This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1097
entitled 'Veterans Affairs: Additional Details Are Needed in Key
Planning Documents to Guide the New Financial and Logistics Initiative'
which was released on September 22, 2008.
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 the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
Veterans Affairs:
Additional Details Are Needed in Key Planning Documents to Guide the
New Financial and Logistics Initiative:
GAO-08-1097:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1097, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Through its Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise
(FLITE) initiative, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is
developing a new system that is intended to fulfill the critical need
for a modernized and integrated financial and asset management
capability. FLITE is the successor to an earlier initiative that the
department undertook—the Core Financial and Logistics System
(CoreFLS)—which was discontinued in 2004. GAO was asked to determine
(1) the department’s overall plan for developing FLITE, (2) the status
of its development efforts, (3) VA oversight of this initiative, and
(4) whether lessons learned from the CoreFLS initiative have been
considered and incorporated into the plan for developing FLITE. To
achieve these objectives, GAO analyzed program documentation against
relevant policies and best practices and interviewed program and
project officials.
What GAO Found:
VA’s FLITE initiative is intended to integrate and standardize the
agency’s financial and asset management processes across all offices of
the department by 2014 at an estimated cost of $570 million. The
department plans to follow a multiple-year, phased approach to
implement the system, which is to consist of two components: the
Strategic Asset Management component and the Integrated Financial
Accounting System. While the department has created many planning
documents that reflect key areas of effective project management
planning, it has not fully addressed all key areas. For example, the
work breakdown structure did not include specificity on all necessary
project tasks. Until the department has added more specificity and
details to its planning documents, it faces the risk that FLITE may not
be effectively managed and could incur schedule slippages and cost
increases that jeopardize meeting its intended goals.
While initial planning and requirements development activities have
been completed for FLITE, the program office has not yet begun actual
system development. According to VA officials, as of May 2008,
approximately $35 million had been spent on, among other things, the
development of concept of operations documents; completion of a
stakeholder analysis and communications needs assessment; and
identification of business requirements and processes. However, there
have been schedule delays (2 to 7 months) in the planned acquisition
activities.
VA has performed a number of essential oversight activities to guide
the initiative in accordance with the department’s information
technology governance plan. Specifically, high-level managers perform
oversight and engage program and project managers. In addition, the
department recently performed an in-depth milestone review of planning
documentation for one component of FLITE, and it is performing risk
management activities to help ensure the initiative’s successful
execution and implementation. Taken together, these actions should help
the department ensure that the program will be managed efficiently and
effectively.
VA also is considering lessons learned from CoreFLS to further minimize
risks to the successful implementation of FLITE. Program officials
developed an aggregated findings repository containing deficiencies
identified in three independent reviews of CoreFLS. Program officials
used the repository to document actions taken to address deficiencies
and apply lessons learned. A total of 141 findings were identified, and
program officials have begun addressing 123 findings. However,
corrective actions have not been taken to address the remaining
findings. It is essential that all findings identified in the reviews
be fully addressed. Until the department addresses all of the findings,
the likelihood is increased that the problems experienced with CoreFLS
could recur and jeopardize the successful implementation of FLITE.
What GAO Recommends:
To help guide the FLITE initiative and ensure its successful
completion, GAO is recommending that VA include additional specificity
and details in certain key planning documents and address all findings
in the CoreFLS findings repository to minimize risk to the initiative.
In written comments on a draft of this report, the department concurred
with GAO’s recommendations and described actions being taken to address
them.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1097]. For more
information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or
melvinv@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Abbreviations:
CFO: Chief Financial Officer:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
CoreFLS: Core Financial and Logistics System:
FLITE: Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise:
IFAS: Integrated Financial Accounting System:
IT: Information Technology:
MQAS: Management Quality Assurance Service:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
SAM: Strategic Asset Management:
SEI: Software Engineering Institute:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 22, 2008:
The Honorable Harry E. Mitchell:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is developing a new system
known as the Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise
(FLITE). According to the department, FLITE is intended to fulfill the
critical need for a modernized and integrated financial and asset
management capability. Such a capability would support the VA strategic
goal to deliver world-class service to veterans and their families
through effective communication and management of people, technology,
business processes, and financial resources.
FLITE is the successor to an earlier initiative the department
undertook known as the Core Financial and Logistics System (CoreFLS).
The department discontinued this initiative in 2004 after pilot tests
indicated that the system failed to fully support VA's operations and
that the initiative suffered from significant project management
weaknesses. According to the VA Office of Inspector General, the
department had spent more than $249 million on the development effort.
[Footnote 1]
In light of VA's past performance with CoreFLS and the designation of
FLITE as high risk by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), you
requested that we evaluate the initiative to determine:
* the department's overall plan for developing FLITE;
* the status of its development efforts;
* VA oversight of this initiative, including whether the department is
taking the necessary measures to ensure that the system development
will be managed efficiently and effectively; and:
* whether lessons learned from the CoreFLS initiative have been
considered and incorporated into the plan for developing FLITE to
increase the likelihood of a successful outcome.
On July 30, 2008, we provided your offices with briefing slides that
outlined the results of our study and met with your staff to discuss
our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The purpose of this
report is to provide the published briefing slides to you and to
officially transmit our recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. The slides, which discuss our scope and methodology and were
amended to reflect updated information, are included in appendix I.
We performed our work at the Department of Veterans Affairs
headquarters in Washington, D.C., from March 2008 to July 2008 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.
In summary, our study highlighted the following:
* VA's financial and logistics initiative consists of two components:
the Strategic Asset Management component and the Integrated Financial
Accounting System. The department intends to follow a multiple-year,
phased approach to implementing the initiative that will integrate and
standardize financial and asset management processes across all VA
offices by 2014 at an estimated cost of $570 million. VA has many
planning documents to guide the initiative, including a program
management plan and an acquisition plan that, among other things,
specify anticipated award dates and contract types for the services
necessary to implement FLITE. While these planning documents reflect
key areas of effective project management planning as recommended by
industry best practices,[Footnote 2] not all key areas have been fully
addressed. For example, the concept of operations lacked a detailed
description of certain system functions, and the work breakdown
structure did not include specificity on all necessary project tasks.
Until the department has added more specificity and details to its
planning documents, it faces the risk that FLITE may not be effectively
managed and could incur schedule slippages and cost increases that
jeopardize meeting its intended goals.
* The program office has completed initial planning and requirements
development activities for the initiative; however, actual system
development has not yet begun. According to VA officials, as of May
2008, approximately $35 million had been spent on various activities,
such as the development of concept of operations documents for each
component; completion of a stakeholder analysis and communications
needs assessment; and identification of business requirements and
processes. However, the program's planned acquisition activities have
experienced schedule delays (from 2 to 7 months).
* VA has performed a number of essential oversight activities to guide
the initiative in accordance with the department's information
technology (IT) governance plan, which requires that decisions be made
by top-level program and IT managers. As part of the governance for
FLITE, high-level managers from the department's functional (business
and financial) and IT areas perform oversight and engage program and
project managers. In addition, the department recently performed an in-
depth milestone review of planning documentation for the Strategic
Asset Management component and provided approval to move to the next
life cycle development stage, which is system design and prototype.
Further, as another management tool for providing guidance and
oversight for the initiative, the department has implemented risk
management activities. Collectively, these measures should help the
department ensure that the development of FLITE will be managed
efficiently and effectively.
* Following the termination of CoreFLS, program officials developed an
aggregated findings repository from three independent reviews which
identified deficiencies that led to the initiative's termination. The
development of the repository established a process for capturing
lessons learned--a critical activity in IT investment management.
Program officials documented actions taken to address the findings in
the repository and apply lessons learned to FLITE. The department
reported that out of the 141 total findings identified in the
repository, program officials had begun addressing 123 findings, but 38
of those findings may require actions to be taken by VA organizations
external to the FLITE program. Corrective actions had not been taken to
address the remaining 18 findings. While VA has taken a significant
step by beginning to address the deficiencies, it is essential that the
department fully address all findings identified in the reviews. Until
the department does so, the likelihood is increased that the types of
problems experienced with CoreFLS could also jeopardize the successful
implementation of FLITE.
Conclusions:
Since the inception of the FLITE initiative, VA has completed numerous
planning documents that constitute a sound start for the initiative.
However, certain key planning documents do not include enough
specificity and details to guide its efforts for all activities.
Without such specificity and details, the department faces the risk
that FLITE may not be effectively managed and could incur schedule
slippages and cost increases that jeopardize meeting its intended
goals.
The program office has completed initial planning and requirements
development activities for the initiative; however, actual system
development has not yet begun, and the program's planned acquisition
activities have experienced minor schedule delays.
VA's current oversight of the program, which involves executive-level
business and technical managers, increases the likelihood that the
initiative will be implemented at an acceptable cost and within
reasonable and expected time frames and will contribute to improvements
in mission performance. Sustaining this executive-level involvement and
control is essential.
In addition, the steps taken by VA to incorporate lessons learned from
CoreFLS indicate that the department is striving to reduce the
probability of negative events occurring and is developing appropriate
countermeasures. Continued diligence in fully addressing all findings
identified in the department's CoreFLS findings repository is needed to
further minimize risk to the successful implementation of FLITE.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help guide the FLITE effort and ensure successful completion of the
initiative, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct
the Assistant Secretary for Management and the Assistant Secretary for
Information and Technology to:
* ensure additional specificity and details are added to certain key
planning documents, such as the concept of operations and work
breakdown structure; and:
* address all findings in the CoreFLS findings repository to minimize
risk to the successful implementation of FLITE.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs provided written comments on a
draft of this report. (The comments are reprinted in appendix II.) In
the comments, the department concurred with our recommendations and
described actions being taken to address them.
Concerning our recommendation that specificity and details be added to
key planning documents, the department stated its intent to effectively
manage the documents by continually updating them with required
specificity throughout the program's life cycle. In this regard the
department noted that details such as business requirements and
documentation of OMB's Financial Management Line of Business approach
had been incorporated in the concept of operations. Further, in
response to our recommendation to address all findings in the CoreFLS
findings repository, the department stated that it had initiated
corrective action on all but eight findings and would address the
remaining findings by September 30, 2008. These actions, if effectively
implemented, should strengthen VA's planning for the FLITE program.
Additionally, in technical comments on the draft report, the department
provided updated information on two actions taken since our July 30,
2008 briefing. Specifically, it stated that a milestone review that we
previously reported as planned to take place in August 2008 was begun
on August 7, 2008. In addition the department stated that VA has
addressed the FLITE Risk Control Review Board determination that the
FLITE program was not adequately funded in fiscal year 2008 by
requesting reprogramming and transfer authority of $17 million to
restore fiscal year 2008 funding reductions and provide additional
funding to ensure that the program remains on schedule.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs and other appropriate congressional committees. We will make
copies available to other interested parties upon request. Copies of
this report will also be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@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:
Valerie C. Melvin:
Director, Human Capital and Management Information Systems Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives:
Veterans Affairs: Additional Details Are Needed in Key Planning
Documents to Guide the Development and Implementation of the Financial
and Logistics Initiative:
Briefing to the Staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs:
July 30, 2008:
Table of Contents:
Introduction:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Results:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
[End of section]
Introduction:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is developing a new system
known as the Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise
(FLITE). According to the department, FLITE is intended to fulfill VA’s
critical need for a modernized and integrated financial and asset
management capability. Such a capability would support the VA strategic
goal to deliver world-class service to veterans and their families
through effective communication and management of people, technology,
business processes, and financial resources.
FLITE is the successor to an earlier initiative the department
undertook known as the Core Financial and Logistics System (CoreFLS).
The department discontinued this initiative in 2004; according to the
VA Office of Inspector General, it had spent more than $249 million on
the development effort.[Footnote 3] Based on pilot tests, the
department determined that the system failed to fully support VA’s
operations and that the initiative suffered from significant project
management weaknesses.
[End of section]
Objectives:
In light of VA’s past performance with CoreFLS and the designation of
FLITE as high risk by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the
Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations requested that we evaluate the initiative to
determine:
* the department’s overall plan for developing FLITE;
* the status of its development efforts;
* VA oversight of this initiative, including whether the department is
taking the necessary measures to ensure that the system development
will be managed efficiently and effectively; and;
* whether lessons learned from the CoreFLS initiative have been
considered and incorporated into the plan for developing FLITE to
increase the likelihood of a successful outcome.
Scope and Methodology:
To achieve these objectives, we:
* analyzed project documents, including business and program plans,
system implementation plans, requirements documentation, alternatives
analyses, and cost documentation, and interviewed program officials
regarding system development plans;
* reviewed project status reports, assessed estimated and actual
project completion dates and reported project expenditures, and
interviewed FLITE project managers;
* analyzed documentation reflecting the governance structure and
policies and procedures used to monitor and control activities
supporting the FLITE effort; and;
* reviewed Inspector General reports and other VA documentation to
determine what actions the department has taken to ensure that the
types of project management problems encountered for CoreFLS have been
addressed for FLITE.
The information on costs that were incurred for CoreFLS and FLITE and
cost estimates for FLITE were provided by VA officials. We did not
audit the reported costs and thus cannot attest to their accuracy or
completeness.
We conducted this performance audit at the Department of Veterans
Affairs headquarters in Washington, D.C., from March 2008 to July 2008
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]
Results in Brief:
VA’s financial and logistics initiative consists of two components:
Strategic Asset Management and the Integrated Financial Accounting
System. VA intends to follow a multiple-year, phased approach that will
integrate and standardize financial and asset management processes
across all VA offices by 2014 at an estimated cost of $570 million. VA
has many planning documents, including a program management plan and an
acquisition plan that, among other things, specify anticipated award
dates and contract types for the services necessary to implement the
initiative. While these planning documents reflect key areas of
effective project management planning as recommended by industry best
practices,[Footnote 4] not all key areas have been fully addressed. For
example, the concept of operations lacked a detailed description of
certain system functions. Until the department has added more
specificity and details to its planning documents, it faces the risk
that FLITE may not be effectively managed and could incur schedule
slippages and cost increases that jeopardize meeting its intended
goals.
The program office has completed initial planning and requirements
development activities for the initiative; however, actual system
development has not yet begun. According to VA officials, as of May
2008, approximately $35 million had been spent on various activities,
such as the development of concept of operations documents for each
component; completion of a stakeholder analysis and communications
needs assessment; and identification of business requirements and
processes. However, the program’s planned acquisition activities have
experienced minor schedule delays (from 2 to 7 months).
VA has performed a number of essential oversight activities to guide
the initiative in accordance with the department’s IT governance plan
(which requires that decisions be made by top-level program and IT
managers). Specifically, high-level managers from the department’s
functional (business and financial) and information technology areas
perform oversight and engage program and project managers. In addition,
VA recently performed an in-depth milestone review of planning
documentation for the Strategic Asset Management component and provided
approval to move to the next life cycle development stage, which is
system design and prototype. Further, another management tool for
providing guidance and oversight is risk management which the
department has implemented for the initiative. Collectively, these
measures should help the department ensure that the development of
FLITE will be managed efficiently and effectively.
Following the termination of CoreFLS, program officials developed an
aggregated findings repository from three independent reviews which
identified deficiencies that led to the initiative’s termination. The
development of the repository established a process for developing and
capturing lessons learned—a critical activity in IT investment
management. In the repository, program officials documented actions
taken to address the findings and apply lessons learned. The department
reported that out of the 141 total findings identified in the
repository, program officials have begun addressing 123 findings, but
38 of those findings may require actions to be taken by VA
organizations external to the FLITE program. Corrective actions have
not been taken to address the remaining findings. While it is important
that VA has addressed these and other deficiencies, more findings
remain that have not yet been addressed. It is essential that all
findings identified in the reviews are fully addressed. Until the
department does so, the likelihood is increased that the problems
experienced with CoreFLS could recur.
We are recommending that details be added to key planning documents,
such as the concept of operations and work breakdown structure, and all
findings in the department’s CoreFLS repository be addressed to
minimize risk to the successful implementation of FLITE.
In oral comments on a draft of this briefing, the FLITE Program
Director agreed with our recommendations and described actions planned
to address them.
[End of section]
Background:
In recognition of their service to our country, VA provides medical
care, benefits, social support, and lasting memorials to veterans and
their families. It is the second-largest federal department with more
than 230,000 employees. In fiscal year 2007, VA reported incurring $86
billion in obligations for its overall operations, which included:
* 156 hospitals, 877 outpatient clinics, 136 long-term care facilities,
43 residential rehabilitation treatment programs, and 207 readjustment
counseling centers that provided health care to about 5.6 million
patients;
* 57 veterans benefits regional offices that provided benefits and
services, such as pension and insurance, to approximately 3.7 million
veterans and beneficiaries; and;
* approximately 2.8 million grave sites that were maintained at 158
properties—of these, 125 are national cemeteries.
To support its services to veterans and their families, VA relies on an
assortment of business systems, including those used to manage its
assets and finances. VA acknowledges that its current systems and
processes are inefficient and do not effectively meet mission needs.
For example:
* systems are not integrated (VA has an estimated 28 systems);
* manual entry that involves labor-intensive accounting processes is
required;
* business processes are not standardized,[Footnote 5];
* processes and systems require multiple entry of business information
and result in untimely financial reporting.
In addition, the lack of an integrated financial management system has
been reported as a material weakness for the past 17 years.
To address this material weakness and to improve stewardship and
accountability over its resources, VA has been pursuing improvements in
its business processes and replacement of its existing financial and
asset management systems with an integrated financial management
system.
VA’s first effort to replace its financial and asset management
systems, called CoreFLS, began in 1998. The goal of this modernization
was to develop a single system to integrate the many financial and
asset management systems used across the department.
CoreFLS consisted of three commercial off-the-shelf software
applications:
* Oracle Financials, an application for accounts receivable, accounts
payable, contracts, budgeting, general ledger, and reporting enterprise
planning, was used to meet financial system requirements; it was
purchased in May 2001 for $19.5 million.
* DynaMed, an asset and inventory management system, was purchased in
September 2001 for $12.4 million.
* Maximo, a comprehensive asset life cycle and maintenance management
system, was used to meet asset management system requirements; it was
purchased in June 2001 for $5.9 million.
Following pilot tests of CoreFLS that determined it did not fully
support the department’s operations, VA terminated its development of
the system and requested an independent technical assessment of CoreFLS
by Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute (SEI).[Footnote 6]
SEI’s assessment determined that various deficiencies had undermined
the success of the initiative, including:
* acquisition management—inadequate management of extensive contractor
support.
* program management—poor management execution.
* technical and functional issues—such as interfaces, data
requirements, and security.
To continue its efforts for improving stewardship and accountability
over its resources, VA began work on its new financial and asset
management initiative—FLITE—in September 2005. The cosponsors of the
initiative are the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology,
who serves as VA’s Chief Information Officer (CIO), and the Assistant
Secretary for Management, who serves as VA’s Chief Financial Officer
(CFO).
Subsequent to initiating FLITE, two events occurred that would have an
impact on the initiative.
* In October 2005, the department began a major realignment of its
overall IT management structure, providing the department’s CIO with
greater authority and accountability over IT operations. According to
VA, its goals in moving to this management structure were to enable the
department to perform better oversight of the standardization,
compatibility, and interoperability of systems, as well as to have
better overall fiscal discipline for the budget. As a result of the new
management structure, all funding decisions for FLITE are subject to
this oversight.
* In May 2006, OMB issued its Financial Management Line of Business
policy stating that federal agencies upgrading or modernizing their
core financial management systems are required, with limited
exceptions, to migrate to a shared service provider[Footnote 7] or
qualified private sector provider, or should be designated as a shared
service provider. The intent of this policy is to avoid costly and
redundant investments in customized solutions for common support
services.[Footnote 8] As a planned financial management system, the
initiative is subject to this policy.
[End of section]
Objective 1: Overall Plan for Developing FLITE:
As planned, FLITE is to be an integrated system that is to replace the
department’s legacy financial management and asset management system.
It is to consist of two main components:
* The Strategic Asset Management (SAM) component, which is to implement
Maximo, a software suite that VA purchased for CoreFLS, to be used to
record the purchasing and receipt of VA’s assets.[Footnote 9]
* The Integrated Financial Accounting System (IFAS), which is to
implement a commercial off-the-shelf integrated financial management
system to be a centralized accounting system for VA.
The department established three goals for the new system:
* effectively integrate and standardize financial and asset management
data and processes across all VA offices;
* provide management with access to timely and accurate financial,
budget, asset, and related information on VA-wide operations, as well
as on specific programs and projects; and;
* establish an advanced technology environment that provides the
greatest capability and an extended life cycle.
VA plans to follow a multiple-year, phased approach to acquiring,
developing, and implementing FLITE.
Specifically, SAM and IFAS are to be developed and implemented through
sequenced acquisitions and phased deployment and integration. During
the system development process, each component is to be piloted and
beta tested at selected locations to help inform the department
regarding the most suitable acquisition approach for implementing each
component.
Finally, SAM is to be integrated with IFAS. These two components then
are to be integrated with other legacy systems within the department.
Ultimately, the collective integrated systems are to standardize
business processes and practices.
VA’s acquisition plan details actual or anticipated award dates and
contract types for activities necessary to implement FLITE, as shown in
table 1.
Table 1: Acquisitions Planned for FLITE:
Acquisition activity: IFAS business requirements;
Actual or anticipated award date (as of July 2008): September 2007;
Contract type: Firm fixed price.
Acquisition activity: Hardware for SAM;
Actual or anticipated award date (as of July 2008): August 2008;
Contract type: Firm fixed price.
Acquisition activity: Contractor assistance in program management;
Actual or anticipated award date (as of July 2008): October 2008;
Contract type: Cost plus fixed fee.
Acquisition activity: SAM pilot implementation;
Actual or anticipated award date (as of July 2008): December 2008;
Contract type: Cost plus fixed fee.
Acquisition activity: IFAS pilot implementation;
Actual or anticipated award date (as of July 2008): September 2009;
Contract type: Cost type.
Acquisition activity: Program management office support and
organizational change management;
Actual or anticipated award date (as of July 2008): December 2008;
Contract type: To be determined.
Acquisition activity: Independent verification and validation
contractor;
Actual or anticipated award date (as of July 2008): 2009;
Contract type: To be determined.
Source: VA.
[End of table]
VA’s current estimate is that FLITE is to be completed by 2014 at an
estimated cost of $570 million. This estimated life cycle cost
represents an increase of approximately $184 million over the
preliminary cost estimate, which did not include data warehouse and
infrastructure costs.
Table 2 identifies the program component cost and related increase.
Table 2: Life Cycle Costs for the FLITE Program, FY 2006 through FY
2014 (Dollars in millions):
FLITE Program Components: Planning;
Preliminary cost estimate[A]: $60.7;
Current cost estimate: $98.2;
Increase: $37.5.
FLITE Program Components: SAM;
Preliminary cost estimate[A]: $112.5;
Current cost estimate: $147.3;
Increase: $34.8.
FLITE Program Components: IFAS;
Preliminary cost estimate[A]: $177.6;
Current cost estimate: $220.0;
Increase: $42.4.
FLITE Program Components: Pay;
Preliminary cost estimate[A]: $34.9;
Current cost estimate: $34.9;
Increase: 0.
FLITE Program Components: Data warehouse;
Preliminary cost estimate[A]: 0;
Current cost estimate: $27.1;
Increase: $27.1.
FLITE Program Components: Infrastructure;
Preliminary cost estimate[A]: 0;
Current cost estimate: $42.6;
Increase: $42.6.
FLITE Program Components: Total;
Preliminary cost estimate[A]: $385.7;
Current cost estimate: $570.1;
Increase: $184.4.
Source: VA.
[A] According to program officials, the preliminary cost estimate of
$385.7 million did not include total program costs. The estimated life
cycle cost of $570.1 million was finalized in June 2008.
[End of table]
To ensure the accuracy of their estimate, program officials anticipate
having their current life cycle cost estimate reviewed by an
independent contractor within the next 6 months. Having the program
cost estimate independently validated to ensure the accuracy of the
costs is an industry best practice.
VA has developed or is in the process of developing various planning
documents to guide the FLITE initiative. In addition to the acquisition
plan, these include:
* a FLITE program governance plan and charter;
* a program management plan;
* an integrated master schedule;
* a work breakdown structure;
* a concept of operations;
* a communications plan;
* an organizational change management plan;
* a staffing plan;
* a risk management plan;
* a stakeholders analyses plan, and ;
* a quality management plan.
While these planning documents reflect key areas of effective project
management planning as recommended by industry best practices,[Footnote
10] not all key areas had been addressed. For example:
* The concept of operations lacked specificity and essential details.
Such a document should describe system characteristics from the users’
viewpoint, contain proposed system operational features such as a
detailed description of all of the systems’ functions, and discuss an
analysis of the benefits and limitations. However, these details were
absent from the department’s document. Without a fully developed
concept of operations, VA faces the risk of developing a system that
does not meet the users’ needs.
* The work breakdown structure did not include specificity on tasks
necessary for project completion. A work breakdown structure should
include all of the tasks associated with developing, testing, and
deploying the software, along with schedules associated with the tasks.
Without all task and schedule information, the department lacks
assurance that the project will be completed as planned.
In addition, VA had not addressed key areas such as:
* including in its plans details on how OMB’s financial management line
of business policy will be applied to FLITE;
* defining performance measures for the initiative which, according to
SEI, are the only effective means of providing credible evidence of the
program’s progress; and;
* providing specificity on how FLITE will address the department’s
material weakness related to the lack of an integrated financial
management system.
Responding to our concerns, last month, VA incorporated in its
acquisition plan for IFAS details discussing how OMB’s financial
management line of business policy will be addressed. VA plans to
contract with either a designated federal shared service provider or
private-sector provider to provide financial management services that
include software selection, implementation, and integration; technology
hosting and administration; application management services; and system
implementation.
In addition, the department developed performance measures for SAM and
IFAS. For example, measures include:
* reducing the use of legacy systems for asset management;
* determining excess assets nationally for transfer and reutilization
within VA, and;
* reducing the financial transaction processing time.
VA also stated that it would include more specificity in the concept of
operations and work breakdown structure as the program evolves.
However, the program office has not provided time frames for addressing
how FLITE will resolve the material weakness.
Until additional specificity and details are added to these key
planning documents, the department faces the risk that it will not meet
its intended goals and could face schedule slippages and cost overruns.
[End of section]
Objective 2: Status of FLITE Development Efforts:
To date, the department has undertaken activities related to planning
and requirements development; however, actual system development has
not yet begun. In this regard, the program office has:
* ?conducted the initial planning for the FLITE program including
concept of operations documents for each project;
* established and implemented the FLITE governance framework;
* developed program baseline cost estimates and an integrated master
schedule;
* documented business requirements and business processes;
* established an acquisition strategy;
* assessed and determined that Maximo would meet the requirement for
the SAM component of FLITE;
* conducted a stakeholder analysis and communications needs assessment
for the organizational change management strategy;
* performed a full analysis on lessons learned from CoreFLS to monitor
during the FLITE project life cycle, and;
* developed a staffing plan to address vacancies in the program office.
As of May 2008, according to VA officials, approximately $35 million
had been spent on completing these planning activities.
The program’s planned acquisition activities have experienced minor
schedule delays (from 2 to 7 months). The revised projected award dates
are shown in table 3.
Table 3: FLITE Acquisition Schedule Changes:
Acquisition activity: Hardware for SAM;
Anticipated award date (as of Feb. 2008): June 2008;
Revised award date (as of July 2008): August 2008;
Number of months acquisition has been delayed: 2.
Acquisition activity: SAM pilot implementation;
Anticipated award date (as of Feb. 2008): September 2008;
Revised award date (as of July 2008): December 2008;
Number of months acquisition has been delayed: 3.
Acquisition activity: IFAS pilot implementation;
Anticipated award date (as of Feb. 2008): February 2009;
Revised award date (as of July 2008): September 2009;
Number of months acquisition has been delayed: 7.
Acquisition activity: Program management office support and
organizational change management;
Anticipated award date (as of Feb. 2008): Not later than September
2008;
Revised award date (as of July 2008): December 2008;
Number of months acquisition has been delayed: 3.
Source: GAO analysis of VA data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Objective 3: VA Oversight of FLITE Initiative:
According to VA’s IT Governance Plan:[Footnote 11]
* A program requires effective IT governance to align strategy,
systems, and processes to business strategy and thus to realize cost
savings, efficiencies, and improvements.
* IT governance is responsible for determining how processes are
established and enforced and how and by whom decisions are made.
VA leadership endorsed an approach to the oversight and governance of
IT development projects that is based on ensuring the involvement of
senior management from both the user and developer organizations. With
the establishment of the governance framework for FLITE, senior
management from the Office of Management (the CFO) and the Office of
Information and Technology (the CIO) are responsible for providing
oversight for the FLITE initiative as chairs of the Executive Steering
Committee and the Information Technology Leadership Board,
respectively.
The following figure depicts VA’s governance framework for providing
oversight of FLITE.
Figure 1: Governance Framework for FLITE:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a flowchart of the governance framework for FLITE, as
follows:
Executive Steering Committee;
FLITE Oversight Board;
FLITE Program Director;
* Flite Project Groups (SAM/IFAS);
- User Groups;
* FLITE Program Office;
- VA IT Development (Office of Enterprise Development);
- Corporate Franchise Data Center;
- Business Needs and Investment Review Board;
- Planning, Architecture, Technology and Services Board;
- IT Leadership Board;
* Contracted Services.
Source: VA.
{End of figure]
Consistent with the governance plan and charter, the program management
plan, VA IT multiyear programming guidance, and the VA IT governance
plan, various groups are providing oversight of the initiative:
* The Executive Steering Committee, chaired by the Assistant Secretary
for Management, provides executive oversight of program management and
execution.
* The FLITE Oversight Board, co-chaired by the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Management and the Deputy Under Secretary for
Health Operations and Management, and with the chief financial officers
from the Veterans Benefits Administration, Veterans Health
Administration, and National Cemetery Administration as members,
provides more focused oversight including financial management. The
Oversight Board ensures that all stakeholders are represented in
defining requirements, monitoring progress, and determining that FLITE
is meeting their needs.
* The FLITE Program Director provides day-to-day oversight to ensure
that the technical solution provided by the developers meets business
needs (such as requirements development and testing) and coordinates
with the FLITE program director in the Office of Information and
Technology.
* The Planning, Architecture, and Technology Services Board,[Footnote
12] the IT Leadership Board, and the Business Needs and Investment
Board were formed as a result of VA’s realignment of its processes for
management of IT resources. Generally, memberships include VA’s IT and
business community. These boards are providing oversight and final
recommendations to the Deputy Secretary for all funding for FLITE.
The Planning, Architecture, and Technology Services Board is involved
in periodic (milestone) reviews[Footnote 13] of project activity. For a
project to move past a milestone to the next development stage in the
systems development life cycle, it must meet the established
requirements for completing the current project phase. Funds
expenditure for the next phase are authorized once a project has
received the Planning, Architecture, and Technology Services Board’s
approval.
In May 2008, the Planning, Architecture, and Technology Services Board
finished an in-depth milestone 1 review of the SAM planning and
requirements documentation and provided approval to move to the next
stage in the systems development life cycle, which is system design and
prototype. The SAM milestone 1 review conducted by the Planning,
Architecture, and Technology Services Board provided oversight to
ensure that FLITE is meeting the established requirements for receiving
funding for the next project phase. According to program officials, the
board plans to conduct a milestone review for IFAS in August 2008. Both
SAM and IFAS will be required to undergo additional reviews as the
initiative proceeds through the milestones. Continued milestone reviews
should help ensure that management oversight is applied.
Figure 2 depicts the milestones occurring at each stage of the systems
development life cycle.
Figure 2: Milestones Identified in the Systems Development Life Cycle:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Business sponsor (Administrations, staff offices):
Concept definition: Requirement development begins;
Requirements development (Phase 0): Milestone 0; Requirement
development continues;
System Design and Prototype (Phase 1): Milestone 1; Users drive design
sessions;
System Development and Training (Phase 2): Milestone 2; Acceptance
testing begins;
System Deployment (Phase 3): Milestone 3; Acceptance testing continues;
Operations and Maintenance (Phase 4): Milestone 4.
Project development:
Concept definition: [Empty];
Requirements development (Phase 0): Milestone 0;
System Design and Prototype (Phase 1): Milestone 1; System development
and testing begin;
System Development and Training (Phase 2): Milestone 2; System
development and testing continue; Customer acceptance;
System Deployment (Phase 3): Milestone 3.
Operations and Maintenance (Phase 4): Milestone 4.
Source: VA.
[End of figure]
In addition to the governance previously described, FLITE is also
subjected to meetings where additional oversight takes place:
* The program directors engage in routine and ad-hoc meetings with the
CFO and CIO.
* Program officials have met quarterly with Office of Management and
Budget personnel to address FLITE’s status on the High Risk List.
These meetings serve to highlight critical matters that may warrant
attention and resolution by the various oversight groups, thereby
advancing VA efforts to reduce risks to achievement of program
objectives.
Further, another management tool for providing guidance and oversight
is risk management. VA is incorporating risk management into its FLITE
program. Risk management is an approach for addressing the risks
associated with an IT investment. It includes identification, analysis,
prioritization, and control of risks. Especially critical are
techniques that help define preventive measures to reduce the
probability of negative events occurring and ensure that appropriate
countermeasures are deployed to successfully manage the consequences.
VA has taken several steps to manage risks associated with the
development of FLITE.
* The department developed a risk management plan to guide the choices
made during all program life cycle phases that would promote the most
desirable and most probable outcomes for the program’s successful
execution and implementation. The FLITE Risk Control Review Board
[Footnote 14] began meeting in March 2008 to proactively identify and
manage risks throughout the program life cycle. The board evaluates,
accepts, and takes action to resolve all program risks.
* VA is using a risk management tool to track, prioritize, and analyze
the status of risks to FLITE on a continuing basis.
During risk board meetings held in March and April 2008, VA accepted
and closed risks, created action items, and identified issues. For
example, the board:
* accepted the risk that the time to perform adequate data cleansing
for SAM may not be reduced and the implementation schedule may not be
met (to mitigate the risk, VA plans to prototype and develop patches
for legacy systems);
* closed a risk related to an undefined business process after VA
completed a full requirements discovery and analysis for SAM;
* created an action item to submit a baseline change request to VA’s
Office of Information and Technology so the reported budget numbers in
the FLITE OMB Exhibit 300 reflect the current estimated life cycle
cost;
* determined that the FLITE program was not adequately funded in fiscal
year 2008, raising the risk that planned schedule milestones and
program goals will be missed (to mitigate the issue, VA plans to delay
acquiring program management services until fiscal year 2009).
Collectively, the governance framework, the meetings, and risk
management should help the department ensure that the development of
the initiative will be managed efficiently and effectively.
[End of section]
Objective 4: Lessons Learned from CoreFLS:
We have previously reported on the importance of collecting and
disseminating lessons learned.[Footnote 15] The use of lessons learned
is a principal component of an organizational culture committed to
continuous improvement. Sharing such information serves to communicate
acquired knowledge more effectively and to ensure that beneficial
information is factored into planning, work processes, and activities.
Lessons learned can be based on positive experiences or on negative
experiences that result in undesirable outcomes. An example of a
critical activity in IT investment management is establishing a process
for developing and capturing lessons learned in a written product or
knowledge base and disseminating them to decision makers.[Footnote 16]
In an effort to capture lessons learned from CoreFLS, VA has developed
an aggregated CoreFLS findings repository. To develop the repository,
FLITE program officials aggregated findings from three independent
reviews regarding CoreFLS:
* In June 2004, SEI published a report of their independent technical
assessment of CoreFLS. SEI identified multiple findings related to
problematic technical and functional execution, as well as poor
management execution. Technical and functional problems included
CoreFLS’s inability to perform essential financial management
functions, security weaknesses, and usability. Management problems were
identified in the areas of acquisition and program management for
standard processes, business process re-engineering, and transition
planning.
* In August 2004, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a
report that included a review of the CoreFLS deployment. In the report,
the office identified multiple findings related to deployment such as
inadequate training, inability to monitor fiscal and acquisition
operations, inaccurate data, and project management and security
weaknesses.
* In August 2007, the VA Management Quality Assurance Service (MQAS)
published a report that summarized findings from four CoreFLS
expenditure reviews issued between August 2005 and August 2006. In the
report, the Management Quality Assurance Service identified numerous
fiscal and contract administration issues resulting from poor
administrative internal controls such as improper payments for
reimbursements of task orders and travel expenses.
From these reports, the program office identified a total of 141
findings: 80 (SEI), 39 (MQAS), and 22 (OIG). Further, officials
categorized the findings into functional responsibilities such as
acquisition management, organizational change management, program
management, systems engineering, and VA organization. Figure 3 provides
a breakdown of the 141 findings by area of functional responsibility.
Figure 3: Findings by Functional Responsibility:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Findings by Functional Responsibility:
Acquisition management: 45;
Systems engineering: 44;
Program management: 34;
Organizational change management: 11;
VA organization: 7.
Source: GAO analysis of VA data.
[End of figure]
As depicted, the top three areas with issues were acquisition
management (45), systems engineering (44), and program management (34).
While some findings have been addressed, program officials stated that
other findings will be addressed in later FLITE project phases. In May
2008, the department reported that out of the 141 total findings
identified in the repository, program officials have begun addressing
123 findings, but 38 of those findings may require actions to be taken
by VA organizations external to the FLITE program. Corrective actions
have not been taken to address the remaining 18 findings.
Specifically, to address the findings related to the SEI review, VA
began activities to correct the CoreFLS deficiencies, which represent
one or more findings. The activities, along with the associated key
planning documents, are presented in table 4.
Table 4: FLITE Documents That Address Deficiencies of CoreFLS:
CoreFLS deficiencies: VA abdicated control of the project to
contractors;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: VA and contractor roles and
responsibilities are defined and will be monitored by the program and
contracting offices.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: Governance plan and charter,
acquisition strategy, staffing plan
CoreFLS deficiencies: Uniform program management principles were not in
place;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: FLITE will follow the VA
System Development Life Cycle and Program Management Guidelines and
will be subject to milestone reviews.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: Program management plan,
communications plan, organizational change management plan.
CoreFLS deficiencies: Stakeholder perspectives were not taken into
account;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: FLITE has developed an
organizational change management plan and has engaged stakeholders
through focus groups and requirements gathering sessions.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: Organizational change
management plan, stakeholder analyses, communications plan.
CoreFLS deficiencies: Common understanding of goals and purposes of the
program were not established throughout the life of the program;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: FLITE is developing project
concept of operations and program management artifacts to define common
objectives.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: Concept of operations,
organizational change management plan, communications plan.
CoreFLS deficiencies: Impacts of business processes and their impact on
interfaces was not defined;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: “As-is” and “to-be” business
processes are being documented and will be part of the project
solicitation packages.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: Interface management plan,
organizational change management plan, risk management plan.
CoreFLS deficiencies: Interfaces were not fully analyzed and associated
risks were not identified;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: Integration scope is being
analyzed and commercial off-the-shelf software capabilities identified.
Interfaces are identified in system concepts of operations and business
requirements.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: Concept of operations, risk
management plan, lessons learned analyses, interface management plan.
CoreFLS deficiencies: Roles of advisors and implementers were not
properly distinguished;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: Acquisition strategy
separates contracts for oversight and independent verification and
validation. Implementation contractor will be tasked with
implementation only.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: Acquisition strategy,
governance plan, communications plan.
CoreFLS deficiencies: Required security standards were not established
and tested;
FLITE activities to address deficiencies: Plans for the FLITE projects
include full certification and accreditation that will include the
development of a system security plan and the execution of a security
test and evaluation plan.
FLITE documents that address deficiencies: System security plan,
security test and evaluation plan.
Source: GAO analysis of VA data.
[End of table]
While it is important that VA has addressed these and other
deficiencies, more findings remain that have not yet been addressed. It
is essential that all findings identified in the reviews are fully
addressed. Until the department does so, the likelihood is increased
that the problems experienced with CoreFLS could recur.
[End of section]
Conclusions:
Since the inception of the FLITE initiative, VA has completed numerous
planning documents that constitute a sound start for the initiative.
However, certain key planning documents do not include enough
specificity and details to guide its efforts for all activities.
Without such specificity and details, the department faces the risk
that FLITE may not be effectively managed and could incur schedule
slippages and cost increases that jeopardize meeting its intended
goals.
The program office has completed initial planning and requirements
development activities for the initiative; however, actual system
development has not yet begun and the program’s planned acquisition
activities have experienced minor schedule delays.
VA’s current oversight of the program, which involves executive-level
business and technical managers, increases the likelihood that the
initiative will be implemented at an acceptable cost and within
reasonable and expected time frames and will contribute to improvements
in mission performance. Sustaining this executive-level involvement and
control is essential.
The steps taken by VA to incorporate lessons learned from CoreFLS
indicate that VA is striving to reduce the probability of negative
events occurring and is developing appropriate countermeasures.
Continued diligence in fully addressing all findings identified in the
department’s CoreFLS findings repository is needed to further minimize
risk to the successful implementation of FLITE.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help guide the FLITE effort and ensure successful completion of the
initiative, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct
the Assistant Secretary for Management and the Assistant Secretary for
Information and Technology to:
* ensure additional specificity and details are added to certain key
planning documents, such as the concept of operations and work
breakdown structure; and;
* address all findings in the CoreFLS findings repository to minimize
risk to the successful implementation of FLITE.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
VA officials provided oral comments on a draft of this briefing. In the
comments, the FLITE Program Director agreed that more specificity and
details are needed in certain planning documents. The Program Director
stated that many of the key planning documents are “living documents”
that will be updated as the program evolves and that the findings in
the CoreFLS findings repository will be addressed as the program moves
through future development phases. In addition, officials provided
technical comments which we have incorporated as appropriate.
[End of section]
[End of appendix]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
The Deputy Secretary Of Veterans Affairs:
Washington:
September 15, 2008:
Ms. Valerie Melvin:
Director:
Human Capital and Management Information Systems Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Melvin:
The Department of Veterans Affairs has reviewed your draft report,
Veterans Affairs: Additional Details Are Needed in Key Planning
Documents to Guide the New Financial and Logistics Initiative, (GAO-08-
1097) and concurs with your recommendations.
The enclosures specifically address GAO's recommendations and provide
comments to the draft report. VA appreciates the opportunity to comment
on your draft report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Gordon H. Mansfield:
Enclosures:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA):
Response to GAO Report:
Veterans Affairs: Additional Details Are Needed in Key Planning
Documents to Guide the New Financial and Logistics Initiative (GAO-08-
1097):
GAO Recommendations:
To help guide the FLITE effort and ensure successful completion of the
initiative, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct
the Assistant Secretary for Management and the Assistant Secretary for
Information and Technology to:
Recommendation 1: Ensure additional specificity and details are added
to certain key planning documents, such as the concept of operations
and the work breakdown structure.
Response: Concur. VA notes that the documents reviewed by GAO were
appropriate for the planning phase of a program at the pre-acquisition
stage. These "living" documents will be effectively managed by
continually updating them with required specificity throughout the
program's lifecycle.
For example, the Integrated Financial Accounting System (IFAS) Concept
of Operations was recently updated to reflect "To Be" business
requirements, project scope, and documentation of OMB's Financial
Management Line of Business approach. In addition, the Strategic Asset
Management (SAM) and IFAS work breakdown structures are currently
developed to level three and are inclusive of all planned program
activities through the planning phase. As each project awards their
respective implementation contracts and progresses into their
development phase, the appropriate project and program artifacts will
be updated to include more detailed descriptions. For example, the
systems functions for IFAS will be more detailed as the software
solution will be determined with implementation contract award, and the
work breakdown structures for each project will be developed to level
seven or eight, to include more detailed project tasks needed for the
development phase and testing.
Recommendation 2: Address all findings in the Core Financial and
Logistics System (CoreFLS) findings repository to minimize risk to the
successful implementation of Financial and Logistics Integrated
Technology Enterprise (FLITE).
Response: Concur. VA clearly understands the importance of learning
from CoreFLS and, for this reason, in September 2007, the FLITE Program
Office aggregated all lessons-learned findings from the reports by
Carnegie Mellon's Systems Engineering Institute, VA's Office of
Inspector General, and VA's Office of Business Oversight into a
repository. At the time of the GAO review, 141 findings had been
identified and VA had addressed 123 of them. A subsequent, more
thorough review was performed by the FLITE Program Director's office,
and 131 findings were identified as directly relating to the FLITE
program. VA has initiated corrective action on all but eight of the
findings, and the remaining eight will be addressed by September 30,
2008. VA will monitor the implemented actions to prevent them from
reoccurring. In addition, VA is developing a separate repository of
FLITE lessons learned and, as lessons are identified, we will initiate
corrective action.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Valerie C. Melvin (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this
report were made by Kay L. Daly, Acting Director; Mark T. Bird,
Assistant Director; Michael S. LaForge, Assistant Director; Barbara S.
Oliver, Assistant Director; Marisol Cruz; David A. Hong; Rebecca E.
LaPaze; Robert L. Williams, Jr.; and Leonard E. Zapata.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] VA Office of Inspector General, Issues at VA Medical Center Bay
Pines, Florida and Procurement and Deployment of the Core Financial and
Logistics System (CoreFLS), 04-01371-177 (Washington, D.C., Aug. 11,
2004).
[2] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard
for Software Project Management Plans, IEEE Std 1058-1998 (1998).
[3] VA Office of Inspector General, Issues at VA Medical Center Bay
Pines, Florida and Procurement and Deployment of the Core Financial and
Logistics System (CoreFLS), 04-01371-177 (Washington, D.C., Aug. 11,
2004).
[4]Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard for
Software Project Management Plans, IEEE Std 1058-1998 (1998).
[5] VA currently does not have standardized systems or processes for
managing physical assets, supply inventories, and related work order
management across the department. While VA uses some common inventory,
procurement, and asset management applications, each VA facility
operates a customized version of each system.
[6] Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Report of the
Independent Technical Assessment of the Department of Veterans Affairs
CoreFLS Program(June 2004).
[7] An approved public entity that provides hosting and application
management for financial services.
[8] OMB Memorandum, Competition Framework for Financial Management
Lines of Business Migrations, May 22, 2006.
[9] However, SAM’s scope is not to include an IT asset management tool.
A project is planned for the selection and development of such a tool
(the VA IT Asset Management project), which is to be integrated with
SAM.
[10] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard
for Software Project Management Plans, IEEE Std 1058-1998 (1998).
[11] Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and
Technology, VA IT Governance Plan (Mar. 12, 2007).
[12] The principal members of the Planning, Architecture, and
Technology Services Board are the Acting Deputy Chief Information
Officer,Enterprise Strategy, Policy and Programs; Executive Management
Officer, Policy and Program Management; Director of the Office of
Budget; and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources
Management. Nonvoting members are the Deputy Chief Information Officer
for Enterprise Development; Deputy Assistant Secretary for IT Resource
Management; Deputy Assistant Secretary for IT Information Protection
and Risk Management; Deputy Chief Information Officer for Enterprise
Operation; Director, IT Quality and Performance; Director, IT Oversight
and Compliance Management.
[13] As an initiative progresses through the system development life
cycle, there are discrete logical steps separated by major decision
points called milestones. Each milestone affords an opportunity for
progressive decision making about the program and is coupled with
authorization for funding.
[14] The board is co-chaired by the VA FLITE Program Director and
Program Manager. Other members are the VA FLITE Deputy Program Director
and Deputy Program Manager, the VA FLITE Contracting Officer, the IFAS
Project Co-Chair and Project Manager, and the SAM Project Manager and
Deputy Project Manager. As required, subject matter experts serve as ad-
hoc advisors to the board. Permanent advisors to the board include
staff from the Federally Funded Research and Development Center,
Systems Quality Assurance Service, and Veterans Health IT members.
Implementation Contractor Representatives Advisors are nonvoting
members of the board.
[15] GAO, NASA: Better Mechanisms Needed for Sharing Lessons Learned,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-195] (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 30, 2002).
[16] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for
Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-10-1.23], exposure draft
(Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by 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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: