This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-216 
entitled 'Information Technology: Status and Challenges of Employee 
Exchange Program' which was released on December 15, 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 Congressional Committees: 

December 2006: 

Information Technology: 

Status and Challenges of Employee Exchange Program: 

GAO-07-216: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-216, a report to congressional committees 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Recognizing the importance of human capital to information technology 
(IT) and the need to improve the skills of federal IT workers, Congress 
created the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) as part of 
the E-Government Act of 2002. ITEP aims to improve federal IT skills 
through exchanges of staff between the government and the private 
sector. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was required to issue 
implementing regulations, which it did in September 2005, and to report 
semiannually to the Congress. OPM’s regulations require that each 
participating agency develop an ITEP plan before proceeding with 
exchanges. Agencies’ opportunity to begin exchanges ends in December 
2007. 

GAO is required to evaluate the program by December 2006. As agreed, 
GAO’s objectives were to determine (1) the status of the program and 
(2) challenges facing agencies. To address these objectives, GAO 
analyzed key documents and interviewed OPM, participating agencies, and 
others. 

What GAO Found: 

With only 1 year remaining to begin exchanges under the ITEP program, 
the seven agencies that volunteered to participate are still initiating 
their programs, and no exchanges have taken place. All participating 
agencies have drafted plans, but only three—Department of Homeland 
Security, Department of Defense, and Department of Commerce—have 
finalized them. Further, only Homeland Security has attempted to 
negotiate an exchange, but it was unsuccessful. In its last two 
semiannual reports, OPM has reported on the status of agency plans, but 
has not reported that no exchanges have taken place to date. OPM, 
agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will confront 
agencies as they finish their plans and begin to implement ITEP 
programs:
* Employees with desired skills are in short supply in both the federal 
government and the private sector, particularly in enterprise 
architecture, project management, and information security, according 
to industry representatives.
* Companies are concerned that employee exchanges could hinder future 
business, since a company with an employee at an agency might be seen 
as having an unfair advantage in bidding on agency procurements.
* Federal ethics requirements, especially financial disclosure, could 
discourage private-sector employees from participating.
* Federal agencies’ current marketing through a Web site has not been 
productive, according to participating agencies; suggested improvements 
include using the media and making personal contacts with companies. 
OPM and the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and 
acknowledge that they need to be addressed. However, given the short 
time remaining before authority to begin new exchanges ends (see 
figure), it will be essential to expeditiously address the challenges 
to enable a significant number of successful exchanges. 

Figure: OPM and Participating Agencies' ITEP Actions: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of Figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that the Director of OPM include in its upcoming 
semiannual reports the number of exchanges that have occurred and the 
status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing 
ITEP. In comments on a draft of the report, OPM agreed to report on 
exchanges but not on challenges. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-216]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact David A. Powner at (202) 
512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Seven Agencies Are Initiating Programs, but No Exchanges Have Taken 
Place: 

Agencies Face Implementation Challenges: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Agency ITEP Plan Status and Skills as of November 2006: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: OPM and Participating Agencies' ITEP Actions: 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: Federal Chief Information Officer: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

E-Gov Act: E-Government Act of 2002: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

IAC: Industry Advisory Council: 

IT: information technology: 

ITEP: Information Technology Exchange Program: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

December 15, 2006: 

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

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Recently, assessments of the federal information technology (IT) 
workforce, as called for in the Clinger Cohen Act,[Footnote 1] have 
resulted in the identification of skills gaps in key areas such as 
project management. Recognizing the importance of human capital to IT 
and the need to improve the skills of the federal IT workforce, the 
Congress created the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) as 
part of the E-Government Act of 2002 (E-Gov Act).[Footnote 2] The 
program is envisioned as a vehicle to promote the interchange of IT 
employees between federal executive agencies and the private sector and 
to develop, supplement, and modernize IT skills while improving overall 
competencies in the federal IT workforce. 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is required under the act to 
issue implementing regulations for the program and to report 
semiannually to the Congress on the operation of the program. OPM 
issued the required implementing regulations in September 2005. OPM's 
regulations require that each participating agency develop an ITEP 
plan, approved by the agency head, before proceeding with exchanges. 
Agencies' opportunity to begin exchanges ends in December 2007. 

The act required GAO to provide an evaluation of the program by 
December 17, 2006. As agreed with your offices, we determined (1) the 
status of the ITEP program and (2) challenges facing agencies in 
implementing ITEP. To conduct our work, we analyzed ITEP regulations 
and guidance, agencies' ITEP plans, and OPM status reports. We also 
conducted interviews with ITEP officials at the seven participating 
agencies--Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD), 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of the Treasury, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Health and Human 
Services, and OPM--and with the Industry Advisory Council (IAC), which 
includes about 500 companies as members. We performed our work from 
July 2006 to November 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. Details of our objectives, scope, and 
methodology are included in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

With only 1 year remaining to begin exchanges under the ITEP program, 
the seven agencies that volunteered to participate are still initiating 
their programs, and no exchanges have taken place. The participating 
agencies all have drafted plans, but only three--DHS, DOD, and 
Commerce--have finalized them. Only DHS has attempted to negotiate an 
exchange, but it was unsuccessful in exchanging staff with a potential 
private-sector partner. In its last two semiannual reports OPM has 
reported on the status of agency plans, but has not reported that no 
exchanges have taken place to date. 

OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will 
confront agencies as they finish their plans and implement ITEP 
programs: 

* Employees with desired skills are in short supply in both the federal 
government and the private sector, particularly in enterprise 
architecture, project management, and information security, according 
to industry representatives. 

* Companies are concerned the employee exchanges could hinder future 
business, since a company with an employee at an agency might be seen 
as having an unfair advantage in bidding on agency procurements. 

* Federal ethics requirements, especially financial disclosure 
requirements, could discourage private-sector employees from 
participating. 

* Federal agencies' current marketing through a Web site has not been 
productive, according to participating agencies; suggested improvements 
include using the media and making personal contacts with companies. 

OPM and the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and 
acknowledge that they need to be addressed. However, in the short time 
remaining before the authority to begin exchanges ends, it will be 
essential to expeditiously address the challenges to enable a 
significant number of successful exchanges. Given this, we are 
recommending that the Director of OPM include in its upcoming 
semiannual reports to the Congress the status of efforts to address 
challenges and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges, and the 
number of exchanges that have occurred. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, OPM said that it 
supports the ITEP and will continue to promote it as a tool available 
to agencies in the training and development of the Federal IT 
workforce. OPM agreed with our recommendation that future semi-annual 
reports to Congress include the number of exchanges that have occurred 
or a statement that no exchanges have occurred. However, it disagreed 
with our recommendation that it include in the semiannual reports the 
status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing 
the program and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges. OPM 
said that current reporting to Congress fully meets its statutory 
obligation to report on the operations of the ITEP. However, we 
continue to believe that it should include in the semiannual reports to 
Congress the status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in 
implementing the program. Confronting these challenges is key to 
determining whether the program will be successful and whether it 
should continue beyond 2007. OPM also provided technical comments that 
we have incorporated as appropriate. 

Background: 

The E-Gov Act created ITEP to improve the skills of the federal 
workforce in using information technology. The act authorizes federal 
executive agencies that volunteer to participate to temporarily detail 
IT staff to private-sector companies and to accept individuals from the 
private sector.[Footnote 3] Assignments can last up to a year and are 
extendable for another year. Federal employees could be exposed to 
private industry best management practices, while private-sector 
employees could gain a greater understanding of federal information 
management practices and of how the government does its work. The 
opportunity to begin exchanges is due to end in December 2007. 

OPM was required to issue implementing regulations for ITEP and to 
report semiannually to the Congress on the number of individuals 
assigned to and from each agency, including a brief description of each 
assignment and other information as appropriate. 

Between 2003 and 2005, OPM developed implementing regulations for the 
program, including soliciting public comments. OMB reviewed and 
approved OPM's draft regulations as part of its normal regulatory 
process. 

The final ITEP regulations were not issued until August 2005, and 
became effective in September 2005, almost 3 years into the program. 
OPM reported to the Congress that the delay in the issuance of the 
regulations was due to the complexity of the issues involved, including 
various ethics and standard of conduct issues that could complicate 
exchanges, especially from private industry to the federal government. 
In addition to OMB, OPM worked with the Department of Justice and the 
Office of Government Ethics to finalize the regulations. 

In the ITEP regulations, OPM established a requirement that each 
participating agency develop an ITEP plan. These plans are to be 
approved by the head of each agency before beginning exchanges. 
Agencies, companies, and individual participants are also required to 
sign a written agreement before any exchanges can begin. Each 
participating agency has primary responsibility for planning and 
directing its own ITEP program but must adhere to the act and OPM 
regulations in implementing exchanges. 

In December 2005, 3 months after the ITEP regulations went into effect, 
OPM issued additional guidance to assist agencies in implementing their 
programs and in drafting plans. The guidance included an overview of 
the program, templates for ITEP plans and written agreements, and 
answers to frequently asked questions and is available to agencies 
through the OPM.gov Web site. 

To help promote the program, OPM partnered with the Federal Chief 
Information Officers Council and with the Industry Advisory 
Council[Footnote 4] and conducted outreach with several other IT 
professional organizations to reach private-sector companies. OPM 
assists the agencies in marketing their ITEP programs through its 
USAJOBS Web site. To facilitate the exchange of information, OPM has 
been conducting weekly teleconferences with participating agencies and 
the IAC. Additionally, the CIO of OPM co-chairs the CIO Council's 
Information Technology Workforce Committee, which helps to promote the 
program and shares status updates during monthly meetings. 

The E-Gov Act specifically addresses ethics and reimbursement issues. 
The law states that private-sector employees assigned to a federal 
agency under ITEP are deemed to be employees of the federal agency in 
terms of Title 5, U.S.C., Chapter 73 (Suitability, Security, and 
Conduct) as well as various other laws. For example, federal employees 
detailed to the private sector would remain subject to all federal 
ethics rules and would continue to be paid by their agencies. Private- 
sector employees detailed to a federal agency would become subject to 
federal ethics rules, such as those involving conflict of interest and 
financial disclosure, and would continue to be paid by their companies. 
The act permits the federal government to reimburse some expenses, such 
as travel and per diem and leaves open the possibility that agencies 
might reimburse the company for some of its employees' salaries, but it 
specifically prohibits companies from charging the government for an 
employee's salary or benefits as a direct or indirect cost under a 
federal contract. 

Seven Agencies Are Initiating Programs, but No Exchanges Have Taken 
Place: 

With only 1 year to go before the opportunity to begin exchanges ends, 
the seven agencies participating are still initiating their programs, 
and no exchanges have taken place. All seven agencies have drafted 
plans, but only three--DHS, DOD, and Commerce--have finalized them. 
Only one agency, DHS's Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center,[Footnote 5] has attempted to negotiate an exchange, but it was 
not able to reach an agreement with a potential private-sector partner. 

Agencies Are Establishing ITEP Plans: 

When the CIO Council called for agencies to volunteer for ITEP, nine 
agencies volunteered to participate; seven agencies--the Department of 
Commerce, DOD, DHS, Department of the Treasury, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Health and Human Services, and OPM--committed to 
implementing programs. Participating agencies began developing their 
ITEP plans after OPM issued regulations in August 2005. Agency 
officials told us that the OPM guidance was useful and that they worked 
closely with their agencies' human resources and general counsel staffs 
to develop their plans. 

Of those seven, DHS, DOD, and Commerce have approved plans as required 
by OPM regulations, and the other four agencies have draft plans that 
are awaiting agency head approval. DHS's plan was approved in March 
2006; DOD's plan was approved in August 2006; and Commerce's plan was 
approved in October 2006 (see fig. 1). Officials from the agencies with 
draft plans estimated that additional time required for review and 
approval of these draft plans could range from a few days to an 
indefinite amount of time. 

Figure 1: OPM and Participating Agencies' ITEP Actions: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text: 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of figure] - graphic text: 

OPM requires that plans address how the program will be carried out 
(e.g., processes and procedures); how many exchanges the agency plans 
to have; how employees are selected; which officials may approve 
exchanges; and employee rights to return to the agency. Agencies are 
given the flexibility to tailor their ITEP plans to meet their 
individual needs and the workforce skills they want to reinforce. 

In addition, agencies have identified key skills they would like to 
strengthen through ITEP exchanges. The skills most frequently 
identified by agency officials were enterprise architecture, project 
management, and information security. Table 1 shows the status of 
agencies' plans and the specific skills agencies have identified. 

Table 1: Agency ITEP Plan Status and Skills as of November 2006: 

Agency: Commerce; 
Plan approved: 4; 
Plan drafted: [Empty]; 
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, project management, 
information security. 

Agency: DHS (FLETC); 
Plan approved: 4; 
Plan drafted: [Empty]; 
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, information security. 

Agency: DOD; 
Plan approved: 4; 
Plan drafted: [Empty]; 
Skills identified: To be determined at the component level. 

Agency: FBI; 
Plan approved: [Empty]; 
Plan drafted: 4; 
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, project management, systems 
engineering, continuity of operations planning. 

Agency: HHS; 
Plan approved: [Empty]; 
Plan drafted: 4; 
Skills identified: To be determined. 

Agency: OPM; 
Plan approved: [Empty]; 
Plan drafted: 4; 
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, information security, IT 
policy, capital planning and investment control. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Plan approved: [Empty]; 
Plan drafted: 4; 
Skills identified: Enterprise architecture, project management, cyber 
security, counterfeiting protection. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency ITEP plans and interviews. 

[End of table] 

No ITEP Exchanges Have Occurred: 

As of November 2006, no exchanges have occurred. Officials from the 
participating agencies stated that they have had few inquiries and 
little interest from private-sector companies regarding the ITEP 
program. DHS, the first agency to have an approved plan, has attempted 
to implement an exchange with a private-sector partner; however, the 
company did not go ahead with the exchange because, as prohibited by 
the act, it could not charge the government for its employee's salary 
as an indirect cost on its government contracts. DOD recently finalized 
its ITEP plan in August 2006 and is proceeding with program 
implementation, but has not begun negotiating agreements. 

OPM has reported to the Congress on the status of its development of 
the regulations and activities to promote the program. In its last two 
semiannual reports, in April and October 2006, OPM has reported on the 
status of agency plans but has not reported that no exchanges have 
taken place. 

Agencies Face Implementation Challenges: 

OPM, agencies, and others have identified key challenges that will 
confront agencies as they finish their plans and implement ITEP 
programs, including limited availability of private-sector employees 
with the skills agencies want, concern that sending employees to 
agencies may hinder companies' ability to bid on future contracts, 
possible reluctance of private-sector employees to be subject to 
federal ethics rules, and more effectively marketing the program. These 
challenges will make it difficult to find willing and qualified 
participants and negotiate agreements with companies. OPM and 
participating agencies' officials are aware of the challenges and 
acknowledge that they need to be addressed, but these challenges have 
not been reported to the Congress in the semiannual reports. 

Desired Skills Are in Short Supply in Both the Federal Government and 
the Private Sector: 

Federal agencies face a challenge in finding employees from the private 
sector with the skills they are most interested in pursuing. Although 
agencies have identified their target skills--enterprise architecture, 
project management, and information security--these skills are also in 
short supply in the private sector. According to the IAC, which 
represents about 500 companies, companies would be reluctant to give up 
the services of staff members with these valuable skills. The IAC 
believes the federal government is more likely to attract staff from 
private-sector companies if the agencies focus on other skill areas 
where the government is a leader, such as electronic learning. 

Companies Are Concerned That Employee Exchanges Could Hinder Future 
Business: 

Both the IAC, representing its member companies, and agencies told us 
of their reluctance to undertake exchanges because of a risk that an 
exchange could interfere with future federal contracting opportunities. 
Although the act specifically prohibits private-sector employees from 
having access to any nonpublic information of commercial value to their 
company, they might still obtain or appear to obtain information that 
would give them an unfair competitive advantage, and their companies 
might then be disqualified from bidding on future contracts. According 
to the IAC, this is a major issue with the program, because it is not 
easy to determine what information is appropriate for private-sector 
employees. FBI program officials also told us that this issue was a 
particular concern to them. The Human Resource Manager for DHS's Office 
of the CIO told us that DHS components were not interested in accepting 
an employee from a DHS contractor, because they did not want to risk 
damaging their relationship with the company. 

Federal Ethics Requirements Could Discourage Private-Sector Employees 
from Participating: 

Another challenge identified by federal agencies and IAC is that 
private-sector employees considering an assignment to a government 
agency could be discouraged by the numerous federal ethics rules they 
would need to comply with to participate in the program. The 
regulations specified by the act, such as those governing claims 
against the government, political contributions, post-employment 
activities, disclosure of confidential information, and, especially, 
financial disclosure could make a detail to a federal agency 
unattractive. For example, although this has not yet occurred, agencies 
and IAC agreed that the need to file a financial disclosure statement 
could discourage some potential private company participants. 

Effectively Marketing the Program: 

Federal agencies face a challenge in determining how to effectively 
promote ITEP to the private sector. IAC has actively marketed ITEP to 
its member companies and other federal IT associations; however, 
marketing efforts through OPM's USAJOBS Web site, have not been 
productive, according to federal agencies. OPM has reported 23,000 hits 
on USAJOBS, but participating agencies told us that contacts they 
received from the Web site were almost all looking for permanent 
federal positions and were unrelated to ITEP. 

Several sources told us that a more proactive approach in reaching out 
to private companies was needed to get companies to participate. For 
example, IAC said that OPM and the participating agencies should 
promote the program repeatedly through the media. The director of a 
similar employee exchange program at the Department of Energy told us 
that personal contact with companies was essential to recruiting 
companies into the program. To attract companies, agencies will need to 
convince them of the value of exchanges. However, only two of the seven 
participating agencies had initiated direct contacts with private- 
sector companies. 

Conclusions: 

Four years into ITEP, agencies are still initiating and planning their 
programs and, accordingly, no exchanges have taken place. Agencies will 
face several challenges in making exchanges, including shortages of 
employees with key skills and concerns that exchanges could hinder 
companies' ability to do future business with the government. OPM and 
the participating agencies are aware of the challenges and acknowledge 
that they need to be addressed. However, given the short time remaining 
for beginning exchanges, it will be essential to expeditiously address 
the challenges to enable a significant number of successful exchanges. 
Reporting to the Congress on these challenges and the number of 
exchanges that have occurred is key to determining the viability of the 
program and whether it should continue beyond 2007. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that, as part of OPM's responsibilities under the E-Gov 
Act, the Director of OPM include in its semiannual reports to the 
Congress (1) the number of exchanges that have occurred, as required by 
law, and (2) the status of efforts to address challenges facing 
agencies in implementing ITEP exchanges and whether these efforts are 
leading to exchanges. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, OPM's Director said that 
OPM supports the ITEP and will continue to promote it as a tool 
available to agencies in the training and development of the Federal IT 
workforce. OPM agreed with our recommendation that future semiannual 
reports to Congress include the number of exchanges that have occurred 
or a statement that no exchanges have occurred. However, it disagreed 
with our recommendation that it include in the semiannual reports the 
status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in implementing 
the program and whether these efforts are leading to exchanges. 
Further, OPM said that current reporting to Congress fully meets its 
statutory obligation to report on the operations of the ITEP. However, 
we continue to believe that it should include in the semiannual reports 
the status of efforts to address challenges facing agencies in 
implementing the program. Confronting these challenges is key to 
determining whether the program will be successful and whether it 
should continue beyond 2007. OPM also provided technical comments that 
we have incorporated as appropriate. OPM's comments are reprinted in 
appendix II. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees. We also will make copies available to others on request. In 
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web 
site at[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to determine the (1) status of the Information 
Technology Exchange Program and (2) challenges facing the program. 

To address our first objective, we reviewed the E-Government Act of 
2002, regulations, and guidance to understand program requirements. We 
analyzed approved plans for the Departments of Homeland Security, 
Defense, and Commerce and draft plans for the Departments of Treasury 
and Health and Human Services. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) did not provide us with copies of 
their draft plans. We reviewed these plans to determine details about 
administering the exchanges and assessed whether agencies followed OPM 
guidance in developing them. We reviewed OPM's semiannual reports to 
the Congress to assess progress reported on the status of federal 
agencies' exchanges with the private sector. We interviewed program 
staff at the seven participating federal agencies, including federal 
Chief Information Officers (CIO) and human resource officials, OPM, and 
Office of Management and Budget officials on program activities. We 
also met with members of the Federal CIO Council Workforce Committee 
and the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) to discuss their roles in 
promoting the program to federal agencies and private-sector companies. 

To address our second objective, we interviewed program staff at OPM 
and the seven participating federal agencies and analyzed their 
responses to identify future challenges they face in administering the 
program. We contacted IAC officials--representing 500 member companies-
-to determine challenges to participating in the program identified by 
companies. We also conducted research on the Department of Energy's 
Acquisition Career Development Program. 

We conducted our work from July through November 2006 in the 
Washington, D.C., area in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

United States Office Of Personnel Management: 
Washington, DC 204 P: 

The Director: 

December 1, 2006: 

The Honorable David Walker: 
Comptroller General: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20515: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the 
Government Accountability Office draft report entitled Information 
Technology: Status and Challenges of Employee Exchange Program (GAO-07- 
216). 

Section 209 of the E-Government Act of December 2002 (P.L. 107-347) 
detailed the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) responsibilities 
with regard to the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP). OPM 
steadfastly supports the ITEP and will continue to promote it as 
another tool available to agencies in the training and development of 
the Federal IT workforce. We also recommend the authority be extended 
beyond its current expiration date. 

GAO's first recommendation is that OPM "include in its semi-annual 
reports to the Congress the number of exchanges that have occurred." We 
agree that future reports to the Congress will include the number of 
exchanges that have occurred or a statement that no exchanges have 
occurred. 

GAO's second recommendation is that OPM "include in its semi-annual 
reports to the Congress the status of efforts to address challenges 
facing agencies in implementing ITEP exchanges and whether these 
efforts are leading to exchanges." We disagree with this 
recommendation. We believe our current semi-annual reports to Congress 
fully meet OPM's statutory obligation to report on the operation of the 
ITEP. 

I am providing specific technical corrections to the draft report and 
would ask for your consideration of these changes. Finally, I look 
forward to providing to the Congress specific responses to your key 
findings. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Linda M. Springer: 
Director: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Neil Doherty, Nancy Glover, 
Cynthia Scott, Teresa Smith, and Glenn Spiegel made key contributions 
to this report. 

(310818): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] 40 U.S.C. 11101 - 11703 [P.L. 104-106, Div. E, sec. 5001 - 5703 
(Feb. 10, 1996)]. 

[2] 5 U.S.C. Chapter 37 [P.L. 107-347, sec. 209(c) (Dec. 17, 2002)]. 

[3] To participate in the program, an individual must work in the field 
of information technology management, must be considered an exceptional 
employee by his or her current employer, and must be expected to assume 
increased IT management responsibilities in the future. Only 
individuals at grade GS-11 (or equivalent) and above are eligible. 

[4] The Industry Advisory Council is a nonprofit educational 
organization established in 1989 to assist the government in acquiring 
and using information technology resources effectively and efficiently. 
Its members include about 500 companies. IAC is part of the American 
Council for Technology. 

[5] DHS has decentralized ITEP implementation to its components because 
of appropriations issues. 

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: