This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-299
entitled 'Architect of the Capitol: Status Report on Implementation of
Management Review Recommendations' which was released on January 30,
2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
January 2004:
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL:
Status Report on Implementation of Management Review Recommendations:
GAO-04-299:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-299, a report to Congressional Committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) plays an important
role in supporting the effective functioning of Congress and its
neighboring institutions. In January 2003, GAO conducted a
comprehensive management review of AOC’s operations and made 35
recommendations to help AOC establish a strategic management and
accountability framework, improve its management infrastructure and
internal control, and address longstanding concerns. In February 2003,
the Conference Report mandated GAO to monitor progress being made on
the implementation of the 35 management review recommendations.
What GAO Found:
As discussed in GAO’s January 2003 report, many of AOC’s management
problems were long-standing and its organizational transformation
would take time to fully accomplish. Not surprisingly, AOC’s efforts
in addressing these initial management review recommendations is very
much a work in progress. Initial steps are being taken, but a great
deal more needs to be done. Moreover, greater effort will have to be
made if more timely improvements are to occur. Sustained commitment
and assertive involvement of AOC’s leadership is key to addressing
AOC’s long-standing weaknesses and instilling lasting change.
AOC is taking the first steps in the development of its management and
accountability framework, such as improving planning and
organizational alignment through its draft strategic plan. AOC is also
strengthening individual accountability for organizational goals
through its senior executive performance management systems, but more
progress can be made by aligning its employee performance management
system with mission-critical goals. AOC needs to take additional steps
to strengthen agencywide communications by providing opportunities to
gather employee feedback sooner than fiscal year 2005 and by
conducting a pilot of its congressional protocols.
AOC is making some progress in improving its management infrastructure
and internal control. AOC is addressing initial concerns about the
lack of consistent human capital policies and procedures. Also, AOC
has developed three broad-based action plans to achieve its strategy
of institutionalizing financial management best practices. However,
while efforts on individual action items associated with the three
action plans have begun, many are not scheduled for completion until
fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Much work remains to address unplanned
action items and complete ongoing efforts in improving financial
management. AOC is developing a new IT portfolio management process or
investment framework, which it plans to implement in fiscal year 2004
and is also taking steps to develop and use EA. However, while AOC is
generally implementing the kind of IT management reforms recommended,
GAO makes additional recommendations to ensure that mature investment
management and EA processes are developed and implemented.
Finally, AOC is addressing GAO’s concern about worker safety by
developing a hazard assessment and control policy, but this policy is
not expected to be fully implemented in all jurisdictions until May
2006. Until AOC completes this policy implementation and its
subsequent analysis in all jurisdictions, it will not be able to
develop a comprehensive picture of AOC hazards. AOC is also taking
steps to establish a project priority framework for better project
management and accountability. Also, AOC has made some progress toward
adopting a more strategic approach to recycling taking steps to
clarify the mission of the program and establishing goals as part of
its environmental program plan.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that AOC strengthen agencywide communications with
employees and congressional stakeholders.
GAO also recommends that AOC further improve its management
infrastructure internal controls in the management of IT by planning
for and implementing mature investment management and enterprise
architecture (EA) practices.
GAO provided a draft of this report to the Architect of the Capitol in
December 2003 for his review and comment. The Architect generally
agreed with our findings, although there are some areas of
disagreement in IT, worker safety, and recycling.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-299.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm,
202-512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
AOC Has Begun Establishing a Strategic Management and Accountability
Framework, but Communications with Employees and Stakeholders Can Be
Improved:
Recommendations for Future Action:
Progress Is Being Made in Establishing Management Infrastructure and
Internal Control, but Considerable Work Remains Before Effective
Information Technology Management Capability Will Be in Place:
Recommendations for Future Action:
AOC is Beginning to Address Long-standing Issues in Worker Safety,
Project Management, and Recycling:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Strategic Management:
Appendix II: Strategic Human Capital Management:
Appendix III: Financial Management:
Appendix IV: Information Technology:
Appendix V: Worker Safety:
Appendix VI: Project Management:
Appendix VII: Recycling:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol:
GAO Comments:
Tables:
Table 1: AOC's Strategic Focus Areas and Strategic Goals:
Figures:
Figure 1: Examples of Workforce Data That Are Collected and Analyzed by
Other Federal Agencies:
Abbreviations:
AOC: Architect of the Capitol:
BCA: Building Condition Assessments:
CFO: Chief Financial Officer:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
COO: Chief Operating Officer:
EA: Enterprise Architecture:
EAC: Employee Advisory Council:
FMA: Facility Management Assistant:
GC: General Contractor:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
GSA: General Services Administration:
HRMD: Human Resources Management Division:
IT: Information Technology:
JHA: Job Hazard Analysis:
JOSH: Jurisdiction Occupational Safety and Health:
NAS: National Academy of Sciences:
OAP: Office of the Attending Physician:
OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
ODC: Office of Design and Construction:
OIRM: Office of Information Resource Management:
OSH: Occupational Safety and Health:
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:
PCES: Performance Communication Evaluation System:
PIC: Project Information Center:
PHS: Public Health Service:
PRP: Performance Review Process:
SED: Safety and Environmental Division:
SHEC: Safety, Health and Environmental Council:
WFPM: Office of Workforce Planning and Management:
Letter January 30, 2004:
The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jack Kingston:
Chairman:
The Honorable James P. Moran:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Legislative:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Trent Lott:
Chairman:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate:
In January 2003, we issued a management review of the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol (AOC) that contained 35 recommendations to
assist AOC in establishing a strategic management and accountability
framework to transform its organization.[Footnote 1] One of the most
important issues raised in our January 2003 report was the need for
Congress to create a Chief Operating Officer (COO) position to serve as
the central leadership point to improve AOC's executive decision-making
capacity and accountability. Congress accepted this suggestion. The
Architect of the Capitol appointed the first COO on July 28,
2003.[Footnote 2] As the first of our reports on AOC's implementation
of the recommendations contained in our January 2003 report, this
status report will provide the Architect and the agency's new COO with
information that can assist them in elevating, integrating, and
institutionalizing attention and accountability for certain key
management functions and leading transformational change within AOC.
The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act mandated GAO to monitor the implementation of
the recommendations of our January 2003 report.[Footnote 3] This report
discusses the progress AOC has made in establishing its strategic
management and accountability framework, instituting management
infrastructure and controls, and addressing long-standing program
issues. As such, this report does not directly address issues
associated with major AOC projects, such as the Capitol Visitor Center
and the Capitol Power Plant. Rather, the January 2003 report and this
status report concern the establishment of AOC's strategic management
and accountability framework and the management infrastructure and
internal control AOC needs to have in place to be successful in all its
efforts, including its major projects. Our January 2003 report
concluded that AOC needs to improve its internal control, which is
synonymous with management control, and is integral to any
organization. Internal control is comprised of the plans, methods, and
procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives, and that help
safeguard assets and prevent and detect errors and fraud. (For a
detailed assessment of AOC's progress addressing each of our 35
management review recommendations, as well as an expanded explanation
of the basis for our additional recommendations, see appendixes I
through VII.):
Results in Brief:
As we discussed in our January 2003 report, many of AOC's management
problems have been longstanding, and its organizational transformation
would take years to fully accomplish. Not surprisingly, therefore,
AOC's progress in addressing our initial recommendations remains very
much a work in progress. Initial steps are being taken but a great deal
more needs to be done. Moreover, greater effort will have to be made if
more timely improvements are to occur. Sustained commitment and
assertive involvement of AOC's leadership are key to addressing long-
standing weaknesses and instilling lasting change.
AOC is taking the first steps in the development of its strategic
management and accountability framework and addressing the concerns we
identified in our January 2003 report, such as improving planning and
organizational alignment through the development of its strategic plan.
This framework and the accompanying draft plans provide a basis for
AOC's ongoing effort to reassess its organizational structure to ensure
that it is aligned to meet its goals, as well as provide high quality-
-and accountable--products and services to its clients and customers.
AOC is also strengthening individual accountability for organizational
goals through its senior executive performance management systems, but
more progress can be made with aligning employee performance management
systems with agency strategic goals. On the other hand, a key component
of a successful transformation is ongoing communication with customers,
stakeholders, and employees; without effective communications,
transforming AOC will be difficult. In that regard, we are making
additional recommendations that AOC can take to strengthen agencywide
communications by providing opportunities to gather employee feedback
sooner than is currently planned and conduct a pilot of its agency
congressional protocols. (For details on the progress of the
development of AOC's strategic management framework, see appendix I.):
At the same time, AOC is taking the first steps towards improving its
management infrastructure and internal control. AOC is addressing our
concerns about the lack of consistent human capital policies and
procedures by drafting its absence and leave policy, providing
guidelines for premium pay eligibility, and completing its policy and
procedures for administering pay flexibilities. (See appendix II for
details on the progress of AOC's implementation of the recommendations
we made in strategic human capital management.) In addition, AOC has
developed three broad-based action plans that are intended to
accomplish its goal of institutionalizing financial management best
practices that support the effective delivery of programs and services.
These action plans, if properly carried out, represent a reasonable
basis for achieving AOC's goal of institutionalizing financial
management best practices that support the effective delivery of
programs and services. However, while efforts have begun to implement
individual action items associated with the three action plans, none of
the individual action items has been completed, and many are not
scheduled for completion until fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Also,
planning for certain action items has not yet begun, and for some is
not scheduled to begin until mid-fiscal year 2004. While AOC has made
progress since our January 2003 report, much work remains to address
unplanned action items and complete ongoing planning and implementation
efforts. (See appendix III for details on the progress of the
implementation of the recommendation we made in financial management.):
As part of its efforts to adopt a strategic, agencywide approach to
leveraging information technology (IT) to advance strategic agency
goals, AOC is developing an IT investment management process, which it
plans to implement in fiscal year 2004, and is also taking steps to
develop and use an enterprise architecture (EA), or modernization
blueprint, to guide and constrain its IT investments. These and other
IT management improvements demonstrate AOC's commitment to implementing
the kind of IT management reforms that are embodied in our
recommendations. However, AOC has much to do before it fully implements
our recommendations, and we are making additional recommendations to
better ensure that its investment management and EA efforts are
successful. (See appendix IV for details on the progress of the
implementation of the recommendations we made concerning information
technology management.):
Finally, AOC is also making some progress in its efforts to
institutionalize accountability concerning such long-standing issues
as worker safety, project management, and recycling. AOC is addressing
our concern about a lack of clearly defined and documented policies and
procedures for reporting hazards by developing a hazard assessment and
control policy, but the policy is not expected to be fully implemented
until May 2006. Until AOC completes the implementation of this policy
and its subsequent analysis across all jurisdictions, it will not be
able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC hazards. (See appendix V
for details on the progress of the implementation of the
recommendations we made on worker safety.) AOC is also taking steps to
establish a framework for better project management and accountability
by establishing a process to assign project priorities based on clearly
defined, well-documented, consistently applied, and transparent
criteria. (See appendix VI for details on the progress of the
implementation of the recommendations we made in project management.)
In addition, AOC has made some progress toward adopting a more
strategic approach to its recycling program by taking steps to clarify
the mission of the recycling program and establish program goals as
part of its environmental program plan, as we recommended in our
January 2003 report. (See appendix VII for details on the progress of
the implementation of the recommendations we made on recycling.):
The Architect generally agreed with the findings of our report,
although there are some areas of disagreement in information
technology, worker safety, and recycling. His written response is
reprinted in app. VIII.
On December 17, 2003, we provided the Architect with our draft report
for his review and comment. The Architect generally agreed with the
findings of our report, although there are some disagreements in the
areas of information technology, worker safety, and recycling issues.
His written comments and our response, which includes our comments on
the concerns raised by the Architect, are reprinted in app. VIII.
Background:
AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new
construction of all buildings within the Capitol Hill complex.
Organizationally, AOC is made up of a centralized staff that performs
administrative functions and "jurisdictions" that handle their own day-
to day operations, such as the Capitol building, the House and Senate
office buildings, the Library of Congress, and the Supreme Court, and
support the operation of Congress and its neighboring institutions. The
historic nature and high-profile use of many of these buildings creates
a complex environment in which to carry out this mission. AOC must
perform its duties in an environment that requires balancing the
divergent needs of congressional leadership, committees, individual
members of Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The
challenges of operating in this environment were compounded by the
events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting need for increased
security and safety.
Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
The Conference Report on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
2003, directed us to monitor and evaluate AOC's progress in
implementing its management plan that addressed the recommendations
contained in our January 2003 report. Accordingly, our objective for
this report was to assess the progress AOC is making in addressing our
findings and implementing our recommendations since the issuance of our
January 2003 report. In this regard, this report addresses the
recommendations we made in our January 2003 report, which concerned the
areas of strategic planning and management, human capital, financial
management, information technology, worker safety, project management,
and recycling.
To address our objective, we collected from AOC documentation of the
organization's implementation of our recommendations, which we used to
assess the progress made in addressing the issues underlying these
recommendations. For example, we reviewed documents such as AOC's draft
strategic and performance plans, draft communications plan, IT
investment framework, centralized IT management policy, initial
versions of EA products, occupational safety and health program plan,
master safety plan, project management evaluation and screening matrix,
and pollution prevention planning initiative, among others. We also
reviewed documentation to see that policies had been changed and
meetings had taken place. We also interviewed AOC officials to
determine the status of the organization's progress on our
recommendations. In addition, we also continue to meet regularly with
the COO to discuss the status of improvement efforts underway at AOC
and other issues of mutual interest and concern. We performed our work
in Washington, D.C., from July 2003 through November 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
AOC Has Begun Establishing a Strategic Management and Accountability
Framework, but Communications with Employees and Stakeholders Can Be
Improved:
In our January 2003 report, we stated that to better serve Congress,
AOC needed to build its capability to define goals, set priorities,
ensure followthrough, monitor progress, and establish accountability
for results to achieve its agenda for organizational transformation. We
made 11 recommendations that would help AOC establish a management and
accountability framework to lead and execute its organizational
transformation. To adopt the elements of the management and
accountability framework--strategic planning, organizational
alignment, communications, performance measurement, and strategic
human capital management--and build on efforts under way at AOC, we
recommended that the Architect of the Capitol:
* improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving
key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC's strategic
planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from
these efforts;
* strengthen accountability for results by developing annual goals,
measuring performance, and strategically managing human capital to
support achieving those goals and measures, such as creating a line of
sight by linking AOC's senior executive and employee performance
management system; and:
* develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications by completing the development of congressional protocols
with stakeholder involvement and continuing to regularly measure
customer satisfaction AOC-wide, among other strategies, such as
providing opportunities for employee feedback.
AOC is taking the first steps towards establishing our recommended
strategic management and accountability framework. For example, AOC is
making important progress in improving strategic planning and
organizational alignment by issuing draft strategic and performance
plans, though both are still subject to revision and approval by AOC's
new COO.[Footnote 4] Specifically, in March 2003, AOC issued its draft
strategic plan for fiscal years 2003-2007, which outlines four
strategic focus areas and corresponding strategic goals, and a draft
performance plan for fiscal years 2003-2007 with a particular focus on
fiscal years 2003-2004, which provides the specific action plans and
milestones for achieving the goals and objectives in the draft
strategic plan. This framework and the accompanying draft plans provide
a basis for AOC's ongoing effort to reassess its organizational
structure to ensure that it is aligned to meet its goals, as well as
create and administer high quality--and accountable--products and
services.
Many of the action plans and milestone dates that AOC has outlined in
its draft performance plan are scheduled to occur over the next several
years. Because AOC's organizational transformation agenda is a long-
term process, it is especially important that AOC leadership closely
monitor the interim activities, action plans, and milestones outlined
in its draft performance plan to ensure that it meets intended
deadlines and completes its transformation. As we noted in our January
2003 report, sustained top leadership attention is essential to
overcome an organization's natural resistance to change, marshal the
resources needed to implement the change, and build and maintain the
organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business.
In addition, AOC is also involving key congressional stakeholders, as
we recommended, in the development of its agency draft strategic plan
and is requesting input on the strategic direction of the agency. AOC's
high-level summary of the stakeholder reaction it received demonstrates
the value of such outreach. The need for a strong and continuing
communications strategy, an augmented fire safety strategy, and
creating a "living" planning and improvement approach that becomes part
of AOC's culture, were among the important issues raised by
stakeholders. Building on its strategic planning efforts, it is
important that AOC continues to involve key congressional, as well as
other stakeholders, in its strategic planning process, and keeps them
informed of any operational and organizational changes resulting from
this planning process.
In addition, AOC is making progress in strengthening individual
accountability for organizational goals--creating a line of sight--by
linking its senior executive performance management system, known as
the Performance Review Process (PRP), with its draft agency strategic
goals, as we also recommended. However, AOC has not made as much
progress in linking its employee performance management system, known
as the Performance Communication Evaluation System (PCES) to its agency
strategic goals. We have reported that high performing organizations
align performance expectations of top leadership with goals and then
cascade those expectations down to lower levels.[Footnote 5] According
to the Director of the AOC Human Resource Management Division (HRMD),
to align PCES with PRP, AOC plans to first consolidate its multiple
jurisdictional rating cycles into one cycle and then expects to
incorporate the agency's strategic goals into PCES by January 2005.
While consolidating the multiple jurisdictional employee performance
management cycles may be helpful in the administration of its
performance reviews, AOC does not need to wait for this consolidation
of performance review cycles to integrate its strategic goals into
PCES. By linking both its senior executive and employee performance
management systems to agency strategic goals, AOC can improve the
strategic management of its human capital and help achieve these goals.
Furthermore, AOC is progressing in establishing a communications
strategy and has developed its first agencywide communications plan, as
recommended in our January 2003 report, and included conducting
employee focus groups or surveys as part of that plan. According to the
Deputy Chief of Staff, funds to conduct AOC's employee focus groups or
surveys were requested after the fiscal year 2004 budget submission in
early December 2002. Therefore, AOC plans to conduct its employee focus
groups or surveys in fiscal year 2005. Our own experiences at GAO have
shown that obtaining employee views, such as through focus groups, need
not be a resource intensive effort and that in any case, the benefits
often far exceed the incremental costs. We recently reported that
because people are the drivers of any organizational transformation, it
is vital to monitor their attitudes.[Footnote 6] As such, AOC employees
need to see that AOC top leadership not only listens to their concerns,
but also takes action and makes appropriate adjustments to the
transformation in a visible and timely way. Because of the importance
of considering employee views during an organizational transformation,
we recommend that AOC not wait until fiscal year 2005 to conduct its
planned employee focus groups or surveys to gather feedback.
Moreover, as we recommended, AOC completed the development of its
congressional protocols on June 30, 2003, to strengthen communications
with key stakeholders and plans to meet with congressional stakeholders
to discuss these protocols and issue final protocols by March 31, 2004.
As stated in our January 2003 report, the purpose of agency protocols
is to help create a basic understanding between AOC and its
stakeholders of how AOC's efforts and resources can be targeted at the
highest priorities. Protocols also foster transparency about how
decisions and tradeoffs can be made and services deployed given the
competing demands that confront AOC, and how those demands and
resources require careful and continuous balancing. According to AOC
officials, although the development of its congressional protocols is
complete, implementing these protocols may be difficult because of
stakeholder concerns about their potential effect on decreasing levels
of service. In our January 2003 report, we noted that we had worked
closely with Congress on the development of our own congressional
protocols, along with careful pilot testing, and then implemented our
final protocols in 1999. AOC needs to discuss with its stakeholders how
the use of these protocols will help AOC balance immediate needs with
the achievement of overall agency strategic goals. A pilot test would
provide AOC and its customers an opportunity to test the application of
the protocols to the various types of customer needs AOC confronts and
to revise those protocols based on feedback obtained during the pilot.
Recommendations for Future Action:
To further progress in developing its strategic management and
accountability framework and improve communications agencywide, we
recommend that the Architect of the Capitol take the following actions:
* gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys
before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking
actions to address any identified employee concerns:
* conduct a pilot of AOC congressional protocols in one or more of its
jurisdictions to determine how well protocols would work in addressing
customer requests for service, while balancing the demands of multiple
requests with the strategic plan and corresponding project priorities
of the agency.
Progress Is Being Made in Establishing Management Infrastructure and
Internal Control, but Considerable Work Remains Before Effective
Information Technology Management Capability Will Be in Place:
In our January 2003 report, we made nine recommendations to help AOC
improve its management infrastructure and internal control to support
its organizational transformation initiative. In particular, we stated
effective internal control also could help AOC manage change and cope
with shifting environments and evolving demands and priorities. We
found that AOC would need to further develop and consistently apply
transparent human capital policies and procedures to help encourage
trust in management. Additionally, we stated that AOC must continue
improving its approach to financial management to support effective and
efficient program management by developing and implementing effective
budget formulation and execution policies and procedures that govern
capital projects and operating activities AOC-wide. We also noted that
AOC needed to adopt an agencywide approach to information technology
management to position itself to optimize the contribution of
information technology to agency mission performance. Specifically, we
recommended that AOC:
* strengthen and consistently implement its human capital policies,
procedures, and processes, such as developing a consistent agencywide
leave policy, assessing ways in which AOC management could better
gather and analyze data on employee relations issues, and establishing
a direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson and the
Architect;
* continue to improve AOC's approach to financial management by
developing strategies to institutionalize financial management
practices that will support budgeting, financial, and program
management at AOC; and:
* adopt an agencywide approach to information technology management by
establishing appropriate leadership and developing the policies,
procedures, and tools needed to effectively and efficiently manage
information technology resources across the agency.
AOC is taking the first steps towards improving its management
infrastructure and internal control, though in some cases, additional
steps need to be taken to fully address the findings of our January
2003 report. For example, AOC is making important progress in
addressing our recommendation to develop and implement agencywide human
capital policies and procedures by (1) drafting its employee absence
and leave policy, still pending review and approval by the Architect,
(2) providing guidelines to its workforce for determining eligibility
for Sunday premium pay, and (3) completing its policy and procedures
for administering pay flexibilities. The issuance of these policies is
important to addressing the concerns raised by AOC employees when we
conducted employee focus groups as part of our January 2003 report.
AOC's HRMD director told us that managers and supervisors are now being
held accountable through its employee performance management systems
for the consistent application of human capital policies and
procedures, such as leave granting, overtime, and giving employee
awards. As part of its management and oversight responsibilities of
human capital policies, it is important that AOC senior management and
HRMD continually monitor whether supervisors and managers are fairly
administering the policies concerning leave, rewards, and recognition.
AOC could also use information gathered during employee focus groups,
employee satisfaction surveys, and informal feedback from employees to
monitor employee views on the administration of these policies.
Furthermore, as we recommended, AOC has developed and begun to
implement strategies designed to institutionalize financial management
best practices. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has
established three broad-based action plans to improve financial
management practices at AOC: (1) build a foundation of financial
control and accountability, (2) assess the financial management
organization's current role in meeting mission objectives and organize
financial management to add value, and (3) improve forward-looking
analysis, train managers to understand how to use financial
information, and improve the partnership between financial management
and operations. These action plans, if properly carried out, represent
a reasonable basis for achieving AOC's goal of institutionalizing
financial management best practices that support the effective delivery
of programs and services. However, while AOC has established three
action plans to address our recommendation and begun efforts to
implement them, none of the individual action items associated with the
three action plans has been completed, and many are not scheduled for
completion until fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Furthermore, planning for
certain items has not yet begun, and for some is not scheduled to begin
until mid-fiscal year 2004. While AOC has made progress since our
January 2003 report, much work remains to address unplanned action
items and complete ongoing planning and implementation efforts.
AOC is also beginning to address its IT investment management
challenges. We found when preparing our January 2003 report that AOC
did not have an agencywide, portfolio-based approach to investment
management. Thus, we recommended that AOC develop a detailed plan to
guide the development and implementation of such an approach, focusing
first on controlling existing projects and establishing the management
structures to implement the portfolio-based project selection process.
Such an approach helps an organization measure the progress of existing
projects and continually assess proposed and ongoing projects as an
integrated and competing set of investment options.
In response, AOC is developing a new IT portfolio management process,
referred to as its investment framework, which it plans to implement in
fiscal year 2004. AOC's IT policy, signed by the Architect, states that
the framework is to provide an effective means to select projects that
best support the agency's mission. A draft version of the framework,
completed in October 2003, is organized along a "select, control, and
evaluate" model. To execute the select, control, and evaluate
processes, the framework specifies four management structures--an
architecture and standards committee, a project management board, a
business systems modernization office, and an investment review board,
with AOC defining the memberships of each of these entities. In January
2004, AOC stated that it has begun using the framework to control all
fiscal year 2004 investments. An agency official also told us that AOC
intends to fully implement the framework by May 2004.
AOC's actions partially address our recommendation. Specifically, we
recommended that the agency focus first on detailing and implementing
processes to control existing investments and that efforts to develop
and implement these processes be guided by a detailed plan. Although
AOC states that it has revised its project investment review board to
include key senior agency leaders, it has not focused first on
controlling existing IT investments. For AOC to implement effective IT
investment management processes, it is important that it follow our
previous recommendation on establishing a foundation for its investment
management framework. In building on this foundation, AOC needs to take
additional steps to help it execute the more mature investment
management processes provided for in our investment management
guide.[Footnote 7]
Moreover, AOC is taking steps to develop and use an EA. We recommended
that AOC develop, implement, and maintain an EA, starting with
developing an architecture policy, establishing executive oversight,
and designating a chief enterprise architect. Our experience with
federal agencies has shown that attempting to modernize IT environments
without an EA to guide and constrain investments often results in
systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly
to maintain and interface, and ineffective in supporting mission goals.
The development, implementation, and maintenance of architectures are
recognized hallmarks of successful private and public organizations
that effectively exploited IT in meeting their mission goals. In
contrast, we reported in our January 2003 report that AOC did not have
an EA or the management foundation needed to successfully develop one.
In response to our recommendation, AOC has issued an EA policy and
assigned the Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM)
responsibility for developing and maintaining the architecture. AOC has
also assigned responsibility for guiding and approving EA development
to the agency's senior policy committee, which is composed of
representatives from across the agency. AOC has committed to hire a
chief enterprise architect and will request funds to do so in its
fiscal year 2005 budget. AOC has also established a unit to provide
technical and managerial support, selected a framework to guide
development, and has prepared initial versions of its existing and
target architectures and a plan for migrating from its existing to its
target states. The agency states that the Deputy Chief of Staff has
recently approved these products.
Despite these steps, much work remains to satisfy our January 2003
recommendation aimed at establishing the management foundation for
developing and using an EA. For example, the agency has not yet hired a
chief enterprise architect and has not ensured that adequate resources
are devoted to the program, that architecture environments are
described in terms of performance and security, and that metrics are
used to measure EA progress. In addition to addressing these
architecture management foundational needs, AOC will need to take
additional steps to implement those architecture management practices
associated with effectively completing, maintaining, and implementing
an EA that are defined in our architecture management guide.[Footnote
8]
Improving AOC's organizational internal control will help to support
its overall management infrastructure, and AOC is doing so by issuing
consistent agencywide human capital policies and procedures. AOC is
also improving its overall approach to financial management by
developing action plans and beginning to implement these plans to
institutionalize sound financial management practices. AOC has also
recognized that adopting a corporate approach to IT management is a key
enabler of its strategy for organizational improvement, and it has
demonstrated its commitment to do so. However, until AOC completes and
implements plans for improvement that are consistent with all our
recommendations, it will be challenged in its ability to optimize the
contribution of IT to agency mission performance.
Recommendations for Future Action:
We recommend that to further its progress in the management of its
information technology, the Architect of the Capitol:
* plan for and implement those practices in our IT investment
management guide associated with corporate, portfolio-based investment
decision making, such as (1) implementing criteria to select
investments that will best support the organization's strategic goals,
objectives, and mission, (2) using these criteria to consistently
analyze and prioritize all IT investments, (3) ensuring that the
optimal investment portfolio with manageable risks and returns is
selected and funded, and (4) overseeing each investment within the
portfolio to ensure that it achieves its cost, benefit, schedule, and
risk expectations; and:
* plan for and implement the practices in our architecture management
guide associated with leveraging an EA for organizational
transformation, such as (1) ensuring that adequate resources are
devoted to the program (funding, people, tools, and technology), (2)
ensuring that the architecture describes both the "as is" and the "to
be" environments in terms of performance, (3) ensuring that
architecture business, performance, information and data, applications
and services, and technology descriptions address security, and (4)
ensuring that metrics are used to measure EA progress, quality,
compliance, and return on investment.
AOC is Beginning to Address Long-standing Issues in Worker Safety,
Project Management, and Recycling:
In our January 2003 report, we made 15 recommendations to help AOC
address long-standing program issues, worker safety, project
management, and recycling. We noted that both the strategic management
and accountability framework and improving management infrastructure
and other internal controls that support AOC's transformation cut
across the agency's programs and influence its performance in all areas
critical to achieving its mission, especially program areas of long-
standing concern to AOC's employees and congressional stakeholders. We
stated that the Architect declared safety his number one priority;
nonetheless, relating safety to other pressing priorities and
developing a clear strategy for how working safely will become the
cultural norm, was still a work in progress at the AOC. Similarly, we
reported that AOC had adopted industry best practices for project
management, but implementation was uneven and could benefit from
stronger leadership and improvements in performance and financial
management, priority setting, communication, and strategic management
of human capital. Finally, although AOC had recently made improvements
to the House and Senate recycling programs, contamination of recycled
materials remained high, and the goals for the overall program remained
unclear. Specifically, we recommended that the Architect of the
Capitol:
* improve the overall approach to worker safety in identifying
performance measures, clearly defining policies and procedures for
reporting hazards, establishing a consistent system for conducting
investigations and followup, establishing a safety training curriculum,
assigning clear responsibility for tracking worker safety employee
training, clarifying the role of the Office of the Attending Physician
(OAP) in helping AOC to meet its safety goals, and establishing a
senior management work group to routinely discuss worker compensation
issues;
* improve its overall approach to project management by developing a
Capitol Hill complex master plan and completing building condition
assessments, developing a transparent process to prioritize agency
capital projects, developing tools to effectively communicate
priorities and progress of projects, clearly defining project-
management-related measures, and aligning project management staff and
resources with mission-critical goals; and:
* improve its overall approach to its recycling program by developing a
clear mission and goals, developing a performance measurement system to
support accomplishing its recycling program, and examining the roles,
responsibilities, and accountability of its recycling program staff.
AOC is making progress in addressing long-standing areas of concern,
though much remains to be done. For example, to address our concern
regarding the lack of clearly defined and documented policies and
procedures for reporting hazards, AOC has plans to develop a Hazard
Assessment and Control policy, but it is not expected to be fully
implemented across all jurisdictions until May 2006. As a key component
in developing this, AOC (1) plans to identify hazards associated with
specific job tasks or Job Hazard Analysis (JHA),[Footnote 9] (2) has
created a schedule for completing each JHA, and (3) contracted with the
Public Health Service to identify hazards associated with job tasks in
each jurisdiction. According to AOC officials, the JHA process has been
completed for two jurisdictions, the Senate office buildings and the
Construction Management Division. While a majority of the jurisdictions
await full development and implementation of the Hazard Assessment and
Control policy, each jurisdiction continues to rely upon its own hazard
reporting processes. Also, AOC has established a plan and initiated
actions to improve the reporting of hazards, though the development and
implementation of agencywide policy and procedures for hazard reporting
is expected to take years to complete due to the time needed to develop
and fully implement this safety policy. Until AOC completes the
implementation of this policy and subsequent analysis across all
jurisdictions, it will not be able to develop a comprehensive picture
of AOC hazards. Additionally, until AOC completes the system-wide
process for investigating incidents across all jurisdictions, it will
not be able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC incidents,
including their causes.
Additionally, AOC continues to recognize the importance of a
disciplined project management process and is taking steps to establish
a framework for better project management and accountability. For
example, as we recommended, AOC has developed a process to assign
project priorities that is based on clearly defined, well-documented,
consistently applied, and transparent criteria. According to the Office
of Design and Construction Acting Chief, in February 2003, AOC worked
with a consultant to develop evaluation criteria to set the
prioritization of building projects. For prioritization purposes, each
project is evaluated in five areas, (1) preservation, (2) impact on
mission, (3) economic impact, (4) safety, and (5) security; and
assigned a score, based on a 100-point scale, in each area. AOC also
developed a matrix to provide criteria and guidance on how to evaluate
and score the projects in each of the five areas. AOC has created a
clearly defined, well-documented, and transparent process for
evaluating and prioritizing projects. While determining the priority of
projects will always be somewhat subjective, AOC has developed a
reasonable approach using a matrix to help raters score projects in
five areas. The matrix provides clear guidance when scoring projects in
each of the five rating areas. Since the evaluation criteria have not
yet been used to determine which projects will be submitted for
funding, it remains to be seen if it will be consistently applied.
Using this matrix and documenting the factors used in making the
priority decisions should help AOC support its capital improvement
program.
AOC has also made some progress toward adopting a more strategic
approach to its recycling program. For example, consistent with our
recommendations, AOC is taking steps to clarify the mission of the
recycling program and establish program goals as part of its
environmental program plan. In its March 2003 draft strategic plan, AOC
states that it plans to develop a long-range environmental program plan
that will establish program mission, vision, goals, and
measures.[Footnote 10] The draft strategic plan also states that this
environmental program plan would include clarifying the mission, goals,
and measures of the recycling program--a component of pollution
prevention. Although, according to its draft performance plan, AOC is a
few months behind its schedule, AOC officials told us that work has
begun on both of these projects--the baseline assessment and waste
stream analysis--and both projects will be substantially completed by
the end of 2003. These AOC officials also advised us that the results
of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis would provide a
basis for establishing program priorities and measuring progress. The
draft performance plan also provides for stakeholder participation in
this process both before and after the actual environmental program
planning process occurs, but this has not yet taken place. According to
AOC's draft performance plan, stakeholder involvement is scheduled to
begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, after completion of
the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis. AOC is taking the
first steps needed to developing its recycling program mission and
goals within the broader context of an environmental program plan,
which is reasonable and consistent with our recommendation.
Concluding Observations:
We noted in our January 2003 report that organizational transformation
does not come quickly or easily and the changes under way at AOC would
require a long-term, concerted effort. We stated that by drawing on the
full potential of its top leadership and management team, AOC could
begin to take immediate steps on a number of the concerns described in
our January 2003 report, although we recognized that AOC would be able
to implement some of these actions more quickly than others. Although
we have found that AOC is addressing each of our 35 original
recommendations either through its planning efforts or actions it has
initiated; a great deal more needs to be done. Moreover, greater effort
will have to be made if more timely improvements are to occur.
Sustained commitment and assertive involvement on behalf of AOC
leadership will be vital to ensure that it completes the many action
plans and reaches its milestones during the next several years to
achieve its organizational transformation.
As AOC works to establish its strategic management and accountability
framework, improve its management infrastructure, and address long-
standing areas of concern, it must continue to demonstrate that
progress is being made on each of our recommendations to help it
sustain the momentum needed to accomplish its organizational
transformation, particularly in improving communications with
employees and stakeholders and improving its management of information
technology.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report on December 17, 2003 to the
Architect of the Capitol for his review and comment. We received
written comments from the Architect on January 20, 2004. In response to
our draft, the Architect generally agreed with our findings, although
there are some areas of disagreement. Most of the comments were
technical changes based on information that was either not provided to
us during our review or related to activities that occurred outside the
timeframe of our review. We will assess these activities as part of our
future semi-annual reviews. Where appropriate, we have revised our
draft report in response to AOC's comments.
In his written comments, the Architect disagreed with our
characterization or assessment of progress in the areas of information
technology, worker safety, and recycling. Regarding information
technology, we reported that AOC had taken a number of steps to
strengthen investment selection processes but had not focused on
controlling its existing IT investments, as we had recommended. In
response, the Architect stated that AOC was now controlling existing
investments, noting several steps the agency had taken to do so. While
we do not question whether the agency has taken the steps it cited, our
position is that those steps either relate to investment selection
rather than investment control, as defined in our investment framework,
or the steps were missing necessary details describing how the
investment control function was being performed. Thus, we believe that
AOC still needs to focus on investment control.
Regarding worker safety, the AOC commented that GAO did not fully
capture the progress that has been made in creating an effective worker
safety and health program. We believe, however, that the information we
present in the report is an accurate portrayal of the information we
collected during the period of our review. New information brought
forth in the AOC's comments to our draft will be considered during the
next semi-annual review.
Regarding recycling issues, the Architect states that although the
contaminated materials had resulted in limited revenue generation, the
recycling contractor separated the contaminated material from the
recyclable material, and thus waste reduction did occur. We believe
that the language contained in our January 2003 report about the level
of waste reduction the AOC had achieved through its recycling efforts
is accurate as stated.
The Architect's written comments and our response are reprinted in app.
VIII.
This report is available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have further questions about this report, please contact me or
Steven Lozano at (202) 512-6806 or on [Hyperlink, mihmj@gao.gov]
[Hyperlink, mihmj@gao.gov] or [Hyperlink,
lozanos@gao.gov]. Major contributors to this report
included Justin Booth, Carole Cimitile, John Dale, Terrell Dorn, Maria
Edelstein, Elena Epps, Brett Fallavollita, V. Bruce Goddard, Carl
Higginbotham, David Merrill, Susan Pachikara, Masha Pastuhov-Pastein,
John Reilly, William Roach, Mark Trapani, Kris Trueblood, and Michael
Volpe.
Signed by:
J. Christopher Mihm:
Managing Director, Strategic Issues:
Jeanette M. Franzel:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance:
Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Strategic Management:
Our January 2003 report contained 11 recommendations to help the Office
of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) establish its strategic
management and accountability framework in the areas of strategic
planning and organizational alignment, communications, development of
congressional protocols by involving stakeholders, accountability
reporting through annual performance planning and reporting, customer
satisfaction, performance measurement, strategic human capital
management, and establishing action-oriented implementation goals.
This appendix describes AOC's progress to date in addressing each of
these recommendations. We provide a brief review of findings that led
to each recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to
implement the recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC's
actions address the underlying issues that caused us to make the
recommendation in our January 2003 report. We also make additional
recommendations to assist AOC in improving its communications with
employees and stakeholders.
Recommendation: Improve strategic planning and organizational
alignment by involving key congressional and other external
stakeholders in AOC's strategic planning efforts and in any
organizational changes that may result from these efforts.
Successful organizations ensure that their strategic planning fully
considers the interests and expectations of Congress and other
stakeholders. In moving forward with its strategic planning efforts, it
will be critical that AOC fully engage key congressional and other
stakeholders in further developing and implementing its strategic plan,
as well as revisions, to provide a strong foundation for any
organizational or operating changes that may be needed to implement the
plan. Key congressional and other stakeholder involvement will be
especially important for AOC to help it ensure that its efforts and
resources are targeted at the highest priorities.
Actions Taken by AOC: In March 2003, AOC issued a draft strategic
plan[Footnote 11] for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 that contained
AOC's four strategic focus areas and corresponding strategic goals
described in table 1. AOC also issued a draft performance plan[Footnote
12] outlining the specific actions and milestones to reach for
achieving the goals and objectives established in the draft strategic
plan. The draft strategic plan is to become operational through the
annual performance planning process, which translates strategic goals
into objectives, action plans, milestones, and performance measures.
AOC has developed an overall approach to managing organizational
performance that includes strategic planning, annual planning and
accountability reporting, and assessment of AOC's performance based on
meeting agencywide milestones and measures. AOC staff plans to meet
with stakeholders to discuss its plan. The draft strategic plan will be
the cornerstone of this process.
As stated in its draft strategic plan, AOC plans to update the
strategic plan every two years, annually produce a performance plan and
performance report, along with action plans supplemented by more
detailed functional plans developed along the same planning time line
(fiscal years 2003-2007). In its draft performance plan and based on
the strategic focus areas in table 1, AOC has developed corresponding
strategic objectives, action plans, milestones, and target dates to
help the agency achieve its strategic goals and monitor its progress.
Table 1: AOC's Strategic Focus Areas and Strategic Goals:
Strategic Focus Area: Facilities Management; Strategic Goal: Maintain
and preserve the National Treasures entrusted to our care by providing
timely and quality facilities management and related support services.
Strategic Focus Area: Project Management; Strategic Goal: Enhance the
National Treasures by planning and delivering timely and quality
projects.
Strategic Focus Area: Human Capital; Strategic Goal: Attract, develop
and retain diverse, satisfied and highly motivated employees with the
skills, talents, and knowledge necessary to support the agency's
mission.
Strategic Focus Area: Organizational Excellence; Strategic Goal:
Provide the highest quality services to our clients through improved
business programs, processes, and systems.
Source: March 2003 AOC Draft Strategic Plan.
[End of table]
In addition, AOC is also involving key congressional stakeholders, as
we recommended, in the development of its agency draft strategic plan
and is requesting input on the strategic direction of the agency.
According to AOC's Deputy Chief of Staff, as of May 2003, the Architect
and other senior AOC officials have met with 16 stakeholders, such as
Members of Congress, committee staff, and other legislative agency
staff members, and have scheduled seven meetings with additional
stakeholders to discuss the agency's draft strategic plan to obtain
stakeholder input. During these meetings, AOC officials reviewed with
stakeholders its mission, vision, and core values and the four
strategic focus areas along with their corresponding strategic goals.
AOC officials also asked stakeholders to comment on: (1) the positive
actions they would like to see the agency continue or expand, (2) the
areas needing improvement or missing entirely, (3) ways that AOC could
improve its relationship with the stakeholder, and (4) criteria used by
the stakeholder to judge AOC's performance.
The need for a strong and continuing communications strategy, an
augmented fire safety strategy, and creating a "living" planning and
improvement approach that becomes part of AOC's culture, were among the
important issues raised by congressional stakeholders. AOC planned to
incorporate the feedback received from stakeholder meetings into its
agency strategic and performance plans by December 31, 2003.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation
by improving its strategic planning process and providing more
specificity to its strategic goals and objectives, along with
developing milestone dates and activities to assist the agency in
monitoring its progress. AOC is also involving key congressional
stakeholders in the development of its draft agency strategic plan and
asking for input on the strategic direction of the agency. AOC's high-
level summary of the stakeholder reaction it received demonstrates the
value of such outreach. Building on these efforts, it is important that
AOC continue to involve key congressional, as well as other
stakeholders, in the strategic planning process and keep them informed
of any operational and organizational changes resulting from this
planning process.
Recommendation: Develop comprehensive strategy to improve internal and
external communications by providing opportunities for routine employee
input and feedback.
We reported that AOC could (1) strengthen its internal communications
by developing a communications strategy that would help AOC's line
employees understand the connection between what they do on a day-to-
day basis, AOC's strategic goals, and their individual performance
expectations, and (2) seek employee feedback and develop goals for
improvement. We also stated that one way of implementing such a
communication strategy is to conduct routine employee feedback surveys
and/or focus groups. As part of our January 2003 report, we used focus
groups to gather employee and supervisor perceptions about working at
AOC. These focus groups generated a wealth of valuable information to
AOC on employees' views on a range of issues including perceptions of
supervisory favoritism and inconsistency in the way that supervisors
applied awards, overtime, and leave policies. AOC noted that the use of
employee focus groups or surveys is one strategy it plans to use to
help achieve its human capital strategic goal of attracting,
developing, and retaining diverse, satisfied, and highly motivated
employees.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC published its draft agencywide Strategic
Communications Plan, 2003-2007 on August 29, 2003, and planned to
obtain comments from its key congressional stakeholders to complete
this plan by December 31, 2003. The draft communications plan
recognizes that communicating with employees, stakeholders, and other
customers is critical to achieving AOC's strategic goals and contains
three strategies: (1) educating employees on the agency strategic plan
and the change process AOC will use to achieve its strategic goals, (2)
communicating the agency strategic plan's goals and agency
accomplishments with congressional and external audiences, (3)
continuing to expand communications initiatives by considering the
development of correspondence policies and guidelines, a media contact
policy, and other directives to assure a clear line of communication
and a consistent message. AOC has developed strategies to communicate
with each of its identified customers and stakeholders, including AOC
employees, congressional and other public officials, and the visiting
public, dignitaries, other federal agencies, historians, and others. In
its communications plan, AOC has also noted that it will be important
to track the effectiveness and impact of communications initiatives by
conducting employee feedback surveys, employee focus groups,
stakeholder and client surveys and meetings, tracking word of mouth
comments, and correspondence.
According to its draft strategic communications plan, AOC plans to
initiate several actions to implement this communication strategy. AOC
plans to:
* publish more frequently the agency's employee newsletter, Shop Talk,
increasing the number of issues per year from four to six and to
feature more stories about AOC's strategic plan,
* conduct employee feedback sessions and/or focus groups every two
years,
* conduct employee site tours of major AOC projects, such as the
Capitol Visitor Center in fall 2003, and:
* explore sending taped video messages or webcasts from the Architect
to employees.
Additionally, according to the Deputy Chief of Staff, AOC will follow
up on the Architect's commitment, stated in his May 23, 2002 memorandum
to employees, to conduct employee focus groups, beginning in fiscal
year 2005. According to AOC's Deputy Chief of Staff, the need to
conduct an employee focus group was identified as part of AOC's draft
performance plan. However, the Deputy Chief of Staff stated that funds
to conduct AOC's employee focus groups or surveys were requested after
the fiscal year 2004 budget submission in early December 2002.
Therefore, AOC plans to conduct its employee focus groups or surveys in
fiscal year 2005, with the final analysis of these focus groups to be
issued in fiscal year 2005.
AOC also plans to communicate with congressional stakeholders and other
public officials by continuing to publish its Highlights Report and
begin producing an annual financial report and a quarterly capital
project report to congressional leaders and key staff, as well as
conducting continuous outreach to congressional press secretaries.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. The
development of its draft agencywide strategic communications plan is a
positive step towards improving and coordinating communication with its
internal and external audiences. Because people are the drivers of any
organizational transformation, it is vital to monitor their
attitudes.[Footnote 13] However, it is most important for employees to
see that top leadership not only listens to their concerns, but also
takes action and makes appropriate adjustments to the transformation in
a visible and timely way. However, AOC does not plan to hold employee
focus groups until fiscal year 2005, even though it is important that
AOC leadership obtain employee feedback on its transformation in a
timely manner. While AOC cites budget limitations as preventing them
from conducting employee focus groups or surveys earlier than fiscal
year 2005, our own experience at GAO when we obtained employee views,
such as through focus groups, showed us it need not be a resource
intensive effort. In any case, the benefits often far exceed the
incremental costs.
Additional Recommendation: We recommend to the Architect of the Capitol
that AOC gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or
surveys before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is
taking actions to address any identified employee concerns.
Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal
and external communications by completing the development of
congressional protocols by involving stakeholders.
In our January 2003 report, we noted that AOC drafted an initial set of
congressional protocols that would help ensure that AOC deals with its
congressional customers using clearly defined, consistently applied,
and transparent policies and procedures. At that time, AOC noted that
these protocols needed to be made consistent with the approach for
AOC's draft strategic plan, finalized, and distributed. We also stated
that AOC must continually involve its stakeholders in the development
of these protocols.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC completed its draft congressional protocols
on June 30, 2003 and plans to meet with congressional stakeholders in
the subsequent few months to discuss these protocols. AOC officials
stated that it may be challenging to implement these congressional
protocols because the agency's clients have become accustomed to
receiving immediate service and using an informal means of interacting
with AOC staff when requesting such services. AOC plans to issue its
final protocols by March 31, 2004.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. The
purpose of agency protocols is to help create a basic understanding
between AOC and its stakeholders about how AOC's efforts and resources
can be targeted at the highest priorities, as well as transparency
about how decisions and tradeoffs can be made and services deployed
given the competing demands that confront AOC, and how those demands
and resources require careful and continuous balancing. AOC needs to
discuss with its stakeholders how the use of these protocols will help
AOC to balance immediate customer needs with the achievement of overall
agency strategic goals. In our January 2003 report, we noted that we
had worked closely with Congress on the development of our own
congressional protocols, along with careful pilot testing, and then
implemented our final protocols in 1999. A pilot test would provide AOC
and its customers an opportunity to test the application of the
protocols to the various types of customer needs the AOC confronts and
to revise those protocols based on feedback obtained during the pilot.
Additional Recommendation: We recommend that AOC conduct a pilot of its
congressional protocols in one or more of its jurisdictions to
determine how well its protocols would work in addressing customer
requests for service, while balancing the need of multiple requests
with the strategic plan and corresponding project priorities of the
agency.
Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal
and external communications by improving accountability reporting
through annual performance planning and reporting.
In our January 2003 report, we noted that AOC could adopt the reporting
elements of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to
strengthen accountability and transparency by annually reporting
program performance and financial information. This is consistent with
the approach that we have taken with our own performance planning and
accountability reporting. Such results-oriented accountability
reporting would help AOC communicate what it has accomplished, as well
as its plans for continued progress, to its external stakeholders.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to AOC's draft strategic plan, the
agency plans to produce an annual performance plan at the beginning of
each fiscal year that outlines the specific actions, associated
milestones, and performance measures planned for the upcoming fiscal
year. In addition, as stated in the AOC draft strategic plan, this plan
is scheduled to be updated every 2 years, and at the end of each fiscal
year, AOC will publish an annual performance report that outlines
progress towards meeting agency goals, as well as the individual
performance measures. AOC also plans to integrate its performance
reporting cycle into the budget cycle, so that congressional
appropriators and other key stakeholders can use the information for
planning and resource decisions. In addition, AOC plans to provide an
annual financial report to congressional leaders and key staff.
AOC also plans to monitor its progress against the measures and
achievements of milestones through monthly assessment meetings with
agency senior executives and senior management team. AOC held its first
assessment meeting on June 23, 2003, to gather its progress on
milestones to date. According to the draft performance plan, AOC had
planned to report progress to stakeholders on September 30, 2003.
However, according to AOC officials, because the draft strategic and
performance plans had not yet been approved by the Chief Operating
Officer (COO), and thus the milestone activities were also not
approved, a September 30 meeting was not held with stakeholders.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
According to the AOC draft strategic and performance plans, AOC is
committed to implementing a strategic management framework including
issuing a strategic plan every 2 years, developing an annual
performance plan, and an annual performance report that discusses how
AOC is progressing on meeting its goals, as well as mid-year status
briefings. Meeting with congressional and other stakeholders to discuss
progress on the accomplishment of its milestones periodically is an
important part of establishing an annual reporting structure, as well
as communicating effectively with stakeholders to help AOC build its
management and accountability framework. Once the agency draft
strategic and performance plans are approved, AOC will be in a position
to hold its mid-year status briefings as indicated in its annual
performance plan.
Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal
and communications by continuing to regularly measure customer
satisfaction AOC-wide.
In our January 2003 report, we reported that in June 2002, AOC made a
concerted effort to gather the views of some of its clients through a
building services customer satisfaction survey for the Senate, House
Capitol building, and Library of Congress and planned to continue
conducting this survey annually. The purpose of the survey was to
obtain valuable feedback from AOC customers about the services
received. We recommended that AOC's continuing efforts to routinely
measure customer satisfaction AOC-wide with both its congressional
customers as well as other customers, such as visitors to the Capitol
Hill complex, would help AOC identify its service quality strengths,
performance gaps, and improvement opportunities.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to documents we reviewed, as a result
of conducting the June 2002 building services customer survey, AOC
reported back to each jurisdiction in March 2003 the actions it had
taken to improve building services. In June 2003, AOC administered its
second building services customer satisfaction survey for the Senate,
House, Capitol building, and Library of Congress jurisdictions.
According to its draft performance plan and letters accompanying the
second customer satisfaction survey, AOC expected to report the final
results of this second building services customer satisfaction survey
in December 31, 2003. The Architect also stated in these letters that
AOC will use the results of these customer satisfaction surveys to
identify service improvement initiatives and priorities for action that
will be incorporated into the AOC business plan, as well as monitor the
quality of AOC services and the progress of improvement initiatives.
According to the Deputy Chief of Staff, AOC is planning to conduct its
customer survey annually.
GAO Analysis: AOC has fulfilled our recommendation because it has taken
actions based on the 2002 customer satisfaction survey, continues to
measure customer satisfaction in 2003, and plans to conduct an annual
customer survey.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and strategic human
capital management by developing annual goals and measuring
performance.
Measuring performance enables an organization to track its progress in
achieving its goals, gives managers crucial information on which to
guide their organizational and management decisions, creates powerful
incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior, and
helps to assure accountability. Developing annual performance goals
that provide a connection between the long-term strategic goals in the
strategic plan and the day-to-day activities of managers and staff
members will help AOC establish a management and accountability
framework and reporting system that is needed for organizational
transformation.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to its draft strategic plan, AOC's
performance measurement approach is to adopt specific strategies and
practices to move towards business decision making that is supported by
performance data, using both qualitative and quantitative performance
measures to demonstrate progress towards achievement of its strategic
goals and objectives. AOC has identified a number of high-level
agencywide performance measures to monitor and evaluate the success of
its work corresponding to its four strategic focus areas: facilities
management, project management, human capital, and organizational
excellence. AOC plans to adopt specific strategies and practices to
move towards decision-making that is supported by performance data,
using both qualitative and quantitative performance measures to
demonstrate progress towards its strategic goals and objectives.
According to AOC's draft strategic plan, the performance measures to be
developed will serve as the basis for the annual performance goals that
connect its strategic goals to the day-to-day work of AOC employees.
The high-level agencywide measurement areas used to monitor AOC's
success, and for which AOC leaders will be held accountable, have been
identified as follows: client satisfaction, employee satisfaction,
projects on-time, projects on-budget, project quality, facility
maintenance, asset preservation, employee safety, clean audit,
recycling, and budget execution. According to the AOC draft strategic
plan, the targets will establish standards for desired performance on
each measure. However, the specific metrics and the methodology to
obtain data for each of these areas, as well as the targets for each
measure, have not yet been developed. In July 2003, AOC hired a
management analyst to help create more specific program-level measures,
corresponding to agency-level performance measures described
previously, that will form the basis of an agencywide performance
measurement system.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
AOC has begun to institutionalize important elements of its strategic
management and accountability framework by developing annual goals and
issuing its strategic and performance plans. As such, AOC has taken its
first steps towards identifying high-level agencywide measures and has
committed to creating a more specific performance measurement system to
help the agency track its own progress in meeting its strategic goals
and keeping key stakeholders informed. The creation of a performance
measurement system will be essential to helping AOC track and report on
its agencywide performance measures. Our analyses in Appendixes V, VI,
and VII that assess AOC's key program issues, worker safety, project
management, and recycling cite the lack of specific performance
measures as continuing critical issues for AOC to address.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and strategic human
capital management by creating a line of sight by linking AOC's senior
executive and employee performance management systems to mission-
critical goals.
Effective performance management systems can be strategic tools for
organizations to drive internal change and achieve external results.
These systems align individual performance expectations with
organizational goals.[Footnote 14] High performing organizations align
performance expectations of top leadership with goals and then cascade
those expectations down to lower levels. In our January 2003 report, we
noted that AOC had instructed its senior executives to incorporate the
agency's draft strategic or mission-critical goals and responsibilities
into their performance requirements, which describe how an individual's
work contributes to organizational goals and results. We recommended
that AOC align its employee performance management system, Performance
Communication Evaluation System (PCES), with its senior executive
performance management system, Performance Review Process (PRP), to
strengthen individual accountability for organizational goals.
Actions Taken by AOC: As of July 1, 2003, AOC reported that it
completed its PRP. Each senior executive is to be held accountable for
the following four performance requirements: leadership and management,
customer satisfaction, safety, and human capital management. Senior
executives are to identify the critical actions that pertain to these
performance requirements and support the achievement of specific
milestones as outlined in the agency's draft performance plan.
AOC's director of the AOC Human Resources Management Division (HRMD)
told us that when the recently appointed COO completes and reviews the
strategic plan and the agency's strategic goals, AOC will be able to
incorporate these strategic goals into PRP and subsequently link these
goals into PCES. This is to be completed by January 2005. According to
the HRMD director, to align PCES with PRP, AOC will need to coordinate
its multiple rating cycles into one cycle. The Senior Policy Committee
met on June 24, 2003, to discuss coordinating the performance rating
cycles and agreed to implement one standard performance rating cycle
beginning in January 2005 from January 1 to December 31 of each year.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
AOC is working to create the line of sight needed to link senior
executive performance with agency strategic goals by identifying
performance requirements for senior executives that are intended to
contribute to the achievement of the agency's draft strategic plan.
While consolidating the jurisdictional employee performance management
cycles would be helpful in the administration of performance reviews at
AOC, AOC need not wait for this consolidation to make important
progress in integrating its strategic goals into PCES. As AOC's
performance management effort moves forward, it will be important that
AOC adopt additional performance management practices that leading
organizations have used to enhance performance and ensure
accountability.[Footnote 15]
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and strategic human
capital management by establishing agencywide core and technical
competencies and holding employees accountable for these competencies
as a part of the performance management system.
In our January 2003 report, we recommended that AOC consider developing
core and technical competencies as the basis for its performance
management systems. Agencywide core and technical competencies can
serve as guidance for employees as they strive to meet organizational
expectations. The core competencies should be derived from AOC's
strategic plan and workforce planning efforts and reflect AOC's core
values. All employees should be held accountable for achieving core
competencies as AOC moves to transform its culture. We also suggested
that as AOC develops a cadre of managerial and professional employees,
the development of specific technical competencies can assist the
agency in creating and developing a successful leadership and
managerial team.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC's HRMD director told us that AOC is creating
a leadership development program that identifies competencies for
senior executives and agency managers. In addition, this draft
leadership program will identify training to match those competencies
and provide alternative training options to meet the program
requirements. According to the HRMD director, in September 2003, this
draft leadership development program was submitted for management
consideration by the Senior Policy Committee and is still pending
approval. The Director also told us that the identification of
competencies for all employees in a defined framework would begin after
the Office of Workforce Planning and Management (WFPM) is
established.[Footnote 16] AOC is also revising existing competencies
for shop supervisors. According to the HRMD director, she will be
working with the heads of the Office of Design and Construction and the
Procurement Division in fall 2003 to identify technical competencies
for project managers and contracting officers, respectively.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
AOC is taking the initial steps towards establishing competencies for
its senior managers and also developing the training opportunities to
help its managers achieve those competencies. Given the designated
organizational purpose of WFPM, it is appropriate that AOC plans to use
this office to help assess the competencies needed for employees, as we
noted in our January 2003 report that competencies can help form the
basis for an organization's selection, promotion, training, performance
management, and succession planning initiatives--all traditional
functions of a strategic workforce planning approach. We have found
that successful organizations include human capital professionals
acting together with agency leaders and line managers to develop
strategic and program plans to accomplish agency goals.[Footnote 17]
Through this joint action, agency and human capital leaders and their
staffs share accountability for successfully integrating strategic
human capital approaches into the planning and decision-making of the
agency. As WFPM is established, it is important that AOC adopt such an
approach.
AOC is also making progress towards the development of technical
competencies by working with its respective offices in developing
competencies for its project managers and contracting officers.
However, it is important that AOC continue the development of both its
technical and core competencies for all employees and ensure that these
competencies are tied to the agency's strategic plan. Part of the
typical competency development process is the validation phase, which
allows employees an opportunity to validate the accuracy of the defined
competencies. This validation process is critical to capturing the
competencies accurately and also gaining employee ownership and
acceptance of the competencies for incorporation into the performance
management system.
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and strategic human
capital management by developing the capacity to collect and analyze
workforce data.
Collecting and analyzing data are fundamental building blocks for
measuring the effectiveness of human capital approaches in support of
the mission and goals of an agency. The ability to collect and analyze
data will greatly enhance AOC's ability to acquire, develop, and retain
talent, while allowing it to effectively plan for the needs of its
workforce. AOC needs to develop a fact-based, comprehensive approach to
the collection and analysis of accurate and reliable information across
a range of human capital activities.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has created WFPM as described above, but has
not yet established the ability to collect and analyze workforce data.
According to the HRMD director, AOC does not plan to purchase any
system until WFPM is staffed, although AOC has been reviewing possible
vendor systems designed to help it collect workforce data.
GAO Analysis: AOC's plans are addressing our recommendations. However,
until the office is established and additional actions are undertaken,
we cannot fully assess its actions in response to this recommendation.
Moreover, AOC does not need to wait until it contracts with a vendor to
begin to identify and establish reliable data sources and collection
methods that will help to support its workforce planning and management
process. Early development of reliable data provides a baseline that an
agency can use to identify current workforce problems. Regular updating
of the data enables agencies to plan for improvements, manage changes
in the programs and workforce, and track the effects of changes on
achieving program goals. To ensure a data-driven, performance-oriented
approach to human capital management, senior agency officials,
including both program leaders and human capital leaders, can provide
oversight and accountability for the integration and alignment of the
agencies' human capital approaches. As shown in figure 1, federal
agencies collect and analyze a variety of information to support their
specific workforce planning efforts.
Figure 1: Examples of Workforce Data That Are Collected and Analyzed by
Other Federal Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Recommendation: Strengthen performance measurement and strategic human
capital management by identifying current and future workforce needs
and developing strategies to fill gaps.
AOC can benefit from strategically identifying its current and future
workforce needs and then creating strategies to fill any gaps.
Workforce planning efforts linked to strategic program goals and
objectives can help the organization better identify needs such as
ensuring a diverse labor force, succession planning for scarce skill
sets, and other competencies needed in the workforce.
Actions Taken by AOC: In our January 2003 report, we stated that AOC
recognized the need to strategically plan for its workforce and had
requested funding for four positions in its fiscal year 2003 budget to
create an organization and workforce management team reporting to the
Deputy Chief of Staff within the Office of the Architect. According to
AOC officials, AOC hired the Director of WFPM and filled one staff
position on October 7, 2003 and is recruiting for the remaining
workforce planning and management analyst positions. The Deputy Chief
of Staff told us that the COO would work collaboratively with WFPM to
focus on the assessment of AOC's skill mix, resource needs, and
succession planning for the agency.
GAO Analysis: AOC's plans are addressing our recommendations, but until
the office is established and additional actions are undertaken, we
cannot fully assess its action in response to this recommendation. It
is encouraging that AOC is working to establish this office that will
allow the agency to conduct workforce planning and analysis. As AOC's
workforce planning efforts move forward, AOC will naturally need to
develop an approach that best meets its organizational needs. Our work
looking at strategic workforce planning suggests that there are certain
principles that an organization should address irrespective of the
context in which planning is done. We have issued several reports that
discuss the following common core principles of workforce
planning.[Footnote 18]
* Involve top management, employees, and other stakeholders in
developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce
plan,
* Determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to
achieve future programmatic results,
* Develop strategies tailored to address gaps in number, deployment,
and alignment of human capital approaches that enable and sustain the
contributions of all critical skills and competencies,
* Build the capability needed to address administrative, educational,
and other requirements important to support workforce strategies, and:
* Monitor and evaluate the agency's progress towards its human capital
goals and the contribution that human capital results have made towards
achieving programmatic goals.
Recommendation: Establish action-oriented implementation goals over
the long term and a time line with milestone dates to track the
organization's progress towards achieving those implementation goals:
Our January 2003 report stated that AOC faces many challenges as it
transforms to become a more results-oriented, matrixed, client-focused,
and proactive organization. Making such fundamental changes in AOC's
culture will require a long-term, concerted effort. We also noted that
our recommendations covered a broad landscape of issues confronting
AOC, such as strategic planning, communications, strategic human
capital, financial management, information technology, as well as long-
standing issues in worker safety, project management, and recycling.
Establishing a strategic management and accountability framework and
developing management infrastructure and internal controls would help
AOC achieve its organizational transformation. Thus, it was important
to craft a comprehensive and integrated approach addressing AOC's
challenges and setting appropriate priorities, even though by necessity
it would have to be phased in over time.
Therefore, we recommended that it was essential AOC work with key
congressional and other stakeholders to establish action-oriented,
implementation goals over the long term, and a time line with milestone
dates to track the organization's progress towards achieving those
implementation goals. We also suggested to Congress that it consider
ways in which to elevate, integrate, and institutionalize
accountability for addressing management issues and leading
organizational transformation at AOC; one option was to create a
statutory COO or similar position for AOC to improve its executive
decision-making capacity and accountability.
Actions Taken by AOC: In the legislation that mandated we undertake a
general management review of the AOC, Congress also required that AOC
respond to our review by preparing a management improvement plan
addressing our study.[Footnote 19] To satisfy this congressional
requirement to create a management improvement plan addressing our
management review recommendations and our specific recommendation that
AOC create action-oriented implementation goals and a time line with
milestone dates to track AOC's progress towards achieving its goals,
AOC issued its draft performance plan in March 2003 for fiscal years
2003-2007 with a particular emphasis on fiscal years 2003-2004. This
draft performance plan includes specific action plans developed along
the same planning time line as the AOC draft strategic plan, as well as
the tactical-level actions, performance targets, and milestone dates
necessary to carry out agency-level strategies to achieve its mission-
critical goals. In the 2003 Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act,[Footnote 20] Congress created the COO position at AOC, and the
Architect of the Capitol appointed its first COO, who began on July 28,
2003.
GAO Analysis: AOC has fulfilled our recommendation by issuing its draft
performance plan, which establishes action-oriented implementation
goals over the long term and a time line with milestone dates to track
the organization's progress towards achieving those implementation
goals. The implementation of these two recommendations in tandem (1)
the creation of AOC's management improvement plan and (2) the
appointment of the COO position to help AOC elevate, integrate, and
institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and
leading its transformation, allow AOC to address issues across the
agency's programs and influence performance in all areas critical to
achieving its mission. Moving forward, it is critical that AOC complete
its draft performance plan and then use it as a basis for managing the
agency, provide progress reports to Congress, and assure AOC's
accountability.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Strategic Human Capital Management:
We made three recommendations in our January 2003 report to help the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its management
infrastructure and internal controls by strengthening its human capital
policies, procedures, and processes by developing a consistent
agencywide leave policy, comprehensively collecting and analyzing data
from its employee relations offices, and establishing a direct
reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson and the Architect. This
appendix describes AOC's progress to date in addressing each of these
recommendations. We provide a brief review of why we made each
recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the
recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC's actions
address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation
in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Strengthen AOC's human capital policies, procedures,
and processes by continuing to develop and implement agencywide human
capital policies and procedures and holding management and employees
accountable for following these policies and procedures.
Effective organizations establish clear and consistent human capital
policies with clearly stated expectations for both employees and
supervisors and ensure that there is accountability for following these
procedures accordingly. As mentioned, we conducted focus groups as part
of our management review and found that a majority of the focus group
participants perceived that AOC's supervisors applied awards, overtime,
and leave policies inconsistently and suspected supervisory favoritism
in making these decisions. Some focus group participants stated that
supervisors determined on their own when an employee was entitled to
sick or annual leave and inconsistently decided when some employees
could take off time from work. Further, a majority of focus group
participants felt that the Architect's Awards Program was not applied
consistently across jurisdictions and shifts for all employees.
Actions Taken by AOC: Since our January 2003 report, AOC has drafted an
agencywide absence and leave policy to "assure consistent treatment of
employees through the establishment of uniform procedures for the
administration of leave."[Footnote 21] This policy covers most types of
employee leave, such as annual, sick, family and medical, and absence
without pay. In September 2003, AOC submitted its draft leave policy to
the Architect for his review and approval. AOC has submitted its policy
and procedures for administering various pay flexibilities, such as
recruitment bonuses and retention allowances, superior qualification
appointments, and pre-employment travel expense reimbursements to the
AOC Office of Employment Counsel for review. On June 15, 2003, AOC
issued its final guidelines to supervisors and employees for
determining when employees are eligible to receive Sunday premium
pay.[Footnote 22]
In our January 2003 report, we reported that, in March 2002, AOC had
issued a policy containing responsibilities and procedures for
administrating its employee rewards and recognition program. The Human
Resources Management Division (HRMD) director told us that managers and
supervisors are held accountable for the consistent application of the
human capital policies and procedures, such as granting leave,
overtime, and employee awards in the Performance Communication
Evaluation System (PCES) within the performance requirement of
Supervision and Management.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation
of developing and implementing agencywide human capital policies and
procedures by issuing an absence and leave policy, providing guidelines
to its workforce for determining eligibility for Sunday premium pay,
and completing its policy and procedures for administering pay
flexibilities. AOC must continue to hold management and employees
accountable for following these policies and procedures through the
performance requirements in its performance management systems. As part
of its management and oversight responsibilities of human capital
policies, it is important that AOC senior management and HRMD
continually monitor whether supervisors and managers are fairly
administering the policies concerning leave, rewards, and recognition.
AOC could use information gathered during employee focus groups,
employee satisfaction surveys, and informal feedback from employees to
monitor employee views on the administration of these policies.
Recommendation: Strengthen AOC's human capital policies, procedures,
and processes by assessing ways in which AOC management could better
gather and analyze data from the various employee relations offices and
employee advisory council while maintaining employee confidentiality.
AOC has a number of offices, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity
and Conciliation Program Office, the Office of the Ombudsperson, as
well as an employee group, the Employee Advisory Council (EAC) formerly
known as the Architect's Work Team, whose function is to interact
directly with employees and can gather information regarding employee
concerns. In addition to the roles that these offices fill in resolving
the concerns of individual employees, each of these offices can also be
a valuable source for identifying general issues of agencywide employee
concerns. During our management review, we found that it was not clear
whether there was a coordinated approach to track patterns of
agencywide employee relations issues among these offices and EAC. If
this information could be collected and analyzed by AOC's senior
managers, it could be useful for alerting management to issues
affecting employee relations. We also noted that an agencywide tracking
method needed to be balanced to maintain employee confidentiality.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to the Deputy Chief of Staff and HRMD
director, there is a new objective in the AOC Human Capital Plan,
issued in December 2003 that allows for additional input into the
policy development review process from employee groups, such as EAC. In
addition, the HRMD director told us that in August and October 2003
representatives from the Offices of Labor Relations, Equal Employment
Opportunity and Conciliation Program, Human Resources, and the Office
of Employment Counsel met to discuss how to best shape information on
possible trends in employee relations issues among employees. According
to the HRMD director, this discussion centered on how to best share
information among these offices and what will be done with the
information when a trend is noted. AOC plans to establish a defined
process for a trial period on how best to share and examine employee
relations data and then reevaluate this process.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation
by holding meetings with the program offices that can provide employee
relations data and assessments of employee concerns at the agency and
by including an objective in its Human Capital Plan to solicit
additional feedback from its EAC. It is important that AOC continue
holding these meetings to discuss ways in which it can systematically
gather and analyze information about general employee concerns, while
maintaining employee confidentiality, and regularly bring these
concerns to the attention of senior management.
Recommendation: Establish a direct reporting relationship between the
Ombudsperson and the Architect consistent with professional standards.
Our January 2003 report assessed the ombudsperson position at AOC to
determine whether it adhered to the standards of practice for
ombudspersons established by professional organizations, including
embracing the core principles of independence, neutrality, and
confidentiality. We found that the AOC Ombudsperson reported to the
Administrative Assistant to the Architect of the Capitol or his or her
authorized designate, but not directly to the Architect. The Ombudsman
Association Standards of Practice define independence as functioning
independently of line management with the ombudsman reporting to the
highest authority in an organization. Furthermore, the American Bar
Association's ombudsman standards for independence state that the
ombudsman's office must be and appear to be free from interference in
order to be credible and effective.[Footnote 23] We recommended that if
the AOC Ombudsperson were to directly report to the Architect and not
through another senior manager, the core principle of independence
would be strengthened.
Actions Taken by AOC: The Deputy Chief of Staff told us that in the
future the Ombudsperson and Architect would have a direct reporting
relationship and plan to meet directly to discuss the Ombudsperson's
monthly status reports, though these meetings have not yet taken place.
He also told us in November 2003 that the current contract with the AOC
Ombudsperson expired September 30, 2003, and AOC is hiring another
contractor for the position and expects to fill the position in the
next few months. AOC officials also stated that the Architect may
choose to share the Ombudsperson's monthly report findings with the
Chief Operating Officer and other selected senior managers in AOC, such
as the Chief of Staff or her Deputy, as a followup to the
Ombudsperson's report.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation
to adhere to the standard of independence for the office of an
ombudsman, though these meetings have not yet taken place. We
recommended that AOC establish a direct reporting relationship between
the Ombudsperson and the Architect to be consistent with professional
standards, which suggests that the Ombudsperson report directly with
the highest authority in the agency, in this case the Architect. It is
appropriate for the Architect to also include the Chief Operating
Officer, as another one of the highest authorities in the agency,
during these monthly status meetings. According to the Ombudsman
Association's model job description under reporting guidelines for an
organizational ombudsman, "the ombudsman function is independent of and
separate from the human resource and other existing administrative
structures… and typically reports directly to the chief executive
officer or chief operating officer, with access to the board of
directors, if applicable." It is also appropriate for the Architect to
share the Ombudsperson's report with selected senior managers in the
organization. According to Ombudsman Association standards, the
ombudsman "may prepare periodic reports, either verbally or in writing,
on organizational trends and activities based on anonymous aggregate
data. These reports may also identify patterns or problem areas in the
organization's policies and practices and may recommend revisions or
improvements, and may assess the climate of the organization and can be
communicated in a general way to the organization's senior
management."
[End of section]
Appendix III: Financial Management:
In our January 2003 report, we made one recommendation to help the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) continue to improve its
financial management by institutionalizing sound financial management
practices. This appendix describes AOC's progress to date in addressing
our recommendation. We provide a brief review of why we made this
recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the
recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC's actions
address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation
in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Continue to improve AOC's approach to financial
management by developing strategies to institutionalize financial
management practices that will support budgeting, financial, and
program management at AOC.
In our January 2003 report, we noted that AOC's Chief Financial Officer
(CFO) had adopted our executive guide on world-class financial
management as a road map for improving financial management. According
to the CFO, the financial management component of AOC's March 2003
draft performance plan presents AOC's proposed actions, in response to
our January 2003 recommendation, to institutionalize financial
management best practices that support the effective delivery of
programs and services. Specifically, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) has established three broad-based action plans to
respond to this recommendation:
* build a foundation of financial control and accountability,
* assess the financial management organization's current role in
meeting mission objectives and organize financial management to add
value, and:
* improve forward-looking analysis, train managers in understanding how
to use financial information, and improve the partnership between
financial management and operations.
Build a foundation of financial control and accountability.
A foundation of financial control and accountability provides a system
of checks and balances and needed assurances that transactions are
appropriately recorded and reported, assets are protected, established
policies and procedures are followed, and resources are used
economically and efficiently for the purposes intended. In this regard,
this action plan involves leveraging audit resources and the financial
statement audit process to issue auditable financial statements,
developing an approach for assessing and improving internal controls,
and establishing inventory management and control procedures to ensure
accurate and useful information. The plan also includes developing
accurate operating and capital budget requests and related plans to
properly evaluate the execution of programs, as well as processes and
procedures needed to prepare financial and performance reports for
major programs and business segments.
Actions Taken by AOC: OCFO reports that planning for the issuance of
auditable financial statements has been completed, and implementation
is underway to issue an audited balance sheet for fiscal year 2003 and
a complete set of audited financial statements for subsequent fiscal
years. AOC has established an audit committee to oversee the audits and
has hired an external auditor to perform the initial audit and report
on related internal control issues. In addition, OCFO reports that
values have been established for property, plant, and equipment, and
that reconciliation procedures have been developed for all major
accounts. Various additional actions are planned by OCFO to support the
fiscal year 2003 audit of the balance sheet, including an automated
close of the accounting records and automated extraction of the
financial statements. Current completion dates are mid-fiscal year 2004
for issuance of the fiscal year 2003 financial statements (including an
audited balance sheet) and mid-fiscal year 2006 to receive an
unqualified audit opinion on the complete set of fiscal year 2005
financial statements.
About internal controls, OCFO reports that policies and procedures have
been developed for all major activities of the Accounting and Budget
Division, including guidance on funds control administration. Key
controls will be reviewed as part of the fiscal year 2003 financial
statement audit. AOC plans to respond to the auditor's report on
internal controls and issue a policy statement on internal controls by
September 30, 2004.
Concerning inventory management and control procedures, OCFO reports
that AOC has implemented an inventory accounting policy, developed
interim policies and procedures for inventory management and control,
and received bids for the purchase of a new inventory control system.
AOC plans to implement its new inventory system during fiscal year
2004.
About budgeting, OCFO reports that AOC has implemented operating and
capital budget processes for the development of the fiscal year 2005
budget estimates submission to Congress. These processes include (1) a
new capital planning program that standardizes and prioritizes capital
project submissions, (2) a budget screening process that incorporates
comparisons of prior-year spending trends for recurring programs, (3) a
stakeholder review that examines all budgets to the lowest
(suballotment) level, and (4) final review and approval by the
Architect. AOC's current planned date for having a budget approved as
submitted is September 30, 2007.
With regard to financial reports for major programs and business
segments, OCFO reports that coding needed to facilitate the preparation
of jurisdiction financial reports has been completed. AOC plans to
generate automated financial reports for fiscal year 2003 and quarterly
financial reports starting in fiscal year 2004. Actions needed to
develop and issue annual performance reports for major programs and
business segments, however, are not as far along. OCFO reports that
planning is expected to begin in mid-fiscal year 2004, once AOC's
performance plan is finalized. Currently, OCFO projects that it will
issue the initial annual performance report in fiscal year 2007.
Assess the financial management organization's current role in meeting
mission objectives and organize financial management to add value.
A financial management organization that meets its mission objectives
and adds value does so by providing products and services that directly
support strategic decision making and improving overall performance. To
build such an organization, this action plan calls for revising OCFO's
internal operating plan, developing a long-term workforce strategy to
ensure that financial managers have necessary data analysis skills, and
benchmarking OCFO processes against industry leaders and other federal
agencies to facilitate reengineering of costly, inefficient processes.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to OCFO, planning has begun on the
revision of the OCFO internal operating plan, which is currently
scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal year 2004. By mid-fiscal
year 2004, OCFO plans to begin developing long-term workforce
strategies to ensure that AOC financial managers have appropriate
financial analysis skills and to start reviewing and benchmarking
financial transactions and processes as a basis for streamlining and
reengineering financial processes. AOC plans to complete both of these
action items by the end of fiscal year 2005.
OCFO plans to issue a report on benchmarking efforts that will be used,
beginning in fiscal year 2006, to eliminate, streamline, and reengineer
costly and inefficient financial processes. Financial process changes
are expected to be ongoing at the end of fiscal year 2007, the cut-off
date for the 5-year performance plan.
Improve forward-looking analysis, train managers in understanding how
to use financial information, and improve the partnership between
financial management and operations.
Equipping managers with the skills and capabilities needed to
effectively use financial information in prospective analysis improves
the opportunity for meaningful partnerships between financial
management and operations. To this end, this action plan seeks to
establish a link between financial management and operations that helps
to provide meaningful information for managing and measuring cost and
performance. Specifically, this plan involves:
* integrating AOC's financial and operating systems to facilitate
annual program reviews,
* training managers to use financial information to improve operational
planning and decision-making,
* implementing a cost accounting system for financial reporting,
* placing financial managers in jurisdictions,
* stabilizing financial management system upgrades, and:
* developing a long-term operating plan.
Actions Taken by AOC: OCFO reports that planning has begun to (1)
integrate financial and operating systems to equip decision-makers with
relevant information and tools to perform ad hoc analysis, (2)
establish expectations and procedures for conducting annual program
reviews, (3) train managers to use financial information to improve
operational planning and decision-making, and (4) acquire and install a
cost accounting system for financial reporting.
Once financial and operating systems are integrated and expectations
and procedures for the annual reviews are established, OCFO will be
able to conduct its first annual program review. The review is
currently planned for fiscal year 2004; however, due to potential key
system integration issues, OCFO is currently considering rescheduling
the review for fiscal year 2006.
OCFO reports that many financial and procurement managers in the
jurisdictions and central office have been trained in appropriations
law, with further appropriations law training planned as an ongoing
program. Additionally, OCFO anticipates that planning for other
training can begin in mid-fiscal year 2004, with courses conducted
later in the fiscal year. Letters of authority to properly trained
managers authorizing them to conduct various financial activities are
currently scheduled for distribution by the end of fiscal year 2004.
AOC acquisition and installation of a cost accounting system is
currently scheduled for September 30, 2005; however, according to OCFO,
this step needs to be moved to fiscal year 2006 because AOC has
requested fiscal year 2005 funding for determining how it should
perform cost allocation, and for support in system set-up and testing.
OCFO reports that planning has been completed on efforts to establish
financial managers in jurisdictions, and the hiring of the first group
of these managers is underway with completion expected by the end of
fiscal year 2006.
With regard to financial management systems, OCFO reports that AOC
continues to make progress in implementing major phases of its
financial management system implementation plan, with the contracting
module and inventory system--the final two phases--planned for
production operations in October 2004. AOC's upgrade of the financial
management system is also scheduled for October 2004, with future
upgrades of major releases scheduled annually.
While plans are underway to revise OCFO's existing internal operating
plan, as discussed previously, efforts have not yet begun to develop
and issue a long-term operating plan. Completion of the long-term plan
is currently scheduled for September 30, 2007.
GAO Analysis: Since January 2003, AOC has made progress in addressing
our recommendation. It has developed and begun to implement three
broad-based action plans that are intended to accomplish AOC's goal of
institutionalizing financial management best practices that support the
effective delivery of programs and services. These action plans, if
properly carried out, represent a reasonable basis for achieving AOC's
goal.
However, none of the individual action items associated with the three
action plans has been completed, and many are not scheduled for
completion until fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Furthermore, planning for
certain items has not yet begun, and for some is not scheduled to begin
until mid-fiscal year 2004. With regard to the length of time needed to
complete individual action items, AOC management noted that they
represent a measured approach to improving financial management while
the agency's other processes and systems mature. While AOC has made
progress since our January 2003 report, much work remains in beginning
to address unplanned action items and complete ongoing planning and
implementation efforts.
OCFO has made progress in planning and implementing actions designed to
build a foundation of control and accountability. These efforts, most
of which are associated with preparing AOC's first auditable financial
statements, are well underway. OCFO also reports progress in planning
and implementing action items related to improving the partnership
between financial management and operations. However, OCFO reports only
limited progress on efforts to assess the role of AOC's financial
management organization in meeting mission objectives and to organize
financial management so that it adds value to the organization. The CFO
and his management team must ensure that proper planning begins where
needed and ongoing planning and implementation is completed to achieve
the goal of institutionalizing financial management best practices. In
addition, because many completion dates are not scheduled until fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, the use of interim dates by AOC for monitoring
progress would be beneficial. We will continue to monitor and evaluate
OCFO's progress in carrying out the actions needed to achieve this goal
and to fully address our recommendation.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Information Technology:
In our January 2003 report, we made five recommendations to help the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) adopt an agencywide
approach to IT management. These recommendations are (1) establishing a
chief information officer position, (2) developing and implementing
effective investment management processes, (3) developing,
implementing, and maintaining an enterprise architecture, (4) defining
and implementing effective systems development and acquisition
processes, and (5) establishing an effective information security
program. This appendix describes AOC's progress to date in addressing
each of our recommendations. It also provides a brief explanation of
why we made each recommendation, describes the actions that AOC has
taken to implement each recommendation, and provides our analysis of
whether AOC's actions address the underlying issues that caused us to
make the recommendation in our January 2003 report. It also provides
additional recommendations relative to investment management and
enterprise architecture management.
Recommendation: Establish a chief information officer or comparable
senior executive, with the responsibility, authority, and adequate
resources for managing IT across the agency, who is a full participant
in AOC's senior decision-making processes and has clearly defined
roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities.
Our research of private-and public-sector organizations that
effectively manage IT shows that these organizations have adopted an
agencywide management approach under the leadership of a chief
information officer, or comparable senior executive, who has the
responsibility and authority for managing IT across the agency. AOC had
a decentralized approach to management and spending in which each
organizational component controlled its IT assets.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has issued a centralized IT management
policy[Footnote 24] that assigns the OIRM director responsibility and
authority for managing IT across the agency and makes the director a
key participant in executive decision making, serving as the principal
advisor to the Architect in applying IT to improve business processes.
Also, the director's roles and responsibilities include controlling the
AOC IT budget and chairing the IT Project Management Board, which is
the project oversight body for OIRM projects. The director is
organizationally positioned to report to the agency's Deputy Chief of
Staff, who is a member of AOC's senior policy committee and also the
chairman of the investment review board, which is the approval body for
new IT investments beginning in fiscal year 2004. The director's roles,
responsibilities, and accountabilities also include overseeing and
guiding the development, management, and use of IT throughout the
agency.
GAO Analysis: AOC has fulfilled our recommendation. First, AOC has
established a senior executive (the OIRM director) with the
responsibility, authority, and resources for managing IT across the
agency. Second, by having the OIRM director's supervisor chair the
investment review board and sit on the senior policy committee, and by
giving the IT director budget control, the agency has made the director
a participant in senior decision-making. Third, AOC has defined in its
IT policy the director's roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities.
Recommendation: Develop and implement IT investment management
processes with the full support and participation of AOC's senior
leadership. Specifically, the Architect must develop a plan for
developing and implementing the investment management processes, as
appropriate, that are outlined in our IT investment management
guide.[Footnote 25] At a minimum, the plan should specify measurable
tasks, goals, time frames, and resources required to develop and
implement the processes. The Architect should focus first on the
management processes associated with controlling existing projects and
establishing the management structures to effectively implement an IT
management process.
On the basis of research of private-and public-sector organizations
that effectively manage their IT investments, our IT investment
management guide outlines a corporate, portfolio-based approach to
investment decision making. This approach requires that a sound
investment management process be able to (1) measure the progress of
existing projects and (2) continually assess proposed and ongoing
projects as an integrated and competing set of investment options. AOC
had not satisfied the components of either of these two major steps
and, as a result, did not have an agencywide, portfolio-based approach
to investment management.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC is developing a new IT portfolio management
process--called an investment framework--and plans to implement it in
fiscal year 2004. AOC's IT policy, signed by the Architect, states the
framework is to provide an effective means to select projects that best
support the agency's mission. The current version of the framework,
completed in October 2003, is organized along a "select, control, and
evaluate" model. In January 2004, AOC stated that it has begun using
the framework to control existing IT investments, using part of the
framework--the process used to score proposed investments' value and
risk--on all fiscal year 2004 investments. An agency official told us
that AOC intends to fully implement the framework by May 2004. To
execute the select, control, and evaluate processes, the framework
specifies four management structures--an architecture and standards
committee, a project management board, a business systems modernization
office, and an investment review board, and AOC has defined the
memberships of each.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. AOC's
draft investment management framework focuses on investment selection.
However, consistent with our IT investment management guide, we
recommended that the agency focus first on detailing and implementing
processes to control existing investments and that efforts to develop
and implement these processes be guided by a detailed plan. AOC does
not have a documented plan, with the associated tasks, goals, time
frames, and resources needed to implement the framework. Also, the
agency has not focused first on controlling existing IT investments.
According to our guide, to control existing investments, AOC should be
(1) operating an IT investment board responsible for controlling
investments that includes both senior IT and business representatives,
(2) providing effective oversight for ongoing IT projects throughout
all phases of their life cycle, (3) identifying, tracking, and managing
IT resources; and (4) ensuring that each IT project supports the
organization's business needs. In January 2004, AOC stated that it has
begun operating its project investment review board that has recently
been revised to include senior agency leaders (e.g., chief financial
officer and superintendents). AOC's framework addresses project
oversight but does not specify how it will identify, track, and manage
IT resources or ensure that projects support agency business needs.
Further, although it intends to fully implement its IT investment
management process by May 2004, AOC does not have a plan to do so that
focuses on controlling existing IT projects and fully defining and
implementing more mature investment management processes. Having such a
plan would be consistent with our IT investment management guide and
our recommendation for having a road map for achieving needed
investment management maturity progression.
Additional Recommendation: We reiterate our recommendation that AOC
develop and implement a plan that is consistent with our IT investment
management guide and thus focus first on the practices associated with
controlling existing IT investments. We also recommend that AOC plan
for and implement those practices in our IT investment management guide
associated with corporate, portfolio-based investment decision-making,
such as (1) implementing criteria to select investments that will best
support the organization's strategic goals, objectives, and mission,
(2) using these criteria to consistently analyze and prioritize all IT
investments, (3) ensuring that the optimal investment portfolio with
manageable risks and returns is selected and funded, and (4) overseeing
each investment within the portfolio to ensure that it achieves its
cost, benefit, schedule, and risk expectations.
Recommendation: Develop, implement, and maintain an enterprise
architecture (EA) to guide and constrain IT projects throughout AOC.
The Architect should implement the practices, as appropriate, as
outlined in the Chief Information Officer Council's architecture
management guide.[Footnote 26] As a first step, the Architect should
establish the management structure for developing, implementing, and
maintaining an EA by implementing the following actions:
* developing an agencywide policy statement providing a clear mandate
for developing, implementing, and maintaining the architecture;
* establishing an executive body composed of stakeholders from AOC
mission-critical program offices to guide the strategy for developing
the EA and ensure agency support and resources for it; and:
* designating an individual who serves as a chief enterprise architect
to develop policy, lead the development of the EA, and manage it as a
formal program.
Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to
modernize IT environments without an EA to guide and constrain
investments often results in systems that are duplicative, not well
integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and
ineffective in supporting mission goals. The development,
implementation, and maintenance of architectures are recognized
hallmarks of successful private and public organizations that
effectively exploited IT in meeting their mission goals. At the time of
our initial review, AOC did not have an EA or the management foundation
needed to successfully develop one.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC's centralized IT policy commits to
developing, implementing, and maintaining an EA and gives OIRM
responsibility for developing and maintaining it. AOC has also assigned
responsibility for guiding EA development and approving it to the
agency's senior policy committee, which is composed of representatives
from across the agency. According to the AOC Deputy Chief of Staff and
the OIRM director, a chief enterprise architect position was requested,
but not approved, in the fiscal year 2004 budget request, but the
position has been included in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. In
the interim, AOC has established a business systems modernization
office in OIRM to provide technical and managerial support for
architectural development. The agency also reports it has selected an
architecture framework, the federal EA framework; hired a consultant to
provide an architecture methodology and perform EA development work,
and selected an automated tool to support development. Thus far, AOC
has initiated activities to develop EA products, including completing
the initial version of the existing, "as is," and the target, "to be,"
architectures--as well as a plan that will map out the transition from
the "as is" to the "to be," in September 2003. AOC reports that the
Deputy Chief of Staff has since approved these products. The agency
also stated that it has developed a detailed plan addressing resource
needs for its EA effort, although we have not yet received a copy of
the plan. AOC's goal is to implement the target architecture by
September 30, 2009.
GAO Analysis: AOC is partially addressing our recommendation. AOC has
issued a policy on developing, implementing, and maintaining an EA;
established an executive board to oversee EA development, and assigned
responsibility to develop, implement, and maintain the architecture to
AOC's Chief Technology Officer until a chief enterprise architect is
hired. Thus, AOC has largely implemented our recommendations for
launching the architecture effort but needs to execute the next steps
toward completing, implementing, and maintaining an EA as detailed in
our guide.[Footnote 27]
Additional Recommendation: We recommend that AOC complete ongoing steps
associated with developing its EA and implement additional steps to
complete, maintain, and implement the architecture. In particular, we
recommend that AOC plan for and implement the practices in our
architecture management guide associated with leveraging an EA for
organizational transformation, such as (1) ensuring that adequate
resources are devoted to the program (funding, people, tools, and
technology), (2) ensuring that the architecture describes both the "as
is" and the "to be" environments in terms of performance, (3) ensuring
that architecture business, performance, information and data,
applications and services, and technology descriptions address
security; and (4) ensuring that metrics are used to measure EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment.
Recommendation: Require disciplined and rigorous processes for managing
the development and acquisition of IT systems and implement the
processes throughout AOC. Specifically, these processes should include
the following:
* quality assurance processes, including developing a quality assurance
plan and identifying applicable process and product standards that will
be used in developing and assessing project processes and products;
* configuration management processes, including establishing a
repository or configuration management system to maintain and control
configuration management items;
* risk management processes, including developing a project risk
management plan, identifying and prioritizing potential problems,
implementing risk mitigation strategies, as required, and tracking and
reporting progress against the plans; and:
* contract tracking and oversight processes, including developing a
plan for tracking contractor activities, measuring contractor
performance and conducting periodic reviews, and conducting internal
reviews of tracking and oversight activities.
Our experience with federal agencies has shown that not having and
following rigorous and disciplined development and acquisition
processes can lead to systems that do not perform as intended, are
delivered late, and cost more than planned. OIRM's existing information
system life-cycle guidance defined some of the key development and
acquisition processes, but did not address either risk management or
contract tracking and oversight, and only partly addressed quality
assurance and configuration management. Moreover, these processes had
not been adopted and implemented agencywide.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC awarded a contract in June 2003 to develop a
new agencywide information systems life-cycle methodology that is to
incorporate processes consistent with the Software Engineering
Institute's Capability Maturity Model® Integration.[Footnote 28] The
contract requires delivery of the methodology by January 31, 2004. OIRM
plans to pilot test the new life-cycle processes, obtain feedback from
these tests, and refine the processes as necessary before issuing
guidance and beginning implementation as an AOC-wide standard starting
March 31, 2004.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
By contracting for a new life-cycle methodology consistent with the
Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model®
Integration, AOC has taken action aimed at defining disciplined and
rigorous processes for managing the development and acquisition of IT
systems, including quality assurance, configuration management,
contract tracking and oversight, and risk management. AOC still needs
to ensure that it obtains a well-defined set of processes and that
these processes are in fact implemented by March 31, 2004, as planned.
Recommendation: Establish and implement an information security
program. Specifically, the Architect should establish an information
security program by taking the following steps:
* designate a security officer and provide him or her with the
authority and resources to implement an agencywide security program;
* develop and implement policy and guidance to perform risk assessments
continually;
* use the results of the risk assessments to develop and implement
appropriate controls;
* develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the
training; and:
* monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.
Our research of private-and public-sector organizations[Footnote 29]
recognized as having strong information security programs shows that
their programs include (1) establishing a central focal point with
appropriate resources, (2) continually assessing business risks,
(3) implementing and maintaining policies and controls, (4) promoting
awareness, and (5) monitoring and evaluating policy and control
effectiveness. Although AOC had taken important steps to establish an
information security program, much remains to be done, including hiring
an information security officer and an information security specialist,
before this program satisfies recognized best practices.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has filled its information security officer
position and, on May 30, 2003, issued a policy[Footnote 30] that gives
this official the responsibility and authority to establish and
implement an agencywide information security program. According to AOC,
most of the necessary security resources (staff) were in place to begin
the program as of October 9, 2003, and the agency has since filled the
remaining position with contract resources. Further, AOC has drafted
two additional policies, one mandating periodic risk assessments to
determine information system vulnerabilities
and use the results to institute appropriate controls,[Footnote 31] and
another mandating security awareness and training for all AOC system
users.[Footnote 32] According to AOC, issuance of these policies is
scheduled for March 31, 2004, and the agency plans to begin awareness
training by April 2004. In addition, the agency stated that its
comprehensive IT security plan is being revised and estimates that this
work will be completed in June 2004. Also, AOC plans to contract out
the development of audit and review procedures to monitor and evaluate
policy and program effectiveness; use AOC, contractor, and inspector
general staff to conduct risk assessments and audits; and contract for
an independent security audit of AOC systems by September 30, 2004.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
AOC has laid some of the foundation for establishing an effective
security program, such as designating an information security officer
and giving this official the authority to implement an agencywide
security program; but work remains to first define and then execute
this program. The key is for AOC to follow through on stated
commitments to provide proper resources for the program, finalize its
security policies, define processes for implementing the policies, and
implement them.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Worker Safety:
In our January 2003 report, we made seven recommendations to help the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its overall
approach to worker safety by identifying performance measures, clearly
defining policies and procedures for reporting hazards, establishing a
consistent system for conducting investigations and followup,
establishing a safety training curriculum, assigning clear
responsibility for tracking worker safety employee training, clarifying
the role of the Office of the Attending Physician (OAP) in helping AOC
to meet its safety goals, and establishing a senior management work
group to routinely discuss worker compensation issues. This appendix
describes AOC's progress to date in addressing each of our
recommendations. We provide a brief review of why we made each
recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the
recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC's actions
address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation
in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Identify performance measures for safety goals and
objectives, including measures for how AOC will implement the 43
specialized safety programs[Footnote 33] and how superintendents and
employees will be held accountable for achieving results.
At the time of our management review, 15 of AOC's 43 safety policies
had been written and approved by the Architect. However, the standard
operating procedures for these policies had not been approved, and
several jurisdictions were using separate standard operating procedures
that were unique to each jurisdiction. In addition, AOC had not yet
developed performance measures or interim milestones that could be used
to assess the implementation of these policies. Finally, AOC had not
fully linked senior manager and employee performance with the
achievement of its safety goals.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to AOC officials and documents we
reviewed, a number of steps have been taken to address this
recommendation. First, the number of safety policies has been reduced
from 43 to 34 to better reflect the type of activities conducted at
AOC. Second, AOC has drafted an Occupational Safety and Health Program
(OSH) Plan, which establishes the objectives, actions, and milestones
necessary to achieve the agency's safety and health goals. One
objective is to establish additional policies and procedures to ensure
AOC complies with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations and protects employee health. Third, within the draft OSH
plan, AOC has created a schedule for developing and implementing all 34
safety policies. Fourth, AOC is creating a standard template that
identifies the critical elements, such as the tools and training
requirements, for each policy.AOC is using the standard template to
help ensure that the safety policies are consistently implemented
across the 11 jurisdictions. Fifth, AOC has identified broader program
goals that demonstrate its commitment to worker safety. AOC is
establishing performance measures for each of the 34 safety policies to
demonstrate progress toward the safety program goals and objectives. In
addition, AOC has requested increases in the jurisdictional training
budget for AOC employees. Finally, AOC is using a safety performance
requirement within its PRP, senior employee performance management
system, and its PCES, employee performance management system, to hold
all senior managers and employees accountable for safety results.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
The draft OSH plan recognizes that implementation of AOC's 34 safety
policies will require an agencywide cultural transition that will take
a number of years of focused commitment to attain, including additional
resource commitments. While implementation of all 34 safety policies
had been targeted for completion by fiscal year 2005, this date has
been extended to fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 34] As of the beginning of
fiscal year 2004, no safety policy has been fully implemented.
The draft OSH plan identifies performance measures for some safety and
health objectives. For example, the draft OSH plan indicates a
performance measure for the objective "enhance employee awareness of
and involvement in all aspects of safety and health" and includes
publicizing the minutes from monthly meetings of jurisdictions to
discuss safety and health. However, this performance measure is not
fully developed or results oriented. To its credit, the draft OSH plan
does indicate that performance measures for many of the 34 safety
policies will be determined as each policy is developed, though many
of the safety policies will not be developed for a number of years.
[Footnote 35]
Implementation of the 34 safety policies, even under the extended time
frame, could be jeopardized according to AOC officials, if the
increased staff and funding needs to accomplish the plan are not met.
Four of the five jurisdictional superintendents we interviewed said
they would need additional staff to fully implement the safety
policies. In addition, both jurisdictional and central AOC officials
said the jurisdictional training budgets would need to be increased to
meet the training objectives established in the draft Occupational
Safety and Health Program Plan. Moreover, one AOC jurisdictional
official stated that if the request for additional staff members were
not approved, the implementation plan would likely be delayed beyond
fiscal year 2007. To the extent that AOC establishes a sound business
case for additional staff and funding, having the appropriate resources
in place to implement the safety policies will help AOC meet its time
frames.
AOC has been unable to meet the original targeted time frame (fiscal
year 2005) due to the need to revise the methodology for developing the
safety policies.[Footnote 36] This was mainly due, according to AOC
officials, to insufficient staff resources in the jurisdictions, as
well as the need for consistency across jurisdictions. Specifically,
AOC headquarters is developing a standard template for jurisdictions to
use rather than relying upon jurisdictions to create their own standard
operating procedures for each safety policy. While two of the safety
policy standard templates have been drafted, neither has been released
because the agency needs to make the procedures more user friendly for
front-line employees.
Although AOC has stated it intends to link performance measures to each
of the 34 safety policies, the data needed to successfully identify
individual measures have not been collected. In addition, training
needs identified in the draft OSH plan are dependent upon approval of
additional funding requests, if negative service effects are to be
avoided, according to AOC. Moreover, AOC officials stated the updated
time frame for full implementation of the safety policies may need to
be further extended to meet the training commitments identified in the
draft OSH plan.
AOC's efforts to further develop and use performance management systems
to help clarify accountability for safety results is an encouraging
sign. However, the system for evaluating front-line employees does not
yet contain specific objective standards and criteria for evaluating
individuals on safety issues. Including these would help ensure that
employees will be encouraged to report hazards, that supervisors will
take those reports seriously, and that senior managers will be
accountable for acting on these reports.
Recommendation: Establish clearly defined and documented policies and
procedures for reporting hazards similar to those that apply to injury
and illness reporting.
During our management review, we found that although AOC had a number
of mechanisms for involving employees in its safety program and
encouraged employees to report injuries and hazards, AOC lacked a
hazard reporting mechanism and moreover, some employees were hesitant
to report hazards to management because they were not sure how
seriously their supervisors would treat these reports. As a result, AOC
could not ensure that there was a complete reporting of hazards.
Actions Taken by AOC: First, AOC plans to develop a Hazard Assessment
and Control policy, one of its 34 safety policies, beginning October
2003 through June 2004 and fully implement the policy by May 2006.
Second, as a key component in developing its Hazard Assessment and
Control policy, AOC plans to identify hazards associated with specific
job tasks. AOC calls this task a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA).[Footnote
37] AOC has created a schedule for completing each JHA. In addition,
AOC has contracted with the Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service (PHS) to identify hazards associated with job
tasks in each jurisdiction. For all potentially hazardous conditions
identified, the job hazard analysis will include appropriate use of
personal protective equipment, medical surveillance, training, and
engineering controls.According to AOC officials, the JHA process has
been completed for two jurisdictions--the Senate and the Construction
Management Division. Lastly, while a majority of the jurisdictions
awaits full development and implementation of the Hazard Assessment and
Control policy and the Facility Management Assistant (FMA) system,
jurisdictions continue to rely upon their own hazard reporting
processes. The FMA system will (1) track and analyze the number and
types of hazards and (2) identify follow-up corrective actions to
ameliorate hazards. In addition, AOC plans to expand the capacity of
the FMA system by purchasing an incident investigation module. This
will allow AOC to track the investigation of incidents following
injuries, illnesses, fatalities, and near misses. The FMA system is
commercially available and contains a suite of software components. AOC
officials reported that these processes vary across jurisdictions and
involve formal reporting procedures and mechanisms, such as submission
of standard forms for reporting hazards, as well as informal measures,
such as e-mail messages and periodic employee meetings. In addition,
AOC officials discuss hazards as well as other safety and health issues
at meetings convened by AOC employee and managerial committees.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
While AOC has established a plan and initiated actions to improve
reporting of hazards, the development and implementation of AOC-wide
policy and procedures for hazard reporting is expected to take years to
complete due to the time needed to develop and fully implement this
safety policy. Notably, the Hazard Assessment and Control policy is not
expected to be fully implemented until 2006.
AOC has made some strides in its efforts to initiate a comprehensive
survey of hazards. Until AOC completes the implementation of this
policy and subsequent analysis across all jurisdictions, it will not be
able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC hazards. Additionally,
until AOC completes the system-wide process for investigating incidents
across all jurisdictions, it will not be able to develop a
comprehensive picture of AOC incidents, including their causes.
Recommendation: Establish a consistent AOC-wide system for conducting
investigations and follow-up.
During our management review, we found that although AOC had a number
of mechanisms to obtain employee involvement and encourage employees to
report incidents, accidents, and illnesses, the existing control
mechanisms could not ensure that all reports were treated consistently
across AOC. As a result, AOC could not ensure that there was a complete
investigation of incidents, accidents, and illnesses.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC plans to develop an incident reporting
policy, one of its 34 safety policies, to be fully implemented by May
2005. A key component of this policy is an incident investigation
module. The module is expected to track--in electronic form--data on
injuries, near misses, and property damage following an incident. AOC
officials told us they expect to purchase the module, as well as
complete the policies and procedures pertaining to incident reporting,
by March 2004.Beginning in March 2004, AOC plans to have one
jurisdiction test the incident reporting policy.
As mentioned previously, the incident investigation module will be a
component of AOC's integrated FMA system. Pending development of the
incident investigation module of the FMA system, jurisdictions will
continue to rely upon their own incident investigation methods. These
processes vary across jurisdictions and include formal reporting
procedures and mechanisms, such as submission of standard forms for
reporting injuries and illnesses, safety hotlines, and accident
investigation teams.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
While AOC has established a plan and initiated actions to improve the
reporting of incidents, the development and implementation of AOC-wide
policy and procedures for incident reporting is expected to take at
least a year to complete due to the need to fully develop a reporting
system that will track incidents. Until this occurs, jurisdictions will
continue to use separate systems for identifying and reporting
incidents. Additionally, until AOC completes the systemwide process for
investigating incidents, it will not be able to develop a comprehensive
picture of AOC incidents, including their causes, across all
jurisdictions. While the system takes an extended time to develop,
important information positioning the agency to develop proactive
strategies to avoid incidents is left untapped. Moreover, central
office safety staff will be able to view cross-jurisdictional data.
However, officials in two of the five jurisdictions we interviewed said
they could benefit from increased access to incident data from other
jurisdictions, beyond the limited information currently provided by
central office safety staff.
Finally AOC does not, at this time, have a definitive strategy to
integrate the FMA system with the system to generate work orders to
correct identified hazards. The lack of a hazard identification work
order generation link could lead to a missed opportunity to
strategically manage hazard reporting and the identification of
abatement actions. Furthermore, some jurisdiction officials told us
that having separate systems for reporting and abatement creates more
work for them. Having separate systems could discourage use of the FMA
system, thereby defeating its purpose. However, a senior AOC official
stated that further linkages between these separate systems are
possible as part of AOC's EA efforts.
Recommendation: Establish a safety training curriculum that fully
supports all of the goals of the safety program and further evaluate
the effectiveness of the training provided.
During our management review, we found that although AOC uses a
compliance-based approach to providing safety training, it would
benefit from targeting its safety awareness training to better motivate
employees at all levels to incorporate safety into all aspects of their
work.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to AOC documents we reviewed and
officials we interviewed, the agency has developed a Safety Training
Plan to provide guidance to all managers and employees to properly
identify and select training courses to ensure compliance with policy
requirements. The plan contains a training matrix that lists the
training for each safety policy with a training requirement, including
the list of courses, frequency of training, and target audiences (e.g.,
employees working in the electrical and masonry shops) for each safety
policy. The plan states that it is not intended to replace or supercede
specific training requirements that are delineated in individual safety
policies. In some cases, the course content is specifically tailored to
an individual jurisdiction and target audience, which will assist
supervisors and participants with relating the training to their work
environment. However, such tailoring has not been completed for all
courses. In addition, AOC uses formal methods to evaluate training,
such as a participant evaluation form, as well as informal methods,
such as following up with participants' supervisors to obtain feedback
on training sessions. Also, Safety Policy Managers audit courses and
provide feedback to course designers and instructors. Finally, the
fiscal year 2005 training budget request will include funds for
additional staff that AOC believes are necessary to support front-line
work while employees fulfill their training requirements.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
While AOC has taken some concrete steps to change the culture of
workplace safety through training, measures to assess the actual
effectiveness of these training courses on employee behavior have not
been developed. A senior AOC official also recognized the need to
better evaluate AOC's training system. AOC officials believe that if
the agency's fiscal year 2005 budget request for additional staff is
not met, then (1) the timeline for all employees meeting their training
requirements, as identified in the draft OSH plan, may need to be
extended or (2) AOC could experience a loss in productivity while
employees receive training. Finally, the FMA system, which will be used
to track and identify corrective actions for hazards and incidents,
will not be aligned to the training system to help identify and target
training needs to address high-risk areas.
Recommendation: Assign clear responsibility for tracking and recording
training received by AOC employees, including maintaining an inventory
of employees' certifications and licenses.
During our management review, we found that the procedures and
responsibilities for monitoring training requirements for the safety
program were not well defined. In addition, AOC safety and HRMD
officials had not established a systematic process to identify training
needs for individual employees to help ensure the safety program's
success.
Actions Taken by AOC: Although senior officials in the jurisdictions
are responsible for monitoring employee training needs, they cannot
access HRMD's database of AOC-sponsored training courses and employees
training attendance. According to AOC officials we interviewed, some
jurisdictions continue to track training information on their own,
which may create inconsistencies in reporting and lead to duplicative
record-keeping. In addition, we found that although AOC's draft Safety
Master Plan[Footnote 38] noted that an electronic reminder tool--called
a tickler--would be added to HRMD's training database to identify
training needs for individual employees, it has yet to be developed. A
senior AOC official told us that funds have currently been made
available to research the requirements needed to develop the electronic
reminder tool--now referred to as a data management system. The
official stated that the data management system will track whether
requirements in training, licensing, certifications, and medical
surveillance for employees have been met. AOC expects this system to be
operational by fiscal year 2005. AOC indicated that as part of its
effort to integrate agency goals and multiple data systems under its EA
plan, it intends at some point to develop an agencywide system that
will identify employees' training needs, including certification and
licensing requirements.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
Procedures and responsibilities for monitoring training requirements
for the safety program, while beginning to move in the right direction,
remain poorly defined. Although HRMD's database tracks and records
employee training, including training to meet licensing and
certification requirements, the database (1) does not proactively
identify training needed to maintain employees' licensing and
certification requirements and (2) is not accessible to the
jurisdictions. As a result, several jurisdictions had created and
continue to use separate systems to track employee training and
maintain certification and licensure requirements.Although AOC plans to
address employee training requirement gaps through the development of
its EA plan, it has yet to take any substantial steps to do so.
Recommendation: Clarify and explore the possibility of expanding the
role of the Office of the Attending Physician (OAP) in helping AOC meet
its safety goals, consistent with the broad responsibilities laid out
in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between AOC and OAP.
During our management review, we found that although OAP provides
important health and safety assistance to AOC, such as conducting OSHA-
mandated medical examinations on employees exposed to hazardous
substances, the role of OAP could be more clearly defined and expanded.
In particular, the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between OAP and AOC
allows a broader role for OAP in several areas, such as providing trend
information on the results of medical examinations.
Actions Taken by AOC: Over the past 6 months, an OAP representative has
been attending AOC's Safety, Health and Environmental Council (SHEC)
and Jurisdiction Occupational Safety and Health (JOSH) meetings and has
been involved in reviewing and commenting on AOC's development of 34
safety policies, particularly the policy concerning medical
examinations required for employees exposed to known hazards. In
addition, OAP has been reviewing recommendations for injured employees
who are attempting to return to work on "light-duty.":
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
While AOC has taken worthwhile steps to involve OAP in the development
of safety policies and the discussion of safety issues, it has not
identified or pursued other key areas where OAP could play a
significant role in enhancing efforts to ensure worker safety. For
example, AOC has not taken any concrete steps to obtain data or
analyses from OAP medical examinations that might identify health-
related trends. While AOC officials told us that confidentiality issues
might interfere with such efforts, no steps have been taken to address
and overcome this concern.
Recommendation: Establish a senior management work group that will
routinely discuss workers' compensation cases and costs, and develop
strategies to reduce these injuries and costs.
A senior management work group would provide staff in HRMD, the central
office, and the jurisdictions with a forum to discuss new and ongoing
claims and facilitate the exchange of information to further control
workers' compensation costs. At the time of our last review, HRMD used
injury data primarily for processing workers' compensation costs, and
central staff did not systematically analyze the data. Jurisdiction
staff, on the other hand, did not routinely receive data on costs
associated with injuries.
Actions Taken by AOC: Rather than create a separate work group, AOC
officials discuss workers' compensation costs at the SHEC meetings.
SHEC meetings are held each quarter and participants include senior
managers from HRMD, the central office, and the jurisdictions, as well
as JOSH representatives, an OAP representative, and a senior council
member. During the meeting, HRMD and its Workers' Compensation Program
Unit provide relevant data on workers' compensation issues, including
discussions on best practices that can be used to lower workers'
compensation costs.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation,
which was intended to ensure that senior management and other key
stakeholders routinely discuss data on workers' compensation. AOC plans
to develop new approaches to reduce workers' compensation costs based
upon these discussions. However, no solutions or new approaches to
address workers' compensation costs have thus far been developed.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Project Management:
In our January 2003 report, we made five recommendations to help the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its overall
approach to project management by developing a Capitol Hill complex
master plan and completing building condition assessments, developing a
transparent process to prioritize agency capital projects, developing
tools to effectively communicate priorities and progress of projects,
clearly defining project-management-related measures, and aligning
project management staff and resources with mission-critical goals.
This appendix describes AOC's progress to date in addressing each of
our recommendations. We provide a brief review of why we made each
recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the
recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC's actions
address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation
in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Develop a Capitol Hill complex master plan and complete
condition assessments of all buildings and facilities under the
jurisdiction of AOC.
Master planning is necessary to help AOC establish long-term
priorities, but progress has been slow. In July 2001, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations expressed concern that AOC needed to
develop a master plan for the Capitol Hill complex. Over a year later
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) held a planning workshop for AOC
to determine the scope of a Capitol Hill complex master plan. A key
component of a master plan is building condition assessments (BCA),
which are systematic evaluations of an organization's assets. When
conducted, BCAs must be carried out consistently across all
jurisdictions to help ensure that all assets are evaluated in the same
manner and that AOC-wide priorities can be set. We reported in our
January 2003 report that AOC had recently formed a condition assessment
team to develop a detailed statement of work for conducting BCAs.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to the Acting Chief for AOC Office of
Design and Construction (ODC), AOC received the NAS report in June 2003
and is developing the requirements for the Capitol Hill complex master
plan.[Footnote 39] The NAS study provided guidance on developing a
scope of services for a master plan. Based on more detailed work that
AOC has done in developing the scope for the master plan, AOC revised
its schedule to show the consultant being selected in February 2004 and
the final master plan being completed in December 2006.
AOC's Acting Chief of ODC said that AOC is completing the statement of
work for the BCAs. He said that AOC plans to award BCA contracts for
its three largest jurisdictions--the House, Capitol, and Senate--in
2003. According to AOC, the statements of work for the Capitol and
Senate BCAs have now been completed, and it expected to award the
contracts in December 2003. These building assessments are expected to
take about one year to complete. The Acting Chief of ODC said that the
BCAs for the other buildings under AOC management would be awarded in
fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation,
although, in its March 7, 2003, draft performance plan, AOC showed that
it planned to publish the final Capitol Hill complex master plan on
April 1, 2006. In addition, the current schedule shows the final plan
being completed 8 months later in December 2006. AOC's schedule shows
that most of the additional time, 6 months, was added so AOC can obtain
and incorporate comments and finalize the plan.
Completion of the BCAs is also behind the tentative schedule developed
in March 2003. The first BCAs were to be completed March 31, 2004. But
since not all BCA contracts are expected to be awarded until December
2003, and the work is expected to take about 1 year, it appears that
the initial BCAs for the three largest jurisdictions will not be
completed until the fall of 2004. Completion of the other BCAs will
depend on when funding is received. Since the BCAs are a key component
of the master plan, AOC will need to push to get these completed as
soon as possible so they can be integrated into the master plan. It is
important to recognize that once the BCAs are completed they should be
updated on a regular schedule.
Recommendation: Develop a process for assigning project priorities that
is based on clearly defined, well documented, consistently applied, and
transparent criteria.
During our management review, the lack of a transparent process to
prioritize projects was identified as a major weakness at AOC.
Priorities were determined on the subjective decisions made by
jurisdiction officials and not on predefined criteria. The only day-to-
day prioritization that was used was a "hot projects" list. Projects
were subjectively placed on this list based on time sensitivity and
high dollar volume; however, the process for placing projects onto this
list was neither formal nor consistently applied. We reported in our
January 2003 report that AOC lacked a process that can communicate,
both internally and externally, the trade-offs in prioritizing one
project over another or how individual projects fit within a broader
AOC framework.
Actions Taken by AOC: According to the ODC Acting Chief, in February
2003, AOC worked with a consultant to develop evaluation criteria to
prioritize building projects. For prioritization purposes, each project
is evaluated in five areas and assigned a score, based on a 100-point
scale, in each area. The areas that building projects are evaluated in
are:
1. preservation--preservation of historic or legacy buildings and the
importance of the Architect's stewardship role,
2. impact on mission--impact on mission/client urgency/ accommodating
new or changed mission,
3. economic impact--payback, cost savings, or cost avoidance,
4. safety--fire and life safety and other code, regulatory, or
statutory requirements,
5. security--physical security.
In working with its consultant, AOC developed a matrix to provide
criteria and guidance on how to evaluate and score the projects in each
of the defined areas. For example, when evaluating a project in the
area of preservation, 80 points may be given to a project that includes
the preservation of a highly significant historical feature, while only
20 points may be given to a project with less historical significance.
Projects are ranked based on the total number of points they receive in
all five areas. These criteria were developed after the fiscal year
2005 projects were submitted for the proposed budget, but according to
the AOC Deputy Director of Engineering, they then applied this criteria
to prioritize those projects. The prioritized list of projects was then
shared with the superintendents who validated the results of the
prioritization. For the fiscal year 2005 projects, the prioritization
was not used to determine which projects would be included in the
budget request, but only the order in which they would be done. He said
that in the future, when the prioritization is used to determine which
projects would be submitted for funding, there may be more discussion
about why projects were scored in a particular way.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing this recommendation.
AOC has created a clearly defined, well-documented, and transparent
process for evaluating and prioritizing projects. While determining the
priority of projects will always be somewhat subjective, AOC has
developed a reasonable approach using a matrix to help raters score
projects in five areas. The matrix provides clear guidance and
specifies issues to consider when scoring projects in each of the five
rating areas. Since the evaluation criteria have not yet been used to
determine which projects will be submitted for funding, it remains to
be seen if they will be consistently applied. Using this matrix and
documenting the factors used in making the priority decisions should
help AOC support its capital improvement program.
Recommendation: Develop tools to effectively communicate priorities and
progress of projects, as a part of a broader communication strategy.
At the time of our management review, AOC lacked the tools to
communicate its priorities internally to staff and externally to
clients and provide details on how related projects are linked to one
another. AOC officials said that the Project Information Center (PIC)
system, the database of all project-related information, was used to
prioritize work and ascertain the progress of projects, but it was not
capable of producing a unified document that shows schedules of active
projects, their interrelationships, and required staff. Without a
resource-loaded project master-planning capability, it is difficult to
determine the effect of priority changes and to quantify project
manager staffing requirements. In addition, the information in PIC was
not consistently updated nor was it systematically reviewed to
determine its accuracy. While AOC used the PIC system to prepare a
quarterly capital projects report that provided the status of all
ongoing capital projects, the report did not highlight projects that
were behind schedule, over budget, or otherwise of interest to clients.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has worked to improve the capabilities of its
PIC system and the format of its quarterly report on capital projects.
AOC has improved the capabilities of PIC by adding links to the
financial management system and building/project drawings. According to
AOC officials, AOC has identified a software package capable of
producing a unified schedule that shows staff resources and a purchase
order has been issued for the software and supporting consulting to
accomplish proper installation of the application.
To improve the accuracy and timeliness of PIC data, the Director of the
Technical Support Division told us that AOC has verbally and in writing
reemphasized the importance of timely and accurate data. He also said
that two people review the data monthly looking for inaccuracies and
missing data.
AOC has revised the quarterly report format to make it more user
friendly. The quarterly report is color coded so the user can quickly
identify those projects that are behind schedule or need additional
funding. The report also includes summary information and highlights
projects of particular interest for reasons such as not being on
schedule or requiring additional funding. The report also discusses the
resolution of issues related to projects highlighted in the previous
report.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
It is encouraging that AOC has made improvements to PIC, but AOC will
continue to have difficulty managing schedules and workload until it is
able to produce a unified schedule to show the status of the projects
and the responsible project managers. We did not verify the accuracy of
the PIC data but the Director of the Technical Support Division said
that they are focusing on improving data accuracy and completeness.
While the usefulness of the quarterly report has improved, our analysis
shows that the project schedule charts can still be confusing. For
example, the "work on schedule" bar on the chart shows that the work is
on schedule when it has not yet begun, which can make it appear that a
large percentage of AOC's projects is on schedule when actually
projects have not yet begun. It would also be helpful if the individual
project summaries indicated when a project's schedule has been changed
and why the schedule was changed. In addition, the report indicates
when additional project funding is being requested, but it is not
always clear if the requested funding is for cost overruns or if the
funding request was planned and is for a new phase of the project.
Recommendation: Define project-management-related performance measures
to achieve mission-critical strategic and annual performance goals.
During our management review, we found that AOC needed to work with its
stakeholders to determine its long-term strategic goals and annual
performance goals for project management. The development of annual
performance goals that provide a connection between long-term goals and
day-to-day activities would enable AOC to track its progress, provide
critical information for decision-making and foster individual
accountability.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC's draft strategic plan and draft performance
plan identify some measures and processes that will be used to monitor
and evaluate AOC's success. The measures identified in the draft
strategic plan are (1) projects executed and delivered on time and on
budget and (2) client satisfaction. In June 2003, AOC defined uniform
operating procedures for conducting customer satisfaction surveys. As
defined in these procedures, the purpose of such a customer
satisfaction survey is to assess the gap between the services provided
by AOC and the needs of its customers. These procedures generically
apply to the process of developing, administering, and managing the
data from any customer satisfaction survey.
AOC's draft performance plan also identified the following new
assessments (1) evaluation of design teams' performance, (2) evaluation
of architects', engineers' (A/E), and general contractors' (GC)
performance, and (3) post-occupancy evaluations of buildings to
evaluate design and standards performance over time. In July 2003, AOC
issued operating procedures for conducting project design satisfaction
surveys. The purpose of these surveys is to provide internal customers
an open platform to express appreciation or concern about their design
activity. According to the procedures, the surveys will be done on an
ad hoc basis upon completion of a design project. According to an AOC
official in the Office of the Administrative Assistant, the draft
survey is being reviewed within AOC.
As part of the AOC's Design and Construction Office ongoing best
practices initiative, it had hired a consultant to evaluate five
recently completed construction projects to identify lessons learned
that could be applied to other projects. Key participants in the
projects were surveyed about how the projects performed in the
following areas (1) organization/teamwork, (2) planning process, (3)
design process, (4) procurement process, and (5) construction process.
The consultant reported on "why projects went right," identified areas
for improvement, and made recommendations in each of the areas.
According to the report, upgrades were recommended to AOC project
manager's manual and standards and these recommendations were
incorporated into the project manager training held in the spring 2003.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
While AOC's draft strategic plan has identified types of performance
measures, it has yet to formally define specific measurable performance
goals. The Acting Chief for ODC told us that he believes that the
performance goal for this division is for all projects to be delivered
on time and on budget, but this is not specifically written as a goal.
In addition, clarity is needed for how and when a project's schedule
and budget benchmarks are established and when they can be changed. For
example, if a project's schedule is based on receiving funding during
the current year, yet it does not receive the funding until the next
year, we understand that AOC will change the project's schedule
benchmark. It is not clear that this decision is documented in the
project summary in the quarterly report to Congress.
As part of obtaining stakeholder input for project management, AOC's
draft performance plan identifies a number of surveys that will be used
to monitor and evaluate projects. While AOC has developed procedures
for conducting the project design satisfaction surveys, the actual
survey, which was tentatively scheduled to be ready on June 30, 2003,
is still being finalized within AOC. The A/E and GC surveys are not
scheduled to be ready for distribution until spring 2004, and the
process for developing post-occupancy evaluations will not be completed
until fall 2005.
The lessons learned report that sought feedback from stakeholders and
participants on five recently completed projects to make specific
recommendations on how to improve performance on future projects is
also an important development.
Recommendation: Align project management staff and resources with AOC's
mission-critical goals.
At the time of our management review, AOC recognized that the current
approach of assigning mostly architects and engineers as project
managers was ineffective. Project managers said that they were being
asked to wear "too many hats," which often distracted them from their
primary duty of managing projects. AOC officials responsible for
project management had proposed the creation of a new and independent
Project Management Division. However, we noted that such realignment
must support the agency meeting its mission-critical goals and
objectives and would require a determination as to which individuals
have the skills to be dedicated project managers and who would
supervise the project managers. We also reported that AOC had not
developed project management-specific technical competencies and
defining these competencies would be important for ensuring that the
right people are employed in the right positions and that they are
routinely held accountable for their work. We noted that as a next
step, AOC could also identify and implement training programs that are
linked to the core and technical competencies required of project
managers.
Actions Taken by AOC: ODC has begun to make some organizational changes
that are awaiting approval by the COO. These changes include the
creation of a Project Management Division, which is currently staffed
by a director and three project managers. AOC is hiring five additional
project managers using position descriptions specifying the duties and
knowledge required for the position. The project manager's duties
include providing life-cycle project management expertise and
coordination from the planning stage through post-occupancy evaluation.
AOC will also be providing all project managers with training based on
AOC's new project management manual. Project managers are expected to
be dedicated to a project for its duration and will report to the
Director of Project Management. They will be responsible for
multidisciplined capital improvement projects with budgets of $250,000
or more, while projects budgeted at less than $250,000 or involving a
single discipline, such as lighting retrofits, will continue to be
managed by architects or engineers.
The new Director of Project Management has systematically determined
the number of project managers needed by estimating the length of time
it takes to perform each task defined in AOC's project management
guide. This enabled him to determine how many projects one project
manager should be able to manage concurrently.
The Director of AOC's HRMD told us that she is working with ODC to
identify competencies for project managers to help ensure that project
managers have the skills needed to effectively perform their jobs.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
While the new organization chart for AOC's ODC is still pending
approval by the COO, AOC is creating a Project Management Division led
at the director level with attendant dedicated project manager
positions. It is also important that AOC is using a systematic approach
to determine project workload and develop a request for additional
project manager positions. AOC's systematic approach may help justify
AOC's need for additional project managers and manage expectations of
its stakeholders for projects based on the number of available project
managers. However, as noted, AOC still does not have the capability of
producing a unified schedule showing staff resources, which will make
it difficult to manage staffing levels. AOC is taking the first steps
to ensure that the right people are employed in the right positions by
starting to identify competencies for its project management staff,
creating position descriptions based on those competencies, and using
those position descriptions as a basis for recruiting and hiring staff.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Recycling:
In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations to help the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) improve its overall
approach to its recycling program by developing a clear mission and
goals, developing a performance measurement system to support
accomplishing its recycling program, and examining the roles and
responsibilities of its recycling program staff. This appendix
describes AOC's progress to date in addressing each of our
recommendations. We provide a brief review of why we made each
recommendation, report the actions that AOC has taken to implement the
recommendation, and provide our analysis of whether AOC's actions
address the underlying issues that caused us to make the recommendation
in our January 2003 report.
Recommendation: Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC's recycling
program with input from key congressional stakeholders as part of its
proposed environmental master plan. AOC may want to establish
reasonable goals based on the total waste stream--information it plans
to obtain as part of its long-term environmental management plan--that
could potentially be recycled.
During our management review, we found that AOC had established neither
a clear mission statement nor goals for its recycling program. Various
program-related documents made indirect references to two different
missions for the program. One mission was to reduce the total amount of
solid waste sent to landfills, and the other mission was to generate as
much revenue as possible from the sale of its recyclable materials to a
recycling contractor. Similarly, we found that AOC had not established
any measurable goals for its recycling programs. The absence of AOC
recycling goals did not allow measures to be linked to a desired level
of performance, and thus AOC could not demonstrate the extent to which
performance is achieved. We also stated that establishing meaningful
goals would require collection of certain other information, including
information obtained from a waste stream analysis.
We concluded that the high levels of contamination present in the
materials collected in both the Senate and House recycling programs had
not allowed AOC to achieve either substantial waste reduction or
revenue generation it might have otherwise achieved.[Footnote 40] By
clarifying the mission of the program, AOC could design recycling
programs to achieve better results. We also suggested that, consistent
with the communications strategy we discussed in our January 2003
report, AOC should involve its congressional stakeholders in the
process of developing the mission statement for its recycling
programs. We recommended that AOC develop a clear mission and goals
for its recycling program with input from key congressional
stakeholders as part of its proposed environmental master plan.
Actions Taken by AOC: In its March 2003 draft strategic plan, AOC
states that it plans to develop a long-range environmental program plan
that will establish program mission, vision, goals, and
measures.[Footnote 41] The strategic plan also states that this
environmental program plan would include clarifying the mission, goals,
and measures of the recycling program--a component of pollution
prevention. Although, according to its performance plan, AOC is a few
months behind its scheduled time frame for this work. AOC has begun
work on both of these projects--the baseline assessment and waste
stream analysis--and AOC program officials told us that both projects
will be substantially completed by the end of 2003. These AOC officials
also advised us that the results of this baseline assessment and waste
stream analysis would provide a basis for establishing program
priorities and measuring progress. The performance plan also provides
for stakeholder participation in this process both before and after the
actual environmental program planning process occurs; but this has not
yet taken place. According to AOC's performance plan, stakeholder
involvement is scheduled to begin in the second quarter of fiscal year
2004, after completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream
analysis.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation
by taking the first steps toward developing a mission and goals for its
recycling program. Collecting information through its baseline
assessment and waste stream analysis will provide the factual
information AOC needs as a basis for establishing those mission and
goal statements. In addition, this information will be used in the
development of its environmental program plan. Also, according to AOC's
draft performance plan, its stakeholders will be involved both before
and after actual development of the environmental program plan,
scheduled to begin in the third quarter of fiscal year 2004. AOC's
approach to developing its recycling program mission and goals within
the broader context of an environmental program plan, as discussed in
its draft strategic and performance plans, is reasonable and consistent
with our recommendation.
Recommendation: Develop a performance measurement, monitoring, and
evaluation system that supports accomplishing AOC's recycling mission
and goals.
In our January 2003 report, we stated that as AOC revisited its program
mission, goals, and design, the agency would have an opportunity to
reexamine its recycling performance measurement system efforts to
ensure that it had the right type of performance measures to support
program monitoring and decision making. In addition, we stated that
monitoring performance against goals would enable AOC program managers
to identify where performance is lagging, investigate potential causes,
and identify actions designed to improve performance. We also suggested
that to support the accomplishment of AOC's recycling mission and
goals, the performance measurement system developed should (1) show the
degree to which the desired results were achieved, (2) be limited to
the few vital measures needed for decision-making, (3) be responsive to
multiple priorities, and (4) establish accountability for results.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC stated in its draft strategic and performance
plans that it would clarify the mission, goals, and measures of the
recycling program as part of its environmental program planning
process, which is scheduled to begin in the third quarter of fiscal
year 2004 and is expected to be complete by the end of calendar year
2004. According to the Safety and Environmental Division (SED)
director, AOC currently measures and tracks several key performance
indicators, such as tonnage collected for multiple recycling streams
and the quantity of material collected for recycling that does not meet
specifications for reimbursement. The SED director also told us that
additional action to revise existing and establish new measures is
underway, including gathering and analyzing data as part of the waste
stream analysis study. The results from this effort will be used to
establish performance goals and additional performance measures that
are appropriate to the program. This effort is part of a broader AOC
initiative to develop the environmental program plan.
According to the SED director, AOC plans to develop the environmental
program plan internally with the option of obtaining consultant
services if, during the course of the planning process, it finds
certain expertise is needed but not available on staff. Also according
to the SED director, AOC has taken steps to increase environmental
staffing and contract for technical resources necessary to address a
variety of environmental issues to support the development of the
environmental program plan, such as a completed best management
practices review, a waste stream analysis and pollution prevention
planning initiative in progress, an environmental baseline assessment
nearly completed, and an electronic waste recycling study. In addition,
the SED director also told us that to minimize delays in obtaining
consultant support, the Environmental Branch has obtained funding in
the fiscal year 2004 budget to establish an environmental contract
allowing AOC to more quickly procure consultant services.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation.
In addition to recommending that AOC develop a recycling performance
measurement, monitoring, and evaluation system, our January 2003 report
also suggested certain criteria and processes AOC could follow in
establishing the recycling performance measures. For example, we
suggested that AOC take certain steps in developing its performance
measurement system, such as making sure the recycling measures
developed show the degree to which the desired results were achieved
and that AOC use a General Services Administration guide for federal
agencies that describes the steps an agency could use to measure and
monitor recycling efforts.[Footnote 42] However, the development of
reasonable performance measures can also consider certain other
sources, such as government or industry benchmarks for recycling
programs as well as feedback from congressional stakeholders.
We agree that AOC should not establish performance measures until it
has obtained the information it needs from the results of the
environmental baseline and waste stream analysis that will help to
establish the performance goals of the recycling program. Because AOC
has not yet identified the performance measures it will use to assess
the progress of its overall environmental program plan, we cannot
assess at this time whether the resulting measures will be consistent
with the elements of a performance measurement system as discussed in
our January 2003 report. It is important that AOC specify the steps it
will take and the information sources it will use to develop its
recycling program performance measures.
Recommendation: Examine the roles and responsibilities of AOC's
recycling program staff to ensure that they are performing the right
jobs with the necessary authority, and holding the staff accountable
for achieving program and agency results through AOC's performance
management system.
The roles and responsibilities of AOC's recycling program staff members
have evolved in recent years, without the guidance of a clearly defined
mission and goals. We reported in our January 2003 report that AOC had
recently changed the responsibilities of its recycling program
management positions to provide a greater focus on program planning and
evaluation. However, these program managers reported that much of their
time was spent on day-to-day program implementation activities, leaving
little time to fulfill their expanded roles.
In addition, we found that the existing structure did not provide a
clear mechanism to determine individual accountability for achieving
results. Under the existing structure, jurisdictional recycling program
managers are accountable only to their jurisdictional management, i.e.,
the Senate and House office buildings superintendents. The AOC Resource
Conservation Manager, responsible for AOC-wide recycling programs, had
no authority over either the jurisdictional managers or the recycling
program managers in those jurisdictions. In addition, we stated in our
January 2003 report that approximately 875 bargaining unit and trade
union employees, such as the recycling workers and custodial staff that
collect recyclable materials, were not covered by AOC's employee
performance management system, PCES.
Actions Taken by AOC: AOC has created two new positions, an
Environmental Branch Manager and Environmental Technician within SED
that have duties and responsibilities related to the recycling program.
In addition to these positions in SED, AOC has also filled a previously
vacant Assistant Recycling Program Manager position within the House
office-building jurisdiction. AOC officials said that these new
positions would provide additional resources for improved planning and
evaluation of the recycling program.
In addition, each jurisdiction reported that it evaluated respective
recycling operations and made changes in staffing and organization
plans, some of which have been implemented. The Senate jurisdiction
examined its recycling function and determined in May 2003 that the
jurisdiction's recycling staff, then assigned to one of three different
organizational units, should be consolidated into one division
reporting to the Recycling Program Manager. In the justification for
making the change, the Superintendent for the Senate jurisdiction
stated that, because of the diluted span of control and lack of
accountability that existed under the present organizational structure,
his jurisdiction could not achieve the desired level of program
performance and execution. The Senate jurisdictional proposal also
included adding four positions to the recycling collection staff. In
addition, according to the Senate recycling program manager, this
proposal has been submitted to AOC management and is pending approval.
Similarly, to address staffing and organization issues, management in
the House jurisdiction decided to replace its part-time recycling
collection staff--plagued by a high turnover rate and consequently a
constant need to fill vacancies and train new staff--with full-time
staff. This staffing change was accomplished using the same number of
full-time equivalent positions as provided under the prior staffing
plan. The House jurisdiction also implemented a pilot program to
evaluate the feasibility of using the designated recycling staff to
collect both recyclable materials and garbage from the House office
buildings. According to the Deputy Superintendent of the House Office
Buildings, based on the results of this pilot program, the House
jurisdictional management decided to permanently implement the changes
tested in the pilot program.
These changes, however, did not affect the supervisory and reporting
relationships between the recycling program manager and the collection
staff. In the House jurisdiction, the collection staff reports through
line supervisors to a night House superintendent that provides direct
line supervision of employees who carry out various housekeeping,
janitorial, and emergency maintenance functions during nonbusiness
hours. The House Recycling Program Manager has no direct authority over
the collection staff, but stated that she conducts regular inspections
of the recycling collection operations, including both individual
office compliance with the level of source separation implemented in
those offices and the collection workers' performance of their duties.
She stated further that she has a good working relationship with the
collection workers' direct line supervisors and reports any problems
she identifies during the course of her inspections to them. The House
Deputy Superintendent affirmed the relationship between the House
Recycling Program Manager and the collection workers' direct line
supervisors and told us that the House jurisdiction management has no
current plans to change the reporting relationship between the House
Recycling Program manager and the collection staff.
The House jurisdiction does plan to take action that could provide
increased accountability for achieving recycling program results. The
Deputy House Superintendent told us that a recycling program element is
now included in the Performance Communication Evaluation System (PCES)
of the staff that directly supervise the recycling collection workers,
holding them accountable for the collection of recyclables by their
staff. Even with these changes, full accountability for achieving
recycling program results cannot be established because, in both the
Senate and House jurisdictions, the collection workers are bargaining
unit and trade union employees and are not covered by PCES. According
to AOC's HRMD director, AOC is currently negotiating with the unions to
include these employees within PCES.
GAO Analysis: AOC is making progress in addressing our recommendation
by evaluating the roles and responsibilities of its recycling program
staff and increasing accountability for program results through its
employee performance management system. The two positions AOC has
filled should make more time available for recycling program planning
and evaluation activities. The staffing and organization evaluations
completed in the Senate and House jurisdictions and the actions taken
by AOC as a result of those evaluations may improve the recycling
programs operation in those jurisdictions.
Moreover, the proposed Senate reorganization of its reporting
relationship between the recycling program manager and staff will
provide more direct accountability for achieving AOC's organizational
goals in its recycling program by providing a direct line of
supervision between recycling program management and the staff
responsible for the collection and processing of recyclable materials.
Through the added element now incorporated into PCES for House
recycling supervisors, AOC is working to increase accountability for
achieving recycling program results.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol:
The Architect of the Capitol:
Washington, DC 20515:
January 20, 2004:
Mr. J. Christopher Mihm, Director:
Strategic Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G St. NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Mihm:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) January 2004 draft report "Architect of the
Capitol Status Report on Implementation of Management Review
Recommendations." As your report reflects, we have been making steady
progress in addressing the recommendations contained in the original
report. We are committed to successfully bringing about the
organizational transformation we jointly envision. As you know, we are
tracking the action items for this initiative as part of our Strategic
Plan and have incorporated specific milestones to address the GAO
recommendations in our Performance Plan.
Our review of the draft report indicates that for the most part, it is
consistent with the information we have exchanged throughout the
follow-up review. Our comments and some updated information are
attached. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this path
of change, recognizing as you do, that this organizational
transformation will take several years to fully accomplish.
Please give Hector Suarez a call (228-1205) if you have any questions
or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Alan M. Haniman, FAIA:
Architect of the Capitol:
Strategic Management: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 2, 7, 20; Recommendation: The Architect of the Capitol
gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys
before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking
actions to address any identified employee concerns.
AOC Response: Agree with recommendation. Employee survey will be
completed this fiscal year. Will provide firm date as schedule is
worked out.
Page Number(s): 6; Finding: Building on its strategic planning efforts,
it is important that AOC continues to involve key congressional, as
well as other stakeholders, in its strategic planning process, and
keeps them informed of any operational and organizational changes
resulting from this planning process.
AOC Response: Agree with recommendation. Architect and COO have
incorporated congressional and other stakeholder meetings as part of
their scheduled meetings. COO also has this as an action item in the
COO Action Plan submitted to Congress.
Page Number(s): 7; Finding: AOC needs to discuss with its stakeholders
how the use of these protocols will help AOC to balance immediate needs
with the achievement of overall agency strategic goals.
AOC Response: We have revamped the draft protocols that were developed
using the GAO model. As a result of our analysis for the process we
have re-focused the protocols to ensure better tracking and prompt
response to Congressional requests. We will be testing the process
internally and will discuss implementation with appropriate
Congressional staff.
Strategic Management of Human Capital: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 2, 6, 24-25; Finding: AOC is also strengthening
individual accountability for organizational goals through its senior
executive performance management systems, but more progress can be made
with aligning employee performance management systems with agency
strategic goals.
AOC Response: The AOC has developed a comprehensive approach to
redesigning its Employee Performance Management System. Changes include
technical content and process, linkage to the strategic plan, and
consolidation to one rating cycle. While this approach requires some
time for development and implementation, it will provide greater
stability to the workforce by implementing one comprehensive change
rather than two or three major changes to Employee Performance
Management System in a 12-18 month period. Our plan incorporates
employee groups to review the linkages to ensure they are
understandable by the workforce and a comprehensive communication
strategy to deliver the message to the workforce. The revised Employee
Performance Management System, including linkages to the Strategic
Plan, will be implemented within a year.
Page Number(s): 26-27; Finding: It is important that AOC continue the
development of both its technical and core competencies for all
employees and ensure that these competencies are tied to the agency's
Strategic Plan.
AOC Response: With the establishment of the Office of Workforce
Planning and Management (WFPM), we will be developing strategies for
identifying core competencies for AOC positions. Training strategies
will be developed for bridging gaps in employee competencies. This will
be a joint effort between Human Resources and Workforce Planning
Staffs. System requirements are currently being defined for capturing
the data.
Page Number(s): 26-27; Header: Develop the capacity to collect and
analyze workforce data.
AOC Response: Workforce Planning and Management Staff identified data
sources and data collection methodologies for analyzing workforce data.
This data would be imported from the National Finance Center (NFC)
database and from the AVUE system (which houses critical workforce
information on positions and employees). In addition, data would be
collected from employees through surveys, Official Personnel Files, and
interviews. We are in the process of identifying a systematic approach
for analyzing data to assist with our overall workforce planning
initiatives. In addition, we have purchased a statistical software
system (SPSS) and will soon begin producing statistics on AOC's
workforce.
Page Number(s): 28; Finding: To date, AOC has established the function,
but not yet hired the Director of OWPM or two designated workforce
planning and management analysts.
AOC Response: The Director and one staff position have been hired and
are on-board. The new Director was hired on October 7, 2003, and has
been recruiting for the remaining workforce planning and management
analyst positions.
Page Number(s): 34; Finding: It is important that AOC continue holding
these meetings to discuss ways in which it can systematically gather
and analyze information about general employee concerns, while
maintaining employee confidentiality, and regularly bring these
concerns to the attention of senior management.
AOC Response: As discussed during the review, we have been holding
meetings among with the staffs that address employee relations issues.
These will continue. In addition we have developed a broad matrix
report for the senior management staff.
Page Number(s): 35; Recommendation: We recommended that AOC establish a
direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson and the
Architect to be consistent with professional standards, which suggests
that the Ombudsperson report directly with the highest authority in the
agency, in this case the Architect.
AOC Response: We communicated our agreement to this recommendation
numerous times during the review.
Financial Management: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 9; Findings: AOC is beginning to develop sound
financial management practices. The Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) has established three broad-based action plans to
improve financial management practices at AOC: (1) build a foundation
of financial control and accountability, (2) assess the financial
management organization's current role in meeting mission objectives
and organize financial management to add value, and (3) improve
forward-looking analysis, train managers to understand how to use
financial information, and improve the partnership between financial
management and operations.
AOC Response: We concur that we have established and taken many
positive steps against three broad based plans to improve financial
management. To be consistent within the GAO document, recommend that
the reference state: "continue to improve AOC's approach to financial
management" rather than using the word "beginning.":
Page Number(s): 39; Findings: None of the underlying action items
associated with these action plans has been completed, and many are not
scheduled for completion until fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Furthermore,
planning for certain items has not yet begun, and for some is not
scheduled to begin until mid-fiscal year 2004.
AOC Response: GAO is correct that many of our action plans are
scheduled for completion in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and it should be
noted that no milestone has been missed. Our plans consider many of
underlying steps that it takes for a financial organization to go
beyond the audit opinion toward (1) establishing seamless systems and
processes, (2) routinely generating reliable cost and performance
information and analysis, (3) undertaking other value-added activities
that support strategic decision making and mission performance, and (4)
building a finance team that supports the agency's mission and goals.
GAO points out many of our interim successes (the first ever audit of
the AOC, preparing the FY05 budget in a structured method and
implementing a major FMS system) we have taken in parts of its report.
It would be appropriate to state this throughout the document to be
consistent with Appendix III. Many steps have been taken to get to
these successes - GAO should reconsider the choice of words - none and
furthermore, in regards to the many steps AOC Financial team has taken
to get to the noted successes as indicated in the GAO report. As for
the milestone dates, we believe that a measured approach for improving
financial management is prudent as our Agency's other processes and
systems mature.
Page Number(s): 39; Finding: OCFO reports that all financial managers
and procurement officers in the jurisdictions and central office have
been trained in appropriations law...
AOC Response: Recommend that this statement be changed to indicate,
that while many of the financial managers and procurement managers have
been trained in appropriation law, the program is an on-going program.
This will represent the information we provided more accurately.
Financial Management: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 39; Finding: According to OCFO, AOC is in the process
of hiring the first group of jurisdiction finance managers. Regarding
system upgrades, AOC has implemented the first phases of a plan.
Implementation of the contracting module and inventory system are both
planned for production operations in October 2004. AOC's upgrade of the
financial management system is also scheduled for October 2004, with
future upgrades of major releases scheduled annually.
AOC Response: Recommend that this statement be changed, so that the
first sentence ("According to OCFO, AOC is in the process of hiring
first group of jurisdiction financial managers") is placed at the end
of the previous paragraph. And recommend change "AOC has implemented
the first phases of a plan" to "AOC has implemented the major phases of
the financial system implementation plan with the final two phases
planned for October 2004" to better reflect the information we
provided.
Information Technology: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 4; Finding: GAO collected from AOC documentation of the
organization's implementation of our recommendations, which we used to
assess the progress made in addressing the issues underlying these
recommendations. For example, we reviewed documents such as AOC's draft
strategic and performance plans, draft communications plan, IT
investment framework, centralized IT management policy, drafts of
initial EA products, occupational safety and health program plan,
master safety plan, project management evaluation and screening matrix,
and pollution prevention planning initiative, among others, as well as
documentation that policies had been changed and meetings had taken
place.
AOC Response: The documents GAO reviewed were not drafts, they were
fully completed version 1 documents. GAO received a hard copy of the
version 1 products (baseline architecture, target architecture, program
management plan, technical reference model, EA goals and objectives, EA
principles, BSMO charter, and BSMO goals and objectives) after the Oct
23, 2003, exit interview. Version I has since been approved by the
Deputy Chief of Staff.
Information Technology: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
9-10; Finding: AOC has not focused first on controlling existing IT
investments and its project investment review board does not include
key senior agency leaders. For AOC to implement effective IT investment
management processes, it is important that it follow our previous
recommendation on establishing a foundation for its investment
management framework. In building on this foundation, AOC needs to take
additional steps to help it execute the more mature investment
management processes provided for in our investment management guide.
AOC Response: AOC is focusing on controlling its existing investments.
Upon completion of the pilot framework, the first step taken to
implement the framework was to score and rank FY2004 projects based on
the value and risk criteria identified in the framework. In addition,
the four boards in the framework have been formed and are beginning to
evaluate IT investments.
As part of the piloting of the investment framework, the Investment
review board composition has been revised and now includes key senior
agency leaders (Deputy Chief of Staff, CFO, Superintendents, Strategic
Planner, Director OIRM, Management Analyst).
Page Number(s): 10; Finding: The agency has not yet hired a chief
enterprise architect and has not ensured that adequate resources are
devoted to the program, that architecture environments are described in
terms of performance and security, and that metrics are used to measure
EA progress.
AOC Response: A Chief Enterprise Architect position has been requested
in the AOC's FY2005 budget. In the interim, a contractor has been
working with the members of the Business Systems Modernization Office
to assist with the EA effort. OIRM put together a detailed plan
addressing resources.
Information Technology: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 10; Recommendation: GAO recommend that to further its
progress in the management of its information technology, the Architect
of the Capitol (2 recommendations):
AOC Response: Point 1 is part of the investment framework. Strategic
objectives are included in the value factors used to score proposed
projects (see Appendix B of the Investment Management Framework, OIRM
Order 2-2). The evaluation criteria used to score and rank projects
includes Value Criteria [Efficiency, Strategic Match, Client Impact,
Employee Commitment, Management Information, and Requestor] as well as
Risk Criteria [Organization Risk, Definitional Uncertainty, Technical
Uncertainty, IS Infrastructure Risk, and External Risk (Security Risk
has been incorporated since the release of the initial framework)].
Points 1-4 are addressed in the Investment Management Framework that is
currently being used to score, prioritize and monitor FY2004 projects.
This is the first time that GAO has recommended following their
architecture management guide (U.S. General Accounting Office,
Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving
Enterprise Architecture Management, GAO-03-584G Washington, D.C.:
April 2003). Previous recommendations have focused on the Chief
Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise
Architecture, version 1.0: Feb. 2002. This is a new requirement by GAO
and as such, OIRM will need to develop a plan to map to GAO's EA
framework.
Page Number(s): 41; Finding: The director is organizationally
positioned to report to the agency's Deputy Chief of Staff (who is a
member of AOC's senior policy committee) and also has been made the
chairman of the investment review board, which is the approval body for
new IT investments beginning in fiscal year 2004.
AOC Response: The Director of OIRM was listed as the Chair of the IRB
in the October 2003 release of the investment framework. As the
framework has been implemented it has been revised to name the Deputy
Chief of Staff as the Chair of the IRB. The Director of OIRM now chairs
the IT Project Management Board (PMB).
Information Technology: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 42-43; Finding: Develop and implement IT investment
management processes with the full support and participation of ADC's
senior leadership. Specifically, the Architect must develop a plan for
developing and implementing the investment management processes, as
appropriate, that are outlined in our IT investment management guide.
At a minimum, the plan should specify measurable tasks, goals, time
frames, and resources required to develop and implement the processes.
The Architect should focus first on the management processes associated
with controlling existing projects and establishing the management
structures to effectively implement an IT management process.
Finding: According to that official, the agency is currently testing
part of the framework-the process used to score proposed investments'
value and risk-on a few existing investments.
AOC Response: All existing FY2004 projects have been scored on value
and risk.
AOC is focusing on controlling its existing investments. Upon
completion of the pilot framework, AOC took the following steps: 1)
Scored and ranked FY2004 projects based on the value and risk criteria
identified in the framework. 2) Charged the PMB with measuring the
progress of existing projects. In addition to the PMB, OIRM has a bi-
weekly status meeting where managers review all project progress and
issues. This has been in place for almost two years. 3) Formed the four
boards in the framework and began to evaluate IT investments. 4) As
part of the piloting of the investment framework, the Investment review
board composition was revised and now includes key senior agency
leaders (Deputy Chief of Staff, CFO, Superintendents, Strategic
Planner, Director, OIRM, and OIRM's Management Analyst).
To directly address the four statements made in the referred GAO report
paragraph, 1) AOC is operating an IT investment board that includes
senior IT and business representatives, 2) OIRM is overseeing ongoing
IT projects through its PMB and status meetings, 3) OIRM is in the
process of gathering requirements for an automated solution to
identify, track and manage resources, and 4) we are ensuring that each
IT project supports the organization's business needs by interviewing
stakeholders during the development of the agency's IT budget each year
and also by evaluating projects on value and risk criteria that include
customer needs and strategic match.
OIRM will continue to work with GAO and other agency subject matter
experts in IT investment management to create a more detailed plan for
implementing our investment management framework.
Information Technology: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 43; Recommendation: We reiterate our recommendation
that AOC develop and implement a plan that is consistent with our IT
investment management guide and thus focus first on the practices
associated with controlling existing IT investments. We also recommend
that AOC plan for and implement those practices in our IT investment
management guide associated with corporate, portfolio-based investment
decision-making, such as (1) implementing criteria to select
investments that will best support the organization's strategic goals,
objectives, and mission; (2) using these criteria to consistently
analyze and prioritize all IT investments; (3) ensuring that the
optimal investment portfolio with manageable risks and returns is
selected and funded; and (4) overseeing each investment within the
portfolio to ensure that it achieves its cost, benefit, schedule, and
risk expectations.
AOC Response: AOC is focusing on controlling its existing investments.
Upon completion of the pilot framework, AOC took the following steps:
1) Scored and ranked FY2004 projects based on the value and risk
criteria identified in the framework. 2) Charged the PMB with measuring
the progress of existing projects. In addition to the PMB, OIRM has a
bi-weekly status meeting where managers review all project progress and
issues. This has been in place for almost two years. 3) Formed the four
boards in the framework and began to evaluate IT investments. 4) As
part of the piloting of the investment framework, the Investment review
board composition was revised and now includes key senior agency
leaders (Deputy Chief of Staff, CFO, Superintendents, Strategic
Planner, Director, OIRM, and OIRM's Management Analyst).
Page Number(s): 44; Finding: Thus far, AOC has initiated activities to
develop EA products, including the existing, "as is," and the target,
"to be," architectures-as well as a plan that will map out the
transition from the "as is" to the "to be." Drafts of the initial
version of the existing and target architectures, as well as the
transition plan, were completed in September 2003, and are awaiting
approval by the senior policy committee. These architecture products
describe the "as is" and "to be" environments. AOC plans to implement
the target architecture starting in October 2003, with an estimated
completion date of September 30, 2007.
AOC Response: Version 1 of the baseline architecture, target
architecture, program management plan and technical reference model
were completed on schedule (September 30, 2003) and have been approved
by the Deputy Chief of Staff.
The estimated completion date is now FY2008/FY2009. OIRM put together a
detailed plan addressing resources. OIRM's request for FY2005 funding
was not approved. The Chief Enterprise Architect position has not yet
been filled but has been requested again in the FY2005 budget.
Information Technology: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 44-45; Recommendation: GAO recommends that AOC complete
ongoing steps associated with developing its EA and implement
additional steps to complete, maintain, and implement the architecture.
In particular, we recommend that AOC plan for and implement the
practices in our architecture management guide associated with
leveraging an EA for organizational transformation, such as (1)
ensuring that adequate resources are devoted to the program (funding,
people, tools, and technology); (2) ensuring that the architecture
describes both the "as is" and the "to be" environments in terms of
performance; (3) ensuring that architecture business, performance,
information and data, applications and services, and technology
descriptions address security; and (4) ensuring that metrics are used
to measure EA progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment.
AOC Response: This is the first time that GAO has recommended following
their architecture management guide (U.S. General Accounting Office,
Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving
Enterprise Architecture Management, GAO-03-584G Washington, D.C.:
April 2003). Previous recommendations have focused on the Chief
Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise
Architecture, version 1.0: Feb. 2002. This is a new requirement by GAO
and as such, OIRM will need to develop a plan to map to GAO's EA
framework.
Page Number(s): 46; Finding: AOC still needs to ensure that it obtains
a well-defined set of processes and that these processes are in fact
implemented by March 31, 2004, as planned.
AOC Response: When the completed methodology is delivered to AOC on
January 31, 2004, a two month pilot will be used to refine the
processes for their implementation as an agencywide standard on March
31, 2004.
Supporting documentation will be developed during the pilot and will
include:
* Policy statements:
* Standards and Practices * Worksheets and Checklists * Templates:
Information Technology: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 46-47; Finding: Establish and implement an information
security program. Specifically, the Architect should establish an
information security program by taking the following steps (see
bullets):
Finding: The key is for AOC to follow through on stated commitments to
provide proper resources for the program, finalize its security
policies, define processes for implementing the policies, and implement
them.
AOC Response: 1) The needed staffing resources for this program have
been provided through contract resources. 2) We are completing the
review of 19 IT Security policies. Target date for issuance is March
31, 2004. 3) The comprehensive IT Security Plan is being revised. The
plan will define the processes needed to implement the policies. The
revised plan will include the IT Security SDLC Process. 4) Once the
comprehensive plan is revised (target June 2004), we will implement the
elements of the plan in a judicious and logical manner.
Worker Safety: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 7; Recommendation: To further progress in developing
its strategic management and accountability framework and improve
communications agencywide, we recommend that the Architect of the
Capitol take the following actions:
* gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys
before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking
actions to address any identified employee concerns:
AOC Response: The AOC is currently developing a Safety Communication
Plan, with the assistance of DuPont Safety Resources. As part of the
development process, a communication survey has been distributed AOC-
wide, and follow-up focus groups are planned to clarify trends and
issues identified. Completion of this effort is targeted for April
2004.
Worker Safety: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 13; Finding: While a majority of the jurisdictions
await full development and implementation of the Hazard Assessment and
Control policy, each jurisdiction continues to rely upon its own hazard
reporting processes. Until the policy is fully implemented,
jurisdictions will continue to use separate systems for identifying and
reporting incidents. Also, AOC has established a plan and initiated
actions to improve the reporting of hazards, though the development and
implementation of an agencywide policy and procedures for hazard
reporting is expected to take years to complete due to the time needed
to develop and fully implement this safety policy. Until AOC completes
the implementation of this policy and subsequent analysis across all
jurisdictions, it will not be able to develop a comprehensive picture
of AOC hazards.
AOC Response: This text confuses requirements under the Hazard
Assessment and Control policy and the Incident Investigation policy. It
also overlooks that a major component of the Hazard Assessment and
Control policy is the JHA process, which is being consistently
implemented throughout the AOC - completed in five jurisdictions and
underway in the remaining ones.
Also omitted from GAO consideration in this section is the recent
completion of a comprehensive baseline safety and environmental
assessment. The baseline assessment provides details of deficiencies
identified in both operations and infrastructure. Data from this effort
has been entered into the FMA data management system to allow an
analysis of deficiencies by location, jurisdiction, and policy area; It
also allows for prioritization of issues by risk and permits the AOC to
track the status of these issues through abatement.
Page Number(s): 14; Finding: Although, according to its draft
performance plan, AOC is a few months behind its schedule, AOC
officials told us that work has begun on both of these projects-the
baseline assessment and waste stream analysis-and both projects will be
substantially completed by the end of 2003.
AOC Response: Both were completed before December 31, 2003.
Page Number(s): 14; Finding: The draft performance plan also provides
for stakeholder participation in this process both before and after the
actual environmental program planning process occurs, but this has not
yet taken place.
AOC Response: The AOC has developed a schedule of activities for
developing the Environmental Program Plan. The schedule includes early
stakeholder input (scheduled for completion by 1/16/04) and two
additional opportunities during development for stakeholder input. SFEP
scheduled 10 stakeholder input sessions; the first one was held 12/12/
03 and the 10TH session was held on 1/15/04.
Worker Safety: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 49; Finding: In addition, AOC has requested significant
and permanent increases in the training budget for AOC employees.
AOC Response: AOC has not determined whether the increase in the
training budget is permanent. The training request is based on
identified requirements. Training costs should decrease after policy
implementation is complete as refresher training is less costly as
compared to initial training.
Page Number(s): 49; Finding: As of the beginning of fiscal year 2004,
no safety policy has been fully implemented.
AOC Response: While no policy has been fully implemented AOC-wide,
there has been significant progress in a number of policy areas and
Jurisdictions, including, but not limited to:
* Permit Required Confined Spaces: provided training and conducted a
Capitol Complex Confined Space Survey for all jurisdictions Blood borne
Pathogens (BBP): A majority of AOC employees requiring training have
been trained and a majority of the AOC jurisdictions have purchased BBP
equipment required by the policy.
* Fall Protection: A majority of AOC employees that require training
have been trained. A majority of all AOC Jurisdiction have purchased
fall protection equipment. A fall protection survey has been conducted
in approximately 50% of all jurisdictions.
* Respiratory Protection: Training and SOP have been completed in the
Construction Management, House and Senate Office Buildings
jurisdictions.
* Scaffolding: A majority of AOC employees that need to use scaffolding
equipment have been trained.
Page Number(s): 49; Finding: The draft OSH plan indicates a performance
measure for the objective "enhance employee awareness of and
involvement in all aspects of safety and health" and includes
publicizing the minutes from jurisdictions' monthly meetings to discuss
safety and health. However, this performance measure is not fully
developed or results oriented.
AOC Response: The report does not mention one of the key indicators,
the official I&I rate. Since FY2000, the AOC has reduced this rate each
year and, for FY2003, the rate is 7.87. This is a 56% reduction from
the FY2000 rate.
Worker Safety: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 49; Finding: AOC has been unable to meet the original
targeted time frame (fiscal year 2005) due to the need to revise the
methodology for developing a standard operating procedure template for
each safety policy.
AOC Response: The schedule could not be met due to insufficient staff
resources in the Jurisdictions. The SOP Template was developed as part
of the solution to reduce the manpower burden of implementation (and
enhance consistency). The revision of the template played no role in
the meeting the targeted timeframe.
Page Number(s): 50; Finding: While two of the safety policy standard
templates have been drafted, neither has been released because the
agency needs to make the procedures more user friendly for front-line
employees.
AOC Response: The first approved SOP template was signed on 1218103,
and several others are undergoing final review for approval.
Page Number(s): 51; Finding: The FMA system, which is partially
functional at this time.
AOC Response: The FMA inspection module is fully functional, as it is
designed as stand-alone software. We plan to add an incident
investigation module and are looking at data-sharing capabilities with
CAFM; however, these are additions to the system. This effort to
improve system integration and overall capabilities does not correlate
with the system being "partially functional".
Page Number(s): 51; Finding: The FMA system will (1) track and analyze
the number and types of hazards using JHA data.
AOC Response: This is incorrect. JHA data is not part of the FMA
System. JHA data is managed and utilized through a Microsoft Access-
based program developed by PHS.
Worker Safety: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 50-51; Finding: First, AOC plans to develop a Hazard
Assessment and Control policy, one of its 34 safety policies, beginning
October 2003 through June 2004 and fully implement the policy by May
2006. Second, as a key component in developing its Hazard Assessment
and Control policy, AOC plans to identify hazards associated with
specific job tasks (AOC calls this task a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA)).3s
AOC has created a schedule for completing each JHA. In addition, AOC
has contracted with the Department of Health and Human Services' Public
Health Service (PHS) to identify hazards associated with job tasks in
each jurisdiction. For all potentially hazardous conditions identified,
the job hazard analysis will include appropriate use of personal
protective equipment, medical surveillance, training, and engineering
controls. According to AOC officials, the JHA process has been
completed for two jurisdictions-the Senate and the Construction
Management Division. Lastly, while a majority of the jurisdictions
await full development and implementation of the Hazard Assessment and
Control policy and the Facility Management Assistant (FMA) system, they
continue to rely upon their own hazard reporting processes. The FMA
system, which is partially functional at this time, will (1) track and
analyze the number and types of hazards using JHA data, (2) identify
follow-up corrective actions to ameliorate hazards, and (3) track the
investigation of incidents following injuries, illnesses, fatalities,
and near misses. The FMA system is commercially available and contains
a suite of software components. AOC officials reported that these
processes vary across jurisdictions and involve formal reporting
procedures and mechanisms, such as submission of standard forms for
reporting hazards, as well as informal measures, such as e-mail
messages and periodic employee meetings. In addition, AOC officials
discuss hazards as well as other safety and health issues at meetings
convened by AOC employee and managerial committees.
AOC Response: No reference to the safety and environmental baseline
assessment, which identified deficiencies with our compliance with
applicable OSHA regulations - both with operational issues and
infrastructure issues. Jurisdictions are working to correct
deficiencies.
JHAs have been completed for five jurisdictions, the Senate,
Construction Management Division, Capitol, House, and Supreme Court.
JHAs are well underway in the remaining jurisdictions.
Page Number(s): 52; Finding: Moreover, data from the FMA system will
only be viewable by central office safety staff.
AOC Response: This is incorrect. Jurisdictions also have login accounts
in FMA. As clarification, they are limited to data for their own
Jurisdictions; central staff has data access AOC-wide.
Worker Safety: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 52; Finding: These processes vary across jurisdictions
and include formal reporting procedures and mechanisms...
* jurisdictions will continue to use separate systems for identifying
and reporting incidents.
* it will not be able to develop a comprehensive picture of AOC
incidents, including their causes, across all jurisdictions.
AOC Response: The AOC currently utilizes the Workers Compensation
Tracking System (WCTS), supplemented with an integrated OSHA 300 log
data entry, for recording and tracking injuries and illnesses. The WCTS
has been operational for years; the OSHA 300 log module has been
operational since January 2003. This is a centralized system with
access by both jurisdiction and central staff.
Page Number(s): 52; Finding: AOC does not, at this time, have plans to
integrate the FMA system with the system to generate work orders to
correct identified hazards.
AOC Response: This is an FY04-funded initiative. OlRM is working on
this issue to establish a linkage between FMA and CAFM. However, many
operational deficiencies are corrected without the use of a work order
(such as employee not wearing PPE, correcting a training deficiency,
etc. ). Other deficiencies may be grouped together on one work order
(correcting several GFCI findings with one work order). Because of
these, and other, issues, this linkage will not result in automatic
work order generation.
Page Number(s): 53; Finding: AOC uses formal methods to evaluate
training, such as a participant evaluation form, as well as informal
methods, such as following up with participants' supervisors to obtain
feedback on training sessions.
AOC Response: SOHB safety policy managers also audit courses and
provide review/feedback to HRMD T&ED. Methods include: participant
evaluation forms, and audits of instruction of first offerings by
Safety Specialists from the Safety, Fire and Environmental Programs, as
well as informal methods mentioned above.
Page Number(s): 53; Finding: The FMA system, which will be used to
track and identify corrective actions for hazards and incidents, will
not be aligned to the training system to help identify and target
training needs to address high-risk areas.
AOC Response: Practically speaking, there is limited need for alignment
of these systems, as they track independent information. However, the
needs analysis review to be conducted by OIRM (discussed in response to
a comment on page 54) includes a review of the FMA data elements to
determine what linkage, if any, is necessary.
Worker Safety: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 53; Finding: Although senior officials in the
jurisdictions are responsible for monitoring employee training needs,
they cannot access HRMD's database of AOC sponsored training courses
and employees' training attendance.
AOC Response: One of the 2 pilot initiatives underway with the Library
Buildings and Grounds addresses training data identified as a need by
LOC management.
Page Number(s): 54-55; Finding: AOC has not taken any concrete steps to
obtain data or analyses from OAP medical examinations that might
identify health-related trends. While AOC officials told us that
confidentiality issues might interfere with such efforts, no steps have
been taken to address and overcome this concern.
AOC Response: The data management system, discussed above, will permit
the sharing of data between AOC and OAP, subject to medical
confidentiality restrictions.
Page Number(s): 55; Finding: AOC plans to develop new approaches to
reduce workers' compensation costs based upon these discussions.
However, no solutions or new approaches to address workers'
compensation costs have thus far been developed.
AOC Response: AOC has taken action on a number of fronts, including,
continued emphasis on preventing injuries and illnesses (56% reduction
over 3 years), better coordination between HRMD and Jurisdiction safety
specialists on questionable cases (underway and continuing to be
refined), and increased emphasis on limited-and light-duty assignments.
The main way to control workers' compensation costs is through
prevention of injuries and there are significant efforts underway to
reduce injuries. In addition, AOC assertively reviews claims and, when
appropriate, controverts the claim to the Department of Labor. In
addition, AOC has hired investigators on a limited basis when there is
reason to believe suspect circumstances exist regarding the payment of
workers' compensation benefits.
Page Number(s): 62; Finding: AOC is taking the first steps to ensure
that the right people are employed in the right positions by starting
to identify competencies for its project management staff, and creating
position descriptions based on those competencies and using those
position descriptions as a basis for recruiting and hiring staff.
AOC Response: Project Management staff, Procurement Division staff, and
Human Resources staff are working collaboratively and have identified
technical competencies for project managers and acquisition personnel.
A draft program is ready for final review by senior management.
Project Management: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 57; Finding: AOC is making progress in addressing our
recommendation, although, in its March 7, 2003, draft performance plan,
AOC showed that it planned to publish the final Capitol Hill complex
master plan April l, 2006. In addition, the current schedule shows the
final plan being completed 8 months later in December 2006. ADC's
schedule shows that most of the additional time, 6 months, was added to
the time AOC expects it to take to obtain and incorporate comments and
finalize the plan. Completion of the BCAs is also behind the tentative
schedule developed in March 2003. The first BCAs were to be completed
March 31, 2004. But since all BCA contracts are not expected to be
awarded until December 2003, and the work is expected to take about 1
year, it appears that the initial BCAs for the three largest
jurisdictions will not be completed until the fall of 2004. Completion
of the other BCAs will depend on when funding is received. Since the
BCAs are a key component of the master plan, AOC will need to push to
get these completed as soon as possible so they can be integrated into
the master plan. It is important to recognize that once the BCAs are
completed they should be updated on a regular schedule.
AOC Response: The original schedule in the March 7, 2003, Draft
Performance Plan to which GAO refers, and against which the AOC is said
to be many months behind, was developed before the Planning and
Programming Division was established, before the current Division
Director was hired, before division staff were hired (including the
Project Manager for the plan), before a Scope of Work was developed,
and before it was determined that GSA would serve as contracting
agency. Following the hiring of the Planning and Programming staff, an
updated schedule was developed in April 2003, and since that time, the
AOC has remained on schedule. In November 2003, a determination was
made by the Architect to utilize GSA as contracting agency. This
decision has added approximately 2 months to those steps leading up to
contract award, but through streamlining, the final completion date has
remained the same.
The BCA initiative was not moving at the required pace through the
spring and early summer of 2003. In early August, the Planning and
Programming Division was assigned to manage these efforts. While the
BCAs are a number of months behind the original schedule, they are now
proceeding toward contract award in February 2004. In addition, we are
still on track to receive Form 1391 s as deliverables in time to
include appropriate projects in the FY 2006 LICP.
Project Management: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 59; Finding: According to the Director of ADC's
Technical Support Division, AOC has identified software packages
capable of producing a unified schedule that shows staff resources. The
Director is waiting for one particular vendor to complete a software
package that should produce a unified schedule and would work with
ADC's current software. He is scheduled to meet with this software
vendor in fall 2003 to determine if the software package can produce
the unified schedule that AOC needs.
AOC Response: A more accurate statement would be: "The AOC has
identified a software package capable of producing a unified schedule
that shows staff resources. A Purchase Order has been issued for the
software and for supporting consulting to accomplish proper
installation of the application.":
Recycling: GAO Finding(s) and AOC Response:
Page Number(s): 63; Findings: GAO concluded that the high levels of
contamination present in the materials collected in both the Senate and
House recycling programs had not allowed AOC to achieve either
substantial waste reduction or revenue generation it might have
otherwise achieved.
AOC Response: The above is not accurate; Off spec material is separated
by the recycling contractor and the recyclable portion of this material
is recycled. While it does limit revenue generation, it is recycled.
Also the amount of off-spec material generated by the Senate has
dropped dramatically, and the degree to which House off spec material
is contaminated (although still off-spec) has also declined
significantly.
Page Number(s): 67; Findings: The Senate jurisdictional proposal also
included adding four positions to the recycling collection staff.
According to the Senate recycling program manager, this proposal has
been submitted to AOC management and is pending approval.
AOC Response: The four new positions have been filled.
GAO Comments:
1. AOC agrees with our recommendation and agrees to take appropriate
follow-up actions.
2. AOC agrees with this finding and agrees to take appropriate follow-
up actions.
3. See comment 1.
4. AOC plans are consistent with our findings and have provided
additional information on its recent plans and actions that we will
assess in our subsequent semi-annual reviews.
5. See comment 4.
6. See comment 4.
7. The text has been modified to reflect AOC's response.
8. See comment 1.
9. See comment 4.
10. AOC's comments concerning our draft report's treatment of AOC's
action on our financial management recommendation were technical in
nature, and, as appropriate, changes were made to the final report.
11. See comment 10.
12. See comment 10.
13. See comment 10.
14. We have modified our report to reflect AOC's position that the
cited documents are not draft.
15. We agree with AOC's comment, and state in our report that AOC's
first step to implementing the framework was to score and rank projects
for fiscal year 2004. However, this scoring and ranking of projects for
the upcoming fiscal year are project selection, not control, practices.
Further, while we do not question AOC's statement in its comments that
its investment management boards are beginning to evaluate IT
investments, AOC's comments did not address what these evaluations
entail; and, our review showed that AOC's IT investment management
framework does not specify how the agency will identify, track, and
manage IT resources or ensure that projects support agency business
needs, both of which are key IT investment control activities.
Therefore, our position remains that AOC is focusing first on
selecting, rather than controlling, investments.
We support AOC's cited recent revision to the composition of its
investment review board, and have recognized AOC's statement in our
report. We look forward to receiving a revision of the board's charter
reflecting this membership change.
16. We agree that a chief enterprise architect position has been
requested in AOC's fiscal year 2005 budget, and that it has been using
contractor assistance in developing an enterprise architecture. Our
report recognizes both of these facts. Also, while we do not question
AOC's statement that it has developed a detailed plan addressing
resources, we have not received a copy of this plan.
17. We agree that AOC's IT investment framework contains the evaluation
criteria specified in AOC's comment. However, our recommendation is for
the agency to implement practices in our IT investment management guide
associated with a corporate portfolio-based investment management
process for controlling and selecting all proposed and ongoing IT
investments. As discussed in comment 15, AOC has thus far focused on
selecting among proposed new investments, to the exclusion of ongoing
projects, and it has yet to define how it is controlling ongoing
projects.
We agree that our previous recommendation did not reference our
architecture management maturity guide, but rather the Chief
Information Officer's Council practical guide. However, our maturity
guide is based on the content of the practical guide, arranging this
content into a series of five maturity levels. Further, our previous
recommendation was intended to provide AOC with the basis for taking
the first step toward architecture management maturity, and coincides
with the first stage of our maturity framework. Our new recommendations
build on and complement our previous recommendation, and thus we agree
that AOC will need to evolve its architecture plans to progress beyond
this initial step.
18. We have modified our report to reflect this clarification.
19. We do not question that AOC has taken the eight steps it cites
since completing its IT investment framework, but do not agree that the
agency has focused on controlling its existing investments for the
following reasons. With respect to step 1, AOC's scoring and ranking of
then proposed fiscal year 2004 projects are project selection, not
control, practices. Regarding steps 2 and 3, while we do not question
AOC's statements that it has assigned its project management board
responsibility for measuring project progress and that its investment
management boards are beginning to evaluate IT investments, AOC's
comments did not address the extent of these project reviews. Our
review showed that AOC's IT investment management framework does not
specify how the agency will identify, track, and manage IT resources, a
key IT investment control activity. With respect to the biweekly status
meetings that AOC states have been occurring for almost two years, we
reported in 2003 that the agency had not developed the processes needed
to manage and oversee all AOC existing projects.[Footnote 43]
Concerning step 4, we support AOC's cited recent revision to the
composition of its investment review board, and have recognized AOC's
statement in our report.
With regard to the fifth step cited by AOC, we do not question that AOC
is operating its IT investment board, but it is important to note that
the AOC IT investment framework describes the project management board
as the control and oversight board for ongoing investments. Concerning
step 6, the nature and extent of AOC cited oversight of ongoing
projects is unknown because AOC's comments did not address what is
entailed in the project management board and the biweekly status
meetings, and the framework does not specify how the agency will
identify, track, and manage IT projects. Regarding step 7, we support
the use of tools to identify, track and manage IT resources. Concerning
the last step AOC cited, we view the interviewing of stakeholders as a
positive step toward ensuring that each IT project supports the
organization's business needs.
20. See comments 15 and 19.
21. As mentioned in comment 14, we have modified our report to reflect
AOC's position that the architecture products are not draft and have
been approved by the Deputy Chief of Staff. We have also recognized the
statement that a detailed resource plan has been developed, as well as
the revised date for implementing the architecture. Our report already
addressed the status of the additional funding request.
22. See comment 17.
23. We do not question these statements and note that our report
already includes this information.
24. We have modified our report to reflect the recent steps AOC's
comments state that it has taken to begin establishing and implementing
an information security program.
25. The Safety Communication Plan was not raised during interviews with
AOC officials. AOC has provided additional information that we will
assess in our subsequent semi-annual reviews.
26. The text has been modified to reflect AOC's response.
27. Our report does not overlook the Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) process
within the Hazard Assessment and Control Policy and states that the JHA
process is, in fact, a key component of this policy. During our data
collection period, AOC had only completed a JHA in two jurisdictions.
AOC has provided additional information that we will assess in our
subsequent semi-annual reviews.
28. The baseline safety and environmental assessment mentioned by AOC
was not brought forth during our data collection and analysis period.
However, we do recognize in the draft that the Hazard Assessment and
Control policy will identify hazards associated with job tasks, as well
as identify corrective actions taken to abate these hazards.
29. This comment refers to the recycling appendix. These actions were
taken outside the timeframe of our review and will be assessed in our
subsequent semi-annual reviews.
30. See comment 29.
31. Information provided by AOC officials during our data collection
period was that they had requested significant and permanent increases
in their training budget. The text has been modified to reflect AOC's
response.
32. AOC's response does not change our assessment that no safety policy
has been fully implemented. New information provided to us was not
raised during our review period and therefore will be assessed in
subsequent semi-annual reviews.
33. We continue to believe that the performance measure identified in
the report for the objective "enhance employee awareness of and
involvement in all aspects of safety and health"--publication of
meeting minutes--is not results oriented. A good metric to assess
employee awareness would necessarily be based upon employee responses.
In fact, AOC recognized that its performance measures in assessing its
safety policies are immature. The text has been modified to include the
AOC's Injury and Illness rate for FY2003.
34. The text has been modified to clarify the need for extending the
original time frame to implement the safety policies.
35. These actions were taken outside the timeframe of our review and
will be assessed in our subsequent semi-annual reviews.
36. The text has been modified to clarify the added functions AOC may
purchase for the FMA system in order to expand its capabilities.
37. The text has been modified to reflect the current uses of the FMA
system.
38. See comment 28.
39. During our data collection period, the AOC had completed a JHA in
two jurisdictions. These actions were taken outside the timeframe of
our review and will be assessed in our subsequent semi-annual reviews.
40. The text has been modified in order to clarify FMA system access
issues.
41. Our finding focuses on the need to report illnesses and injuries
among jurisdictions in a comprehensive and consistent manner. Indeed,
through its development of its Incident Investigation Module, AOC
underscores the need for such a reporting system that tracks data
across jurisdictions. We acknowledge that AOC has a Workers
Compensation Tracking System for recording and tracking injuries and
illnesses.
42. These actions were taken outside the timeframe of our review and
will be assessed in our subsequent semi-annual reviews. The text has
been modified to clarify AOC's current initiatives in this area.
43. The text has been modified to include additional methods used to
evaluate training.
44. We encourage the AOC to move strategically towards an integrated
system that links identification of hazards with employee training
needs.
45. We encourage the AOC to strategically identify data access issues
related to employee training records.
46. During our review, AOC management informed us that medical
information obtained from Office of the Attending Physician (OAP) exams
were not being shared with AOC officials because of confidentiality
issues. The sharing of these data, while addressing confidentiality
issues, could benefit AOC in its efforts to identify and combat health-
related trends among AOC employees.
47. AOC's response does not indicate that the Safety, Health and
Environmental Council (SHEC) have identified strategies to reduce
workers' compensation costs. We continue to believe that the SHEC
offers opportunities to identify strategies to address this issue.
48. We reported this information in our strategic human capital
management and project management appendixes in our discussion of
competencies.
49. In August 2003, AOC provided us with an update to their original
schedule for the Master Plan. We compared this updated schedule to the
original schedule in the March 2003 draft performance plan and used
this information for our analysis. AOC did not provide us with any
other schedule information against which to analyze their progress.
Therefore, we presented the information made available to us as of
November 2003.
50. We have made the appropriate change in the text.
51. While we recognize that the recycling contractor separates the
material collected from AOC and recycles the recyclable portion, it is
also true that office paper including both white (high grade) paper and
mixed grade (both white and colored office paper) that is contaminated
with wet waste (primarily food and beverage waste) can no longer be
recycled and must be sent to a landfill.
52. In addition to stating that the Senate jurisdiction proposal
included adding four positions to the recycling collection staff, we
also stated in our draft that the proposal recommended consolidating
the recycling positions into one organizational unit to address the
diluted span of control and lack of accountability that existed under
the present organizational structure. AOC did not comment on whether it
had approved the proposed reorganization. Increasing accountability for
obtaining recycling goals was the principal point of our discussion and
increasing staff without changing the organizational structure would
not improve accountability.
(450225):
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Architect of the Capitol:
Management and Accountability Framework Needed for Organizational
Transformation, GAO-03-231 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2003).
[2] Section 1203 of Division H, Title I, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Feb. 20,
2003 (Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003).
[3] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10, at 1225 (2003).
[4] At the time of our review, the COO had not approved the agency's
draft strategic and draft performance plans. We received notification
that the COO had approved and finalized AOC's strategic and performance
plans on January 13, 2004. Therefore, throughout our report, we refer
to the strategic and performance plans as draft because at the time of
our review, these documents were not yet approved.
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating
a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational
Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures:
Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational
Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 2, 2003).
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity,
Version 1, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management, GAO-03-
584G (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
[9] AOC's Occupational Safety and Health Program Plan splits the
development and implementation of the Hazard Assessment and Control
policy into two segments, one dealing with completion of the JHA and
the other dealing with implementation of the operational aspects of
this policy. The time frames we cite here apply to the operational
segment of the policy. The JHA segment is scheduled to be fully
implemented by the end of calendar year 2004.
[10] According to the AOC draft strategic plan, the environmental
program plan, to be completed in 2004, will address a wide spectrum of
environmental management initiatives including environmentally
sensitive planning and design, compliance with applicable provisions of
environmental regulations (such as clean air, clean water, and solid
waste disposal), and pollution prevention.
[11] The Architect of the Capitol, Draft Strategic Plan, FY 2003--2007,
(Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2003).
[12] The Architect of the Capitol, Draft Performance Plan, Achieving
AOC's Strategic Goals and Objectives, (Washington, D.C.: March 7,
2003).
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures:
Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational
Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures:
Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and
Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
[15] See U.S. GAO-03-488.
[16] According to AOC, the purpose of the Office of Workforce Planning
and Management is to oversee and conduct such organizationwide
functions as workforce planning and analysis, succession planning,
organizational staffing, staff resource allocation, and to review
organizational structure and alignment of functions.
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Selected Agency
Actions to Integrate Human Capital Approaches to Attain Mission
Results, GAO-03-446 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2003).
[18] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles
for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39, (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003); Government Printing Office: Advancing GPO's
Transformation Effort through Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-
04-85 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2003); Tax Administration: Workforce
Planning Needs Further Development for IRS's Taxpayer Education and
Communication Unit, GAO-03-711 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).
[19] See Section 129(d) of Pub. L. No. 107-68, Nov. 12, 2001 and
corresponding reports, Sen. Rep. No. 107-37 at 28,29 (2001) and H.R.
Conf. Rep No. 107-148 at 72 (2001).
[20] Section 1203 of Division H, Title I, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Feb. 20,
2003, (The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003).
[21] See AOC Human Resources Manual, Order 630-1, Absence and Leave,
July 1, 2003.
[22] See Pay Under the Architect's Wage System, Chapter 532,
"Determining Eligibility for Sunday Premium Pay," June 15, 2003.
[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: The Role of
Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution, GAO-01-466 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13,
2001).
[24] Architect of the Capitol, Centralized Oversight of Information
Technology, Order 8-1-1, May 30, 2003.
[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity,
Version 1, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
[26] Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal
Enterprise Architecture, version 1.0 (Washington, D.C.: February 2001).
[27] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: A
Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture
Management, GAO-03-584G (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
[28] Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Capability
Maturity Model®Integration (CMMISSM, version 1.1 (March 2002).
[29] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Information
Security Management, Learning from Leading Organizations, GAO/AIMD-98-
68 (Washington, D.C.: May 1998).
[30] Architect of the Capitol, Authority Policy and Responsibility of
the Chief Information Security Officer,Order 7-1-1, May 30, 2003.
[31] Architect of the Capitol, IT Security Risk Management Policy,
Order 7-2-2, July 31, 2003 (Draft).
[32] Architect of the Capitol, INFOSEC Training, Education, and
Awareness Policy, Order 7-1-3, July 31, 2003 (Draft).
[33] The safety programs are now referred to as safety policies.
[34] According to the Occupational Safety and Health Program Plan,
policy development is an extensive and iterative process of regulatory
research, best practice review, integration with existing AOC policies
and practices, stakeholder input, and management approval.
[35] In responding to our draft report, AOC officials noted that a key
indicator was not mentioned --the Injury and Illness rate. The Injury
and Illness rate measures job related injuries and illnesses per 100
employees as recorded under the Federal Employees Compensation Act
program. In addition, AOC officials indicated that this rate was 7.87
in FY 2003, representing a 56 percent reduction from AOC's FY 2000
rate. Within the scope of this assignment, we did not independently
verify this rate.
[36] See footnote 34.
[37] AOC's Occupational Safety and Health Program Plan splits the
development and implementation of the Hazard Assessment and Control
policy into two segments, one dealing with the completion of JHA and
the other dealing with implementation of the operational aspects of
this policy. The time frames we cite here apply to the operational
segment of the policy. The JHA segment is scheduled to be fully
implemented by the end of calendar year 2004.
[38] AOC changed the title of its worker safety plan from Safety Master
Plan to Occupational Safety and Health Program Plan.
[39] National Research Council of the National Academies, Working in
Olmsted's Shadow: Guidance for Developing a Scope of Services for the
Update of the Master Plan for the U.S. Capitol and Grounds (Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2003).
[40] Contamination occurs when potentially recyclable materials are
mixed together with other categories of recyclables or wet waste. This
reduces the value of the recyclable materials collected and in some
cases, such as when paper is mixed with wet waste, the material may no
longer be recyclable and must be sent to a landfill.
[41] According to the AOC draft strategic plan, the environmental
program plan, to be completed in 2004, will address a wide spectrum of
environmental management initiatives including environmentally
sensitive planning and design, compliance with applicable provisions of
environmental regulations (such as clean air, clean water, and solid
waste disposal), and pollution prevention.
[42] U.S. General Services Administration, Recycling Program Desk
Guide, (Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[43] U.S. General Accounting Office, Architect of the Capitol:
Management and Accountability Framework Needed for Organizational
Transformation, GAO-03-231 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2003).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: