
master schedule and DHS provided 4 schedules representing different 
aspects of the department's future consolidation plans. However, none 
of these agencies' schedules is fully compliant with the four 
attributes, although each agency was at least partially consistent 
with these practices. Table 7 provides an assessment of the agencies' 
consistency with the four attributes of properly sequenced schedule 
activities. A discussion of the analysis of each characteristic 
follows the table. 

Table 7: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies' Schedules with 
Attributes of a Properly Sequenced Schedule: 

Attribute: Identified dependencies; 
Agriculture: the schedule(s) addresses some, but not all, aspects of 
this practice; 
DHS: the schedule(s) addresses some, but not all, aspects of this 
practice; 
VA: the schedule(s) addresses some, but not all, aspects of this 
practice. 

Attribute: No dangling activities; 
Agriculture: the schedule(s) addresses all aspects of this practice; 
DHS: the schedule(s) addresses some, but not all, aspects of this 
practice; 
VA: the schedule(s) addresses all aspects of this practice. 

Attribute: No start-to-finish links; 
Agriculture: the schedule(s) addresses all aspects of this practice; 
DHS: the schedule(s) addresses some, but not all, aspects of this 
practice; 
VA: the schedule(s) addresses all aspects of this practice. 

Attribute: No summary links; 
Agriculture: the schedule(s) addresses all aspects of this practice; 
DHS: the schedule(s) addresses some, but not all, aspects of this 
practice; 
VA: the schedule(s) addresses no aspects of this practice. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of table] 

* Identified dependencies. None of the three agencies' schedules is 
fully consistent with this practice. Specifically, two of DHS's 
schedules have activities missing predecessors, successors, or both. 
Additionally, almost half of Agriculture's activities, and almost 40 
percent of VA's, have a similar condition. 

* No dangling activities. Two of the three agencies are consistent 
with this practice and one agency is partially consistent. For 
example, neither schedule for Agriculture or VA has any dangling 
activities. In contrast, two of DHS's four schedules do not have 
dangling activities, while the remaining two do have such activities. 

* No start-to-finish links. Two of the three agencies' schedules are 
consistent with this practice and one agency's schedule is partially 
consistent. Both of Agriculture and VA's schedules are consistent with 
this practice and have no start-to-finish links. However, while three 
of DHS's schedules do not have start-to-finish links, one schedule 
does. 

* No summary links. One of the three agencies was consistent with this 
practice, one agency was partially consistent, and one agency was not 
consistent. Specifically, Agriculture's schedule does not have any 
summary links, while only one of DHS's schedules meets the same 
condition. Three of DHS's schedules include summary links, as does 
VA's schedule. 

Department officials gave a variety of reasons why their respective 
department did not provide documentation of a completed master program 
schedule: 

* An Agriculture official told us that the department had a detailed 
schedule for every individual closure, but that because those projects 
are not necessarily linked to one another, there was no need to link 
these activities in a master schedule. However, leading practices 
demonstrate that even a summary master schedule should be a roll-up of 
lower-level schedules and reflect milestones that are automatically 
calculated through the established network logic between planned 
activities. A schedule with proper logic can predict impacts on the 
project's planned finish date of, among other things, misallocated 
resources, delayed activities, external events, scope changes, and 
unrealistic deadlines. 

* DHS's consolidation program manager stated that the department 
provided separate schedules because schedules are developed for 
individual facilities when placed under contract for closure. However, 
leading practices show that a program schedule should include the 
entire required scope of effort, including the effort necessary from 
all government, contractors, and other key parties for a program's 
successful execution from start to finish. The DHS consolidation 
program manager acknowledged that the schedules in question were 
developed by contractors and that the department plans to incorporate 
the suggested best practices as appropriate. 

* A VA official told us that because some of the tasks in the 
department's schedule are expected to start on particular dates to 
ensure funding is available for the project task, they do not have 
predecessor tasks. While this can be a permissible step when the 
schedule constraints are clearly identified, the VA official was able 
to provide some, but not all, of those constraints. The VA official 
further told us that unnecessary tasks and constraints have since been 
removed from the department's schedule. 

* Interior officials stated that the department's master program 
schedule was not yet complete. 

* Transportation's consolidation program manager stated that the 
department does not have a master program schedule dedicated to the 
FDCCI. Rather, the consolidation effort appears as a task on the 
department's master IT projects schedule. 

In the absence of program schedules constructed in accordance with 
scheduling best practices, the agencies we evaluated are at risk of 
moving forward with their consolidation efforts despite having 
incomplete information that defines when and how long work will occur 
and how activities are related to each other. 

Selected Agencies' Cost Estimates Are Not Reliable: 

We have reported that the ability to generate a reliable cost 
estimate, such as a cost-benefit analysis, is a critical function 
necessary to support OMB's capital programming process.[Footnote 22] 
Such estimates should also include information on the benefits of the 
project. Without such estimates, agencies are at risk of experiencing 
cost overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. Our 
research has identified a number of best practices that are the basis 
of effective program cost estimating and should result in reliable and 
valid cost estimates that management can use for making informed 
decisions. Table 8 provides a detailed description of the four 
characteristics of a high-quality and reliable cost estimate. 

Table 8: Characteristics of a High-quality and Reliable Cost Estimate: 

Characteristic: Comprehensive; 
Description: The cost estimate should include all life cycle costs, 
completely define the program, reflect the current schedule, and be 
technically reasonable. The cost estimate work breakdown structure 
should be product-oriented, traceable to the statement of 
work/objective, and at an appropriate level of detail to ensure that 
cost elements are neither omitted nor double-counted. The estimate 
should document all cost-influencing ground rules and assumptions. 

Characteristic: Well-documented; 
Description: The estimate documentation should capture the source data 
used, the reliability of the data, and how the data were normalized 
and should describe in sufficient detail the calculations performed 
and the estimating methodology used to derive each element's cost. The 
documentation should describe step by step how the estimate was 
developed so that a cost analyst unfamiliar with the program could 
understand what was done and replicate it. The documentation should 
further discuss the technical baseline description and the data in the 
baseline should be consistent with the estimate, as well as provide 
evidence that the cost estimate was reviewed and accepted by 
management. 

Characteristic: Accurate; 
Description: The cost estimate results should be unbiased, not overly 
conservative or optimistic and based on an assessment of most likely 
costs and the estimate should be adjusted properly for inflation. The 
estimate should contain few, if any, minor mistakes and be regularly 
updated to reflect significant changes in the program so that it 
always reflects current status. Variances between planned and actual 
costs should be documented, explained, and reviewed and the estimate 
should be based on a historical record of cost estimating and actual 
experiences from other comparable programs. 

Characteristic: Credible; 
Description: The cost estimate should include a sensitivity analysis 
that identifies a range of possible costs based on varying major 
assumptions, parameters, and data inputs. A risk and uncertainty 
analysis should be conducted that quantifies the imperfectly 
understood risks and identifies the effects of changing key cost 
driver assumptions and factors. Major cost elements should be crossed-
checked to see whether results were similar. An independent cost 
estimate should be conducted by a group outside the acquiring 
organization to determine whether other estimating methods produce 
similar results. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Of the five agencies selected, four (Agriculture, DHS, Interior, and 
VA) provided supporting documentation used to calculate the cost 
estimates found in the agencies' consolidation plans and one 
(Transportation) did not. Transportation officials explained that they 
were no longer confident in their prior estimates and they planned to 
undertake a new cost-benefit analysis in 2012. None of the four 
agencies' estimates was fully compliant with best practices, although 
all of the estimates were at least minimally consistent with these 
practices. Table 9 provides an assessment of the estimates' 
consistency with the characteristics of a reliable cost estimate. A 
discussion of the analysis of each characteristic follows the table. 

Table 9: Assessment of Consistency of Agencies' Cost Estimates with 
Best Practices: 

Characteristic: Comprehensive; 
Agriculture: the agency provides evidence that satisfies about half of 
the criterion; 
DHS: the agency provides evidence that satisfies about half of the 
criterion; 
Interior: the agency provides evidence that satisfies about half of 
the criterion; 
VA: the agency provides evidence that satisfies about half of the 
criterion. 

Characteristic: Well-documented; 
Agriculture: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the 
criterion; 
DHS: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the 
criterion; 
Interior: the agency provides evidence that satisfies about half of 
the criterion; 
VA: the agency provides evidence that satisfies most of the criterion. 

Characteristic: Accurate; 
Agriculture: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the 
criterion; 
DHS: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the 
criterion; 
Interior: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the 
criterion; 
VA: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the criterion. 

Characteristic: Credible; 
Agriculture: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the 
criterion; 
DHS: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the 
criterion; 
Interior: the agency provides evidence that satisfies about half of 
the criterion; 
VA: the agency provides evidence that satisfies a few of the criterion. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of table] 

* Comprehensive. None of the estimates are fully consistent with this 
practice, although all four estimates satisfy about half of the 
criterion for this practice. For example, Agriculture includes most 
related costs and estimate assumptions, but does not include a work 
breakdown structure. Similarly, Interior includes most related costs 
and estimate assumptions, but also does not include a work breakdown 
structure. 

* Well-documented. None of the estimates fully satisfy this practice. 
Specifically, one estimate satisfies most, but not all, of the 
practice, one estimate satisfies about half of the criterion for the 
practice, and two estimates satisfy a few of the criterion for the 
practice. For example, Interior documents its technical baseline but 
does not fully document how the estimate was developed. VA describes 
how its calculations were performed and discusses the estimate's 
technical baseline, but satisfied only half of the criteria describing 
how the estimate was performed. 

* Accurate. None of the estimates fully satisfied this practice. One 
estimate satisfied about half of the practice and three estimates 
satisfied some of the practice. For example, Agriculture's estimate is 
partially based on historical estimates, but has not been updated 
since March 2009. Additionally, while DHS updated its estimate in July 
2011, it did not adjust for inflation or document variations between 
planned and actual costs. 

* Credible. None of the estimates fully satisfied this practice. One 
estimate satisfied about half the practice and three estimates 
satisfied some of the practice. For example, DHS addressed some 
aspects of a risk and uncertainty analysis, but did not conduct an 
estimate sensitivity analysis. Conversely, VA addressed some aspects 
of an estimate sensitivity analysis, but did not conduct a risk and 
uncertainty analysis. Neither agency conducted an independent cost 
estimate. 

Agency officials gave a variety of reasons for why their cost 
estimates were not complete. For example, the Agriculture CIO 
indicated that the department's estimate was performed several years 
ago by a contractor and additional documentation was difficult to 
acquire. Additionally, Interior's consolidation program manager stated 
that the department was in the process of revising its cost estimate 
using OMB's cost model, but the effort was not yet complete. Further, 
Interior's consolidation plan describes several efforts to estimate 
costs that the department ultimately did not include in their plan and 
indicates that the department will address this in a future 
deliverable. In May 2012, Interior officials stated that they recently 
provided this information to OMB. VA officials stated that they did 
not provide previous cost estimate documentation because the 
department expected to revise its cost estimate using new information 
regarding cost assumptions and that this information would affect life-
cycle cost estimates. The DHS consolidation program manager noted that 
the department is now taking a different approach towards cost 
estimates through the use of enterprisewide contracts. Regarding 
Transportation, although it reported FDCCI-related estimated savings 
of over $26 million in its 2010 plan, the department's updated 
consolidation plan states that the original cost estimates were no 
longer relevant and the department is in the process of conducting a 
new estimating effort that was not completed in time for the plan's 
submission. Further, in March 2012, a department official confirmed 
that Transportation no longer felt comfortable with the original 
savings estimate and that planned cost savings were being reevaluated. 
The official further stated the department intends to complete a new 
cost-benefit analysis. 

Between the five agencies that we reviewed, there are plans to 
consolidate 375 data centers of all sizes. In the absence of reliable 
cost estimates, these five agencies are exposed to the types of risks 
that we have reported to be recurring problems in our program reviews-
-namely cost overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. 
Because of the importance of a high-quality cost estimate to 
consolidation efforts as significant as these, it will be important 
for these agencies to work to improve their cost estimates, thus 
providing information on which management can make well-informed 
decisions as the agencies move towards their 2015 targets. 

OMB Developed a Model to Help Agencies Plan Consolidations, but Does 
Not Require Its Use: 

To assist agencies in their data center consolidation efforts, the 
FDCCI Data Center Consolidation Task Force developed a standard Total 
Cost of Ownership (TCO) model in order to provide a comprehensive tool 
to help to inform consolidation decision making, model consolidation 
paths, and assist with the development of cost savings figures and 
funding needs. OMB provided the model to agencies for voluntary use 
starting in January 2012, noting that it is intended to provide a 
uniform and consistent method to derive agency cost savings figures 
and a modeling and simulation tool to inform consolidation decisions. 

At a high level, agencies load their raw agency inventory data into 
the spreadsheet-based model to develop three outputs: 

* an "as is" view of current costs; 

* a 5-year projection of costs based on maintaining current equipment 
and facilities at current growth rates; and: 

* a 5-year projection of costs, including equipment and facilities 
counts, based on the agency's planned data center closure and 
efficiency targets. 

The model relies on a number of built-in assumptions--based on best 
practices in the public and private sectors and grouped into 
categories such as facilities, hardware, and software--to provide its 
outputs. The model also recognizes some limitations, such as an 
inability to capture costing data for individual facilities and an 
inability to recognize individual costs for hardware and software. To 
compensate, the model applies universal values for such information, 
while recognizing the inaccuracies this may cause in some costing 
elements. The model further allows agencies to adjust specific 
variables to input costs that are atypical or not already anticipated 
by the model. According to an official from the GSA program management 
office that maintains the cost model, while not intended to capture 
comprehensive program costs, the model does provide agencies with the 
ability to customize the input information to make it as comprehensive 
as they need it to be. As a result, agencies could use this tool to 
provide more consistent and reliable cost estimates. Moreover, the 
model provides standardized cost calculations, adjustment for 
inflation, and a scenario-analysis tool that agencies can use to 
analyze alternatives and develop plans. Thus, it can be used as a tool 
to help agencies improve their consolidation planning. 

Officials from several agencies told us that they plan to use the TCO 
model in future cost estimating efforts. For example, a Transportation 
official told us that the department intends to use the model as it 
recalculates its cost-benefit estimate. Additionally, the Interior 
consolidation program manager stated that the department planned to 
use the model to determine power estimates. Officials from other 
agencies, such as SSA and EPA, told us that the model was being 
considered for future use. 

Use of the TCO model could provide more consistent and reliable cost 
estimates, but using the model is currently voluntary. In light of the 
limitations identified above in our review of the five agencies' cost 
estimates, the deployment of a standardized tool for planning 
consolidation efforts could help ensure that agencies develop 
consistent and uniform projections. Until OMB requires agencies to use 
the model, agencies will likely continue to use a variety of 
methodologies and assumptions in establishing consolidation estimates, 
and it will remain difficult to summarize projections across agencies. 

Agencies Have Experienced Consolidation Successes and Continue to 
Report Challenges: 

Agencies reported experiencing multiple areas of success in their 
consolidation efforts. Specifically, 20 agencies identified 34 areas 
of success, with the number of agencies reporting a particular success 
ranging from 9 to 1. However, only 3 successes were identified by 
multiple agencies and, of those, 2 represent over 45 percent of the 
total reported successes. Four agencies--Justice, Transportation, NSF, 
and SSA--did not report any successes. Table 10 details the reported 
successes as well as the number of agencies identifying that area of 
success; the two most common areas are further discussed after the 
table. 

Table 10: Agency Consolidation Successes: 

Reported areas of success: Focusing on virtualization and cloud 
services as consolidation solutions; 
Number of agencies: 9. 

Reported areas of success: Working with other agencies and components 
to find consolidation opportunities; 
Number of agencies: 8. 

Reported areas of success: Ensuring a more comprehensive asset 
inventory; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Reported areas of success: Overcoming internal politics; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Developing and using a "mobile data center" 
to migrate hardware and facilitate data transfer; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Implementing new services to expedite 
consolidation projects; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Transitioning end-user support to a hosting 
agency, enabling site closure; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Developing standardized templates for 
consolidation plan elements; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Consolidating multiple e-mail systems into 
one cloud-based provider; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Using Energy Performance Contracting to 
rehabilitate buildings; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Developing a profiling tool to allow local 
managers to directly enter inventory information; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Realizing savings and efficiencies from the 
migration to new enterprise data centers; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Increasing implementation of "as a service" 
offerings to reduce overall costs of operations; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Improving service levels; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Improving knowledge management; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Using the Data Center Consolidation Task 
Force as a forum for discussing challenges and identifying potential 
synergies between agencies; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Negotiating carefully with vendors; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Reported areas of success: Implementing shared services; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data and interviews with agency 
officials. 

[End of table] 

Agencies Report That Virtualization and Cloud Services Have Produced 
Cost Savings: 

Virtualization is a technology that allows multiple, software-based 
machines with different operating systems, to run in isolation, side-
by-side, on the same physical machine. Cloud computing is an emerging 
form of computing that relies on Internet-based services and resources 
to provide computing services to customers, while freeing them from 
the burden and costs of maintaining the underlying infrastructure. OMB 
suggests both technologies as agency approaches, along with 
decommissioning and consolidation. Nine agencies reported that 
focusing on virtualization and cloud computing have proven successful 
for their consolidation efforts. 

The Interior consolidation program manager cited virtualization as the 
department's greatest consolidation success, noting the efforts of the 
department's Bureau of Indian Affairs as an example. Specifically, 
Interior has documented virtualization as a key enabler in the efforts 
of the bureau to close data centers. After closing 11 data centers in 
fiscal year 2011, the bureau turned its attention to remote sites with 
more than three servers. Through virtualization, the bureau was able 
to reduce all remote sites to either one or two physical servers. 
Additionally, on a site-by-site basis, other application and database 
servers were either virtualized or migrated to one of two primary 
bureau data centers. In doing so, the bureau's virtualization effort 
reportedly produced over $114,000 in cost avoidance savings for fiscal 
year 2011, is expected to produce over $66,000 in savings for fiscal 
year 2012, and is planned to produce further savings of $66,000 
annually. Table 11 details reductions and savings that the bureau has 
already realized and plans for the future. 

Table 11: Reported Savings from Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Virtualization: 

Category: Total data centers; 
4th quarter 2010: 14; 
4th quarter 2011: 3; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): 1. 

Category: Percent change from 2010 data centers; 
4th quarter 2010: [Empty]; 
4th quarter 2011: -82.35%; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): -88.23%. 

Category: Total data center servers; 
4th quarter 2010: 367; 
4th quarter 2011: 460; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): 71. 

Category: Percent change from 2010 server count; 
4th quarter 2010: [Empty]; 
4th quarter 2011: +25.34%; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): -80.65%. 

Category: Aggregate data center energy usage (kWh/year); 
4th quarter 2010: 1,405,454; 
4th quarter 2011: 1,199,682; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): 127,020. 

Category: Percent change from 2010 energy usage; 
4th quarter 2010: [Empty]; 
4th quarter 2011: -14.64%; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): -90.96%. 

Category: Aggregate data center energy costs per year; 
4th quarter 2010: $101,192; 
4th quarter 2011: $86,377; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): $9,145. 

Category: Energy cost reduction; 
4th quarter 2010: [Empty]; 
4th quarter 2011: $14,815; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): $77,231. 

Category: Cost savings of virtualization; 
4th quarter 2010: [Empty]; 
4th quarter 2011: $114,240; 
4th quarter 2012 (planned): $66,261. 

Source: Department of the Interior. 

[End of table] 

Other agencies also reported virtualization as a key factor in being 
able to realize resource reductions. For example, EPA officials told 
us that the agency was using virtualization to optimize their IT 
infrastructure. In 2011, the agency virtualized over 360 servers, 
increasing the agency's virtualization by 6 percent. In 2012, the 
agency plans to consolidate and virtualize email hosting services, 
allowing the agency to decommission 14 percent (or over 300) of its 
physical servers, and migrate the agency's email gateways to cloud 
services. In one EPA facility, the agency will migrate over 100 
servers from eight server rooms to one primary data center. 
Additionally, NRC reports that it used virtualization to exceed its 
2011 goals for Windows server reductions. Specifically, the agency was 
able to exceed its goal of reducing 13 servers and actually reduced 33 
physical servers, a reduction of more than 10 percent from its 
baseline of 288 servers. Further, OPM officials reported that within 
15 months, the agency was able to increase the virtualization of its 
Windows servers from 15 percent to 50 percent, resulting in cost 
savings for the agency. 

Other agencies reported on the less tangible, but still significant, 
importance of virtualization to their efforts. An Education official 
told us that the department's biggest success has come from focusing 
on virtualization, rather than physical consolidation. DHS reported 
that the increased implementation of virtualization will reduce the 
overall costs of the department's migration and postmigration 
operations. Further, officials from Labor told us that they expect 
virtualization to have an impact on the results of their 
consolidation, but that they had not yet documented any of those 
results. 

Officials from three agencies also shared with us the advantages of 
moving their organizations to cloud services. Specifically, a DHS 
official told us that the department's cloud services technology was 
becoming operational and as a result, costs savings were becoming 
evident versus traditional consolidation. Whereas 2 years ago, the 
department had nothing in the cloud, a large percentage of services 
were now moving in that direction. The official specifically noted a 
DHS component that was originally only going to move to its own 
physical infrastructure, but was now joining with other components 
because of the benefits of moving services to the cloud. A HUD 
official stated that the department's successes were related to higher 
efficiency and utilization of computing and storage resources. 
Essentially, HUD embarked on a cloud-like solution--by means of the 
department's existing outsourcing contract--before cloud computing 
really existed as a service. As a result, the official noted that the 
department has been receiving a number of benefits such as green IT, 
regular technology refreshes, and high utilization of resources. A 
second HUD official noted that the department has been rated across 
the government as having the third-highest computing utilization and 
the second-most efficient use of storage capacity. Further, and as 
mentioned earlier, an EPA official noted that the migration of EPA's 
email gateways to cloud services will enable the agency to 
decommission 14 percent (over 300) of the agency's physical servers. 

Agencies and Components Are Working Together to Identify Consolidation 
Opportunities: 

Eight agencies reported consolidation successes that had been realized 
through agencies working together, both within and outside of their 
department, to identify consolidation opportunities. For example, 
several of the agencies that reported success with virtualization, as 
discussed earlier, also reported working with other departmental 
components as a key enabler of resulting savings. Specifically, 
Interior reported that as part of the department's closing of 11 
Bureau of Indian Affairs data centers in fiscal year 2011, two 
facilities were consolidated with other Interior bureaus, resulting in 
a reduction of 43 of the bureau's 65 servers and producing immediate 
cost avoidance savings of over $114,000. Defense noted the willingness 
of its components to adopt the departmental strategy of first looking 
to the Defense Information Systems Agency for application and data 
hosting before pursuing any other options. Further, a SBA official 
told us that one success from the consolidation effort was that 
agencies have been looking for ways to work together. Specifically, 
the official cited the SBA's effort to reach out to another agency in 
order to craft an interagency agreement to work together and move part 
of their operations into the hosting agency's systems. A second agency 
official noted that because of this, the hosting agency has contacted 
SBA to make sure that it included SBA's needs in its planning and 
requests. Additionally, a DHS official told us that departmental 
components were joining together to move services to the cloud. 

There were also reported successes in working with external agencies. 
For example, VA reported that the department was successful in working 
with the Defense Information Systems Agency on an agreement to 
consolidate mission critical enterprise IT systems into the agency's 
Defense Enterprise Computing Centers. The department noted that 
considerable cost savings could be realized by entering into such an 
interagency agreement, as opposed to leasing from a commercial site, 
for mission critical health record systems. Additionally, a HHS 
official similarly reported that the department's Indian Health 
Service, which has small data centers that cannot close because of 
communication difficulties in their locations, recognized that 
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs had a data center in close 
proximity to an Indian Health Service facility. Consequently, the 
service was able to share space with the bureau and consolidate one of 
its data centers and the service is now looking for similar 
opportunities that will allow HHS to consolidate further. Further, 
Labor officials told us that the department was consolidating small 
server rooms in regional offices to co-located facilities and that 
this approach was expected to reduce costs. 

The consolidation successes experienced by agencies indicate that 
aspects of FDCCI are moving forward as planned. Further, almost half 
of these reported accomplishments directly relate to key tenets of 
OMB's plans for the initiative, demonstrating that OMB has developed a 
consolidation road map that provides realistic means by which agencies 
can achieve their goals. 

Agencies Continue to Report Consolidation Challenges, but the Types of 
Challenges Are Evolving: 

In 2011, we reported on the challenges that agencies were facing 
during data center consolidations. These included challenges related 
to FDCCI as well as those that were cultural, funding related, 
operational, and technical. In 2012, agencies have continued to report 
many of the same challenges, have reported new challenges, and have 
stopped reporting challenges they previously identified. As we found 
in 2011, some challenges are more common than others. Specifically, 
the number of agencies reporting a particular challenge range from 15 
to 1. Additionally, 25 challenges reported in 2011 were not reported 
in 2012. Two agencies, HUD and NSF, did not report any challenges. 
Table 12 details the reported challenges, the numbers of agencies 
experiencing that challenge, and identifies the challenges no longer 
being reported by agencies. The table is followed by a discussion of 
the most prevalent challenges. 

Table 12: Challenges Encountered by Agencies in 2011 and 2012, 
Including Those No Longer Reported: 

Challenge type: Initiative-related (33); 

Challenge: Obtaining power usage information, as required by OMB; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 19; 
2012: 15. 

Challenge: Providing good quality asset inventories, as required by 
OMB; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 4; 
2012: 10. 

Challenge: Adjusting as OMB modified its definition of "data center"; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 5. 

Challenge: Aligning data center consolidation with other initiatives; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 4; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Political interest in FDCCI consolidation target facilities; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Confusing or conflicting metrics specified in OMB templates; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Identifying and quantifying actual costs associated with 
data center facilities and operational support; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Meeting tight planning deadlines for OMB's milestones; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 11; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Including consolidation information in middle of fiscal 
year 2012 budget cycle; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 4; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Working towards an undefined future state of the data 
center consolidation initiative; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Reporting savings in an already consolidated organization; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Applying same FDCCI targets to all agencies, regardless of 
situation; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge type: Cultural (12); 

Challenge: Accepting cultural change that is part of consolidation; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 15; 
2012: 5. 

Challenge: Obtaining enterprise buy-in to the consolidation effort; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 5. 

Challenge: Implementing FDCCI in an organizational structure, such as 
a decentralized enterprise, that is not geared towards consolidation; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 8; 
2012: 2. 

Challenge: Assuming significant new responsibilities as a result of 
consolidation; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge type: Funding (11); 
Challenge: Acquiring funding required for consolidation and migration 
efforts; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 11; 
2012: 9. 

Challenge: Identifying cost savings to be realized by consolidation; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 9; 
2012: 2. 

Challenge: Reimbursing external organizations for shared services/ 
multi-tenancy; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Projecting cost information; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Accounting for costs in a flat fee lease; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Planning consolidation efforts across components with 
differing funding streams; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge type: Operational (11); 
Challenge: Difficulty with procurement process; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 3. 

Challenge: Technology and resource constraints; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 2. 

Challenge: Implementing cloud computing; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 3; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Relocating displaced staff; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Implementing shared services; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Implementing virtualization; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: No motivation for IT organizations to reduce IT system 
energy costs when they do not pay for power costs; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Environmental challenges; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 0; 
2012: 1. 

Challenge: Maintaining services during consolidation transition; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 9; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Managing physical infrastructure; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Creating appropriate service-level agreements with other 
organizations; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Locating a suitable site for data center; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Transitioning to a new service provider; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Understanding the limitations of facilities; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge type: Technical (7); 

Challenge: Planning migration strategy; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 7. 

Challenge: Maintaining appropriate level of system security; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 3; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Configuring the network for consolidation; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: : Forecasting capacity and seasonal demand; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: : Meshing data from multiple locations; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: : Ensuring enough bandwidth for the network; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 2; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: : Creating shared standards (including system and physical 
security, storage, and risk management) for co-located resources and 
services; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Testing of changed applications; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Overseeing a vendor's security; 
certification and accreditation are set up and performed; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Challenge: Analyzing business needs and solutions to be sure of a good 
fit; 
Number of agencies reporting: 
2011: 1; 
2012: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data and interviews with agency 
officials. 

[End of table] 

Initiative-related Challenges: 

Agencies reported seven challenges that are specific to FDCCI, 
including obtaining power usage and providing good quality asset 
inventories, both as required by OMB. Specifically, 15 agencies 
reported that obtaining power usage information was a challenge, which 
is less than the 19 agencies that reported this challenge last year. 
For example, a NASA official told us that the agency only had one data 
center (out of 79) that was fully metered, but that the agency was 
working to establish metering capabilities at several more locations. 
An SBA official told us that the agency was still working to complete 
a power audit, but that it was questionable whether such an audit 
would be worth the amount of work required to install separate power 
meters in leased facilities. A USAID official reported that none of 
the agency's facilities were metered and that the agency was not a 
landlord for any of its facilities, making power information difficult 
to obtain. Further, 10 agencies reported that providing good quality 
inventories was a challenge, which is more than the 4 agencies that 
reported this challenge last year. For example, an EPA official told 
us that the agency had trouble determining cost information for its 
server rooms because most were facilities within office spaces and 
which were part of larger federal leases or within GSA buildings. As a 
result, EPA focused their efforts on facilities greater than 500 
square feet. Additionally, a Defense official reported that gathering 
and verifying inventory information for an organization the size of 
the department was challenging. 

Cultural Challenges: 

Agencies reported three cultural challenges to data center 
consolidation, including accepting cultural change that is part of 
consolidation and obtaining enterprise buy-in to the consolidation 
effort. One of the most prevalently reported cultural challenges, 
accepting cultural change, was cited by 5 agencies, which is 10 fewer 
agencies than last year. For example, Energy found that there was a 
perceived need for each facility or departmental organization to have 
"ownership" of their own data centers and server rooms in order to 
support their business or mission needs. Justice recognized that 
moving from the department's current environment to a more unified, 
standardized, and cost-efficient approach for providing data center 
services requires change and consequently, efforts were underway to 
drive more significant consolidation. Another commonly reported 
cultural challenge was obtaining enterprise buy-in to the 
consolidation effort, which was reported by 5 agencies--an increase 
from the single agency that reported this last year. For example, DHS 
reported their consolidation effort to be a multistakeholder operation 
that required immense amounts of coordination and found that delays 
and issues arose when various stakeholders maintained differing 
visions, expectations, and commitment to the effort. Further, NRC 
reported that one of its main challenges was managing the level of 
coordination required by the number of internal and external entities 
involved in planning and the related activities that need to happen 
simultaneously. 

Funding Challenges: 

Agencies reported two funding challenges: acquiring the funding needed 
for consolidation and identifying cost savings to be realized by 
consolidation. Nine agencies reported challenges with acquiring 
funding, which is slightly fewer than the 11 agencies that reported 
this challenge last year. For example, Energy reported that the 
department had little or no funding available to invest in data center 
measurement systems, server utilizations assessments, or consolidation 
projects. Additionally, both Justice and Transportation reported 
challenges in providing upfront funding for consolidation efforts 
before cost savings accrue. Two agencies reported challenges with 
identifying cost savings, a decrease from the 9 agencies that reported 
this challenge last year. For example, an Interior official noted that 
the department would likely not be able to report on savings for 2011 
because most bureaus absorbed the cost of consolidation within their 
budgets. Although site-specific plans were required by the department, 
most did not address costs. Additionally, an SSA official noted that 
the agency currently had too many uncertainties surrounding its 
consolidation effort to perform a cost-benefit analysis. 

Operational Challenges: 

Agencies reported eight operational challenges, including difficulties 
with procurement and technology and resource constraints, neither of 
which had been reported in 2011. Three agencies encountered challenges 
with procurement, including DHS, which had to create a team to 
streamline projects through the department's procurement process. GSA 
reported encountering construction contracting challenges on all three 
of the agency's calendar year 2011 data center consolidations. These 
contract challenges included: vendors that could not meet award 
schedules, nonresponsive vendors, and long lead times for some IT 
equipment. To counter such delays, GSA increased the time allotted for 
planned contracting efforts and vendor delivery schedules. 
Additionally, two agencies reported challenges with technology and 
resource constraints. Specifically, EPA reported encountering minor 
delays in consolidation plan execution due to such constraints and NRC 
reported another of its main challenges to consolidation being 
available resources and the impact on its critical path to 
consolidation, which is the timely completion of the agency's new 
headquarters building. 

Technical Challenges: 

Agencies reported only one technical challenge to consolidation, 
planning a migration strategy. Specifically, this was reported by 
seven agencies, an increase from the two agencies that reported this 
in 2011. For example, Transportation's consolidation plan notes that 
in the department's organization, it is a long process to identify 
possible consolidations, present them to management, then to users, 
and then work the technical side of migrations. Transportation's plan 
also noted that application mapping is a very difficult and time-
consuming activity, but cannot be skipped in a successful completion 
of a migration. Further, an Education official told us that the 
department had to develop a two-step approach for migrating files 
after encountering technical issues with an earlier migration effort. 
Finally, Commerce reported in its consolidation plan that detailed 
consolidation planning was critical due to the number of moving parts 
and potential impact on applications and customers. 

As we have previously reported, one approach agencies can use to 
manage challenges such as the ones described above is through risk 
management processes. In 2011, we reported that less than half of the 
agencies included a discussion of risk management in their data center 
consolidation plans. As we stated earlier, 18 of the agencies, or 75 
percent, now fully address risk management. By addressing 
consolidation risk, agencies have better positioned themselves to 
manage the challenges they have identified. 

In any significant IT initiative, it is important that both successes 
and challenges be highlighted. In the case of FDCCI, a success 
highlights approaches and strategies that are helping agencies to meet 
their consolidation targets and fulfill the intent of the initiative. 
Conversely, a challenge identifies an area where agencies are 
struggling to meet the requirements and intent of this governmentwide 
effort. The two most reported consolidation successes are both key 
tenets of OMB's FDCCI: the use of virtualization and cloud services, 
and working with other agencies to find consolidation opportunities. 
Alternately, the three most reported challenges directly impact the 
ability of FDCCI to meet its goals: gathering power usage information, 
developing good quality data center inventories, and acquiring the 
funding needed for consolidation. In light of how closely the 
successes and challenges reported by agencies relate to FDCCI, it will 
be important for OMB to continue to provide leadership and guidance to 
the initiative. This includes, as we have previously recommended, 
utilizing the existing accountability infrastructure of the Data 
Center Consolidation Task Force to assess agency consolidation plans 
to ensure they are complete and to monitor the agencies' 
implementation of their plans.[Footnote 23] 

Conclusions: 

With agencies reporting having closed 286 data centers by the end of 
2011 and planning to close an additional 346 centers by the end of 
2012, the data center consolidation initiative is expected to realize 
about $2.4 billion in cost savings through 2015. OMB now requires 
agencies to annually update both their data center inventories and 
their consolidation plans and has expanded the required content of 
both. However, agencies' consolidation and savings goals continue to 
be built on incomplete inventories and plans. To better ensure that 
FDCCI improves governmental efficiency and achieves promised cost 
savings, we are reiterating our prior recommendation to the department 
secretaries and agency heads of the 24 departments and agencies 
participating in the federal data center consolidation initiative to 
fully complete their consolidation inventories and plans 
expeditiously.[Footnote 24] 

As OMB refines its approach to the data center consolidation 
initiative, it provides updated guidance to agencies. However, three 
agencies did not learn of the most recent changes in OMB's required 
formats, in part because the guidance was provided in meetings and not 
in a formal letter from the Federal CIO to agency CIOs or disseminated 
on the website where all prior guidance had been disseminated. Until 
OMB uses more structured mechanisms to disseminate its guidance, it 
runs the risk that agencies will not learn of important changes in 
format or approach. 

Additionally, basic consolidation plan requirements, such as the need 
for schedules and cost estimates, are still unmet by almost 70 percent 
of the agencies. Among the five agencies selected for a detailed 
review, none of the agencies' master schedules and estimates were 
completed in a manner consistent with best practices. For example, 
none of the agencies was able to demonstrate that its cost estimates 
were accurate, credible, or comprehensive. OMB's cost of ownership 
model should help address a number of planning concerns. As more 
agencies use the model, OMB can use the model to ensure consistent 
planning and reporting on consolidation efforts across FDCCI. However, 
agencies' use of the model is still voluntary. Until OMB requires 
agencies to use the model, it may miss opportunities to ensure 
consistency among agencies and it will remain difficult to summarize 
projections across agencies. 

As the federal consolidation effort matures, agencies are beginning to 
realize successes. These constructive experiences, which stem from 
OMB's recommended consolidation strategies, indicate that FDCCI is 
moving in the right direction. However, as agencies work towards their 
consolidation goals, many continue to report challenges related to 
gathering the necessary technical information and funding the 
consolidation itself. While these challenges are consistent with those 
reported in the past, over 25 previous challenges were no longer 
reported by the agencies. Such a dynamic environment reinforces the 
need for agencies to remain in communication in order to facilitate 
knowledge sharing and transfer and for OMB to continue to provide 
leadership and guidance. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In addition to reiterating our prior recommendation to agencies to 
complete the missing elements of their inventories and plans, we are 
making two recommendations to OMB. Specifically, we recommend that the 
Director of OMB direct the Federal CIO to: 

* ensure that all future revisions to the guidance on data center 
consolidation inventories and plans are defined in OMB memorandum and 
posted to the FDCCI public website in a manner consistent with the 
guidance published in 2010, and: 

* ensure agencies utilize OMB's Total Cost of Ownership model as a 
standardized planning tool across the consolidation initiative. 

In addition, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs 
direct their component agencies and their data center consolidation 
program managers to implement recognized best practices when 
completing required program schedules and cost-benefit analyses. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We received comments on a draft of our report from OMB, the 5 agencies 
to which we made recommendations, and the other 19 agencies mentioned 
in the report. Specifically, OMB and the 5 agencies to which we made 
recommendations either agreed with, or had no comment on, the 
recommendations and the other 19 agencies had no specific comments on 
our recommendations. Multiple agencies also provided technical 
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Each agency's comments 
are discussed in more detail below. 

* In oral comments, OMB officials, including the Deputy Federal CIO 
and staff from the Office of E-government and Information Technology 
and the Office of the General Counsel, stated that they generally 
agreed with, and described planned actions to implement, our 
recommendations. These officials also provided technical comments, 
which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

* In written comments, Agriculture's Acting CIO stated that the 
department concurred with the content of the report and had no 
comments. The department offered no comments on our recommendations. 
The department also provided technical comments, which we have 
incorporated as appropriate. Agriculture's written comments are 
provided in appendix III. 

* In written comments, DHS's Director of the Departmental GAO/OIG 
Liaison Office concurred with our recommendation, commented on the 
current and planned state of the department's consolidation efforts, 
and outlined actions the department plans to take to implement our 
recommendation and update its data center inventory and consolidation 
plan. The department also provided technical comments, which we have 
incorporated as appropriate. DHS's written comments are provided in 
appendix IV. 

* In written comments, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, 
Management and Budget stated the department concurred with the 
report's finding and recommendations, commented on the current status 
of the department's consolidation efforts, and described the 
department's plans to develop savings and cost avoidance projections. 
The department also provided technical comments, which we have 
incorporated as appropriate. Interior's written comments are provided 
in appendix V. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, Transportation's Deputy Director of 
Audit Relations wrote that the department had no comments on the 
draft. The department offered no comments on the recommendations. 

* In written comments, VA's Chief of Staff stated that the department 
generally agreed with our conclusions, concurred with our 
recommendation, and described planned actions to address our 
recommendation. The department also provided technical comments, which 
we have incorporated as appropriate. VA's written comments are 
provided in appendix VI. 

* In written comments, Commerce's Acting Secretary concurred with the 
report's general findings as they applied to the department and with 
the specific reporting on the department's consolidation plan. 
Commerce's written comments are provided in appendix VII. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an audit liaison from Defense's 
Office of the CIO wrote that the department had no comments on the 
report. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an official from Education's Office 
of the Secretary wrote that the department had no comments on the 
report. 

* In written comments, the Director of Energy's Corporate IT Project 
Management Office stated that the department concurred with the 
findings reported for Energy and noted steps being taken by the 
department to address a consolidation challenge discussed in our 
report. The department also elaborated on facilities that we cited as 
not having been reported in Energy's FDCCI inventory. Energy's written 
comments are provided in appendix VIII. 

* In written comments, HHS' Assistant Secretary for Legislation stated 
our report was an accurate representation of the department's 2011 
data center inventory and consolidation plan and outlined actions the 
department plans to take to complete missing inventory and plan 
elements. HHS' written comments are provided in appendix IX. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, a HUD audit liaison wrote that the 
department had no comments or concerns regarding the report. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an official from Justice's Office 
of the CIO wrote that the department had no comments on the report. 

* In written comments, Labor's Assistant Secretary for Administration 
and Management stated that the department did not have any comments on 
the draft to contribute. Labor's written comments are provided in 
appendix X. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an official from State's Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer wrote that the department had no comments 
on the report. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, Treasury's Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Information Systems agreed with our report. The 
department also provided technical comments, which we have 
incorporated as appropriate. 

* In written comments, the Director of EPA's Office of Technology 
Operation and Planning provided technical comments, which we have 
incorporated as appropriate. The agency did not comment on the 
report's findings. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an official from GSA's GAO/IG Audit 
Response Division wrote that the agency had no comments on the report. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, the team lead for NASA's GAO/OIG 
Audit Liaison wrote that the agency was providing no comments on the 
report. 

* In written comments, NSF's CIO stated that the agency generally 
agreed with our characterization of their consolidation plan, but 
disagreed with our assessment of the agency's master program schedule. 
The CIO asserted that we were provided with such a schedule, while 
also acknowledging that the schedule was inherently less detailed than 
those of agencies and departments with multiple components, but that 
it identified all NSF consolidation activities in the format and level 
of detail prescribed by OMB. However, OMB's guidance on master program 
schedules states that such schedules are to be created from the 
detailed implementation schedules provided by data center managers, as 
well as driven by related federal government activities, such as OMB 
reporting and budgeting. While we acknowledge that NSF's consolidation 
scope is less than that of some agencies, the high-level timeline 
presented as a master program schedule consists only of a single line 
item that states the fiscal year when NSF's data center will be 
decommissioned. Further, this timeline does not include any of the 
detailed implementation activities or key baseline milestones required 
by OMB. As such, we believe our evaluation is reasonable and 
appropriate. NSF's written comments are provided in appendix XI. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, the NRC OIG and GAO Liaison wrote 
that the agency had reviewed the report and had no comments. The 
liaison also provided an update on NRC's plans to move to a single 
data center. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an official from OPM's Office of 
Internal Oversight and Compliance wrote that the agency had no 
comments on the report. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, the program manager for SBA's 
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs provided technical 
comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, a SSA audit liaison wrote that the 
agency had no comments on the report. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an official from USAID's Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer wrote that the agency had no comments on 
the report. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees; the secretaries and agency heads of the departments and 
agencies addressed in this report; and other interested parties. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's website 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions on the matters discussed in 
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who 
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix XII. 

Signed by: 

David A. Powner: 
Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper:
Chairman:
The Honorable Scott P. Brown:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
Federal Services, and International Security: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa:
Chairman:
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable James Lankford:
Chairman:
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental 
Relations, and Procurement Reform:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Benjamin E. Quayle:
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the extent to which agencies have 
updated and verified their data center inventories and data center 
consolidation plans, (2) evaluate the extent to which selected 
agencies have adequately completed key elements of their consolidation 
plans, and (3) identify agencies' notable consolidation successes and 
challenges. 

For this governmentwide review, we assessed the 24 departments and 
agencies (agencies) that were identified by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) to be 
included in the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI). 
Table 13 lists these agencies. 

Table 13: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in FDCCI: 

Departments: 
Agriculture; 
Commerce; 
Defense; 
Education; 
Energy; 
Health and Human Services; 
Homeland Security; 
Housing and Urban Development; 
Interior; 
Justice; 
Labor; 
State; 
Transportation; 
Treasury; 
Veterans Affairs. 

Agencies: 
Environmental Protection Agency; 
General Services Administration; 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
National Science Foundation; 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Office of Personnel Management; 
Small Business Administration; 
Social Security Administration; 
U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[End of table] 

To evaluate the agencies' updated data center inventories and 
consolidation plans, we reviewed OMB's guidance and identified key 
required elements for each type of document. We compared agency 
consolidation inventories and plans to OMB's required elements, and 
identified gaps and missing elements. We rated each element as "Yes" 
if the agency provides complete information; "Partial" if the agency 
provides some, but not all, of the information; and "No" if the agency 
does not provide the information. We followed up with agencies to 
clarify our initial findings and to determine why parts of the 
inventories and plans were incomplete or missing, as applicable. We 
also compared our findings with those reported in 2011.[Footnote 25] 
To assess the reliability of the data agencies provided in their data 
center inventories and plans, we reviewed the letters agencies were 
required to submit attesting to the completeness and reliability of 
their inventories and plans, we interviewed agency officials about the 
actions taken to verify their data, and reviewed those results against 
our past reviews of agency inventories and plans. We concluded that 
the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes, which was to 
report on the completeness of the inventories and plans. 

To evaluate the completion of key elements of selected agencies' 
consolidation plans, we selected two required plan elements, a master 
program schedule and a cost-benefit analysis, which is a type of cost 
estimate. In 2011, we reported that these two elements had the lowest 
reported completion rates among the FDCCI agencies.[Footnote 26] We 
then selected five agencies that we reported in 2011 as having one or 
both of the two key elements. Specifically, the Departments of 
Agriculture (Agriculture), Homeland Security (DHS), and Interior 
(Interior) were the only agencies that reported having a completed 
master program schedule in our 2011 report. Similarly, DHS and the 
Departments of Transportation (Transportation) and Veterans Affairs 
(VA) were the three agencies that reported having a completed cost-
benefit analysis in our 2011 report and that reported the greatest 
amount of anticipated savings. To assess the agencies' schedules, we 
compared copies of their consolidation master program schedules with 
relevant best practices compiled in a GAO exposure report issued in 
May 2012.[Footnote 27] These practices include four select 
characteristics of properly sequenced schedule activities that are 
essential for a reliable schedule network, such as identifying all 
schedule dependencies and ensuring that all activities have proper 
relationships with each other. In conducting this analysis, for each 
schedule, we rated each practice as having been fully, partially, or 
not addressed.[Footnote 28] We discussed our findings with agency 
officials to determine why the schedules did not address all aspects 
of the best practices. To assess the agencies' cost estimates, we 
compared documentation supporting the cost and savings estimates found 
in the agencies' consolidation plans with relevant best practices. 
[Footnote 29] These practices include ensuring that each estimate is 
comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible. In doing so, 
for each estimate, we rated each practice as having been met, 
substantially, partially, minimally, or not met.[Footnote 30] We also 
discussed our findings with agency officials to determine why the 
estimates did not address all aspects of the best practices. To assess 
the reliability of the data the five agencies provided in their master 
program schedules and cost estimates, we reviewed the schedules and 
estimates, compared them to our guidance on scheduling and estimating, 
and interviewed officials about how the schedules and estimates were 
constructed. We concluded that the schedules and estimates were 
generally unreliable and our report includes findings related to those 
assessments. The results of our evaluation at these five agencies 
cannot be generalized to other agencies. 

To identify the key successes and challenges encountered by agencies 
in consolidating data centers, we reviewed agency consolidation plans 
and interviewed agency officials. We then determined which successes 
and challenges were encountered most often. To assess the reliability 
of cost savings data reported by Interior, we confirmed that the 
information was included in the department's updated consolidation 
plan, which the Interior CIO attested was assessed and determined to 
be accurate and complete. In doing so, we concluded that the quality 
of the information was sufficient for our purposes. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to July 2012, 
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: Assessment of Agencies' Completion of Key Consolidation 
Planning Elements, Arranged by Agency: 

As part of its data center consolidation initiative, OMB required 24 
federal departments and agencies to submit an updated data center 
inventory and consolidation plan. Key elements of the inventory were 
to include, for each data center, information on physical servers, 
virtualization, IT facilities and energy, network storage, and data 
center information. However, 3 agencies reported their inventories 
based on 2010 guidance, in which case they included information for 
each data center on IT hardware, IT software, facilities/energy/ 
storage, and geographic location. 

Key elements of the updated plan were to include information on 
quantitative goals, qualitative impacts, consolidation approach, 
consolidation scope, timeline, performance metrics, master schedule, 
cost-benefit analysis, risk management, consideration of a 
communications plan, inventory and plan verification, consolidation 
progress, and cost savings. 

For each of the agencies, the following sections provide a brief 
summary of the agencies' goal for reducing the number of data centers, 
and an assessment of the completeness of their inventories and plans, 
as compared to what we reported in 2011.[Footnote 31] In the case of 
agencies that reported using the new inventory format, we have related 
the old key elements, where possible. Agencies that reported using the 
old format are directly compared to their previous results. 

The following information describes the key that we used in tables 14 
through 37 to convey the results of our assessment of the agencies' 
compliance with OMB's requirements for the FDCCI. 

the agency provides complete information for this element; 
the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the element; 
the agency does not provide information for this element. 

Department of Agriculture: 

Agriculture plans to consolidate from 95 data centers (40 large and 55 
small) to 27 centers (8 large and 19 small) by December 2015. However, 
the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. 
In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 
key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 
elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Agriculture 
provides complete information for 9 of the 13 elements evaluated and 
provides partial information for the remaining 4 elements. An 
Agriculture official stated that the agency is dependent on component 
agencies to report complete inventory information. The official also 
stated the agency intended to provide the missing utilization plan 
information, as well as greater discussion of consolidation challenges 
in future consolidation plan updates. Table 14 provides our assessment 
of Agriculture's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 14: Assessment of Completeness of Agriculture's Updated Data 
Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on systems, but only partial 
information on software platforms, servers, and consolidation approach. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on construction budgets and 
most information for power usage and capacity information. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides some information on its utilization 
goals, but this information is not complete. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on plan completeness, but 
does not provide information on inventory completeness, the steps 
taken to verify the data, or any data limitations. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses progress to date and 2012 targets and 
considers lessons learned, but does not discuss challenges. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current and planned cost 
savings, but does not provide information on unexpected consolidation 
costs or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of Agriculture data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Commerce: 

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) plans to consolidate from 55 
data centers (33 large and 22 small centers) to 30 data centers (21 
large and 9 small centers) by December 2015. However, Commerce's asset 
inventory remains incomplete, while its consolidation plan is now 
complete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete 
information for 3 key elements and provides partial information for 
the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
Commerce provides complete information for all 13 elements evaluated. 
A Commerce official stated that energy information is incomplete due 
to the lack of metering in its facilities and the inability of data 
center providers to supply agency-specific energy usage and cost 
information. Table 15 provides our assessment of Commerce's compliance 
with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 15: Assessment of Completeness of Commerce's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical metering, 
power capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data in each of 
these areas. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on 
facilities' costs and staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Defense: 

The Department of Defense (Defense) plans to consolidate from 936 data 
centers to 392 by December 2015. However, Defense's asset inventory 
and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 
agency provides partial information for all 5 key elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Defense provides complete 
information for 5 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for 5 
elements. A Defense official stated that the agency's next inventory 
update would include more complete information. In addition, the 
official stated that it was a challenge for Defense to collect all of 
the required information because of the scope and size of the agency's 
consolidation effort. Table 16 provides our assessment of Defense's 
compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 16: Assessment of Completeness of Defense's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the number and size of 
its data centers, but provides only partial information on data center 
energy usage and costs, and average rack space utilization. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
November 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
November 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
November 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
November 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses a risk management process, but does not 
reference a risk management plan for the consolidation initiative. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
November 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses progress to date, consolidation 
challenges, successes, and lessons learned, but does not discuss 
whether calendar year 2012 targets will be met. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
November 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Education: 

The Department of Education (Education) plans to consolidate from five 
data centers (three large and two small centers) to four data centers 
(three large and one small center) by December 2012. However, 
Education's asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. 
In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 
key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 
elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Education provides 
complete information for 8 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides 
partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide information 
for 1 element. Education officials stated that 2 elements were not 
applicable because of the small scope of the agency's effort. Table 17 
provides our assessment of Education's compliance with OMB's 
requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 17: Assessment of Completeness of Education's Updated Data 
Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical power 
metering, but only provides partial information on power capacity, 
usage, and cost. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on data center 
classification and size, but does not provide information on phase of 
closure for its one targeted facility and does not provide staffing 
information for any of its facilities. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides all savings metrics, but only some 
utilization metrics. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: Agency officials stated this element was not applicable 
because of the small scope of the agency's consolidation effort. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: Agency officials stated this element was not applicable 
because of the small scope of the agency's consolidation effort. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides its goals for 2012 and considers lessons 
learned, but does not discuss consolidation challenges or successes. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Energy: 

The Department of Energy (Energy) plans to consolidate from 56 data 
centers (26 large and 30 small centers) to 50 data centers (21 large 
and 29 small centers) by December 2015. However, Energy's asset 
inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements 
and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Energy provides complete 
information for 8 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for 2 
elements. An Energy official stated that the agency's next inventory 
update would include more complete information. In addition, the 
official stated that a risk management plan was under development and 
that the agency planned to work with OMB's cost model to formulate 
better cost and savings information. Table 18 provides our assessment 
of Energy's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 18: Assessment of Completeness of Energy's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical metering, 
but provides only partial information on power capacity and 
electricity usage. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on 
facilities' costs and staffing information. 

Key inventory element: Key plan element; 
July 2010 inventory: August 2010 plan; 
Key inventory element: September 2011 update; 
June 2011 update: Comments. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the number of physical 
servers and the average virtualization of those servers, but does not 
provide information on its average server rack utilization. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses a risk management process, but does not 
reference a risk management plan for the consolidation initiative. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current cost savings, but 
does not identify planned savings or the impact of the fiscal year 
2011 enacted budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of Energy data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to consolidate 
from 181 data centers (43 large and 138 small centers) to 145 data 
centers (36 large and 109 small centers) by December 2015. However, 
HHS's asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its 
asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 1 key 
element and provides partial information for the remaining 4 elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, HHS provides complete 
information for 11 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides only 
partial information for the remaining 2 elements. An HHS official 
noted that it was difficult to gather every inventory element for all 
of its data centers. Table 19 provides our assessment of HHS's 
compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 19: Assessment of Completeness of HHS's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides full information on its types of 
servers, but does not provide rack count information for all of its 
facilities. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its total data center 
power capacity and average IT electricity usage, but is missing data 
in each of these areas. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides full information on its total network 
storage capacity, but only partial information on its use of that 
network storage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its types of centers 
and closure information, but provides only partial information on 
facilities' costs and staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides cost savings through 2015, but not 
investment costs. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides projected savings through 2015, but does 
not discuss whether there were any unexpected costs or the impact of 
the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: 

DHS plans to consolidate from 101 data centers (40 large and 61 small 
data centers) to 37 data centers (3 large and 34 small centers) by 
December 2015. However, DHS's asset inventory and consolidation plan 
remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides partial 
information for all 5 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation 
plan, DHS provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements 
evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not 
provide information for 1 element. DHS officials stated that the 
completeness of inventory information has improved since 2011 and that 
they have developed performance metrics. They also noted that they do 
not expect to fully realize their cost savings until consolidation 
activities are complete. Table 20 provides our assessment of DHS's 
compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 20: Assessment of Completeness of DHS's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on total rack count and 
server types, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its virtual host and 
virtual operating system counts, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical power 
metering, power capacity, usage, and cost, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its total and used 
network storage, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its types of centers, 
closure information, and facilities' costs and staffing information, 
but is missing data. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on its utilization goals, 
but partial information on its savings goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current savings, 
unexpected consolidation costs, and the impact of the fiscal year 2011 
enacted budget, but does not discuss future savings from fiscal year 
2011 efforts. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has achieved its 
goal of consolidation prior to the start of the FDCCI and does not 
plan further consolidation of its existing base of contracts. Since 
2005, the agency has operated in a fully outsourced infrastructure 
mode with two vendors providing consolidated departmental IT 
operations in hosting, storage, data transport, user environments, and 
systems integration, with off-site disaster recovery provided by one 
vendor. The agency's asset inventory is complete, but its 
consolidation plan is not. Specifically, HUD provides complete 
information for 5 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides partial 
information for 1 element. A HUD official stated that 7 elements were 
not applicable because the agency has reached its consolidated end-
state architecture. Table 21 provides our assessment of HUD's 
compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 21: Assessment of Completeness of HUD's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
June 2011 update: An agency official stated this element was not 
applicable because the agency does not own or operate any data centers. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: An agency official stated this element was not applicable 
because the agency does not own or operate any data centers. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: An agency official stated this element was not applicable 
because the agency does not own or operate any data centers. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: An agency official stated this element was not applicable 
because the agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: An agency official stated this element was not applicable 
because the agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the completeness of the 
consolidation plan, but does not provide information on data 
limitations or the steps taken to verify inventory data. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: An agency official stated this element was not applicable 
because the agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: An agency official stated this element was not applicable 
because the agency achieved its consolidation goals prior to the FDCCI. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Interior: 

Interior plans to consolidate from 232 data centers (158 large and 74 
small data centers) to 135 data centers (90 large and 45 small 
centers) by December 2015. However, Interior's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 
agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides 
partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its 
consolidation plan, Interior provides complete information for 9 of 
the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 
elements, and does not provide information for 1 element. An Interior 
official stated that the agency expects to report more complete 
inventory information for the next inventory update and will report 
cost savings when it can more accurately estimate the agency's 
expected savings. Table 22 provides our assessment of Interior's 
compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 22: Assessment of Completeness of Interior's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical power 
metering, power capacity, usage, and cost, but is missing data in each 
of these areas. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on the size of its data 
centers, but only partial information on its types of centers, closure 
information, and facilities' costs and staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on its savings goals, but 
partial information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on cost estimating efforts, 
but does not provide information on initial investment costs or cost 
savings. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses its risk management approach, but 
indicates its risk management plan has yet to be completed. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Interior data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Justice: 

The Department of Justice (Justice) plans to consolidate from 105 data 
centers (33 large and 42 small centers and 30 centers of unknown size) 
to 66 data centers (27 large and 39 small centers and no centers of 
unknown size) by December 2015. However, Justice's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 
agency provides only partial information for all 5 key elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Justice provides complete 
information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 2 elements, and does not provide any information for 1 
element. A Justice official stated that the agency did not know it was 
required to report the missing inventory information, but that the 
agency had the information and would include it in the next inventory 
update. The official did not know when the agency's savings and 
utilization goals would be updated. Table 23 provides our assessment 
of Justice's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 23: Assessment of Completeness of Justice's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its rack count and 
server types, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its virtual host and 
virtual operating system counts, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its total data center 
power capacity and average data center electricity usage, but is 
missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its total and used 
network storage, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on facility closures, but 
provides only partial information on types of centers and on 
facilities' costs and staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide any information on savings and 
utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on initial projected 
savings, but not aggregate year-by-year information through 2015. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on 2011 savings, but does 
not discuss future targets, unexpected costs, or the impact of the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of Justice data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Labor: 

The Department of Labor (Labor) plans to consolidate from 89 data 
centers (20 large and 69 small centers) to 54 data centers (20 large 
and 34 small centers) by December 2015. However, Labor's asset 
inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key elements 
and provides partial information for the remaining 3 elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Labor provides complete 
information for 4 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 6 elements, and does not provide information for 3 
elements. A Labor official stated that the agency had difficulty 
obtaining energy information because of the lack of metering in its 
facilities. The official also noted that cost information would not be 
available until the end of fiscal year 2012 while savings information 
would not be available until fiscal year 2013. Table 24 provides our 
assessment of Labor's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 
2011. 

Table 24: Assessment of Completeness of Labor's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on server types, but 
provides only partial information on total rack count. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical metering, 
power capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data in each of 
these areas. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on 
facilities' gross floor area, costs, and staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides its savings goals, but provides only 
partial information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides a list of data centers to be 
consolidated, but it does not identify all of the agency's planned 
closures. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides a high-level timeline, but it does not 
identify all of the agency's planned closures. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides near-term funding availability, but does 
not discuss anticipated savings. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the completeness of the 
consolidation plan, but does not provide information on data 
limitations or the steps taken to verify inventory data. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses progress meeting established 
consolidation goals as well as challenges, but does not discuss 
consolidation successes or lessons learned. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data. 

[End of table] 

Department of State: 

The Department of State (State) plans to consolidate from 363 data 
centers (12 large and 351 small data centers) to 355 data centers (4 
large and 351 small centers) by December 2015. According to agency 
officials, the 351 small data centers are located overseas and there 
are no current plans to consolidate these locations because of the 
resulting impact on information technology operations. However, 
State's asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In 
its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 1 
key element and provides partial information for the remaining 4 
elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, State provides 
complete information for 9 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides 
partial information for 3 elements, and does not provide information 
for 1 element. State officials stated that the agency focused on 
inventorying its larger domestic facilities and noted that it was 
difficult to capture inventory-related information, such as energy 
usage and costs, for its foreign posts. The officials added that State 
has since completed a cost-benefit analysis, the results of which 
would be included in the next update, and has developed detailed 
schedules for each year's activities. Table 25 provides our assessment 
of State's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 25: Assessment of Completeness of State's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on server types, but only 
partial information on total rack count. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical power 
metering, power capacity, usage, and cost, but is missing data in each 
of these areas. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its total and used 
network storage, but is missing data in each of these areas. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on facility 
staffing information. 

Key inventory element: Key plan element; 
July 2010 inventory: August 2010 plan; 
Key inventory element: September 2011 update; 
June 2011 update: Comments. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides complete information on its number of 
servers, but incomplete information on its data center energy usage 
and costs, and the average virtualization of its servers. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides cost benefit information for its 
domestic facilities, but does not provide information for its foreign 
facilities. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on unexpected consolidation 
costs, the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget, and current 
cost savings and planned savings, but does not compare the savings to 
targets. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Transportation: 

Transportation plans to consolidate from 328 data centers (33 large 
and 295 small centers) to 265 data centers (24 large and 241 small 
centers) by December 2015. However, Transportation's asset inventory 
and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 
agency provides complete information for 3 key elements and provides 
partial information for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its 
consolidation plan, Transportation provides complete information for 8 
of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 
elements, and does not provide information for 2 elements. A 
Transportation official stated that the agency did not expect to see 
significant improvements for the energy-related information because 
not all facilities have meters. The official added that it was a 
challenge for the agency to collect inventory data for its small data 
centers. Table 26 provides our assessment of Transportation's 
compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 26: Assessment of Completeness of Transportation's Updated Data 
Center Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical metering, 
but provides only partial information on power capacity and electrical 
usage. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on 
facilities' costs and staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the completeness of the 
consolidation plan and data limitations, but does not discuss the 
steps taken to verify inventory data. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses progress to date, consolidation 
challenges, and the integration of lessons learned, but does not 
discuss consolidation successes or whether calendar year 2012 targets 
will be met. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current cost savings, 
unexpected costs, and the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
budget, but does not provide information on how current cost savings 
relate to established targets or identify future savings. 

Source: GAO analysis of Transportation data. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Treasury: 

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) plans to consolidate from 55 
data centers (42 large and 13 small centers) to 40 data centers (29 
large and 11 small centers) by December 2015. However, Treasury's 
asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 key elements 
and provides partial information for the remaining 3 elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Treasury provides complete 
information for 6 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 4 elements, and does not provide information for 3 
elements. A Treasury official stated that installing meters to gather 
all inventory power information would be cost prohibitive. In 
addition, the official stated that the agency is working to complete 
the missing plan elements, including the master program schedule, risk 
management plan, and communications plan. Table 27 provides our 
assessment of Treasury's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 
and 2011. 

Table 27: Assessment of Completeness of Treasury's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical metering, 
power capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data in each of 
these areas. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on total and used network 
storage, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on 
facilities' gross floor area, costs, and staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on its numbers of servers 
and their average virtualization percentage, but does not provide 
information on data center energy usage and costs or server rack space 
utilization percentage. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the tracking of risks, 
but does not reference a risk management plan for the consolidation 
initiative. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses progress to date, but does not discuss 
consolidation challenges, lessons learned, or whether calendar year 
2012 targets will be met. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides partial information on planned cost 
savings, and does not provide information on current savings, 
unexpected costs, or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 

VA plans to consolidate from 97 data centers (51 large and 46 small 
centers) to 14 data centers (11 large and 3 small centers) by December 
2015. However, VA's asset inventory and consolidation plan remain 
incomplete. In its asset inventory, the agency provides complete 
information for 3 of the key elements and provides partial information 
for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
VA provides complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, 
provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide any 
information for the remaining 1 element. A VA official stated that 
installing equipment to gather all inventory power information would 
be cost prohibitive. Another official stated that the agency would 
more fully report on cost savings in future versions of their 
consolidation plan. Table 28 provides our assessment of VA's 
compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 28: Assessment of Completeness of VA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on power metering and 
power capacity, but provides only partial information on electricity 
usage. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on facility 
staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on cost-benefit results, but 
does not provide information on a time frame for the savings or 
provide the results on a fiscal year basis. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the completeness of the 
consolidation plan, but does not provide information on the steps 
taken to verify inventory data. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
July 2010 inventory: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of VA data. 

[End of table] 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to consolidate from 78 
data centers (4 large and 74 small centers) to 53 data centers (4 
large and 49 small centers) by December 2015. However, EPA's asset 
inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 of the key 
elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 
elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, EPA provides 
complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides 
partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide any 
information for the remaining 1 element. An EPA official stated that 
the agency planned to develop energy estimates for the missing 
inventory information and to work with OMB's cost model to develop 
better cost and savings information. Table 29 provides our assessment 
of EPA's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 29: Assessment of Completeness of EPA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on power metering, but 
provides only partial information on data center power capacity and 
electricity usage. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but provides only partial information on facility 
staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on annual cost avoidances, 
but does not provide information on year-by-year cost investment and 
cost savings calculations. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current and planned cost 
savings, but does not provide information on unexpected consolidation 
costs or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[End of table] 

General Services Administration: 

The General Services Administration (GSA) plans to consolidate from 21 
data centers (21 large and no small centers) to 9 data centers (9 
large and no small centers) by December 2015. However, GSA's asset 
inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides partial information for all 5 key 
elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, GSA provides 
complete information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated and provides 
partial information for the 3 remaining elements. A GSA official 
stated that the agency had now completed all missing IT facilities and 
energy information, but that there were continuing difficulties in 
calculating savings information due to changing schedules and lack of 
energy metering information for some GSA facilities. Table 30 provides 
our assessment of GSA's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 
2011. 

Table 30: Assessment of Completeness of GSA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on total rack count and 
server types, but is missing data in these areas. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on virtual host and total 
virtual operating system counts, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical metering, 
power capacity, and electrical usage, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on total and used network 
storage, but is missing data. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but does not provide information on facility 
staffing. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides its savings goals, but only partial 
information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on inventory and plan 
completeness, but does not provide information on steps taken to 
verify inventory data. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current cost savings, but 
does not provide information on planned savings, unexpected 
consolidation costs, or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. 

[End of table] 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to 
consolidate from 79 data centers (75 large and 4 small data centers) 
to 22 large data centers by December 2015. However, NASA's asset 
inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements 
and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, NASA provides complete 
information for 10 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for the 
remaining element. A NASA official stated that currently only one 
facility has power metering and, as a result, it is difficult to 
determine costs. The official also noted that NASA expects to reach 
its 2012 consolidation targets. Table 31 provides our assessment of 
NASA's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 31: Assessment of Completeness of NASA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on power capacity 
and usage, but does not provide information on power metering and cost. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on center types and 
sizes, and facilities' phase of closure, but provides only partial 
facility staffing information. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses progress against goals, but does not 
state whether 2012 targets will be met and does not discuss 
challenges, lessons learned, or successes. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current cost savings, but 
does not provide information on planned savings, unexpected 
consolidation costs, or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of NASA data. 

[End of table] 

National Science Foundation: 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) currently has only one onsite, 
centrally managed data center. Since 2007, the agency has been 
transitioning from owning and operating a data center to the use of 
commercial data center services and emerging cloud computing options. 
The agency's plan is to complete transition of major legacy IT systems 
in a phased approach, with completion coinciding with the expiration 
of the NSF headquarters building lease, currently set for fiscal year 
2014. The agency's asset inventory is complete, but its consolidation 
plan is not. Specifically, NSF provides complete information for 10 of 
the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 1 element, 
and does not provide information for 2 elements. An NSF official 
stated that the agency interpreted the guidance for consolidation 
progress and cost savings to apply only to ongoing or completed 
consolidations. However, the official noted that the agency would more 
fully report on these elements in future versions of its consolidation 
plan. Table 32 provides our assessment of NSF's compliance with OMB's 
requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 32: Assessment of Completeness of NSF's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on consolidation progress 
and the integration of lessons learned, but does not discuss 
consolidation challenges or successes. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of NSF data. 

[End of table] 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to consolidate from 
three data centers (three large and no small centers) to one large 
data center by December 2015. However, NRC's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset inventory, the 
agency provides complete information for 4 of the key elements and 
partial information for the remaining 1 element. Additionally, in its 
consolidation plan, NRC provides complete information for 8 of the 13 
elements evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and 
does not provide information for the remaining 2 elements. An NRC 
official stated that the agency planned to gather missing data center 
information and that the agency's planned single data center would be 
able to provide much of NRC's missing energy information. The official 
also stated that both performance metrics and a master program 
schedule have now been developed. Table 33 provides our assessment of 
NRC's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 33: Assessment of Completeness of NRC's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on types of centers and 
facility closures, but does not provide information on facility 
staffing. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides complete information on its numbers of 
servers and their average virtualization percentage, but incomplete 
information on data center energy usage and costs. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on initial investment costs, 
but does not provide information on cost savings. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current cost savings, but 
does not provide information on planned savings, unexpected 
consolidation costs, or the impact of the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of NRC data. 

[End of table] 

Office of Personnel Management: 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) plans to consolidate from 4 
data centers (one large and three small centers) to 3 centers (one 
large and two small centers) by December 2015. However, the agency's 
asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 1 key element 
and provides partial information for the remaining 3 elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, OPM provides complete 
information for 6 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for 3 
elements. Two elements were determined to be not applicable to the 
agency. An OPM official stated that several missing elements, such as 
more detailed and complete inventory information and a summary of the 
agency's cost-benefit analysis would be provided in future updates. 
The official also stated that the agency was not aware that it had to 
include consolidation progress and cost savings information in its 
updated consolidation plan. Another OPM official indicated the agency 
intended to provide information required by OMB's guidance in the 
future. Table 34 provides our assessment of OPM's compliance with 
OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 34: Assessment of Completeness of OPM's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on systems and software 
platforms, but only partial information on servers and consolidation 
approach. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on data center costs, and 
energy usage and costs, but does not provide information on 
construction budget and storage capacity types. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the number and size of 
its data centers, but is missing data. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides partial information on its cost benefit 
analysis, but did not provide year-by-year investment and cost savings 
information. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on plan and inventory 
completeness, including data limitations, but does not provide 
information on the steps taken to verify inventory data. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: This element was determined to be not applicable since the 
agency was unaware of the requirement. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: N/A; 
Comments: This element was determined to be not applicable since the 
agency was unaware of the requirement. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of table] 

Small Business Administration: 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) plans to consolidate from four 
large data centers to two large centers by December 2015. However, the 
agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In 
its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for 2 
key elements and provides partial information for the remaining 2 
elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, SBA provides 
complete information for 6 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides 
partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide information 
for the remaining 5 elements. SBA officials stated that several 
missing elements, such as performance metrics, a schedule, and a risk 
management strategy, were either developed after the plan's completion 
or would be developed in the future. Table 35 provides our assessment 
of SBA's compliance with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 35: Assessment of Completeness of SBA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides complete information on its number of 
servers, but provides incomplete information on server utilization and 
host and operating system counts. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides complete information on total and used 
network storage, but provides incomplete information on data center 
power usage and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on its savings and 
utilization goals, but is missing data. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses progress to date and considers lessons 
learned, but does not discuss 2012 targets or challenges. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of SBA data. 

[End of table] 

Social Security Administration: 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has two large data centers 
and plans to replace one of them with a new facility. The agency 
expects the transition to begin in February 2015 and be complete in 
August 2016. However, SSA's consolidation plan remains incomplete. In 
its asset inventory, the agency provides complete information for all 
5 key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, SSA provides 
complete information for 7 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides 
partial information for 4 elements, and does not provide information 
for the remaining 2 elements. An SSA official stated that the missing 
utilization plan elements and the plan verification information were 
unintentionally omitted and that those items would be included in the 
next update. Table 36 provides our assessment of SSA's compliance with 
OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 36: Assessment of Completeness of SSA's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on its savings goals, but 
only partial information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: the agency does not provide information on this 
element; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides complete information on this 
element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses steps taken to validate the inventory 
and plan data, but does not discuss inventory and plan completeness or 
data limitations. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency discusses consolidation progress and 2012 
targets, but only partially considers consolidation challenges and 
lessons learned. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
October 2011 update: the agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on current and planned cost 
savings, but does not provide information on how these savings relate 
to targets and does not discuss the impact of the fiscal year 2011 
enacted budget. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Agency for International Development: 

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) plans to 
consolidate from six data centers (two large and four small data 
centers) to two small data centers by December 2012. However, USAID's 
asset inventory and consolidation plan remain incomplete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements 
and provides partial information for the remaining 2 elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, USAID provides complete 
information for 7 of the 13 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 4 elements, and does not provide information for the 
remaining 2 elements. A USAID official stated that missing server 
information would be included in the next inventory update and that 
the agency has completed a new cost-benefit analysis and taken steps 
to verify its inventory data. The official also said that power-
related information is difficult to obtain since the agency leases its 
data centers. Table 37 provides our assessment of USAID's compliance 
with OMB's requirements in 2010 and 2011. 

Table 37: Assessment of Completeness of USAID's Updated Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation in 2010 and 2011: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
July 2010 inventory: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Key inventory element: [Deleted in guidance]; 
June 2011 update: N/A; 
Description: Information no longer required. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Physical servers; 
June 2011 update: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on server counts, but 
only provides partial information on rack counts. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware and utilization; 
July 2010 inventory: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Virtualization; 
June 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy; 
June 2011 update: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on electrical power 
metering, but only provides partial information on power capacity and 
usage, and provides no information on power cost. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
July 2010 inventory: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Network storage; 
June 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location; 
July 2010 inventory: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Key inventory element: Data center information; 
June 2011 update: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
Description: The agency provides information on the type of its 
facilities, but provides staffing information for only one of its 
facilities and only partial information on the phase of closure for 
its targeted facilities and facility size. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
August 2010 plan: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of 
the element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on the number of its servers 
and their average virtualization percentage, but incomplete 
information on data center energy and operational costs. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
August 2010 plan: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
August 2010 plan: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
August 2010 plan: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
August 2010 plan: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
August 2010 plan: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
August 2010 plan: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Key plan element: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
August 2010 plan: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides information on year-by-year 
consolidation investment and cost savings through 2015, but notes it 
needs to revise costs based on new information. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
August 2010 plan: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
August 2010 plan: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides complete information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Inventory/plan verification; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides partial information on the completeness 
of its plan and inventory data, but does not provide information on 
steps taken to verify the data or information on any data limitations. 

Key plan element: Consolidation progress; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects 
of the element; 
Comments: The agency provides consolidation progress towards current 
and 2012 targets, but does not discuss consolidation challenges, 
successes, or lessons learned. 

Key plan element: Cost savings; 
August 2010 plan: N/A; 
September 2011 update: The agency does not provide information for 
this element; 
Comments: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

USDA: 
United States Department of Agriculture: 
Office of the Chief Information Officer: 
1400 Independence Avenue S.W. 
Washington, DC 20250: 

June 21, 2012: 

David A. Powner: 
Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has reviewed the draft report 
entitled Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on 
Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to be Completed (GAO-12-742) 
(Job Code: 311252), July 2012. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report. We 
Concur with the content of the report and have no comments. 

For additional information, please contact Denice Lotson, Office of 
the Chief Information Officer Audit Liaison, at 202-720-9384. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Cheryl L. Cook: 
Acting, Chief Information Officer 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

June 28, 2012: 

David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
441 G Street, NW: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-12-742, "Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making
Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to be Completed" 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The Department is pleased to note GAO's recognition that agencies 
continue to report significant planned data center facility reductions 
and cost savings. As of June 2012, DIIS has completed the 
consolidation of 12 legacy data centers to the DHS Enterprise Data 
Centers. Based on completion of the remaining planned migrations, the 
Department anticipates realizing cumulative consolidation savings/cost 
avoidance of $2.8 billion through Fiscal Year (FY) 2030 due to these 
efforts. 

The draft report contained one recommendation directed at DHS with 
which the Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security: 

Recommendation: Direct component agencies and their data center 
consolidation program managers to implement recognized best practices 
when completing required program schedules and cost-benefit analyses. 

Response: Concur. The DHS Office of the Chief Information Officer 
(OCIO) is committed to the Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Initiative (FDCCI) and continues to include data center consolidation 
as one of its. High Priority Initiatives for FY 2012 and FY 2013. DHS
OCIO has taken further steps to rationalize the acquisition model and 
to utilize existing contracts with data center vendors to implement 
enterprise cloud service offerings such as "Email as a Service" and 
"Production as a Service." 

DHS OCIO acknowledges the importance of implementing industry best 
practices when completing required program schedules and cost-benefit 
analyses. DHS OCIO will coordinate with the Enterprise Data Center 
(EDC) vendors to implement the industry best practices associated with 
maintaining and updating project schedules, as appropriate. DHS will 
also follow the best practices regarding cost estimates outlined in 
this report as legacy sites are transitioned to the EDC. 

In addition, DHS will seek to implement GAO's recommendation as we are 
updating and verifying the FDCCI-driven DHS inventory and overall 
migration plan as required within the bounds of the federal templates 
and process. 

Again, thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on 
this draft report. 

Technical comments were previously provided under separate cover. 
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We look 
forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior: 
Office of The Secretary: 
Washington, DC 20240: 

July 2, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft Government Accountability Office 
Report entitled, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress 
on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to be Completed (GAO-12-
742). 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) remains committed to the Federal 
Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI), and continues to 
consolidate data centers consistent per the August 30, 2010 baseline 
plan. Additionally, the DOI expects to re-baseline the consolidation 
inventories and consolidation plans as we accommodate recent Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance clarifying the definition of 
"Data Centers." 

The Department of the Interior concurs with the findings and 
recommendations. 

See enclosure for general and technical comments. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please 
contact Bruce Downs at (703)648-5681 or Maria Clark at (303)969-5154. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Larry Holley, for: 

Rhea Suh: 
Assistant Secretary: 
Policy, Management and Budget: 

Enclosure: 

[End of letter] 

Enclosure 1: 

Department of the Interior Comments on the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) Draft Report Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making 
Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to be Completed 
(GAO-12-742): 

General Comments: 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) concurs with the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) recommendation that the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) ensure agencies utilize the OMB's total cost of 
ownership model as a standardized planning tool across the 
consolidation initiative with the following caveats: The Department of 
the Interior has a number of ongoing initiatives that operate in 
parallel with, and reinforce the Federal Data Center Consolidation
Initiative (FDCCI). One of these initiatives is the Information 
Technology Transformation initiative, which is addressing Information 
Technology (IT) workforce levels and opportunities for efficiencies 
from a broader perspective than the FDCCI. Another initiative is the 
implementation of our Networx contract. The Total Cost of Ownership 
(TCO) model does not adequately accommodate the scope of workforce and 
network opportunities that the DOI expects to address under these two 
broader initiatives, and cannot be feasibly changed to address the DOI 
unique requirements, therefore the DOI will be developing savings and 
cost-avoidance projections independent of the TCO model. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 
Washington, DC 20420: 

June 25, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Data Center Consolidation:
Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to 
be Completed" (GAO-12-742) and generally agrees with GAO's conclusions. 

The enclosure contains VA's comments. VA appreciates the opportunity 
to comment on your draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John R. Gingrich: 
Chief of Staff: 

Enclosures: 

[End of letter] 

Enclosure: 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Comments to Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report: "Data Center Consolidation: 
Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to 
be Completed" (GA0-12-742): 

GAO Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, 
direct their component agencies and their data center consolidation 
program managers to implement recognized best practices when 
completing required program schedules and cost-benefit analyses. 

VA Comments: Concur. Pending receipt of the current GAO recommended 
practices for program schedules and cost-benefit analysis, VA will 
update the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, 4th Quarter plan submission 
accordingly. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department of Commerce: 
The Secretary of Commerce: 
Washington, D.C. 20230: 

June 22, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:  

Dear Mr. Powner:  

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report from the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled Data Center 
Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on Efforts. but Inventories 
and Plans Need to be Completed (GAO-12-742).  

We concur with the general findings as they apply to the Department of 
Commerce and with the specific reporting on the Commerce Data Center 
Consolidation Plan.  

If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Jerry 
Harper, Acting Director, Office of Information Technology Policy and 
Planning, at 202-482-0222.  

Sincerely,  

Signed by: 

Rebecca M. Blank: 
Acting Secretary of Commerce: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

July 2, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
411 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of the Chief Information Officer 
(OCIO) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the General 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled Data Center 
Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories 
and Plans Need to be Completed (GA0-12-742). We understand this audit 
was conducted to (1) evaluate the extent to which the 24 participating 
agencies updated and verified their data center inventories and plans; 
(2) evaluate the extent to which selected agencies have adequately 
completed key elements of their consolidation plans; and (3) identify 
agencies' notable consolidation successes and challenges. 

The Department of Energy concurs with the findings reported for Energy 
and supports comments and discussions provided by Energy 
representatives on various elements of our inventory and consolidation 
plans. 

We would like to expand on our statement on page 46 (Funding 
Challenges) that while Energy reported little or no budgeted funding 
for consolidation projects, we are actively pursuing the use of Energy
Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) to self-fund our efforts. Our 
Headquarters Data Center Consolidation project is currently in the 
Investment Grade Audit phase of the ESPC with a targeted task order 
award in 2012. 

In addition, we would like to comment on a referenced citation located 
on page 14, "An OMB official attributed the change in the number of 
large centers reported to agencies improvements in data quality"
footnote (15) references an Energy IG (IG-0865) report that cites that 
520 contractor-operated data centers were not reported in our FDCCI 
inventory. Of the 520 data centers included in the report, 106 qualify 
as "large" data centers. While DOE has decided not to report 
contractor operated data centers in the FDCCI inventory, these data 
centers are subject to the reporting requirements specified in the DOE
Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP). 

If you have any questions, please contact me on (202) 586-0166. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Fabion F. Husson, II: 
Director, Corporate IT Project: 
Management Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Department of Health & Human Services: 
Office of The Secretary: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 
Washington, DC 20201: 

June 27, 2012: 

David A. Powner, Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner:
Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) report entitled, "Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making 
Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to be Completed" 
(GAO-12-742). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this draft 
section of the report prior to publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim R. Esquea: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Attachment: 

[End of letter] 

General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) 
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled, 
"Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress On Efforts, But 
Inventories And Plans Need To Be Completed" (GAO-12-742): 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report. 

The report is an accurate depiction of the HHS 2011 data center 
inventory and consolidation plan. HHS is updating the data center 
inventory to address incomplete elements, although gathering data 
center power information is still a challenge for some data centers. 
Per OMB guidance, the revised inventory submitted in July 2012 will 
also include "contractor owned contractor operated" facilities. HHS 
will use OMB's Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model cost estimates in 
the updated cost benefit analysis. 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

June 15, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report #GAO-12-742, Data Center 
Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories 
and Plans Need to be Completed. We appreciate the GAO's efforts and 
careful collaboration during this study. 

After carefully reviewing the draft GAO report, the Department of 
Labor has no comments to contribute at this time. 

Should you have any questions regarding the Department's response, 
please contact Mr. Curtis Turner in the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer at Turner.Curtis.W@dol.gov or 202-693-4567. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

T. Michael Kerr: 
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, Chief 
Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XI: Comments from the National Science Foundation: 

National Science Foundation:
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1270: 
Arlington, Virginia 22230: 
Tel. 703-292-8040 — Fax. 703-292-9040: 

June 26, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft GAO 
Report Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on Efforts, 
but Inventories and Plans Need to be Completed" (GAO-12-742). NSF 
appreciates GAO's work in assessing federal progress related to the 
Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative. 

NSF is pleased to note GAO's generally positive assessment of our data 
center consolidation plan and inventory. As described in the report, 
our most recent data center consolidation plan reflects improvements 
over the initial version, although some elements remain incomplete. 

NSF generally agrees with GAO's characterization of our plan, but 
wishes to provide clarification about the master program schedule plan 
element. GAO's assessment indicates that NSF did not provide a master 
program schedule. However, NSF did provide GAO with our master program 
schedule, which is included as part of our data center plan. Although 
our master schedule is inherently less detailed than those of agencies 
and departments with multiple components, it identifies all NSF 
consolidation activities in the format and level of detail prescribed 
by OMB. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. We look forward to working with you on future National 
Science Foundation engagements. If you have any questions or concerns, 
please feel free to contact me at (703) 292-8100. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Amy Northcutt: 
Chief Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, individuals making 
contributions to this report included Colleen Phillips (Assistant 
Director), Justin Booth, Kathleen Lovett Epperson, Rebecca Eyler, Dave 
Hinchman, Fatima Jahan, Jason Lee, John Ockay, Karen Richey, and 
Jessica Waselkow. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565] (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 
2011). 

[2] GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project 
Schedules (Exposure Draft), [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G] (Washington, D.C.: May 2012) 
and GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

[3] For more information on the classifications used to define 
availability requirements, see Uptime Institute, Industry Standard 
Tier Classifications Define Site Infrastructure Performance (Santa Fe, 
N.Mex.: 2005). 

[4] "Green IT" refers to environmentally sound computing practices 
that can include a variety of efforts, such as using energy efficient 
data centers, purchasing computers that meet certain environmental 
standards, and recycling obsolete electronics. 

[5] As of May 2012, one of the CIOs was from the Department of the 
Interior (Interior). As of July 2012, OMB was currently working to 
fill the second position. 

[6] OMB's reported tally of data centers differs from the number of 
data centers we found in reviewing agencies' June 2011 inventories and 
September 2011 consolidation goals. The number of centers changes 
regularly as agencies identify new centers, but agencies are only 
required to provide updated inventories once a year, by the end of 
June. 

[7] OMB, Implementation Guidance for the Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012). 

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

[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[10] GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Address 
Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 
Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-453SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

[11] GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to 
Be Done to Complete Actions and Measure Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-461] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 
2012). 

[12] In [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565], we 
reported that one agency, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), did not submit the required consolidation 
documentation. However, the department has now submitted both an 
inventory and plan. 

[13] As noted earlier, SSA and Defense did not meet the September 
deadline for their inventories. Thus, the SSA data are as of October 
2011 and the Defense data are as of November 2011. 

[14] In 2011, we reported that Defense had 772 large centers, but that 
number could not be confirmed in the department's latest inventory. In 
May 2012, a Defense official reported that of the 936 reported Defense 
facilities, 645 fit our definition of "large data centers." However, 
this number was not provided in time to be validated for this report 
and the official did not break the number down into closures by 
calendar year. As such, Defense's data centers are only reported under 
the unknown classification category. 

[15] In May 2012, the Energy Office of Inspector General reported that 
the department had not reported more than 520 data centers at 
contractor-operated locations. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Inspector General, Efforts by the Department of Energy to Ensure 
Energy-Efficient Management of Its Data Centers, DOE/IG-0865 
(Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2012). 

[16] OMB defines cost savings as representing a reduction in actual 
expenditures to achieve a specific objective. The agency defines cost 
avoidances as results from an action taken in the immediate time frame 
that will decrease costs in the future. 

[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[18] OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2012). 

[19] Because the 2010 and 2011 formats differ to the extent that they 
cannot be appropriately compared, the status of those three 
inventories is not reported here. However, an assessment of their 
inventories can be found in the detailed agency discussions in app. II. 

[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[21] Interior provided a schedule, but not in time to be included in 
this evaluation. Similarly, Transportation officials told us that 
their FDCCI schedule was not in an electronic format that we could 
analyze and further, was only a task included in a much larger 
schedule for departmental IT projects. 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP]. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[25] GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565] (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 
2011). 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[27] GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project 
Schedules (Exposure Draft), [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G] (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). 

[28] "Fully" means the agency addressed all aspects of the practice. 
"Partially" means the agency addressed some, but not all, aspects of 
the practice. "Not addressed" means the agency addressed no aspects of 
this practice. 

[29] GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

[30] "Met" means the agency provided complete evidence that satisfies 
the entire criterion. "Substantially" means the agency provided 
evidence that satisfies a large portion of the criterion. "Partially" 
means the agency provided evidence that satisfies about half of the 
criterion. "Minimally" means the agency provided evidence that 
satisfies a small portion of the criterion. "Not met" means the agency 
provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion. 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548.