This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-987 
entitled 'Information Management: The National Archives and Records 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 Expenditure Plan' which was released 
on July 27, 2007. 

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. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

Information Management: 

The National Archives and Records Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 
Expenditure Plan: 

GAO-07-897: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-987, a report to congressional committees 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since 2001, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has 
been working to acquire the Electronic Records Archives (ERA) system. 
As required by law, the agency submitted its fiscal year 2007 
expenditure plan to congressional appropriations committees, seeking 
the release of $23.4 million for the development of the system. 

GAO’s objectives in reviewing the expenditure plan were to (1) 
determine the extent to which the expenditure plan satisfied the 
legislative conditions specified in the appropriations act; (2) 
determine the extent to which NARA has implemented GAO’s prior 
recommendations; and (3) provide any other observations about the 
expenditure plan and the ERA acquisition. GAO reviewed the expenditure 
plan and analyzed it against the legislative conditions and assessed 
NARA’s progress in addressing prior recommendations. 

In May 2007, GAO briefed staff of the Senate subcommittee and sent a 
copy of the briefing to the House and Senate subcommittee staffs. 

What GAO Found: 

As of May 2007, NARA’s fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan fully 
satisfied five of the six legislative conditions and partially 
satisfied the remaining condition—that ERA conform to the agency’s life 
cycle methodology. This methodology requires, among other things, that 
the agency develop an agencywide risk management plan. The agency 
developed this plan; however, it had not been approved by senior staff 
and signed by the Archivist of the United States. This plan was 
subsequently approved in July 2007. 

NARA implemented all prior GAO recommendations. The agency (1) 
established a baseline and target architecture, a plan to transition 
from the baseline to the target, and an architecture review board; (2) 
revised four of five key acquisition policies and plans to comply with 
appropriate standards; and (3) developed a fiscal year 2007 expenditure 
plan that contains an appropriate level and scope of information needed 
for the Congress to understand its plans and commitments relative to 
system capabilities, benefits, schedules, and costs. 

The ERA project experienced schedule delays and cost increases. 
According to NARA’s analysis, the project was about 2 months behind 
schedule as of May 2007. In addition, the contractor projected the 
estimated cost at completion of the initial operating capability (IOC) 
to be about $570,000 over budget. Factors contributing to the delays 
included low productivity of contractor software programmers, 
difficulties in securing an acceptable contract to prepare the site 
that is to house the system, and problems with software integration. 
Although the contractor took actions to address the factors causing 
these delays and overruns, NARA concluded that the project schedule 
should be revised so that only limited functionality would be available 
by the initial operating capability date of September 7, 2007. 

Subsequent to the GAO briefing, NARA officials and the contractor 
reported that the project had experienced additional delays and 
overruns. Thus, as of July 2007, the estimated date for completion of 
the IOC is delayed to March 31, 2008. NARA officials and the contractor 
project the estimated cost at completion the initial operating 
capability to be between $8 and $12 million over budget. They are also 
in the process of negotiating additional mitigating actions needed and 
changes to the project’s cost and schedule. 

What GAO Recommends: 

At this time, GAO is making no recommendations. However, continued 
agency attention will be important to help ensure the success of the 
project. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Archivist 
provided an update concerning the ERA cost and schedule. 

[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-987]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Briefing Slides: 

Appendix I: Comments from the National Archives: 

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Abbreviations: 

ERA: Electronic Records Archives: 
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act: 
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.: 
IOC: Initial Operating Capability: 
IT: information technology: 
NARA: National Archives and Records Administration: 
OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 
SA-CMM: Software Acquisition-Capability Maturity Model: 
SEI: Software Engineering Institute: 
SOC: Systems Operations Center: 

July 27, 2007: 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Sam Brownback: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable José E. Serrano: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Ralph Regula: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

As required by law, the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA) submitted its fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan in March 2007 to 
congressional appropriations committees, seeking the release of $23.4 
million for the Electronic Records Archives (ERA). ERA is a major 
information system that is intended to preserve and provide access to 
massive volumes and formats of electronic records. ERA is to automate 
NARA's records management and archiving life cycle, and is to consist 
of: 

* infrastructure elements, including hardware and operating systems; 

* business applications that will support the transfer, preservation, 
dissemination, and management of all types of records and the 
preservation of and online access to electronic records; and: 

* a means for public access via the Internet. 

The system is to be deployed in five separate increments. Increment 1 
(known as the initial operating capability) consists of two releases 
that are scheduled to be completed by September 7, 2007. 

Our objectives in reviewing the plan were to (1) determine whether the 
plan satisfied the conditions specified in the law,[Footnote 1] (2) 
determine the extent to which NARA has implemented our prior 
recommendations, and (3) provide any other observations about the 
expenditure plan and the ERA acquisition. 

In May 2007, we transmitted a copy of our briefing to your staffs and 
briefed staff from the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial 
Services and General Government on the results of our review. This 
report transmits the materials used at that briefing. The full briefing 
materials, including our scope and methodology, are reprinted as 
appendix I. In summary, we made the following major points: 

* As of May 2007, NARA's fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan satisfied 
five of the six legislative conditions, and partially satisfied the 
remaining condition--that ERA conform to the agency's life cycle 
methodology. The methodology requires, among other things, that the 
agency develop an agencywide risk management plan. The agency developed 
this plan; however, the plan had not yet been approved by NARA's senior 
staff and signed by the Archivist of the United States. (This plan was 
subsequently approved in July 2007.) 

* NARA had implemented all prior GAO recommendations. The agency (1) 
completed a baseline and target architecture, completed a plan for 
transitioning from the baseline to the target architecture, and 
established an architecture review board to ensure the use of NARA's 
enterprise architecture across the agency; (2) revised four of five key 
acquisition policies and plans to comply with the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) standards (as of July 2006, 
the remaining plan--the ERA Risk Management Plan--was revised to comply 
with IEEE standards); and (3) developed a fiscal year 2007 expenditure 
plan that contains an appropriate level and scope of information needed 
for the Congress to understand its plans and commitments relative to 
system capabilities, benefits, schedules, and costs. 

* The ERA project experienced schedule delays and cost increases. 
According to analysis performed by NARA, the project was about 2 months 
behind schedule as of May 2007. In addition, the contractor projected 
an estimated cost at completion that was about $570,000 over budget. 
Factors contributing to the delays included low productivity of 
contractor software programmers, difficulties in securing an acceptable 
contract to prepare the site that is to house the system, and problems 
with software integration. Although the contractor took actions to 
address these factors, NARA concluded that the project schedule should 
be revised so that only release 1 and limited functionality from 
release 2 would be completed by the initial operating capability date 
of September 7, 2007.[Footnote 2] The remainder of release 2-- 
originally scheduled for delivery on September 7--would be delayed 
until November 6, 2007. 

After we briefed your staff, NARA and contractor officials reported 
that the project had experienced additional delays and overruns. Thus, 
as of July 2007: 

* The estimated date for completion of initial operating capability 
(IOC) is delayed from November 6, 2007, to March 31, 2008. According to 
NARA, the contractor will (1) begin incremental delivery of three IOC 
software releases on September 28, 2007, and (2) complete the IOC on 
March 31, 2008. 

* NARA and the contractor project the estimated cost at completion of 
the IOC to be between $8 million and $12 million over budget. 

* NARA and the contractor are in the process of negotiating additional 
mitigating actions needed and changes to the project’s cost and 
schedule. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Archivist of the 
United States stated that he was pleased to note our recognition of the 
progress that NARA has made toward implementing our recommendations. 
These comments are reproduced in appendix II. 

The Archivist also provided an update of the efforts concerning ERA 
acquisition cost and schedule. In addressing the ERA schedule, the 
Archivist noted that the contractor planned to begin incremental 
delivery, on September 28, 2007, of functionality leading to an initial 
operating capability that would include release 1 and limited 
functionality from release 2. He also noted that the contractor would 
deliver the remainder of release 2 functionality in the second-quarter 
of fiscal year 2008. Regarding cost, the Archivist stated that the 
estimated cost of the project on September 28, 2007, would be about 
$2.6 million over budget. (However, in subsequent discussions, the 
Chief Information Officer stated that the estimated cost overrun of the 
ERA development has risen from about $2.6 million to between $8 million 
and $12 million.) 

The Archivist also clarified that one of the factors that contributed 
to schedule delays—the preparation of the ERA site—was a government 
responsibility, and that the site preparation delays had little impact 
on the overall delays for the development of the ERA system. He also 
provided a technical comment, which we addressed in this report as 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and to the Archivist of the United States. We will make 
copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www/gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 
call me at 202-512-6240; I can also be reached by e-mail at 
koontzl@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: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Briefing Slides: 

Government Accountability Office: 
Accountability: Integrity: Reliability: 

National Archives and Records Administration's Acquisition of 
Electronic Records Archives: 

Briefing for Staff Members of the: 

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Senate Committee on Appropriations:  

and the: 

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
House Committee on Appropriations: 

May 25, 2007: 

Outline of Briefing:

Introduction: 
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 
Results in Brief: 
Background: 
ERA System: 
ERA Schedule, Cost, and Performance in Fiscal Year 2006: 
ERA Expenditure Plan:  
Legislative Conditions:  
Implementation of Prior Recommendations: 
Enterprise Architecture: 
Acquisition Policies and Plans: 
Expenditure Plan: 
Observations on the ERA Expenditure Plan: 
Agency Comments: 
Attachment 1. Comments from the National Archives and Records 
Administration: 

Introduction: 

The mission of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 
is to ensure ready access to government records for the public, the 
President, Congress, and the courts. NARA is responsible for oversight 
of records management and archiving, which increasingly involves 
dealing with documents that are created and stored electronically. To 
address critical issues in the creation, management, and use of federal 
electronic records, the Archivist of the United States plans to develop 
a major information system— the Electronic Records Archives (ERA)—that 
will have the ability to preserve and provide access to massive volumes 
of all types and formats of electronic records. ERA is to automate 
NARA's records management and archiving life cycle, and is to consist 
of: 

infrastructure elements, including hardware and operating systems; 
business applications that will support the transfer, preservation, 
dissemination, and management of all types of records and the 
preservation of and online access to electronic records; and a means 
for public access via the Internet. 

In 2001, the agency hired a contractor to develop policies and plans 
using the standards of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) to guide the overall acquisition of an 
electronic records system. 

In December 2003, the agency released a request for proposals for the 
design of ERA. In August 2004, NARA awarded two firm fixed-price 
contracts for the design phase totaling about $20 million—one to Harris 
Corporation and the other to Lockheed Martin Corporation. On September 
8, 2005, NARA announced the selection of Lockheed Martin Corporation to 
build the ERA system. In fiscal year 2006, NARA selected the Alleghany 
Ballistics Laboratory at Rocket Center, West Virginia, as the site for 
the ERA system. Since that time, the agency has continued work on the 
initial version of the ERA system to be operational in September 2007. 

As mandated by NARA's fiscal year 2006 appropriations act, 1: the 
authority and conditions of which continue into fiscal year 2007, 2: 
NARA is required to submit an expenditure plan before obligating the 
fiscal year 2007 funds for the ERA program. As in the previous year, 
the plan must satisfy the following legislative conditions: 

meet the capital planning and investment control review requirements 
established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including 
Circular A-11; 

comply with the agency's enterprise architecture; 

1: Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the 
Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 
2396, 2486 (Nov. 30, 2005) 

2: Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2007, 
Pub. L. No. 110-5, § 2, 121 Stat. 9 (Feb. 15, 2007). 

conform with the agency's enterprise life cycle methodology; 

comply with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and system 
acquisition management practices of the federal government; 

be approved by the agency and OMB; and: 

be reviewed by GAO.

On March 13, 2007, the agency submitted its 2007 expenditure plan to 
the relevant House and Senate appropriations subcommittees, seeking 
release of $23.4 million for the ERA program. 3: The subcommittees 
released these funds in April 2007 after review of the expenditure plan.

3: ERA funding available during fiscal year 2007 totaled $53.2 million. 
Of this amount, $29.9 million had already been released to the program. 
This amount included $13.6 million in one-year funds and $16.3 million 
in multi-year funds. 

Since June 2002, we have completed several reports assessing NARA's 
efforts to acquire the ERA system. 4: The reports made a total of 11 
recommendations. At the beginning of our review, eight of the 
recommendations had been implemented; the following remain to be 
addressed:

Develop an enterprise architecture. 

Revise five key ERA program policies and plans to conform to IEEE 
standards. 

Ensure that future expenditure plans include a sufficient level and 
scope of information so that Congress will be able to understand what 
system capabilities and benefits are to be delivered, by when, and at 
what cost, and what progress is being made against the commitments that 
were made in prior expenditure plans. 

4: GAO, Information Management: Challenges in Managing and Preserving 
Electronic Records, GAO-02-586 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2002); 
Records Management: National Archives and Records Administration's 
Acquisition of Major System Faces Risks,GAO-03- 880 (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 22, 2003); Records Management: Planning for the Electronic Records 
Archives Has Improved, GAO-04- 927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2004); 
Information Management: Acquisition of the Electronic Records Archives 
is Progressing, GAO-05-802 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2005); and 
Electronic Records Archives: The National Archives and Records 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Expenditure Plan, GAO-06-906 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 18, 2006). 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

As agreed, our objectives were to: 

determine the extent to which the agency's fiscal year 2007 expenditure 
plan satisfies the legislative conditions specified in NARA's 
appropriations act,: 

determine the extent to which the agency has implemented our prior 
recommendations, and: 

provide any other observations about the expenditure plan and the ERA 
acquisition. To assess compliance with legislative conditions, we: 

reviewed the fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan submitted by the agency 
in March 2007 and analyzed the plan to identify any variance from the 
legislative conditions; 

obtained and reviewed the agency's enterprise architecture plans to 
determine the status of the agency's efforts to develop an enterprise 
architecture and architecture review board; 

reviewed the systems development life cycle policy that the agency is 
using to guide the ERA acquisition and relevant items for compliance; 
and: 

reviewed NARA's fiscal year 2007 exhibit 300 submissions 5: to OMB to 
determine the extent to which the agency has complied with OMB's 
capital planning and investment control requirements.

To determine the extent to which the agency has implemented prior 
recommendations, we: 

obtained and reviewed the agency's enterprise architecture plans to 
determine the status of the agency's efforts to develop an enterprise 
architecture and architecture review board; 

reviewed key ERA plans and independent verification and validation 
reports to determine what progress the program had made in addressing 
our recommendation that policies and plans conform to industry 
standards; and: 

reviewed and analyzed the current expenditure plan to determine whether 
it contained a sufficient level and scope of information on system 
capabilities and benefits to be acquired.

5: Agencies develop an exhibit 300, also known as the Capital Asset 
Plan and Business Case, to justify each request for a major information 
technology (IT) investment. OMB sets forth requirements for the exhibit 
300 in Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 
Budget, Part 7. 

To assess the ERA expenditure plan and acquisition, we: 

analyzed the completeness of the cost and schedule information 
contained in the expenditure plan and interviewed agency and program 
officials in order to gain an understanding of the ERA program and: 

reviewed Lockheed Martin monthly status reports and risk analysis 
reports, and also interviewed Lockheed Martin program officials in 
order to gain an understanding of the contractor's program management, 
ERA schedule, and related data. 

We performed our work from December 2006 to May 2007 at NARA's College 
Park, Maryland, location in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Legislative Conditions: 

NARA's fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan satisfies five of the six 
legislative conditions, and partially satisfies the remaining 
condition—that ERA conform to the agency's life cycle methodology. The 
methodology requires, among other things, that the agency develop an 
agencywide risk management plan. The agency developed this plan; 
however, it has not yet been approved by NARA's senior staff and signed 
by the Archivist of the United States. To fully satisfy this condition, 
the agency plans to approve this plan by June 2007.

Prior Recommendations: 

NARA has implemented all prior GAO recommendations. 

Table 1: Summary Status of NARA's Progress in Implementing Prior 
Recommendations:  

Prior recommendation: Enterprise architecture; 
Status: Implemented; 
Progress: NARA has completed a baseline and target architecture, and a 
plan for transitioning from the baseline to the target architecture. 
The agency has established an architecture review board to ensure that 
the use of NARA's enterprise architecture across the agency;  

Prior recommendation: Acquisition policies and plans; 
Status: Implemented; 
Progress: NARA had revised four of five key acquisitions and plans to 
comply with IEEE standards. As of July 2006, the remaining plan-the ERA 
Risk Management Plan-was revised to comply with IEEE standards. 

Prior recommendation: Expenditure plan; 
Status: Implemented; 
Progress: NARA's fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan contains an 
appropriate level and scope of information needed for the Congress to 
understand its plans and commitments relative to system capabilities, 
benefits, schedules, and costs.

Source: GAO analysis of NARA data. 

[End of table]

Observations on the ERA Expenditure Plan and Program: 

The ERA project has experienced schedule delays and cost increases. 
According to analysis performed by the agency, the project is now about 
2 months behind schedule. The contractor has projected an estimated 
cost at completion of about $570,000 over budget. Factors contributing 
to the delays include low productivity of contractor software 
programmers, difficulties in securing an acceptable contract to prepare 
the site that is to house the system, and problems with software 
integration. Although the contractor has taken actions to address the 
factors causing these delays and overruns, NARA has concluded that the 
project schedule should be revised so that only Release 1 and limited 
functionality from Release 2 will be completed on the initial operating 
capability date of September 7, 2007. The remainder of Release 2 would 
then be scheduled for November 6, 2007. Continued agency attention will 
be critically important to help ensure that the system development 
effort does not incur additional schedule delays or cost overruns. 

In written comments on a draft of these slides (reproduced in 
attachment 1), the Archivist of the United States noted that we 
recognized NARA's progress towards implementing our recommendations and 
that our observation provided insight into the expenditure plan and 
acquisition schedule. He also provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated as appropriate.

Background: 

ERA System: 

Since 2001, NARA has been working to acquire the ERA system—a major 
information system that is intended to be used to acquire, secure, 
provide access to, and preserve most electronic records, free from 
dependence on any specific hardware or software. 

The ERA system will consist of six major components, each of which 
supports a specific business area.

Ingest enables transfer of electronic records from federal agencies.  

Managed Storage enables stored records to be managed in a way that 
guarantees their integrity and availability. 

Dissemination enables users to search descriptions and business data 
about all types of records, and to search the content of electronic 
records and retrieve them. 

Records Management supports scheduling, 6: appraisal, 7: description, 
and requests to transfer custody of all types of records, as well as 
ingesting and managing electronic records, including the capture of 
selected records data (such as origination date, format, and 
disposition). 

6: A record schedule is a document that describes agency records, 
establishes a period for their retention by the agency, and provides 
mandatory instructions for what to do with them when they are no longer 
needed for current government business. 

7: Records appraisal is the process of determining the value and the 
final disposition of records, making them either temporary or permanent.

Preservation enables secure and reliable storage of files in formats in 
which they were received, as well as creating backup copies for offsite 
storage. 

Local Services & Control regulates how the ERA components communicate 
with each other, manages internal security, and enables 
telecommunications and system network management.

Figure 1 shows the ERA system business concept, indicating how the six 
major components interact.

Figure 1: Overview of ERA Business Concept: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: NARA data.

[End of figure]

The ERA program is using an acquisition and implementation approach in 
which the system will be deployed in five separate increments: 

Increment 1 will be deployed in three releases. Increment 1, releases 1 
and 2,— known as the Initial Operating Capability (IOC)—is expected to 
be completed by September 2007. Release 1 of Increment 1 is to 
establish the foundation for the ERA system—the hardware, software, and 
communications needed to deploy the system. Release 2 is to enable 
online transfer of electronic records to NARA, annual transfers of 
records, and secure storage of electronic records in original formats. 
With increment 1, the system is to handle both unclassified and 
sensitive records. Release 3, scheduled to be operational in June 2008, 
is to add support for records scheduling and appraisal.

Increment 2 is to provide additional capabilities such as content 
searching, responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, 
and preservation planning. 8: It is also to handle classified data. 

Increment 3 is to provide public access. 

Increments 4 and 5 are to provide additional preservation capability 
and storage. 

8: Preservation planning is an ERA function that will help ensure that 
researchers have continued reliable access to records over time, 
regardless of the complexity or format of the records. 

Figure 2 on the next slide shows the incremental timetable for 
deploying ERA and the functionality planned for each increment. 
According to NARA, the planning and design for each increment are to 
start before acceptance of the previous increment. The beginning dates 
of the planning and design phases for increments 2-5 are not shown, as 
these depend on the progress of previous increments. 

Figure 2: ERA Acquisition Approach: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: GAO analysis of NARA data.

[End of figure]

Background: 

ERA Schedule, Cost, and Performance in Fiscal Year 2006. 

NARA generally met its scheduled milestones for fiscal year 2006. In 
particular, it produced several required acquisition plans—a 
Configuration Management Plan, a Program Management Plan, and a Risk 
Management Plan. The agency also completed key reviews required for the 
development life cycle of the system, such as the Critical Design 
Review for Increment 1, Release 1. 

NARA also reassessed the ERA schedule and delayed the development and 
delivery of certain functions in the system. According to NARA, the 
agency reassessed the schedule because the costs of addressing the 
original system requirements exceeded the expected resources. 

As a result of the new schedule, functionality was shifted to future 
increments. Increment 1—which was to have delivered an initial 
operating capability accessible by the public, businesses, and federal 
agencies, and include functionality such as the ability to find and 
present records, identify and redact sensitive records, and process 
classified records— will now provide a more basic system to be used by 
NARA and other federal agencies, and will process only unclassified and 
sensitive data. 
 
The tables below show the amount obligated for ERA in fiscal year 2006 
as well as the reported spending from the program's inception to the 
end of fiscal year 2006. 

Table 2: Summary of Fiscal Year 2006 ERA Obligations Project category: 

Project Category: Program management; 
Fiscal year 2006 obligations Program management: 8,148,019 ; 

Project Category: Research and development; 
Fiscal year 2006 obligations Program management: 3,526,755; 

Project Category: Site preparation; 
Fiscal year 2006 obligations Program management: 2,569,036; 

Project Category: Development contract-Lockheed Martin; 
Fiscal year 2006 obligations Program management: 17,000,000; 

Project Category: Independent verification and validation; 
Fiscal year 2006 obligations Program management: 1,549,908; 

Project category: Total; 
Fiscal year 2006 obligations Program management: 32,793,718.  

Source: GAO analysis of NARA data. 

[End of figure] 

In the fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan, NARA was seeking the release 
of $23.4 million for ERA. The agency could not obligate these funds 
until Congress reviewed and approved the expenditure plan. Congress 
released these funds in April 2007 after review of the expenditure plan.

NARA's estimated ERA obligations for fiscal year 2007 are $53.3 
million. Table 4 below shows how it plans to distribute the money 
across the ERA program. 

Background: 

ERA 2007 Expenditure Plan: 

Table 4: Summary of NARA's Fiscal Year 2007 Estimated Obligations for 
ERA ERA 2007 Expenditure Plan Project category: 

Project category: Program management; 
Description: Salaries and benefits, supplies, equipment, and 
telecommunications; 
Estimated obligations: $8,547,985; 

Project category: Research and development; 
Description: Research performed with other agencies; 
Estimated obligations: 3,799,136; 

Project category: Security; 
Description: Security clearances and testing; 
Estimated obligations: 170,000; 

Project category: Site development; 
Description: Interagency agreements for Rocket Center and other 
facilities; 
Estimated obligations: 3,007,487; 

Project category: Development contract; 
Description: Activities performed under the ERA system acquisition 
contract with Lockheed Martin; 
Estimated obligations: 32,861; 

Project category: Independent verification and validation: 9; 
Description: Verification and validation activities; 
Estimated obligations: 1,569,002; 

Project category: Program Office Support Team; 
Description: Labor, contracts, and materials to support the ERA program 
management; 
Estimated obligations: 3,000,000.

Project category: Total; 
Description: [Empty]; 
Estimated obligations: $52,261,610.
 
Source: GAO analysis of NARA data. 

[End of figure]

9: NARA contracted with Northrop Grumman to perform independent 
verification and validation on policies and plans produced by the ERA 
program and contractual deliverables produced by Lockheed Martin. 

Legislative Conditions: 

As shown in the table, NARA's fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan 
satisfies five of the six legislative conditions and partially 
satisfies the remaining condition that the expenditure plan must 
conform to the agency's enterprise life cycle methodology. 

Table 5: Status of Legislative Conditions:  

Legislative condition: Meet OMB capital planning investment control 
review requirements; 
Status: Satisfied; 
Progress: NARA met OMB's capital planning and investment control review 
requirements for the ERA acquisition. It identified funding required 
for acquiring ERA and conducts regular reviews of the program. NARA has 
also implemented a policy and process for bi-annual reviews of ongoing 
information technology (IT) investments, including interdependencies 
with ERA through an agencywide capital planning and investment control 
process and quarterly investment; 

Legislative condition: Comply with NARA's enterprise architecture; 
Status: Satisfied; 
Progress: NARA has developed and implemented a procedure to ensure that 
ERA complies with the agency's enterprise architecture. NARA has also 
established an Enterprise Architecture Review Board to assess IT 
projects agencywide, including those that have interdependencies with 
ERA, to ensure they conform to the enterprise architecture; 

Legislative condition: Comply with acquisition, rules, requirements, 
guidelines, and system acquisition management practices of the federal 
government;
Status: Satisfied;
Progress: NARA satisfied this provision by (1) conducting internal 
assessments in 2002 and 2004 that used the Software Engineering 
Institute's (SEI) 10: SA-CMM 11: methods to determine the maturity of 
ERA's system policies, processes, and practices; and (2) implementing a 
process to address the assessment's recommendations; 

Legislative condition: Conform to NARA's enterprise life cycle 
methodology; 
Status: Partially satisfied; 
Progress: ERA generally conforms to the life cycle methodology. 
However, NARA has not yet fully established an agencywide risk 
management capability, as required by the life cycle methodology. The  
developed this plan; however, it has not yet been approved by NARA's 
senior staff and signed by the Archivist of the United States. To fully 
satisfy this condition, the agency plans to approve the plan by June 
2007; 

Legislative condition: Approval; 
Status: Satisfied;
Progress: This plan was reviewed and approved by NARA and OMB in 
December 2006. The final version of the plan reflects actual 
appropriations under the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 
2007; 

Legislative condition: Reviewed by GAO;
Status: Satisfied;
Progress: GAO finished reviewing the plan in May 2007.

10: SEI is a federally funded research and development center operated 
by Carnegie Mellon University and sponsored by the Department of 
Defense. Its objective is to provide  in software engineering and in 
the transition of new software engineering technology info practice. 

11: Software Acquisition-Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMM): Identifies 
key process areas that are essential to effectively managing software-
intensive system acquisition. 

Implementation of Prior Recommendations: 

Enterprise Architecture: 

In our August 2006 report,12: we noted that NARA had partially 
implemented our 2002 recommendations—establishing a baseline and target 
architecture, and a plan for transitioning from the baseline to the 
target architecture—but had not established a board for reviewing IT 
projects agencywide, including projects that are interdependent with 
ERA. In December 2006, the agency established an architecture review 
board to maintain, update, and ensure use of the agency's enterprise 
architecture across the organization. The board held its first meeting 
in January 2007. By establishing the architecture review board, the 
agency increased assurance that projects are consistent with NARA's 
architecture.

12: GAO, Electronic Records Archives: The National Archives and Records 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Expenditure Plan, GAO- 06-906 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 18, 2006). 

Implementation of Prior Recommendations: Acquisition Policies and 
Plans:  

We previously reported that ERA had developed four of five key policies 
and plans to guide its acquisition, and that one remaining document—the 
ERA Risk Management Plan—did not fully conform to the IEEE standards 
selected by the agency. In response to our recommendation, NARA has 
revised the ERA Risk Management Plan to comply with IEEE standards. 
This plan was completed in July 2006. By revising the plan to conform 
to these standards, the agency has strengthened the guidance it needs 
to acquire the system.

Implementation of Prior Recommendations: 
Expenditure Plan: 

In our August 2006 report,13: we recommended that NARA ensure that 
future expenditure plans include information of a sufficient level and 
scope to allow the Congress to understand what system capabilities and 
benefits are to be delivered, by when, and at what cost, and what 
progress is being made relative to commitments that were made in prior 
expenditure plans.

NARA's fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan contains an appropriate level 
and scope of information needed for the Congress to understand agency 
plans and commitments relative to ERA system capabilities, benefits, 
schedules, and costs. For example, the plan now includes a detailed 
work breakdown schedule that describes the planned and actual 
completion dates for deliverables or major tasks, the percentage of 
work complete, and estimated and actual costs. The plan also includes a 
description of functionality, such as the capability to transfer and 
accept electronic records. 

13: GAO, Electronic Records Archives: The National Archives and Records 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Expenditure Plan, GAO- 06-906 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 18, 2006). 

Observation on the ERA Expenditure Plan and Acquisition: 
Schedule: 

NARA established September 7, 2007, as the date by which the ERA system 
would achieve initial operating capability, including Releases 1 and 2. 
According to NARA officials, achieving this critical milestone is one 
of the most important challenges facing the agency and the ERA project. 
Meeting this milestone would require that Lockheed Martin complete the 
development of the system, including resolving all software problems 
that Lockheed identified during earlier software testing, before NARA 
would begin scheduled acceptance testing: 14 on July 27, 2007. 

However, the project has experienced schedule delays and cost 
increases. According to analysis performed by the agency, the project 
is now about 2 months behind schedule. The contractor has projected an 
estimated cost at completion of about $570,000 over budget. Lockheed 
Martin officials have proposed that, despite the delays, the project 
can meet the initial operating capability date if the agency agrees to 
begin acceptance testing before Lockheed completes the initial testing 
of the Release 2 software and resolves any problems identified. 
According to the ERA program manager, the agency plans to reject this 
proposal because of the potentially high risk to the agency. 

14: Acceptance testing is performed by the customer on a system before 
the customer accepts delivery or accepts transfer of ownership of that 
system.

Factors contributing to the schedule delays include low contractor 
productivity, difficulties in securing an acceptable contract to 
prepare the site that is to house the system, and problems integrating 
commercial off-the-shelf software with the system: 

Low productivity of the contractor's software programmers was a 
significant factor contributing to schedule delays. According to 
program officials, this low productivity stemmed from Lockheed not 
having enough staff, the inability of staff to work well together, and 
a tight schedule to complete the project. To address this issue, 
Lockheed replaced several programmers with a more experienced software 
development staff.


NARA's original plans for the Rocket Center facility included 
installing a new cooling system and power supply. Due to a contractual 
issue, the Rocket Center site preparation has been delayed about a 
month. Specifically, the agency received only one response to its 
request for proposals for work on the Rocket Center; because this bid 
was about $300,000 more than estimated costs, the agency decided not to 
award the contract at that time. The agency currently plans to install 
a temporary cooling system and power supply at the facility. It has 
scheduled the site to be available May 30, 2007, and plans to issue a 
new request for proposal for the installation of a permanent cooling 
system and power supply. 

According to Lockheed Martin, the integration of a commercial off-the-
shelf product with the ERA system was more time-consuming than 
anticipated. Agency officials stated that Lockheed experienced problems 
with the way the software interacted with ERA. After discovering the 
problem, Lockheed decided to use different commercial off-the-shelf 
software and to enlist that software's vendor to help with the 
integration. Agency officials stated that these actions should be 
adequate to resolve the issue, which had a relatively minor impact on 
the schedule. 

As a result of the delays, NARA has concluded that the ERA schedule 
should be revised so that only Release 1 and limited functionality from 
Release 2 will be completed on the initial operating capability date of 
September 7, 2007. The remainder of Release 2 would then be scheduled 
for November 6, 2007 (see table 6 on the following page). 

The agency is negotiating with Lockheed about the need to revise the 
initial operating capability deployment schedule and the functionality 
from Increment 1, Release 2, that will be included in the initial 
operating capability. It expects to have a revised deployment schedule 
finalized by May 2007. 

Table 6: Revised ERA Schedule of Planned Activities 

Milestone: Increment 1, Releases 1 and 2 system development; 
Original completion date: November 24, 2006; 
Revised completion date: November 29, 2006; 

Milestone: ; 
Original completion date: ; 
Revised completion date: ; 

Milestone: Site preparation; 
Original completion date: April 30, 2007 ; 
Revised completion date: May 21, 2007; 

Milestone: Increment 1, Release 1 system acceptance testing; 
Original completion date: August 20, 2007; 
Revised completion date: August 20, 2000; 

Milestone: Increment 1 Release 1 certification and accreditation of 
initial system; 
Original completion date: September 6, 2007; 
Revised completion date: September 7, 2007; 

Milestone: Initial Operating Capability (Increment 1 Release 1,limited 
functionality from Release 2); 
Original completion date: September 7, 2007; 
Revised completion date: September 7, 2007; 

Milestone: Increment 1 Release 2 system acceptance testing; 
Original completion date: September 7, 2007; 
Revised completion date: September 24, 2007; 

Milestone: Increment 1 Release 2 certification and accreditation; 
Original completion date: September 7, 2007; 
Revised completion date: October 12, 2000;

Milestone: Initial Operating Capability (Increment 1 Release 2);  
Original completion date: September 7, 2007; 
Revised completion date: November 6, 2007. 

Source: GAO analysis of NARA data. 

[End of table] 

Agency Comments: 

In written comments on a draft of these slides, the Archivist of the 
United States stated that he was pleased to note our recognition of the 
progress that NARA has made towards implementing our recommendations. 
He also stated that he appreciated the insight into the expenditure 
plan and acquisition schedule that was provided by our observation, and 
he provided an update on the status of the efforts related to the 
acquisition schedule. He also provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. 

The Archivist's comments are reproduced in attachment 1. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Comments from the National Archives and Records 
Administration: 

National Archives and Records Administration:  
8601 Adelphi Road: 
College Park, Maryland 20740-6001: 

May 18, 2007: 

Government Accountability Office: 
Director of Information Management Issues: 
Ms. Linda Koontz: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

We thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
presentation entitled National Archives and Records Administration 's 
Acquisition of the Electronic Records Archives before it is briefed to 
the staff members of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 
Government, Senate Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on 
Financial Services and General Government, House Appropriations 
Committee. We are pleased to note the recognition of the progress made 
towards implementing the recommendations provided in GAO's report of 
August 18, 2006, Electronic Records Archives: The National Archives and 
Records Administration 's Fiscal Year 2006 Expenditure Plan (GAO-06-
906). 

We also appreciate the insight into the Expenditure Plan and 
Acquisition Schedule observations addressed in GAO's presentation. We 
would like to take this opportunity to update you on the status of the 
efforts related to your observations. NARA is still negotiating with 
Lockheed Martin regarding the deployment schedule for the initial 
operating capability. However, NARA has decided that instead of 
delaying the delivery of initial operating capability, it will reduce 
the functionality that the contractor will be required to deliver in 
September 7, 2007. Initial operating capability will consist of 
Increment 1, Release 1 and limited functionality from Increment 1, 
Release 2. The remainder of Increment 1, Release 2 would then be 
scheduled for November, 2007. Discussions continue with Lockheed Martin 
regarding the limited functionality from Increment 1, Release 2 that 
will be included in the initial operating capability. 

Finally, we would like to clarify a few points from the presentation. 

* On page 3, the second bullet should be revised to read "business 
applications that will support the transfer, dissemination and 
management of all types of records and the preservation of and online 
access to electronic records." 

* On page 6, the wording "the following remain to be addressed:" gives 
the impression that these three recommendations have not been 
addressed. 

* On page 10 and 22, the Risk Management Plan will be approved by 
NARA's Senior Staff and signed by the Archivist of the United States. 

* On page 12, NARA has not decided to "delay the delivery of initial 
operating capability." Rather we have decided to reduce the 
functionality that the contractor needs to deliver in September, with 
the remaining functionality to be implemented subsequently. That will 
enable the contractor to resolve problems in development while still 
enabling NARA to begin making productive use of the system in 
September. 

* On page 13, the Dissemination bullet should be revised to read 
"enables users to search descriptions and business data about all types 
of records, and to search the content of electronic records and 
retrieve them." The Records Management bullet should be changed to 
"supports scheduling, appraisal, description, and requests to transfer 
custody of all types of records, as well as ingesting and." The 
Preservation bullet should be changed to "enables NARA to overcome 
technology obsolescence of electronic records by implementing a variety 
of tools to analyze and transform the records so that they remain 
accessible." 

* On page 15, the first bullet should also mention that Release 3, 
scheduled for FY2008 will add support for records scheduling and 
appraisal. 

* On page 16, the Acquisition Approach chart should show the overlap of 
Increments. Planning and design of each Increment starts prior to 
acceptance of the previous increment. In the case of Increment 1, 
Release 2 and 3 will overlap with Increment 2. Also, in the Increment 1 
column there is no mention of release 3; in the Increment 2 column, the 
first line should be "search and presentation"; in the Increment 3 
column, "arrangements" should be on a separate line, it is not related 
to redaction, but to ensure that records that belong together, such as 
in a personnel folder, can be reliably retrieved together. 

* On page 28, the second paragraph should be revised to "As a result of 
the delays, NARA has concluded that the ERA schedule should be revised 
so that only Release 1 and limited functionality from Release 2 will 
occur on the initial operating capability date of September 7, 2007. 
The remainder of Release 2 would then be scheduled for November, 
2007...." 

Again, we thank you for this opportunity and look forward to our future 
interactions as we continue the ERA acquisition process. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 
Allen Weinstein: 
Archivist of the United States: 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the National Archives and Records 
Administration: 

National Archives at College Park: 
8601 Adelphi Road: 
College Park, Maryland 20740-6001: 

July 16, 2007: 

Government Accountability Office: 
Director of Information Management Issues: 
Ms. Linda Koontz: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:  

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

We thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
report entitled Information Management The National Archives and 
Records Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 Expenditure Plan (GAO-07-987) 
before submission to the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 
Government, Senate Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on 
Financial Services and General Government, House Appropriations 
Committee. Once again, we are pleased to note the recognition of the 
progress made towards implementing the recommendations provided in 
GAO's report of August 18, 2006, Electronic Records Archives: The 
National Archives and Records Administration 's Fiscal Year 2006 
Expenditure Plan (GAO-06-906). 

We would like to take this opportunity to update you on the status of 
the efforts related to your observations since our last letter. The 
report outlines the factors contributing to the delays in the project 
to include low productivity of contractor software programmers, 
difficulties in securing an acceptable contract to prepare the site 
that is to house the system, and problems with software integration. 
Although the contractor took actions to address these factors, NARA 
concluded that the project schedule should be revised. The development 
contractor plans to begin on September 28, 2007, incremental delivery 
of functionality leading to an initial operating capability which will 
include release 1 and limited functionality from release 2. The 
remainder of release 2 functionality will be delivered in the second 
quarter of FY08. 

It should be clarified that in the factors contributing to the delays 
sited above, site preparation is a government responsibility. It should 
be noted that the site preparation has been completed, the contractor 
has installed production hardware, and COTS software and the 
communication network has been installed. This delay had very little 
impact on the overall delays for the development of the system. It 
should also be noted that the development contractor projects the 
estimated cost of the project on September 28, 2007 to be about $2.6M 
over budget, about $2M more than previously reported. 

Also, the legislative condition requiring conformance to NARA's 
enterprise life cycle methodology that was partially satisfied in the 
report has been met. NARA's Risk Management Plan was signed on July 5, 
2007. 

Finally, we would like to clarify one point in the report. The end of 
the third sentence on page 6 should be changed from "the following 
remain to be addressed" to "the following remained to be addressed." 

Again, we thank you for this opportunity and look forward to our future 
interactions as we continue the ERA acquisition process. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by:
Allen Weinstein: 
Archivist of the United States: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: Linda D. Koontz, (202) 512-6240 or Koontzl@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this 
report were made by Mirko J. Dolak, Assistant Director; Nabajyoti 
Barkakati; Barbara S. Collier; Marisol Cruz; Neil J. Doherty; 
Pamlutricia Greenleaf; and Amos A. Tevelow. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes:  

[1] NARA's fiscal year 2006 appropriations act, the authority and 
conditions of which continue into fiscal year 2007, mandates that the 
agency submit an expenditure plan before obligating fiscal 2007 funds 
for the ERA program. The plan must (1) meet the capital planning and 
investment control review requirements established by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), including Circular A-11; (2) comply with 
NARA's enterprise architecture; (3) conform with NARA's enterprise life 
cycle methodology; (4) comply with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
guidelines, and system acquisition management practices of the federal 
government; (5) be approved by NARA and OMB; and (6) be reviewed by 
GAO. See P.L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396, 2486 (Nov. 30, 2005) and 
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. 
L. No. 110-5, § 2, 121 Stat. 9 (Feb. 15, 2007). 

[2] Release 1 is to provide the hardware, software, and communications 
needed as a foundation for the system. Release 2 is to enable online 
transfer of electronic records to NARA, annual transfers of records, 
and secure storage of electronic records in original formats. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full-text files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" 
under the "Order GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon: Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)512-4400: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Managing Director, BeckerS@gao.gov, (202)512-4800: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: