Financial Management: State's Systems Planning Needs to Focus on Correcting Long-standing Problems

In response to our recommendation State has embarked on a self assessment on the relationship between GAO's recommendations and the IFMS's project plan and development strategy. In addition, State has requested GSA conduct an independent assessment on the strategic plan and development strategy for IFMS. These assessments will help State develop a plan to integrate the various subsidary systems, as well as establish a vision of how the IFMS will operate.

In response to our recommendation State has established a Major IRM Program Board and a minor IRM Program Board in October 1994. Both Boards are made up of the same 12 senior State officials. The Major Board reviews corporate systems, programs whose life-cycle value is above $30 million, or those programs determined to be of mission critical importance. The Major Board's first task is to develop an IRM vision that will provide direct support to State's overall mission. The minor IRM Board (1) develops the IRM vision from State's strategic plan, (2) approves the IRM strategic plan developed by Information Management with State's Bureaus, and (3) advises the Under Secretary of State for Management in enforcing IRM policies and procedures. The minor Board generally reviews and approves IRM programs whose life-cycle costs are $30 million or less.

In response to our recommendation State has stopped the design and construction of primary functions of the IFMS set forth in the IFMS's Request For Proposal (RFP). This action, in effect, has allowed State to defer entering into contractural arrangements for the full scope of work under the solicitation for the IFMS initiative until State has: (1) articulated how IFMS will solve long-standing internal control and financial management systems weaknesses; and (2) established detailed requirements for individual system development projects to address high-risk areas.