This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-241 
entitled 'Information Technology: Departments of Defense and Energy 
Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments' which was 
released on February 17, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2012: 

Information Technology: 

Departments of Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially 
Duplicative Investments: 

GAO-12-241: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-241, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The federal government spends billions of dollars on information 
technology (IT) each year, with such investments accounting for at 
least $79 billion in fiscal year 2011. Given the size of these 
investments, it is important that federal agencies avoid duplicative 
investments when possible to ensure the most efficient use of 
resources. GAO has previously reported on initiatives under way to 
address potentially duplicative IT investments-—i.e., investments 
providing similar functions across the government. GAO was asked to 
review the extent to which potentially duplicative IT investments 
exist within three categories at selected agencies (the Departments of 
Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS)) and actions 
these agencies are taking to address them. To accomplish this, GAO 
analyzed budget data on agency IT investments, reviewed agency 
information related to efforts to address duplication, and interviewed 
agency officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Although the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) use various 
investment review processes to identify duplicative investments, GAO 
found that 37 of its sample of 810 investments were potentially 
duplicative (see table). These investments account for about $1.2 
billion in total information technology (IT) spending for fiscal years 
2007 through 2012. For example, GAO identified four DOD Navy personnel 
assignment investments-—one system for officers, one for enlisted 
personnel, one for reservists, and a general assignment system—-each 
of which is responsible for managing similar functions. While GAO did 
not identify any potentially duplicative investments at the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) within its sample, DHS officials have 
independently identified several duplicative investments and systems. 

Table: Potentially Duplicative Investments: 

Department: DOD; 

Purpose: Acquisition Management; 
Number of investments: 4; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $407 million. 

Purpose: Aviation Maintenance and Logistics; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $85 million. 

Purpose: Civilian Personnel Management; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $504 million. 

Purpose: Contract Management; 
Number of investments: 10; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $58 million. 

Purpose: Housing Management; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $5 million. 

Purpose: Personnel Assignment Management; 
Number of investments: 6; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $40 million. 

Purpose: Promotion Rating; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $3 million. 

Purpose: Workforce Management; 
Number of investments: 3; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $109 million. 

Department: DOE; 

Purpose: Back-end Infrastructure; 
Number of investments: 3; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $1 million. 

Purpose: Electronic Records and Document Management; 
Number of investments: 3; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $7 million. 

Total: 
Number of investments: 37; 
Planned and actual expenditures: $1.219 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data. 

[End of table] 

DOD and DOE officials offered a variety of reasons for the potential 
duplication, such as decentralized governance and a lack of control 
over certain facilities. Further complicating agencies’ ability to 
identify and eliminate duplicative investments is that investments 
are, in certain cases, misclassified by function. Until agencies 
correctly categorize their investments, they cannot be confident that 
their investments are not duplicative. 

DHS has taken action to improve its processes for identifying and 
eliminating duplicative investments. For example, through reviewing 
portfolios of IT investments, DHS has identified much, and eliminated 
some, duplicative functionality in certain investments. Additionally, 
DOD and DOE have recently initiated plans to address potential 
duplication in many of the investments GAO identified, which include 
consolidating or eliminating systems. While these efforts may 
eventually yield results, they have not yet led to the elimination of 
duplication. For example, while DOD and DOE have specific plans to 
improve their IT investment review processes, officials did not 
provide examples of duplicative investments that had been consolidated 
or eliminated. Until DOD and DOE demonstrate progress on these 
efforts, the agencies will be unable to provide assurance that they 
are avoiding investment in unnecessary systems. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD and DOE report on the progress of efforts to 
identify and eliminate duplication, where appropriate. GAO is also 
recommending that DOD, DOE, and DHS correct misclassifications of 
investments. DOD and DHS agreed with the recommendations. DOE 
generally agreed with the first recommendation, but disagreed with 
parts of the second recommendation regarding the number of 
misclassified investments. However, GAO believes the number is 
accurate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-241]. For more 
information, contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 
pownerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Selected Agencies Have Potentially Duplicative Investments; DOD and 
DOE Need to Do More to Address Them: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Further Information on Potentially Duplicative 
Investments: 

Appendix III: Miscategorized Investments: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: FEA Primary Functions for Investments, for Fiscal Year 2012 
Budget Submissions: 

Table 2: Examples of FEA Primary Functions and Corresponding Sub-
Functions: 

Table 3: Potentially Duplicative Investments: 

Table 4: DHS Investments Consolidated or Eliminated to Reduce 
Duplicative Functionality: 

Table 5: Unaddressed Potentially Duplicative DOD Investments: 

Table 6: Agency Plans to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments: 

Table 7: FEA Primary Functions and Sub-Functions Used to Select IT 
Investments: 

Table 8: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOD: 

Table 9: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOE: 

Table 10: Miscategorized Air Force Investments at DOD: 

Table 11: Miscategorized Army Investments at DOD: 

Table 12: Miscategorized Navy Investments at DOD: 

Table 13: Miscategorized Enterprisewide Investments at DOD: 

Table 14: Miscategorized Investments at DOE: 

Table 15: Miscategorized Investments at DHS: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Breakdown of Number of Federal IT Investments for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (as of July 2011): 

Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the 
Dashboard, as of August 2011: 

Figure 3: Number of Government IT Investments by Primary Function, as 
of July 2011: 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

FEA: Federal Enterprise Architecture: 

IT: information technology: 

NARA: National Archives and Records Administration: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 17, 2012: 

Congressional Requesters: 

The United States government spends billions of taxpayer dollars on 
information technology (IT) investments each year, with such 
investments accounting for at least $79 billion in fiscal year 2011. 
[Footnote 1] Given the size of these investments, it is important that 
federal agencies avoid investing in duplicative investments, whenever 
possible, to ensure the most efficient use of resources. 

Last year, we issued a comprehensive report that identified federal 
programs or functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, 
or fragmentation exists; the actions needed to address such 
conditions; and the potential financial and other benefits of doing 
so.[Footnote 2] More recently, we reported on the Office of Management 
and Budget's (OMB) and federal agencies' oversight of IT investments 
and the initiatives under way to address potentially duplicative IT 
investments.[Footnote 3] Specifically, we recently reported that there 
are hundreds of IT investments providing similar functions across the 
federal government. For example, agencies reported about 1,500 
investments that perform general information and technology functions, 
about 775 supply chain management investments, and about 620 human 
resource management investments. 

At your request, this report provides the results of our review to 
identify the extent to which potentially duplicative IT investments 
exist within these three categories.[Footnote 4] Specifically, you 
asked us to identify potentially duplicative IT investments at 
selected agencies and the actions these agencies are taking to address 
them. We selected for review three of the largest agencies with 
respect to number of investments-the Departments of Defense (DOD), 
Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS). 

To identify potentially duplicative IT investments within each of the 
selected agencies, we analyzed a subset of investment data from OMB's 
exhibit 53 to identify investments with similar functionality. 
[Footnote 5] Specifically, we reviewed 810, or 11 percent, of the 
approximately 7,200 IT investments federal agencies report to OMB 
through the exhibit 53. Our review represents approximately 24 percent 
of DOD's IT portfolio in terms of the number of investments that they 
report to OMB, 19 percent of DOE's, and 16 percent of DHS's. We then 
reviewed the name and narrative description of each investment's 
purpose to identify similarities among related investments within each 
agency (we did not review investments across agencies).[Footnote 6] 
This formed the basis of establishing groupings of similar 
investments. We discussed the groupings with each of the selected 
agencies, and we obtained further information from agency officials 
and reviewed and assessed agencies' rationales for having multiple 
systems that perform similar functions. Additionally, when analyzing 
each investment's description, we compared the investment's designated 
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)[Footnote 7] primary category and 
sub-category with OMB's definitions for each FEA primary category and 
sub-category and determined whether the investment was placed in the 
correct FEA category. We obtained additional information from agency 
officials about these discrepancies. We also interviewed officials to 
discuss actions agencies have taken to address the potentially 
duplicative investments and reviewed supporting documentation. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. See appendix I 
for a complete description of our objective, scope, and methodology. 

Background: 

Information technology should enable government to better serve the 
American people. However, according to OMB, despite spending more than 
$600 billion on IT over the past decade, the federal government has 
achieved little of the productivity improvements that private industry 
has realized from IT.[Footnote 8] Too often, federal IT projects run 
over budget, behind schedule, or fail to deliver promised 
functionality. In combating this problem, proper oversight is 
critical. Both OMB and federal agencies have key roles and 
responsibilities for overseeing IT investment management. OMB is 
responsible for working with agencies to ensure investments are 
appropriately planned and justified. Additionally, each year, OMB and 
federal agencies work together to determine how much the government 
plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds are to be allocated. 

Required Roles and Responsibilities for IT Investment Oversight: 

Congress enacted several laws to assist the federal government in 
better managing IT investments. The three key laws are the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995,[Footnote 9] the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 
[Footnote 10] and the E-Government Act of 2002:[Footnote 11] 

* The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 specified OMB and agency 
responsibilities for managing information resources, including the 
management of IT. Among its provisions, this law established agency 
responsibility for assessing and managing the risks of major 
information systems initiatives.[Footnote 12] It also required that 
OMB develop and oversee policies, principles, standards, and 
guidelines for federal agency IT functions, including periodic 
evaluations of major information systems. 

* The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 placed responsibility for managing 
investments with the heads of agencies and established chief 
information officers (CIO) to advise and assist agency heads in 
carrying out this responsibility. Additionally, this law required OMB 
to establish processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and 
results of major capital investments in information systems made by 
federal agencies and report to Congress on the net program performance 
benefits achieved as a result of these investments. 

* The E-Government Act of 2002 established a federal e-government 
initiative, which encouraged the use of web-based Internet 
applications to enhance the access to and delivery of government 
information and service to citizens, to business partners, to 
employees, and among agencies at all levels of government. The act 
also required OMB to report annually to Congress on the status of e-
government initiatives. In these reports, OMB is to describe the 
administration's use of e-government principles to improve government 
performance and the delivery of information and services to the public. 

OMB's IT Oversight Mechanisms: 

OMB uses the following mechanisms to help it fulfill its required 
oversight responsibilities of federal IT spending during the annual 
budget formulation process. 

* OMB requires 27 federal departments and agencies[Footnote 13] to 
provide information related to their IT investments, including agency 
IT investment portfolios (called exhibit 53s) and capital asset plans 
and business cases (called exhibit 300s).[Footnote 14] 

* In June 2009, OMB publicly deployed the IT Dashboard, which is 
intended to display near real-time information on the cost, schedule, 
and performance of all major IT investments. For each major 
investment, the Dashboard provides performance ratings on cost and 
schedule, a CIO evaluation, and an overall rating. The CIO evaluation 
is based on his or her evaluation of the performance of each 
investment and takes into consideration multiple variables. This 
evaluation is to be updated when new information becomes available 
that would affect the assessment of a given investment. The CIO also 
has the ability to provide written comments regarding the status of 
each investment. The Dashboard replaced OMB's Management Watch List 
and High-Risk List, which were previously used to highlight poorly 
planned or poorly performing investments on a quarterly basis. As of 
August 2011, the Dashboard displayed information on the cost, 
schedule, and performance of 797 major federal IT investments at 27 
federal agencies. 

According to OMB, the public display of investment data on the IT 
Dashboard is intended to allow OMB, other oversight bodies, and the 
general public to hold government agencies accountable for results and 
progress. In addition, the Dashboard allows users to download exhibit 
53 data, which provide details on the more than 7,200 federal IT 
investments (totaling $78.8 billion in planned spending for fiscal 
year 2011). Figure 1 shows the number of IT investments and planned 
spending by federal agency. 

Figure 1: Breakdown of Number of Federal IT Investments for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (as of July 2011): 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Department of Defense: 33%; (2,383), $37 billion; 
Department Veterans Affairs: 0%; (36), $3 billion; 
Department of Commerce: 2%; (137), $2 billion; 
Department of the Treasury: 4%; (267), $3 billion; 
Department of Agriculture: 4%; (295), $3 billion; 
Department of Justice: 4%; (315), $3 billion; 
Department of Transportation: 5%; (362), $3 billion; 
Department of Homeland Security: 6%; (402), $6 billion; 
Department of Health and Human Services: 10%; (706), $7 billion; 
Department of Energy: 12%; (876), $2 billion; 
17 other agencies: 20%; (1,469), $10 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of exhibit 53 data. 

[End of figure] 

As we have previously reported, while the IT Dashboard provides IT 
investment information for 27 federal agencies, it does not include 
any information about 61 other agencies' investments.[Footnote 15] 
Specifically, it does not include information from 58 independent 
executive branch agencies (such as the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal 
Communications Commission) and 3 other agencies (such as the Legal 
Services Corporation). It also does not include information from the 
legislative or judicial branch agencies. Accordingly, we recommended 
that OMB specify which executive branch agencies are included when 
discussing the annual federal IT investment portfolio. OMB disagreed 
with this recommendation, stating that the agencies included in the 
federal IT portfolio are already identified in OMB guidance and on the 
IT Dashboard. However, we maintained that the recommendation had not 
been fully addressed because OMB officials frequently refer to the 
federal IT portfolio without clarifying that it does not include all 
agencies. 

Agencies Spend Billions on Poorly Performing IT Investments: 

Despite required roles and responsibilities and OMB's oversight 
mechanisms, the federal government spends billions of dollars on 
poorly performing IT investments, as the following examples illustrate: 

* In April 2008, due to problems identified during testing and cost 
overruns and schedule slippages, the Secretary of Commerce announced a 
redesign of the 2010 Census, resulting in a $205 million increase in 
life-cycle costs. 

* In February 2010, the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources 
System was canceled after 10 years of development and approximately 
$850 million spent, due, in part, to a lack of strategic alignment, 
governance, and requirements management, as well as the overall size 
and scope of the effort.[Footnote 16] 

* In July 2010, OMB directed the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) to halt development of its Electronic Records 
Archive system at the end of fiscal year 2011 (1 year earlier than 
planned). OMB cited concerns about the system's cost, schedule, and: 

* performance and directed NARA to better define system functionality 
and improve strategic planning. Through fiscal year 2010, NARA had 
spent about $375 million on the system. 

* In January 2011, the Secretary of Homeland Security ended the Secure 
Border Initiative Network program after spending about $1.5 billion 
because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards. 
[Footnote 17] 

* In February 2011, the Office of Personnel Management canceled its 
Retirement Systems Modernization program, after several years of 
trying to improve the implementation of this investment.[Footnote 18] 
According to the Office of Personnel Management, it spent 
approximately $231 million on this investment. 

* In March 2011, we reported that while DOD's Navy Next Generation 
Enterprise Network investment's first increment is estimated to cost 
$50 billion, the program was not well positioned to meet its cost and 
schedule estimates.[Footnote 19] As such, we recommended DOD limit 
further investment until it conducts an interim review to reconsider 
the selected acquisition approach and addresses its investment 
management issues. DOD stated that it did not concur with the 
recommendation to reconsider its acquisition approach, but we maintain 
that without doing so, DOD cannot be sure it is pursuing the most cost-
effective approach. 

Additionally, as of August 2011, according to the IT Dashboard, 261 of 
the federal government's approximately 800 major IT investments--
totaling almost $18 billion--are in need of management attention 
(rated "yellow" to indicate the need for attention or "red" to 
indicate significant concerns).[Footnote 20] (See figure 2.) 

Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the 
Dashboard, as of August 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Normal: 536 investments; 56%; $22.7 billion; 
Needs attention: 228 investments; 40%; $16.1 billion; 
Significant concerns: 33 investments; 4%; $1.8 billion. 

Source: OMB's IT dashboard. 

[End of figure] 

In recognizing that wasteful spending continues to plague IT 
investment management, OMB has recently implemented additional efforts 
to address this problem. These efforts include the following: 

* TechStat reviews. In January 2010, the Federal CIO began leading 
reviews--known as "TechStat" sessions--of selected IT investments 
involving OMB and agency leadership to increase accountability and 
transparency and improve performance. OMB officials stated that, as of 
December 2010, 58 sessions had been held and resulted in improvements 
to or termination of IT investments with performance problems. For 
example, the June 2010 TechStat session for NARA's Electronic Records 
Archive investment (mentioned above) resulted in the halting of 
development funding pending the completion of a strategic plan. In 
addition, OMB has identified 26 additional high-priority IT projects 
and plans to develop corrective action plans with agencies at future 
TechStat sessions. According to the former Federal CIO, OMB's efforts 
to improve management and oversight of IT investments have resulted in 
$3 billion in savings. 

* IT reform. In December 2010, the Federal CIO issued a 25 Point 
Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 
Management. This 18-month plan specified five major goals: 
strengthening program management, streamlining governance and 
improving accountability, increasing engagement with industry, 
aligning the acquisition and budget processes with the technology 
cycle, and applying "light technology" and shared solutions. As part 
of this plan, OMB outlined actions to, among other things, strengthen 
agencies' investment review boards and consolidate federal data 
centers. The plan stated that OMB will work with Congress to 
consolidate commodity IT spending (e.g., e-mail, data centers, content 
management systems, and web infrastructure) under agency CIOs. 
Further, the plan called for the role of federal agency CIOs to focus 
more on IT portfolio management. 

Categorization of IT Investments Is Intended to Facilitate 
Identification of Similar IT Investments: 

In addition to these efforts to improve government spending on IT, 
avoiding unnecessary duplicative investments is critically important. 
In February 2002, OMB established the FEA initiative. According to 
OMB, the FEA is intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement 
through cross-agency analysis and identification of duplicative 
investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration, 
interoperability, and integration within and across agency programs. 
The FEA is composed of five "reference models" describing the federal 
government's (1) business (or mission) processes and functions, 
independent of the agencies that perform them; (2) performance goals 
and outcome measures; (3) means of service delivery; (4) information 
and data definitions; and (5) technology standards. Since the fiscal 
year 2004 budget cycle, OMB has required agencies to categorize their 
IT investments in their annual exhibit 53s according to primary 
function and sub-function as identified in the FEA reference models. 
For fiscal year 2012 submissions, agencies chose from the primary 
functions listed in table 1. 

Table 1: FEA Primary Functions for Investments, for Fiscal Year 2012 
Budget Submissions: 

Administrative Management; 
Community and Social Services; 
Controls and Oversight; 
Correctional Activities; 
Defense and National Security; 
Disaster Management; 
Economic Development; 
Education; 
Energy; 
Environmental Management; 
Financial Management; 
General Government; 
General Science and Innovation; 
Health; 
Homeland Security; 
Human Resource Management; 
Income Security; 
Information and Technology Management; 
Intelligence Operations; 
Internal Risk Management and Mitigation; 
International Affairs and Commerce; 
Law Enforcement; Legislative Relations; 
Litigation and Judicial Activities; 
Natural Resources; 
Planning and Budgeting; 
Public Affairs; 
Regulatory Development; 
Revenue Collection; 
Supply Chain Management; 
Transportation; 
Workforce Management. 

Source: OMB. 

[End of table] 

In their fiscal year 2011 submissions, agencies reported the greatest 
number of IT investments in Information and Technology Management 
(1,536 investments), followed by Supply Chain Management (777 
investments), and Human Resource Management (622 investments). 
Similarly, planned expenditures on investments were greatest in 
Information and Technology Management, at about $35.5 billion. Figure 
3 depicts, by primary function, the total number of investments within 
the 27 federal agencies that report to the IT Dashboard. 

Figure 3: Number of Government IT Investments by Primary Function, as 
of July 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Primary function: Information and Technology|Management; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 1,536 ($35.5 billion). 

Primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 777 ($3.3 billion). 

Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 622 ($2.4 billion). 

Primary function: Financial Management; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 580 ($2.7 billion). 

Primary function: Health; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 444 ($5.0 billion). 

Primary function: General Science and Innovation; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 372 ($1.6 billion). 

Primary function: Defense and National Security; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 358 ($9.3 billion). 

Primary function: Administrative Management; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 301 ($0.8 billion). 

Primary function: Planning and Budgeting; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 292 ($0.7 billion). 

Primary function: Environmental Management; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 177 ($1.2 billion). 

Primary function: All other functions; 
Number of IT investments (dollars in billions: 1,789 ($16.2 billion). 

Source: GAO analysis of exhibit 53 data. 

[End of figure] 

Additionally, agencies were required to choose a sub-function for each 
investment related to the primary function. These sub-functions are to 
be selected from the business reference model. Table 2 provides 
examples of primary functions and their corresponding sub-functions. 

Table 2: Examples of FEA Primary Functions and Corresponding Sub-
Functions: 

Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Sub-functions: 
System Development; 
Lifecycle/Change Management; 
System Maintenance; 
IT Infrastructure Maintenance; 
Information Security; 
Record Retention; 
Information Management; 
Information Sharing; 
System and Network Monitoring. 

Primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Sub-functions: 
Goods Acquisition; 
Inventory Control; 
Logistics Management; 
Services Acquisition. 

Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Sub-functions: 
HR Strategy; 
Staff Acquisition; 
Organization and Position Management; 
Compensation Management; 
Benefits Management; 
Employee Performance Management; 
Employee Relations; 
Labor Relations; 
Separation Management; 
Human Resources Development. 

Source: FEA Consolidated Reference Model. 

[End of table] 

GAO Has Previously Reported on Potential Duplication and the 
Challenges of Identifying Duplicative Investments: 

During the past several years, we have issued multiple reports and 
testimonies and made numerous recommendations to OMB and federal 
agencies to identify and reduce duplication within the federal 
government's portfolio of IT investments.[Footnote 21] 

In March 2011, we reported an overview of federal programs and 
functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or 
fragmentation existed.[Footnote 22] Specifically, we identified 34 
areas where agencies, offices, or initiatives had similar or 
overlapping objectives or provided similar services to the same 
populations, or where government missions were fragmented across 
multiple agencies or programs. These areas spanned a range of 
government missions: agriculture, defense, economic development, 
energy, general government, health, homeland security, international 
affairs, and social services. Within and across these missions, the 
report touched on hundreds of federal programs, including IT programs, 
affecting virtually all major federal departments and agencies. 

We reported that overlap and fragmentation among government programs 
or activities could be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Thus, 
the reduction or elimination of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation 
could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually and help 
agencies provide more efficient and effective services. For example, 
we reported that, according to OMB, the number of federal data centers 
(defined as data processing and storage facilities) grew from 432 in 
1998 to more than 2,000 in 2010. These data centers often house 
similar types of equipment and provide similar processing and storage 
capabilities. These factors have led to concerns associated with the 
provision of redundant capabilities, the underutilization of 
resources, and the significant consumption of energy. Operating such a 
large number of centers places costly demands on the government. In an 
effort to address these inefficiencies, in February 2010, OMB launched 
the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative to guide federal 
agencies in consolidating data centers. Specifically, OMB and agencies 
plan to close over 950 of the more than 2,100 federal data centers by 
2015. As of November 2011, agencies reported that a total of 149 data 
centers have been closed across the federal government. For example, 
16 DOD data centers, 3 DOE centers, and 7 DHS centers have been closed. 

In September 2011, we reported that limitations in OMB's guidance 
hindered efforts to identify IT duplication.[Footnote 23] 
Specifically, OMB guidance stated that each IT investment needs to be 
mapped to a single functional category within the FEA to allow for the 
identification and analysis of potentially duplicative investments 
across agencies. We noted that this limits OMB's ability to identify 
potentially duplicative investments both within and across agencies 
because similar investments may be organized under different 
functions. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB revise guidance to 
federal agencies on categorizing IT investments to ensure that the 
categorizations are clear and that it allow agencies to choose 
secondary categories, where applicable, which will aid in identifying 
potentially duplicative investments. OMB officials generally agreed 
with this recommendation and stated that they plan to update the FEA 
reference models in the fall of 2011 to provide additional clarity on 
how agencies should characterize investments in order to enhance the 
identification of potentially duplicative investments. 

We also reported that results of OMB initiatives to identify 
potentially duplicative investments were mixed and that several 
federal agencies did not routinely assess their entire IT portfolios 
to identify and remove or consolidate duplicative systems. 
Specifically, we said that most of OMB's recent initiatives have not 
yet demonstrated results, and several agencies did not routinely 
assess legacy systems to determine if they are duplicative. As a 
result, we recommended that OMB require federal agencies to report the 
steps they take to ensure that their IT investments are not 
duplicative as part of their annual budget and IT investment 
submissions. OMB generally agreed with this recommendation. 

Selected Agencies Have Potentially Duplicative Investments; DOD and 
DOE Need to Do More to Address Them: 

Although the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security 
utilize various processes to prevent and reduce investment in 
duplicative programs and systems, potentially duplicative IT 
investments exist. Further complicating agencies' ability to identify 
and address duplicative investments is miscategorization of 
investments within agencies. Each of the agencies has recently 
initiated plans to address many of these investments. DHS's efforts 
have resulted in the identification and elimination of duplication, 
but DOD's and DOE's initiatives have not yet led to the elimination or 
consolidation of duplicative investments or functionality. Until DOD 
and DOE demonstrate progress on their efforts to identify and 
eliminate duplicative investments, and correctly categorize 
investments, it will remain unclear whether they are avoiding 
investment in unnecessary systems. 

Potentially Duplicative IT Investments Exist at Selected Agencies: 

Each of the agencies we reviewed has IT investment management 
processes in place that are, in part, intended to prevent, identify, 
and eliminate unnecessary duplicative investments. For example, DOD's 
Information Technology Portfolio Management Implementation guide 
requires the evaluation of existing systems to identify duplication 
and determine whether to maintain, upgrade, delete, or replace 
identified systems. Similarly, DOE's Guide to IT Capital Planning and 
Investment Control specifies that investment business case summaries 
should be reviewed for redundancies and opportunities for 
collaboration. Additionally, according to DHS's Capital Planning and 
Investment Control Guide, proposed investments must be reviewed at the 
department level to determine if the proposed need is, among other 
things, being fulfilled by another DHS program, or already fulfilled 
by an existing capability. 

Even with such investment review processes, of the 810 investments we 
reviewed,[Footnote 24] we identified 37 potentially duplicative 
investments at DOD and DOE within three FEA categories (Human Resource 
Management, Information and Technology Management, and Supply Chain 
Management).[Footnote 25] These investments account for about $1.2 
billion in total IT spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. 
Specifically, we identified: 

* 31 potentially duplicative investments totaling approximately $1.2 
billion at DOD, and: 

* 6 potentially duplicative investments totaling approximately $8 
million at DOE. 

The 37 investments comprise 12 groups of investments that appear to 
have duplicative purposes based on our analysis of each investment's 
description, budget information, and other supporting documentation 
from agency officials (see table 3). For example, we identified three 
investments at DOE that were each responsible for managing the back-
end infrastructure at three different locations. We also identified 
four DOD Navy personnel assignment investments--one system for 
officers, one for enlisted personnel, one for reservists, and a 
general assignment system--each of which is responsible for managing 
similar assignment functions. Additionally, the Air Force has five 
investments that are each responsible for contract management, and 
within the Navy there are another five contract management 
investments. Table 3 summarizes the 12 groups of potentially 
duplicative investments we identified by purpose and agency. (See 
appendix II for details on each of the 37 potentially duplicative 
investments.) 

Table 3: Potentially Duplicative Investments: 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Air Force; 
Purpose: Contract Management; 
Number of investments: 5; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $41 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Army; 
Purpose: Personnel Assignment Management; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $12 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Navy; 
Purpose: Acquisition Management; 
Number of investments: 4; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $407 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Navy; 
Purpose: Aviation Maintenance and Logistics; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $85 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Navy; 
Purpose: Contract Management; 
Number of investments: 5; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $17 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Navy; 
Purpose: Housing Management; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $5 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Navy; 
Purpose: Personnel Assignment Management; 
Number of investments: 4; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $28 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: Navy; 
Purpose: Promotion Rating; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $3 million. 

Purpose: Workforce Management; 
Number of investments: 3; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $109 million. 

Department: DOD; 
Branch or bureau: DOD Enterprisewide; 
Purpose: Civilian Personnel Management; 
Number of investments: 2; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $504 million. 

Department: DOE; 
Branch or bureau: Energy Programs; 
Purpose: Back-end Infrastructure; 
Number of investments: 3; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $1 million. 

Department: DOE; 
Branch or bureau: Energy Programs & Environmental and Other Defense 
Activities; 
Purpose: Electronic Records and Document Management; 
Number of investments: 3; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $7 million. 

Total: 
Number of investments: 37; 
Planned and actual spending fiscal years 2007-2012: $1.219 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of agencies' data. 

[End of table] 

We did not identify any potentially duplicative investments at DHS 
within our sample; however, DHS has independently identified several 
duplicative investments and systems. Specifically, DHS officials have 
identified and, more importantly, reduced duplicative functionality in 
four investments by consolidating or eliminating certain systems 
within each of these investments. DHS officials have also identified 
38 additional systems that they have determined to be duplicative. For 
example, officials identified multiple personnel action processing 
systems that could be consolidated. 

Officials from the three agencies reported that duplicative 
investments exist for a number of reasons, including decentralized 
governance within the departments and a lack of control over 
contractor facilities. For example, DOE investments for the management 
of back-end infrastructure are for facilities which DOE oversees but 
does not control. In addition, DOD officials indicated that a key 
reason for potential duplication at the Department of the Navy is that 
it had traditionally used a decentralized IT management approach, 
which allowed offices to develop systems independent of any other 
office's IT needs or acquisitions. 

Further complicating the agencies' ability to prevent investment in 
duplicative systems or programs is the miscategorization of 
investments. Among the 810 investments we reviewed, we identified 22 
investments where the selected agencies assigned incorrect FEA primary 
functions or sub-functions.[Footnote 26] Specifically, we identified 
13 miscategorized investments at DOD, 4 at DOE, and 5 at DHS. Examples 
are as follows: 

* DOD's Computer Aided Procurement System was initially categorized 
within the Information and Technology Management primary function, but 
DOD agreed that this investment should be classified within the Supply 
Chain Management primary function. 

* DOE's Environmental Management Headquarters Central Internet 
Database was initially categorized within the Information and 
Technology Management primary function, but DOE agreed that this 
investment could be assigned the Environmental Management primary 
function and the Environmental Monitoring and Forecasting sub-function. 

* DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency--Minor Personnel/Training 
Systems investment was initially categorized within the Employee 
Performance Management sub-function, but DHS agreed that this 
investment should be assigned to the Human Resources Development sub-
function. 

Agency officials agreed that they had inadvertently miscategorized 15 
of the 22 investments we identified. However, proper categorization is 
necessary in order to analyze and identify duplicative investments, 
both within and across agencies. Each improper categorization 
represents a possible missed opportunity to identify and eliminate an 
unjustified duplicative investment. Until agencies correctly 
categorize their investments, they cannot be confident that their 
investments are not duplicative and are justified, and they may 
continue expending valuable resources developing and maintaining 
unnecessarily duplicative systems. 

Agencies Have Recently Initiated Plans to Address Potential 
Duplication in Many Investments, but Results Have Yet to Be Realized 
at DOD and DOE: 

DHS has taken action to improve its processes for identifying and 
eliminating duplicative investments, which has produced tangible 
results. Specifically, in 2010 and 2011, the DHS CIO conducted program 
and portfolio reviews of hundreds of IT investments and systems. DHS 
evaluated portfolios of investments within its components to avoid 
investing in systems that are duplicative or overlapping, and to 
identify and leverage investments across the department. Among other 
things, this effort contributed to the identification and 
consolidation of duplicative functionality within four investments. 
DHS also has plans to further consolidate systems within these 
investments by 2014, which is expected to produce approximately $41 
million in cost savings. The portfolio reviews also contributed to the 
identification of 38 additional systems that are duplicative. 
Additionally, the DHS CIO and Chief Human Capital Officer are 
coordinating to streamline and consolidate the department's human 
resources investments. A summary of the investments for which DHS 
eliminated duplicative functionality and systems is provided in table 
4 below. 

Table 4: DHS Investments Consolidated or Eliminated to Reduce 
Duplicative Functionality: 

Investment title: DHS--Integrated Security Management System; 
Action: Consolidated six personnel security-related systems into DHS's 
enterprisewide security suitability system[A]; 
Cost savings estimate: $2 million annually. 

Investment title: Federal Emergency Management Agency--Time And 
Attendance Collection and Reporting; 
Action: Eliminated this investment and now provides time and 
attendance functionality through DHS's enterprisewide time and 
attendance system; 
Cost savings estimate: $284,000 over 2 years. 

Investment title: Homeland Security Information Network; 
Action: Consolidated two DHS components' portals (e.g., the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's Fire Services Portal) into the Homeland 
Security Information Network[B]; 
Cost savings estimate: $1 million over 5 years. 

Investment title: Human Resources Information Technology; 
Action: Consolidated five time and attendance systems into DHS's 
enterprisewide time and attendance system, as well as the Department 
of Agriculture's National Finance Center system; 
Cost savings estimate: Not available. 

Source: DHS. 

[A] DHS reported that another personnel security-related system is 
scheduled to be consolidated into this investment during fiscal year 
2012. 

[B] DHS reported that an additional 12 portals will be consolidated 
into this investment before 2014. DHS officials estimate that these 
efforts will result in another approximately $41 million in savings. 

[End of table] 

DOD has begun taking action to address 29 of the 31 duplicative 
investments we identified. For example, according to DOD officials, 
four of the DOD Navy acquisition management investments--two for Naval 
Sea Systems Command and two for Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Command--will be reviewed to determine whether these multiple support 
systems are necessary. In addition, DOD reported that the Air Force is 
in the process of developing a single contract writing system to 
replace the five potentially duplicative investments we have 
identified. Moreover, the Department of the Navy has implemented an 
executive oversight board that is chaired by the Navy CIO, and it is 
now the Navy's single senior information management and technology 
policy and governance forum. The Department of the Navy also required 
all IT expenditures greater than $100,000 to be centrally reviewed and 
approved by the Navy CIO to ensure that they are not duplicative. 
[Footnote 27] Officials reported that these initiatives will include 
the review of Navy's 22 potentially duplicative investments that we 
identified. 

Similarly, DOE has plans under way to address each of the 6 
investments we identified as potentially duplicative. Specifically, 
DOE officials established working groups that are addressing the two 
groups of duplicative investments we identified. These working groups 
are to address records management and back-end infrastructure, and are 
looking across the department to minimize redundancy in each of these 
areas. In addition, the CIO stated that DOE has developed a 
departmental strategy for electronic records management whereby a 
small number of approved records management applications will be 
identified for departmentwide use. Moreover, in a broader effort to 
reduce duplication across the department, in September and October 
2011, DOE held technical strategic reviews, known as "TechStrat" 
sessions, which are aimed at exploring opportunities to consolidate 
DOE's commodity IT services, such as e-mail and help desk support, 
among the various DOE offices. The first two sessions provided 
opportunities for DOE bureaus to identify and share lessons learned, 
and established action items to improve DOE's IT investment portfolio. 

While these efforts could eventually yield results, DOD's and DOE's 
initiatives have not yet led to the consolidation or elimination of 
duplication. For example, while DOD provided us with documented 
milestones--several of which have passed--for improving the Department 
of the Navy's IT investment review processes, officials did not 
provide us with any examples of duplicative investments that they had 
consolidated or eliminated. Similarly, while DOE officials have 
documented time frames for consolidating DOE's commodity IT services, 
electronic records management investments, and identity management 
investments, officials were unable to demonstrate that they have 
consolidated or eliminated unjustified duplicative investments. 

Additionally, DOD does not have plans under way to address the 
remaining 2 of the 31 potentially duplicative investments. DOD 
officials stated that they do not have plans to address these 
investments because they do not agree that they are potentially 
duplicative. However, agency officials were unable to demonstrate that 
investing in these systems and programs was justified. Table 5 
provides more information on the unaddressed potentially duplicative 
investments at DOD. 

Table 5: Unaddressed Potentially Duplicative DOD Investments: 

Dollars in millions. 

Civilian Personnel Management; 
Branch: DOD Enterprise-wide; 

Investment title: Executive Performance and Appraisal Tool; 
Description: Civilian personnel management system that will become the 
enterprisewide automated solution for senior professional performance 
management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.591 million. 

Investment title: Defense Civilian Personnel Data System; 
Description: Corporate human resources system for civilian employees 
supporting the military departments and defense agencies; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $503.280 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

Table 6 summarizes the number of potentially duplicative investments 
for which Defense and Energy have actions under way, as well as the 
number of investments that remain unaddressed. 

Table 6: Agency Plans to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments: 

Agency: DOD; 
Potentially duplicative investments: 31; 
Plans under way to address duplication: 29; 
No plans under way: 2. 

Agency: DOE; 
Potentially duplicative investments: 6; 
Plans under way to address duplication: 6; 
No plans under way: 0. 

Agency: Total; 
Potentially duplicative investments: 37; 
Plans under way to address duplication: 35; 
No plans under way: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of agencies' data. 

[End of table] 

Until DOD and DOE demonstrate, through existing transparency 
mechanisms such as OMB's IT Dashboard, that they are making progress 
in identifying and eliminating duplicative investments, it will remain 
unclear whether they are avoiding investment in unnecessary systems. 

Conclusions: 

While agencies have various investment review processes in place that 
are partially designed to avoid investing in systems that are 
duplicative, we have identified 37 potentially duplicative investments 
at DOD and DOE. These investments account for about $1.2 billion in 
total IT spending for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. Given that our 
review covered 11 percent (810 investments) of the total number of IT 
investments that agencies report to OMB, it raises questions about how 
much more potential duplication exists. 

DHS's recent efforts have resulted in the identification and 
consolidation of duplicative functionality in several investments and 
related systems. DOD and DOE have also recently initiated plans to 
address many investments that we identified, but these recent 
initiatives have not yet resulted in the consolidation or elimination 
of duplicative investments or functionality. Further complicating 
agencies' ability to prevent, identify, and eliminate duplicative 
investments is miscategorization of investments within agencies. 
Without demonstrating the progress of efforts to identity and 
eliminate duplicative investments, DOD and DOE will be unable to 
provide assurance that they are avoiding investment in unnecessary 
systems. Similarly, until DOD, DOE, and DHS, correctly categorize 
their investments, they are limiting their ability to identify 
opportunities to consolidate or eliminate duplicative investments. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better ensure agencies avoid investing in duplicative investments, 
we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the CIO to take the 
following two actions: 

* utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard, 
to report on the results of the department's efforts to identify and 
eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment 
we have identified, as well as any other duplicative investments; and: 

* correct the miscategorizations for the DOD investments we identified 
and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency 
submissions. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the CIO to take the 
following two actions: 

* utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as the IT Dashboard, 
to report on the results of the department's efforts to identify and 
eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment 
we have identified, as well as any other duplicative investments; and: 

* correct the miscategorizations for the DOE investments we identified 
and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency 
submissions. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the CIO to 
take the following action: 

* correct the miscategorizations for the DHS investments we identified 
and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in agency 
submissions. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of our report to the three departments selected 
for our review and to OMB. In commenting on the draft, DOD and DHS 
generally concurred with our recommendations. DOE generally agreed 
with our first recommendation and disagreed with parts of our second 
recommendation. In addition, OMB provided oral technical comments that 
we incorporated, where appropriate. Each department's comments are 
discussed in more detail below, and the written comments are reprinted 
in appendixes IV, V, and VI. 

DOD's Deputy CIO for Information Management, Integration, and 
Technology within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Networks and Information Integration provided written comments, which 
stated that the department agreed with both of our recommendations. 
DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, where 
appropriate. 

The Director of DHS's Departmental GAO/Office of Inspector General 
Liaison Office provided written comments, which stated that the 
department agreed with our recommendation to correct the 
miscategorized investments and ensure that investments are correctly 
categorized. Additionally, DHS provided documentation showing that the 
department had recently corrected the miscategorizations in response 
to our recommendation. The department also provided technical 
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

The DOE CIO provided written comments in which the department 
generally agreed with the first recommendation and disagreed with 
parts of the second recommendation. Regarding our first 
recommendation, to identify and eliminate potentially duplicative 
investments as appropriate, DOE generally agreed with the 
recommendation and stated that the Office of the CIO is committed to 
increasing its IT investment oversight. The department added that for 
the non-major investments that GAO identified as being potentially 
duplicative, it will update GAO on its progress through means other 
than the IT Dashboard, since non-major investments are not 
individually tracked on the Dashboard. However, DOE also indicated 
that it does not believe certain investments that we identified are 
potentially duplicative. Specifically, DOE did not agree that the two 
card issuance and maintenance, and three logical access control 
investments were potentially duplicative. Rather, it stated that the 
investments in these groups were listed individually on the exhibit 53 
for reporting purposes, in order to show how the funding was being 
distributed at various locations. According to DOE, these costs were 
for the labor involved in deploying the technology, and could not be 
avoided given the separate geographical locations. We reviewed this 
additional information, and subsequently removed these five 
investments from our list of potentially duplicative investments. 

Regarding our second recommendation to correct miscategorizations and 
ensure that investments are correctly categorized, DOE disagreed with 
parts of this recommendation. Specifically, DOE agreed that two of the 
four investments could be recategorized. However, it disagreed that 
the two training center investments should be recategorized, and 
stated that they should continue to be categorized under the Employee 
Performance Management FEA sub-function because of how they are 
funded. However, OMB guidance defines Employee Performance Management 
as activities that enable managers to make distinctions in performance 
and link individual performance to agency goals and mission 
accomplishment. In other words, this sub-function involves enabling 
managers to assess the performance of personnel--and does not involve 
providing training to personnel. In contrast, the Human Resources 
Development sub-function--which OMB guidance defines as administering, 
delivering, and designing employee development programs--is a more 
appropriate category.[Footnote 28] Therefore, we maintain our 
position. Additionally, DOE stated that we identified only 4 
miscategorized investments from its total population of 876 
investments. However, this implies we reviewed all 876 investments. As 
stated in our report, we looked at 19 percent of DOE's reported IT 
investment population, or 167 investments, and identified 4 
miscategorized investments from that subset. 

In addition, DOE stated that in our September 2011 report we 
highlighted limitations in OMB's guidance regarding proper 
categorization of investments and further stated that, while OMB 
agreed to make improvements to the guidance, agencies and OMB did not 
have time to implement the changes before our new audit began. In our 
September report, we noted that, under OMB's guidance, agencies were 
unable to designate a secondary category, in addition to the primary 
category for each of the investments. However, in this report, our 
concern is with the accuracy of agencies' selections of the primary 
categories for certain investments. These are two independent concerns 
with investment categorization--both of which need to be addressed and 
are not necessarily dependent on each other. In other words, 
regardless of whether agencies are able to designate a secondary 
category, in addition to a primary category, it is still critically 
important that the primary category is accurate. 

DOE made several additional comments that we address below: 

* The department stated that it has implemented various investment 
review processes to help identify potentially duplicative investments 
and to manage these investments. We acknowledge in the report that DOE 
has such processes in place, and we provide examples of the 
department's existing IT investment management processes that are, in 
part, intended to prevent, identify, and eliminate duplicative 
investments. 

* DOE stated that our draft report mentions the Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative but that we did not specifically discuss 
DOE's accomplishment in this area. In response, we added the number of 
federal data centers that DOE reportedly closed. 

* The department stated that prior to the GAO audit, DOE officials 
realized potential duplicative investments may exist in back-end 
infrastructure and that a working group has been meeting regularly to 
identify duplicative investments and investigate the possibility of 
consolidating. We agree with this statement, and we acknowledge the 
working group's efforts in the report. However, as we report, this 
initiative has not yet resulted in the consolidation or elimination of 
duplicative investments or functionality. 

* According to DOE, it had developed a departmental strategy for 
electronic records management whereby a small number of approved 
records management applications will be identified for department-wide 
use. It added that the three records management investments cited in 
our report will remain in place while the departmental strategy is 
being implemented. In response to this comment, we updated the report 
to acknowledge that the CIO stated that DOE has developed a 
departmental strategy, in addition to establishing an electronic 
records management working group. However, similar to the back-end 
infrastructure, these efforts have not yet resulted in the 
consolidation or elimination of duplicative investments or 
functionality, and thus, DOE may continue investing in unnecessary 
systems until such actions are taken. 

* Lastly, DOE noted that in our report we discuss the Department's 
TechStrat sessions related to commodity IT services but did not 
discuss the TechStrat sessions conducted by its Office of 
Environmental Management on its major investments. We did not add this 
activity to the report, because supporting documentation was not 
provided to indicate that this session was conducted to specifically 
reduce duplication, rather than to review major investments with 
performance problems. 

Finally, OMB's Chief Architect provided comments regarding the 
office's efforts to oversee IT investments, which we incorporated, as 
appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 11 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of 
Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security; the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget; and other interested parties. In addition, the 
report also will be available at no charge on GAO's website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Signed by: 

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

List of Requesters: 

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

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

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

The Honorable Ben Quayle: 
United States House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objective was to identify potentially duplicative information 
technology (IT) investments at selected agencies and actions these 
agencies are taking to address them. To select agencies for review, we 
used the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) fiscal year 2011 
exhibit 53. Specifically, we downloaded this data from OMB's IT 
Dashboard and used it to identify the agencies and their number of IT 
investments as reported on the Dashboard. We used this analysis to 
select for review three of the agencies with the highest number of IT 
investments--the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and 
Homeland Security (DHS). 

To identify potentially duplicative investments, we further narrowed 
our analysis of the exhibit 53 data to the largest Federal Enterprise 
Architecture (FEA)[Footnote 29] primary functions, by number of 
investments. Within each of the selected primary functions, we 
selected the two sub-functions with the most investments. Table 7 
identifies the FEA primary functions and FEA sub-functions used to 
select the investments for review. 

Table 7: FEA Primary Functions and Sub-Functions Used to Select IT 
Investments: 

FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
FEA sub-function: Benefits Management; 
FEA sub-function: Employee Performance Management[A]; 
FEA sub-function: Organization and Position Management[A]. 

FEA primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
FEA sub-function: Information Management; 
FEA sub-function: Information Security. 

FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
FEA sub-function: Goods Acquisition; 
FEA sub-function: Inventory Control. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[A] Within the Human Resource Management function, our selection 
criteria resulted in a tie for the second-highest sub-function; we 
elected to include both of these sub functions. 

[End of table] 

This resulted in a nongeneralizable sample of 810 IT investments, 
which is 11 percent of the total number of IT investments that 
agencies report to OMB through the IT Dashboard (810 of 7,227).The 
investments we reviewed represent approximately 24 percent of DOD's IT 
portfolio in terms of number of investments that it reports to the 
Dashboard, 19 percent of DOE's, and 16 percent of DHS's. To determine 
the reliability of the data on the IT Dashboard, we reviewed recent 
GAO reports that identified issues with the accuracy and reliability 
of agency data on the IT Dashboard.[Footnote 30] We determined that 
the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report, 
which was to identify selected investments to include in our review. 

We then reviewed the name and narrative description of each 
investment's purpose to identify similarities among related 
investments within each agency (we did not review investments across 
agencies).[Footnote 31] This formed the basis of establishing 
groupings of similar investments. We discussed the groupings with each 
of the selected agencies, and we obtained further information from 
agency officials. We also reviewed and assessed agencies' rationales 
for having multiple systems that perform similar functions. 
Additionally, when analyzing each investment's description, we 
compared each investment's designated FEA primary category and sub-
category to OMB's definitions for each FEA primary category and sub-
category and determined whether the investment was placed in the 
correct FEA category. We obtained additional information from agency 
officials about these discrepancies. 

To identify the actions agencies have taken to address the potentially 
duplicative investments we identified, we reviewed agency 
documentation, such as agency memos and working group charters, and 
interviewed officials. We also reviewed documentation and interviewed 
agency officials to identify what investments were consolidated, 
eliminated, or modified to decrease duplication and the estimated cost 
savings (if available) associated with these actions. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards required 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 objective. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Further Information on Potentially Duplicative 
Investments: 

The tables in this appendix provide information on the 37 investments 
that we identified as potentially duplicative within the three 
selected FEA functions (Human Resource Management, Information and 
Technology Management, and Supply Chain Management).[Footnote 32] 
Specifically, we identified 31 potentially duplicative IT investments 
at DOD and 6 at DOE. Highlighted investments indicate the instances in 
which the agency does not currently have plans under way to address 
the potential duplication. 

Table 8: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOD: 

Similar purpose: Contract Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Air Force--Contract Writing System; 
Description: Contract writing system for weapons systems and science 
and technology; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $4.663 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Air Force--Automated Contract Preparation 
System; 
Description: Provides management and preparation of purchase requests 
and amendments, solicitations and amendments, offers, contracts, 
orders, modifications, supporting documents relating to the 
acquisition process, required management reports, and interfacing 
capabilities; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $22.604 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Air Force--Contracting Information Database 
System; 
Description: Online reporting tool for logistics contracting data; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $9.952 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Air Force--Acquisition and Due In System; 
Description: Single repository of information for items centrally 
procured at the Air Logistics Center; 
maintains and processes data for contracting and requirements 
activities from purchase requirements initiation through life cycle; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $2.290 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Air Force--Contract Profit Reporting Systems; 
Description: Provides decision support and calculation assistance and 
reporting functions for Air Force and Army procurement actions to DOD 
and other major commands and government agencies; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $1.183 million. 

Similar purpose: Personnel Assignment Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Army--Enlisted Distribution and Assignment 
System; 
Description: Supports the management of the enlisted force to include 
assignments, deletions, and deferments. Users can create, validate, 
and modify requisitions. It provides enlisted strength management 
information, forecasting, and online query capability; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $11.545 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Army--Assignment Satisfaction Key; 
Description: Self service web-based system that enables active Army 
enlisted soldiers to directly update assignment preferences and allows 
soldiers to volunteer for duty locations and special duty; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.006 million. 

Similar purpose: Acquisition Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Naval Sea Systems Command Acquisition 
Capabilities; 
Description: Naval Sea Systems Command miscellaneous subsystems, 
projects, programs, special interest items, IT organizations, and sub-
initiatives in support of acquisition capabilities not delineated 
elsewhere; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $3.347 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Command Acquisition Capabilities; 
Description: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command miscellaneous 
subsystems, projects, programs, special interest items, IT 
organizations, and sub-initiatives in support of acquisition 
capabilities not delineated elsewhere; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $129.149 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Naval Sea Systems Command Systems 
Acquisition Management Capabilities; 
Description: Naval Sea Systems Command miscellaneous subsystems, 
projects, programs, special interest items, IT organizations, and sub-
initiatives in support of systems acquisition management capabilities 
not delineated elsewhere; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $3.486 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Command Systems Acquisition Management Capabilities; 
Description: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command miscellaneous 
subsystems, projects, programs, special interest items, IT 
organizations, and sub-initiatives in support of systems acquisition 
management capabilities not delineated elsewhere; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $271.084 million. 

Similar purpose: Aviation Maintenance and Logistics; 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Decision Knowledge Programming for 
Logistics Analysis and Technical Evaluation; 
Description: Functions as an inventory management, current and 
historical flight, maintenance, engine, and aircraft data repository 
and warehouse. It is also planned to replace other logistical or 
tracking systems as investment funds are made available; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $50.195 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Airborne Weapons Info System; 
Description: Central repository of airborne weapons maintenance and 
logistics information. It also provides full life cycle management of 
weapons systems; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $34.308 million. 

Similar purpose: Contract Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Integrated Technical Item Management 
Program; 
Description: System that supports the processing of procurement 
actions from requirements generation to the completion or termination 
of the contractual cycle. Includes all involved work from interactive 
information to generate procurement documentation; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $10.267 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Command Contract Information Management System; 
Description: Application used to administer information related to 
procurement solicitations, solicitation amendments, large and small 
contracts, delivery orders, contract closeout actions, and simplified 
acquisition information; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.858 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Command Systems Center Atlantic Contract Information Management System; 
Description: Internal contract management information system that 
provides real-time data on procurement acquisitions that are in the 
process of being awarded and all major activities in the contracting 
field supporting Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.022 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Contract Data Requirements List; 
Description: Part of Navy's paperless process that allows for the 
electronic preparation of Contract Data Requirements List required for 
contracting documents; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.539 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Acquisition Management Automation 
System; 
Description: Automated procurement system for the management of all 
procurement activities; 
FEA primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $4.889 million. 

Similar purpose: Housing Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--APPLY/SLATER; 
Description: Online means for junior and senior officers to apply for 
housing in the Navy Reserve; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.671 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Commander, Navy Installations Command 
Manpower/Billets; 
Description: Systems that support Manpower/Billet housing applications 
for Naval Installations Command; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $4.154 million. 

Similar purpose: Personnel Assignment Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Career Management System Interactive 
Detailing; 
Description: Integrated web-based architecture framework that will 
allow fleet personnel to manage distributions, requisitions, and 
assignments; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $14.180 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Officer Assignment Information System 
II; 
Description: Online officer personnel information and order-writing 
capabilities for use by officer assignment and placement personnel; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $1.014 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Enlisted Assignment information System; 
Description: Online enlisted personnel information and order-writing 
capabilities for use by enlisted assignment and placement personnel; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $1.408 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Reserve Order Writing System; 
Description: Standard Navy order-writing system for active and reserve 
officer and enlisted personnel; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $11.527 million. 

Similar purpose: Promotion Rating; 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Fleet Rating Identification System; 
Description: Provides a comprehensive assessment of sailors and their 
eligibility and/or qualification for ratings or jobs for specialized 
skills. Additionally, it supports the management of accessions for 
entry-level personnel, entry-level career path, and administration of 
the reenlistment process; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $2.749 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Departmental Systems; 
Description: Applications support the management of performance, 
performance evaluation, physical fitness program, human resources, 
personnel promotion, and the administration of recognition programs. 
For example, the Enlisted Selection Board System provides eligibility 
files for active duty and reserve senior enlisted members, and the 
Officer Promotion Administrative System maintains officer personnel 
data applicable to the promotion and selection board process; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.610 million. 

Similar purpose: Workforce Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Total Force Administration System; 
Description: Family of systems that support specific functions within 
the hire-to-retire end-to-end business processes to include functional 
areas such as permanent change of station assignments, retention, 
mobilization, manpower planning, personnel and pay, promotion and 
performance, family advocacy, and civilian workforce development; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $89.601 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Manpower Models; 
Description: Comprised of 13 models supporting core manpower planning 
processes of accessing, classifying, retaining, promoting, mobilizing, 
distributing, and assigning Marines; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $13.819 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Navy--Total Workforce Management System; 
Description: Web-based application that is used by human resources 
management officials to track and manage their workforce data 
requirements; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $5.704 million. 

Similar purpose: Civilian Personnel Management; 

Bureau--investment title: DOD enterprisewide--Executive Performance 
and Appraisal Tool; 
Description: Civilian personnel management system that will become the 
enterprisewide automated solution for senior professional performance 
management; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.591 million. 

Bureau--investment title: DOD enterprisewide--Defense Civilian 
Personnel Data System; 
Description: Corporate human resources system for civilian employees 
supporting the military departments and defense agencies; 
FEA primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $503.280 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Potentially Duplicative Investments at DOE: 

Similar purpose: Back-end Infrastructure; 

Bureau--investment title: Energy Programs--Office of Science 
Headquarters Back-end Infrastructure; 
Description: Management of back-end infrastructure at headquarters; 
FEA primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.250 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Energy Programs--Office of Science Oak Ridge 
Back-end Infrastructure; 
Description: Management of back-end infrastructure at the Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee, field site; 
FEA primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.648 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Energy Programs--Office of Science Chicago 
Back-end Infrastructure; 
Description: Management of back-end infrastructure at the Chicago 
field site; 
FEA primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $0.093 million. 

Similar purpose: Electronic Records and Document Management; 

Bureau--investment title: Environmental and Other Defense Activities--
Environmental Management Carlsbad Field Office Electronic Records and 
Document Management System; 
Description: Electronic records and document management system that is 
to ensure the capture, preservation, and indexing of information 
created either manually or electronically in support of all Carlsbad, 
New Mexico, field office programs; 
FEA primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $4.337 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Environmental and Other Defense Activities--
Health and Safety Electronic Document Review System; 
Description: Allows reviewers to track the review, redaction, and 
disposition of document review requests; 
FEA primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $1.418 million. 

Bureau--investment title: Environmental and Other Defense Activities--
Office of Legacy Management Record Management System; 
Description: Includes the Office of Legacy Management Records 
Management System and the Hummingbird Records Management System. It 
also covers the operations and maintenance services for Hummingbird 
Records and Document Management System; 
FEA primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Total IT spending for fiscal years 2007-2012: $1.003 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Miscategorized Investments: 

The tables in this appendix provide information on the 22 investments 
that we identified as incorrectly categorized by the selected agencies 
according to OMB's FEA.[Footnote 33] Specifically, we identified 13 
miscategorized investments at DOD (2 within Air Force, 2 within Army, 
3 within Navy, and 6 enterprisewide), 4 at DOE, and 5 at DHS. 
Highlighted investments indicate the seven instances in which the 
agency did not agree that the investments were miscategorized. 

Table 10: Miscategorized Air Force Investments at DOD: 

Investment title: Agency IT Resources; 
Description: Budget for IT resources that satisfy most IT hardware and 
software requirements, such as computers and scanners, not handled 
locally; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: IT Infrastructure Maintenance. 

Investment title: Hill Ogden Air Logistics Center 508 Anti-Submarine 
Warfare Warfighting Mission Area 2; 
Description: A grouping of the flight simulator training systems; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Human Resources Development. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: Miscategorized Army Investments at DOD: 

Investment title: Army Wide Information System Service Support; 
Description: Provides resources that improve and assure the 
reliability of electric power and other utilities. It also supports 
enterprise software licensing agreements; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: IT Infrastructure Maintenance. 

Investment title: Personnel Enterprise Support-Automation; 
Description: IT infrastructure maintenance in support of a range of 
human resource activities; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: IT Infrastructure Maintenance. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: Miscategorized Navy Investments at DOD: 

Investment title: ADT Picture Picture; 
Description: An access control and security management system that 
offers a high performance database, detailed history, and active 
reporting generation. It also keeps access control records for 
buildings, rooms, facilities, turn-styles, doors, lockers, and 
equipment; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Information Security. 

Investment title: Judge Advocate General's Services System; 
Description: Overall architecture for all Judge Advocate General 
system support services and applications; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: IT Infrastructure Maintenance. 

Investment title: Secured Enterprise Access Tool; 
Description: Provides single sign-on through common access card-based 
public key infrastructure certificates to a number of Pacific Fleet-
Area of Responsibility web-based applications; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Information Security. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

Table 13: Miscategorized Enterprisewide Investments at DOD: 

Investment title: Computer Aided Procurement System; 
Description: Application that converts telecommunications service 
requests and orders into telecommunications requirements that are used 
for vendor solicitation; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Services Acquisition. 

Investment title: Global Surface Distribution Management; 
Description: Port opening capability that provides the facility, 
automated tools, and communication infrastructure; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: IT Infrastructure Maintenance. 

Investment title: Industrial Security Facility Database; 
Description: A centralized web-based platform that manages the 
industrial security facility clearance process; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Administrative Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Security Management. 

Investment title: Infostructure; 
Description: Centrally procures IT hardware and logically consolidates 
certain transportation command systems. Additionally, it develops IT 
solutions to rapidly meet gaps in distribution processes; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: IT Infrastructure Maintenance. 

Investment title: National Defense University's IT Sustainment; 
Description: Funds for the day-to-day operations and maintenance of 
the National Defense University network, related software and its 
maintenance, information security and assurance of the network, and 
development of systems; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: IT Infrastructure Maintenance. 

Investment title: Rates and Tariffs File System; 
Description: Used to update telecommunications contracts information 
with defined tariffs and tariff charges; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Supply Chain Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Services Acquisition. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

Table 14: Miscategorized Investments at DOE: 

Investment title: Environmental Management Headquarters Central 
Internet Database; 
Description: Designed to give the general public access to information 
about DOE's nuclear waste management and cleanup program; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Environmental Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Environmental Monitoring and Forecasting. 

Investment title: National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos 
National Laboratory Software Applications Training Center; 
Description: This lab's software applications training center; 
Original: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Employee Performance Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Human Resources Development. 

Investment title: National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos 
National Laboratory Virtual Training Center; 
Description: This lab's virtual training center; 
Original: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Employee Performance Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Human Resources Development. 

Investment title: Office of Nuclear Energy Idaho National Laboratory 
Classified Cyber Life Cycle Management; 
Description: Provides for the management of data calls from DOE, the 
Inspector General, and other federal entities; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Security; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Information Management. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

[End of table] 

Table 15: Miscategorized Investments at DHS: 

Investment title: United States Customs and Border Protection-
Television; 
Description: Satellite television broadcasting system that supports 
mission-critical programs for the Office of Training and Development; 
Original: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Employee Performance Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Human Resources Development. 

Investment title: Federal Emergency Management Agency-Minor Personnel/ 
Training Systems; 
Description: Minor personnel and training systems such as Employee 
Knowledge Center and Complaints; 
Original: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Employee Performance Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Human Resources Development. 

Investment title: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement-
Password Issuance and Control System; 
Description: Supports the centralized issuance of user identification 
numbers and passwords to valid users of United States Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement application systems; 
Original: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Information Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Information and Technology Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Information Security. 

Investment title: Transportation Security Administration-Online 
Learning Center; 
Description: Provides delivery and maintenance of training records for 
Transportation Security Administration employees and contractors; 
Original: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Employee Performance Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Human Resources Development. 

Investment title: United States Coast Guard-Ship Control and 
Navigation Training System; 
Description: A ship-handling simulator used to train personnel on 
navigation, bridge team coordination, restricted water transits, and 
emergency procedures; 
Original: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Original: Sub-function: Employee Performance Management; 
Suggested: Primary function: Human Resource Management; 
Suggested: Sub-function: Human Resources Development. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office of The Assistant Secretary Of Defense: 
Networks and Information Integration
6000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-6000: 

January 20, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner, 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, GAO-12-241, Information Technology: Departments of Defense and 
Energy Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments,' dated 
December 15, 2011 (GAO Code 31 1251). 

Our comments on the draft report are attached. My point of contact is 
Mr. Kevin Garrison, 571-372-4473, Kevin.garrison@osd.mil. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David L. DeVries: 
Deputy Chief Information Officer for Information Management, 
Integration & Technology; 

[End of letter] 

GAO Draft Report Dated December 15, 2011: 

GAO-12-241 (GAO CODE 311251): 

"Information Technology: Departments Of Defense And Energy Need To 
Address Potentially Duplicative Investments" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Chief Information Officer to utilize existing transparency 
mechanisms, such as the information technology dashboard, to report on 
the results of the department's efforts to identify and eliminate, 
where appropriate, each potentially duplicative investment GAO has 
identified, as well as any other duplicative investments. (See page 
24/GAO Draft Report.) 

DoD Response: Concur. Addition information concerning some of the 
referenced investments is attached. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Chief Information Officer to correct the miscategorizations 
for the DoD investments that GAO has identified and ensure that 
investments are correctly categorized in agency submissions. (See page 
24/GAO Draft Report.) 

DoD Response: Concur. Additional information concerning the 
categorization of some of the referenced investments is attached. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

January 17, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of the Chief Information Officer 
(OCIO) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the General 
Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Information Technology (IT) 
Report, Departments of Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially 
Duplicative Investments. We understand this audit was conducted to 
determine whether the Department invested in duplicative IT 
investments and are committed to addressing the actions outlined in 
the report. 

DOE has implemented various investment review processes already to 
help identify potentially duplicative investments and to manage the 
cost, schedule, and performance of these investments. These reviews 
include our annual IT portfolio reviews, Quarterly Control Reviews, 
monthly IT Dashboard reporting, TechStat Reviews, and the Federal Data 
Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI). Through these reviews, the 
Department has identified opportunities for cost savings and 
efficiencies; however, we realize additional opportunities exist to 
reduce duplication and we are taking steps to eliminate these 
redundancies in various areas. 

Management Response to Audit Findings/Comments: 

The draft report mentions the FDCCI; however, it does not specifically 
discuss DOE's accomplishment in this area. To date, we have closed 
three federal data centers, resulting in millions of dollars of 
savings, with future plans to close additional data centers. We are 
also exploring the use of alternative financing opportunities, such as 
Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC), to supplement traditional 
appropriated funding to further consolidate and optimize data centers. 
We are considering an ESPC to facilitate the consolidation of data 
centers and server rooms at a few of our locations, as well as the 
transformation of our IT infrastructure to a more energy efficient and 
responsive computing environment, while reducing capital costs.
If successful, we hope other federal agencies can benefit from this 
same model when optimizing their data centers. 

The draft report also identified three specific categories of 
potentially duplicative IT investments. Additional information for 
each of the categories is provided below for your consideration. 

1. Back-End Infrastructure Investments: Prior to the GAO audit, the 
Office of Science (SC) realized potential duplicative investments may 
exist in the Office's back-end infrastructure. The Science Information 
Technology Initiatives Working Group (SC ITWG) has been meeting 
regularly to identify duplicative investments and investigate
the possibility of consolidating as much as possible from the three 
back-end infrastructures. It is expected that some of the back-end 
infrastructure will need to remain with these locations, given that 
Headquarters, Chicago, and Oak Ridge are located at three 
geographically different locations. 

2. Card Issuance and Maintenance and Logical Access Control (LAC) 
Investments: The necessary equipment for these investments was 
provided by DOE's Office of Health Safety and Security and is not 
duplicative since every employee and contractor at DOE SC located in 
Chicago, Oak Ridge, and Headquarters are required to have a badge. The 
costs shown in the report indicate labor costs for the deployment of 
this technology and this cost is not duplicative and could not be 
avoided given the three separate geographical locations. The three 
investments were listed individually on the Exhibit 53 not to show 
them as separate and distinct investments, but as budget line items to 
show where the funding was being distributed to implement cards and 
LAC requirements at the various locations. 

3. Electronic Records and Document Management: DOE has developed a 
departmental strategy for electronic records management whereby a 
small number of approved Records Management Applications (RMAs) will 
be identified for Department-wide use. Due to the diverse nature of 
our Program missions and their associated records requirements, it is 
not feasible to limit the department to a single RMA solution. The 
three RM investments cited in GAO's report are current Program Office 
RM systems that will remain in place while the departmental strategy 
is being implemented. 

On page 22 of the draft report, GAO also discusses the Department's 
TechStat sessions related to commodity IT services. However, the 
report does not discuss the TechStat sessions conducted by the Office 
of Environmental Management (EM) on its major investments in 
collaboration with the OCIO. EM is the first DOE program office to 
embrace the TechStat reviews as a management tool at the program 
office level. 

Management Response to Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: Utilize existing transparency mechanisms, such as 
the IT Dashboard, to report on the results of the department's efforts 
to identify and eliminate, where appropriate, each potentially 
duplicative investment we have identified, as well as any other 
duplicative investments. 

The OCIO will continue to actively monitor the Department's major IT 
investments on the IT Dashboard on a monthly basis, and utilize this 
tool, in addition to other internal investment review processes to 
identify, and if necessary, eliminate duplicative IT investments. All 
of the potentially duplicative investments identified by GAO in this 
report are non-major investments. Non-major investments are not 
tracked individually on the IT Dashboard, so we are unable to report 
our progress on addressing the potentially duplicative investments 
identified by GAO on the IT Dashboard. We will gladly continue to 
update GAO on our progress through other communication channels. 

In addition, to show the Department's commitment to increasing IT 
investment oversight, the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) recently developed the initial version of the Executive and 
Governance Model for Information Technology (EGMIT) in November 2011. 
The EGMIT will provide a mechanism for gaining insight, exercising 
oversight, and influencing management of IT assets. NNSA has also 
started a Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) awareness 
initiative in December 2011 to improve the quality assurance of major 
and non-major IT investment reporting. We are in the process of 
capturing all of our IT investments in an Enterprise Architecture 
repository in order to conduct an architectural review to ensure that 
future investments do not duplicate, interfere, or contradict existing 
IT investments. 

Recommendation 2: Correct the miscategorizations for the DOE 
investments we identified and ensure that investments are correctly 
categorized in agency submissions. 

On page 16 of the draft report, GAO references their September 2011 
report which was not issued prior to this current audit commencing. 
The report highlighted the limitations in the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) guidance that have hindered efforts to identify IT
duplication. Current OMB requirements to map to a single functional 
category within the FEA make it difficult to identify potentially 
duplicative investments. OMB agreed to revise their guidance on 
characterizing IT investments to ensure categorizations are clear and 
that it would allow agencies to choose second categories. OMB agreed 
to make these guidance changes in the fall of 2011 to provide clarity 
to agencies in characterizing investments. Before they could do this 
and agencies could react, the current audit was started. 

The OCIO continues to ensure investments are categorized correctly in 
agency submissions through the Department's CPIC and NNSA's EGMIT 
processes. Prior to submitting the Exhibit 53A to the OMB each year, 
the OCIO works closely with chief enterprise architects from each of 
the Program and Staff Offices to review the reported Federal 
Enterprise Architecture Primary Functions, Sub-functions, and Segment 
codes assigned to each investment. For this audit, the OCIO reviewed 
approximately 876 investments to ensure appropriate mapping of 
investments in the Budget Year (BY) 2012 Exhibit 53 submission. Only 
four of the 876 investments were identified as miscategorized, and we 
do not agree with all of GAO's recommended reclassifications. 

Regarding the two NNSA investments highlighted in the GAO report, 1) 
NNSA Los Alamos National Laboratory Software Training Center and 2) 
NNSA Los Alamos National Laboratory Virtual Training Center, our 
recommendation is to keep the sub-function categorization as "Employee 
Performance Management." The NNSA Los Alamos Site Office has informed 
the NNSA Program Office that it does not fund these two investments 
through Human Capital Management. Therefore, the Program Office feels 
the current sub-function is correct. 

We also believe the example of the EM Headquarters Central Internet 
Database (CID) being miscategorized on page 20 should be deleted from 
the report. As representatives from EM explained in a meeting with the 
GAO when this investment was raised, the CID exists as part of a 
DOE/Department of Justice settlement agreement with the Natural 
Resources Defense Council. The system is operational, as required by 
law, indefinitely or for ten years following the conduct of a second 
public meeting. EM maintains the database for public access, spending 
approximately $20,000 annually. It does not duplicate any 
functionality that exists in other IT investments and is a small 
business expense in relation to the other multi-million dollar
investments cited in the report. While we agreed the CID could be re-
categorized, we do not necessarily believe it should be. However, we 
changed the codes for the EM Headquarters CID and Office of Nuclear 
Energy Idaho National Laboratory Classified Cyber Life Cycle 
Management investments when we resubmitted the BY 2013 Passback 
Exhibit 53 Submission to OMB on January 10, 2012. Therefore, we 
believe this recommendation to be closed. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this report. If you 
have any questions related to this letter, please feel free to contact 
me at (202) 586-0166. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michael W. Locatis, III: 
Chief Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 25525: 

January 13, 2012: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Public Report GAO-12-241, Information Technology: 
Departments of Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially 
Duplicative Investments" 

Dear Mr, Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The Department is pleased to note that GAO did not identify any 
potentially duplicative information technology (IT) investments at DHS 
in its sample. We appreciate GAO's positive acknowledgment of the 
actions DHS has taken to identify and eliminate duplicative 
investments and the tangible results which are expected to yield more 
than $40 million in cost savings. The Department remains committed to 
eliminating any duplication in its IT investments as part of its 
efforts to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and 
efficiently. 

The draft report contained one recommendation directed to DHS, with 
which the Department concurs and has already implemented. 
Specifically, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
direct the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to: 

Recommendation: Correct the miscategorizations for the DHS investments 
we identified and ensure that investments are correctly categorized in 
agency submissions. 

Response: Concur. The DHS CIO has corrected the miscategorizations as 
suggested, and will correctly categorize these investments in future 
agency submissions. Corroboration of these changes was previously 
provided to GAO under separate cover. DHS considers this 
recommendation as implemented and closed. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland 
Security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286, or pownerd@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, the following staff made 
key contributions to this report: Shannin O'Neill, Assistant Director; 
Cortland Bradford; Javier Irizarry; Lee McCracken; and Kevin Walsh. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] As we previously reported, this amount does not include the IT 
investments of 58 independent executive branch agencies, including the 
Central Intelligence Agency, or of the legislative or judicial 
branches. See GAO, Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its 
Guidance on IT Investments, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-826] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 
2011). 

[2] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2011). 

[3] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-826]. 

[4] For the purposes of our analysis, we considered "duplication" to 
occur when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same 
activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. 

[5] The exhibit 53 identifies all IT projects--both major and non-
major--and their associated costs within a federal organization. 
Information included on agency exhibit 53s is designed, in part, to 
help OMB better understand what agencies are spending on IT 
investments. 

[6] Certain investments were not placed in groups because the 
investment descriptions were too broad. Additionally, IT investments 
identified as Funding Contributions were not included, since they are 
managed by other agencies. 

[7] The FEA is intended to provide federal agencies and other decision-
makers with a common frame of reference or taxonomy for informing 
agencies' individual enterprise architecture efforts and their planned 
and ongoing investment activities, and to do so in a way that 
identifies opportunities for avoiding duplication of effort and 
launching initiatives to establish and implement common, reusable, and 
interoperable solutions across agency boundaries. 

[8] OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information 
Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: December 2010). 

[9] 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. 

[10] 40 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. 

[11] Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

[12] According to OMB guidance, a major investment is a system or 
acquisition requiring special management attention because of its 
importance to the mission or function of the agency, a component of 
the agency, or another organization; is for financial management and 
obligates more than $500,000 annually; has significant program or 
policy implications; has high executive visibility; has high 
development, operating, or maintenance costs; is funded through other 
than direct appropriations; or is defined as major by the agency's 
capital planning and investment control process. 

[13] The 27 agencies are the Agency for International Development; the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, 
Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 
Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the 
Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Army Corps of Engineers; the 
Environmental Protection Agency; the General Services Administration; 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National 
Archives and Records Administration; the National Science Foundation; 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Office of Personnel Management; 
the Small Business Administration; the Smithsonian Institution; and 
the Social Security Administration. 

[14] The exhibit 300s provide a business case for each major IT 
investment and allow OMB to monitor IT investments once they are 
funded. Agencies are required to provide information on each major 
investment's cost, schedule, and performance. 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-826]. 

[16] Advance Policy Questions for Testimony of Elizabeth A. McGrath to 
be Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense, 
[hyperlink, http://armed-
services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/McGrath%2003-23-10.pdf] 
(Washington, D.C.: March 2010). 

[17] GAO, Border Security: Preliminary Observations on the Status of 
Key Southwest Border Technology Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-448T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 
2011). 

[18] GAO, OPM Retirement Modernization: Longstanding Information 
Technology Management Weaknesses Need to Be Addressed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-226T] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 
2011). 

[19] GAO, Information Technology: Better Informed Decision Making 
Needed on Navy's Next Generation Enterprise Network Acquisition, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-150] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 11, 2011). 

[20] The approximately 800 major IT investments total about $40.6 
billion for fiscal year 2011. 

[21] GAO, IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and Additional Efforts 
Are Under Way to Better Inform Decision Making, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-210] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 
2011); GAO-11-826; Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements 
to Its Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to 
Ensure Data Accuracy, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 
2011); Information Technology: OMB's Dashboard Has Increased 
Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701] (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 
2010); Information Technology: Management and Oversight of Projects 
Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-624T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 
2009); Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to Improve 
Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of 
Dollars, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1051T] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008); Information Technology: Further 
Improvements Needed to Identify and Oversee Poorly Planned and 
Performing Projects, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1211T] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 
2007); Information Technology: Improvements Needed to More Accurately 
Identify and Better Oversee Risky Projects Totaling Billions of 
Dollars, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1099T] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006); Information Technology: Agencies 
and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing 
High Risk Projects, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-
647] (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006). 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-826]. 

[24] We reviewed 11 percent of the total number of IT investments that 
agencies report to OMB through the IT Dashboard (810 of 7,227). The 
investments we reviewed represent approximately 24 percent of DOD's IT 
portfolio in terms of the number of investments reported to the 
Dashboard, 19 percent of DOE's, and 16 percent of DHS's. See appendix 
I for a complete description of our objective, scope, and methodology. 

[25] Within the three selected functions, we narrowed our review to 
the following seven sub-functions: Benefits Management, Organization 
and Position Management, Employee Performance Management, Information 
Management, Information Security, Inventory Control, and Goods 
Acquisition. 

[26] See appendix III for a complete listing of these investments. 

[27] Under Secretary of the Navy's memo of December 3, 2010, 
"Department of the Navy Information Technology (IT)/Cyberspace 
Efficiency Initiatives and Realignment" and September 19, 2011, 
"Department of the Navy Secretariat Information Technology Expenditure 
Approval Authority (ITEAA)." 

[28] OMB, FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document Version 2.3 
(Washington, D.C., October 2007). 

[29] According to OMB, the FEA is intended to facilitate 
governmentwide improvement through cross-agency analysis and 
identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for 
collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across 
agency programs. 

[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-210], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262], and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701]. 

[31] Certain investments were not placed in groups because the 
investment descriptions were too broad. Additionally, IT investments 
identified as Funding Contributions were not included, since they are 
managed by other agencies. 

[32] Within the three selected functions, we narrowed our review to 
the following seven sub-functions: Benefits Management, Organization 
and Position Management, Employee Performance Management, Information 
Management, Information Security, Inventory Control, and Goods 
Acquisition. 

[33] Additional details of OMB's FEA can be found at this address: 
[hyperlink, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea]. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

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

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.