This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-378 
entitled 'Data Center Consolidation: Strengthened Oversight Needed to 
Achieve Cost Savings Goal' which was released on May 14, 2013. 

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: 

April 2013: 

Data Center Consolidation: 

Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Cost Savings Goal: 

GAO-13-378: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-378, 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 and July 
2012, GAO evaluated 24 agencies’ progress and reported that nearly all 
of the agencies had not completed a data center inventory or 
consolidation plan and recommended that they do so. 

As requested, GAO reviewed federal agencies’ continuing efforts to 
consolidate their data centers. This report (1) evaluates agencies' 
reported progress against OMB’s planned consolidation and cost savings 
goals and (2) assesses the extent to which the oversight organizations 
put in place by OMB for the Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Initiative are adequately performing oversight of agencies' efforts to 
meet these goals. GAO assessed agencies’ progress against OMB’s goals, 
analyzed the execution of oversight roles and responsibilities, and 
interviewed OMB, GSA, and Data Center Consolidation Task Force 
officials about their efforts to oversee agencies’ consolidation 
efforts. 

What GAO Found: 

The 24 agencies participating in the Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Initiative made progress towards the Office of Management and Budget’s 
(OMB) goal to close 40 percent, or 1,253 of the 3,133 total federal 
data centers, by the end of 2015, but OMB has not measured agencies’ 
progress against its other goal of $3 billion in cost savings by the 
end of 2015. Agencies closed 420 data centers by the end of December 
2012, and have plans to close an additional 548 to reach 968 by 
December 2015-—285 closures short of OMB’s goal. OMB has not 
determined agencies’ progress against its cost savings goal because, 
according to OMB staff, the agency has not determined a consistent and 
repeatable method for tracking cost savings. This lack of information 
makes it uncertain whether the $3 billion in savings is achievable by 
the end of 2015. Until OMB begins tracking and reporting on 
performance measures such as cost savings, it will be limited in its 
ability to oversee agencies’ progress against key initiative goals. 
Additionally, extending the horizon for realizing planned cost savings 
could provide OMB and data center consolidation stakeholders with 
input and information on the benefits of consolidation beyond OMB’s 
initial goal. 

Pursuant to OMB direction, three organizations—-the Data Center 
Consolidation Task Force, the General Services Administration (GSA) 
Program Management Office, and OMB—-are responsible for federal data 
center consolidation oversight activities; while most activities are 
being performed, several weaknesses exist. Specifically, 

* While the Data Center Consolidation Task Force has established 
several initiatives to assist agencies in their consolidation efforts, 
such as holding monthly meetings to facilitate communication among 
agencies, it has not adequately overseen its peer review process for 
improving the quality of agencies' consolidation plans. For example, 
the Task Force did not provide agencies with guidance for conducting 
peer reviews and did not provide oversight to ensure that all agencies 
exchanged plans. 

* The GSA Program Management Office has collected agencies’ quarterly 
data center closure updates and made the information publicly 
available on an electronic dashboard for tracking consolidation 
progress, but it has not fully performed other oversight activities, 
such as conducting analyses of agencies’ inventories and plans. 

* OMB has implemented several initiatives to track agencies’ 
consolidation progress, such as establishing requirements for agencies 
to update their plans and inventories yearly and to report quarterly 
on their consolidation progress. However, the agency has not approved 
the plans on the basis of their completeness or reported on progress 
against its goal of $3 billion in cost savings. 

The weaknesses in oversight of the data center consolidation 
initiative are due, in part, to OMB not ensuring that assigned 
responsibilities are being executed. Improved oversight could better 
position OMB to assess progress against its cost savings goal and 
minimize agencies’ risk of not realizing anticipated cost savings. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that OMB’s Federal Chief Information Officer track 
and report on key performance measures, extend the time frame for 
achieving planned cost savings, and improve the execution of important 
oversight responsibilities. OMB agreed with two of GAO’s 
recommendations and plans to evaluate the remaining recommendation 
related to extending the time frame. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-378]. For more 
information, contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 
pownerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Consolidation of Federal Data Centers is Under Way, but Initiativewide 
Cost Savings Have Not Been Determined: 

Oversight of FDCCI is Not Being Performed in All Key Areas: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Key Responsibilities of FDCCI Oversight and Governance 
Organizations: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Agencies' Progress against OMB's Data Center Consolidation 
Goal (as of February 2013): 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

FDCCI: Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

IT: information technology: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budge:t 

Task Force: Data Center Consolidation Task Force: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 23, 2013: 

Congressional Requesters: 

The federal government's demand for information technology (IT) is 
ever increasing. In recent years, as federal agencies have modernized 
their operations, put more of their services online, and increased 
their information security profiles, their need for computing power 
and data storage resources has increased. Over time, this increasing 
demand led to a dramatic rise in the number of federal data centers 
and a corresponding increase in operational costs. In response, the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Federal Chief Information 
Officer (CIO) launched the Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Initiative (FDCCI) in 2010. 

In July 2011 and July 2012, we reported[Footnote 1] on the progress 
the 24 participating federal departments and agencies[Footnote 2] were 
making on this initiative, noting that, while progress has been made, 
as of July 2012 nearly all of the agencies had not yet completed a 
data center inventory or the consolidation plans needed to implement 
their consolidation initiatives. As a result, we recommended that OMB 
require agencies to complete their missing inventory and plan 
elements. While OMB did not specifically comment on our 
recommendation, the agency took some actions to address these 
deficiencies, which are discussed later in this report. 

Given the importance of the consolidation initiative, this report 
responds to your request that we review federal agencies' continuing 
efforts to consolidate their data centers. Specifically, our 
objectives were to (1) evaluate agencies' reported progress against 
OMB's planned consolidation and cost savings goals and (2) assess the 
extent to which the oversight organizations put in place by OMB for 
FDCCI are adequately performing oversight of agencies' efforts to meet 
these goals. 

To address our first objective, we compared the 24 agencies' data 
center facility consolidations as they reported them on the website, 
[hyperlink, http://data.gov], to OMB's planned consolidation goals. We 
also interviewed OMB staff from the Office of E-Government and 
Information Technology about their efforts to monitor agencies' 
reported consolidation progress and to track consolidation cost 
savings. To address our second objective, we analyzed FDCCI-related 
documentation, such as OMB memoranda and project charters, to 
determine the roles and responsibilities of key FDCCI oversight 
organizations, including the General Services Administration's (GSA) 
FDCCI Program Management Office and the Data Center Consolidation Task 
Force (Task Force). To determine the extent to which oversight roles 
and responsibilities were being executed, we analyzed supporting 
documentation provided by these organizations regarding their efforts 
to oversee agencies' data center consolidation efforts. We also 
interviewed OMB, GSA, and Task Force officials about their efforts to 
oversee agencies' progress in consolidating their data centers. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to April 2013 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: 

Over the last 15 years, the federal government's increasing demand for 
IT has led to a dramatic rise in the number of federal data centers 
and a corresponding increase in operational costs. According to OMB, 
the federal government had 432 data centers in 1998 and more than 
1,100 in 2009. Operating such a large number of centers is a 
significant cost to the federal government, including costs for 
hardware, software, real estate, and cooling. For example, according 
to the Environmental Protection Agency, the electricity cost to 
operate federal servers and data centers across the government is 
about $450 million annually. According to the Department of Energy, 
data center spaces can consume 100 to 200 times more electricity than 
a standard office space. According to OMB, reported server utilization 
rates as low as 5 percent and limited reuse of data centers within or 
across agencies lends further credence to the need to restructure 
federal data center operations to improve efficiency and reduce costs. 

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 the 
environmental footprint of federal data center activities, OMB, under 
the direction of the Federal CIO, established FDCCI in February 2010. 
This initiative's four high-level goals are to: 

* promote the use of "green IT"[Footnote 3] 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 the 24 agencies to identify a senior, 
dedicated data center consolidation program manager to lead their 
agency's consolidation efforts. In addition, agencies were required to 
submit an asset inventory baseline and other documents that would 
result in a plan for consolidating their data centers. The asset 
inventory baseline was to contain detailed information on each data 
center and identify the consolidation approach to be taken for each 
one. It would serve as the foundation for developing the final data 
center consolidation plan. The data center consolidation plan would 
serve as a technical road map and approach for achieving the targets 
for infrastructure utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency 
and was to be incorporated into the agency's fiscal year 2012 budget. 

In October 2010, OMB reported that all of the agencies had submitted 
an inventory and plan. In addition, in a series of memoranda, OMB 
described plans to monitor agencies' consolidation activities on an 
ongoing basis. Starting in fiscal year 2011, OMB required agencies to 
provide an 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. Further, starting in 
fiscal year 2012, OMB required agencies to provide a consolidation 
progress report at the end of every quarter. 

While OMB is primarily responsible for FDCCI, the agency designated 
two agency CIOs to be executive sponsors to lead the effort within the 
Federal CIO Council,[Footnote 4] the principal interagency forum to 
improve IT-related practices across the federal government. In 
addition, OMB identified two additional organizations to assist in 
managing and overseeing FDCCI: 

* The GSA FDCCI Program Management Office is to support OMB in the 
planning, execution, management, and communications for FDCCI. 

* The Data Center Consolidation Task Force is comprised of the data 
center consolidation program managers from each agency. According to 
its charter, the Task Force is critical to supporting collaboration 
across the FDCCI agencies, including identifying and disseminating key 
pieces of information, solutions, and processes that will help 
agencies in their consolidation efforts. 

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

OMB has used different definitions for a data center throughout the 
life of FDCCI. In 2010, OMB defined a "data center" as any room used 
for the purpose of processing or storing data that is larger than 500 
square feet, is used for processing or storing data, and meets 
stringent availability requirements.[Footnote 5] While agencies 
included other facilities classified as a "server room" (typically 
smaller than 500 square feet) and "server closet" (typically smaller 
than 200 square feet) in their inventories, these facilities were not 
included in OMB's final tally of data centers. However, in October 
2011, the Federal CIO expanded the definition to include a facility of 
any size. 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 6] 

Under the first definition, OMB identified 2,094 data centers in July 
2010. Using the new definition from October 2011, OMB estimated that 
there were a total of 3,133 federal data centers in December 2011, 
[Footnote 7] and its goal was to consolidate approximately 40 percent 
for a savings of approximately $3 billion by the end of 2015. 

OMB Is Integrating FDCCI with the PortfolioStat Initiative: 

In March 2012, OMB launched the PortfolioStat initiative, which 
requires agencies to conduct an annual agency-wide IT portfolio review 
to, among other things, reduce commodity IT[Footnote 8] spending and 
demonstrate how its IT investments align with the agency's mission and 
business functions.[Footnote 9] PortfolioStat is designed to assist 
agencies in assessing the current maturity of their IT portfolio 
management process, make decisions on eliminating duplication, and 
move to shared solutions in order to maximize the return on IT 
investments across the portfolio. To support this initiative, agencies 
were required to take several actions including designating a lead for 
PortfolioStat by April 9, 2012, holding their first PortfolioStat 
session by July 31, 2012, and submitting a final plan to consolidate 
commodity IT by August 31, 2012. 

In September 2012, the Federal CIO wrote in an e-mail to agencies that 
OMB was planning to integrate FDCCI with the PortfolioStat initiative 
to allow agencies to focus on an enterprisewide approach to address 
all commodity IT, including data centers, in an integrated, 
comprehensive plan and that agencies should continue to focus on 
optimizing those data centers that are essential to delivering 
taxpayer services, while continuing to close those that are 
duplicative. In addition, the e-mail directed agencies to delay 
submitting their October 1, 2012, submissions of updated consolidation 
plans until further guidance could be provided. However, agencies were 
still to report quarterly updates on their data center closures. Going 
forward, the Federal CIO wrote that OMB plans to require agencies to 
submit and publish updated consolidation plans that reflect these new 
points of emphasis and integrate data center consolidation with the 
enterprisewide plans to reduce commodity IT and decrease duplicative 
applications as part of overall portfolio management. 

More recently, in March 2013, OMB issued a memorandum documenting the 
integration of FDCCI with PortfolioStat.[Footnote 10] Among other 
things, the memorandum discusses OMB's efforts to further the 
PortfolioStat initiative by incorporating several changes, such as 
consolidating previously collected IT-related plans, reports, and data 
submissions. The memorandum also establishes new agency reporting 
requirements and related time frames. Specifically, agencies are no 
longer required to submit the data center consolidation plans 
previously required under FDCCI. Rather, agencies are to submit 
information to OMB via three primary means--an information resources 
management strategic plan,[Footnote 11] an enterprise road 
map,[Footnote 12] and an integrated data collection channel.[Footnote 
13] Agencies' draft versions of their strategic plans and enterprise 
road maps are due to OMB in May 2013, as well as their first 
integrated data collections. The integrated data collections are to be 
updated quarterly beginning in August 2013 and the strategic plans and 
road maps are to be updated after Congress receives the President's 
budget for fiscal year 2015. Agencies are still required to update 
their data center inventories by the end of June 2013 and report 
quarterly on consolidation progress. The memorandum and its 
implications on FDCCI are discussed in more detail later in this 
report. 

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 identified data center consolidation 
as one of the 81 areas within the federal government with the 
opportunity to reduce potential duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation. In this regard, we reported on the status of FDCCI and 
noted that data center consolidation made sense economically and was a 
way to achieve more efficient IT operations, but that challenges 
existed.[Footnote 14] 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 
accrued, and overcoming cultural resistance to major organizational 
changes, among other things. 

In July 2011, we issued a report on the status of FDCCI and found that 
only 1 of the 24 agencies had submitted a complete inventory and no 
agency had submitted complete plans.[Footnote 15] Further, OMB had not 
required agencies to document the steps they had taken, if any, to 
verify the inventory data. We concluded that until these inventories 
and plans were complete, agencies would 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 were 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 inventory, state what actions were taken to 
verify the information in the inventory and to identify any associated 
limitations on the data, and to complete the missing elements in their 
inventories and consolidation plans. OMB generally agreed with our 
report and has since taken actions to address our recommendations. For 
example, in July 2011, OMB required agency CIOs to submit a letter 
that identified steps taken to verify their data center inventory 
information and attest to the completeness of their consolidation 
plan. In addition, in March 2012, OMB required that all agencies, by 
the end of the fourth quarter of every fiscal year, complete all 
elements missing from their consolidation plans. 

Additionally, in July 2012, we updated our review of FDCCI's status 
and found that, while agencies' 2011 inventories and plans had 
improved as compared to their 2010 submissions, only 3 agencies had 
submitted a complete inventory and only 1 agency had submitted a 
complete consolidation plan.[Footnote 16] In addition, we noted that 3 
agencies had submitted their inventory using an outdated format, in 
part, because OMB had not publicly posted its revised guidance. 
Notwithstanding these weaknesses, we found that 19 agencies reported 
anticipating about $2.4 billion in cost savings between 2011 and 2015. 

We also reported that none of five selected agencies had a master 
program schedule or cost-benefit analysis that was fully consistent 
with best practices. To assist agencies with their data center 
consolidation efforts, OMB had sponsored the development of a FDCCI 
total cost of ownership[Footnote 17] model that was intended to help 
agencies refine their estimated costs for consolidation; however, 
agencies were not required to use the cost model as part of their cost 
estimating efforts. Accordingly, we reiterated our prior 
recommendation that agencies complete missing plan and inventory 
elements and made new recommendations to OMB to publicly post guidance 
updates on the FDCCI website and to require agencies to use its cost 
model. OMB generally agreed with our recommendations and has since 
taken steps to address them. More specifically, OMB posted its 2012 
guidance for updating data center inventories and plans, as well as 
guidance for reporting consolidation progress, to the FDCCI public 
website. Further, the website has been updated to provide prior 
guidance documents and OMB memoranda. In addition, OMB's 2012 
consolidation plan guidance requires agencies to use the cost model as 
they develop their 2014 budget request. 

Consolidation of Federal Data Centers is Under Way, but Initiativewide 
Cost Savings Have Not Been Determined: 

We and other federal agencies[Footnote 18] have documented the need 
for initiatives to develop performance measures to gauge progress. 
According to government and industry leading practices, performance 
measures should be measurable, outcome-oriented, and actively tracked 
and reported. For FDCCI, OMB originally established goals for data 
center closures and the expected cost savings. Specifically, OMB 
expected to consolidate approximately 40 percent of the total number 
of agency data centers and achieve $3 billion in cost savings by the 
end of 2015, and established the means of measuring performance 
against those goals through several methods. While agencies have made 
progress on their number of data center consolidations, OMB has not 
measured initiativewide progress against its cost savings goal. 
According to OMB staff from the Office of E-Government and Information 
Technology, the agency has not yet determined a consistent and 
repeatable method for tracking cost savings. Until OMB begins tracking 
cost savings, it will be limited in its ability to evaluate progress 
and to determine whether or not FDCCI is on course toward achieving 
planned performance goals. In March 2013, however, OMB issued a 
memorandum that made significant changes to FDCCI reporting, but 
changes to goals and reporting requirements were not fully addressed. 

Progress Made on Data Center Closures, but Size of Facilities Is Not 
Reported: 

The 24 agencies have collectively made progress towards OMB's data 
center consolidation goal to close 40 percent, or approximately 1,253 
of the 3,133 data centers, by the end of 2015. To track their 
progress, OMB requires agencies to report quarterly on their completed 
and planned performance against that goal via an online portal. After 
being reviewed for data quality and security concerns, the GSA FDCCI 
Program Management Office makes the performance information available 
on the federal website dedicated to providing the public with access 
to datasets developed by federal agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://data.gov]. 

As of February 2013, agencies had collectively reported closing a 
total of 420 data centers by the end of December 2012,[Footnote 19] 
and were planning to close an additional 396 data centers--for a total 
of 816--by September 2013.[Footnote 20] While the number of data 
centers that agencies are planning to close from October 2013 through 
December 2015 (the planned completion date of FDCCI) is not reported 
on [hyperlink, http://data.gov], OMB's July 2012 quarterly report to 
Congress[Footnote 21] on the status of federal IT reform efforts 
contains other information on agencies' data center closure plans. 
Among other things, the report states that agencies have collectively 
committed to closing a total of 968 data centers by the end of 2015. 
According to OMB staff from the Office of E-Government and Information 
Technology, this figure represents the number of commitments reported 
by agencies, as compared to the initiative's overall goal of closing 
1,253 data centers by December 2015. The agencies have not identified 
the remaining 285 consolidation targets to achieve that goal. OMB's 
January 2013 quarterly report to Congress[Footnote 22] does not 
provide any new information about either planned or completed agency 
data center closures. See figure 1 for a graphical depiction of 
agencies' progress against OMB's data center consolidation goal. 

Figure 1: Agencies' Progress against OMB's Data Center Consolidation 
Goal (as of February 2013): 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Year: December, 2012; 
Total completed data center closings: 420. 

Year: September 2013; 
Total planned data center closings: 816. 

Year: December 2015; 
Total planned data center closings: 968. 

Data center consolidation goal: 1,253 center closings. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB and GSA data. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to tracking and reporting on agencies' performance against 
the planned number of data center closures, tracking and reporting the 
size of the centers being closed is important to get a comprehensive 
view of progress. Specifically, compared to a smaller data center, a 
large data center is more costly to operate due to increased costs for 
hardware, software, real estate, and cooling. Because of these higher 
costs, the closure of large data centers is a key aspect of achieving 
OMB's $3 billion savings goal. OMB staff from the Office of E-
Government and Information Technology also noted that, when making 
decisions about specific facilities, agencies must take into account 
information such as that presented in the previously mentioned FDCCI 
total cost of ownership model that we reviewed in July 2012.[Footnote 
23] 

While OMB has collected data on agencies' data center sizes, it has 
not reported on these data. Specifically, agencies are required to 
provide the size of their data centers as part of their data center 
inventory updates, and staff from OMB's Office of E-Government and 
Information Technology and GSA's FDCCI Program Management Office 
stated that these data are maintained in an electronic data center 
inventory portal. Still, one OMB staff member noted that the size of 
individual facilities is only known to the extent that this 
information is reported by an agency. We reported in July 
2012[Footnote 24] that the size of 966, or almost one-third, of the 
2,897 centers listed in agencies' 2011 inventories could not be 
determined, thus further clouding OMB's visibility into the size of 
agencies' data centers. As a result, we reiterated our prior 
recommendation that agencies complete their data center inventories, 
which include information on the size of specific facilities.[Footnote 
25] In addition, the size of the centers being closed has not been 
reported on [hyperlink, http://data.gov]--the primary tool OMB is 
using to track consolidation progress. The OMB staff further indicated 
that the agency has not used data center size as a performance measure 
of FDCCI progress. In January 2013, these staff added that the agency 
was reevaluating its performance measures as part of the integration 
of FDCCI with PortfolioStat and, as part of this effort, was 
considering additional measures such as the data center size, uses, 
and business and mission needs, but did not commit to the exact 
performance measures that would be used. 

Shortly thereafter, in March 2013, OMB issued a memorandum[Footnote 
26] on the integration of FDCCI and PortfolioStat, which provides 
direction on the use of key performance indicators, including 
requirements for the development of energy, facility, and labor 
metrics, among other things. However, the memorandum does not provide 
information regarding the measurement and reporting of these 
performance indicators, or indicators specific to the size of data 
centers being closed. Until OMB begins to measure and report on key 
performance indicators such as the size of data centers being closed, 
stakeholders in the federal consolidation effort will lack important 
information about the relative scope of agencies' closures, and 
consequently, OMB will be limited in its ability to oversee agencies' 
progress against its cost savings goal. 

Initiativewide Cost Savings Have Not Been Determined: 

OMB has not measured agencies' progress against the cost savings goal 
of $3 billion by the end of 2015. According to a staff member from 
OMB's Office of E-Government and Information Technology, as of 
November 2012, the total savings to date have not been tracked but 
were believed to be minimal. The staff member added that, although 
data center consolidation involves reductions in costs for existing 
facilities and operations, it also requires investment in new and 
upgraded facilities and, as a result, any current savings are often 
offset by the reinvestment of those funds into ongoing consolidation 
efforts. Finally, the staff member stated that OMB recognizes the 
importance of tracking cost savings and is working to identify a 
consistent and repeatable method for tracking cost savings as part of 
the integration of FDCCI with PortfolioStat, but stated that there was 
no time frame for when this would occur. 

The lack of initiativewide cost savings data makes it unclear whether 
agencies will be able to achieve OMB's projected savings of $3 billion 
by the end of 2015. In previous work, we found that agencies' cost 
savings projections were incomplete and, in some cases, unreliable. 
Specifically, in July 2012,[Footnote 27] we reported that most 
agencies had not reported their expected cost savings in their 2011 
consolidation plans. Officials from several agencies reported that 
this information was still being developed. Notwithstanding these 
weaknesses, our analysis of agencies' 2011 consolidation plans (the 
most recent plans available) indicates that agencies had reported 
anticipating cost savings that collectively total about $701 million 
by the end of 2012--with 3 years remaining to achieve additional 
savings.[Footnote 28] The extent of savings projected for the end of 
2012 demonstrates the importance of determining the total 
initiativewide cost savings realized to date. Further, we found that 
agencies collectively reported anticipating about $2.4 billion in 
cumulative cost savings by the end of 2015 (the planned completion 
date of FDCCI).[Footnote 29] With less than 3 years remaining to the 
2015 FDCCI deadline, almost all agencies still need to complete their 
inventories and consolidation plans and continue to identify 
additional targets for closure. As closing facilities is a significant 
driver in realizing consolidation savings, the time required to 
realize planned cost savings will likely extend beyond the current 
2015 time frame. With at least one agency not planning on realizing 
savings until after 2015 and other agencies having not yet reported on 
planned savings, there is an increased likelihood that agencies will 
either need more time to meet the overall FDCCI savings goal or that 
there are additional savings to be realized in years beyond 2015. 
Until OMB begins tracking cost savings data, the agency will be 
limited in its ability to determine whether or not FDCCI is on course 
toward achieving planned performance goals. Additionally, extending 
the horizon for realizing planned cost savings could provide OMB and 
FDCCI stakeholders with input and information on the benefits of 
consolidation beyond OMB's initial goal. 

Recent Integration with PortfolioStat Changes FDCCI Reporting, but 
Goals and Requirements Are Not Fully Addressed: 

OMB's recent integration of FDCCI with PortfolioStat includes a 
modification to the previously mentioned FDCCI goal of closing 
approximately 40 percent of the total number of agency data centers 
and does not address the goal of achieving $3 billion in cost savings 
by the end of 2015. According to OMB, to more effectively measure the 
efficiency of an agency's data center assets, agency progress will no 
longer be measured solely by closures. Instead, agencies will also be 
measured by the extent to which their data centers are optimized for 
total cost of ownership by incorporating metrics for energy, facility, 
labor, and storage, among other things. In addition, OMB stated that 
the Task Force will categorize agencies' data center population into 
two categories--core and non-core data centers--for which the 
memorandum does not provide specific definitions. Additionally, as 
previously discussed, agencies are no longer required to submit the 
data center consolidation plans previously required under FDCCI. 
Rather, agencies are to submit information to OMB via three primary 
means--an information resources management strategic plan, an 
enterprise road map, and an integrated data collection channel. Using 
these tools, an agency is to report on, among other things, its 
approach to optimizing its data centers; the state of its data center 
population, including the number of core and non-core data centers; 
the agency's progress on closures; and the extent to which an agency's 
data centers are optimized for total cost of ownership. 

However, OMB's memorandum did not fully address the revised goals and 
reporting requirements of the combined initiative. Specifically, OMB 
stated that its new goal is to close 40 percent of non-core data 
centers but, as previously mentioned, the definition of a core and non-
core data center was not provided. Therefore, the total number of data 
centers to be closed under OMB's revised goal cannot be determined. In 
addition, although OMB has indicated which performance measures it 
plans to use going forward, such as energy and labor, it has not 
documented the specific metrics for agencies to report against. The 
memorandum indicates that these will be developed by the Task Force, 
but does not provide a time frame for when this will be completed. 
Lastly, although OMB has previously stated that PortfolioStat is 
expected to result in savings of approximately $2.5 billion through 
2015, OMB's memorandum does not establish a new cost savings goal for 
FDCCI, nor does it refer to the previous goal of saving $3 billion. 
Instead, OMB states that all cost savings goals previously associated 
with FDCCI will be integrated into broader agency efforts to reshape 
their IT portfolios, but does not provide a revised savings estimate. 
The lack of a new cost savings goal will further limit OMB's ability 
to determine whether or not the new combined initiative is on course 
toward achieving its planned objectives. 

Oversight of FDCCI is Not Being Performed in All Key Areas: 

We have previously reported that oversight and governance of major IT 
initiatives help to ensure that the initiatives meet their objectives 
and performance goals.[Footnote 30] When an initiative is governed by 
multiple entities, the roles and responsibilities of those entities 
should be clearly defined and documented, including the 
responsibilities for coordination among those entities. We have 
further reported,[Footnote 31] and OMB requires,[Footnote 32] that an 
executive-level body be responsible for overseeing major IT 
initiatives. Among other things, we have reported that this body 
should have documented policies and procedures for management 
oversight of the initiative, regularly track progress against 
established performance goals, and take corrective actions as needed. 
As the FDCCI executive-level body, OMB has put in place a governance 
hierarchy that is responsible for FDCCI oversight activities; while 
most of these activities are being performed, several weaknesses 
exist. The weaknesses in oversight are due, in part, to OMB not 
ensuring that assigned responsibilities are being executed. Improved 
oversight could better position OMB to assess progress against its 
cost savings goal and minimize agencies' risk of not realizing 
anticipated cost savings. OMB's March 2013 memorandum made significant 
changes to FDCCI; however, the impact on several key FDCCI oversight 
responsibilities is not addressed. 

Oversight Responsibilities Have Been Assigned to Three Organizations: 

Oversight and governance of FDCCI is the responsibility of several 
organizations--the Task Force, the GSA FDCCI Program Management 
Office, and OMB. Roles and responsibilities for these organizations 
are documented in the Task Force charter and OMB memoranda, while 
others are described in OMB's January 2013 quarterly report to 
Congress or have been communicated by agency officials. For example, 
through its charter, the Task Force is given responsibility for 
assisting agencies with the development of their consolidation plans 
and assisting OMB with launching an electronic public dashboard for 
tracking the progress of agencies' consolidation efforts. OMB 
memoranda assign the GSA FDCCI Program Management Office the 
responsibility of collecting agencies' data center inventories in June 
and consolidation plans in September of each year. OMB memoranda also 
establish OMB's responsibility for providing executive-level oversight 
and approving agencies' data center consolidation plans. Other 
responsibilities were not documented in official policy, but were 
shared with us by agency staff and confirmed in OMB's January 2013 
quarterly report to Congress. For example, agency staff described 
additional GSA FDCCI Program Management Office responsibilities, 
including analyzing agencies' inventories and plans and providing OMB 
with quarterly and ad-hoc reports on consolidation progress. In 
addition, the Task Force Chairperson stated that the Task Force has 
been responsible for developing and administering the peer review 
process for agencies' consolidation plans. See table 1 for a listing 
of the FDCCI oversight and governance entities and their key 
responsibilities. 

Table 1: Key Responsibilities of FDCCI Oversight and Governance 
Organizations: 

Organization: Task Force; 
FDCCI responsibilities: 
* Hold monthly meetings to facilitate communication between agencies; 
* Communicate and coordinate agency best practices; 
* Identify policy and implementation issues that could negatively 
impact agencies' abilities to meet their FDCCI goals; 
* Assist agencies with development of their consolidation plans; 
* [Bold text] Develop and manage the data center total cost of 
ownership model (GSA)[A]; 
* [Bold text] Develop an electronic governmentwide marketplace for 
data center availability (GSA and OMB); 
* Oversee the agency consolidation plan peer review process. 

Organization: GSA FDCCI Program Management Office; 
FDCCI responsibilities: 
* Collect agencies’ consolidation inventories and plans annually 
(inventories in June; plans in September); 
* Under OMB direction, collect and disseminate data related to the 
FDCCI closure updates; 
* Provide ad-hoc and quarterly reports to OMB regarding agencies’ 
reported consolidation updates; 
* Maintain and update FDCCI-related online portals, such as 
[hyperlink, http://CIO.gov] and [hyperlink, http://data.gov] (i.e., 
the consolidation progress dashboard); 
* [Bold text] Develop and manage the data center total cost of 
ownership model (Task Force); 
* Provide agency support including technical assistance on the total 
cost of ownership model and clarifying inventory and plan requirements; 
* [Bold text] Develop an electronic governmentwide marketplace for 
data center availability (Task Force and OMB); 
* Conduct analysis of FDCCI inventories and plans, including reviewing 
agencies’ submissions for errors. 

Organization: OMB; 
FDCCI responsibilities: 
* Establish and manage FDCCI; 
* Provide Federal CIO policy and guidance to the initiative; 
* Launch an electronic public dashboard to track consolidation 
progress; 
* [Bold text] Develop an electronic governmentwide marketplace for 
data center availability (Task Force and GSA); 
* Approve federal agency consolidation plans; 
* Report quarterly to the Senate and House; 
* Provide executive-level oversight of FDCCI; 

Source: GA analysis of OMB data and agency interviews. 

Note: Bold text indicates a responsibility that is shared with the 
entities indicated in parentheses. 

[A] This model is intended to provide agencies with a comprehensive 
tool to help inform decision making, model paths, and the development 
of cost savings figures and funding needs. 

[End of table] 

Task Force Provides Important Assistance to Agencies, but Has Not 
Overseen Plan Peer Reviews: 

The Task Force has been assigned and has executed a wide range of 
FDCCI responsibilities, many of which are related to assisting 
agencies in their consolidation efforts. For example, the Task Force 
holds monthly meetings to, among other things, communicate and 
coordinate consolidation best practices and to identify policy and 
implementation issues that could negatively impact the ability of 
agencies to meet their goals. Further, the Task Force has assisted 
agencies with the development of their consolidation plans by 
discussing lessons learned during its monthly meetings and 
disseminating new OMB guidance. In addition, the Task Force worked 
with the GSA FDCCI Program Management Office to develop a standard 
total cost of ownership model intended to help agencies in the 
development of cost savings figures in their consolidation plans, 
among other things, and has also assisted with its ongoing management 
by establishing a change control process. Lastly, the Task Force 
worked with GSA and OMB to launch an electronic governmentwide data 
center marketplace that is intended to match agencies that have extra 
data center capacity with agencies with increasing demand, thereby 
improving the utilization of existing facilities. 

However, the Task Force has not provided oversight of the agency 
consolidation peer review process. According to officials, the purpose 
of the peer review process was for agencies to get feedback on their 
consolidation plans and potential improvement suggestions from a 
partner agency with a data center environment of similar size and 
complexity. While the Task Force documented the agency pairings for 
2011 and 2012 reviews, the Task Force Chairperson stated that they did 
not perform checks to ensure that all agencies had exchanged plans. As 
a result, the GSA FDCCI Program Manager acknowledged that there may 
have been cases where agencies did not exchange their plans, but was 
not completely sure because this had not been tracked. In addition, 
the Task Force did not provide agencies with guidance for executing 
their peer reviews, including information regarding the specific 
aspects of agency plans to be reviewed and the process for providing 
feedback. As a result, the peer review process did not ensure that 
significant weaknesses in agencies' plans were identified. As 
previously mentioned, in July 2012, we reported[Footnote 33] that all 
of the agencies' plans were incomplete except for one. In addition, we 
noted that three agencies had submitted their June 2011 inventory 
updates, a required component of consolidation documentation, in an 
incorrect format--an outdated template. At the time, agency officials 
told us that they did not realize they were relying on an outdated 
inventory template, an oversight that might have been identified 
through a robust peer review process. 

Several actions have been taken to address these communication issues. 
Specifically, OMB has posted updated inventory and plan guidance on 
the FDCCI website and committed to posting future guidance in a 
similar manner, and officials from GSA's FDCCI Program Management 
Office stated that inventory data are now being collected via an 
electronic portal to help prevent format issues. However, well-
documented peer review guidance and improved Task Force oversight of 
this process can help ensure that similar situations are avoided in 
the future. According to OMB staff from the Office of E-Government and 
Information Technology, guidance for the peer review process has not 
been documented because the expectation has been that agencies, as 
part of their review of another agency's plan, would determine the 
most important areas of the plan on which to provide feedback. Until 
OMB ensures that the peer review process is documented, agencies will 
lack the necessary guidelines for carrying out their peer reviews and 
the likelihood of any errors or missing elements in agencies' 
inventories and consolidation plans not being detected is increased. 

GSA Assists OMB in Managing FDCCI, but Reviews of Inventories and 
Plans Were Incomplete: 

In its supporting role, the GSA FDCCI Program Management Office has 
been assigned and has performed a broad set of responsibilities, 
including many that are related to assisting OMB in managing FDCCI. 
For example, GSA has collected responses to OMB-mandated document 
deliveries, including agencies' consolidation inventories and plans, 
on an annual basis. Further, GSA has collected data related to FDCCI 
data center closure updates, disseminated the information publicly on 
the consolidation progress dashboard on http: //data.gov, and provided 
ad hoc and quarterly updates to OMB regarding these data. GSA has also 
maintained and updated other FDCCI-related online portals, such as 
[hyperlink, http://CIO.gov]. In addition, GSA worked with the Task 
Force to develop the total cost of ownership model, assists with the 
ongoing management of the model, and provides ongoing technical 
assistance to agencies regarding the model, as well as inventory and 
plan requirements. Lastly, GSA worked with the Task Force and OMB to 
launch an electronic governmentwide marketplace for data center 
availability. 

However, the GSA FDCCI Program Management Office has not executed its 
responsibilities related to analyzing agencies' inventories and plans 
and reviewing these documents for errors. In July 2012, we reported on 
agencies' progress toward completing their inventories and plans and 
found that only three agencies had submitted a complete inventory and 
only one agency had submitted a complete plan, and that most agencies 
did not fully report cost savings information and eight agencies did 
not include any cost savings information.[Footnote 34] In addition, we 
noted that three agencies had submitted their inventory using an 
outdated template. According to OMB's January 2013 quarterly report to 
Congress, GSA is responsible for analyzing agencies' inventories and 
plans, but this report does not provide any information on specific 
analysis requirements. In contrast, officials from GSA's FDCCI Program 
Management Office stated that their office does not do any significant 
validation of agencies' consolidation plans, but typically checks to 
see if any major sections (such as cost savings) are missing. Because 
OMB has not required agencies to submit updated plans since September 
2011, the lack of cost savings information is particularly important 
because, as previously noted, initiativewide cost savings have not 
been determined--a shortcoming that could potentially be addressed if 
agencies had submitted complete plans that addressed cost savings 
realized, as required. A mechanism to help ensure that GSA's review 
requirements are fully executed could provide OMB with reasonable 
assurance that any gaps between agency plans and OMB's requirements 
are identified. 

OMB Has Partially Reported Agencies' Consolidation Progress, but Has 
Not Approved Agency Plans or Tracked Cost Savings: 

After establishing FDCCI in 2010, OMB has taken several actions to 
manage the initiative and to facilitate and oversee agencies' 
consolidation progress. As the FDCCI executive-level body, OMB is 
responsible for managing FDCCI and ensuring that roles and 
responsibilities are fully documented and carried out as intended. For 
example, OMB issued FDCCI policies and guidance in a series of 
memoranda that, among other things, required agencies to provide an 
updated data center asset inventory at the end of every third quarter 
and an updated consolidation plan at the end of every fourth quarter. 
In addition, OMB has also put in place mechanisms to track and report 
on progress against one of its key performance goals, the 
consolidation of approximately 40 percent of the total data centers by 
the end of 2015. In this regard, OMB launched a publicly available 
electronic dashboard to track and report on agencies' consolidation 
progress and, starting in fiscal year 2012, required agencies to 
report quarterly via an online portal on their completed and planned 
data center consolidation efforts. Lastly, OMB worked with the Task 
Force and GSA to launch an electronic governmentwide marketplace for 
data center availability. 

However, although OMB is the approval authority of agencies' 
consolidation plans, it has not approved agencies' submissions on the 
basis of their completeness. In an October 2010 memorandum, OMB stated 
that its approval of agencies' consolidation plans was in progress and 
would be completed by December 2010. However, OMB did not issue a 
subsequent memorandum indicating that it had approved agencies' plans, 
or an updated time frame for completing its review. This is important 
because, in July 2011 and July 2012, we reported that agencies' 
consolidation plans had significant weaknesses and that nearly all 
were incomplete.[Footnote 35] Staff from OMB's Office of E-Government 
and Information Technology have since stated that OMB is not 
responsible for ensuring that agencies' plans are complete, rather 
that the agencies are solely responsible for this effort. While these 
staff have also acknowledged that all FDCCI roles and responsibilities 
have not been formally documented, OMB's October 2010 FDCCI memorandum 
documents OMB's responsibility for approving agencies' consolidation 
plans. Further, in recognizing OMB's role in providing executive-level 
oversight of the initiative, we have also previously reported that OMB 
is responsible for ensuring that agencies submit complete plans. 
[Footnote 36] Until OMB reviews and approves agencies' consolidation 
plans on the basis of their completeness, OMB and the FDCCI agencies 
may remain unaware of any gaps between these plans and OMB's 
requirements, furthering the risk that agencies will move ahead with 
consolidation efforts that do not fully support OMB's anticipated cost 
savings goal. 

Additionally, OMB has not reported on agencies' progress against its 
key performance goal of achieving $3 billion in cost savings by the 
end of 2015. Although the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act 
included a provision directing OMB to submit quarterly progress 
reports to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees that 
identify savings achieved through governmentwide IT reform efforts, 
[Footnote 37] OMB has not yet reported on cost savings realized for 
FDCCI. Instead, the agency's quarterly reports have only described 
planned FDCCI-related savings and stated that future reports will 
identify savings realized. As of the January 2013 report, no such 
savings have been reported. As previously mentioned, OMB has not yet 
started to track agencies' progress against its cost savings goal 
because the agency is working to identify a consistent and repeatable 
method for tracking cost savings. OMB staff stated that they will 
begin reporting on cost savings after they determine the appropriate 
method for tracking progress against this goal, but did not know when 
this would occur. Until OMB fulfills its responsibility to track and 
report on consolidation cost savings, the agency cannot begin to 
measure progress against a key FDCCI performance goal and stakeholders 
in the federal consolidation effort may not receive information 
critical for monitoring the progress of a key government IT reform 
effort. 

Impact of FDCCI Integration with PortfolioStat on Key Oversight 
Responsibilities Is Not Addressed: 

OMB's March 2013 memorandum integrating FDCCI with the PortfolioStat 
initiative documents several oversight responsibilities related to 
data center consolidation under the new combined initiative. As 
previously mentioned, the memorandum describes OMB's responsibilities 
for collecting agencies' information resources management strategic 
plans, enterprise road maps, and integrated data collections, as well 
as the Task Force's responsibility for developing data center 
performance metrics for energy, facility, and labor, among other 
things. The memorandum also states that GSA is still responsible for 
collecting agencies' data center inventories in June 2013. 

However, several other important oversight responsibilities related to 
data center consolidation are not addressed. For example, with the 
elimination of the requirement to submit separate data center 
consolidation plans under the new combined initiative, the memorandum 
does not discuss whether either the Task Force or the GSA Program 
Management Office will continue to be used in their same oversight 
roles for review of agencies' documentation. In addition, while the 
memorandum discusses OMB's responsibility for reviewing agencies' 
draft strategic plans, it does not discuss the responsibility for 
approving these plans. In the absence of defined oversight assignments 
and responsibilities, it cannot be determined how OMB will have 
assurance that agencies' plans meet the revised program requirements 
and, moving forward, whether these plans support the goals of the 
combined initiative. 

Conclusions: 

After more than 3 years into FDCCI, agencies have made progress in 
their efforts to close data centers. However, many key aspects of the 
integration of FDCCI and PortfolioStat, including new data center 
consolidation and cost savings goals, have not yet been defined. 
Further compounding this lack of clarity, total cost savings to date 
from data center consolidation efforts have not been determined, 
creating uncertainty as to whether OMB will be able to meet its 
original cost savings goal of $3 billion by the end of 2015. 
Additionally, even though best practices promote the importance of 
establishing comprehensive performance measures, OMB is not reporting 
on a key component of consolidation progress, namely the size of 
facilities that are being closed, and current agency consolidation 
progress indicates that additional time will be needed beyond the 
original 2015 target in order to realize anticipated cost savings. In 
the absence of tracking and reporting on key performance measures, 
notably cost savings, and additional time for agencies to achieve 
planned savings, OMB will be challenged in ensuring that the 
initiative, under this new direction, is meeting its established 
objectives. 

Recognizing the importance of effective oversight of major IT 
initiatives, OMB directed that three oversight organizations--the Task 
Force, the GSA FDCCI Program Management Office, and OMB--be 
responsible for federal data center consolidation oversight 
activities. In establishing this oversight structure, these 
organizations have established and fulfilled responsibilities designed 
to better ensure that federal data center consolidation meets its 
planned goals, including facilitating collaboration among agencies and 
developing tools to assist agencies in their consolidation efforts. 
However, other key oversight activities have not been performed. Most 
notably, the lack of formal guidance for consolidation plan peer 
reviews and approval increases the risk that missing elements will 
continue to go undetected and that agencies' efforts will not fully 
support OMB's goals. Further, while OMB has put in place initiatives 
to track consolidation progress, consolidation inventories and plans 
are not being reviewed for errors and cost savings are not being 
tracked or reported. The collective importance of these activities to 
federal data center consolidation success reinforces the need for 
oversight responsibilities to be fulfilled in accordance with 
established requirements. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better ensure that FDCCI achieves expected cost savings and to 
improve executive-level oversight of the initiative, we are making 
three recommendations to OMB. Specifically, we are recommending that 
the Director of OMB direct the Federal CIO to: 

* track and annually report on key data center consolidation 
performance measures, such as the size of data centers being closed 
and cost savings to date; 

* extend the time frame for achieving cost savings related to data 
center consolidation beyond the current 2015 horizon, to allow time to 
meet the initiative's planned cost savings goal; and: 

* establish a mechanism to ensure that the established 
responsibilities of designated data center consolidation oversight 
organizations are fully executed, including responsibility for the 
documentation and oversight of the peer review process, the review of 
agencies' updated consolidation inventories and plans, and approval of 
updated consolidation plans. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We received comments on a draft of our report from OMB and GSA. 
Specifically, in written comments, the Federal CIO stated that the 
agency concurred with the first and third recommendation. Regarding 
the second recommendation, OMB neither agreed nor disagreed. However, 
the Federal CIO stated that, as the FDCCI and PortfolioStat 
initiatives proceed and continue to generate savings, OMB will 
consider whether updates to the current time frame are appropriate. 
OMB's written comments are provided in appendix II. 

GSA provided technical comments in which it stated that it disagreed 
with our finding that the agency has not executed its responsibilities 
related to analyzing agencies' inventories and plans. Specifically, 
GSA stated that its FDCCI Program Management Office is not set up to 
perform audit or in-depth review activities, that GSA's review 
requirements are not specifically defined by OMB, and that 
accountability for the accuracy and completeness of inventories and 
plans lies with agency CIOs. We agree that agencies have a 
responsibility for ensuring the completeness of their documentation, 
and we note in the report that agency CIOs are required to attest to 
the completeness of their consolidation plans. However, as also 
mentioned in this report, OMB documentation specifically states that 
the GSA FDCCI Program Management Office is responsible for analyzing 
agencies' inventories and plans. In addition, the report includes 
information from GSA officials about their efforts to check these 
documents for missing sections. Based on these facts, we stand by our 
assessment that GSA has not fully executed its oversight 
responsibilities. 

Our draft report provided to OMB for comment included a recommendation 
that OMB provide the FDCCI agencies with guidance on how the 
initiative was to be integrated with PortfolioStat, including 
direction on reporting requirements and the measurement of key 
performance indicators. OMB's March 2013 memorandum provided guidance 
on how FDCCI will be integrated with PortfolioStat. Among other 
things, the memorandum included new reporting requirements and 
provided initial direction on the measurement of key performance 
indicators. As a result of OMB's action, we have removed this 
recommendation from our final report. We also modified the language of 
our other recommendations as appropriate, taking into consideration 
OMB's memorandum. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to interested congressional committees, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration, 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 III. 

Signed by: 

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

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D. 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Claire McCaskill: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Government Operations: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins: 
United States Senate: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate agencies' reported progress 
against the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) planned 
consolidation and cost savings goals and (2) assess the extent to 
which the oversight organizations put in place by OMB for the Federal 
Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) are adequately performing 
oversight of agencies' efforts to meet these goals. 

To evaluate agencies' reported progress, we compared the 24 
departments and agencies' data center facility reductions as reported 
on [hyperlink, http://data.gov] with OMB's original consolidation 
goals. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed related 
documentation, such as OMB's reports to Congress on the status of 
information technology reform efforts, checked for missing data or 
obvious errors, and interviewed OMB staff from the Office of E-
Government and Information Technology regarding actions taken to 
verify the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable to report on agencies' progress towards OMB's consolidation 
goals. In addition, we interviewed OMB staff about their efforts to 
track consolidation cost savings. We also analyzed the agencies' 2011 
consolidation plans to extract estimated cost savings information. To 
assess the reliability of the data agencies provided in their data 
center consolidation plans, we relied on actions performed as part of 
our previous work to assess the reliability of the data, which 
included reviewing the letters agencies were required to submit 
attesting to the completeness and reliability of their plans, 
interviewing agency officials about actions taken to verify their 
data, and reviewing the past evaluations of agency plans. In the 
previous audit of FDCCI, we found that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for reporting on the completeness of agencies' plans but, in 
our assessment of the plans, noted that most agencies did not fully 
report on their cost savings information. For this review, we reviewed 
the results of our previous data reliability assessment in the context 
of current objectives, and interviewed agency officials about any 
additional actions taken to verify the data. We concluded that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes, which was to report 
on agencies' estimated cost savings information, but that limitations 
existed related to the completeness of agencies' cost savings 
information. As such, we identify the limitations of these data in the 
finding sections of this report. 

To assess the extent to which the oversight organizations put in place 
by OMB for FDCCI are adequately performing oversight of agency 
consolidation efforts, we analyzed OMB memoranda,[Footnote 38] the May 
2011 Data Center Consolidation Task Force Charter, and other related 
documentation to determine the roles and responsibilities of key 
oversight organizations, including OMB, the General Services 
Administration FDCCI Program Management Office, and the Data Center 
Consolidation Task Force. We then compared supporting documentation 
provided by these organizations against their documented roles and 
responsibilities to determine the extent to which these organizations 
were overseeing agencies' consolidation efforts in a manner consistent 
with their assigned responsibilities. In addition, we interviewed 
relevant OMB, General Services Administration, and Data Center 
Consolidation Task Force officials to determine the extent to which 
their oversight roles and responsibilities were being executed, as 
well as the extent to which they were providing oversight of agencies' 
efforts to meet established consolidation and cost savings goals. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to April 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget: 

Executive Office of The President: 
Office of Management and Budget: 
Washington, D.C. 20503: 

April 11, 2013: 

David Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
General Accountability Office: 
441 G SI NW Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Data Center 
Consolidation: Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Cost Savings 
Goal" (GAO-13-378). We appreciate GAO's efforts and collaboration on 
this report. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) remains 
committed to the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) 
and looks forward to continuing the positive momentum achieved to date 
as it is integrated with PortfolioStat.[Footnote 1] 

In its draft report, GAO made four recommendations to OMB to better 
ensure the FDCCI achieves expected cost savings and to improve 
executive-level oversight of the initiative: 

1) Provide the FDCCI agencies guidance on how the initiative is to be 
integrated with PortfolioStat, including direction on reporting 
requirements and the measurement of such key performance indicators as 
the size of data centers being closed and progress towards the 
initiative's cost savings goal; 

2) Track and annually report on key FDCCI performance measures, such 
as the size of data centers being closed and cost savings to date; 

3) Extend the time frame of the FDCCI beyond the current 2015 horizon, 
to allow time to meet the initiative's planned cost savings goal; and, 

4) Establish a mechanism to ensure that the established 
responsibilities of designated FDCCI oversight organizations are fully 
executed, including the responsibility for the documentation and 
oversight of the peer review process, the review of agencies' updated 
consolidation inventories and plans, and approval of updated 
consolidation plans. 

OMB concurs with the first, second and fourth recommendations. 
Regarding the third recommendation, as the FDCCI and PortfolioStat 
initiatives proceed and continue to generate savings, OMB will 
consider whether updates to the current timeframe are appropriate. 

OMB appreciates GAO's interest in the FDCCI and we will continue to 
improve our oversight efforts to enable the FDCCI to reach its stated 
goals. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft 
report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven VanRoekel: 
United States Chief Information Officer: 

Footnote: 

See: M-13-09, Fiscal Year 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance: Strengthening 
Federal IT Portfolio Management at ;hyperlink, 
http://www.whitehouse.govisites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-
09.pdf]. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: 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 Dave Hinchman (Assistant 
Director), Justin Booth, Nancy Glover, and Jonathan Ticehurst. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on 
Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742] (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 
2012) and 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] The 24 major departments and agencies that participate in the 
Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative are the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human 
Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the 
Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 
Veterans Affairs; the 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, and U.S. Agency for 
International Development. 

[3] "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. 

[4] As of February 2013, OMB had assigned one CIO from the Department 
of the Interior. Initially there had been two, but one resigned as 
executive sponsor and OMB stated that they had no plans to fill the 
second position. 

[5] 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). 

[6] OMB, Implementation Guidance for the Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012). 

[7] The number changes as agencies identify new centers, but agencies 
are only required to provide updated inventories once a year, by the 
end of June. 

[8] According to OMB, commodity IT includes services such as IT 
infrastructure (data centers, networks, desktop computers and mobile 
devices); enterprise IT systems (e-mail, collaboration tools, identity 
and access management, security, and web infrastructure); and business 
systems (finance, human resources, and other administrative functions). 

[9] OMB, Implementing PortfolioStat, Memorandum M-12-10 (Washington 
D.C.: Mar. 30, 2012). 

[10] OMB, Fiscal Year 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance: Strengthening 
Federal IT Portfolio Management, Memorandum M-13-09 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 27, 2013). 

[11] OMB, Management of Federal Information Resources, Circular A-130 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2000). According to OMB Circular A-130, an 
agency's information resources management strategic plan should 
describe how information resources management activities help 
accomplish agency missions, and ensure that information resource 
management decisions are integrated with organizational planning, 
budget, procurement, financial management, human resources management, 
and program decisions. 

[12] OMB, Increasing Shared Approaches to Information Technology 
Services (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2012). The enterprise road map is 
to include a business and technology architecture, an IT asset 
inventory, a commodity IT consolidation plan, a line of business 
service plan, and an IT shared service plan. 

[13] The integrated data collection channel will be used by agencies 
to report structured information, such as progress in meeting IT 
strategic goals, objectives, and metrics, as well as cost savings and 
avoidances resulting from IT management actions. 

[14] 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). 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. 

[17] OMB refers to total cost of ownership as all associated data 
center-related activities and costs without regard to ownership, 
project association, or funding line. 

[18] GAO, Aviation Weather: Agencies Need to Improve Performance 
Measurement and Fully Address Key Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-843] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 
2011); GAO, NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA's Metrics Can Be 
Used to Report on Status of Individual Programs, but Not of Overall 
NextGen Implementation or Outcomes, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-629] (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 
2010); OMB, Guide to the Program Assessment Rating Tool (Washington, 
D.C.: January 2008); Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer, Guide for Developing and Using IT Performance 
Measurements (Washington, D.C.: October 2001); and GSA, Performance-
Based Management: Eight Steps To Develop and Use Information 
Technology Performance Measures Effectively (Washington, D.C.: 1996). 

[19] Of the 24 agencies, 17 reported closing at least one data center 
by the end of December 2012. The remaining 7 agencies did not report 
closing any data centers during this time. 

[20] Of the 24 agencies, 19 reported plans to close at least one data 
center by the end of September 2013. The remaining 5 agencies did not 
report plans to close any data centers in this time frame. 

[21] OMB, Quarterly Report to Congress: Integrated, Efficient, and 
Effective Uses of Information Technology (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 
2012). 

[22] OMB, Quarterly Report to Congress: Integrated, Efficient, and 
Effective Uses of Information Technology (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 
2013). 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. 

[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. 

[25] In July 2011, we recommended that OMB require agencies to submit 
complete data center inventories and consolidation plans. In response, 
OMB required that agencies do so. However, we did not assess the 
completeness of agency inventories for this review. 

[26] OMB Memorandum M-13-09. 

[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. 

[28] The Department of Defense estimated it would achieve about $671 
million in cost savings by the end of 2012, which accounts for about 
96 percent of the total anticipated cost savings. 

[29] One agency--the Department of Defense--estimated about $2.2 
billion in cost savings by the end of 2015, which accounts for about 
92 percent of the total anticipated cost savings. However, the 
department's consolidation plan noted that their cost savings 
estimates do not account for any up-front costs associated with the 
consolidation effort. 

[30] GAO, USDA Systems Modernization: Management and Oversight 
Improvements Are Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-586] (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 
2011); United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management 
and Oversight of Rescue System Acquisition, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-623] (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 
2006); and Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework 
for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2004). 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-586], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-623], and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G]. 

[32] OMB, Capital Programming Guide, V. 3.0, Supplement to OMB 
Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets, 
(Washington, D.C.: July 2012). The Capital Programming Guide is 
intended to help agencies effectively plan, procure, and use capital 
assets. 

[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. 

[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. 

[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-742]. 

[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]. 

[37] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, div. 
C, title II, 125 Stat. 786, 896 (2011). 

[38] See, for example, OMB, Fiscal Year 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance: 
Strengthening Federal IT Portfolio Management, Memorandum M-13-09 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2013); Implementation Guidance for the 
Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
19, 2012); Update on the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2010); and Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2010). 

[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. 

[End of document]