This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-565 
entitled 'Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings' which was released 
on July 26, 2011. 

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

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

July 2011: 

Data Center Consolidation: 

Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected 
Savings: 

GAO-11-565: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-565, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Over time, the federal government’s demand for information technology 
has led to a dramatic rise in the number of federal data centers and 
an increase in operational costs. Recognizing this increase, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has launched a governmentwide 
initiative to consolidate data centers. 

GAO was asked to (1) assess whether agency consolidation documents 
include adequate detail for agencies to consolidate their centers, (2) 
identify the key consolidation challenges reported by agencies, and 
(3) evaluate whether lessons learned during state government 
consolidation efforts could be leveraged at the federal level. To 
address these objectives, GAO assessed the completeness of agency 
inventories and plans, interviewed agencies about their challenges, 
and evaluated the applicability of states’ consolidation lessons to 
federal challenges. 

What GAO Found: 

In launching its federal data center consolidation initiative, OMB 
required the 24 participating agencies to submit data center 
inventories and consolidation plans by the end of August 2010, and 
provided guidance on key elements to include in the inventories and 
plans—such as hardware and software assets, goals, schedules, and cost-
benefit calculations. The plans indicate that agencies anticipate 
closing about 650 data centers by fiscal year 2015 and saving about 
$700 million in doing so. However, only one of the agencies submitted 
a complete inventory and no agency submitted complete plans. Further, 
OMB did not require agencies to document the steps they took, if any, 
to verify the inventory data. For example, in their inventories, 14 
agencies do not provide a complete listing of data centers and 15 do 
not list all of their software assets. Also, in their consolidation 
plans, 20 agencies do not reference a master schedule, 12 agencies do 
not address cost-benefit calculations, and 9 do not address risk 
management. The reason for these gaps, according to several agency 
officials, was that they had difficulty completing their inventories 
and plans within OMB’s timelines. Until these inventories and plans 
are complete, agencies may not be able to implement their 
consolidation activities and realize expected cost savings. Moreover, 
without an understanding of the validity of agencies’ consolidation 
data, OMB cannot be assured that agencies are providing a sound 
baseline for estimating consolidation savings and measuring progress 
against those goals. 

Agencies identified multiple challenges during data center 
consolidation, including those that are specific to OMB’s 
consolidation initiative as well as those that are cultural, funding-
related, operational, and technical in nature. For example, in 
attempting to fulfill OMB’s requirements, 19 agencies reported 
difficulty in obtaining power usage data. In addition, 9 agencies 
reported challenges in maintaining services during the transition to 
consolidated services. Moving forward, it will be important for 
agencies to focus on mitigating such challenges as they implement 
their consolidation plans. 

Many state governments have undertaken data center consolidation 
initiatives in recent years and have encountered challenges similar to 
those reported by federal agencies. Specifically, 19 states reported 
lessons learned that could be leveraged at the federal level. For 
example, a West Virginia official reported that since the state had no 
funding for data center consolidation, it used the natural aging cycle 
of hardware to force consolidation; that is, when a piece of hardware 
was ready to be replaced, the new applications and software were put 
onto a consolidated server. Also, officials from North Carolina 
reported that organizations are typically concerned that by 
consolidating data centers, they will lose control of their data, 
service levels will decline, or costs will rise. The state learned 
that during the process of consolidation, the organizations’ concerns 
should be documented, validated, and addressed. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that the Federal Chief Information Officer, 
department secretaries, and agency heads take steps to ensure that 
agency data center inventories and consolidation plans are complete. 
Most agencies agreed with GAO’s recommendations. Defense and SSA did 
not agree to complete all missing elements of their inventories and 
plans. Based on OMB guidance on the importance of these elements, GAO 
maintains these recommendations to be reasonable and appropriate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565] or key 
components. For more information, contact Joel Willemssen at (202) 512-
6253 or willemssenj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Agencies Established Consolidation Plans, but Incomplete Inventories 
and Missing Elements Undermine Expected Savings: 

Agencies Face Multiple Challenges in Consolidation: 

Lessons Learned by States Can Be Leveraged to Mitigate Challenges at 
the Federal Level: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Assessments of Agencies' Completion of Consolidation 
Planning Elements, Arranged by Key Element: 

Appendix III: Assessment of Agencies' Completion of Key Consolidation 
Planning Elements, Arranged by Agency: 

Appendix IV: OMB-Defined Approaches for Consolidating Data Centers: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix XIV: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Appendix XV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Appendix XVI: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix XVII: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

Appendix XVIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

Appendix XIX: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Appendix XX: Comments from the Social Security Administration: 

Appendix XXI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in the FDCCI: 

Table 2: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Asset Inventory 
Baselines: 

Table 3: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Consolidation Plans: 

Table 4: Number of Agencies Experiencing Particular Data Center 
Consolidation Challenges: 

Table 5: Lessons Learned by States That Can Be Used by Federal 
Agencies to Address Data Center Consolidation Challenges: 

Table 6: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in the FDCCI: 

Table 7: Summary of Agencies' Completion of Key Elements in their Data 
Center Consolidation Plans: 

Table 8: Assessment of Completeness of Agriculture's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 9: Assessment of Completeness of Commerce's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 10: Assessment of Completeness of Defense's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 11: Assessment of Completeness of Education's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 12: Assessment of Completeness of Energy's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 13: Assessment of Completeness of HHS's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 14: Assessment of Completeness of DHS's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 15: Assessment of Completeness of Interior's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 16: Assessment of Completeness of Justice's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 17: Assessment of Completeness of Labor's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 18: Assessment of Completeness of State's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 19: Assessment of Completeness of Transportation's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 20: Assessment of Completeness of Treasury's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 21: Assessment of Completeness of VA's Data Center Consolidation 
Documentation: 

Table 22: Assessment of Completeness of EPA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 23: Assessment of Completeness of GSA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 24: Assessment of Completeness of NASA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 25: Assessment of Completeness of NSF's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 26: Assessment of Completeness of NRC's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 27: Assessment of Completeness of OPM's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 28: Assessment of Completeness of SBA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 29: Assessment of Completeness of SSA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Table 30: Assessment of Completeness of USAID's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Agencies' Completion of Required Information for Baseline 
Inventory Key Elements: 

Figure 2: Assessment of Completeness of Agencies' Consolidation Plan 
Elements: 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FDCCI: Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IT: information technology: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

NSF: National Science Foundation: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

SBA: Small Business Administration: 

SSA: Social Security Administration: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 19, 2011: 

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

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

The Honorable Benjamin E. Quayle: 
House of Representatives: 

The federal government's demand for information technology (IT) is 
ever increasing. In recent years, as federal agencies modernized their 
operations, put more of their services online, and increased their 
information security profiles, they have demanded more computing power 
and data storage resources. Over time, this increasing demand has led 
to a dramatic rise in the number of federal data centers and a 
corresponding increase in operational costs. The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has recognized the significance of this increase and 
has launched the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI), 
a governmentwide effort to consolidate data centers. 

This report responds to your request that we review the federal 
government's efforts to consolidate its data centers. Specifically, 
our objectives were to (1) assess whether agency consolidation 
documents include adequate detail, such as performance measures and 
milestones, for agencies to consolidate their centers; (2) identify 
the key challenges reported by agencies in consolidating centers; and 
(3) evaluate whether lessons learned during state government 
consolidation efforts could be leveraged to mitigate challenges at the 
federal level. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed 24 departments' and agencies' 
(agencies) data center inventories and consolidation plans and 
assessed their completeness against key elements, as required by OMB. 
We interviewed agency officials to determine the extent to which 
inventory information had been validated and what challenges to 
consolidation federal agencies have faced. Finally, we assessed state 
reports and interviewed officials involved with state data center 
consolidation efforts to identify lessons learned that could be 
applied to federal consolidation efforts. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2010 to July 2011 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I 
contains further details about our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

Background: 

While the term "data center" can be used to describe any room used for 
the purpose of processing or storing data, OMB defines a data center 
as a room that is greater than 500 square feet, that is used for 
processing or storing data, and that meets stringent availability 
requirements.[Footnote 1] Other facilities are classified as "server 
rooms," which are typically less than 500 square feet and "server 
closets," which are typically less than 200 square feet. 

According to OMB, the number of federal data centers grew from 432 in 
1998 to 2,094 in July 2010. Operating such a large number of centers 
places costly demands on the government. While the total annual 
federal spending associated with data centers has not yet been 
determined, OMB has found that operating data centers is a significant 
cost to the federal government, including hardware, software, real 
estate, and cooling costs. For example, according to the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), the electricity cost to operate federal 
servers and data centers across the government is about $450 million 
annually. According to the Department of Energy (Energy), data center 
spaces can consume 100 to 200 times as much electricity as standard 
office spaces. Reported server utilization rates as low as 5 percent 
and limited reuse of these data centers within or across agencies 
lends further credence to the need to restructure federal data center 
operations to improve efficiency and reduce costs. In 2010, the 
Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) reported that operating and 
maintaining such redundant infrastructure investments was costly, 
inefficient, and unsustainable. 

OMB and the Federal CIO Established the Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative: 

Concerned about the size of the federal data center inventory and the 
potential to improve the efficiency, performance, and environmental 
footprint of federal data center activities, in February 2010 OMB, 
under the direction of the Federal CIO, announced the Federal Data 
Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI). This initiative's four high- 
level goals are to: 

* promote the use of "green IT"[Footnote 2] by reducing the overall 
energy and real estate footprint of government data centers; 

* reduce the cost of data center hardware, software, and operations; 

* increase the overall IT security posture of the government; and: 

* shift IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and 
technologies. 

As part of FDCCI, OMB required 24 departments and agencies that 
participate on the Chief Information Officers Council (see table 1) to 
submit a series of documents that ultimately resulted in a data center 
consolidation plan. 

Table 1: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in the FDCCI: 

Departments: 
Agriculture; 
Commerce; 
Defense; 
Education; 
Energy; 
Health and Human Services; 
Homeland Security; 
Housing and Urban Development; 
Justice; 
Labor; 
State; 
Transportation; 
Treasury; 
Veterans Affairs. 

Agencies: 
Environmental Protection Agency; 
General Services Administration; 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
National Science Foundation; 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Office of Personnel Management; 
Small Business Administration; 
Social Security Administration; 
U.S. Agency for International Development. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Specifically, the departments and agencies were to provide the 
following: 

* An initial asset inventory (due April 30, 2010), which was to 
provide a high-level understanding of the scale and size of existing 
data centers, IT infrastructure assets, and applications supported by 
the data centers. 

* An initial data center consolidation plan (due June 30, 2010), which 
was to identify potential areas for consolidation, areas where 
optimization through server virtualization or cloud computing 
alternatives[Footnote 3] could be used, and a high-level roadmap for 
transitioning to the consolidated end-state architecture. 

* A final asset inventory baseline (due July 30, 2010), which was to 
contain more detailed information and serve as the foundation for 
developing the final data center consolidation plans. The final 
inventory was also to identify the consolidation approach to be taken 
for each data center. 

* A final data center consolidation plan (due August 30, 2010), which 
was to be incorporated into the agency's fiscal year 2012 budget and 
was to include a technical roadmap and approach for achieving the 
targets for infrastructure utilization, energy efficiency, and cost 
efficiency. 

In October 2010, OMB reported that all of the agencies had submitted 
their plans and that there were 2,094 federal data centers as of July 
2010. OMB announced plans to monitor agencies' consolidation 
activities on an ongoing basis as part of the annual budget process. 
Further, starting in fiscal year 2011, agencies will be required to 
provide an annual updated data center asset inventory at the end of 
every third quarter and a consolidation progress report at the end of 
every fourth quarter. 

To manage the initiative, OMB designated two agency CIOs as executive 
sponsors to lead the effort within the Chief Information Officers 
Council.[Footnote 4] Additionally, the General Services Administration 
(GSA) has established the FDCCI Program Management Office, whose role 
is to support OMB in the planning, execution, management, and 
communication for FDCCI. In this role, GSA collected the responses to 
the four document deliveries and reviewed the submissions for 
completeness and reasonableness. GSA also sponsored three workshops on 
the initiative for agencies and facilitated a peer review of the 
initial and final data center consolidation plans. 

OMB's IT Reform Plan Sets Important Milestones for Data Center 
Consolidation: 

In December 2010, OMB published its 25-Point Implementation Plan to 
Reform Federal Information Technology Management as a means of 
implementing IT reform in the areas of operational efficiency and 
large-scale IT program management. Among the 25 initiatives, OMB has 
included two goals that relate to data center consolidation: 

1. By June 2011, complete detailed implementation plans to consolidate 
at least 800 data centers by 2015. 

2. By June 2012, create a governmentwide marketplace for data center 
availability. 

To accomplish its first goal, OMB required each FDCCI agency to 
identify a senior, dedicated data center consolidation program 
manager. It also launched a Data Center Consolidation Task Force 
comprised of the data center consolidation program managers from each 
agency. OMB officials stated that this task force is critical to 
driving forward on individual agency consolidation goals and to 
meeting the overall federal target of closing a minimum of 800 data 
centers by 2015. To that end, in April 2011, OMB announced plans to 
close 137 data centers by the end of December 2011. OMB also plans to 
launch a publicly-available dashboard for observing agencies' 
consolidation progress, but this has not yet been completed. 

To accomplish its second goal, OMB and GSA plan to create a 
governmentwide marketplace by June 2012 that will better utilize spare 
capacity within operational data centers. This online marketplace is 
intended to match agencies that have extra capacity with agencies with 
increasing demand, thereby improving the utilization of existing 
facilities. The marketplace will help agencies with available capacity 
promote their available data center space. Once agencies have a clear 
sense of the existing capacity landscape, they can make more informed 
consolidation decisions. 

GAO Has Previously Reported on Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Efforts: 

We have previously reported on OMB's efforts to consolidate federal 
data centers. In March 2011, we reported on the status of the FDCCI 
and noted that data center consolidation makes sense economically and 
as a way to achieve more efficient IT operations, but that challenges 
exist.[Footnote 5] For example, agencies face challenges in ensuring 
the accuracy of their inventories and plans, providing upfront funding 
for the consolidation effort before any cost savings accrue, 
integrating consolidation plans into agency budget submissions (as 
required by OMB), establishing and implementing shared standards (for 
storage, systems, security, etc.), overcoming cultural resistance to 
such major organizational changes, and maintaining current operations 
during the transition to consolidated operations. We further reported 
that mitigating these and other challenges will require commitment 
from the agencies and continued oversight by OMB and the Federal CIO. 

Agencies Established Consolidation Plans, but Incomplete Inventories 
and Missing Elements Undermine Expected Savings: 

To help agencies plan their consolidations, OMB issued guidance on the 
required content of data center inventories and consolidation plans. 
Specifically, the inventories were to include descriptions of the 
assets present within individual data centers, as well as information 
about the physical data center itself. The consolidation plans were to 
address key elements, including goals, approaches, schedules, cost- 
benefit calculations, and risk management plans. 

As required, 23 of the 24 agencies submitted their inventories and 
consolidation plans by the end of September 2010; the remaining agency 
explained that consolidation was not applicable to them.[Footnote 6] 
However, of the 23 reporting agencies, all but one of the inventories 
and all of the plans are missing key elements. For example, 14 
agencies do not provide a complete listing of data centers and 15 do 
not provide a complete listing of software assets in their 
inventories. Further, OMB did not require that agencies verify these 
inventory data. Additionally, in their consolidation plans, 20 
agencies do not provide a master schedule, 12 agencies do not address 
cost-benefit calculations, and 9 do not address risk management. 
Several agency officials noted that they had difficulty completing 
their inventories and plans within OMB's timelines. Other agencies 
reported trouble with identifying either required information for the 
plans or data on the assets within their data centers. Until these 
inventories and plans are complete, agencies may not be able to 
implement their consolidation activities or to realize expected cost 
savings. Moreover, without an understanding of the validity of 
agencies' consolidation data, OMB cannot be assured that agencies are 
providing a sound baseline for estimating consolidation savings and 
measuring progress against those goals. 

Agencies Plan Significant Facility Reductions and Cost Savings: 

In their consolidation plans, agencies identified goals for reducing 
the number of data center facilities and these facilities' related 
costs. Specifically, the 23 reporting agencies identified 1,590 data 
centers as of April 2011, and established goals for reducing that 
number by 652 centers by the end of fiscal year 2015.[Footnote 7] 

Most federal departments and agencies also estimated cost savings over 
time. Specifically: 

* Fourteen agencies reported savings totaling about $700 million 
between fiscal years 2011 and 2015; however, actual savings may be 
even higher because 12 of these agencies' estimates were incomplete. 
For example, 11 agencies included expected energy savings and 
reductions in building operational costs, but not savings from other 
sources, such as equipment reductions. 

* Two agencies expect to accrue net savings after fiscal year 2015. 

* Two agencies do not expect to attain net savings from their 
consolidation efforts. 

* Five agencies did not provide estimated cost savings; however, two 
of these agencies suggested that they plan to develop cost-benefit 
analyses in the future. 

Asset Inventories Are Not Complete or Verified: 

As part of the data center consolidation initiative, OMB required 
agencies to provide an inventory of data center assets. This inventory 
is to address four key elements: (1) IT software assets; (2) IT 
hardware assets and their utilization; (3) IT facilities, energy, and 
storage; and (4) geographic location and real estate. According to 
OMB's guidance, the information is to be organized by data center. For 
example, in the IT software area, agencies are to report by data 
center on each major and nonmajor system present in the center. For 
each identified system, the agency is to report the associated support 
platforms, servers and computers, and proposed consolidation approach 
(i.e., decommissioning, consolidation, cloud computing, or 
virtualization). Table 2 provides a detailed description of each of 
the four key elements. 

Table 2: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Asset Inventory 
Baselines: 

Key elements: IT software assets; 
OMB guidance: The inventory should document all major and nonmajor 
systems hosted in each data center and their key technical 
dependencies on platforms and servers. The inventory should also 
discuss a consolidation approach for each system, if applicable. 

Key elements: IT hardware assets and their utilization; 
OMB guidance: The inventory should document all physical servers and 
mainframes hosted in each data center; provide counts of physical 
servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems; and describe 
the average and maximum utilization of each server. 

Key elements: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
OMB guidance: The inventory should document information on IT 
facilities (including fiscal year 2010 construction budget, annual 
building operational costs, and space utilization), energy (including 
electricity usage and cost, and power capacity), and storage 
(including total storage capacity and utilization). 

Key elements: Geographic location and real estate; 
OMB guidance: The inventory should describe the geographic location 
and type of real estate for each data center. It should identify the 
agency's total number of data centers, server rooms, and closets, 
including the gross floor area for each. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[End of table] 

When collecting data, it is important to have assurance that the data 
are accurate. We have previously reported on the need for agencies, 
when providing information to OMB, to explain the procedures used to 
verify their data.[Footnote 8] Specifically, agencies should ensure 
that reported data are sufficiently complete, accurate, and 
consistent, and also identify any significant data limitations. 
Explaining the limitations of information can provide a context for 
understanding and assessing the challenges agencies face in gathering, 
processing, and analyzing needed data. Such a presentation of data 
limitations can also help identify the actions needed to improve the 
agency's ability to measure its performance. More recently, we have 
reiterated the importance of providing OMB with complete and accurate 
data and the possible negative impact of that data being missing or 
incomplete.[Footnote 9] 

Only One Agency Provides a Complete Asset Inventory: 

Table 7: Only 1 of the 23 agency data center inventories contains 
complete data in all four of the required elements. Specifically, 
while many agencies provide partial inventory data, 

* one agency provides complete information in all four areas, 

* five agencies provide complete information in three of the four 
areas, 

* one agency provides complete information for two of the areas, 

* eight agencies have complete information for only one area, and: 

* eight agencies do not have any complete areas in their inventories. 

Figure 1 provides an assessment of the completeness of agencies' 
inventories, by key element, and a discussion of the analysis of each 
area follows the figure. 

Figure 1: Agencies' Completion of Required Information for Baseline 
Inventory Key Elements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

IT software and utilization: 
Yes: 35%; 
Partial: 61%; 
No: 4%. 

IT hardware and utilization: 
Yes: 39%; 
Partial: 61%; 
No: 0%. 

IT facilities, energy, and storage: 
Yes: 13%; 
Partial: 87%; 
No: 0%. 

Geographic location and real estate: 
Yes: 39%; 
Partial: 61%; 
No: 0%. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Descriptions: 

Yes--the agency provides complete information for this inventory 
element. 

Partial--the agency provides some, but not all, of the information for 
this inventory element. 

No--the agency does not provide information for this inventory element. 

[End of figure] 

* IT software assets. Eight agencies provide complete information on 
their software assets; 14 agencies provide partial information; and 1 
agency did not provide information. For example, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) provides information on its data center systems, 
their technical dependencies on platforms and servers, and 
consolidation approaches for its systems; while GSA provides 
information on its data center systems and a consolidation approach 
for each system, but provides only partial information on each 
system's technical dependencies on platforms and servers. 
Additionally, Energy provides only partial information on the systems: 

in its data center, the systems' technical dependencies, and 
consolidation approaches for those systems. 

* IT hardware assets and utilization. Nine agencies provide complete 
information on their IT hardware assets and the utilization of those 
assets and 14 provide partial information. For example, EPA provides 
complete information on maximum and average server utilization, as 
well as counts of its physical servers, virtual hosts, and virtual 
operating systems; while SBA provides complete information on counts 
of its physical servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems, 
but only partial information on maximum and average server 
utilization. Another 7 agencies, including the Departments of Defense 
(Defense), Homeland Security (DHS), and Transportation 
(Transportation), provide partial information on their maximum and 
average server utilization, and on their counts of physical servers, 
virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems. 

* IT facilities, energy, and storage. Three agencies provide complete 
information on their IT facilities, energy, and storage, while 20 
provide partial information. For example, the Department of State 
(State) includes all the required information, while the Department of 
Education (Education) provides complete information on its annual data 
center operational cost, total rack count, and storage information, 
but only provides partial information on its annual data center 
electricity cost and total electricity usage. Also, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), has partial information 
on its total rack count and does not provide any information for the 
other required parts of this element. 

* Geographic location and real estate. Nine agencies provide complete 
information on their data center locations, while 14 provide partial 
information. For example, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
provides complete information on its number of data centers and the 
gross floor area of those centers, but does not provide information on 
the number of server rooms and closets and the gross floor area of 
those facilities. Other agencies such as Energy and the Department of 
Labor (Labor) only provide partial information on their number of 
centers, server rooms, and closets, and the gross floor area of those 
facilities. 

Because agency goals are intended to be built on the information 
provided by the inventories, agencies cannot ensure the reliability of 
their savings and utilization forecasts until the underlying 
inventories have been completed. 

OMB Did Not Require the Verification of Consolidation Data: 

While it is important that reported data are sufficiently complete, 
accurate, and consistent, OMB's guidance on agency inventories does 
not require agencies to document what they did to verify their data, 
or to disclose any limitations on that data. Nonetheless, several 
agencies took informal steps to validate their data. For example, 
Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) officials stated that they 
interviewed staff who submitted inventory information and conducted on-
site visits of data centers. Additionally, Department of Commerce 
(Commerce) officials reported that they reviewed the inventory data 
and clarified missing or suspect entries with those who submitted the 
information. Also, a Department of the Treasury (Treasury) official 
stated that there were two rounds of data verification and that 
Treasury bureaus were sometimes asked to verify submitted information. 
However, officials from other agencies, such as Defense, Energy, and 
NASA, confirmed that their inventories had not been verified. Further, 
in some cases, such as with the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) and NASA, agency officials reported that their 
inventory information was estimated. 

Notwithstanding agencies' informal verification efforts, complete, 
accurate, and consistent performance information will be important to 
OMB to guide its decisions on how best to oversee federal data center 
consolidations. Without an understanding of the validity and 
limitations on agencies' data, OMB cannot be assured that agencies are 
providing a sound baseline for estimating savings and measuring 
progress against their goals. 

Agencies Established Consolidation Plans, but Work Remains on Key 
Elements: 

In addition to the agencies' inventories, OMB required agencies to 
establish consolidation plans that address key elements, including 
quantitative goals, qualitative impacts, approach, scope, timeline, 
and master schedule, as well as summaries of a cost-benefit analysis, 
performance metrics, risk management, and communications planning. OMB 
noted the importance of agencies' consolidation plans in providing a 
technical road map and approach for achieving specified targets for 
infrastructure utilization, energy efficiency, and cost efficiency. 
Table 3 provides a detailed description of each of these elements. 

Table 3: OMB Guidance on Key Elements of Agencies' Consolidation Plans: 

Element: Quantitative goals; 
OMB guidance: The agency should define high-level goals for reducing 
assets and better utilizing the IT infrastructure. The goals are to 
reflect agencywide savings and asset utilization forecasts through 
fiscal year 2015. These targets are to include projected reductions 
for data centers, aggregate gross floor area, total number of racks, 
total number of servers, and the corresponding utilization metrics. 

Element: Qualitative impacts; 
OMB guidance: The agency goals need to include qualitative impacts 
targeted by the agency (such as standardization, economies of scale, 
procurement improvements, enhanced security, and operational 
efficiencies). 

Element: Summary of approach; 
OMB guidance: The agency needs to describe each of the specific 
approaches that will be undertaken to achieve the stated goals. 

Element: Scope of consolidation; 
OMB guidance: The agency needs to include a clear, well-defined scope 
for implementing its data center consolidation initiative by 
identifying the specific target agency/component/bureau data centers 
to be consolidated. 

Element: High-level timeline; 
OMB guidance: The plan needs to include a high-level timeline for data 
center consolidation. 

Element: Performance metrics; 
OMB guidance: The agency's governance framework for data center 
consolidation needs to include the specific metrics that will be used 
in performance measurement. 

Element: Master program schedule; 
OMB guidance: A master program schedule needs to be created for the 
entire agency, drawn from the detailed implementation schedules 
provided by each of the data center managers and driven by related 
federal government activities (such as requirements for OMB reporting 
and budget submissions). 

Element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
OMB guidance: The plan is to include a cost-benefit analysis stating, 
for each fiscal year included as part of the agency's final 
consolidation plan, aggregate year-by-year investment and cost savings 
calculations through fiscal year 2015. 

Element: Risk management; 
OMB guidance: A risk management plan needs to be developed and risks 
need to be tracked using templates. 

Element: Communications plan; 
OMB guidance: Depending on the scope and impact of the consolidation 
plan, the agency should consider developing a communications plan that 
addresses key internal and external stakeholder needs and concerns, 
senior leadership briefing reports, and regular coordination with key 
parties involved in implementing the plan. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[End of table] 

While 23 agencies submitted consolidation plans to OMB, selected 
elements are missing from each plan. For example, 22 agencies provide 
complete information on their qualitative impacts, but only 6 provide 
complete information on their quantitative goals. Further, while all 
23 agencies specify their consolidation approach, only 5 indicate that 
a cost-benefit analysis was performed for the consolidation 
initiative. In many cases, agencies submitted some, but not all, of 
the required information. Figure 2 provides an assessment by element, 
and a discussion of each element follows the figure. A detailed 
summary of the agencies' status of completion of each key element is 
provided in appendix II. In addition, this information is provided for 
each agency in appendix III. 

Figure 2: Assessment of Completeness of Agencies' Consolidation Plan 
Elements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Quantitative goals: 
Yes: 26%; 
Partial: 74%; 
No: 0%. 

Qualitative impacts: 
Yes: 96%; 
Partial: 0%; 
No: 4%. 

Summary of approach: 
Yes: 100%; 
Partial: 0%; 
No: 0%. 

Scope of consolidation: 
Yes: 83%; 
Partial: 9%; 
No: 9%. 

High-level timeline: 
Yes: 87%; 
Partial: 4%; 
No: 9%. 

Performance metrics: 
Yes: 26%; 
Partial: 17%; 
No: 57%. 

Master program schedule: 
Yes: 13%; 
Partial: 0%; 
No: 87%. 

Cost-benefit analysis: 
Yes: 22%; 
Partial: 26%; 
No: 52%. 

Risk management: 
Yes: 48%; 
Partial: 13%; 
No: 39%. 

Communications plan: 
Yes: 78%; 
Partial: 0%; 
No: 22%. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Descriptions: 

Yes--the agency provides complete information for this element. 

Partial--the agency provides some, but not all, of the information in 
this element. 

No--the agency does not provide information for this element. 

[End of figure] 

* Quantitative goals. Six agencies provide complete savings and 
utilization forecasts and 17 agencies provide partial forecasts. For 
example, Defense's savings and utilization forecasts are incomplete, 
while Treasury and the Social Security Administration (SSA) provide 
complete savings forecasts, but incomplete utilization forecasts. Some 
agencies identified reasons for not having completed these forecasts. 
For example, Treasury's plan states that the department's savings and 
utilization targets do not include demand from new organizations 
required under recent legislation[Footnote 10] and that the plan will 
be updated as further information becomes available. The plan also 
notes that the forecasts could change when the department completes 
associated cost-benefit analyses. Additionally, NASA's plan states 
that the agency is performing an assessment of its assets to form an 
accurate baseline, on which actual targets for reduction can be 
predicted. This plan also notes that as the agency's asset and 
inventory information is improved, NASA will evaluate opportunities to 
further consolidate applications and virtualize operating systems. 

* Qualitative impacts. Twenty-two agencies describe the qualitative 
impacts of their consolidation initiatives and 1 agency does not. For 
example, Agriculture's plan describes goals such as reducing overall 
energy use and reducing the real estate footprint for data centers. 
Additionally, HHS reports that the consolidation effort will result in 
more efficient monitoring of data center power. Finally, the U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID) describes goals such as 
optimizing use of IT funding by increasing efficiencies and increasing 
the availability of resources and systems to the user community. 
However, Education does not provide any qualitative impacts. Although 
the department links its consolidation plan to a federal strategic 
sustainability plan, the sustainability plan does not contain 
qualitative impacts such as those required by OMB. 

* Summary of consolidation approach. All 23 agencies include a summary 
of the agencies' proposed consolidation approaches. For example, 
Commerce describes five approaches that will support the department's 
FDCCI goals: consolidating and decommissioning data centers, 
increasing server virtualization and IT equipment utilization, moving 
to cloud computing, acquiring green products and services, and 
promoting "green IT." Similarly, the Department of the Interior 
(Interior) provides four approaches to help realize its consolidation 
goals: decommissioning, consolidation, cloud computing, and server and 
storage virtualization. For a more detailed discussion of alternative 
data center consolidation approaches, see appendix IV. 

* Scope of consolidation. Nineteen agencies' plans include a well- 
defined scope for data center consolidation, 2 provide partial 
information on the scope of their consolidation efforts, and 2 do not 
provide this information. Specifically, the agencies that provide this 
information list the data centers included in the consolidation effort 
and what consolidation approach will be taken for the systems within 
each center (i.e., decommissioning, consolidation, cloud computing, or 
virtualization). For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
lists 87 data centers and Labor lists 20 data centers, in which all of 
the systems will be consolidated, decommissioned, or virtualized. 
Alternatively, Energy has not yet determined what action will be taken 
for each of its facilities and Interior identifies the total numbers 
of centers to be retained or expanded, but does not describe the 
consolidation approach for individual data centers. Two agencies, the 
Department of Justice (Justice) and NASA, are still working to 
determine which of their data centers are to be consolidated. 

* High-level timeline. Twenty agencies include a high-level timeline 
for consolidation efforts, 1 agency includes partial information on 
its timelines, and 2 do not provide timelines. For example, Labor and 
VA both provide the fiscal years in which every data center listed 
will be consolidated and the National Science Foundation (NSF) states 
what year the agency's primary data center will be decommissioned and 
replaced with private and public cloud services. In contrast, Defense 
only describes broad goals to be accomplished by fiscal year 2013 and 
does not include specific milestones for each data center. Further, 
NASA does not include this information in its plan and notes that the 
agency is still working to determine its data center inventory. 

* Performance metrics. Six agencies identify specific performance 
metrics for their consolidation programs, 4 agencies provide partial 
information on their metrics, and 13 agencies did not identify 
specific metrics. For example, both Transportation and GSA specify 
metrics such as savings in energy consumption, cost variance, and 
schedule variance. Alternatively, State reports that the department's 
data center consolidation program maintains metrics at both the system 
and process performance levels, but does not provide any specifics as 
to the nature of those metrics. Further, although Defense does not 
provide metrics at the department level, the Air Force has developed a 
method to provide such measures. 

* Master program schedule. Three agencies reference a completed master 
program schedule, and 20 do not. For example, while Agriculture, DHS, 
and Interior discuss their master schedules, other agencies, such as 
Commerce and HHS do not. Some agencies, such as Defense, Labor, and 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), plan to develop them in the 
future. 

* Cost-benefit analysis. Five agencies provide a cost-benefit analysis 
that encompasses their entire consolidation initiative, 6 agencies 
provide only selected elements of a cost-benefit analysis, and 12 
agencies do not provide a cost-benefit analysis. For example, DHS 
details full annualized investment and savings estimates through 
fiscal year 2015, while other agencies, such as State and OPM, provide 
only partial information. Specifically, State acknowledges that not 
all costs are accounted for in its analysis and OPM reports that its 
analysis is preliminary. Additionally, Commerce provides costs and 
savings for several data center consolidations but acknowledges that 
estimates cannot be provided for all of the department's planned 
consolidation initiatives. Eight of the agencies that do not provide a 
cost-benefit analysis, such as HHS, Justice, and USAID, plan to 
conduct one in the future. 

* Risk management. Fewer than half of the agencies both reference a 
consolidation risk management plan and require that risks be tracked. 
For example, HHS discusses its approach to risk management and 
identifies a series of technical, security, funding, and management 
risks and provides a mitigation strategy for each. Additionally, VA 
describes a five-phase approach to risk management that includes 
identifying and monitoring risks. However, Education requires that 
risks be tracked, but does not reference the existence of an actual 
risk management plan. Nine agencies do not reference a risk management 
plan or requirements for tracking risks. 

* Communications plan. Eighteen agencies consider a communications 
strategy for the agencies' consolidation initiatives, and 5 agencies 
do not. For example, Energy describes a series of coordinated 
activities that are intended to support the consolidation effort. 
Additionally, NASA details its approach to consolidation coordination 
and communication and SBA details individual communication 
responsibilities among consolidation stakeholders. However, Treasury 
and NRC do not describe such a communications strategy. 

When asked about the elements missing from their plans, many agency 
officials stated that they completed what they could within the 
timelines provided by OMB. Several agency officials noted that it was 
difficult to obtain all of the required data from component agencies, 
while others reported that their data collection efforts were made 
more difficult by OMB's tight time frames and changes in templates and 
guidance. Moreover, officials from two agencies stated that some of 
the information contained in their plans had been estimated. However, 
OMB has not required agencies to complete the missing elements or to 
resubmit their final plans. According to an OMB official, agencies 
have been instructed to move forward with their consolidation 
initiatives, and as noted earlier, OMB intends to monitor the 
agencies' progress annually. 

We have previously reported that without a clear description of the 
strategies and resources an agency plans to use in meeting its goals, 
it will be difficult to assess the likelihood of the agency's success 
in achieving its intended results.[Footnote 11] In the absence of 
completed consolidation plans, agencies run the risk of moving forward 
on their respective initiatives with, among other things, poorly 
defined approaches and outcomes. Without this information, agencies 
may not realize anticipated cost savings, improved infrastructure 
utilization, and energy efficiency. 

Agencies Face Multiple Challenges in Consolidation: 

In preparing agencies for the data center consolidation initiative, 
OMB held workshops that, among other things, discussed challenges that 
agencies might face so that they could anticipate and mitigate them. 
In addition, agencies identified multiple challenges they are facing 
during data center consolidations. These include challenges related to 
the data center consolidation initiative as well as those that are 
cultural, funding related, operational, and technical. Some challenges 
are more common than others. Specifically, the number of agencies 
reporting a particular challenge range from 1 agency to 19 agencies. 
Table 4 details the reported challenges as well as the numbers of 
agencies experiencing that challenge. The table is followed by a 
discussion of the most prevalent challenges. 

Table 4: Number of Agencies Experiencing Particular Data Center 
Consolidation Challenges: 

Challenge type: Initiative-related (47); 

Challenge: Obtaining power usage information, as required by OMB; 
Number of agencies: 19. 

Challenge: Meeting tight planning deadlines for OMB's milestones; 
Number of agencies: 11. 

Challenge: Including consolidation information in middle of fiscal 
year 2012 budget cycle; 
Number of agencies: 4. 

Challenge: Providing good-quality asset inventories, as required by 
OMB; 
Number of agencies: 4. 

Challenge: Aligning the data center consolidation effort with other 
initiatives; 
Number of agencies: 4. 

Challenge: Adjusting as OMB modified its definition of "data center"; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Working towards an undefined future state of the data 
center consolidation initiative; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Reporting savings in an already consolidated organization; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Applying same FDCCI targets to all agencies, regardless of 
situation; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge type: Cultural (26); 

Challenge: Accepting cultural change that is part of consolidation; 
Number of agencies: 15. 

Challenge: Implementing data center consolidation in organizational 
structure, such as decentralized enterprise, not geared towards 
consolidation; 
Number of agencies: 8. 

Challenge: Assuming significant new responsibilities as a result of 
consolidation; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Receiving enterprise buy-in for the consolidation effort; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge type: Funding (25); 

Challenge: Acquiring funding required for consolidation/migration 
efforts; 
Number of agencies: 11. 

Challenge: Identifying cost savings to be realized by consolidation; 
Number of agencies: 9. 

Challenge: Reimbursing external organizations for shared 
services/multi-tenancy; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Projecting cost information; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Accounting for costs in a flat fee lease; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Planning consolidation efforts across components with 
differing funding streams; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge type: Operational (21); 

Challenge: Maintaining services during consolidation transition; 
Number of agencies: 9. 

Challenge: Implementing cloud computing; 
Number of agencies: 3. 

Challenge: Managing physical infrastructure; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Creating appropriate service level agreements with other 
organizations; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Locating a suitable site for data center; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Transitioning to a new service provider; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Understanding the limitations of facilities; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Relocating displaced staff; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge type: Technical (17); 
Challenge: Maintaining appropriate level of system security; 
Number of agencies: 3. 

Challenge: Planning migration strategy; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Configuring the network for consolidation; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Forecasting capacity and seasonal demand; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Meshing data from multiple locations; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Ensuring enough bandwidth for the network; 
Number of agencies: 2. 

Challenge: Creating shared standards (including system and physical 
security, storage, and risk management) for co-located resources and 
services; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Testing of changed applications; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Overseeing a vendor's security; 
certification and accreditation are set up and performed; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Challenge: Analyzing business needs and solutions to be sure of a good 
fit; 
Number of agencies: 1. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from agency officials. 

[End of table] 

Initiative-related Challenges: 

Agencies reported nine challenges that are specific to OMB's data 
center consolidation initiative, including meeting tight FDCCI 
deadlines and obtaining power usage data as required by OMB. 
Specifically, 19 agencies reported that obtaining power usage data was 
a challenge. For example, a Commerce official stated that while more 
than half of the agency's data centers have power consumption figures 
or costs associated with power usage, some of the agency's facilities 
do not have metering capabilities for power consumption and that the 
agency has some server rooms that lack metering at the equipment. 
Similarly, Labor's Deputy CIO stated that the department does not have 
metering for data centers. Consequently, the agency used best 
practices to estimate how much power is being used at data centers. In 
addition, 11 agencies found that the tight FDCCI deadlines were a 
challenge. For example, Labor's Deputy CIO stated that the time frames 
were overly aggressive and did not allow the agency to provide the 
information OMB requested or to complete the planning that is 
necessary for such an important undertaking. An Energy official stated 
that there is no quick path to consolidation and that the agency was 
faced with the decision of either moving forward with inadequate 
inventory information or taking more time to make decisions. The 
official stressed that the agency would like to consolidate in the 
correct manner. 

Cultural Challenges: 

Agencies reported four cultural challenges to data center 
consolidation, including accepting cultural change and implementing 
consolidation in an organizational structure not geared towards 
consolidation (i.e., a decentralized enterprise). The most prevalent 
challenge was acceptance of cultural change, with 15 agencies 
reporting it as a challenge. For example, an Agriculture official 
stated that there is a challenge in addressing cultural change 
surrounding data center consolidation. With data center consolidation, 
systems personnel may not be in the same location as the data. To 
address this, Agriculture refined its communications plan so that 
lessons learned can be passed on to other staff. An EPA official noted 
the agency experienced this challenge when employees were reluctant to 
cede control of resources under their immediate control. EPA mitigated 
that challenge by building relationships with stakeholders early on. 
In addition, 8 agencies reported that implementing the consolidation 
was challenged by their organizational structures. For example, a 
Justice official stated that the agency uses a federated IT approach 
within which the departmentwide CIO's office has primary 
responsibility for architecture, common infrastructure, and standards 
decisions, while each component IT department has primary 
responsibility for application resource decisions. According to this 
official, such a federated approach offers Justice's components more 
autonomy when making decisions, but creates obstacles for 
departmentwide efforts such as FDCCI. Further, an Energy official 
cited the department's decentralized environment as a challenge in 
being able to collect data center inventory information. 

Funding Challenges: 

The data center consolidation initiative is supposed to result in cost 
savings, but multiple agencies reported challenges in funding their 
initiatives. For example, a Transportation official reported that the 
need for upfront funding for consolidation efforts was a challenge. A 
NASA official stated that the agency spent approximately $1.5 million 
on an asset management tool to assist the agency in creating its 
inventory. Further, a State official noted the challenge of having to 
fund the consolidation efforts long before cost savings will be 
realized. In addition, 9 agencies reported that identifying cost 
savings for consolidation efforts was a challenge. For example, an 
Energy official stated that it was too early in the consolidation 
process for Energy to be able to quantify cost savings, since the 
agency does not have data on cost or exactly which data centers will 
be closed. A State official stated that it is difficult to estimate 
cost savings since the department does not have information on power 
usage for all facilities. Further, a Treasury official noted 
challenges in identifying cost savings, particularly because a 
reduction in utilized square footage at a facility does not mean that 
the leasing agency will issue a refund check on the lease. Similarly, 
building managers at private facilities will typically not issue a 
refund if an agency begins using less energy. 

Operational Challenges: 

Agencies reported eight operational challenges to data center 
consolidation, including maintaining services during the consolidation 
transition and implementing cloud computing. Nine agencies reported 
that maintaining services during the consolidation transition is a 
challenge. For example, a Labor official stated that keeping the 
business running during the transition is a big concern of the agency. 
Three agencies reported that moving to cloud computing was a 
challenge. For example, a Commerce official stated that the agency's 
biggest challenge was how to implement cloud computing. This official 
cited the need to investigate how private and public cloud computing 
will fit into the agency's mission, and to determine how to manage 
security issues surrounding cloud computing. 

Technical Challenges: 

Agencies reported 10 technical challenges to data center 
consolidation, including maintaining the appropriate level of system 
security and planning the migration strategy. While agencies reported 
more technical challenges than any other type of challenge, these 
challenges are more diverse, with fewer agencies experiencing each 
individual challenge. Three agencies reported that maintaining the 
appropriate level of system security was a challenge. For example, an 
OPM official stated that one of the challenges faced was the need to 
maintain personally identifiable information while exploring options 
such as cloud computing. In addition, a State official identified the 
challenge of including classified servers in the consolidation 
initiative. Two agencies reported that planning the migration strategy 
was a challenge. For example, an SSA official pointed out the 
difficulty in scheduling migration across approximately 1,500 field 
offices. 

One approach agencies can use to manage challenges such as the ones 
listed above is through formal risk management processes. However, as 
noted in the prior section, less than half of the agencies included a 
discussion of risk management in their data center consolidation plans. 

Lessons Learned by States Can Be Leveraged to Mitigate Challenges at 
the Federal Level: 

We have previously reported on the importance of using lessons 
learned--a principal component of an organizational culture committed 
to continuous improvement.[Footnote 12] Sharing such information 
serves to communicate acquired knowledge more effectively and to 
ensure that beneficial information is factored into planning, work 
processes, and activities. Lessons learned also provide a powerful 
method of sharing good ideas for improving work processes, facility or 
equipment design and operation, quality, safety, and cost-
effectiveness. 

OMB posted lessons learned by three states on its data center 
consolidation Web page for federal agencies to review.[Footnote 13] 
However, there is more that agencies can learn. Many state governments 
have undertaken data center consolidation initiatives in recent years. 
Although they have encountered unique challenges, they have also 
encountered challenges similar to those reported by federal agencies. 
Specifically, the National Association of State CIOs and a literature 
search identified 20 states that reported on challenges they faced, or 
lessons they learned, from their data center consolidation 
initiatives. Of these, 19 reported lessons learned that could be 
leveraged at the federal level. For example, officials from North 
Carolina reported that organizations are typically concerned that by 
consolidating data centers, they will lose control of their data, 
service levels will decline, or costs will rise. The state learned 
that to help mitigate this during the process of consolidation, the 
organizations' concerns should be documented, validated, and 
addressed. In another example, a West Virginia official reported that 
since the state had no funding for a consolidation, it had to be 
creative in executing the consolidation. The state used the natural 
aging cycle of hardware to force consolidation; that is, when a piece 
of hardware was ready to be replaced, the applications and software 
were put onto a consolidated server. As a final example, two states 
reported lessons learned that could be applied to the challenge of 
providing a quality asset inventory. Officials from Utah and Texas 
emphasized the importance of having an accurate inventory of all 
equipment that could be impacted by the project. The official from 
Texas added that it is important to have a third party collect 
technical data across agencies, and that it is beneficial to have this 
work completed by outside parties, in order to ensure objectivity and 
consistency. Table 5 identifies lessons learned by states that could 
be applied by federal agencies. 

Table 5: Lessons Learned by States That Can Be Used by Federal 
Agencies to Address Data Center Consolidation Challenges: 

Initiative-related challenges: 

Federal challenge: Providing good-quality inventories; 
Lesson learned: 
* Use a third party to collect technical inventory data to ensure 
objectivity and consistency; 
* Create a configuration management database of all equipment impacted 
by the project. 

Cultural challenges: 

Federal challenge: Receiving enterprise buy-in for the consolidation 
effort; 
Lesson learned: 
* Obtain executive support and empowerment to champion the 
consolidation; 
* Communicate early and often with key agency officials; 
* Find the correct person in the agency who understands the risks and 
can act as an executive sponsor to ensure issues get addressed; 
* Engage politicians and department executives early; 
* Drive the initiative from the top down. 

Federal challenge: Accepting cultural change that is part of 
consolidation; 
Lesson learned: 
* Work with components to address concerns; provide examples of how 
efforts will benefit their programs; 
* Do not underestimate the resistance to consolidation; 
* Document, validate, and address concerns; 
* Create a well-developed strategic plan; 
* Instruct components to plan for and communicate their IT needs to 
ensure that staff are better utilized following consolidation; 
* Prioritize agency IT portfolios across the enterprise; 
* Ensure the organizational structure is aligned with the project; 
* Ensure technical groups are committed to the project; 
* Ensure that data center personnel and the 
infrastructure/virtualization staff are working centrally; 
* Focus on affected employees; give them good career options and keep 
them informed; 
* Communicate the value and benefit of consolidation to the agency 
leads. 

Federal challenge: Assuming significant new responsibilities as a 
result of consolidation; 
Lesson learned: 
* Provide training to ensure that all members of the workforce have 
sufficient skills. 

Federal challenge: Implementing FDCCI in organizational structure, 
such as decentralized enterprise, not geared towards consolidation; 
Lesson learned: 
* Establish a governance model with a single point of control and 
vision. 

Funding challenges: 

Federal challenge: Acquiring funding required for consolidation/ 
migration efforts; 
Lesson learned: 
* Consolidate, standardize, and leverage existing IT applications, 
equipment, and infrastructure to reduce overall cost; 
* Share IT staff to support multiple agencies; 
* Work with private contractors whenever necessary and wherever 
possible to obtain the best value; 
* Use procurement review process and authority to analyze purchase 
requests for servers to determine whether there is an opportunity for 
that agency to utilize the virtual environment; 
* Identify appropriate funding levels for the project; 
* Use the natural aging cycle of hardware to force consolidation; 
when hardware is ready to be replaced, put the applications and 
software onto a consolidated server. 

Federal challenge: Identifying cost savings to be realized by 
consolidation; 
Lesson learned: 
* Use virtualization to reduce costs; 
* Standardize equipment to garner cost savings. 

Operational challenges: 

Federal challenge: Managing physical infrastructure; 
Lesson learned: 
* Do not assume that heating and cooling are adequate to host the 
additional equipment. 

Federal challenge: Creating appropriate service level agreements with 
other organizations; 
Lesson learned: 
* In cases where service levels are not defined or tracked in the 
agency being consolidated, hold detailed discussions with business 
stakeholders and IT leadership to define required service levels; 
* Establish service level agreements that hold both the data center 
and agencies accountable; 
* Establish clear performance/success measures; 
* Set very specific performance targets and hold routine meetings with 
your customers to review service level agreement results. 

Technical challenges: 

Federal challenge: Planning migration strategy; 
Lesson learned: 
* Set migration windows ahead of time so individual components can 
negotiate migration dates around their schedules; 
* Plan for a 6-month lead time, start planning as soon as agency is 
committed to consolidation, and encourage agencies to adopt consistent 
and disciplined IT inventory practices; 
* Keep migrations simple; 
* Integrate lessons learned and process improvements into the 
consolidation approach to ensure that subsequent migrations are built 
upon the previous migration's experience; 
* Perform risk assessments on the data centers to gather information 
on inventory and share that information with key stakeholders; 
* Develop a migration project process that includes assigning 
resources, performing discovery and inventory, developing an initial 
move scenario and a target move date, preparing the target data 
center, developing a detailed plan; executing the move; and preparing 
the legacy data center space for reuse; 
* Identify processes for moving the hardware and communicating those 
moves to the enterprise groups; 
* Follow a strict project management process and initiate a clear 
change management plan; 
* Keep the customers informed. 

Federal challenge: Maintaining appropriate level of system security; 
Lesson learned: 
* Work with component agencies to create a total cost of ownership 
model that allows the components to create a business value 
proposition. 

Federal challenge: Analyzing business needs and solutions to be sure 
of a good fit; 
Lesson learned: 
* Do not allow business case for consolidation to focus too much on 
cost savings; this can cause unrealistic expectations; 
* Understand the requirements and the possible issues before launching 
an initiative; 
* Ensure project plan has clearly defined objectives and deliverables 
to prevent scope creep; 
* Recognize that virtualization is not a solution for everyone; 
* Explain to business community what data centers require to meet 
expectations. 

Federal challenge: Creating shared standards (system and physical 
security, storage, risk management) for co-located resources and 
services; 
Lesson learned: Standardize IT capabilities and services. 

Federal challenge: Testing of changed applications; 
Lesson learned: 
* Set time frames for task completions to allow for application 
testing before and after server migrations; 
* Test applications in a hosted environment; virtual environments are 
not suitable for some applications. 

Source: GAO analysis of state reported data. 

[End of table] 

Conclusions: 

With agencies reporting having almost 1,600 federal data centers, 
OMB's goal of consolidating 800 centers by 2015 is ambitious. To its 
credit, OMB has established an accountability infrastructure through 
its data center consolidation task force composed of representatives 
from each of the participating agencies. OMB and federal agencies have 
also taken important steps to reduce the number and increase the 
efficiency of the federal data centers. However, only one agency has 
completed its required data center asset inventory, no agencies have 
completed their consolidation plans, and OMB has not required that 
agency inventory information be verified. Despite these limitations, 
OMB has instructed agencies to move forward with their plans. Moving 
forward to consolidate obviously redundant or underutilized centers is 
warranted-
-and should result in immediate cost savings and increased efficiency. 
However, without a complete asset inventory and a comprehensive plan, 
agencies are at increased risk that they will be ill-prepared to 
manage such a significant transformation. This could slow the 
consolidations and reduce expected savings and efficiencies. 

In moving ahead in their consolidation efforts, agencies are 
encountering challenges, including those that are technical, 
operational, and cultural in nature. Some state governments have also 
engaged in data center consolidation initiatives and dealt with 
similar obstacles in doing so. By virtue of these experiences, these 
states can offer insights and suggestions that federal agencies can 
use to mitigate their challenges and risks. In doing so, agencies will 
be better positioned to address their consolidation goals and to meet 
OMB's goals for reducing the number and cost of federal data centers. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better ensure that the federal data center consolidation initiative 
improves governmental efficiency and achieves cost savings, we are 
making four recommendations to OMB. Specifically, we are recommending 
that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget direct the 
Federal Chief Information Officer to: 

* require that agencies, when updating their data center inventories 
in the third quarter of each fiscal year, state what actions have been 
taken to verify the inventories and to identify any limitations of 
this information; 

* require that agencies complete the missing elements in their 
respective plans and submit complete data center consolidation plans, 
or provide a schedule for when they will do so, by September 30, 2011; 

* require agencies to consider consolidation challenges and lessons 
learned when updating their plans; and: 

* utilize the existing accountability infrastructure by requiring the 
Data Center Consolidation Task Force to assess agency consolidation 
plans to ensure they are complete and to monitor the agencies' 
implementation of their plans. 

In addition, we are making two recommendations to each of the 
department secretaries and agency heads of the 23 departments and 
agencies participating in the federal data center consolidation 
initiative.[Footnote 14] Specifically, we are recommending that the 
secretaries and agency heads: 

* direct their component agencies and their data center consolidation 
program managers to complete the missing elements in their respective 
data center consolidation inventories and plans; and: 

* require their data center consolidation program managers to consider 
consolidation challenges and lessons learned when updating their 
consolidation plans. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We received comments on a draft of our report from OMB and the 23 
agencies to which we made recommendations. Most agencies generally 
agreed with our recommendations. Specifically, in commenting on the 
draft, 15 agencies agreed with our recommendations; 4 agreed with the 
report's content or findings, but offered no comments on the 
recommendations; 3 offered no comments on the report's findings or 
recommendations; and Defense and SSA both did not agree with one of 
our recommendations, but agreed with the second. Agencies also 
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 
Each agency's comments are discussed in more detail below. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, an OMB official from the General 
Counsel Office wrote that the agency generally agreed with our report. 
The agency offered no comments on our recommendations. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, Agriculture's CIO agreed with our 
recommendations and noted that our assessment of USDA's inventory was 
accurate. 

* In written comments, the Secretary of Commerce concurred with the 
general findings as they apply to the department and with specific 
reporting on the department's data center consolidation plan. The 
Secretary offered no comments on our recommendations, but noted that 
Commerce plans to address GAO's finding on the department's 
consolidation master program schedule in the next version of its 
consolidation plan. Commerce's written comments are provided in 
appendix V. 

* In written comments, Defense's CIO partially concurred with one of 
our recommendations and concurred with the second. Specifically, 
regarding our recommendation that the department complete the missing 
elements from its data center inventory and consolidation plan, the 
CIO cited the importance of completing consolidation metrics and noted 
that many of the department's centers and buildings are not equipped 
to meter energy usage and that using incomplete estimates of such 
usage would result in inaccurate extrapolations of cost savings. 
However, OMB addressed such concerns in its guidance on the FDCCI, 
noting alternative means by which agencies could develop energy 
utilization estimates. OMB further recognized that these estimates may 
need time to become more accurate. As such, we believe our 
recommendation is reasonable and appropriate. Defense's written 
comments are provided in appendix VI. 

* In written comments, Education's CIO concurred with one 
recommendation and outlined plans to address the second. The CIO noted 
the department's plans to complete, to the extent practicable, the 
missing information in Education's data center inventory and 
consolidation plan. The CIO also cited the department's intent, when 
updating its annual consolidation plan, to consider relevant 
consolidation challenges and lessons learned. Education's written 
comments are provided in appendix VII. 

* In written comments, Energy's Director of the Corporate IT Project 
Management Office agreed with our assessment of Energy's data center 
consolidation plan and offered no comments on our recommendations. The 
Director cited a series of planned actions by the department intended 
to gather missing information in Energy's data center inventory, 
update the department's consolidation plan, and document its data 
center management best practices. Energy's written comments are 
provided in appendix VIII. 

* In written comments, HHS' Assistant Secretary for Legislation stated 
that the draft accurately depicts the HHS data center consolidation 
plan as it was delivered to OMB in August 2010 and notes that the 
agency has continued to improve its inventory and make progress on its 
data center consolidation goals since that time. Further, the 
Assistant Secretary outlined a series of actions planned by the 
department to complete HHS' data center inventory and consolidation 
plan. The department did not offer comments on our recommendations. 
HHS' written comments are provided in appendix IX. 

* In written comments, DHS's Director of the Departmental GAO/OIG 
Liaison Office concurred with our recommendations. Further, the 
Director outlined the department's planned actions to complete the 
missing information from its data center inventory and noted that the 
department is working to share its consolidation lessons learned with, 
among others, the Federal Chief Information Officers Council. DHS's 
written comments are provided in appendix X. 

* In written comments, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, 
Management, and Budget concurred with our findings and 
recommendations. The Assistant Secretary also noted that the 
department is continuing to refine its data center inventory and 
consolidation goals. Interior's written comments are provided in 
appendix XI. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, the Justice Audit Liaison concurred 
with our recommendations. Justice also provided technical comments, 
which we incorporated as appropriate. 

* In written comments, Labor's Assistant Secretary for Administration 
and Management stated that, after carefully reviewing the draft 
report, the department did not have any comments to contribute. 
Labor's written comments are provided in appendix XII. 

* In written comments, State's Chief Financial Officer concurred with 
our recommendations and outlined a series of actions planned by the 
department to complete State's data center inventory and consolidation 
plan. State's written comments are provided in appendix XIII. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, Transportation's Deputy Director of 
Audit Relations stated that the department had no comments on the 
report and agreed to consider our recommendations. 

* In written comments, Treasury's Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Information Systems and Chief Information Officer did not provide 
comments on our recommendations, but noted that Treasury has started 
its annual data center inventory collection, which will address 
missing data elements, and that Treasury intends to collect and 
leverage data center consolidation challenges and lessons learned when 
updating the department's consolidation plans. Treasury's written 
comments are provided in appendix XIV. 

* In written comments, VA's Chief of Staff generally agreed with the 
findings and concurred with our recommendations. Further, the Chief of 
Staff noted planned actions to complete missing information from the 
department's consolidation plan and to supplement updates to the plan 
with narrative responses on consolidation challenges and lessons 
learned. The Chief of Staff also noted that the department is 
continuing to refine its data center inventory, consolidation goals, 
and consolidation timeline. VA's written comments are provided in 
appendix XV. 

* In written comments, EPA's Assistant Administrator and Chief 
Information Officer did not agree or disagree with our 
recommendations, but did offer clarification on its plans to fulfill 
our recommendations. Specifically, in relation to our recommendation 
to complete missing elements of the agency's consolidation plan, the 
Assistant Administrator clarified that the majority of EPA server 
rooms are located within leased space managed by GSA. As such, EPA 
will be able to estimate operating electrical use for these rooms, but 
the cost-benefit analysis will not reflect a reduction in real estate 
costs or electricity consumption because such reductions would not 
result in cost savings to EPA. 

Further, the CIO asserted that we had mischaracterized the agency's 
overall plan for consolidation by stating that EPA does not plan to 
further consolidate its four data centers and in our description of 
actions the agency plans to take within those four centers. 
Specifically, EPA stated that we did not provide adequate detail about 
EPA's existing infrastructure or the services that will be provided by 
these four existing centers. However, EPA's data center consolidation 
plan states that the agency had four data centers as of the end of 
fiscal year 2010 and the agency plans to have four data centers at the 
end of fiscal year 2014. As such, we maintain that our description of 
EPA's broad consolidation goals is factual. EPA's written comments are 
provided in appendix XVI. 

* In written comments, GSA's Administrator agreed with both our 
findings and our recommendations and stated that GSA would take 
actions commensurate with our recommendations. GSA's written comments 
are provided in appendix XVII. 

* In written comments, NASA's CIO concurred with our recommendations. 
Further, the CIO cited ongoing work by NASA to complete the missing 
information in the agency's data center inventory and consolidation 
plan. Additionally, the CIO noted the agency's plans to consider 
consolidation challenges and lessons learned when updating 
consolidation plans. NASA's written comments are provided in appendix 
XVIII. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, NSF's Acting CIO did not provide 
comments on our recommendations, but noted NSF's planned actions to 
complete the missing information from the agency's consolidation plan. 

* In written comments, NRC's Deputy Executive Director for Corporate 
Management within the Office of the Executive Director for Operations 
stated that the agency had no comments. NRC's written comments are 
provided in appendix XIX. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, OPM's Deputy CIO concurred with our 
recommendations. The Deputy CIO noted that since OPM does not plan to 
consolidate further than its one data center, the agency's 
consolidation focus will be to complete its asset inventory and 
explore ways to operate more efficiently. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, the SBA Program Manager for the 
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs concurred with our 
recommendations. 

* In written comments, SSA's Deputy Chief of Staff disagreed with one 
recommendation and agreed with the second. Specifically, regarding our 
recommendation that the agency complete the missing elements from its 
data center inventory and consolidation plan, the Deputy Chief of 
Staff disagreed with our assessment of SSA's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan, stating that SSA responded to OMB's directive in a 
timely and satisfactory manner. The Deputy Chief of Staff further 
noted that because SSA does not plan to consolidate its two existing 
data centers, the plan elements we noted as missing were not 
applicable to SSA's circumstances. 

However, in its asset inventory, SSA does not provide one of the OMB- 
specified consolidation approaches, which includes an option of "not 
applicable," for any of the major and nonmajor systems in SSA's data 
centers. While we acknowledge that SSA does not plan to consolidate 
from its two physical locations, OMB still required agencies to 
provide a consolidation approach for every identified system. Further, 
in a written response to OMB questions about SSA's consolidation plan, 
SSA acknowledged that the agency planned to virtualize systems within 
one of its two locations. In light of this planned work, it is 
reasonable to assume that an agency would complete the important 
governance-related key plan elements we identified as missing, such as 
a master program schedule, a cost-benefit analysis, and a risk 
management plan. In its guidance on the FDCCI, OMB echoed this 
importance, noting that an agency's governance framework needs to 
provide specific details about the oversight and internal mechanics 
that will measure and manage performance and risk of the consolidation 
implementation. As such, we believe our recommendation is reasonable 
and appropriate. SSA's written comments are provided in appendix XX. 

* In comments provided via e-mail, the liaison from USAID's Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer concurred with our recommendations. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested 
congressional committees; the Director of OMB; the secretaries and 
agency heads of the departments and agencies addressed in this report; 
and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in 
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6253 or 
willemssenj@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 XXI. 

Signed by: 
Joel C. Willemssen: 
Managing Director, Information Technology: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) assess whether agency consolidation 
documents include adequate detail, such as performance measures and 
milestones, for agencies to consolidate their centers; (2) identify 
the key challenges reported by agencies in consolidating centers; and 
(3) evaluate whether lessons learned during state government 
consolidation efforts could be leveraged to mitigate challenges at the 
federal level. 

For this governmentwide review, we assessed the 24 departments and 
agencies (agencies) that were identified by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) to be 
included in the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI). 
Table 6 lists these agencies. 

Table 6: Chief Information Officers Council Departments and Agencies 
Participating in the FDCCI: 

Departments: 
Agriculture; 
Commerce; 
Defense; 
Education; 
Energy; 
Health and Human Services; 
Homeland Security; 
Housing and Urban Development; 
Interior; 
Justice; 
Labor; 
State; 
Transportation; 
Treasury; 
Veterans Affairs. 

Agencies: 
Environmental Protection Agency; 
General Services Administration; 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
National Science Foundation; 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Office of Personnel Management; 
Small Business Administration; 
Social Security Administration; 
U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[End of table] 

To evaluate the agencies' data center inventories and consolidation 
plans, we reviewed OMB's guidance and identified key required elements 
for each. We compared agency consolidation inventories and plans to 
OMB's required elements, and identified gaps and missing elements. We 
rated each element as "Yes" if the agency provides complete 
information; "Partial" if the agency provides some, but not all, of 
the information; and "No" if the agency did not provide the 
information. We followed up with agencies to clarify our initial 
findings and to determine why parts of the inventories and plans were 
incomplete or missing. We assessed the reliability of the data 
agencies provided in their data center inventories and plans. 
Specifically, we interviewed agency officials to determine how the 
data in the inventories and plans had been collected and their 
processes for ensuring the reliability of the data contained in these 
inventories. We reviewed the inventories and plans for omissions, 
outliers, and typographic mistakes. We compared inventory summary data 
contained in the consolidation plans to inventories and noted any 
inconsistencies. In doing so, we found multiple gaps in agency-
provided data. We also found that almost half of the agencies had not 
taken steps to verify their inventory data. We have reported on these 
limitations in the body of this report. 

To identify the key challenges encountered by agencies in 
consolidating data centers, we analyzed available literature on data 
center consolidation challenges and interviewed agency officials to 
determine what challenges to consolidation had been encountered. We 
then categorized the agency-reported challenges to determine ones that 
were encountered most often. 

To evaluate whether lessons learned during state government 
consolidation efforts could be leveraged to mitigate challenges at the 
federal level, we conducted a literature search for information on 
state experiences in data center consolidation and interviewed the 
National Association of State Chief Information Officers regarding 
states' experiences with data center consolidation. These sources 
identified 20 states that reported challenges or lessons learned from 
their data center consolidation initiatives. We sought clarification 
on challenges and lessons learned through e-mail and interviews with 
state officials. We compared states' challenges and lessons learned to 
the challenges facing federal agencies in order to identify which 
lessons learned could be applied to federal consolidation efforts. 

We conducted our work at multiple agencies' headquarters in the 
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. We conducted this performance 
audit from August 2010 to July 2011, in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Assessment of Agencies' Completion of Consolidation 
Planning Elements, Arranged by Key Element: 

Table 7 identifies the agencies that provide complete, partial, or no 
information for each key element of its data center consolidation plan. 

Table 7: Summary of Agencies' Completion of Key Elements in their Data 
Center Consolidation Plans: 

Element 1: Quantitative goals for reducing assets and improving IT 
infrastructure utilization: 

Results: 
Yes: 6; 
Comments: The Departments of Agriculture (Agriculture), Commerce 
(Commerce), Labor (Labor), Transportation (Transportation), the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM).
Partial: 17; 
Comments: The Departments of Defense (Defense), Education (Education), 
Energy (Energy), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security 
(DHS), Interior (Interior), Justice (Justice), State (State), Treasury 
(Treasury), Veterans Affairs (VA), the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), the General Services Administration (GSA), the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Social 
Security Administration (SSA), and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID).
No: 0; 
Comments: No agencies meet this condition. 

Element 2: Qualitative impacts targeted by the agency. 

Results: 
Yes: 22; 
Comments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, DHS, Energy, HHS, Interior, 
Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, VA, EPA, GSA, NASA, 
NRC, NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, and USAID.
Partial: 0; 
Comments: No agencies meet this condition.
No: 1; 
Comments: Education. 

Element 3: Brief summary of the specific approaches that will be 
undertaken to achieve the stated goals: 

Results: 
Yes: 23; 
Comments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, DHS, Education, Energy, HHS, 
Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, VA, EPA, 
GSA, NASA, NRC, NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, and USAID.
Partial: 0; 
Comments: No agencies meet this condition.
No: 0; 
Comments: No agencies meet this condition. 

Element 4: Clear, well-defined scope for implementing the 
consolidation initiative: 

Yes 19; 
Comments: Agriculture, Commerce, DHS, Education, HHS, Interior, Labor, 
State, Transportation, Treasury, VA, EPA, GSA, NRC, NSF, OPM, SBA, 
SSA, and USAID.
Partial: 2; 
Comments: Defense and Energy[A]. 
No: 2; 
Comments: Justice[A] and NASA[A] do not provide this information. 

Element 5: High-level timeline for consolidation: 

Yes: 20; 
Comments: Agriculture, Commerce, DHS, Education, HHS, Interior, 
Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, VA, EPA, GSA, NRC, 
NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, and USAID.
Partial: 1; 
Comments: Defense.
No: 2; 
Comments: Energy and NASA. 

Element 6: Performance metrics: 

Yes: 6; 
Comments: Commerce, Interior, Transportation, Treasury, GSA, and USAID.
Partial: 4; 
Comments: Defense, Education,The agency provides complete information 
for this element Justice,a and State.
No: 13; 
Comments: Agriculture, DHS, Energy,The agency provides complete 
information for this element HHS,a Labor,a VA,a EPA,a NASA,a NRC,a 
NSF, OPM, SBA, and SSA. 

Element 7: Master program schedule for the entire agency: 

Yes: 3; 
Comments: Agriculture, DHS, and Interior.
Partial: 0; 
Comments: No agencies meet this condition.
No: 20; 
Comments: Commerce, Defense,The agency provides complete information 
for this element Education, Energy[A], HHS, Justice, Labor[A] State, 
Transportation, Treasury, VA[A], EPA[A], GSA, NASA, NRC[A], NSF, 
OPM[A], SBA, SSA, and USAID[A]. 

Element 8: Cost-benefit analysis that aggregates year-by-year 
investment and cost savings calculations through fiscal year 2015: 

Yes: 5; 
Comments: DHS, Transportation, VA, GSA, and NSF.
Partial: 6; 
Comments: Agriculture, Commerce, Interior,The agency provides complete 
information for this element Labor,a State, and OPMa.
No: 12; 
Comments: Defense,The agency provides complete information for this 
element Education, Energy,a HHS,a Justice,a Treasury, EPA, NASA, NRC, 
SBA, SSA, and USAIDa. 

Element 9: Risk management plan and risk tracking: 

Yes: 11; 
Comments: Agriculture, Commerce, DHS, HHS, Interior, Justice, Labor, 
State, Transportation, GSA, and NASA.
Partial: 3; 
Comments: Defense, Education, and VA.
No: 9; 
Comments: Energy,The agency provides complete information for this 
element Treasury, EPA,a NRC, NSF, OPM,a SBA,a SSA, and USAIDa. 

Element 10: Consideration of a communications plan for the 
consolidation implementation: 

Yes: 18; 
Comments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, DHS, Education, Energy, HHS, 
Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, VA, EPA, GSA, NASA, 
NSF, and SBA.
Partial: 0; 
Comments: No agencies meet this condition.
No: 5; 
Comments: Treasury, NRC, OPM,The agency provides complete information 
for this element SSA, and USAID[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[A] The agency reports that it is taking, or plans to take, action to 
address this element. 

Descriptions: 

Yes--the agency provides complete information for this element. 

Partial--the agency provides some, but not all, of the information in 
this element. 

No--the agency does not provide information for this element. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Assessment of Agencies' Completion of Key Consolidation 
Planning Elements, Arranged by Agency: 

[End of section] 

As part of its data center consolidation initiative, OMB required 24 
federal departments and agencies to submit a data center inventory and 
a data center consolidation plan. Key elements of the inventory were 
to include, for each data center, information on IT hardware, IT 
software, facilities/energy/storage, and geographic location. Key 
elements of the plan were to include information on quantitative 
goals, qualitative impacts, consolidation approach, consolidation 
scope, timeline, performance metrics, master schedule, cost-benefit 
analysis, risk management, and consideration of a communications plan. 

For each of the agencies, the following sections provide a brief 
summary of the agencies' goal for reducing the number of data centers, 
and an assessment of the completeness of their inventories and plans. 

The following information describes the key that we used in tables 8 
through 30 to convey the results of our assessment of the agencies' 
compliance with OMB's requirements for the FDCCI. 

The agency provides complete information for this element. 

The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the element. 

The agency does not provide information for this element. 

Department of Agriculture: 

Agriculture plans to consolidate from 46 data centers to 7 by fiscal 
year 2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation 
plan are not complete. In its asset inventory, the department provides 
complete information for 1 element and partial information for the 
remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
Agriculture provides complete information for 8 of the 10 elements, 
partial information for 1 element, and does not provide information 
for the remaining element. Table 8 provides our assessment of 
Agriculture's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 8: Assessment of Completeness of Agriculture's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides a list of the systems in its data 
centers, but provides only partial information on the systems' 
technical dependencies and the planned consolidation approach for each 
system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its storage use and 
capacity, but provides only partial information on its facilities' 
annual operational costs and space utilization and on its annual 
electricity cost and use. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as on the gross 
floor area of those facilities. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides five years of cost and savings data, 
but does not identify in which year the projections begin. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Agriculture data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Commerce: 

Commerce plans to consolidate from 41 data centers to 23 by fiscal 
year 2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation 
plan are not complete. In its inventory, the department provides 
complete information for 3 of the 4 key elements and partial 
information for the remaining element. Additionally, in its 
consolidation plan, Commerce provides complete information for 8 of 
the 10 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 1 element, 
and does not provide information for the remaining element. Table 9 
provides our assessment of Commerce's compliance with OMB's 
requirements. 

Table 9: Assessment of Completeness of Commerce's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its storage use and 
capacity, but provides only partial information on its facilities' 
annual operational costs and space utilization, and on its annual 
electricity cost and use. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides cost and savings data for several 
data centers, but acknowledges that it cannot provide estimates for 
all of its consolidation initiatives. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Defense: 

Defense plans to consolidate from 772 data centers to 532 by fiscal 
year 2013. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation 
plan are not complete. In its asset inventory, Defense provides only 
partial information for all 4 key elements. Additionally, in its 
consolidation plan, Defense provides complete information for 3 of the 
10 elements evaluated, provides partial information for 5 elements, 
and does not provide information for the remaining 2 elements. A 
Defense official explained that because they are a decentralized 
agency and are fighting multiple wars, it was difficult to meet OMB's 
extremely short deadlines. The official also noted that OMB's changing 
templates and definitions made it more difficult to compile the needed 
information. Table 10 provides our assessment of Defense's compliance 
with OMB's requirements. 

Table 10: Assessment of Completeness of Defense's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
and utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides what it plans to accomplish by 2013, 
but does not include milestones for each data center. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: Some component agencies provide this information, but 
others do not. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency discusses a risk management process, but does 
not reference a risk management plan for the consolidation initiative. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Education: 

Education does not have plans to consolidate any of its three data 
centers before fiscal year 2015. Rather, the agency plans to increase 
server virtualization within in its centers. However, Education's 
asset inventory and consolidation plan are not complete. In its asset 
inventory, the agency provides complete information for 3 key elements 
and provides partial information for the remaining element. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Education provides complete 
information for 4 of the 10 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 3 elements, and does not provide information for the 
remaining 3 elements. Education officials stated that they did not 
provide selected plan elements because they are not applicable given 
the agency's focus on virtualization rather than consolidation. Table 
11 provides our assessment of Education's compliance with OMB's 
requirements. 

Table 11: Assessment of Completeness of Education's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' annual 
operational costs and space utilization, and on its storage use and 
capacity, but only provides partial information on its annual 
electricity cost and usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
and utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides some savings and utilization metrics 
and targets. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency discusses its risk tracking process, but does 
not reference a risk management plan for the consolidation initiative. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Energy: 

Energy plans to consolidate from 31 data centers to 25 by fiscal year 
2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are 
not complete. In its asset inventory, Energy reports that although it 
began identifying contractor-operated data centers, this initiative 
was not completed in time to be included in the inventory. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Energy provides complete 
information for 3 of the 10 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 2 elements, and does not provide information for the 
remaining 5 elements. Table 12 provides our assessment of Energy's 
compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 12: Assessment of Completeness of Energy's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
systems, their technical dependencies, and the planned consolidation 
approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
maximum and average server utilization, as well as its counts of 
physical servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
facilities' annual operational costs and space utilization, its annual 
electricity cost and usage, and its storage use and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as on the gross 
floor area of those facilities. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
goals, and does not provide any information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides a list of data centers, but 
acknowledges that it has not yet identified approaches for 
consolidating most of its centers. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Energy data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

HHS plans to consolidate from 185 data centers to 131 by fiscal year 
2015.[Footnote 15] However, the agency's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan are not complete. In its asset inventory, the 
department provides partial information for all 4 key elements. 
Additionally, in its consolidation plan, HHS provides complete 
information for 6 of the 10 elements evaluated, provides partial 
information for 1 element, and does not provide information for the 
remaining 3 elements. Agency officials stated that they are working to 
complete the elements that are missing or incomplete. Table 13 
provides our assessment of HHS' compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 13: Assessment of Completeness of HHS' Data Center Consolidation 
Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides a list of the systems in its data 
centers, but provides only partial information on the systems' 
technical dependencies and no information on the planned consolidation 
approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
maximum and average server utilization, as well as its counts of 
physical servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
facilities' annual operational costs and space utilization, on its 
annual electricity costs and usage, and on its storage capacity and 
usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as on the gross 
floor area of those facilities. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
and utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: 

DHS plans to consolidate from 43 data centers to 2 by fiscal year 
2014. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are 
not complete. In its asset inventory, DHS provides partial information 
for all 4 key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, the 
department provides complete information for 8 of the 10 elements 
evaluated, provides partial information for 1 element, and does not 
provide information for the remaining element. Table 14 provides our 
assessment of DHS's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 13: Assessment of Completeness of DHS's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
systems, their technical dependencies, and the planned consolidation 
approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its maximum 
and average server utilization, as well as its counts of physical 
servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
facilities' annual operational costs and space utilization, its annual 
electricity cost and usage, and its storage use and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of data centers and their associated gross floor area. Further, 
it provides only partial information on its number of server rooms and 
computer closets and does not report on their aggregated gross floor 
area. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
and utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development did not submit a data 
center inventory or consolidation plan. Instead, it submitted a letter 
that asserts that the department does not own any data centers and has 
no arrangements to take ownership of any data centers at the end of 
any contracts. 

Department of the Interior: 

Interior plans to consolidate from 95 data centers to 5 by fiscal year 
2015.[Footnote 16] However, the agency's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan are not complete. In its asset inventory, Interior 
provides complete information for 1 key element and partial 
information for the remaining 3 elements. In its consolidation plan, 
Interior provides complete information for 8 of the 10 elements 
evaluated, and provides partial information for 2 elements. Interior 
officials stated that they are working to complete the elements that 
are missing or incomplete. Table 15 provides our assessment of 
Interior's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 15: Assessment of Completeness of Interior's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on the systems in 
its data centers and their technical dependencies, and provides no 
information on the planned consolidation approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its maximum 
and average server utilization, as well as its counts of physical 
servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' annual 
operational costs and its annual electricity cost and usage, but 
provides only partial information on its facilities' space utilization 
and on its storage use and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
and utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides initial cost and savings 
calculations, but acknowledges that it has not yet determined 
potential savings related to personnel and cannot realize savings from 
utilities and real estate. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Interior data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Justice: 

Justice plans to consolidate from 65 data centers to 50 by fiscal year 
2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are 
not complete. In its asset inventory, Justice provides complete 
information for 1 key element and partial information for the 
remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Justice 
provides complete information for 5 of the 10 elements evaluated, 
provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not provide 
information for the remaining 3 elements. Table 16 provides our 
assessment of Justice's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 16: Assessment of Completeness of Justice's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
systems, their technical dependencies, and the planned consolidation 
approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its count of physical 
servers, but provides only partial information on its maximum and 
average server utilization, as well as its counts of virtual hosts and 
virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its storage use and 
capacity and on its facilities' space utilization, but provides only 
partial information on its facilities' annual operational costs and 
its annual electricity cost and usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides its utilization goals, but provides 
only partial information on its savings goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides some utilization metrics and targets, 
and plans to develop others. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Justice data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Labor: 

Labor plans to consolidate from 20 data centers to 18 by fiscal year 
2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are 
not complete. In its asset inventory, Labor provides complete 
information for 1 key element and provides partial information for the 
remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Labor 
provides complete information for 7 of the 10 elements evaluated, 
provides partial information for 1 element, and does not provide 
information for the remaining 2 elements. Table 17 provides our 
assessment of Labor's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 17: Assessment of Completeness of Labor's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on the systems in its 
data centers and the planned consolidation approach for each system, 
but provides only partial information on the systems' technical 
dependencies. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' annual 
operational costs and space utilization, and on its storage use and 
capacity, but provides only partial information on its annual 
electricity cost and usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of data centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as on the 
gross floor area of those facilities. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides near-term funding requirements, but 
does not discuss anticipated savings. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data. 

[End of table] 

Department of State: 

State plans to consolidate from 13 data centers to 6 by fiscal year 
2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are 
not complete. In its asset inventory, State provides complete 
information for 3 of the key elements and provides partial information 
for the remaining element. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
State provides complete information for 6 of the 10 elements 
evaluated, provides partial information for 3 elements, and does not 
provide information for the remaining element. An agency official 
stated that they have a master program schedule and performance 
metrics, but acknowledged that they did not provide them to OMB as 
part of their consolidation plans. Table 18 provides our assessment of 
State's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 18: Assessment of Completeness of State's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its number of centers, 
server rooms, and closets, as well as on the gross floor area of its 
data centers. It does not provide information on the gross floor area 
of its server rooms and closets. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
and utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency reports that it maintains metrics at the 
system and process performance levels, but does not include specific 
metrics. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides cost estimates and avoidances through 
fiscal year 2015, but acknowledges that the estimates do not include 
some types of costs. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Transportation: 

Transportation plans to consolidate from 35 data centers to 31 by 
fiscal year 2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan are not complete. In its inventory, Transportation 
provides partial information for all 4 key elements, noting that in 
some instances, data center owners did not provide the requested 
information. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, Transportation 
provides complete information for 9 of the 10 elements evaluated and 
does not provide information for the remaining element. Table 19 
provides our assessment of Transportation's compliance with OMB's 
requirements. 

Table 19: Assessment of Completeness of Transportation's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
systems, their technical dependencies, and the planned consolidation 
approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its maximum 
and average server utilization, as well as its counts of physical 
servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
facilities' annual operational costs and space utilization, its annual 
electricity cost and usage, and its storage use and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as on the gross 
floor area of those facilities. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Transportation data. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Treasury: 

Treasury plans to consolidate from 42 data centers to 29 by fiscal 
year 2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation 
plan are not complete. In its inventory, Treasury provides complete 
information for 1 key element and provides partial information for the 
remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
Treasury provides complete information for 5 of the 10 elements 
evaluated, provides partial information for 1 element, and does not 
provide information for the remaining 4 elements. An agency official 
stated that the agency is working to complete the missing or 
incomplete items. Table 20 provides our assessment of Treasury's 
compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 20: Assessment of Completeness of Treasury's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
systems, their technical dependencies, and the planned consolidation 
approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its count of physical 
servers, but provides only partial information on its maximum and 
average server utilization, as well as its counts of virtual hosts and 
virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
facilities' annual operational costs and space utilization, and on its 
annual electricity cost and usage. It provides no information on its 
storage use and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides its savings goals, but provides only 
partial information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury data. 

[End of table] 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 

VA plans to consolidate 87 data centers into 4 by fiscal year 2015. 
[Footnote 17] However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation 
plan are not complete. In its inventory, VA provides partial 
information for all 4 key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation 
plan, VA provides complete information for 6 of the 10 elements 
evaluated, provides partial information for 2 elements, and does not 
provide information for the remaining 2 elements. Table 21 provides 
our assessment of VA's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 21: Assessment of Completeness of VA's Data Center Consolidation 
Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on the systems in 
its data centers and their technical dependencies. It provides no 
information on the planned consolidation approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its maximum 
and average server utilization, as well as its counts of physical 
servers, virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
facilities' annual operational costs and space utilization, and on its 
annual electricity cost and usage. It provides no information on its 
storage use and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of centers and their gross floor area. It provides no 
information on server rooms and closets, or on the gross floor area of 
those facilities. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides its utilization goals, but provides 
only partial information on its savings goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency discusses its risk tracking process, but does 
not reference a risk management plan for the consolidation initiative. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of VA data. 

[End of table] 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

EPA does not plan to further consolidate its four primary data 
centers. Instead, the agency plans to focus its consolidation efforts 
on achieving efficiencies via virtualization within those four 
centers. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan 
are not complete. In its inventory, the agency provides complete 
information for 3 of the key elements and provides partial information 
for the remaining element. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
EPA provides complete information for 5 of the 10 elements evaluated, 
provides partial information for 1 element, and does not provide 
information for the remaining 4 elements. Table 22 provides our 
assessment of EPA's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 22: Assessment of Completeness of EPA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' space 
utilization and its storage use and capacity, but provides no 
information on its facilities' annual operational costs and its annual 
electricity cost and usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
goals, and does not provide any information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[End of table] 

General Services Administration: 

GSA plans to consolidate from 15 data centers to 3 by fiscal year 
2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are 
not complete. In its inventory, the agency provides complete 
information for 2 of the key elements and provides partial information 
for the remaining 2 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
GSA provides complete information for 8 of the 10 elements evaluated, 
provides partial information for 1 element, and does not provide 
information for the remaining element. Table 23 provides our 
assessment of GSA's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 23: Assessment of Completeness of GSA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on the systems in its 
data centers and the planned consolidation approach for each system, 
but provides only partial information on the systems' technical 
dependencies. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' annual 
operational costs and space utilization, and on its storage use and 
capacity. It provides only partial information on its annual 
electricity cost and usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides its savings goals, but provides only 
partial information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. 

[End of table] 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NASA plans to consolidate from 79 data centers to 57 by fiscal year 
2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are 
not complete. In its inventory, the agency provides partial 
information for 3 of the key elements and does not provide information 
for the remaining element. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, 
NASA provides complete information for 4 of the 10 elements evaluated, 
provides partial information for 1 element, and does not provide 
information for the remaining 5 elements. Table 24 provides our 
assessment of NASA's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 24: Assessment of Completeness of NASA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its count of 
physical servers, but provides no information on its maximum and 
average server utilization, or its counts of virtual hosts and virtual 
operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its 
facilities' space utilization, but does not provide its facilities' 
annual operational costs, its annual electricity cost and usage, and 
its storage use and capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its number of data 
centers, and provides partial information on its number of server 
rooms and closets. It does not provide information on the gross floor 
area of those facilities. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
goals, and does not provide any information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of NASA data. 

[End of table] 

National Science Foundation: 

NSF owns and operates one data center and utilizes one commercial data 
center. The agency aims to transition all operations to one commercial 
data center by fiscal year 2014. The agency's asset inventory is 
complete, but its consolidation plan is not. Specifically, NSF 
provides complete information for 7 of the 10 elements evaluated, and 
does not provide information for the remaining 3 elements. Agency 
officials stated that they have a master schedule and risk management 
plan, but acknowledged that they did not provide this information to 
OMB as part of their consolidation plan. Table 25 provides our 
assessment of NSF's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 25: Assessment of Completeness of NSF's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its number of data 
centers and their associated gross floor area. It reports that 
information on its server rooms and closets is not applicable. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of NSF data. 

[End of table] 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

NRC plans to consolidate from three existing data centers into one new 
center by fiscal year 2013. However, the agency's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan are not complete. In its inventory, the agency 
provides complete information for 3 of the key elements and provides 
partial information for the remaining element. Additionally, in its 
consolidation plan, NRC provides complete information for 4 of the 10 
elements evaluated, provides partial information for 1 element, and 
does not provide information for the remaining 5 elements. Table 26 
provides our assessment of NRC's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 26: Assessment of Completeness of NRC's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its count of physical 
servers and on its maximum and average server utilization, but 
provides only partial information on its counts of virtual hosts and 
virtual operating systems. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its number of data 
centers and their associated gross floor area. It reports that 
information on its server rooms and closets is not applicable. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides its utilization goals, but provides 
only partial information on its savings goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of NRC data. 

[End of table] 

Office of Personnel Management: 

OPM does not plan to further consolidate its one data center. Instead, 
the agency plans to continue to examine and execute ways to improve 
the efficiency of its IT operations, such as through virtualization. 
However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are not 
complete. In its inventory, the agency provides complete information 
for 1 key element and partial information for the remaining 3 
elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, OPM provides 
complete information for 5 of the 10 elements evaluated, provides 
partial information for 1 element, and does not provide information 
for the remaining 4 elements. Table 27 provides our assessment of 
OPM's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 27: Assessment of Completeness of OPM's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides a list of the systems in its data 
centers, but provides only partial information on the systems' 
technical dependencies and the planned consolidation approach for each 
system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' annual 
operational costs and space utilization, and on its annual electricity 
cost and usage. It provides no information on its storage use and 
capacity. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its number of data 
centers and the centers' gross floor area, but does not provide 
information on its number of server rooms and closets and the gross 
floor area of those facilities. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides some cost-benefit information, but 
acknowledges that a complete cost-benefit analysis has not yet been 
completed. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of table] 

Small Business Administration: 

SBA plans to reduce its number of data centers from four to two by 
fiscal year 2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and 
consolidation plan are not complete. In its inventory, the agency 
provides complete information for 1 key element and partial 
information for the remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its 
consolidation plan, SBA provides complete information for 5 of the 10 
elements evaluated, partial information for 1 element, and does not 
provide information for the remaining 4 elements. Table 28 provides 
our assessment of SBA's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 28: Assessment of Completeness of SBA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides counts of physical servers, virtual 
hosts, and virtual operating systems, but only partial information on 
maximum and average server utilization. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' space 
utilization and on its storage use and capacity, but provides only 
partial information on its facilities' annual operational costs and 
its annual electricity cost and usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its number of 
data centers and the associated gross floor area of those facilities. 
It reports that information on its server rooms and closets is not 
applicable. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides partial information on its savings 
and utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of SBA data. 

[End of table] 

Social Security Administration: 

SSA does not plan to further consolidate its two data centers. In line 
with the goals of the FDCCI, the agency plans to improve the 
efficiency, performance, and stability of its IT infrastructure by 
reducing the number of its remote operations control centers. However, 
the agency's asset inventory and consolidation plan are not complete. 
In its inventory, the agency provides partial information for all 4 
key elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, SSA provides 
complete information for 4 of the 10 elements evaluated, partial 
information for 1 element, and does not provide information for the 
remaining 5 elements. Table 29 provides our assessment of SSA's 
compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 29: Assessment of Completeness of SSA's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides a list of the systems in its data 
centers, but does not provide information on each system's technical 
dependencies and the planned consolidation approach for each system. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides counts of its physical servers, but 
does not provide counts of its virtual hosts and virtual operating 
systems, or information on maximum and average server utilization. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its facilities' space 
utilization, its annual electricity cost and usage, and on its storage 
use and capacity. It provides only partial information on its 
facilities' annual operational costs. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of data centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as the 
gross floor area associated with those facilities. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides its savings goals, but provides only 
partial information on its utilization goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USAID plans to consolidate from two data centers into one by fiscal 
year 2015. However, the agency's asset inventory and consolidation 
plan are not complete. In its inventory, the agency provides complete 
information for 1 key element and partial information for the 
remaining 3 elements. Additionally, in its consolidation plan, USAID 
provides complete information for 5 of the 10 elements evaluated, 
provides partial information for 1 element, and does not provide 
information for the remaining 4 elements. Table 30 provides our 
assessment of USAID's compliance with OMB's requirements. 

Table 30: Assessment of Completeness of USAID's Data Center 
Consolidation Documentation: 

Key inventory element: IT software assets; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key inventory element: IT hardware assets and utilization; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides counts of its physical servers, 
virtual hosts, and virtual operating systems, but only partial 
information on maximum and average server utilization. 

Key inventory element: IT facilities, energy, and storage; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides information on its storage use and 
capacity, but it provides only partial information on its facilities' 
annual operational costs and space utilization. It provides no 
information on its annual electricity cost and usage. 

Key inventory element: Geographic location and real estate; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides only partial information on its 
number of data centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as the 
gross floor area associated with those facilities. 

Key inventory element: Quantitative goals; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element; 
Description: The agency provides its utilization goals, but provides 
only partial information on its savings goals. 

Key plan element: Qualitative impacts; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation approach; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Consolidation scope; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: High-level timeline; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Performance metrics; 
GAO assessment: The agency provides complete information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency provides this element. 

Key plan element: Master program schedule; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Cost-benefit analysis; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Risk management; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Key plan element: Communications plan; 
GAO assessment: The agency does not provide information for this 
element; 
Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: OMB-Defined Approaches for Consolidating Data Centers: 

In its guidance on data center consolidations, OMB identified four 
approaches for agencies to consider while evaluating the feasibility 
of consolidating the individual systems found within each data center. 
OMB directed agencies to specify which of these approaches was to be 
utilized for each data center. The four approaches are as follows: 

* Decommissioning: the system is no longer in use or it is redundant 
and will be decommissioned. 

* Consolidation: the system will be consolidated onto a shared 
infrastructure with other similar systems. 

* Cloud computing: the system will be migrated to or replaced by 
Internet-based services and resources. 

* Virtualization: the system will be migrated to a virtual machine 
environment. 

In response to OMB's guidance, agencies reported that they will pursue 
a variety of consolidation approaches. Agency-specific examples of how 
these approaches will be employed are provided below. 

Decommissioning: 

Agencies may choose to decommission their underutilized physical 
servers as a part of their data center consolidation plans. For 
example, EPA plans to decommission more than 900 physical servers by 
2015. Also, Labor plans to decommission unused servers and storage 
hardware and replace inefficient hardware with "green IT" hardware. 
Further, GSA plans to identify and decommission inefficient and 
underutilized legacy servers and equipment. 

Agencies can also choose to decommission an entire data center by 
moving to an outsourced data center or reducing the number of physical 
assets. For example, as part of its data center consolidation 
initiative, NSF plans to decommission its single data center by fiscal 
year 2014 and to move to a commercial facility. Transportation plans 
to decommission data centers that spread out across multiple buildings 
and reduce the department's number of data centers by approximately 25 
percent by the close of fiscal year 2015. 

Consolidation: 

Consolidation is a means of combining workload onto fewer computers or 
concentrating data processing into fewer physical facilities. 
Physically moving data processing equipment from multiple locations to 
a lesser number of locations can assist agencies in reaching 
consolidation goals, such as reducing the cost of data center 
hardware, software, and operations, in addition to real estate and 
energy costs. For example, DHS has 43 principal data centers, all of 
which will be moved into one of two enterprise data centers by the end 
of fiscal year 2014. In addition, NASA plans to consolidate from 79 
data centers to 57 by fiscal year 2015. 

Cloud computing: 

Cloud computing is an emerging form of computing that relies on 
Internet-based services and resources to provide computing services to 
customers, while freeing them from the burden and costs of maintaining 
the underlying infrastructure.[Footnote 18] This approach is a form of 
delivering IT services that takes advantage of several broad 
evolutionary trends, including the use of virtualization;[Footnote 19] 
the decreased cost and increased speed of networked communications, 
such as the Internet; and overall increases in computing power. 
Examples of cloud computing include Web-based e-mail applications and 
common business applications that are accessed online through a 
browser instead of through a local computer. Several agencies are 
considering both cloud computing and virtualization as a means of 
achieving their consolidation goals. For example, SBA has plans to 
migrate commodity computing services such as Web hosting and messaging 
to cloud solutions. We have recently reported on challenges associated 
with the implementation of cloud computing.[Footnote 20] 

Virtualization: 

Virtual machines can be stored as files, making it possible to save a 
virtual machine and move it from one physical server to another. 
Virtualization is often used as part of cloud computing. For example, 
one Defense component reports that 45 percent of all server operating 
environments supporting customer workload in its data centers have 
been virtualized. State plans to reduce its environmental impact by 
hosting 70 percent of the department's servers on virtual 
infrastructure by 2015. Also, NRC has virtualized 41 Windows-based 
applications and has identified 50 additional applications to be 
virtualized by 2013. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department Of Commerce: 
The Secretary of Commerce: 
Washington, D.C. 20530: 

June 6, 2011: 

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

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report from the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office entitled, "Data Center 
Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to 
Achieve Expected Savings (GAO-It-565)." 

We concur with the general findings as they apply to the Department of 
Commerce and with the specific reporting on the Commerce Data Center 
Consolidation Plan. The Master Program Schedule will be addressed in 
the next update of the Data Center Consolidation Plan. 

If you have questions regarding this response, please contact Lisa 
Westerback in the Office of the Chief Information Officer at (202) 482-
0694 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Gary Locke 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Department of Defense: 
Chief Information Officer: 
6000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301: 

June 13, 2011: 

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

Dear Mr. Powner: 

This is the Department of Defense response to the GAO draft report 
114565 "Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings." dated July, 2011 
(GAO (ode 311234). 

The Department appreciates opportunity to comment. We partially concur 
with the first GAO recommendation and concur with the second 
recommendation. Our rationale for our partial concurrence is provided. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Teresa M. Takai: 

Enclosure: As stated. 

[End of letter] 

GAO Draft Report Dated May 20, 2011: 
GA0-11-565 (GAO Code, 311234): 

Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need To Complete Inventories And 
Plans To Achieve Expected Savings: 

Department 0f Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the component agencies and the data centers consolidation 
program managers to complete the missing elements in their respective 
data center consolidation plans and inventories. 

DoD Response: The Department of Defense partially concurs with this 
recommendation. Completing data center consolidation metrics will 
facilitate setting and monitoring progress toward the Department's 
goals for information technology infrastructure consolidation. Many 
data centers, however, are comprised of rooms within individual 
buildings for which detailed metrics on energy usage are not 
available. In addition, many buildings arc not metered, further
necessitating the use of models for estimating energy consumption. 
These metrics, if utilized in analysis, would result in inaccurate 
results, particularly if these metrics are utilized to extrapolate 
cost savings in out-years. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
require the data center consolidation program managers to consider 
consolidation challenges and lessons learned when updating their 
consolidation plans. 

DoD Response: The DoD concurs with this recommendation. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department of Education: 
Office of the Chief Information Officer: 
400 Maryland Avenue, SW: 
Washington, DC 20202: 

June 10, 2011: 

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

Dear Mr. Powner: 

I am writing to respond to recommendations made in the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Data Center Consolidation: 
Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected 
Savings" (GAO-11-565). This report focused on the federal government's 
demand for information technology (IT) that has led to a dramatic 
increase in the number of data centers and a corresponding increase in 
costs. 

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) appreciates the 
opportunity to respond to the GAO report and the need to promote the 
consolidation of data centers and decrease the costs for operation and 
maintenance. The Department's Office of the Chief Information Officer 
(OCIO) has a dedicated data center consolidation program manager who 
actively participates in the Data Center Consolidation Task Force. 

Since 1998, the Department has been operating and maintaining three 
major data centers and a minimal number of smaller-sized server rooms 
and closets. These data centers support our consolidated IT 
infrastructures representing 21 Principal Offices along with several 
education-related White I louse Initiatives, boards, and commissions. 
We believe the Department's approach to operating and maintaining data 
centers is consistent with the Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Initiative. 

Our responses to GAO's specific recommendations to the Secretaries and 
Agency Heads of the 24 departments and agencies participating in the 
federal data center consolidation initiative follow. 

Recommendation 1: Direct their component agencies and their data 
center consolidation program managers to complete the missing elements 
in their respective data center consolidation plans and inventories. 

Response: The Department concurs with this recommendation and will 
direct the data center consolidation program manager to complete, to 
the extent practicable, the missing elements in our data center 
consolidation plans and inventories based on the most current 
templates developed by the Data Center Consolidation Task Force. We 
note that the Department does not own any major data centers and has 
no arrangements to take ownership of any data centers at the end of 
any contracts. 

Recommendation 2: Require their data center consolidation program 
manager to consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned when 
updating their consolidation plans. 

Response: When updating our annual data center consolidation plan, the 
Department will consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned 
from our own consolidation experiences, relevant experiences from 
state and local efforts, and experiences from the efforts of other 
federal government members of the Data Center Consolidation Task Force. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the GAO report. If 
you or your staff has any questions, please contact David Harrity at 
(202) 245-6483 or david.harrity@ed.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Danny A. Harris, Ph.D. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

June 9, 2011: 

Mr. David A. Powner
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
411 G Street, NW: 
Washington. D.C. 20548: 

Dear Sir. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled 'Data Center 
Consolidation, Agencies Needed to Complete Inventory and Plans to 
Achieve Expected Savings.' We agree with your assessment of the
Agencies' Federal Data Center Consolidation (MCC) Plans as it pertains 
to the implementation methodology required by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The Department of Energy (DOE) is wholly supportive 
of OMB's goals for data center consolidation, data center energy 
efficiency. and reducing the operating costs of information technology 
(IT) infrastructure and data centers across federal Agencies. 

Acknowledging the challenges associated with collecting accurate 
information on our data centers. DOE is implementing the Data Center 
Profiling (DC-Pro) tool as a standard capability to baseline all data 
centers and collect the data needed to determine consolidation and 
optimization opportunities. 

DOE's approach for data center consolidation is integrated with the 
Department's Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP). as 
required by Executive Order (EO)11514. Using DC-Pro, all DOE Sites are 
required to conduct an energy assessment of each data center and
identify what IT and facility infrastructure improvements are needed 
to achieve a Power Utilization Effectiveness (PUI) of 1.4, as outlined 
in D01:s SSPP. Data center optimization projects will compete with 
other sustainability projects for funding. During this process DOE
expects to identify which data centers are worthy of further 
investment and which are candidates for closure. This implementation 
methodology ensures that a complete business assessment is conducted 
for each data center and the consolidation and optimization activities 
are properly aligned and prioritized with other sustainability 
projects. 

Additionally. the Department intends to evaluate the use of 
alternative financing vehicles, such as the Energy Savings Performance 
Contract (FSPC) and Utility Energy Service Contract (UESC) to finance 
data center consolidation and optimization projects. 

We have the following comments to the report that we would like to 
provide for your consideration: 

1. In accordance with the OMB FDCCI implementation methodology and 
reporting requirements, DOF will focus on the headquarters program and 
staff office and federal site office data centers for its Data Center 
Consolidation Plan. The Management and Operating (M&O) contractor 
operated data centers will he addressed through the SSPP 
implementation methodology. 

2. DOE will conduct a complete inventory of its non-M&O data centers 
and submit to OMB by 30 June 2011. 

3. DOE will update the Data Center Consolidation Plan and submit to 
OMB by 30 June 2011. 

4. DOE will document its data center best management practices and 
report to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) in 
the annual SSPP. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this report. We share 
the GAO's goal to reduce the number of federal data centers. improve 
energy efficiency and reduce operating costs for both IT and data 
center infrastructure. DOE remains fully committed to meeting the 
objectives of the FDCCI and EO 13514. If you have any questions, 
please contact Jake Wooley of my staff at (702) 234-1645. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

[Illegible] for: 

Fabion F. Husson II: 
Director: 
Corporate IT Project Management Office: 
Office of the Chief Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Department Of Health And Human Services: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 
Washington, DC 20201: 

June 13, 2011: 

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

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) draft report entitled, "Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need 
to Complete inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings" (GAO 11-
565). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report prior 
to publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim R. Esquea: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Attachment: 

[End of letter] 

General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) 
On The Government Accountability Office's (GA0) Draft Report Entitled, 
"Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need To Complete Inventories And 
Plans To Achieve Expected Savings" (GAO-11-565): 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on 
this draft report. 

We believe the draft report accurately depicts the HHS data center 
consolidation plan as it was delivered to OMB in August of 2010; 
however, we have made improvements in the completeness and accuracy of 
our asset inventory data and have made significant progress towards 
meeting our data center consolidation goals since the audit timeframe. 
Also, our current data center consolidation goal is to consolidate 
from 176 data centers to 142 by FY 2015. 

Below you will find the status of the missing and incomplete elements 
identified in the draft report. 

Section I: Key Inventory Elements: 

Since the Department submitted its data center consolidation plan to 
OMB, several adjustments have been made, due to OMB modifying its 
definition of data centers. OMB now excludes both commercially owned 
and commercially operated (COCO) data centers and network operation 
facilities, which had been included in our initial plan. Our initial 
plan had several instances of missing information due to untimely data 
replies from our data centers and COCO vendors, which we were able to 
eliminate due to the refined definition. 

IT Software Assets: 

All data centers and their software assets will be modeled and tracked 
in the HHS Enterprise Architecture Repository by the end FY 2011. This 
will enable system redundancies and consolidation opportunities to be 
easily identified. Detailed system mapping data and system 
consolidation plans will be available by the end of FY 2012. 

IT Hardware Assets and Utilization: 

We are currently at 95% compliance on having complete OMB-required 
data on server counts, number of virtual hosts, and the number of 
virtual operating systems in the data centers owned and operated by 
HHS. The physical server count and virtual server information should 
be 100% complete in our end of FY 2011 asset inventory submission. We 
expect our server utilization data to improve over the next 12 months 
as our Operating Divisions (OpDivs; i.e., CDC, CMS, FDA, NIH, etc.) 
comply with our data center management policy. 

IT Facilities, Energy, and Storage: 

Our energy usage data is incomplete because many of the data centers 
that the Department owns and operates do not currently meter their 
energy usage. Our Data Center Management Policy and the HHS Strategic 
Sustainability Performance Plan require data centers to meter their 
energy usage, and we anticipate providing a more complete energy usage 
profile in our annual asset inventory submission at the end of FY 
2012. (A delaying factor in the installation of energy meters was the 
uncertainty on which exact data centers would be closed for 
consolidation, because it would not be efficient to install this 
equipment in centers that could potentially be closed.) 

Geographical Location and Real Estate: 

This section should be 100% complete when we submit our annual OMB 
Data Center Consolidation Initiative (DCCI) asset inventory update to 
OMB at the end of FY 2011. 

Section II: Key Plan Elements Quantitative Goals: 

The plan delivered to OMB contained our estimated data center 
reduction target as our primary quantitative goal. The data center 
reduction target has recently been refined and validated. Our OpDivs 
are developing their detailed data center consolidation plans which 
will include consolidation processes/procedures and schedules. These 
plans will provide details on numbers of servers to consolidate and/or 
virtualize. The server virtualization and rack utilization data will 
be used to establish quantitative goals for server, rack utilization, 
and floor space reduction goals. 

Performance Metrics: 

The HHS Data Center Management Policy was signed by the HHS Chief 
Information Officer (C10) on March 22, 2011. Its purpose is to 
establish policies and responsibilities for operating data centers 
efficiently throughout HHS. The primary focus of this Policy is to 
enable achievement of the HHS consolidation goals in OMB's DCCI and to 
satisfy environmental and energy directives and requirements 
associated with HHS data centers and given in Executive Orders 13423 
and 13514. 

The policy establishes several key performance metrics/goals for HHS 
data centers such as: data center size, asset utilization (processor, 
memory, and rack), data center operating temperature, server count, 
and equipment refresh. All HHS data center owners must certify 
annually that their data centers are in compliance with the policy. 

Master Program Schedule: 

On May 13, 2011, our OpDivs confirmed which data centers they will 
close and provided projected closing dates. By the end of June 2011 
they will provide consolidation project schedules (based on the 
project phases identified by OMB) for each data center that will 
close. The phases tracked by OMB are: Inventory, Application Mapping, 
Migration Planning, Migration Execution, and Equipment Removal. A 
master project schedule will be developed from the plans submitted for 
the individual data centers. 

Cost Benefit Analysis: 

The HHS Data Center Management Policy requires our OpDivs to develop a 
cost benefit analysis for each data center they plan to close. The 
policy identifies three primary steps in the cost benefit analysis 
development process: 1. Verify the accuracy and validity of the data 
that was provided during the asset inventory phase of the DCCI, 2. 
Determine the costs of moving and maintaining the data center 
functions in the new environment, and 3. Contrast the costs
of moving and maintaining the functions with costs of remaining status 
quo. We expect all OpDivs to submit these cost benefit analyses by the 
end of Summer 2011. 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

June 10, 2011: 

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

Re: Draft Report GA0-11-565, "Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need 
to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings" 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

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

The Department is pleased to note the report recognizes the progress 
DHS and other participating agencies have made developing data center 
inventories and consolidation plans under Office of Management and 
Budget leadership. DHS particularly appreciates GAO's acknowledgment 
that the cost benefit analysis portion of DHS's plan detailed full 
annualized investment and savings estimates through Fiscal Year (FY) 
2015 and that the plan referenced a completed master program schedule. 

The draft report contained two recommendations directed to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. As discussed below, DHS concurs with 
both recommendations. 

Recommendation 1: "Direct their component agencies and data center 
consolidation program managers to complete the missing elements in 
data center consolidation plans and inventories." 

Response: Concur. The DHS Office of the Chief Information Officer 
(OCIO), Information Technology Services Office Data Center 
Consolidation Division will be conducting a data call in June 2011 
requesting DHS Components to respond to questions related to enhancing
DHS's submission to the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative. 
Specifically, DHS is planning to satisfy missing elements in its 
inventory, including information on IT facilities, software and 
hardware assets, utilization and savings, location, and real estate. 

Recommendation 2: "Require their data center consolidation program 
managers to consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned when 
updating consolidation plans." 

Response: Concur. Beginning in 2008, DHS and its service providers 
have conducted an evaluation during the close-out phase of every 
migration project to document challenges, strategies, and lessons 
learned for use in future migration efforts. Additionally, at a higher 
level, DHS is actively involved in sharing its lessons learned with 
the Federal Chief Information Officers Council and other agencies and 
departments. DHS has applied these lessons learned, for instance, in 
the implementation of the FY 2010-2011 centralized migration funding 
process. 

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

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

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

June 9, 2011: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft Government Accountability Office 
Report entitled, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings (GA0-11-565). 

The Department of the Interior appreciates the opportunity to review 
the draft report and concurs with the findings and recommendations.
We provide general and technical comments in the enclosure. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please 
contact Bruce Downs at (703)648-5681 or Maria Clark at (303)969-5154. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Rhea Suh: 
Assistant Secretary: 
Policy, Management and Budget: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

June 10, 2011: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report GAO-11-565, Data Center 
Consolidation: Agencies Weed to Complete Inventories and Plans to 
Achieve Expected Savings. We appreciate the GAO's efforts and the 
insight the report provides. 

After carefully reviewing the latest iteration of the GAO report, the 
Department of Labor has no comments to contribute at this time and we 
thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Should you have any questions regarding the Department's response, 
please contact Mr. Thomas C. Wiesner, Deputy Chief Information 
Officer, at Wiesner.Thomas@dol.gov or 202-693-4420. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

T. Michael Kerr: 
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management: 

cc: Thomas C. Wiesner, Deputy CIO: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

June 17, 2011: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Data 
Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans 
to Achieve Expected Savings," GAO Job Code 311234. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Ken Rogers, Director, at (202) 634-0405 and Cynthia Cassil, Director,
Bureau of Information Resource Management at (202) 634-3877. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: GAO — Dave Powner: 
IRM — Susan H. Swart: 
State/OIG — Evelyn Klemstine: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories
and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings (GAO-11-565 GAO Code 311234): 

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on 
GAO's draft report entitled "Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need 
to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings." 

Recommendation: Direct their component agencies and their data center
consolidation program managers to complete the missing elements in 
their respective data center consolidation plans and inventories. 

Response: The Department concurs with the recommendation and has 
listed these elements by subject in bullet format for clarity: 

* Element: Geographic location and real estate: 

GAO Assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element. 

GAO Description: The agency provides information on its number of 
centers, server rooms, and closets, as well as the gross floor area of 
its data centers. It does not provide information on the gross floor 
area of its server rooms and closets. 

Response: We will provide estimates of the gross floor area of 
Department server rooms and closets in the July update to our asset 
inventory. 

* Element: Quantitative goals: 

GAO Assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element. 

GAO Description: The agency provides partial information on its 
savings and utilization goals. 

Response: Between the DCC Program Goals table in Section 2 (Department 
Goals for Data Center Consolidation) and the Savings Metrics table in 
Appendix B, we believe that the Department of State plan provides 
complete information for this element. We will be more explicit in the
September update to the plan to use the specific wording that the OMB 
direction provided. 

* Element: Performance goals: 

GAO Assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element. 

GAO Description: The agency reports that it maintains metrics at the 
system and process performance levels, but does not include specific 
metrics. 

Response: We responded in as much detail as possible considering the 1 
page limit set by the OMB direction for Section 5. In addition, specific
quantitative and qualitative metrics are provided for each Program 
Goal in Table 1 — DCC Program Goals in Section 2. We will be more 
explicit in the September update to the plan to provide the specific 
metrics in this section. 

* Element: Master program schedule: 

GAO Assessment: The agency does not provide this element. 

GAO Description: The agency does not provide this element. 

Response: We believe that we responded in as much detail as possible 
considering the 1 page limit set by the OMB direction for Section 5. 
We described our program schedule at a high level and presented our 
high-level timeline for the program. We will be more explicit in the 
September update to the plan to state that we have created a master 
program schedule and are using it to manage our program. 

* Element: Cost-benefit analysis: 

GAO Assessment: The agency provides some, but not all, aspects of the 
element. 

GAO Description: The agency provides cost estimates and avoidances 
through fiscal year 2015, but acknowledges that the estimates do not 
include some types of costs. 

Response: We will provide cost estimates for the missing elements in the
September update to the plan, including labor and other non-facility 
O&M costs for non-ESOC Data Centers and CAPEX Costs avoided for 
decommissioned Data Centers. 

Recommendation: Require their data center consolidation program 
managers to consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned when 
updating their consolidation. 

Response: The Department of State concurs with the recommendation. The
Department will address consolidation challenges and lessons learned 
in the September update to the plan. 

[End of section] 

Appendix XIV: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Department Of The Treasury: 
Washington, D.C. 20220: 

June 14, 2011: 

Ms. Colleen Phillips: 
Assistant Director: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Phillips: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
report entitled: 'Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings." We have reviewed 
the report and appreciate the GAO's engagement in this important 
effort. 

In response to the last two Recommendations for Executive Action 
listed on pages 13 and 34, Treasury has started its annual data center 
inventory collection for Fiscal Year 2011 including addressing any 
missing data elements. Additionally, it has been Treasury's intent to 
collect and leverage Data Center Consolidation challenges and lessons 
learned when updating its Data Center Consolidation plans. 

Treasury is committed to the Data Center Consolidation effort and 
appreciates the recommendations in your report. Please contact me if 
you have any questions about this response. I can be reached on 202-
622-1200. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Robyn East: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems and Chief 
Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Department Of Veterans Affairs: 
Washington DC 20420: 

June 9, 2011: 

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

Dear Mr. Powner: 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Data Center Consolidation:
Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected 
Savings" (GA0-11-565) and generally agrees with GAO's conclusions and 
concurs with GAO's recommendations to the Department. 

The enclosure specifically addresses GAO's recommendations. VA 
appreciates the opportunity to comment on your draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John R. Gingrich: 
Chief of Staff: 

Enclosure: 

[End of letter] 

Enclosure: 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Comments to Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report: Data Center Consolidation: 
Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected 
Savings (GA0-11-565). 

GAO Recommendation: We are making two recommendations to each of the 
Secretaries and Agency Heads of the 24 departments and agencies 
participating in the federal data center consolidation initiative. 
Specifically, we are recommending that the Secretaries and Agency 
Heads: 

Recommendation 1: Direct their component agencies and their data 
center consolidation program managers to complete the missing elements 
in their respective data center consolidation plans and inventories. 

VA Comment: Concur. VA will issue a data call to identify and 
reconcile missing elements in our data center consolidation plan. We 
estimate that the survey will be completed and data analyzed by 
September 30, 2011. 

Recommendation 2: Require their data center consolidation program 
managers to consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned when 
updating their consolidation plans. 

VA Comment: Concur. VA will add narrative responses on consolidation 
challenges and lessons learned to our consolidation plan updates to 
the Office of Management and Budget. 

[End of section] 

Appendix XVI: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Washington, DC 20460: 

June 7, 2011: 

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

Re: Comments on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft 
report: Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings (Report No. GAO-11-
565). 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciates the 
opportunity to provide comments on the GAO's draft report entitled 
Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and 
Plans to Achieve Expected Savings (Report No. GAO-11-565). 

I offer two points of clarification, one regarding the recommendation 
for executive action (pages 32-34), and the second addresses the 
summary assessment of the EPA's Data Center Consolidation Plan 
provided on page 57. 

First, in regards to your recommendation requiring agencies to 
complete missing elements of the plan, or provide a schedule to do so 
by September 30, 2011, EPA will continue efforts to virtualize, 
optimize and consolidate information technology (IT) infrastructure 
across all EPA server rooms, and will focus its efforts on plan 
reporting and inventory of the four primary data centers and server 
rooms greater than 500 square feet, consistent with current direction 
from the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore, our response to 
this recommendation will be within this context. 

Pertaining to the EPA's missing annual operating and electricity costs 
information described on page 57 of the report, the majority of EPA 
server rooms are located within leased space managed by the U.S. 
General Services Administration, where electricity and facility costs 
are included in the overall lease agreement. As a result, EPA will 
estimate operating electrical use for these rooms, but the cost-
benefit analysis will not reflect a reduction in agency real estate 
costs or electricity consumption, because reductions in server room 
square footage and electrical consumption do not result in cost 
savings to the agency. 

Lastly, EPA's plan designates four primary server rooms as 
consolidation points for the agency. As part of the plan, enterprise 
applications and servers will be consolidated into these rooms. 
Therefore, the following statements on page 57 do not accurately 
characterize the agency's plan. "The Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) does not plan to further consolidate its four data centers." 
"Instead, the agency plans to focus on achieving efficiencies via 
virtualization within the four existing centers." EPA's plan is more 
accurately characterized as follows: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated four data 
centers as primary data centers for the EPA's consolidation effort. 
These data centers will provide EPA hosting for enterprise 
applications, email, backup and disaster recovery services. By 2015, 
EPA will close over 20 server rooms and eliminate 900 physical servers 
through a combination of visualization, consolidation and outsourcing 
efforts that maximize the efficiency of the four primary data centers 
and the remaining campus server rooms. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. EPA appreciates the 
evaluation and assessment efforts made by the GAO to ensure data 
center consolidation plans and inventories are complete. If you would 
like to discuss these matters further, please contact me at 202-564-
6665, or your staff may contact David Updike, Acting Director of the 
EPA National Computer Center, at 919-541-0780. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Malcolm D. Jackson: 
Administrative Assistant and Chief Information Officer: 

cc: Vaughn Noga: 
Tim Thorpe: 
Johnny Davis: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XVII: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

The Administrator: 
U.S. General Services Administration: 
1275 First Street NE: 
Washington, DC 20417: 
Telephone: (202) 501-0030: 
Fax (202) 219-1243:  

June 23, 2011: 

The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:  

Dear Mr. Dodaro:  

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the 
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report, "Data Center 
Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to 
Achieve Expected Savings" (GAO-11-605). 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends that the 
Administrator of General Services direct the GSA data center 
consolidation program manager to:  

1. Complete the missing elements of the GSA data center consolidation 
plan and inventory; and;  

2. Consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned when updating 
the GSA data center consolidation plan.  

We agree with the findings and recommendations of the draft report and 
will take actions commensurate with those recommendations.  

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
Staff inquiries may be directed to Ms. Casey Coleman, Chief 
Information Officer. She can be reached at (202) 501-1000.  

Sincerely,  

Signed by: 

Martha Johnson: 
Administrator:  

cc: Mr. David A. Powner, 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
GAO: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XVIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 
Headquarters: 
Washington, DC 20546-0001: 

June 16, 2011: 

Reply to the attention of: Office of the Chief Information Officer: 

David A. Powner: 
Director: 
Information Technology Management Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) appreciates 
the opportunity to review and comment on your draft report entitled, 
"Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and 
Plans to Achieve Expected Savings" (GA0-11-565). In the draft report, 
GAO makes two recommendations to each of the Secretaries and Agency 
Heads of the 24 departments and agencies participating in the federal 
data center consolidation initiative to better ensure that the 
initiative improves governmental efficiency and achieves cost savings. 

Recommendation 1: The Secretaries and Agency Heads should direct their 
component agencies and their data center consolidation program 
managers to complete the missing elements in their respective data 
center consolidation plans and inventories. 

Response: NASA concurs with the GAO recommendation. NASA is currently 
working on completing any missing elements in the Agency's data center 
consolidation plan and updating its inventory in accordance with OMB's 
current template. The update will be completed by June 30, 2011, or as 
required by OMB. 

Recommendation 2: The Secretaries and Agency Heads should require 
their data center consolidation program managers to consider 
consolidation challenges and lessons learned when updating their 
consolidation plans. 

Response: NASA concurs with the GAO recommendation. The NASA 
Enterprise Service Executive for Data Centers will continue to 
consider consolidation challenges and incorporate lessons learned as 
NASA's consolidation plans are updated. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please 
contact the NASA Enterprise Service Executive for Data Centers, Karen 
Petraska, at (202) 358-3722. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Linda Cureton: 
Chief Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XIX: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001: 

June 13, 2011: 

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

Dear Mr. Powner: 

In response to your May 20, 2011, email regarding the draft report 
entitled Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete 
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings (GA0-11-565), the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no comments. 

Please contact Marvin Bell of my staff at 301-415-7174 or 
Marvin.Bell@nrc.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 
Darren B. Ash: 
Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management: 
Office of the Executive Director for Operations: 

[End of section] 

Appendix XX: Comments from the Social Security Administration: 

Social Security: 
Social Security Administration: 
Baltimore, MD 21235-0001; 

June 21, 2011: 

Mr. David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report, "Data 
Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans 
to Achieve Expected Savings." Our response is enclosed. 

If you have any questions, please contact me, or have your staff 
contact Frances Cord, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Stag, at 
(410) 966-5787. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Dean S. Landis: 
Deputy Chief of Staff: 

Enclosure: 

[End of letter] 

Social Security Administration Comments On The Government 
Accountability Office Draft Report, "Data Center Consolidation: 
Agencies Need To Complete Inventories And Plans To Achieve Expected 
Savings" (GAO-11-565): 

Recommendation 1: 

Agency Heads should direct component agencies and their data center 
consolidation program Managers to complete the missing elements in 
their respective data center consolidation plans and inventories. 

Response: 

We disagree. As you note, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
required us and 23 other agencies to submit data center inventories 
and consolidation plans by August 2010. We complied with the directive 
and responded to subsequent questions and comments from OMB. On page 64,
Table 29, under "Key inventory element," you indicate we only 
partially complied with four elements of OMB's directive. Under "Key 
plan element," you note partial compliance with one element. We 
disagree with your assessment we responded to the directive timely and 
to OMB's satisfaction. 

Similarly, under "Key plan element," you note five elements where we 
provided no information. We do not plan to consolidate our two data 
centers, as you acknowledge in the first sentence, first paragraph 
page 64; therefore, these elements arc not applicable. 

We meet the overarching goals of the Federal Data Center Consolidation 
Initiative (FDCCI). We are independently hosting smaller 
virtualization and consolidation efforts to reduce the footprint of 
our remote operation control centers to improve efficiency, 
performance, and stability of our information technology 
infrastructure. 

Recommendation 2: 

Agency Heads should require their data center consolidation program 
managers to consider consolidation challenges and lessons learned when 
updating their consolidation plans. 

Response: 

We agree. We participate in the FDCCI workgroup and share best 
practices and experiences with other participating agencies. 

[End of section] 

Appendix XXI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Joel C. Willemssen, (202) 512-6253 or willemssenj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Colleen Phillips (Assistant 
Director), Neil Doherty, Rebecca Eyler, Nancy Glover, Dave Hinchman, 
Linda Kochersberger, and Jessica Waselkow made key contributions to 
this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For more information on the classifications used to define 
availability requirements, see Uptime Institute, Industry Standard 
Tier Classifications Define Site Infrastructure Performance (Santa Fe, 
N.Mex.: 2005). 

[2] "Green IT" refers to environmentally sound computing practices 
that can include a variety of efforts, such as using energy efficient 
data centers, purchasing computers that meet certain environmental 
standards, and recycling obsolete electronics. 

[3] Virtualization is a technology that allows multiple, software-
based virtual machines, with different operating systems, to run in 
isolation, side by side, on the same physical machine. Cloud computing 
is an emerging form of computing that relies on Internet-based 
services and resources to provide computing services to customers, 
while freeing them from the burden and costs of maintaining the 
underlying infrastructure. 

[4] As of April 2011, the two CIOs were from the Departments of 
Homeland Security and the Interior. 

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

[6] The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) submitted a 
letter in lieu of consolidation documentation stating that the agency 
completed its data center consolidation effort and asserting that the 
agency does not own any data centers and has no arrangements to take 
ownership of any data centers at the end of any contracts. Thus, it 
did not submit inventories or consolidation plans. 

[7] This figure differs from OMB's July 2010 reported number of 2,094 
centers because five agencies revised their number of data centers 
after the July 2010 number was calculated. Also, as noted later in 
this report, there are gaps in agency inventories, so the number of 
centers is likely to change. 

[8] GAO, Agencies' Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act: An 
Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18] 
(Washington, D.C.: February 1998). 

[9] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its 
Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure 
Data Accuracy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011). 

[10] Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. 
L. No. 111-203, Titles I, V, and X, 124 Stat. 1376, July 21, 2010. 

[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18]. 

[12] GAO, NASA: Better Mechanisms Needed for Sharing Lessons Learned, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-195] (Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 30, 2002) and Information Technology: DOD Needs to Leverage 
Lessons Learned from Its Outsourcing Projects, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-371] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 
2003). 

[13] See [hyperlink, http://www.cio.gov/admin-pages.cfm/page/fdcci]. 

[14] This includes the department secretaries and agency heads of the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, 
Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, 
Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National 
Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of 
Personnel Management, the Small Business Administration, the Social 
Security Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. 

[15] In responding to a draft of this report, the department reported 
a revised goal of consolidating from 176 data centers to 142 by fiscal 
year 2015. 

[16] In responding to a draft of this report, the department reported 
a revised goal of consolidating from 210 data centers to 115 by fiscal 
year 2015. 

[17] In responding to a draft of this report, the department reported 
a revised goal of consolidating 92 data centers to 4 by fiscal year 
2018. 

[18] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines 
cloud computing as a means "for enabling convenient, on-demand network 
access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can 
be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or 
service provider interaction." NIST began developing its definition in 
November 2008, and its most recent version, version 15, was released 
in October 2009. See NIST, The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing, 
version 15 (Gaithersburg, Md., Oct. 7, 2009). 

[19] Virtualization is a technology that allows multiple software-
based virtual machines that have different operating systems, to run 
in isolation, side by side, on the same physical machine. Virtual 
machines can be stored as files, making it possible to save a virtual 
machine and move it from one physical server to another. 
Virtualization is often used as part of cloud computing. 

[20] GAO, Information Security: Federal Guidance Needed to Address 
Control Issues with Implementing Cloud Computing, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-513] (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 
2010). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

Order by Phone: 

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

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

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

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

Contact: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

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