This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1051T entitled 'Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to Improve Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars' which was released on July 31, 2008. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Testimony: Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: For Release on Delivery: Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT: Thursday, July 31, 2008: Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to Improve Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars: Statement of David A. Powner: Director, Information Technology Management Issues: GAO-08-1051T: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-08-1051T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. Why GAO Did This Study: The federal government spends billions of dollars on information technology (IT) projects each year. Consequently, it is important that projects be managed effectively to ensure that public resources are wisely invested. To this end, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which plays a key role in overseeing the federal government’s IT investments, identifies major projects that are poorly planned by placing them on a Management Watch List and requires agencies to identify high-risk projects that are performing poorly (i.e., have performance shortfalls). Having accurate and transparent project cost and schedule information is also essential to effective oversight. At times, changes to this information—called a rebaselining— are made to reflect changed development circumstances. These changes can be done for valid reasons, but can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays. GAO has previously testified on the Management Watch List and high risk projects. GAO was asked to (1) provide an update on these projects, (2) identify OMB’s efforts to improve the identification and oversight of these projects, and (3) summarize the results of GAO’s IT project rebaselining report being released today. In preparing this testimony, GAO analyzed current Management Watch List and high risk project information. What GAO Found: OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 413 IT projects—totaling at least $25.2 billion in expenditures for fiscal year 2008—as being poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. Specifically, through the Management Watch List process, OMB determined that 352 projects (totaling about $23.4 billion) are poorly planned. In addition, agencies reported that 87 of their high risk projects (totaling about $4.8 billion) were poorly performing. Twenty-six projects (totaling about $3 billion) are considered both poorly planned and poorly performing. Figure: Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing IT Projects (as of July 2008): [See PDF for image] This figure illustrates the following data: Management Watch List: $23.4 billion (352); * Poorly planned: $20.4 billion (326); * Poorly planned and poorly performing: $3 billion (26). High Risk List with shortfalls: $4.8 billion (87); * Poorly planned and poorly performing: $3 billion (26); * Poorly performing: $1.8 billion (61). Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency data. [End of figure] OMB has taken steps to improve the identification of the Management Watch List and high-risk projects since GAO testified last September, including publicly disclosing reasons for placement on the Management Watch List and clarifying high-risk project criteria. However, more needs to be done by both OMB and the agencies to address recommendations GAO has previously made to improve the planning, management, and oversight of poorly planned and performing projects so that potentially billions in taxpayer dollars are not wasted. In its rebaselining review, GAO reports that 48 percent of the federal government’s major IT projects have been rebaselined for several reasons, including changes in project goals and changes in funding. Of those rebaselined projects, 51 percent were rebaselined at least twice and about 11 percent were rebaselined 4 times or more. In addition, while the major agencies have all established rebaselining policies, these policies are not comprehensive. Specifically, none of the policies were fully consistent with best practices, including describing a process for developing a new baseline and requiring the validation of the new baseline. Agencies’ policies varied in part because OMB has not issued guidance specifying what elements these policies are to include. In its report, GAO makes recommendations to OMB to issue guidance for rebaselining policies and to the major agencies to develop comprehensive rebaselining policies that address identified weaknesses. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1051T]. For more information, contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. [End of section] July 31, 2008: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government's processes for improving the management of information technology (IT) investments. As you know, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on these projects each year. This number is expected to reach $71 billion for fiscal year 2009. Given the size of these investments and the criticality of many of the systems to the health, economy, and security of the nation, it is important that they be effectively managed. To this end, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which plays a key role in overseeing the federal government's IT investments, identifies major projects that are poorly planned by placing them on a Management Watch List and requires agencies to identify high-risk projects that are performing poorly. Having accurate and transparent project cost and schedule information is also essential to effective oversight. At times, changes to this information--called a rebaselining--are made to reflect changed development circumstances. These changes can be done for valid reasons, but can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays. We have testified on the Management Watch List and high-risk projects for the past 2 years, highlighting the number and dollar value of the projects identified as poorly planned and/or poorly performing. [Footnote 1] You asked us to (1) provide an update on OMB's Management Watch List and list of high-risk projects, (2) identify OMB's efforts to improve the identification and oversight of these projects, and (3) summarize our IT project rebaselining report, which is being released today. [Footnote 2] In preparing this testimony, we analyzed the current Management Watch List and high-risk project information and reviewed recent actions taken by OMB to better identify and oversee these projects. In completing our rebaselining review we surveyed the managers of a random sample of 180 projects selected from the 778 major IT projects the 24 major agencies plan to invest in during fiscal year 2008 and compared agencies' rebaselining policies to best practices identified in our Cost Assessment Guide. We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Results in Brief: OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 413 IT projects- -totaling at least $25.2 billion in expenditures for fiscal year 2008- -as being poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. Specifically, through the Management Watch List process, OMB determined that 352 projects (totaling about $23.4 billion) are poorly planned. In addition, agencies reported that 87 of their high-risk projects (totaling about $4.8 billion) were poorly performing. Twenty-six projects (totaling about $3 billion) are considered both poorly planned and poorly performing. OMB has taken steps to improve the identification of the Management Watch List and high-risk projects since we testified last September, including publicly disclosing reasons for inclusion on the Management Watch List and clarifying high-risk project criteria. However, more needs to be done by both OMB and the agencies to address recommendations we have previously made to improve the planning, management, and oversight of the poorly planned and poorly performing projects so that potentially billions in taxpayer dollars are not wasted. For example, OMB has yet to publicly disclose the deficiencies (i.e., performance shortfalls) associated with high-risk projects, and agencies still need to take actions to address recommendations we have previously made to improve their investment management practices. In our rebaselining review, we project that 48 percent of the federal government's major IT projects have been rebaselined for several reasons, including changes in project goals and changes in funding. Of those rebaselined projects, 51 percent were rebaselined at least twice, and about 11 percent were rebaselined 4 times or more. In addition, while the major agencies had all established rebaselining policies, these policies were not comprehensive. Specifically, none of the policies were fully consistent with best practices, including describing a process for developing a new baseline and requiring the validation of the new baseline. Agencies' policies varied in part because OMB has not issued guidance specifying what elements these policies are to include. In our report, we are making recommendations to OMB to issue guidance for rebaselining policies and to the major agencies to develop comprehensive rebaselining policies that address identified weaknesses. Background: Each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how much the government plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds are to be allocated. Federal IT spending has risen to an estimated $71 billion for fiscal year 2009. OMB plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and management of federal IT investments. To improve this oversight, Congress enacted the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, expanding the responsibilities delegated to OMB and agencies under the Paperwork Reduction Act.[Footnote 3] Among other things, Clinger-Cohen requires agencies to better link their IT planning and investment decisions to program missions and goals and to implement and enforce IT management policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines. The act also requires that agencies engage in capital planning and performance and results-based management.[Footnote 4] OMB's responsibilities under the act include establishing processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments in information systems made by executive agencies. OMB must also report to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as a result of these investments.[Footnote 5] In response to the Clinger-Cohen Act and other statutes, OMB developed policy for the planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of federal capital assets. This policy is set forth in OMB Circular A-11 (section 300) and in OMB's Capital Programming Guide (supplement to Part 7 of Circular A-11), which direct agencies to develop, implement, and use a capital programming process to build their capital asset portfolios. Among other things, OMB's Capital Programming Guide directs agencies to: * evaluate and select capital asset investments that will support core mission functions and demonstrate projected returns on investment that are clearly equal to or better than alternative uses of available public resources; * institute performance measures and management processes that monitor actual performance and compare it to planned results, and; * establish oversight mechanisms that require periodic review of operational capital assets to determine if mission requirements have changed and whether the asset continues to fulfill those requirements and deliver its intended benefits. To further support the implementation of IT capital planning practices as required by statute and directed in OMB's Capital Programming Guide, we have developed an IT investment management framework[Footnote 6] that agencies can use in developing a stable and effective capital planning process. It is a tool that can be used to determine both the status of an agency's current IT investment management capabilities and the additional steps that are needed to establish more effective processes. Mature and effective management of IT investments can vastly improve government performance and accountability, while poor management can result in wasteful spending and lost opportunities for improving delivery of services to the public. Prior Reviews on Federal IT Investment Management Have Identified Weaknesses: We have previously reported that the federal government faces enduring challenges in effectively managing IT investments. For example, in January 2004, we reported on the mixed results of federal agencies' use of IT investment management practices.[Footnote 7] Specifically, we reported that, although most of the agencies had IT investment boards responsible for defining and implementing the agencies' investment management processes, they did not always have important mechanisms in place for these boards to effectively control investments, including decision-making rules for project oversight, early warning mechanisms, and requirements that corrective actions for underperforming projects be agreed upon and tracked. Accordingly, we made several recommendations to agencies to improve their practices. In previous work using our investment management framework, we reported that the use of IT investment management practices by agencies was mixed. For example, a few agencies that have followed the framework in implementing capital planning processes have made significant improvements.[Footnote 8] In contrast, however, we and others have continued to identify weaknesses at agencies in many areas, including immature management processes to support both the selection and oversight of major IT investments and the measurement of actual versus expected performance in meeting established performance measures.[Footnote 9] For example, in 2007, we reported that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury did not have the processes in place to effectively select and oversee their major investments.[Footnote 10] OMB's Management Watch List Is Intended to Correct Project Weaknesses and Business Case Deficiencies: To help ensure that investments of public resources are justified and that public resources are wisely invested, OMB began using its Management Watch List in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request as a means to oversee the justification for and planning of agencies' IT investments. This list was derived based on a detailed review of each investment's Capital Asset Plan and Business Case, also known as the exhibit 300. The exhibit 300 is a reporting mechanism intended to enable an agency to demonstrate to its own management, as well as to OMB, that a major project is well planned in that it has employed the disciplines of good project management; developed a strong business case for the investment; and met other Administration priorities in defining the cost, schedule, and performance goals proposed for the investment. In April 2005, we reported that OMB analysts evaluated agency exhibit 300s by assigning scores to each exhibit 300 based on guidance presented in OMB Circular A-11.[Footnote 11] As described in this circular, the scoring of a business case consisted of individual scoring for 10 categories (on a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest), as well as a total composite score of all the categories. The 10 scoring categories are: * support of the President's Management Agenda; * project (investment) management; * acquisition strategy; * performance information; * security; * privacy; * enterprise architecture; * alternatives analysis; * risk management, and; * cost/schedule/performance. When we reported on the Management Watch List in 2005, projects were placed on the Management Watch List if they received low scores (3 or less) in the areas of performance goals, performance-based management systems, security and privacy or if they received a low composite score. For the fiscal year 2009 budget, OMB used more stringent criteria. Specifically, OMB placed projects on the Management Watch List if they had (1) an overall score of 30 or less, (2) a security score of 3 or less, or (3) a non-security score of 2 or less. Projects were also placed on the list if other sources (such as an Inspector General's Federal Information Security Management Act report[Footnote 12] or the agency's President's Management Agenda E-government scorecard[Footnote 13]) indicated that the agency did not have qualified project managers or had weaknesses in its implementation of security, privacy, or earned value management techniques. According to OMB, agencies with projects on the Management Watch List are to submit remediation plans addressing the weaknesses. Those projects that receive specific follow-up attention receive feedback through what is known as the passback process, targeted evaluation of remediation plans designed to address weaknesses, the apportioning of funds made conditional on appropriate remediation plans being in place, and the quarterly e-Government Scorecards. According to OMB, it removes projects from the Management Watch List as agencies remediate the weaknesses identified with these projects' business cases. OMB's High-Risk Projects Process Is Intended to Correct and Improve Project Performance: As originally defined in OMB Circular A-11 and subsequently reiterated in an August 2005 memorandum, high-risk projects are those that require special attention from oversight authorities and the highest levels of agency management. These projects are not necessarily at risk of failure, but may be on the list because of one or more of the following four reasons: * The agency has not consistently demonstrated the ability to manage complex projects. * The project has exceptionally high development, operating, or maintenance costs, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the agency's total IT portfolio. * The project is being undertaken to correct recognized deficiencies in the adequate performance of an essential mission program or function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization. * Delay or failure of the project would introduce for the first time unacceptable or inadequate performance or failure of an essential mission function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization. In 2006, we reported that, to identify high-risk projects, staff from each agency's Office of the Chief Information Officer compare the criteria against their current portfolio to determine which projects met OMB's definition. They then submit the list to OMB for review. According to OMB and agency officials, after the submission of the initial list, examiners at OMB work with individual agencies to identify or remove projects as appropriate. According to most agencies, the final list is then approved by their Chief Information Officer. [Footnote 14] This year, OMB clarified and expanded the high-risk project criteria. Specifically, in the materials supplementing the President's budget for fiscal year 2009, OMB listed the following criteria for identifying high-risk projects: * complex projects; * projects with a high degree of political or citizen interest; * projects with cross-organizational or agency impact or interdependencies with other systems efforts; * major systems on the Management Watch List at the conclusion of the prior fiscal year that continue to warrant heightened attention during project execution; * major systems formally designated as an E-Government or Line of Business Shared Service Provider; * E-Government initiative migration projects that are planned or underway (which are removed upon completion); * existing or legacy agency systems retiring once their functionality has been migrated to a common solution (also removed once retired), and; * program or program management office activities supporting government- wide common solutions. For the identified high-risk projects, Chief Information Officers are to assess, confirm, and document projects' performance. Specifically, agencies are required to determine, for each of their high-risk projects, whether the project was meeting one or more of four performance evaluation criteria, which include: * establishing baselines with clear cost, schedule, and performance goals; * maintaining the project's cost and schedule variances within 10 percent; * assigning a qualified project manager; and; * avoiding duplication by leveraging inter-agency and governmentwide investments. High risk projects failing to meet any of these four performance evaluation criteria are considered to have "performance shortfalls." Agencies are instructed to document these shortfalls using a standard template provided by OMB and provide this template to oversight authorities on request. Upon submission, individual analysts review the quarterly performance reports of projects with shortfalls to determine how well the projects are progressing and, using other performance data already received, whether the actions described in the planned improvement efforts are adequate. OMB's Role and Laws and Guidance on IT Project Rebaselining: At times, a major IT project's cost, schedule, and performance goals-- known as a baseline--need to be modified to reflect new circumstances. While these changes--generally referred to as rebaselining--can be done for valid reasons--including, for example, changes in a project's objectives, scope, requirements, or funding stream--they can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays. The purpose of a rebaselining is to ensure that project managers have realistic benchmarks for tracking the status of the project. OMB requires that all proposed changes to baselines be submitted to it prior to an agency's budget request (and that proposed changes should not be assumed to be approved). The information OMB requires from agencies includes costs and milestones from both the initial and current baselines (if the program has been rebaselined). It also asks agencies whether the investment was rebaselined during the past fiscal year and, if so, if the new baseline was approved by the agency head. The Capital Programming Guide also notes that OMB reviews the reasons for deviation from goals, the reasonableness of the corrective actions proposed, and the validity of increased cost estimates. The guide further states that OMB is to consider approving a rebaseline proposal only when the agency has provided justification based on an integrated baseline review,[Footnote 15] demonstrates that the new goals have a high probability of attainability, and shows that the acquisition will still have a benefit-cost ratio that justifies continued funding after comparing it with the other projects in the portfolio and considering budget limitations. Staff from OMB's Office of E-government and Information Technology and the Acting Chief of OMB's Information Policy and Technology Branch told us that they review agencies' earned value management policies to determine their compliance with the provisions of the Presidential Management Agenda for E-government. They stated that, in reviewing these policies, they determine whether rebaselining is adequately addressed. In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) has statutory requirements involving rebaselining. Each major defense acquisition program is required by statute to establish an approved program baseline before entering into the system development and demonstration phase of the acquisition cycle. For such programs, a revised baseline is also required for each subsequent milestone authorizing entry into the next phase of the acquisition cycle. The statute also requires DOD to prescribe regulations addressing the content of the baseline, reports of deviations from the baseline, procedures for reviewing such deviations within DOD, and procedures for submission to and approval by the Secretary of Defense of revised baselines. We also recently issued a draft Cost Assessment Guide on best practices for estimating and managing program costs[Footnote 16] which, among other things, discusses considerations in rebaselining programs. For example, the guide identifies key cost, schedule, project execution risk, and data accuracy indicators that can serve as warning signs that a program may need to be rebaselined. The guide also identifies best practices that are relevant to rebaselining policies. These practices are: (1) describing reasons when a rebaseline is warranted, (2) describing the process for developing a new baseline, (3) requiring validation of the new baseline, (4) requiring management review, and (5) requiring that decisions associated with the rebaselining process are documented. Hundreds of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars in Estimated Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2009 Are Poorly Planned or Poorly Performing: OMB and federal agencies have identified approximately 413 IT projects- -totaling at least $25.2 billion in expenditures for fiscal year 2009- -as being poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. Specifically, hundreds of projects totaling billions of dollars have been placed on OMB's Management Watch List for fiscal year 2009. In addition, projects identified as poorly performing under OMB's high-risk process total about $4.8 billion in estimated expenditures for fiscal year 2009. Finally, 26 projects totaling $3 billion have been identified as both poorly planned and poorly performing. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these projects and their associated dollar values. Figure 1: Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing IT Projects (as of July 2008): [See PDF for image] This figure illustrates the following data: Management Watch List: $23.4 billion (352); * Poorly planned: $20.4 billion (326); * Poorly planned and poorly performing: $3 billion (26). High Risk List with shortfalls: $4.8 billion (87); * Poorly planned and poorly performing: $3 billion (26); * Poorly performing: $1.8 billion (61). Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency data. [End of figure] Hundreds of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Were Placed on the Management Watch List for Fiscal Year 2009: Each year, OMB has placed hundreds of projects totaling billions of dollars on the Management Watch List. Table 1 provides a historical perspective of the number of these projects and their associated budgets since OMB started reporting on the Management Watch List in the President's budget request for 2004. The table shows that while the number of projects and their associated budgets have generally decreased since then, they increased by 239 projects and $13 billion dollars for fiscal year 2009, and represent a significant percentage of the total budget. Table 1: Major IT Projects on the Management Watch List for Fiscal Years 2004-2009: Fiscal years: 2004; Major federal IT projects (associated budget in billions): 1400 ($59.0); Management Watch List projects (associated budget in billions): 771 Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch List (percentage of budget): ($20.9) 55% (35%). Fiscal years: 2005; Major federal IT projects (associated budget in billions): 1200 ($60.0); Management Watch List projects (associated budget in billions): 621 ($22.0); Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch List (percentage of budget): 52% (37%). Fiscal years: 2006; Major federal IT projects (associated budget in billions): 1087 ($65.0); Management Watch List projects (associated budget in billions): 342 ($15.0); Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch List (percentage of budget): 31% (23%). Fiscal years: 2007; Major federal IT projects (associated budget in billions): 857 ($64.0); Management Watch List projects (associated budget in billions): 263 ($9.9); Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch List (percentage of budget): 31% (15%). Fiscal years: 2008; Major federal IT projects (associated budget in billions): 840 ($65.0); Management Watch List projects (associated budget in billions): 346 ($14.0); Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch List (percentage of budget): 41% (22%). Fiscal years: 2009; Major federal IT projects (associated budget in billions): 810 ($70.7); Management Watch List projects (associated budget in billions): 585 ($27.0); Percentage of federal IT projects on Management Watch List (percentage of budget): 72% (38%). Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. [End of table] As of July 2008, OMB reported that 352 of the 585 projects, representing $23.4 billion, still remained on the Management Watch List (see appendix I for complete list). Table 2 shows the number of projects each agency has on the watch list as of July 2008. Table 2: Number of Major IT Projects on Watch List by Agency (as of July 2008): Agency: Corps of Engineers; Number of projects: 10; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Number of projects: 37; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Department of Commerce; Number of projects: 61; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Department of Defense; Number of projects: 63; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Department of Education; Number of projects: 11; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 39%. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Number of projects: 29; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 43%. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Number of projects: 28; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 39%. Agency: Department of the Interior; Number of projects: 50; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Department of State; Number of projects: 1; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 5%. Agency: Department of Transportation; Number of projects: 2; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 4%. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Number of projects: 4; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 7%. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Number of projects: 40; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Number of projects: 15; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Office of Personnel Management; Number of projects: 1; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 100%. Agency: Total; Number of projects: 352; Percentage of agencies’ major projects: 44%. Source: OMB data. [End of table] According to OMB's evaluation of the exhibit 300s, investments were placed on the watch list primarily because of weaknesses in the way they addressed (1) cost, schedule, and performance; (2) security; (3) privacy; and (4) acquisition strategy. Figure 2 illustrates the frequency of these reasons for the projects that remained on list as of July 2008. Appendix II provides additional detail by agency. Figure 2: Frequency of Reasons for Inclusion on the Management Watch List as of July 2008: [See PDF for image] This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: Category: Cost, schedule, and performance; Frequency of Reasons: 84. Category: Security; Frequency of Reasons: 71. Category: Privacy; Frequency of Reasons: 54. Category: Acqusition strategy; Frequency of Reasons: 51. Category: Alternative analysis; Frequency of Reasons: 29. Category: Risk management; Frequency of Reasons: 23. Category: Project management; Frequency of Reasons: 20. Category: Performance information; Frequency of Reasons: 12. Category: Enterprise architecture; Frequency of Reasons: 8. Category: Alignment with Presidents' Management Agenda; Frequency of Reasons: 7. Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. *Note: Frequency does not add up to 352 because projects could be placed on the Management Watch List for multiple reasons. [End of figure] In addition, according to OMB, thirty-two of these projects have been on the Management Watch List since fiscal year 2006. The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Commerce have had the most projects on the list since then: 14 and 7, respectively. Table 3 identifies the 32 projects that have been on the Management Watch List since fiscal year 2006. Table 3: Projects on the Management Watch List since fiscal year 2006: Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project: Human Resources Line of Business: Service Center. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project: Financial Management IT Operations; Project: Weather and Climate Computing Infrastructure Services; Project: Consolidated IT Infrastructure; Project: National Air Quality Forecast Capability; Project: Next Generation Weather Radar System Product Improvement; Project: National Weather Service Telecommunication Gateway System; Project: National Weather Service Regions & Field. Agency: Department of Education; Project: Common Services for Borrowers-Legacy. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project: Capstone Facility Management System; Project: Consolidated Infrastructure, Automation, Telecomm. Agency: Department of Transportation; Project: IT Combined Infrastructure. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Project: Enterprise IT Infrastructure Optimization Initiative. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project: Health Administration Center IT Operations; Project: Health Data Repository; Project: Benefits Delivery Network Maintenance and Operations; Project: Decision Support System; Project: VistA-Legacy; Project: Federal Health Information Exchange; Project: Enrollment Operations and Maintenance; Project: VistA Imaging; Project: Allocation Resource Center; Project: Learning Management System; Project: Medical and Prosthetic Research Operations; Project: IT Infrastructure-2009; Project: Program Integrity/Data Management; Project: Benefits Support Services. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project: Financial Management System; Project: Automated Personal Property Management Systems; Project: Project Management Information System II; Project: Corps Water Management System. Agency: Office of Personnel Management; Project: Enterprise Infrastructure. Source: OMB data. [End of table] Poorly Performing Projects Total About $4.8 Billion in Estimated Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2009: As of June 2008, the 24 major agencies identified 472 IT projects as high risk, at least 87 of which had performance shortfalls collectively totaling about $4.8 billion in funding requested for fiscal year 2009. Table 4 shows that the number of projects increased, while the number of projects with shortfalls decreased this year. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet provided information on its number of projects with shortfalls may be a contributing factor. Table 4: High-Risk Projects with Performance Shortfalls (associated budget in billions): Fiscal years: 2007; Total federal IT projects: 857 ($64.0); High risk projects (associated budget): 226 ($6.4)[A]; High risk projects with shortfalls (associated budget): 79 ($2.2)[A]; Percentage of total IT projects with shortfalls: 9%; Percentage of total IT projects’ budget with shortfalls: 3.4%. Fiscal years: 2008; Total federal IT projects: 840 ($65.0); High risk projects (associated budget): 438 ($14.0)[B]; High risk projects with shortfalls (associated budget): 124 ($6.0)[B]; Percentage of total IT projects with shortfalls: 15%; Percentage of total IT projects’ budget with shortfalls: 9%. Fiscal years: 2009; Total federal IT projects: 810 ($70.7); High risk projects (associated budget): 472 ($14.7)[C]; High risk projects with shortfalls (associated budget): 87 ($4.8)[D]; Percentage of total IT projects with shortfalls: 10%; Percentage of total IT projects’ budget with shortfalls: 7%. Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency data. [A] These number and dollar figures are from September 2006. [B] These number and dollar figures are from June 2007. [C] These number and dollar figures are from June 2008. [D] These number and dollar figures do not include the Department of Veterans Affairs. [End of table] The majority of projects were not reported to have had performance shortfalls. Further, seven agencies--the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of State, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, and the Social Security Administration--reported that none of their high-risk projects experienced any performance shortfalls. Figure 3 illustrates the number of high-risk projects by agency as of June 2008, with and without shortfalls. Figure 3: Number of Agencies' High-Risk Projects with and without Performance Shortfalls (as of June 2008): [See PDF for image] This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following data: Agency: Commerce; No performance shortfall: 12 projects; Performance shortfall: 1 project; Total projects: 13. Agency: DHS; No performance shortfall: 18 projects; Performance shortfall: 25 projects; Total projects: 43. Agency: DOD; No performance shortfall: 9 projects; Performance shortfall: 4 projects; Total projects: 13. Agency: DOE; No performance shortfall: 13 projects; Performance shortfall: 1 project; Total projects: 14. Agency: DOI; No performance shortfall: 15 projects; Performance shortfall: 3 projects; Total projects: 18. Agency: DOJ; No performance shortfall: 10 projects; Performance shortfall: 7 projects; Total projects: 17. Agency: DOL; No performance shortfall: 7 projects; Performance shortfall: 1 project; Total projects: 8. Agency: DOT; No performance shortfall: 15 projects; Performance shortfall: 3 projects; Total projects: 18. Agency: Education; No performance shortfall: 12 projects; Performance shortfall: 8 projects; Total projects: 20. Agency: EPA; No performance shortfall: 13 projects; Performance shortfall: 2 projects; Total projects: 15. Agency: GSA; No performance shortfall: 18 projects; Performance shortfall: 1 project; Total projects: 19. Agency: HHS; No performance shortfall: 22 projects; Performance shortfall: 3 projects; Total projects: 25. Agency: HUD; No performance shortfall: 6 projects; Performance shortfall: 0 projects; Total projects: 6. Agency: NASA; No performance shortfall: 9 projects; Performance shortfall: 0 projects; Total projects: 9. Agency: NRC; No performance shortfall: 19 projects; Performance shortfall: 0 projects; Total projects: 19. Agency: NSF; No performance shortfall: 5 projects; Performance shortfall: 0 projects; Total projects: 5. Agency: OPM; No performance shortfall: 11 projects; Performance shortfall: 1 project; Total projects: 12. Agency: SBA; No performance shortfall: 8 projects; Performance shortfall: 0 projects; Total projects: 8. Agency: SSA; No performance shortfall: 6 projects; Performance shortfall: 0 projects; Total projects: 6. Agency: State; No performance shortfall: 10 projects; Performance shortfall: 0 projects; Total projects: 10. Agency: Treasury; No performance shortfall: 62 projects; Performance shortfall: 21 projects; Total projects: 83. Agency: USAID; No performance shortfall: 11 projects; Performance shortfall: 3 projects; Total projects: 14. Agency: USDA; No performance shortfall: 15 projects; Performance shortfall: 3 projects; Total projects: 18. Agency: VA[A]; No performance shortfall: Data not provided; Performance shortfall: Data not provided; Total projects: Data not provided. [A] The Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet provided its June 2008 high risk report to GAO. Note: One project can have multiple shortfalls. Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); Department of Transportation (DOT); U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Social Security Administration (SSA); General Services Administration (GSA); Department of Agriculture (USDA); Small Business Administration (SBA); Department of Defense (DOD); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); Office of Personnel Management (OPM); Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Department of Justice (DOJ); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); National Science Foundation (NSF); Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Department of Energy (DOE); Department of Labor (DOL); Department of the Interior (DOI). [End of figure] Agencies reported cost and schedule variances that exceeded 10 percent as the most common shortfall. This is consistent with what they reported about a year ago, and the distribution of shortfall types is similar to that of last year. Figure 4 illustrates the reported number and type of performance shortfalls associated with high-risk projects, and appendix III provides additional details of the shortfalls associated with each of the poorly performing projects. Figure 4: Reported Performance Shortfalls of 87 Projects (as of June 2008): [See PDF for image] This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: Type of High Risk List shortfalls: Cost and schedule variance exceed 10%; Number of projects: 70. Type of High Risk List shortfalls: Unclear baselines; Number of projects: 26. Type of High Risk List shortfalls: Project manager not qualified; Number of projects: 24. Type of High Risk List shortfalls: Duplication; Number of projects: 14. Source: GAO analysis of agency data. [End of figure] Seventeen high-risk projects have experienced performance shortfalls for the past four quarters (see figure 5). Figure 5: High-Risk Projects with Shortfalls in the Last 4 Quarters Sorted by Funding: [See PDF for image] This figure is a table depicting the following data: Agency: DHS; Project Name: Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1,461; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DOT; Project Name: Telecommunications Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $188; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2005 (Q3, Q4); * 2006 (Q2, Q3); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: Secure Border Initiative net Technology Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $157; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2005 (Q3, Q4); * 2006 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DOJ; Project Name: Unified Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $123; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2006 (Q2); * 2007 (Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DOT; Project Name: Traffic Flow Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $114; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: Secure Flight; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $83; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2005 (Q3); * 2006 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: Nationwide Automatic Identification System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $38; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2005 (Q3); * 2006 (Q1, Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: EPA; Project Name: Financial Management Line of Business - Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $31; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $27; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2005 (Q3, Q4); * 2006 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: Crew Vetting; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2005 (Q3, Q4); * 2006 (Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: Homeland Security Information Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2006 (Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: eNEMIS; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2006 (Q1, Q3, Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DOI; Project Name: IMARS; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DOI; Project Name: Minerlas Management Service - OCS Connect; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: HHS; Project Name: Federal Health Architecture; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: DHS; Project Name: National Protection and Programs Directorate Information Systems Security Line of Business; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2007 (Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). Agency: USAID; Project Name: E-Authentication; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Quarter in which the project had shortfalls: * 2006 (Q3, Q4); * 2007 (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4); * 2008 (Q1, Q2). NA: Not available: financial data on project was not found in MB's Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Source: GAO analysis of agency data. Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Department of Transportation (DOT) Department of Justice (DOJ); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Department of the Interior (DOI); Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). [End of figure] Of these projects, two projects have had shortfalls since the list of high-risk projects was established in September 2005: DHS's Customs and Border Patrol Secure Border Initiative Network Technology Program, which is expected to provide on-scene agents near real-time information on attempted border crossings by illegal aliens, terrorists, or smugglers. DHS's Transportation Security Administration Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing, which is to establish a system-wide common secure biometric credential, used by all transportation modes, for personnel requiring unescorted physical and/or logical access to secure areas of the transportation system. Several Projects Are Both Poorly Planned and Poorly Performing: As of July 2008, 26 projects are on both the Management Watch List and list of high-risk projects with shortfalls, meaning that they are both poorly planned and poorly performing. They total about $3 billion in estimated expenditures for fiscal year 2009. This is an increase of 5 projects but a decrease of $1.1 billion from when we reported last year. These projects are listed in table 5 below. (The project names were taken from OMB's Management Watch List released in July 2008 and matched to those in agencies' June 2008 quarterly high-risk reports.) Table 5: Projects on Both the Management Watch List and the High Risk List with Shortfalls: Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: NPPD IICP; Fiscal year 2009 request: 15. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Computer Emergency Readiness Team; Fiscal year 2009 request: 109. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Transformation & Systems Consolidation; Fiscal year 2009 request: 19. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Science and Technology Disaster Management E-Gov; Fiscal year 2009 request: 13. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request: 1,461. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Homeland Secure Data Network; Fiscal year 2009 request: 48. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: USCIS- Transformation; Fiscal year 2009 request: 71. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; Fiscal year 2009 request: 11. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Federal Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request: 30. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Secure Border Initiative net Technology Program; Fiscal year 2009 request: 157. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Crew Vetting; Fiscal year 2009 request: 21. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: FAMS Air to Ground Communications & Tactical Information Sharing; Fiscal year 2009 request: 13. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Vessel Logistics System; Fiscal year 2009 request: 4. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: Marine Information for Safety and law Enforcement; Fiscal year 2009 request: 13. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: NPPD Information Systems Security Line of Business; Fiscal year 2009 request: 3. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment Name: eNEMIS; Fiscal year 2009 request: 13. Agency: Department of the Interior; Investment Name: IMARS; Fiscal year 2009 request: 12. Agency: Department of the Interior; Investment Name: ePlanning; Fiscal year 2009 request: 1. Agency: Department of the Interior; Investment Name: Minerals Management Service - OCS Connect; Fiscal year 2009 request: 6. Agency: Department of Education; Investment Name: Common Origination and Disbursement; Fiscal year 2009 request: 45. Agency: Department of Education; Investment Name: ADvance (Aid Delivery); Fiscal year 2009 request: 69. Agency: Department of Heath and Human Services: Investment Name: Federal Health Architecture; Fiscal year 2009 request: 4. Agency: Department of Heath and Human Services: Investment Name: Commissioned Corps Force Management Solution; Fiscal year 2009 request: 4. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment Name: Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management Services; Fiscal year 2009 request: 28. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Investment Name: Consolidated Infrastructure, Office Automation and Telecommunications; Fiscal year 2009 request: 872. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Investment Name: National Animal Identification System; Fiscal year 2009 request: 5. Source: GAO Analysis of OMB and agency data. [End of table] Steps Have Been Taken to Improve the Identification of Management Watch List and High Risk Projects, but Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Still Require Oversight: OMB has taken steps to improve the identification of the Management Watch List and high-risk projects since we testified last September, including publicly disclosing reasons for placement on the Management Watch List, and clarifying high-risk project criteria, however, more needs to be done by both OMB and the agencies to fully address recommendations we have previously made to improve the planning, management, and oversight of the poorly planned and poorly performing projects so that potentially billions in taxpayer dollars are not wasted. Management Watch List: In order for OMB to take advantage of the potential benefits of using the Management Watch List as a tool for analyzing and following up on IT investments on a governmentwide basis, in 2005 we recommended that the agency take the following four actions: [Footnote 17] (1) develop a central list of Management Watch List projects and their deficiencies; (2) use the list as the basis for selecting projects for follow-up and for tracking follow-up activities (including developing specific criteria for prioritizing the IT projects included on the list, taking into consideration such factors as their relative potential financial and program benefits, as well as potential risks); (3) analyze the prioritized list to develop governmentwide and agency assessments of the progress and risks of IT investments, identifying opportunities for continued improvement; and (4) report to Congress on progress made in addressing risks of major IT investments and management areas needing attention. OMB has taken steps to address our recommendations for developing a central list of projects and their deficiencies and developing governmentwide and agency assessments. Specifically, as previously noted, OMB started issuing a central list of Management Watch List projects in September 2006, and publicly disclosing these projects' deficiencies (i.e., the reasons for inclusion on the Management Watch List) in April. In addition, OMB performed governmentwide and agency- specific analyses of projects' deficiencies in April and in July of this year, which it reported to Congress and disclosed publicly. However, OMB needs to continue to use the Management Watch List to prioritize the projects needing follow-up action and to keep reporting to Congress on management areas needing attention. High-Risk Projects: To improve the identification and oversight of the high-risk projects, in 2006 we recommended, among other things, that OMB establish a structured, consistent process to update the list of high-risk projects on a regular basis, including identifying new projects and removing previous ones to ensure that the list is current and complete.[Footnote 18] We also recommended that OMB develop a single aggregate list of high-risk projects and their deficiencies and use that list to report to Congress progress made in correcting high- risk problems, actions under way, and further actions that may be needed. OMB took several steps to address these recommendations. As previously noted, the agency clarified the high-risk project criteria this year. It also asked agencies to identify, in their quarterly reports, reasons for placement on the list and reasons for removal, thereby adding structure and consistency to the process for updating the list. In addition, as previously reported, OMB also started publicly releasing aggregate lists of the high-risk projects in September 2006, and has been releasing them on their website on a quarterly basis since then. However, OMB has yet to identify the deficiencies (i.e., performance shortfalls) associated with the high-risk projects as we have done in this report (see appendix III). As we have stated before, doing so would allow OMB and others to better analyze the reasons projects are poorly performing, take corrective actions, and track these projects on a governmentwide basis. Such information would also help to highlight progress made by agencies or projects, identify management issues that transcend individual agencies, and highlight the root causes of governmentwide issues and trends. In addition, as noted earlier, our prior reviews of federal IT management practices have identified (and continue to identify) weaknesses at agencies that have yet to be addressed. While these agencies have taken action to address the many recommendations we have made to improve their practices, more needs to be done as evidenced by the large number of projects that are still poorly planned and poorly performing. While the actions taken have resulted in better data on the poorly planned and performing projects, additional steps need to be taken by both OMB and the agencies to address recommendations we have previously made to improve the planning, management, and oversight of these projects. These steps include using the Management Watch List to prioritize follow up activities. Until these additional steps are taken, potentially billion of taxpayer dollars are at risk of being wasted. About Half of Major IT Projects Have Been Rebaselined Using Policies that Are Not Fully Consistent with Best Practices: Given that cost and schedule variances are the primary reason for poorly performing projects, having accurate and transparent cost and schedule information is essential to effective oversight. In a report being released today, we estimate that about 48 percent[Footnote 19] of the federal government's major IT projects have been rebaselined. Of those rebaselined projects, 51 percent were rebaselined at least twice, and about 11 percent were rebaselined 4 times or more.[Footnote 20] These projects were rebaselined for several reasons, including changes in project goals and changes in funding. While the major agencies have all established rebaselining policies, these policies are not comprehensive. Specifically, none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices, including describing a process for developing a new baseline and requiring the validation of the new baseline, identified in our cost assessment guide. Agencies' policies vary in part because OMB has not issued guidance specifying what elements these policies are to include. About Half of IT Projects Were Rebaselined for Several Reasons: In our report we project that 48 percent of the major projects federal agencies plan to fund in fiscal year 2008 have been rebaselined, and about half of those have been rebaselined at least twice. Figure 6 summarizes the percentage of projects rebaselined and figure 7 summarizes the estimated frequencies of the number of times rebaselined major IT projects were rebaselined. Figure 6: Estimated Percentage of Major FY2008 Funded IT Projects Rebaselined: [See PDF for image] This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data: Estimated Percentage of Major FY2008 Funded IT Projects Rebaselined: Rebaselined: 48%; Not rebaselined: 52%. Source: GAO survey of major IT projects. [End of figure] Figure 7: Estimated Frequency of the Number of Times Rebaselined Projects Were Rebaselined: [See PDF for image] This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: Number of times rebaselined: 1; Percentage of projects: 49%. Number of times rebaselined: 2; Percentage of projects: 29%. Number of times rebaselined: 3; Percentage of projects: 11%. Number of times rebaselined: 4; Percentage of projects: 5%. Number of times rebaselined: 5; Percentage of projects: 4%. Number of times rebaselined: 6; Percentage of projects: 1%. Number of times rebaselined: 7; Percentage of projects: 1%. Source: GAO survey of major IT projects. [End of figure] Table 6 lists the nine projects in our sample that agencies reported having been rebaselined four or more times.[Footnote 21] Table 6: Projects Rebaselined Four or More Times: Department: Department of Defense; Project: Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System; Number of times rebaselined: 4. Department: Department of Energy; Project: Licensing Support Network; Number of times rebaselined: 4. Department: Department of Homeland Security; Project: Coast Guard Rescue 21; Number of times rebaselined: 4. Department: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Project: Integrated Human Resources and Training System; Number of times rebaselined: 4. Department: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Project: Program Fund Control System; Number of times rebaselined: 5. Department: Department of Commerce; Project: Patent and Trade Office Revenue and Account Management System; Number of times rebaselined: 5. Department: Department of Commerce; Project: Commerce Business Environment; Number of times rebaselined: 5. Department: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project: Health Admin Center IT Operations; Number of times rebaselined: 6. Department: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Project: Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System; Number of times rebaselined: 7. Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses. [End of table] Agency officials reported that the key reasons for the most recent rebaselinings were changes in project requirements, objectives, or scope, and changes in funding stream. Table 7 shows the estimated frequencies of each of these reasons. Table 7: Estimated Frequency of Reasons for the Most Recent Rebaselining of Projects: Category of reasons: Change in project requirements, objectives, or scope; Percentage of times reported: 55%. Category of reasons: Change in funding stream; Percentage of times reported: 44%. Category of reasons: Original baseline was inaccurate; Percentage of times reported: 14%. Category of reasons: Cost or schedule overruns due to project performance; Percentage of times reported: 4%. Category of reasons: Cost or schedule overruns due to contractor performance; Percentage of times reported: 4%. Category of reasons: Other; Percentage of times reported: 41%. Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses. Note: Percentages do not total 100 percent because multiple reasons could be provided for rebaselining projects. [End of table] Several rebaselined projects we have performed detailed reviews of have experienced significant cost or schedule changes. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard's Rescue 21 program is projected to have cost increases of 184 percent and schedule delays of 5 years after rebaselining. Table 8 provides additional examples of projects we have reviewed that experienced significant cost or schedule changes. Table 8: Rebaselined Projects' Cost and Schedule Changes (dollars in millions): Project: National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System[A]; Original cost: $7000; Cost after rebaseline(s): $12500; Dollar change: $5500; Percent change: 79%; Original completion date: 2018; Completion date after rebaseline: 2026; Delay: 8 years. Project: Navy Enterprise Resource Planning; Original cost: $1993; Cost after rebaseline(s): $2445; Dollar change: $452; Percent change: 23%; Original completion date: June 2011; Completion date after rebaseline: August 2013; Delay: 2.2 years. Project: FAA Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System; Original cost: $940; Cost after rebaseline(s): $2770; Dollar change: $1830; Percent change: 195%; Original completion date: October 2005; Completion date after rebaseline: December 2007; Delay: 2.2 years. Project: FAA Wide Area Augmentation System; Original cost: $1001; Cost after rebaseline(s): $3340; Dollar change: $2339; Percent change: 234%; Original completion date: August 1999; Completion date after rebaseline: December 2008; Delay: 9.3 years. Project: US Coast Guard Rescue 21; Original cost: $250; Cost after rebaseline(s): $711; Dollar change: $461; Percent change: 184%; Original completion date: 2006; Completion date after rebaseline: 2011; Delay: 5 years. Source: GAO reports and agency data. [A] Only a portion of this program's costs are included in the federal government's $70 billion estimated IT expenditures for fiscal year 2008. The rest is not considered to be an IT investment. [End of table] Agencies' Rebaselining Policies Are Not Comprehensive: We are also reporting that, although the 24 major agencies have rebaselined about half of their major IT projects that they planned to invest in during fiscal year 2008, they have not been guided by comprehensive rebaselining policies. Specifically, while major agencies have all established rebaselining policies, none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices such as describing a process for developing a new baseline. Our recently issued draft Cost Assessment Guide[Footnote 22] includes five practices that are relevant to rebaselining policies: 1. Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted. A rebaselining policy should require valid reasons for rebaselining such as that the baseline is no longer useful as a management tool (e.g., cost/schedule variances are so high that they lose meaning; program scope has significantly changed). 2. Describe the process for developing a new baseline. A rebaselining policy should describe the development of a new cost estimate and a new project plan that details the scope of the remaining work along with schedule and resource allocation. 3. Require validating the new baseline. A rebaselining policy should identify who can validate the new baseline and how the validation is to be done. 4. Require management review. A rebaselining policy should identify the authority who decides whether the rebaselining is warranted and the rebaselining plan is acceptable. In addition, the policy should outline decision criteria used by the decision authority to determine if the rebaseline plan is acceptable. 5. Require that the process is documented. A rebaselining policy should identify and document rebaselining decisions, including the reasons for rebaselining; changes to the approved baseline cost, schedule, and scope; management review of the rebaseline request; and approval of new baseline. The policy should also require an explanation of why the current plan is no longer feasible; identify the problems that led to the need for a new plan of the remaining work; and discuss measures in place to prevent recurrence. Our analysis shows that agencies do not have comprehensive rebaselining policies. Specifically, none of the agencies' rebaselining policies are fully consistent with all of the five practices mentioned above. Most policies fully or partially addressed reasons for rebaselining, requiring management review, and requiring that the rebaselining process be documented (79 percent, 96 percent, and 88 percent, respectively), while describing the process for developing the new baseline and requiring validation of the new baseline were addressed the least (46 percent and 54 percent of the policies, respectively, did not address these practices). Table 9 summarizes our assessment of agencies' rebaselining polices. Table 9: Summary of Rebaselining Policy Assessment: Extent to Which Policy Addressed Best Practices: Practice: Describe reasons when a rebaseline is warranted; Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 14 (58%); Number (and percent)of policies that partially addressed the practice: 5 (21%); Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 5 (21%). Practice: Describe process for developing a new baseline; Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 0 (0%); Number (and percent)of policies that partially addressed the practice: 13 (54%); Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 11 (46%). Practice: Require validating the new baseline; Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 5 (21%); Number (and percent)of policies that partially addressed the practice: 6 (25%); Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 13 (54%). Practice: Require management review; Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 9 (38%); Number (and percent)of policies that partially addressed the practice: 14 (58%); Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 1 (4%). Practice: Require that the process is documented; Number (and percent) of policies that fully addressed the practice: 6 (25%); Number (and percent)of policies that partially addressed the practice: 15 (63%); Number (and percent) of policies that did not address the practice: 3 (13%). Source: GAO analysis of agencies' rebaslining policies. [End of table] Agencies' policies vary in part because no guidance has been issued specifying what elements these policies are to include. As previously noted, OMB has issued guidance which, among other things, requires baseline change requests to be approved by the agency heads and to be submitted to OMB for approval. However, this guidance does not specifically address how agencies are to implement their rebaselining activities, including the key elements that should be addressed in their policies. In addition, officials from OMB's Office of E- government and Information Technology and the Acting Chief of OMB's Information Policy and Technology Branch told us that, in their oversight function, they review agencies' earned value management policies, and in doing so determine whether these policies address rebaselining. However, they noted that they have not established specific criteria to evaluate the earned value management policies (and therefore their rebaselining aspects) and acknowledged that having such criteria would improve consistency among the policies and facilitate their oversight process. Without comprehensive policies to guide their rebaselining activities, agencies may not be optimizing the effectiveness of rebaselining as a tool to improve performance management. In addition, their rebaselining processes may lack the transparency needed to ensure effective oversight. To address the weaknesses identified with agencies' rebaselining policies, we made recommendations to the Director of OMB and to the 24 major agencies. Specifically, we recommended that: * the Director of OMB issue guidance for rebaselining policies that would include a minimum set of key elements, taking into consideration the criteria used in our report, and; * each of the heads of the 24 major agencies direct the development of comprehensive rebaselining policies that address the weaknesses we identified. We received comments on a draft of our report from 20 of the major agencies--4 of which stated that they had no comments. Of the remaining 16 agencies, 10 generally agreed with our findings and/or recommendations, and 6 disagreed with our assessment of certain practices associated with their rebaselining policies. In summary, effective management and oversight of federal IT projects remains a crucial task for OMB and executive branch agencies. Hundreds of projects, amounting to billions of dollars in expenditures, have been identified as poorly managed, poorly performing, or both. While OMB has taken steps to improve the identification of poorly managed and poorly performing projects, more needs to be done to improve management and oversight, as evidenced by the number of recurring Management Watch List projects and the surge of these projects at the beginning of every fiscal year. In addition, without sound policies guiding agencies' rebaselining efforts, changes to projects' cost and schedule goals are not as transparent as desired and may in fact mask cost overruns and schedule delays. Having sound rebaselining guidance from OMB and more diligent oversight of rebaselining efforts from federal agencies will result in more accurate information on cost and schedule performance shortfalls and provide the necessary transparency to agency officials, OMB, and other oversight organizations. As we transition to a new administration, it is essential to maintain the current momentum of identifying troubled projects and the reasons they are poorly planned and/or performing and to continue to focus attention more keenly on solutions and long-term improvement efforts. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. [End of section] Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements: If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who made key contributions to this testimony are Sabine Paul, Assistant Director; Neil Doherty; Lee McCracken; Kevin Walsh and Eric Winter. [End of section] Appendix II: Management Watch List Projects: The following provides additional detail on the investments comprising OMB's Management Watch List as of July 2008. The project names were taken from OMB's Management Watch List released earlier this month and matched to the list of projects in OMB's Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009 to derive the requested amounts for fiscal year 2009. Table 10: Management Watch List Projects by Agency: Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Conservation Program Delivery; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11.11. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Multi-Family Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.355. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Program Funds Control System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.267. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Store Tracking and Redemption System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.24. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Natural Resource Information, Inventory, & Assessment; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.39. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Guaranteed 16.674 Integrated Program Accounting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.24. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: USDA Forest Service Automated Timber Sales Accounting; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.289. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Water and Climate Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.392. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Corporate Financial Management Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $59.559. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Legacy Payroll/Personnel System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $10.601. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Consolidated General Sales Manager; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.378. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Consolidated Farm Loan Program Information and Delivery System #103; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12.541. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Natural Resource Manager; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $33.909. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Corporate Property Automated Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.153. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: USDA Identity And Access Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $20.757. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Consolidated Financial Management Information Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.94. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Processed Commodities Inventory Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.27. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Commercial; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.887. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Forest Service National Financial Applications; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.363. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Resource Ordering and Status System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11.126. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Fire Program Analysis System - Phase 2; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.202. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Human Resources Line of Business: Service Center; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $53.851. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Integrated Acquisition System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $17.485. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Wide Consolidated Infrastructure, Office Automation, and Telecommunications; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $871.714. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: National Animal Identification System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.627. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Public Health Information Consolidation Projects; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.65. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: RMA-01 Financial Management Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.914. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Consumer; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13.489. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: NASS Survey Processing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.202. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Corporate Insurance Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.487. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: APHIS Comprehensive Electronic Permit System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.132. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Geographic Information System 0084; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $14.777. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Farm Program Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $134.155. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Web Based Supply Chain Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21.646. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: RMA-13 Emerging Information Technology Architecture - Electronic Written Agreement Project; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.757. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Project name: Financial Management Modernization Initiative; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $46.237. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Economic Census and Surveys; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $61.941. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: American Community Survey; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $34.07. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: BEA Estimation Information Technology System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $10.156. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NIST-wide Grant Management Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.25. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Demographic Surveys Statistical IT Support; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $14.601. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Geographic Support Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $24.089. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: ITA International Trade Process Streamlining; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.76. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NPOESS Data Exploitation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.455. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Satellite Operations Control Center Command and Data Acquisition; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $37.938. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Field Support Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $40.618. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.69. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $57.129. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Next Generation Weather Radar System Product Improvement; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.376. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Next Generation Weather Radar Operations and Maintenance; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.654. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: COOP Historical Climate Network - Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.734. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NWS Dissemination Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.838. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NOAA National Data Centers; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $77.71. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: GOES Ground System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.744. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution Systems Critical Infrastructure Protection; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.772. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Environmental Satellite Processing Center; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $26.657. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: USPTO Consolidated Financial System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $24.987. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Commerce Business Environment; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.97. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: MAF/TIGER Enhancements; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $18.344. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.605. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Nautical Charting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.879. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: PORTS & NWLON; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.367. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NPOESS Ground System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $47.115. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: GOES-R Series Ground Segment; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $68.939. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Data Access and Dissemination System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $48.767. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: BIS Legacy Export Control; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.475. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NOAA Non-Core CBS Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.999. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: National Weather Service Telecommunication Gateway System (Legacy, Replacement, and CIP); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21.058. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards Weather Network) a.k.a. All Hazards Emergency Message Collection System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.75. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: National Air Quality Forecast Capability; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.46. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NWS Office of Hydrologic Development; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.501. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NWS Regions & Field; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21.9. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: National Integrated Drought Information System Implementation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.8. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NCEP Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputer Systems (WCOSS Primary and Backup); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $22.369. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NCEP Weather and Climate Computing Infrastructure Services; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $30.708. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NOAA R&D High Performance Computing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $26.524. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NOAA Grants On-line; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.496. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: USPTO Revenue Accounting and Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.361. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: USPTO Patent File Wrapper Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $17.887. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Commerce Business Systems (formerly Commerce Administrative Management System); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $39.313. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Department of Commerce Consolidated IT Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $432.269. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: EDA Operations Planning and Control System and Loan Billing and Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.66. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: BIS ECASS2000+; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.316. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: OCIO Financial Management IT Operations; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.13. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NWS/Weather Radio Improvement Project; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.74. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Comprehensive Large Array-data Stewardship System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.966. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NOAA Research Scientific Computing Support; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.204. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Geodetic Support System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.815. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: POES Ground System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $15.274. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: USPTO Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.421. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NIST Central IT Support for Science; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.737. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Radio Spectrum Management: Federal Spectrum Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.074. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: NDBC Ocean Observing System of Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.125. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Decennial 2010 Systems Design and Integration, and Decennial 2010 Testing and Evaluation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $604.159. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: BIS ECASS Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.357. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: USPTO First Action System for Trademarks; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.891. Agency: Department of Commerce; Project name: Automated Surface Observing System Operations and Maintenance; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.95. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Logistics Modernization Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $199.142. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: DeCA Enterprise Business System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $30.293. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Integrated Data Environment/Global Transportation Network Convergence; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $38.018. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Combat Support System - Marine Corps; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $52.488. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Warfighter Information Network-Tactical; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $616.028. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Combat Support System - Army; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $139.149. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $146.218. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: General Fund Enterprise Business System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $130.458. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $51.988. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: FORCE XXI Battle Command Brigade And Below; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $297.234. Agency: Department of Defense; GUARDNET XXI, The Army National Guard's Wide Area Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $74.059. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Mounted Battle Command on the Move Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $37.697. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Transportation Coordinators' Automated Information For Movements System II; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $69.879. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Expeditionary Combat Support System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $275.227. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Mission Planning Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $214.151. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Integrated Strategic Planning And Analysis Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $67.192. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $82.47. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Battle Control System - Mobile; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $194.972. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Combat Support System - Air Force; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $76.088. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Medical Human Resource System Internet; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $27.061. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $63.37. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Standard Procurement System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $22.225. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Decision Support System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $42.926. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: DOD TELEPORT; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $32.666. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Net-Enabled Command Capability; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Protect Information - Public Key Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $42.329. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Navy Enterprise Resource Planning; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $177.116. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Common Aviation Command And Control System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $76.722. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Navy Marine Corps Intranet; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1609.615. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: US Mepcom Integrated Resource System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $65.51. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $233.303. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Command And Control System - Army; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $34.842; Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Combat Information Transport System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $341.706. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Battle Control System Fixed; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $65.911. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Cheyenne Mountain Complex/Tactical Warning - Attack Assessment; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $90.977. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Commissary Advanced Resale Transaction System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $15.49. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Military Computer-Based Patient Record (includes Inits 0049, 0379, and 0435); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Executive Information/Decision Support; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $66.37. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Message System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $67.896. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Information System Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1518.426. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Combat Support System-COCOM-JTF; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $39.224. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Joint Precision Approach And Landing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $99.929. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Command And Control System - Maritime; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $85.214. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: JTRS - Airborne, Maritime And Fixed Radios; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $204.454. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Deployable Joint Command And Control; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $34.632. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Future Combat Systems-Advanced Collaborative Environment; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $22.565. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Distributed Learning System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $62.19. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Maneuver Control System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $161.517. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System-Air Force; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $59.968. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Air and Space Operations Center - Weapon System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $288.144. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Theater Battle Management Core System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $70.27. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $56.531. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Global Command And Control System-Joint; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $137.458. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Theater Medical Information Program-Joint; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $66.287. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Net Centric Enterprise Services; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $127.091. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: JTRS - Handheld, Manpack, And Small Form Fit Radios; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $164.766. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: JTRS - Network Enterprise Domain; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $244.165. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Enterprise Accounting And Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11.746. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Future Business System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $32.067. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Travel System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $27.417. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Key Management Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $49.578. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: JTRS - Ground Mobile Radios; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $196.32. Agency: Department of Defense; Project name: Defense Information System For Security; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $31.9. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: Federal Student Aid Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $10.187. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: E-Authentication; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.163. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: Common Services for Borrowers-Legacy; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $184.714. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: Information Assurance; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.637. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: Enterprise Portal; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.155. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: National Student Loan Data System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $9.85. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: ED Web; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.686. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: Common Origination and Disbursement; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $45.307. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: Virtual Data Center; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $24.308. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: ADvance - Aid Delivery; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $69.326. Agency: Department of Education; Project name: ADvance - Person Data Management Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $23.01. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: HHS Consolidated Acquisition Solution; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $9.534. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: IHS Resource and Patient Management System - Maintenance & Enhancements; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $73.678. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: National Select Agent Registry (formerly SATERIS); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.488. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Electronic Research Administration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $39.699. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: CMS Integrated Data Repository; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.485. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Consolidated Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $111.551. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Medicaid Data Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.552. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Data Management Operations - Claims; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $15.737. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: OS ASAM IT Service Center; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $57.594. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Information and Computer Technologies for the 21st Century; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.233. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: CMS Drug Claims; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $22.333. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: CMS IT Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $259.084. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: ACF GrantSolutions.gov/Grants Administration Tracking Evaluation System - Grants Center for Excellence; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.964. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: OS OPHS Commissioned Corps Force Management Solution; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: HHS Asset - Property Management Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.337. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: HHS HR LOB IT; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Information Technology Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $76.1. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Interoperability & Standardization - Provider ID; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.27. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: Federal Health Architecture; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.662. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: NIH Business System. Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $25.06. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: CMS Modernized IT Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11.25. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: CMS ICD-10 Initiative; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $17.15. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: OS ASAM Payment Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.03. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: OS ASAM Debt Management and Collection System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.728. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: OS ONC Prototype Nationwide Health Information Network Architectures; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.127. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: NIH IT Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $282.496. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: AHRQ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21.587. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: OS ASAM Accounting for Pay System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.267. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Project name: IHS Infrastructure, Office Automation, & Telecommunications; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.146. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: ICE - Federal Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $30.379. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: FAMS Air to Ground Communications System and Tactical Information Sharing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12.8. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: NPPD - Information Systems Security Line of Business; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.577. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: USCIS - Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11.176. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: CBP - Advance Passenger Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.94. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: DNDO - Joint Analysis Center; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.923. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: USCIS - Transformation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $71. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: USCIS - Naturalization - CLAIMS 4.0; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $18.271. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Secure Border Initiative net: Command, Control, Communications & Intelligent Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $157. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Crew Vetting; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $20.925. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Vessel Logistics System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.93. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13.144. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Integrated Common Analytical Viewer; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.864. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: FEMA - Disaster Management E-Government Initiative; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12.714. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: DHS - Homeland Secure Data Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $47.673. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: DHS - Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1461.074. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Rescue 21; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $126.65. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Integrated Deepwater System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $14.4. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: FEMA - eNEMIS; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12.688. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: CBP - Traveler Enforcement Compliance System - Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $65.7. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: ICE - Detention and Removal Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13.372. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: Integrated Deepwater Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $92.1. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: NPPD - IICP - Infrastructure Information Collection Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $14.643. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: DHS - Financial Transformation & Systems Consolidation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.2. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: USCIS - Integrated Document Production; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $31.855. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: NBIS National Bio-Surveillance Integration System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.125. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: NPPD - US-CERT; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $109.154. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Project name: CBP - Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $159.371. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: USGS - Landsat Data Continuity Mission; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $24.15. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: OS - OHTA Account Reconciliation Tool; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.135. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Advanced Budget/Accounting Control and Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.685. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: USGS - Landsat; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $16. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BIA - Integrated Records Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.67. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Consolidated Financial Statement System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.765. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: Minerals Revenue Management Support System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21.278. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: USGS - National Water Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.46. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BIA - LOMAS - Loan Management and Accounting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.3. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: E-DOI - Geospatial One-Stop; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.65. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Capstone Facility Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $9.625. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: OSM - Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.175. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: USGS - The National Map Reengineering Project; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.829. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: National Fee Collection Point of Sale System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.93. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BIE - Native American Student Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.468. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Federal Financial System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $26.448. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Financial and Business Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $92.705. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: E-DOI - NBC FMLoB Shared Service Provider; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: E-DOI - NBC Shared Service Center; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21.001. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BLM-National Integrated Land System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.943. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BLM-Incident Qualifications and Certification System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.337. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: OSM - Applicant Violator System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.256. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: OSM - Coal Fee Collection Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.404. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BOR1-PABS (Program and Budget System); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.042. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BOR1-CDW (Corporate Data Warehouse); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.658. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BOR1-RMSS (Reclamation Mission Support System); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $42.158. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: USGS - Enterprise Web; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.338. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BIA - Trust Asset Accounting Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.076. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BIA - Facilities Management Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.5. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BLM-Collections and Billings System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.06. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Interior Department Electronic Acquisition System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.019. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BLM-Legacy Rehost; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.84. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BLM-Automated Fluid Mineral Support System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.599. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BLM-IT Support for Resources and Mineral Land Use Planning; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.55. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: MMS - OCS Connect; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.647. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: USGS - National Biological Information Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.207. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: USGS - Advanced National Seismic System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: NPS -NPS.gov Internet/Intranet Portal: Infrastructure - Public Web Services; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.86. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: E-DOI - Geospatial Line of Business; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.372. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.525. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: FWS - Federal Aid Information Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.409. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: E-DOI - Recreation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.2. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BIA - National Irrigation Information Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.195. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: OST - Trust Funds Accounting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $14.7. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Incident Management, Analysis, and Reporting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11.779. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: DOI - Consolidated Infrastructure, Automation, Telecomm; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $495.843. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BOR1-CVACS (Central Valley Automated Control System); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.371. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BOR1-HSCADA (Hoover Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.826. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BOR1-GCPO SCADA (Grand Coulee Power Office Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.065. Agency: Department of the Interior; Project name: BOR1-CRSP SCADA (Colorado River Storage Project Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.623. Agency: Department of State; Project name: Joint Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $18.261. Agency: Department of Transportation; Project name: DOTXX070: DOT IT Combined Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $232.14. Agency: Department of Transportation; Project name: FAAXX712 - Next Generation Air Transportation System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $649.185. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Project name: Enterprise IT Infrastructure Optimization Initiative; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1466.792. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Project name: Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management Services; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $28.168. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Project name: Consolidated Enterprise Identity Management Project; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $59.469. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Project name: Fiscal Management 09; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.92. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Decision Support System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.217. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VistA Imaging; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $29.431. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VA-Learning Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.379. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VistA-Application Development; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $146.301. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: One-VA Registration and Eligibility; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.296. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Health Data Repository; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $28.916. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VistA-Foundations Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $115.366. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Virtual VA; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $18.12. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Benefits Processing and Workflow; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.272. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Enrollment Enhancements; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.687. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Federal Health Information Exchange; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.53. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: My HealtheVet; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $20.467. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: USA Staffing; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.129. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VistA-Legacy; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $360.414. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Pharmacy Re-Engineering and IT Support; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19.5. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Enrollment Operations and Maintenance; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.853. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Veterans Benefits Delivery; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.169. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Benefits Delivery Network Maintenance and Operations Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $22.426 Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: e-Payroll; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.039. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VBA Application Migration Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VA-Wide e-Travel Solution; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.365. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Scheduling Replacement Project; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $32.609. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VistA Laboratory IS System Reengineering; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $30.925. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VBA Rules Based Claims Processing; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6.288. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Capital Asset Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.801. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: One VA Contact Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.658. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Health Admin Center IT Operations; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21.815. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: VETSNET; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $30.424. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Benefits Support Services; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $42.719. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Program Integrity/Data Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12.512. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Revenue Improvements and System Enhancements; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.4. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Personal Identification Verification; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $17.887. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Medical and Prosthetic Research Operations; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $24.77. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Document and Correspondence Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.431. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Financial & Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $45.05. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $15.506. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: IT Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1000.813. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Allocation Resource Center; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.392. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Blood Bank; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.961. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Project name: Payroll/HR Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $41.428. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: ENGLink Interactive; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.81. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Automated Personal Property Management Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.51. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Real Estate Management Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.48. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Corps of Engineers Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $9.59. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Operations and Maintenance Business Information Link; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.5. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Resident Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.554. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Project Management Information System II; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $14.3. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Corps Water Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.936. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Consolidated Information Technology Infrastructure/Office Automation/Telecommunications; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $304.367. Agency: Corps of Engineers; Project name: Facilities & Equipment Maintenance System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.5. Agency: Office of Personnel Management; Project name: Retirement Systems Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $39.94. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: National Source Tracking System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7.902. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Licensing Support Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2.501. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Budget Formulation System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.537. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Secure LAN and Electronic Safe; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4.098. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Reactor Program System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.294. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Incident Response System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3.97. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Enterprise Digital Data Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.081. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Cost Accounting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0.733. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Core Financial System - Replacement; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5.701. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: License Fee Billing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.904. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Material Licensing Program - Web-Based Licensing; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.285. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Infrastructure Services and Support; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $67.476. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Time and Labor Legacy; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Time and Labor Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1.646. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Project name: Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8.707. Source: OMB Management Watch List released in July 2008 for project names and OMB's Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for financial data. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix III: Reasons for Inclusion on the Management Watch List by Agency: Table 11 provides additional detail on the frequency of the reasons for inclusion on the Management Watch List for each agency for the projects remaining on the list as of July 2008. It shows security and cost and schedule performance as being the most common reasons. Table 11: Frequency of Reasons for Inclusion on the Management Watch List by Agency (as of July 2008): Agency: Department of Agriculture; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 0; Acquisition strategy: 0; Performance Information: 0; Security: 0; Privacy: 2; Enterprise architecture: 3; Alternative analysis: 0; Risk management: 0; Cost and schedule performance: 2. Agency: Department of Commerce; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 0; Acquisition strategy: 0; Performance Information: 0; Security: 1; Privacy: 0; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 0; Risk management: 0; Cost and schedule performance: 5. Agency: Corps of Engineers; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 1; Acquisition strategy: 1; Performance Information: 1; Security: 0; Privacy: 0; Enterprise architecture: 1; Alternative analysis: 1; Risk management: 1; Cost and schedule performance: 2. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 9; Acquisition strategy: 9; Performance Information: 5; Security: 7; Privacy: 4; Enterprise architecture: 2; Alternative analysis: 8; Risk management: 0; Cost and schedule performance: 9. Agency: Department of Defense; President’s Management Agenda: 1; Program management: 2; Acquisition strategy: 1; Performance Information: 1; Security: 1; Privacy: 2; Enterprise architecture: 1; Alternative analysis: 1; Risk management: 3; Cost and schedule performance: 9. Agency: Department of Transportation; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 1; Acquisition strategy: 0; Performance Information: 1; Security: 1; Privacy: 1; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 1; Risk management: 1; Cost and schedule performance: 1. Agency: Department of Education; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 3; Acquisition strategy: 4; Performance Information: 1; Security: 7; Privacy: 3; Enterprise architecture: 1; Alternative analysis: 6; Risk management: 1; Cost and schedule performance: 4. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; President’s Management Agenda: 5; Program management: 1; Acquisition strategy: 12; Performance Information: 1; Security: 10; Privacy: 0; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 4; Risk management: 5; Cost and schedule performance: 9. Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 1; Acquisition strategy: 0; Performance Information: 0; Security: 13; Privacy: 1; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 0; Risk management: 1; Cost and schedule performance: 0. Agency: Office of Personnel Management; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 0; Acquisition strategy: 1; Performance Information: 0; Security: 1; Privacy: 0; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 1; Risk management: 1; Cost and schedule performance: 1. Agency: Department of State; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 0; Acquisition strategy: 0; Performance Information: 0; Security: 1; Privacy: 1; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 0; Risk management: 0; Cost and schedule performance: 0. Agency: Department of the Treasury; President’s Management Agenda: 0; Program management: 0; Acquisition strategy: 1; Performance Information: 0; Security: 3; Privacy: 4; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 1; Risk management: 1; Cost and schedule performance: 2. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; President’s Management Agenda: 1; Program management: 2; Acquisition strategy: 22; Performance Information: 2; Security: 26; Privacy: 36; Enterprise architecture: 0; Alternative analysis: 6; Risk management: 9; Cost and schedule performance: 40. Agency: Total; President’s Management Agenda: 7; Program management: 20; Acquisition strategy: 51; Performance Information: 12; Security: 71; Privacy: 54; Enterprise architecture: 8; Alternative analysis: 29; Risk management: 23; Cost and schedule performance: 84. Source: GAO analysis of OMB's July 2008 Management Watch list data. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix IV: High-Risk Projects with Shortfalls: Table 12 provides additional detail on the high-risk projects that have performance shortfalls as of June 2008. These shortfalls were identified by agencies in June 2008 high-risk reports. (The Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet provided its report.) The project names were taken from OMB's list of Management Watch List released earlier this month and matched to the list of projects on agencies' June 2008 high-risk reports. Table 12: High-Risk Projects with Shortfalls by Agency: Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: NPPD IICP; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $15; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: NPPD-US Cert; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $109; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: DHS Transformation & Systems Consolidation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: S&T Disaster Management E-Gov; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: DHS - HR IT; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $17; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: DHS Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1,461; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: DHS - Homeland Secure Data Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $48; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: A&O Homeland Security Information Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: USCIS-Transformation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $71; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: USCIS Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: ICE Federal Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $30; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: CBP Secure Border Initiative net Technology Program; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $157; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: Secure Flight; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $83; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: TSA Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $27; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: TSA Crew Vetting; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $21; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: TSA-FAMS Air to Ground Communications & Tactical Information Sharing; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: ICE Automation and Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $23; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: USCG-Core Accounting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: USCG-Vessel Logistics System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: USCG-Marine Information for Safety and law Enforcement; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: USCG Nationwide Automatic Identification System for MDA; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $38; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: NPPD US-VISIT; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $453; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: NPPD Information Systems Security Line of Business; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: FEMA -Integrated Financial Management Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Investment name: FEMA eNEMIS; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $13; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Commerce; Investment name: FDCA; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $221; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Defense; Investment name: E-Training; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Defense; Investment name: Recruitment One Stop - Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Defense; Investment name: EHRI - Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Defense; Investment name: E-Training - Legacy System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Energy; Investment name: EE Corporate Management and Planning System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Interior; Investment name: DOI - IMARS; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Interior; Investment name: BLM - ePlanning; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Interior; Investment name: MMS - OCS Connect; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Justice; Investment name: Unified Financial Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $123; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Justice; Investment name: SENTINEL; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $97; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Justice; Investment name: Case Management LOB; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Justice; Investment name: E-Travel Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Justice; Investment name: E-Authentication Implementation; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Justice; Investment name: EHRI (eOPF conversion); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Justice; Investment name: HR LoB - Legacy System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Labor; Investment name: EFAST2; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Transportation; Investment name: E-Authentication Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Transportation; Investment name: FAAXX705: Traffic flow Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $114; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Transportation; Investment name: FAAXX445: FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $188; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: ADvance Person Data Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: Grants Administration Payment System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: G5; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: Common Origination and Disbursement; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $45; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: Integrated Technical Architecture/Enterprise Application Integration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: Enterprise Information System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: Integrated Partner Management; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $10; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Education; Investment name: ADvance (Aid Delivery); Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $69; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; Investment name: E-Travel Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; Investment name: FM LOB - Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $31; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: General Service Administration; Investment name: HRLOB Migration; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Investment name: Federal Health Architecture; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Investment name: FDA MedWatch Plus; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $12; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Investment name: OS OPHS Commissioned Corps Force Management Solution; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $4; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Office of Personnel Management: Investment name: RSM; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $40; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Correspondence Examination Automation Support Major Wintel; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Correspondence Imaging System - Major; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Counsel Automated Systems Environment; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $28; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Check]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Enterprise Data Access Strategy; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Examination Desktop Support System - Release 2 - Major; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $8; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Excise Files Information Retrieval Systems; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $11; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Financial Information and Reporting Standardization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $7; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: GAISS 4 X Government-Wide Accounting and Reporting Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: HR LoB - HR Connect; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $23; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Integrated Financial System/CORE Financial System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $15; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Integrated Submission and Remittance Processing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $17; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Oracle e-Business Suite; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $27; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Pay.gov; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $9; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Payment Application Modernization; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $19; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: SaBRe; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Service Center Recognition Image Processing System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $16; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Travel Reimbursement and Accounting System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $0; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: TreasuryDirect; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $6; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of the Treasury; Investment name: Treasury-Wide Enterprise Content Management Services; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $28; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Agency for International Development; Investment name: E-Authentication; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): NA; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Agency for International Development; Investment name: E-Travel; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $1; Unclear baselines: [Empty]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Agency for International Development; Investment name: HSPD-12; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $2; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Check]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Investment name: Consolidated Infrastructure, Office Automation and Telecommunications; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $872; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Check]. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Investment name: APHIS - National Animal Identification System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $5; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Agency: Department of Agriculture; Investment name: RMA - Common Information Management System; Fiscal year 2009 request (in millions): $3; Unclear baselines: [Check]; Cost and schedule variance exceeding 10%: [Empty]; Project manager not qualified: [Empty]; Duplication: [Empty]. Source: OMB’s Management Watch List released in July 2008 for the project names; OMB’s Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for the financial data; and GAO analysis of agencies’ June 2008 high-risk reports for all other information. NA: Not available: Financial data on project was not found in OMB’s Report on IT Spending for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009. [End of table] [End of section] Footnotes: [1] GAO, Information Technology: Further Improvements Needed to Identify and Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1211T] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2007); GAO, Information Technology: Improvements Needed to More Accurately Identify and Better Oversee Risky Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1099T] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006). [2] GAO, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi- bin/getrpt?GAO-08-925] (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008). [3] 44 U.S.C. § 3504(h) & 3506(h). [4] 40 U.S.C. § 11312 &11313. [5] 40 U.S.C. § 11302 &11303. [6] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-394G] (Washington, D.C.: March 2004). [7] GAO, Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further Improved, G[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?AO-04- 49] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2004). [8] These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior. [9] For example, GAO, Information Technology; Treasury Needs to Strengthen Its Investment Board Operations and Oversight, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-865] (Washington, D.C.; Jul. 23, 2007); GAO, Information Technology: DHS Needs to Fully Define and Implement Policies and Procedures for Effectively Managing Investments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-424] (Washington, D.C., Apr. 27, 2007); GAO, Information Technology: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Needs to Establish Critical Investment Management Capabilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-12] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005); GAO, Information Technology: Departmental Leadership Crucial to Success of Investment Reforms at Interior, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1028] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2003); and GAO, United States Postal Service: Opportunities to Strengthen IT Investment Management Capabilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-3] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 2002). [10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-424] and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-865]. [11] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Can Make more Effective Use of Its Investment Reviews, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi- bin/getrpt?GAO-05-276] (Washington, D.C., April 15, 2005). [12] The Federal Information Security Management Act directs federal agencies to conduct periodic information security reviews and Inspectors General to perform annual independent evaluations of agency programs and systems and report their results to OMB and Congress; 44 U.S.C. § 3544(b)(5) & 3545. [13] The President's Management Agenda is a program that was instituted in 2002 to improve the management and performance of the federal government. It addresses 5 governmentwide initiatives, including E- government, that agencies are supposed to implement to achieve improvements. OMB issues scorecards on a quarterly basis to track how well the departments and major agencies are executing these initiatives. [14] GAO, Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-647] (Washington, D.C., June 15, 2006). [15] An integrated baseline review is an evaluation of a program's baseline plan to determine whether all program requirements have been addressed, risks have been identified, mitigation plans are in place, and available and planned resources are sufficient to complete the work. [16] GAO, Cost Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Estimating, and Managing Program Costs, exposure draft, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP] (Washington, D.C.: July 2007). [17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-276]. [18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-647]. [19] All percentage estimates based on our survey have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within +/-11 percentage points of the estimate itself. [20] We surveyed the managers of a random sample of 180 projects selected from the 778 major IT projects the 24 major agencies plan to invest in during fiscal year 2008. [21] This lists only the projects in our sample that have been rebaselined at least four times. Additional projects in the full population of 778 major IT projects may also have been rebaselined at least four times. [22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP]. [End of section] GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "E-mail Updates." Order by Mail or Phone: The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room LM: Washington, D.C. 20548: To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000: TDD: (202) 512-2537: Fax: (202) 512-6061: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: Washington, D.C. 20548: