This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-476 
entitled 'Telecommunications: Full Adoption of Sound Transition 
Planning Practices by GSA and Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning 
Efforts' which was released on July 6, 2006. 

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

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

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

June 2006: 

Telecommunications: 

Full Adoption of Sound Transition Planning Practices by GSA and 
Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning Efforts: 

GAO-06-476: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-476, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Government Reform, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

With the current governmentwide telecommunications contracts set to 
expire, the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Technology 
Service (FTS) and its customer agencies must prepare to transition 
their services to a new contract vehicle. The previous federal effort 
to transition telecommunications services proved to be a large, complex 
task. 

GAO was asked to determine to what extent (1) selected agencies used 
sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) GSA’s FTS has 
prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons learned and 
providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning. 

What GAO Found: 

The agencies GAO reviewed—Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, and GSA—were generally planning to employ sound 
transition planning practices (see table below). However, officials at 
two agencies stated they did not plan to fully identify necessary 
resources. Specifically, officials from the Department of Justice 
indicated they would not need additional funding for the transition, 
even though they could not provide an analytical basis for their 
decision, and officials from the Department of Energy believed their 
transition planning efforts would not require the identification of 
human capital needs. Without addressing all of the sound practices, 
agencies risk entering into a complex transition without the level of 
preparation necessary to ensure a smooth transition. 

FTS has addressed the majority of the lessons learned from the previous 
transition. Areas that have not yet been fully addressed are securing 
incumbent contractor cooperation and establishing guidance on inventory 
management and validation processes. FTS plans to address all remaining 
lessons prior to contract award. FTS has also provided agencies with 
guidance that fully reflects two of the five sound transition planning 
practices. However, guidance has not addressed all aspects of the 
remaining three, including establishing an inventory maintenance 
process, using key management processes, identifying measures of 
success, and performing transition-specific risk assessments. 

Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with 
individual agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility 
to plan and coordinate the transition. As a result, unless it works 
with agencies to address the full range of sound transition planning 
practices, agencies may not address the practices fully or 
consistently, which could, in turn, affect their level of preparation. 

Table: Sound Transition Planning Practices: 

Establish an accurate telecommunications inventory and an inventory 
maintenance process. 

Perform a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements and use 
this to shape the agency's management approach and guide efforts when 
identifying resources and developing a transition plan. 

Establish a structured management approach that includes a dedicated 
transition management team, key management process (project management, 
configuration management, and change management), and clear lines of 
communication. 

Identify the funding and human capital resources that the transition 
effort will require. 

Develop a transition plan that includes transition objectives, measures 
of success, a risk assessment, and a detailed time line. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Energy 
perform the analyses necessary to identify required transition 
resources for their agencies. 

In addition, GAO recommends that the Administrator of General Services 
provide guidance to GSA’s customer agencies that reflects all of the 
sound transition planning practices. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the General Services 
Administration, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, 
and the Department of the Interior generally agreed with our 
recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-476]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the Committee on Government 
Reform, House of Representatives, March 24, 2006: 

Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 
DOE: Department of Energy: 
DOI: Department of the Interior: 
DOJ: Department of Justice: 
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 
FTS: Federal Technology Service: 
GSA: General Services Administration: 
IMC: Interagency Management Council: 
RFP: Request for Proposal: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 6, 2006: 

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

As you know, the previous effort by federal agencies to transition 
telecommunications services to a new contract proved to be difficult. 
We reported in 2001[Footnote 1] that the transition to the current 
federal telecommunications contracts, known as FTS2001, encountered 
delays and increased telecommunications costs. The effort took more 
than 24 months and lost an estimated $74 million in savings. As a 
result, we noted that the process of planning and managing future 
telecommunications acquisitions will be improved by applying lessons 
learned from the transition to FTS2001[Footnote 2]. We also noted the 
need for comprehensive program management, accurate inventories, and 
defined contractor and government responsibilities. 

As the FTS2001 contracts approach expiration, General Service 
Administration's (GSA) Federal Technology Service (FTS) and its 
customer agencies have begun to prepare for the transition to new 
contracts, known as Networx. Past experience has shown that the 
importance of this planning process should not be underestimated. 

At your request, we reviewed the extent to which (1) selected agencies 
used sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) GSA's FTS 
has prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons learned 
and providing agencies with guidance on sound transition planning. 

To achieve our first objective, we obtained FTS2001 billing information 
and identified the 50 departments and agencies with the highest total 
charges for 1 month billed. From these, we selected six that would 
ensure a representation of (1) departments, bureaus, and head agency/ 
subagency relationships; (2) complexity based on the number of current 
vendors used; and (3) varying levels of attendance in an agency forum 
that is assisting FTS in its efforts to plan for the transition. The 
departments and agencies selected for review were the Department of the 
Interior, the Bureau of Land Management (within the Department of the 
Interior), Department of Energy, Department of Justice, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (a component of the Department of Justice), and 
GSA. 

We then researched available literature on telecommunications 
transitions and interviewed those with experience in telecommunications 
transitions, including industry experts, telecommunications vendors, 
and private sector companies. We analyzed the results of our research 
and interviews, synthesized common themes and issues, and identified 
five sound transition planning practices against which agency efforts 
could be measured: 

* establishing a telecommunications inventory, 

* performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements, 

* establishing a structured transition management approach, 

* identifying resources, and: 

* developing a transition plan. 

Once compiled, we provided these practices to the industry experts and 
FTS for comment and general agreement. 

Next, we obtained and reviewed documentation--including strategic 
plans, telecommunications inventories, and transition related plans-- 
and interviewed officials from each of the selected agencies. We 
assessed this information against the five sound transition planning 
practices. 

To achieve our second objective, we reviewed transition guidance and 
other Networx documentation[Footnote 3] developed by FTS and the 
Interagency Management Council[Footnote 4]. We also interviewed FTS 
Networx program officials to identify any planned guidance or 
activities for the Networx transition. We assessed this information 
against the published lessons learned from the FTS2001 transition, and 
determined whether FTS was providing guidance to agencies that 
correlated with the identified sound transition planning practices. 

We performed our work from June 2005 through March 2006 at the 
Washington, D.C., area offices of the selected agencies in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

On March 24, 2006, we provided your office with a detailed briefing on 
the results of this work, which is included as appendix I. The purpose 
of this letter is to provide the briefing slides to you and officially 
transmit our recommendations to the Administrator of General Services, 
the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Energy. 

In summary, the agencies we reviewed were generally planning to employ 
the five sound planning practices in their transition management 
efforts. However, officials at two of the agencies stated they did not 
plan to fully identify necessary resources. Specifically, officials 
from the Department of Justice indicated they would not need additional 
financial resources for the transition, even though they could not 
provide an analytical basis for their decision, and officials from the 
Department of Energy believed that because the agency's transition will 
be straightforward, identifying human capital resource needs would not 
be necessary. However, without addressing all of the sound practices, 
agencies risk entering into a complex transition without the level of 
preparation necessary to ensure a smooth transition. 

FTS, in preparing for the transition, has addressed the 21 out of 27 
lessons learned from the previous transition. For example, it has made 
efforts to clarify which parties are responsible for transition costs 
and to ensure that contractors have adequate operations support systems 
in place before the transition begins. FTS has not yet addressed 
lessons pertaining to securing incumbent contractor cooperation and 
developing guidance on establishing inventory management and validation 
processes. FTS stated that it plans to address the remaining lessons 
prior to contract award. Specifically, FTS stated it is currently 
working with the incumbent contractors to ensure cooperation and that 
high-level guidance on inventory maintenance will be provided in the 
last few months leading up to contract award. 

FTS has also provided agencies with guidance on performing a strategic 
analysis of telecommunications requirements and identifying necessary 
resources for the transition, two of the five sound transition planning 
practices. However, it did not provide comprehensive guidance on the 
remaining three practices (establishing a telecommunications inventory, 
establishing a structured management approach, and developing a 
transition plan). The specific aspects of the practices that its 
guidance does not address are establishing an inventory maintenance 
process, using key management processes (project management, 
configuration management, and change management), developing measures 
of success, and performing transition-specific risk assessments. As 
stated above, FTS plans to provide high-level guidance on inventory 
maintenance in the last few months leading up to contract award. 

Enough time remains for agencies to effectively address all the issues 
we identified, but they need to identify telecommunications inventories 
and conduct strategic analyses soon because these practices provide 
inputs for other sound practices. Further, although principal 
responsibility for the transition rests with individual agencies, FTS 
has an important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate 
the transition. As a result, it is important that FTS work with its 
customer agencies to ensure that they fully and consistently address 
the full range of sound transition planning practices. 

Recommendations: 

To ensure that the agencies we reviewed adequately prepare themselves 
for the transition, we recommend: 

* that the Attorney General ensure that the Department of Justice's 
planning efforts include an analysis of the extent to which current 
financial resources will be sufficient to conduct an effective 
transition; 

* that the Secretary of Energy ensure that the department's planning 
efforts include identification of human capital resources needed to 
conduct an effective transition. 

To ensure that agencies are adequately prepared for the transition, we 
recommend that the Administrator of General Services, in working with 
the Interagency Management Council, develop and distribute guidance to 
ensure that our identified sound practices of transition planning are 
utilized. In particular, FTS should ensure that guidance addresses: 

* the use of project management, configuration management, and change 
management processes in transition planning efforts; 

* the establishment of measures of success to help agencies' managers 
assess progress toward the objectives stated in their plans; and: 

* the development of a transition-specific risk assessment that would 
allow an agency to lessen problems and delays during the transition. 

Agency Comments: 

In comments on a draft of this report, officials from the General 
Services Administration and the Departments of Justice, Energy, and the 
Interior generally agreed with our recommendations. 

The GSA's acting Administrator, in written comments, stated that the 
agency will work with the IMC to address our recommendations. The 
acting Administrator also stated that GSA has initiated discussions and 
planning activities to address our recommendations and that processes 
and guidelines for these issues will be included in a transition 
planning guide expected to be distributed to all agencies before 
December 2006. These comments are reproduced in appendix II. 

A Department of Justice Audit Liaison Specialist commented via e-mail 
that the agency agreed with our recommendation and findings. 

A Department of Energy Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer 
commented via e-mail that the agency will be in a position to determine 
if additional human capital resources are warranted once Networx has 
been awarded and a review and analysis of available services have been 
completed. 

The Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary of Policy, 
Management, and Budget, in written comments, stated that the agency 
generally agreed with our recommendations and findings. He also 
expressed concern with the difficulty of the upcoming transition and 
stated that the department relies on GSA actions in order to timely 
allocate resources for this effort. These comments are reproduced in 
appendix III. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report 
until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies 
of this report to interested congressional committees, the 
Administrator of General Services, the Attorney General, the Secretary 
of the Interior, and the Secretary of Energy. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your offices have any questions about matters discussed 
in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at 
koontzl@gao.gov. Key contributions to this report were made by James R. 
Sweetman, Jr., Assistant Director; Jamey Collins; Alison Holland; David 
Hong; Teresa M. Neven; Kelly Shaw; and Amos Tevelow. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Briefing to the Staff of the Committee on Government 
Reform, House of Representatives, March 24, 2006: 

Telecommunications: Agencies Have Begun Planning for Transition to New 
Governmentwide Program, but Unresolved Issues Remain[5]: 

Briefing to the Staff of the Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives: 

Outline of Briefing: 

Introduction: 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Selected Agencies Are in the Early Stages of Preparing for the 
Transition: 

* Establish a Telecommunications Inventory: 

* Perform a Strategic Analysis of Telecommunications Requirements: 

* Create a Structured Transition Management Approach: 

* Identify Resources: 

* Establish a Transition Plan: 

The General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Technology Service 
(FTS) Is Providing Transition Guidance, but Issues Remain: 

* FTS has Addressed the Majority of FTS2001 Lessons Learned in Its 
Planning for Networx: 

* FTS Has Provided Guidance That at Least Partially Addresses All of 
the Sound Practices Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 
Agency Comments: 
Attachment 1: Comments from GSA: 

Introduction: 

Innovations in telecommunications services continue to transform the 
way the federal government conducts business, allowing it to streamline 
processes, reduce paperwork and delays, increase efficiency, and 
improve interaction with the public. With the current set of 
governmentwide telecommunications contracts due to expire soon, the 
proposed replacement contracts, known as the Networx program, can offer 
federal agencies the opportunity to apply innovative services and 
solutions to their operations. However, to maximize the benefits to 
taxpayers, it is important that the transition to new programs like 
Networx be adequately planned. 

The importance of transition planning is underscored by the previous 
federal effort to transition telecommunication services to new 
contracts, which proved to be a large and complex task. In 2001, we 
reported[6] that: 

the transition to the current federal telecommunications contracts, 
known as FTS2001, encountered delays and took more than 24 months, 
which hindered the timely achievement of program goals; and: 

transition delays resulted in raised telecommunications costs. In 
total, an estimated $74 million in savings was lost due to delays in 
completing the transition to FTS2001. 

As a result, we noted that the process of planning and managing future 
telecommunications acquisitions will be improved by applying lessons 
learned from the transition to FTS2001. We also noted the need for 
comprehensive program management, including accurate inventories as 
well as defined contractor and government responsibilities. 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Objectives: 

Our objectives were to determine to what extent (1) selected agencies 
used sound practices in preparing for the transition and (2) the 
General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Technology Service 
(FTS) has prepared for the transition by addressing previous lessons 
learned and providing agencies with guidance on sound transition 
planning. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the extent to which selected agencies are preparing for 
the transition from FTS2001, we first selected six agencies for review. 

Using FTS2001 billing data provided by FTS, we identified the 50 
agencies with the highest total charges for 1 month billed. From this 
group of agencies we selected 6 that would ensure a representation of 
(1) departments, bureaus, and head agency/sub-agency relationships (2) 
complexity based on the number of current vendors used, and (3) varying 
levels of attendance in an agency forum that is assisting FTS in its 
efforts to plan for the transition. 

The agencies selected for review were the Department of the Interior 
(DOI); Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a bureau of DOI; Department of 
Energy (DOE); Department of Justice (DOJ); Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), a component of DOJ; and GSA[7]. 

To identify sound transition planning practices against which agency 
planning efforts could be measured, we researched available literature 
on telecommunications transitions and held a series of interviews with 
individuals experienced in telecommunications transitions, including 
the prior transition to FTS2001. We met with: 

industry experts from the Washington Management Group, Council for 
Excellence in Government, Federal Sources Inc., and Gartner; 

telecommunications vendors such as Level3, MCI, and WilTel; and: 

private sector companies such as CGI-AMS, Computer Sciences 
Corporation, Hewlett-Packard, and Allstate, which had just undergone 
its own telecommunications transition. 

We analyzed the results of these interviews to synthesize common themes 
and issues and identified five sound transition planning practices. 
Once compiled, we provided these practices to the four industry experts 
and FTS for comment and general agreement. 

To refine our approach and gauge the time required to assess each 
agency, we pretested our evaluation methodology at two agencies, the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. 

To determine the extent to which agencies are using the identified 
sound practices, we took the following actions: 

We obtained and reviewed agency documentation, including strategic 
plans, telecommunications inventories, and transition-related plans, 
and interviewed agency officials. 

We then assessed this information against the five sound transition 
planning practices. 

Based on our initial assessment, we classified the status of agency 
transition planning efforts as "completed" (finished and integrated 
into planning for the transition), "started" (begun but not fully 
integrated into planning for the transition), "planned" (not begun but 
planned, according to agency officials), or "not planned" (not begun 
and agency officials indicated they do not plan to address in their 
transition planning). 

We discussed our assessments with agency officials and made adjustments 
as appropriate. 

Because we judgmentally selected the agencies in our review, we cannot 
conclude that our results represent the entire federal government's 
level of preparation. However, the six cases studied illustrate various 
challenges that agencies may face in planning for a telecommunications 
transition. 

To determine the extent to which FTS has prepared for the transition by 
addressing previous lessons learned and providing agencies with 
guidance on sound transition planning, we: 

reviewed transition guidance and other Networx documentation developed 
by FTS and the Interagency Management Council's Transition Working 
Group, including presentations, meeting minutes, projected time lines, 
FTS2001 lessons learned, the Networx Request for Proposals (RFP), and 
the Networx Transition Guide (Pre-Award); 

interviewed FTS Networx program officials to identify any planned 
guidance or activities for the Networx transition; 

assessed the identified guidance and other Networx documentation 
against the published lessons learned from the FTS2001 transition; and: 

assessed whether the identified guidance and other Networx 
documentation is aiding agency efforts in implementing sound practices 
for transition planning. 

We performed our work from June 2005 through March 2006 at the 
Washington, D.C., area offices of the Departments of Energy, Interior, 
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the General Services 
Administration. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief Objective 1: Agency Preparation: 

The agencies we reviewed were generally planning to employ sound 
transition planning practices in their transition management efforts, 
such as establishing a structured transition management approach, 
identifying resource requirements, and developing transition plans. For 
example, 

GSA and DOE had committed staff to plan the transition, and the 
remaining four agencies planned to do so; 

officials at the six agencies indicated that a transition plan will be 
developed for the transition. 

However, we also identified instances where agency officials stated 
they did not plan to fully address specific practices. For example, 

officials from DOE stated that their transition will be 
straightforward, and do not believe it will require identification of 
human capital needs; and: 

officials at DOJ indicated that they will not need additional funding 
for the transition, even though DOJ has yet to conduct a strategic 
analysis of its telecommunications requirements, and agency officials 
did not provide any analytical basis for their decision. 

Without addressing all of the sound practices, agencies risk entering 
into a complex transition without the level of preparation necessary to 
ensure a smooth transition. This could lead agencies to incur avoidable 
costs. 

Results in Brief Objective 2: FTS Preparation: 

FTS has addressed the majority of the lessons learned from its previous 
transition and has provided guidance that at least partially addresses 
all sound transition planning practices. 

FTS has addressed 21 out of 27 lessons learned from the previous 
transition, and plans to address the remaining six prior to contract 
award. For example, it has made efforts to clarify which parties are 
responsible for transition costs and to ensure that contractors have 
adequate operations support systems in place before the transition 
begins. Areas that have not yet been fully addressed are securing 
incumbent contractor cooperation and guidance on establishing an 
inventory management and validation processes. FTS stated it is 
currently working with the incumbent contractors to ensure cooperation 
and that high-level guidance on inventory maintenance will be provided 
in the last few months leading up to contract award. 

FTS has provided agencies with guidance that fully reflects two of the 
five sound transition planning practices. Specifically, it provided 
guidance on performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications 
requirements and identifying necessary resources for the transition. 
Guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three remaining 
practices, including establishing and maintaining telecommunications 
inventories, developing measures of success, and performing transition- 
specific risk assessments. FTS officials stated that they would provide 
agencies guidance on maintaining inventories in the months leading up 
to contract award. However, they do not intend to provide guidance that 
addresses establishing measures of success, the use of key management 
processes, or performing transition-specific risk assessments because 
they believe it is not their responsibility and agencies should 
determine their own approach to these issues. 

Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with 
individual agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility 
to plan and coordinate the transition. Unless it works with agencies to 
address the full range of sound practices, agencies may not address the 
practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect their 
level of preparation. Agencies' experience with the previous transition 
demonstrates that inadequate preparation can lead to service delays and 
increased costs. 

Results in Brief: 

Recommendations and Agency Comments: 

To help ensure that the agencies reviewed adequately prepare themselves 
for the transition, we are making recommendations to the Secretary of 
Energy and the Attorney General to perform the analyses necessary to 
identify required transition resources for their agencies. 

In addition, to ensure that the federal government adequately prepares 
the participating agencies, we recommend that the Administrator of 
General Services work with the Interagency Management Council to 
provide agencies guidance reflecting all of the sound transition 
planning practices. 

In commenting on a draft of this briefing, the General Services 
Administration, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Energy 
generally agreed with our recommendations and stated that they intend 
to address them. The Department of the Interior provided technical 
comments that we incorporated into the briefing as appropriate. 

Background FTS and Networx: 

FTS is responsible for ensuring that federal agencies have access to 
the telecommunications services and solutions needed to meet mission 
requirements. To meet current agency needs for various 
telecommunication services, it awarded two large governmentwide 
contracts one to Sprint[8] in December 1998 and one to MCI[9] in 
January 1999- known together as FTS2001. Under the terms of these 
contracts, each firm was guaranteed minimum revenues of $750 million 
over the life of the eight-year contracts. These contracts are to 
expire in December 2006 and January 2007, respectively. According to 
program officials, federal agencies spent approximately $614 million on 
FTS2001 services during fiscal year 2003, $780 million during fiscal 
year 2004, and $902 million during fiscal year 2005. 

FTS2001 is the successor to a line of programs that has traditionally 
provided long-distance telecommunications to the federal government. 
With the FTS2001 contracts set to expire, FTS released a request for 
information in October 2003 announcing its plans for a new 
governmentwide telecommunications program known as Networx.  

The principal differences between Networx and its predecessors are 
summarized in the table below. 

The Networx program consists of two governmentwide acquisitions named 
Networx Universal and Networx Enterprise. FTS expects Networx Universal 
to offer a full range of voice and data network services, managed 
networking services and solutions, wireless, and satellite 
communications services. This acquisition is expected to result in 
multiple contract awards to relatively few bidders because few 
companies are expected to be able to satisfy its geographic coverage 
and comprehensive service requirements. In contrast, FTS expects 
Networx Enterprise to offer leading-edge services and solutions using 
contractors that are required to cover a more geographically limited 
area than Networx Universal. FTS plans to award multiple Enterprise 
contracts to a greater number of bidders than Networx Universal. 

Federal telecommunications services programs: 

Service features; 
FTS 2000 (1989-2001); 
FTS2001 (1998-); 
Networx (2007-).  

Means of Delivery; 
Mandatory commercial services; 
Non-mandatory commercial services; 
Non-mandatory commercial services.   

Type; 
Long distance voice, high-speed and switched data, and video services; 
Long distance voice, video, and additional data services, and 
international services; 
Long distance voice, video, data, international, management and 
application, security, IP-based, satellite, and wireless service.  

Technology; 
Analog and digital; 
Predominantly digital; 
Predominantly digital and IP-based. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTS Information. 

[End of Table] 

Award of the Networx contracts has been delayed several times, pushing 
back the expected start of the transition from FTS2001 to Networx. In 
May 2005, the final Networx requests for proposals were released, with 
contract award for both acquisitions expected in April 2006. Shortly 
thereafter, as a result of amendments made to the RFPs, the vendor 
proposal due dates were extended by two months. Then, in January 2006, 
bidders were informed that delays had moved the Networx award date to 
March 2007 for Universal and May 2007 for Enterprise. Based on the new 
award dates, a transition from FTS2001 to Networx is, as of March 2006, 
over a year away. 

As a result of these delays, FTS recently announced its intent to 
negotiate sole-source contracts with MCI and Sprint. These contracts 
are expected to last between 24 and 42 months[10] to give FTS and its 
customer agencies the time needed to finalize the Networx acquisitions 
and complete the transition. 

The original schedule and current schedules for both Networx contracts 
are shown in the table below. 

Contract Milestone: Final RFP[A]; 
Networx Enterprise: Original: Summer 2005; 
Networx Enterprise: Revised (or Actual): May 2005 [check]; 
Networx Universal: Original: Fall 2004; 
Networx Universal: Revised (or Actual): May 2005 [check]. 

Contract Milestone: Vendor Proposals Due; 
Networx Enterprise: Original: Fall 2005; 
Networx Enterprise: Revised (or Actual): October 2005 [check]; 
Networx Universal: Original: Winter 2004; 
Networx Universal: Revised (or Actual): October 2005 [check]. 

Contract Milestone: Contract Award(s); 
Networx Enterprise: Original: Fall 2006; 
Networx Enterprise: Revised (or Actual): May 2007; 
Networx Universal: Original: Winter 2005; 
Networx Universal: Revised (or Actual): May 2007. 

[A] Request for Proposals: 
[check] Actual Completion: 

Source: GAO analysis of FTS information. 

[End of Table] 

Background: 

Transition Responsibilities: 

FTS, its customer agencies, and the incumbent and awarded contractors 
all have identified responsibilities for the upcoming transition. 

FTS has important program-level responsibility to plan and coordinate 
the transition from FTS2001. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 gives FTS 
responsibility for managing the FTS 2000 program and implementing its 
follow-on programs (FTS2001 and Networx) on behalf of and with the 
advice of participating agencies. This responsibility includes the 
development, maintenance, and dissemination, as requested by the Office 
of Management and Budget or the agencies, of recommended methods and 
strategies for the development and acquisition of IT, and managing 
outreach programs in cooperation with the agency managers. FTS is also 
responsible for providing general guidance on the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation with respect to its FTS2001 and Networx programs. 

FTS works with its customer agencies through the Interagency Management 
Council, a group of senior federal information resource officials. The 
council was established in 1992 to provide a forum and focal point for 
agency participation in planning and overseeing FTS's long-distance 
telecommunications services. In dealing with a multitude of matters, 
the council established subgroups to be responsible for specific 
issues. For example, one subgroup, the Transition Working Group, is 
helping FTS plan for the transition, advising and assisting with issues 
such as developing a Networx pre-award transition guide. 

The Transition Working Group also documented, in conjunction with FTS, 
lessons learned from the FTS2001 transition. This FTS2001 Transition 
Lessons Learned document addresses topics such as transition resources, 
transition inventories, enforcing contractual performance requirements, 
and transition roles and responsibilities. It identifies a total of 27 
issues with the intent of avoiding unnecessary delays during future 
transitions. 

FTS's customer agencies-those federal agencies using the FTS2001 
contract-have principal responsibility for the transition. These 
agencies are responsible for coordinating transition efforts with the 
incumbent and awarded contractors to ensure that existing services 
under FTS2001 are disconnected and new services are ordered. FTS has 
asked each of its customer agencies to appoint a transition manager and 
establish a transition team that will: 

manage the agency's internal transition planning, preparation, and 
execution efforts; and: 

be responsible for interfacing with FTS, the Interagency Management 
Council, and officials within the agency. 

Both the Networx contractors and incumbent FTS2001 contractors are 
responsible for supporting agencies in their transition planning and 
execution efforts: 

Networx contractors will be responsible for delivering services 
ordered, developing program-level and agency-level transition plans, 
and communicating the status of transition activities with scheduled 
notices and reports. 

The incumbent FTS2001 contractors are expected to complete all FTS2001 
service disconnect orders requested by agencies and assist agency 
efforts to prepare for the transition by, for example, helping to 
identify inventory information and system requirements. 

Objective 1: Agency Preparation Sound Transition Planning Practices: 

Based on our research, we identified five sound transition planning 
practices that agencies can utilize to improve the likelihood of a 
smooth transition. Regardless of the complexity of each agency's 
transition, these sound practices can help agencies make the most of 
the opportunity for change that accompanies a major telecommunications 
transition. 

Establish a Telecommunications Inventory: 

Perform Strategic Analysis of Telecommunications Requirements * 
Establish a Structured Transition Management Approach: 

Identify Resources: 

Develop a Transition Plan: 

Sound transition planning includes establishing an accurate inventory 
of current telecommunications assets and services. 

First, agencies should have a detailed and complete transition 
inventory that represents all of its facilities, components, field 
offices, and any other managed sites. It should include information 
such as telecommunications services, traffic volumes, equipment, and 
applications being utilized. Agencies can use their transition 
inventory to identify opportunities for optimizing their current 
technology during strategic planning. 

Second, agencies should have a documented inventory maintenance process 
that can be utilized to ensure that inventories remain current and 
reflect changes leading up to, during, and after the transition. Once 
established, an inventory maintenance process can ensure that changes 
are captured and allow agencies to audit vendor bills against their 
inventories throughout the life of the contract. 

Agencies should begin efforts to establish a telecommunications 
inventory early because the development of an accurate and reliable 
inventory is important to ensuring that the agency will be prepared to 
transition quickly. Further, current inventories should be established 
by the agency prior to determining strategic telecommunications 
requirements, when the information can be used to help determine 
current and future telecommunications needs and areas for optimization 
and/or sharing of IT resources across the agency. 

The selected agencies were at different stages in preparing 
telecommunications inventories. 

BLM, GSA, and DOE provided inventories of their telecommunication 
services. These three inventories included the type of information that 
could assist agencies in conducting an effective transition. However 
because inventories change as services are added, changed, or removed, 
all three will have to be updated prior to transition execution. 

The remaining three agencies did not yet have complete inventories, but 
officials stated that they planned to develop them. FBI officials 
stated they had not yet been able to provide complete and accurate 
inventories because the management of their telecommunications services 
was decentralized and, therefore, they could not readily compile the 
necessary information. 

GSA had a documented process for updating and maintaining its 
inventories that it indicated it follows when ordering or changing 
circuits. 

The other five agencies did not have a documented inventory maintenance 
process, but their officials said they did have staff responsible for 
updating and maintaining their inventories. These officials also stated 
they plan to formally document an inventory maintenance process. 

If agencies do not establish accurate and complete telecommunications 
inventories prior to transition execution, they risk not having 
information during transition planning that will allow them to address 
strategic considerations, and may face transition delays while proper 
inventory information is gathered. Further, without an established 
inventory process, agencies may not consistently and accurately capture 
the changes to their telecommunications inventories, hindering their 
ability to ensure that they are charged only for the services 
requested. 

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward 
establishing an accurate inventory of current telecommunications assets 
and services. 

Telecommunications inventory: 

Does the agency have a telecommunications inventory for the transition 
and a process to maintain that inventory? 

Has the agency identified its telecommunications inventories at every 
site, facility, and component for the transition from FTS2001? 
Completed: 3; 
Started: 0; 
Planned: 3; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Does the agency have a documented process for updating and maintaining 
its inventories? 
Completed: 1; 
Started: 0; 
Planned: 5; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of Table] 

Objective 1: Agency Preparation Strategic Requirements: 

Sound transition planning includes performing a strategic analysis of 
telecommunications requirements and incorporating the results into 
transition planning. To accomplish this, agencies should determine 
current and future telecommunications needs using an identified 
inventory of existing services. Agencies should also use the transition 
as an opportunity to identify areas for optimization and/or sharing of 
telecommunications resources across the agency. The costs and benefits 
of introducing new technology and alternatives for meeting the agency's 
telecommunications needs should be evaluated. Further, the identified 
needs and opportunities should be aligned with the agency's mission, 
long-term IT plans, and enterprise architecture plans. 

The results of the agency's strategic analysis of telecommunications 
requirements should shape the agency's management approach to the 
transition and guide other efforts such as identifying and allocating 
resources and developing a transition plan. 

Most of the agencies planned to identify and incorporate strategic 
requirements into their transition planning. 

BLM had identified strategic requirements for its current and future 
telecommunications needs through a recently completed analysis that 
considered the convergence of its voice, video, and data services into 
a single IP-based network. 

FBI had begun to identify its current and future needs in an IT 
strategic plan not specific to the transition. According to an official 
from this agency, any identified needs will be incorporated into the 
strategic requirements developed for the transition. FBI plans to 
complete its analysis in March 2006. 

The remaining four intend to identify their strategic requirements for 
the transition, but believed it was too early to have done so already. 

If agencies do not incorporate strategic requirements into their 
planning, they risk making decisions which are not aligned with the 
long-term goals of the organization and may not be able to take full 
advantage of opportunities during the transition, such as upgrading and 
optimizing their telecommunications services, or shifting service to 
more cost-effective technology. 

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward 
incorporating strategic requirements into their planning. 

Strategic Analysis of telecommunications requirements: 

Has the agency performed a strategic analysis of telecommunications 
requirements for the transition? 

Has the agency determined current and future telecommunications needs?
Completed: 1; 
Started: 1; 
Planned: 4; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

Objective 1: Agency Preparation Structured Transition Management 
Approach: 

Sound transition planning includes establishing a structured transition 
management approach. This entails: 

establishing a transition management team involved in all phases of the 
transition and clearly defining responsibilities for key transition 
roles such as project management, asset management, contract and legal 
management, human capital management, and security issues; 

utilizing the agency's established project management, configuration 
management, and change management processes. Project management 
processes are utilized to plan and manage transition-related 
activities, providing a structure that incorporates performance 
measurement and project-level control. Configuration management 
processes are used to help ensure integrity and traceability as change 
occurs. Change management processes help employees prepare for the 
procedure and technology changes that may accompany a transition, 
reducing the risk that improvement efforts will fail; and: 

ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the transition by identifying 
which parties will be involved and how transition plans, including 
transition objectives, will be communicated. The agency should identify 
what is going to happen and when, including the frequency of status 
updates and meetings, and should alert and educate end users to changes 
or disruptions. This also includes identifying key local and regional 
transition officials and points of contact responsible for 
disseminating information to employees and working with the vendor to 
facilitate transition execution. 

The six agencies were in the early stages of establishing a structured 
transition management approach. 

DOE and GSA had formally committed staff to manage transition planning 
by identifying a transition program manager in a project charter or 
planning guide. They had also begun to assign responsibilities for key 
transition roles and issues. 

Officials at the remaining four agencies believed it was too soon to 
have committed staff to manage the transition. 

While all indicated that they have established management processes to 
guide their planning efforts, officials stated it was too early for 
these processes to have been implemented. For example, an FBI official 
stated that their policies require the use of the key management 
processes we identified and that they would utilize these once 
transition-related activities get under way. 

GSA had identified some of its plans for communication, including the 
frequency of reports, presentations, and reviews; and the parties 
responsible for issuing them. However, the plans had not yet been 
communicated to those beyond the transition management team. 

Officials at all of the agencies reviewed stated that they plan to 
establish lines of communication for the transition and identify key 
local and/or regional transition officials, but that it was too early 
in their planning to have done so. 

Without a structured transition management approach, agencies risk 
additional financial costs, extended time lines, and disruptions to the 
continuity of their telecommunication systems. Further, without 
establishing lines of communication and identifying local and regional 
points of contact, agencies may lack the quality of information that is 
necessary for comprehensive understanding, accountability, and shared 
expectations at all levels. 

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward 
establishing a structured transition management approach. 

Structured transition management approach: 

Has the agency established a structured transition management approach? 

Has the agency committed staff to manage the transition and clearly 
defined responsibilities for key transition roles? 
Completed: 0; 
Started: 2; 
Planned: 4; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Is the agency using key management processes in the management of its 
transition planning efforts? 
Completed: 0; 
Started: 0; 
Planned: 6; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Has the agency identified lines of communication in order to facilitate 
information information sharing during transition planning and 
execution? 
Completed: 0; 
Started: 1; 
Planned: 5; 
Not Planned: 0; 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of table] 

Objective 1: Agency Preparation Resource Identification: 

Sound transition planning includes identifying the resources that the 
transition effort requires. To do so, the agency should take the 
following steps: 

Identify funding requirements to ensure that planning efforts for the 
telecommunications transition have the necessary resources. The agency 
should identify the organizational need for investments and assess 
benefits versus costs to justify any resource requests. Cost benefit 
analyses and return-on-investment calculations are common methods used 
to justify requests. Transition costs that should be considered include 
transition project management, software and hardware upgrades, and the 
establishing reliable inventories. 

Ensure that personnel with the right skills are in place to support the 
transition effort. Some of the skills that are needed are, as 
identified earlier, contract expertise, legal expertise, asset 
management, and program management. Further, the agency should identify 
and require training for those carrying out the transition or operating 
and maintaining newly transitioned technology. The agency should also 
address staffing levels that may be required during transition. 

Identifying the need for resources early in the planning process will 
help to avoid unnecessary spending and delays during the transition. 
Further, the resources allocated to the transition effort should 
reflect the level of change identified in the agency's strategic 
analysis of telecommunications requirements; that is, if the agency 
chooses to implement new technology, it must budget resources 
accordingly. 

The agencies reviewed had placed varying levels of emphasis on 
identifying and allocating resources to support transition efforts. 

BLM had developed a network convergence business case that outlined 
benefits and costs, and provided a return-on-investment calculation to 
justify requests. This agency was awaiting approval of this request. 

Officials at four of the agencies stated that they will identify 
funding requirements as part of their transition planning efforts. 

Officials at DOJ indicated that they will not need additional funding 
for the transition. However, DOJ has yet to conduct a strategic 
analysis of its telecommunications requirements, and agency officials 
did not provide any analytical basis for its decision. 

Five agencies planned to address human capital and training needs. 
However, officials at DOE stated that they do not plan to identify 
human capital needs for the transition. They stated such plans would 
not be necessary because their agency faces a relatively 
straightforward like-for-like transition and will not require extensive 
planning and/or heightened staffing levels. However, the agency had not 
identified its strategic requirements to determine if a like-for-like 
transition was the optimal approach, nor had it performed any other 
analysis to determine the required staffing levels.

Agencies that do not analyze needs for transition related costs and 
allocate resources commensurate with those needs may be underestimating 
the complexity and demands of the transition effort. Further, as the 
transition gets under way, unexpected costs may arise that cause 
previously avoidable delays and unnecessary spending. 

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward 
identifying and allocating resources. 

Resource identification: 

Has the agency identified and allocated all resources necessary to 
facilitate a successful transition?

Has the agency identified the level of funding needed to support 
transition planning?
Completed: 1; 
Started: 0; 
Planned: 4; 
Not Planned: 4. 

Has the agency identified human capital and training needs for the 
transition? 
Completed: 0; 
Started: 0; 
Planned: 5; 
Not Planned: 1. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of Table] 

Objective 1: Agency Preparation Transition Plan: 

Sound transition planning includes developing a transition plan that 
identifies transition objectives, measures of success, and risks, and 
approaches the transition planning process as a critical project with a 
detailed time line. To facilitate this practice, agencies' transition 
management teams should take the following steps: 

Identify transition objectives and measures of success. Objectives 
should be based on the agency's strategic analysis of 
telecommunications requirements and aligned with the agency's overall 
mission and business objectives. Measures of success should be based on 
these transition objectives and are a key tool to help managers assess 
progress. 

Identify agency-specific risks that could affect transition success. 
The importance of the risks should be evaluated relative to the 
agency's mission critical systems and continuity of operations plans. 
Knowing what risks exist and how to mitigate them appropriately will 
lessen problems and delays during the transition. This risk assessment 
should also include an analysis of information security risks to 
determine what controls are required to protect networks and what level 
of resources should be expended on controls. 

Develop a transition plan that depicts a management strategy with 
clearly defined transition preparation tasks and includes a time line 
that allows for periodic reporting. This time line should take into 
account priorities relative to the agency's mission critical systems, 
contingency plans, and identified risks. 

The six agencies indicated that measurable objectives and clearly 
defined transition management tasks will be developed. 

DOE and GSA had identified transition-specific objectives. For example, 
in its transition planning guide, DOE had identified objectives such as 
(a) maintain the continuity of service with no outages, (b) optimize 
service inventory by disconnecting services not required, and (c) 
maximize the rate at which existing users' services are transitioned. 

Officials at the other four agencies stated that they planned to 
develop objectives as a part of their transition planning efforts. None 
had established measures of success to be used to assess progress 
toward their objectives, but all planned to do so. 

Officials at all of the agencies indicated that risk assessments will 
be performed for this transition, but that it was too early to have 
completed this task already. 

Efforts had begun at DOE to document transition planning activities 
that must occur prior to the award of the Networx contracts, but 
officials there indicated that these tasks would be further developed 
in their transition project management plan. 

Officials at the other five agencies indicated that they planned to 
identify and document necessary transition planning activities, but 
that it was too early to have done so at this point. 

Agencies that do not document measurable objectives and clearly define 
transition tasks that take into account agency priorities and risks may 
find it difficult to provide those involved in the transition with 
clear expectations of the tasks required, provide status updates of 
progress and risks, and ultimately ensure transition success. 

The following table indicates the reviewed agencies' progress toward 
developing a transition plan. 

Transition plan: 

Has the agency developed a transition plan? 

Has the agency identified and documented agency-specific transition 
objectives and measures of success? 
Completed: 0; 
Started: 2; 
Planned: 4; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Has the agency identified agency-specific risks that could affect 
transition success? 
Completed: 0; 
Started: 0; 
Planned: 6; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Has the agency clearly defined transition preparation tasks and 
developed a time line based on priorities and risks? 
Completed: 0; 
Started: 1; 
Planned: 5; 
Not Planned: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of table] 

Objective 2: FTS Preparation: 

FTS has addressed the majority of the FTS2001 lessons learned and 
provided guidance that at least partially addresses all of the sound 
transition planning practices. Specifically, it has addressed 21 of the 
27 lessons learned, such as clarifying which parties are responsible 
for transition costs, incentivizing agencies to transition quickly, and 
requiring verification of the functionality of vendor operations 
support systems prior to processing orders. However, the office is 
still working to address the remaining six lessons, such as defining 
incumbent contractor roles and providing guidance for agency inventory 
management and validation. FTS has also provided to agencies guidance 
that correlates with two of our five sound transition planning 
practices: performing a strategic analysis of telecommunications 
requirements and identifying necessary resources for the transition. 
However, guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three 
remaining practices. For example, guidance does not fully address 
establishing a structured transition management approach or developing 
a transition plan. 

Objective 2: FTS Preparation FTS2001 Transition Lessons Learned: 

In planning for the upcoming transition to Networx, FTS has addressed 
21 of the 27 lessons. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: The magnitude of the effort 
necessary for the transition was not fully appreciated; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: In 2003, the Interagency 
Management Council established a Transition Working Group to address 
transition issues. The group developed a Networx pre-award transition 
guide that emphasizes agency preparation for a transition effort of 
this magnitude. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Unique government requirements 
cannot always be met by commercial services or operations support 
systems; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx includes 
government-specific requirements, such as a unique billing indicator 
that lists each billed service separately from all other billed 
services. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: FTS and agency plans for funding the 
transition should be determined early: The budget impact of transition 
on agencies should be identified;
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS and the Transition 
Working Group developed a Taxonomy and Allocation of Transition Costs 
in October 2004 that assigns responsibilities for transition costs. FTS 
officials indicated that this document can be used to budget for 
transition costs but that final calculations cannot be performed until 
Networx prices are known.

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: The Transition Fund[11] was critical 
to transition execution; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS officials stated 
that, based on costs identified in the taxonomy document, they 
determined FTS would have the funding needed for transition program 
management costs, and no additional funding from agencies would be 
required. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Activities needed for transition 
should be started as soon as possible to ensure a rapid transition 
effort; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Early planning was 
encouraged in a May 2004 letter to agency CIOs and in a pre-award guide 
dated August 5, 2005, before an expected award date of April 2006. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Mandatory network optimization 
during transition was largely infeasible; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: This is no longer a 
requirement of contractors during transition. Network optimization 
reports are still required after transition is complete. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Program management approach relied 
extensively on agency action, while agency capabilities to manage it 
varied; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires vendors 
to work with agencies to develop transition plans that agencies can 
tailor according to their capabilities. FTS also asked agency 
transition managers to develop agency transition strategies and plans.  

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Program management approach relied 
heavily on FTS2001 contractor actions; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx includes 
requirements that will permit FTS to exercise oversight of contractor 
performance and compliance. FTS also provided guidance recommending 
that agency transition managers review and approve Networx contractor 
management plans. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Flexibility is needed to account for 
the impact of external events on planning; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx provides 
flexibility by allowing agencies to specify when they would like 
ordered services to be delivered. This can be used by each agency to 
account for their specific planning considerations. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Contractors should be held to the 
contracts’ performance requirements during transition; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx includes service 
level agreements to hold contractors to expected levels of performance 
throughout the transition. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: There were problems obtaining access 
to local facilities; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Before the contractor 
commits to a date to install services for an agency, Networx requires 
contractors to first obtain commitment from the local access provider 
to avoid potential delays. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Contractors did not provide 
sufficient staff to meet contract terms; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires 
contractors to describe their ability to meet transition staffing 
requirements; those that are not able to support their transition 
workload will incur a financial penalty. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Some agency sites experienced 
transition execution delays due to a lack of preparation; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS indicated that it is 
preparing checklists for all FTS2001 service types that will be 
transitioned and an agency site preparation checklist. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Agencies should anticipate the need 
to upgrade services during transition; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Networx Pre-Award 
Transition Guide finalized in August 2005 provides guidance on planning 
for upgrades. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Agencies were slow to select service 
providers: Agencies were slow to place orders: Agencies responsible for 
delays should bear the costs of those delays; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Taxonomy and 
Allocation of Transition Costs developed by FTS and the Transition 
Working Group stipulates that reimbursements for certain transition 
costs can only be realized if the agency chooses a service provider and 
places orders within a predefined time frame. FTS indicated that 
qualifying for such transition credits should encourage agencies to 
make timely decisions and avoid transition delays. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Transition began before contractors 
had acceptable operations support systems in place: Inaccurate vendor 
billing contributed to transition delays; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires 
verification of the functionality of contractors’ operations support 
systems prior to processing transition orders or bills. Networx also 
includes a billing accuracy service level agreement that allows for 
agency credits if the contractor fails to meet accuracy requirements. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Relatively high minimum revenue 
guarantees of $1.5 billion impacted incentives for timely transition; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx minimum revenue 
guarantees were set at $575 million. FTS officials believe that the 
relatively lower minimum revenue guarantee (compared to FTS2001) should 
not be an impediment to agency selection or a disincentive to winning 
contractors. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: An accurate inventory prior to 
contract award is needed and inventory management and validation should 
be an ongoing effort throughout the life of the contract; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Networx Pre-Award 
Transition Guide provides guidance on establishing an accurate 
inventory prior to contract award. However, FTS has not yet provided 
guidance to agencies on inventory management or validation. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Roles and responsibilities of FTS, 
agencies, and service providers for transition activities were not 
clearly defined; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: FTS has clearly defined 
the roles and responsibilities of parties involved—in briefings, the 
Networx RFPs, and guidance—but it has not yet clearly defined the roles 
and responsibilities of the incumbent contractors. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Need for adequate coordination 
between the gaining and losing vendors should be incorporated in both 
the incumbent and new vendor contracts; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: Networx requires vendors 
to coordinate and synchronize transition activities with incumbents, 
however, incumbent requirements are not yet clearly defined. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Measurement of the progress of 
transition should focus on phase-out as well as phase-in: Metrics for 
monitoring of the installation of new services should be established 
prior to contract award; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: While FTS has indicated 
that it will track the progress made by agencies through the 
disconnection of current services and the installation of new services, 
it has not documented its methodology for monitoring and tracking the 
transition. 

FTS2001 transition lesson learned: Information from service providers 
required to measure transition should be specified; 
Example of how the lesson has been addressed: The Networx RFPs include 
detailed transition reporting requirements, however, incumbent 
transition reporting requirements have not been finalized. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of Table] 

FTS officials stated they plan to address all unresolved lessons 
learned. They stated they are currently working with the FTS2001 
contractors to clarify transition roles and responsibilities, 
responsibilities for reporting requirements, and the coordination and 
synchronization procedures to be used during transition. In addition, 
officials stated that guidance on inventory maintenance and a 
documented transition tracking methodology will be provided in the last 
few months leading up to contract award. 

Enough time remains that FTS should be able to address these unresolved 
issues. However, until they are resolved it risks facing the very same 
delays the FTS2001 lessons learned were developed to avoid. Further, 
until agreements are reached with the incumbent contractors regarding 
reporting requirements and the incumbents' role in the transition, FTS 
cannot guarantee that incumbents will comply or be able to comply with 
FTS's expectations. 

Objective 2: FTS Preparation Guidance Based on Sound Practices: 

FTS has provided transition planning guidance that fully addresses two 
of our sound practices. 

Sound transition planning practice: Strategic Analysis of 
Telecommunications Requirements; 
Example of how the practice has been addressed: Available guidance 
recommends that agencies involve the enterprise architect to ensure 
that planning is consistent with enterprise architecture guidance and 
to determine, based on the level of complexity of the transition, 
whether any changes should be made before or after the transition. 

Sound Transition Planning Practice: Resource Identification;  
Example of how the practice has been addressed: Available guidance 
indicates that necessary staffing and financial resources should be 
anticipated early and accurately and that agencies should develop a 
forecast of required resources throughout the transition to Networx. 
Available guidance also suggests that agencies examine current 
resources to determine if adequate personnel exists; address shortfalls 
that may require contractor support; and identify personnel to receive 
training, and the desired schedule and locations of training. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of Table] 


Guidance has not been provided on aspects of the three remaining 
practices. 

 

Sound transition planning practice: Telecommunications Inventory;  
Aspect of the practice not addressed: FTS is compiling a baseline 
inventory to aid agencies during the transition, but has not provided 
guidance on establishing an inventory process that can be utilized to 
maintain telecommunications inventories during and after the 
transition. 

Sound transition planning practice: Structured Transition Management 
Approach; 
Aspect of the practice not addressed: Guidance provided suggests that 
transition managers should ensure that agencies have adequate internal 
project management support for the expected transition workload, and, 
if appropriate, a hierarchy of transition teams at the sub-agency 
level. However, the guidance reviewed does not address the importance 
of agency use of project management, configuration management, and 
change management processes. 

Sound transition planning practice: Transition Plan; 
Aspect of the practice not addressed: Available guidance indicates that 
agencies should identify transition goals and develop a prioritized 
list of tasks and a schedule with key dates to assist in transition 
management. However, none of the guidance reviewed addressed agencies 
establishing measures of success or performing a transition-specific 
risk assessment. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of Table] 

FTS officials stated that they would provide guidance explaining how 
agencies can use Networx contractor information to maintain and 
validate their Networx inventories, and that more detailed guidance 
will be provided if requested by agencies. Officials stated that they 
believe it is not their responsibility to provide guidance on 
establishing measures of success, using key management processes, and 
performing risk assessments, and that approaches to these issues should 
be decided independently by each agency. 

Although principal responsibility for the transition rests with 
individual agencies, FTS has an important program-level responsibility 
to plan and coordinate the transition. To fulfill this responsibility, 
it has been actively working with agencies through the Interagency 
Management Council's Transition Working Group to, for example, address 
lessons learned and develop pre-transition guidance. However, unless it 
works with the Interagency Management Council to address the full range 
of sound practices, the risk exists that agencies may not address these 
practices fully or consistently, which could, in turn, affect agency's 
level of preparation and the overall success of the transition. In 
particular, without guidance on measures of success and the use of key 
management processes, FTS risks conducting a transition with agencies 
susceptible to additional costs, delays, and employee resistance to 
change due to unstructured management approaches to the transition. 
Further, without guidance on the importance of performing transition- 
specific risk assessments, FTS risks working with agencies that have 
not been advised of the importance of implementing appropriate controls 
to cost-effectively reduce risks and help ensure a smooth transition. 

Conclusions: 

The agencies reviewed generally plan to employ the sound transition 
planning practices identified through our research. However, gaps in 
agency preparation remain. Specifically, DOJ has decided that it will 
not need additional funding and DOE does not plan to identify human 
capital needs, even though neither has performed a strategic analysis 
of their telecommunications requirements. This puts them at risk of 
underestimating the complexity and demands of the transition effort, 
and of suffering avoidable disruption of service as a result of 
unexpected costs or inadequate human capital resources. Enough time 
remains for agencies to effectively address all the issues we 
identified, but they need to identify telecommunications inventories 
and conduct strategic analyses soon because these practices provide 
inputs for other sound practices. 

FTS efforts to prepare for the transition have addressed the majority 
of the identified FTS2001 lessons learned, and the guidance it has 
provided at least partially addresses all of the sound transition 
planning practices we identified. Officials have indicated that they 
are working to address all lessons learned prior to contract award. 
However, they do not intend to fully address all sound transition 
planning practices. Without the development of guidance for utilizing 
key management practices, establishing measures of success, and 
performing risk assessments, the federal government risks attempting a 
transition with inadequately prepared management at FTS and its 
customer agencies. Adequate, timely guidance is essential to ensuring 
that all parties involved are aware of the gamut of issues and 
activities that need to be addressed. 

Recommendations: 

To ensure that the agencies we reviewed adequately prepare themselves 
for the transition we recommend: 

that the Attorney General ensure that the Department of Justice's 
planning efforts include an analysis of the extent to which current 
financial resources will be sufficient to conduct an effective 
transition; and: 

that the Secretary of Energy ensure that the department's planning 
efforts include identification of human capital resources needed to 
conduct an effective transition. 

To ensure that agencies are adequately prepared for the transition, we 
recommend that the Administrator of General Services, in working with 
the Interagency Management Council, develop and distribute guidance to 
ensure that our identified sound practices of transition planning are 
utilized. In particular, FTS should ensure that guidance addresses: 

the use of project management, configuration management, and change 
management processes in transition planning efforts; 

the establishment of measures of success to help agencies' managers 
assess progress toward the objectives stated in their plans; and: 

the development of a transition-specific risk assessment that would 
allow an agency to lessen problems and delays during the transition. 

Agency Comments: 

Written comments on a draft of this briefing were provided by the 
General Services Administration. The Departments of Justice and Energy 
provided comments via E-mail. All three generally agreed with our 
recommendations and intend to address them. We received technical 
comments via E-mail from the Department of the Interior that were 
incorporated as appropriate. 

The acting Administrator of General Services agreed with our 
recommendations and stated that the agency will work with the 
Interagency Management Council's Transition Working Group to (1) 
identify key management practices that could be of value to all 
agencies, (2) establish measures of success that could be of value in 
assessing progress toward objectives, and (3) develop risk assessment 
guidelines. Guidance on these issues will be included in a transition 
planning guide expected to be published in fiscal year 2006. 

An Audit Liaison Specialist from the Department of Justice's Audit 
Liaison Group commented, in response to our recommendation, that the 
department's policies will guide its planning and execution of the 
transition from expiring FTS2001 services including the identification 
of the appropriate strategy, funding, and resource elements. While the 
agency intends to leverage existing resources to support the 
transition, any additional funding or resources needed will be 
addressed during planning. 

The Audit Liaison Specialist also commented that a 2002 DOJ IT 
strategic plan identified strategic telecommunications requirements and 
described a strategic objective to transition to a single, national 
data network-an effort which is currently underway. 

We acknowledge that in 2002 DOJ identified strategic requirements in 
2002 related to its data networks, however, these requirements did not 
address its non-data telecommunications services, which it will have to 
transition when the FTS2001 contracts expire. 

The Associate CIO for IT Operations at the Department of Energy 
commented that the agency generally agrees with our recommendation and 
intends to address it. 

Attachment 1: 

Comments from the General Services Administration: 

March 17, 2006: 

GSA Administrator: 



The Honorable David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Walker. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed briefing 
entitled, "Telecommunications: Agencies Have Begun Planning for 
Transition to New Govemmentwide Program, But Unresolved Issues Remain", 
received on March 10, 2006. We are pleased to provide the following 
response. 

In the draft report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
recommends that the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) work with members of the Interagency Management 
Council (IMC) to develop and distribute guidance to ensure that GAO's 
identified sound practices of transition planning are followed. In 
response to GAO's recommendation, GSA will work closely with the IMC 
Transition Working Group to: 

1. Identify key management practices in the management of transition 
planning efforts that could be of value to all Agencies in the 
implementation of Agency-specific plans and processes, 

2. Establish measures of success that could be of value to Agencies in 
assessing progress toward the objectives stated in their transition 
plans, and: 

3. Develop risk assessment guidelines that could be of value to 
Agencies in the implementation of Agency-specific transition plans. 

These practices, measures and guidelines will be included in the next 
revision to the IMC Transition Working Group Transition Planning Guide, 
which we anticipate will be published this fiscal year. Once revised, 
the Transition Planning Guide will be distributed to all Agencies. GSA 
believes that this approach will meet the requirements of GAO's 
recommendation in a way that can be most effectively implemented by the 
Agencies. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the draft 
document. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David L. Bibb: 
Acting Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

GSA Administrator: 

May 24, 2006: 

The Honorable David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Walker: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed report entitled, 
"Telecommunications: Full Adoption of Sound Transition Planning 
Practices by GSA and Agencies Could Improve Planning Efforts," received 
on May 12, 2006. We are pleased to provide the following response. 

In the draft report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
recommends that the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) work with members of the Interagency Management 
Council (IMC) to develop and distribute guidance to ensure that GAO's 
sound practices of transition planning are followed. In response to 
GAO's recommendation, GSA will work closely with the IMC Transition 
Working Group (TWG) to: 

1. Disseminate GAO's sound practices of transition planning through the 
IMC TWG and post them on the planned GSA Networx - Transition website. 

2. Reach consensus on transition planning definitions for. key 
management processes of project management, configuration management, 
change management, measures of success, and risk assessments. 

3. Develop general guidance for each process for dissemination to all 
agencies in the implementation of agency specific plans and processes. 

4. Establish measures of success to be used by agency managers in 
assessing progress toward achieving the objectives stated in their 
transition plans. 

5. Develop risk assessment guidelines for use by agencies in the 
preparation of agency-specific transition plans that will lessen 
problems and delays during the transition. 

Discussions and planning activities have been initiated in the IMC TWG 
to address GAO's recommendations. Processes and guidelines developed by 
GSA and the TWG will be included in the next revision of the IMC TWG 
Transition Planning Guide to be distributed to all Agencies before 
December 2006. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review this proposed document. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by:  

David L. Bibb: 
Acting Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, DC 20240: 

May 26 2006: 

Take Pride in America: 

Mr. James Sweetman: 
Assistant Director, Information Management Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Sweetman: 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) reviewed the GAO Draft Report 
entitled, "Telecommunications: Full Adoption of Sound Transition 
Planning Practices by GSA and Selected Agencies Could Improve Planning 
Efforts" and generally agrees with the findings and recommendations. 
DOI agrees with the assessment that the General Services Administration 
(GSA) address all lessons learned from the FTS2000 to FTS2001 
transition. Of specific concern is that GSA provide accurate and 
meaningful inventory detail and tools to adequately facilitate the 
acquisition and vendor selection process. DOI, through the Interagency 
Management Council participation, will continue to work with GSA to 
support its strategic direction and complete outstanding planning 
tasks. 

DOI is implementing the five guiding principles GAO identified as sound 
transition planning practices. Nevertheless, DOI has concerns with the 
difficulty of transitioning services from the FTS2001 to Networx 
contracts. DOI is reliant on GSA actions in order to timely allocate 
resources for the transition. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, 
please contact Mr. W. Hord Tipton, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer, at 202-208-6194. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

R Thomas Weimer: 
Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget: 

[End of Section] 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO-
01-289 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2001). 

[2] GAO, FTS2001: Contract Transition Delays and Their Impact on 
Program Goals, GAO-544T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2001). 

[3] These included presentations, meeting minutes, projected time 
lines, FTS2001 lessons learned, the Networx Request for Proposals, and 
the Networx Transition Guide (Pre-Award). 

[4] The Interagency Management Council is a group of senior federal 
information resource officials that was established in 1992 to provide 
a forum and focal point for FTS to work with its customer agencies in 
planning and overseeing FTS's long-distance telecommunications 
services. 

[5] Various technical clarifications have been made to the original 
slides. 

[6] GAO, FTS2001: Transition Challenges Jeopardize Program Goals, GAO- 
01-289 (Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001). 

[7] GSA was reviewed as a customer agency of FTS. 

[8] Sprint Corporation merged with Nextel Communications, Inc. to form 
Sprint Nextel Corporation in August 2005. 

[9]MCI merged with Verizon to form Verizon Business in January 2006. 

[10] FTS indicated that it intends to negotiate sole-source contracts 
for a 24-month base period with three 6-month optional periods for a 
total of 42 months. 

[11] During the last several years of the FTS 2000 contract, agencies 
agreed to pay a surcharge, in addition to the FTS management fee, that 
was set aside to account for program management costs associated with 
the transition to FTS2001. 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: