Architect of the Capitol: Midyear Status Report on Implementation
of
Management Review Recommendations (31-AUG-04, GAO-04-966).
The Conference Report on the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003, directed GAO to monitor AOC's progress in
implementing recommendations contained in GAO's management review
of AOC's operations, issued in January 2003. This is the second
status report in which GAO examines the actions taken by AOC to
implement selected GAO recommendations. Additionally, the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, mandated GAO to
assess AOC's Chief Operating Officer's (COO) action plan. This
report provides that assessment.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-966
ACCNO: A12073
TITLE: Architect of the Capitol: Midyear Status Report on
Implementation of
Management Review Recommendations
DATE: 08/31/2004
SUBJECT: Accountability
Computer security
Cost accounting
Financial statements
Information resources management
Internal controls
Occupational safety
Performance measures
Reporting requirements
Strategic planning
Financial statement audits
Recycling
Industrial relations
Stakeholder consultations
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-966
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Committees
August 2004
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Midyear Status Report on Implementation of Management Review Recommendations
a
GAO-04-966
Highlights of GAO-04-966, a report to Congressional committees.
The Conference Report on the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,
directed GAO to monitor AOC's progress in implementing recommendations
contained in GAO's management review of AOC's operations, issued in
January 2003. This is the second status report in which GAO examines the
actions taken by AOC to implement selected GAO recommendations.
Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, mandated
GAO to assess AOC's Chief Operating Officer's (COO) action plan. This
report provides that assessment.
GAO makes 13 additional recommendations to assist AOC in its management
control efforts- such as stakeholder involvement, auditable financial
statements and related internal controls, financial reporting for
operating units and cost accounting, and Capitol complex master
planning-and to enhance the COO action plan. The Architect noted his
agreement with each of our recommendations, except for three that
addressed worker safety performance measures, Capitol complex master
planning, and the process for prioritizing projects. GAO continues to
believe that additional efforts are needed, but revised two of the three
recommendations- master planning and project prioritization-to address the
Architect's concerns and provide greater clarity.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-966.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202)
512-6806 or [email protected].
August 2004
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Midyear Status Report on Implementation of Management Review Recommendations
AOC has made progress on key management control issues, but substantial
work remains to achieve sustained, long-term management improvements and
organizational transformation. These key issues include (1) stakeholder
involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable financial
statements and related internal controls, (4) financial reporting for
operating units and cost accounting, (5) information security management,
(6) worker safety performance measures, (7) Capitol complex master
planning, and (8) strategic management of recycling.
For example, AOC has not fully engaged its congressional and other
stakeholders in developing a clear, transparent, and documented
understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how progress will be
assessed. AOC has taken some steps to involve its stakeholders by
delivering planning documents and responding to requests for information.
AOC has made progress addressing employee communications issues and can
maintain momentum by fully and effectively implementing its planned
initiatives. AOC has made progress in preparing auditable agencywide
financial statements; however, it has deferred the audit of a complete set
of financial statements from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. Also,
substantial work remains before AOC can provide its managers with the
meaningful financial, cost, and performance information needed to enhance
their management of operating units. AOC has continued to make some
progress establishing the management foundation for effective information
security management, but much remains to be accomplished, such as
completing system risk assessments and monitoring and evaluating its
security policies and controls. Additionally, AOC has developed
performance measures to track worker safety, but work remains to ensure
successful implementation of these measures. In regard to project
management, AOC has taken steps to develop a Capitol complex master plan
and expects it to be available for stakeholder comment in February 2006.
Given the importance of the master plan, stakeholder involvement early in
and throughout its development is key to the plan's ultimate acceptance
and value. Similarly, AOC has made progress developing a mission statement
and goals for its recycling program as part of its broader Environmental
Program Plan, although AOC does not expect to obtain congressional input
until after the plan has been completed-an important omission.
The Architect and the COO need to work with Congress to determine
Congress' information needs-with a specific focus on AOC's project
management-and the timing and format of delivery of that information that
will best meet Congress' needs. The COO Action Plan was submitted to
Congress on December 22, 2003-59 days late. Overall, the plan's high-level
description of action items assumes that Congress and other users have a
deep and detailed knowledge of AOC's goals, internal operations, and
management functions-a level of knowledge that is not reasonable to
expect.
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
AOC Has Yet to Fully Engage Congressional and Other
Stakeholders
AOC Has Made Progress toward Implementing an Employee
Communications Strategy
Progress Made in Preparing Auditable Financial Statements and
Establishing Related Internal Controls
Substantial Work Remains on Providing Financial Reporting for
Operating Units and Implementing Cost Accounting Processes
and Procedures
AOC Has Continued to Make Progress Implementing Its Information
Security Program
AOC Has Made Progress in Developing Safety Performance
Measures, but Implementation of Measures Are a Work in
Progress
AOC Has Taken Steps to Develop a Capitol Complex Master Plan,
but Lack of Congressional and Other Stakeholder Involvement
and Delays Hamper Additional Progress
AOC Made Progress Toward Adopting a More Strategic Approach to
its Recycling Program
COO Action Plan Addresses Six Business Areas, butLacks Sufficient
Details to Guide and Communicate the COO's Performance and
Progress
Concluding Observations
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1
2 11 13
14
17
21
23 27
29
33 35
37 40 40
Appendixes
Appendix I: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol 44
Appendix II: Staff Acknowledgments 56
Table Table 1: Key Issue and Corresponding Prior Recommendations 3
Contents
Abbreviations
AE Architect/Engineer
AOC Architect of the Capitol
CFO Chief Financial Officer
COO Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer
EA Enterprise Architecture
EAC Employee Advisory Council
FCA Facility Condition Assessments
HRMD Human Resources Management Division
IT Information Technology
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
SHEC Safety, Health, and Environment Council
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. However, 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.
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
August 31, 2004
The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Chairman
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Jack Kingston
Chairman
The Honorable James P. Moran
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Trent Lott
Chairman
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Rules and Administration
United States Senate
This is our second semiannual report on the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol (AOC), as required by the Conference Report on the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003.1 This report evaluates AOC's progress
since December 1, 2003, in establishing select elements of a strategic
management and accountability framework, including strong management
infrastructure and controls, to drive its agency transformation efforts
and
to address long-standing program issues. In January 2004, we completed
the first semiannual review and issued a report on AOC's progress from
January 18, 2003, through November 30, 2003, in implementing
recommendations outlined in our January 2003 report.2
1 H.R. Rep. No. 108-10, accompanying Pub. L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003).
2 GAO, Architect of the Capitol: Status Report on Implementation of
Management Review Recommendations, GAO-04-299 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30,
2004); and Architect of the Capitol: Management and Accountability
Framework Needed for Organizational Transformation, GAO-03-231
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2003).
Based on our past reviews of AOC's progress implementing our
recommendations, this report focuses on eight key management control
issues that deserve near-term attention. These are (1) stakeholder
involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable financial
statements and related internal controls, (4) financial reporting for
operating units and cost accounting, (5) information security management,
(6) worker safety performance measures, (7) Capitol complex master
planning,3 and (8) strategic management of recycling. Each key issue is
linked to one or more of our prior recommendations. As mandated by the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, this report also assesses
the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer (COO) Action Plan that was
issued in December 2003. We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from
April 2004 through July 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief During the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress on all
eight key management control issues, but substantial work remains to
achieve sustained, long-term management improvements and organizational
transformation. These key issues, as well as our corresponding prior
recommendations, are listed in table 1.
3 In previous GAO reports, we used the phrase Capitol Hill complex master
plan. In his written comments, the Architect requested that the term
"Hill" be omitted to ensure consistency with the AOC strategic plan, the
master plan contract, and other related documentation. We have made this
change throughout the report.
Table 1: Key Issue and Corresponding Prior Recommendations
Key Issue-Stakeholder Involvement
Corresponding Prior Recommendations:
(1) Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving
key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC's strategic
planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from
these efforts.
(2) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications by completing the development of congressional protocols by
involving stakeholders.
(3) Conduct a pilot of its congressional protocols in one or more of its
jurisdictions to determine how well its protocols would work in addressing
customer requests for service, while balancing the needs of multiple
requests with the strategic plan and corresponding project priorities of
the agency.
(4) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications by improving annual accountability reporting through annual
performance planning and reporting.
Key Issue-Employee Communications
Corresponding Prior Recommendations:
(5) Strengthen AOC's human capital policies, procedures, and processes by
assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and analyze
data from the various employee relations offices and employee advisory
council while maintaining employee confidentiality.
(6) Establish a direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson and
the Architect consistent with professional standards.
(7) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications by providing opportunities for routine employee input and
feedback.
(8) Gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys
before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking actions
to address any identified employee concerns.
Key Issue-Auditable Financial Statements and Related Internal Controls,
and Key Issue-Financial Reporting for Operating Units and Cost Accounting
Corresponding Prior Recommendation:
(9) Continue to improve AOC's approach to financial management by
developing strategies to institutionalize financial management practices
that will support budgeting, financial, and program management at AOC.
Key Issue-Information Security Management
Corresponding Prior Recommendation:
(10) Establish and implement an information security program.
Specifically, the Architect should establish an information security
program by taking the following steps:
o designate a security officer and provide him or her with the authority
and resources to implement an agencywide security program,
o develop and implement policy and guidance to perform risk assessments
continually,
o use the results of the risk assessments to develop and implement
appropriate controls,
o develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the
training, and
o monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.
Key Issue-Worker Safety Performance Measures
Corresponding Prior Recommendations:
(11) Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives,
including measures for how AOC will implement 43 specialized safety
programs and how superintendents and employees will be held accountable
for achieving results.
(12) Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the
goals of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness of the
training provided.
(Continued From Previous Page)
(13) Establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss
workers' compensation cases and costs, and develop strategies to reduce
these injuries and costs.
Key Issue-Capitol Complex Master Planning
Corresponding Prior Recommendations:
(14) Develop a Capitol complex master plan and complete condition
assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of AOC.
(15) Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on
clearly defined, well-documented, consistently applied, and transparent
criteria.
Key Issue-Strategic Management of Recycling
Corresponding Prior Recommendation:
(16) Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC's recycling program with
input from key congressional stakeholders as part of its proposed
environmental master plan. AOC may want to establish reasonable goals
based on the total waste stream-information it plans to obtain as part of
its long-term environmental management plan-that could potentially be
recycled.
Source: GAO
Stakeholder Involvement: AOC has not yet fully engaged its congressional
and other stakeholders and has not effectively worked with Congress to
develop a clear, transparent, and documented understanding of how AOC sets
project priorities and how progress will be assessed. In addition, as
detailed in other sections of this report, AOC needs to expand Congress'
involvement in the development of the Capitol complex master plan and the
mission and goals for the agency's recycling program. AOC did, however,
take some steps to involve congressional and other stakeholders during the
6 months reviewed by attending monthly or biweekly meetings with
congressional stakeholders, delivering planning documents to congressional
stakeholders, and responding to requests for information. AOC can
strengthen its stakeholder relationships by informing congressional and
other stakeholders of AOC's progress and activities, as well as more
effectively consulting with these stakeholders to build a mutual
understanding of each other's project priorities. AOC also recognizes that
a next step in the strategic planning process is to more fully incorporate
outcome-and performance-based measures into the agency's strategic and
performance plans, and it plans to seek assistance in developing these
measures. Given the importance of stakeholder involvement, we recommend
the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO to (1) actively consult with
Congress on the design and implementation of meaningful outcome- and
performance-based measures, (2) expedite the release of the 2003 building
services customer satisfaction survey as a transparency and accountability
mechanism, and (3) work with Congress on the design and implementation of
a transparent process to facilitate an understanding between AOC and its
congressional stakeholders about how
AOC targets its efforts and resources at the highest project priorities
and how strategic and tactical decisions and trade-offs are made.
Employee Communications: Gathering accurate and timely information from
employees about their concerns is critical to the development of
meaningful human capital policies. Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC has
made progress addressing employee communications by developing a number of
policies and procedures, such as a strategic communications plan, a draft
employee feedback manual, a customer satisfaction survey manual, and a
focus group guide. AOC can maintain momentum in this area by fully and
effectively implementing its planned initiatives. The ombudsperson's
position, which was initially created to help address employee relations
problems, however, has remained vacant since September 30, 2003, and AOC
does not currently plan to fill the position. An ombudsperson serves as an
independent provider of advice and counsel to nonunion employees on
employment policies, practices, or other employment-related matters. A
decision by AOC management to leave this position vacant should be made
only after a thorough analysis of AOC's and employees' needs, as well as
the capacity of other offices to fulfill those needs. Accordingly, we are
recommending that the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO to (1) fully
and effectively implement the basic framework as defined in its
communications plan and process manuals, and finalize its draft employee
feedback manual, and (2) conduct an analysis of AOC's and employees' needs
with respect to resolving employee concerns, as well as assessing the
capacity of existing offices to fulfill those needs.
Auditable Financial Statements and Related Internal Controls: The ability
to prepare agencywide financial statements that, along with related
internal controls, can be independently audited represents a key component
of an organization's ability to institutionalize financial management best
practices and establish a sound foundation of accountability and control.
AOC has made progress in preparing agencywide financial statements;
supporting an audit of its September 30, 2003, balance sheet; and
establishing related internal control policies and procedures. As part of
its efforts to prepare agencywide financial statements, AOC put in place
internal control policies and procedures related to funds control,
financial reporting, and inventory management, and is starting work on
other actions to further enhance financial control and accountability. The
auditor is expected shortly to report on the results of the first-ever
audit of AOC's balance sheet, which is a key step in AOC's efforts to
build a foundation of financial control and accountability. The auditor's
reporting will include the results of internal control work that it
performed, which will provide AOC with additional valuable information as
it further strengthens accountability and internal control. The audit of
the fiscal year 2003 balance sheet has taken longer and required more
effort to support than initially planned. As a result, AOC plans to defer
its plans for an audit of a complete set of AOC's financial statements
from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2004, AOC plans
to have its September 30, 2004, balance sheet audited and to have its
auditor perform some additional procedures designed to help AOC to better
prepare for a successful audit of a complete set of its financial
statements for fiscal year 2005. AOC deferred the audit of a complete set
of financial statements to fiscal year 2005 to provide sufficient time to
prepare for and support a full scope audit and to enable AOC staff to deal
with issues that came to light during the fiscal year 2003 balance sheet
audit. We recommend that the Architect of the Capitol, COO, Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), and other senior management provide strong and
visible support for efforts to prepare auditable financial statements and
implement an effective internal control framework by monitoring the
implementation and related milestones for each effort, ensuring the
commitment to and support for each effort by participating AOC units, and
acting to resolve any impediments that may arise.
Financial Reporting for Operating Units and Cost Accounting:
Developing useful financial reports by major operating units and
implementing effective cost accounting processes and procedures can
enhance efforts to institutionalize financial management best practices by
providing managers with the information needed to effectively manage
operations and helping to extend responsibility for financial
accountability and control throughout an organization's operations. Over
the 6 months we reviewed, AOC progressed in developing financial reports
for its major operating units, but it has not begun the process of
providing the reports to the operating units and training managers on how
the reports may help in managing their operations. With regard to cost
accounting, AOC plans for only limited work to be done through the end of
fiscal year 2005, with the major work scheduled for fiscal year 2006
through fiscal year 2007 that will identify and implement system and
procedural changes needed to have a cost accounting system operational in
fiscal year 2008. According to AOC officials, the primary reason for
deferring the start of substantive work on implementing cost accounting is
AOC's need to develop appropriate and consistent performance metrics
across major operating units. As a result, substantial work remains to be
done before AOC can provide managers with the meaningful financial, cost,
and performance information needed to enhance their management of
operating units and extend responsibility
for financial accountability and control to the units. We recommend that
the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO and the CFO to (1) work with
operating managers to assess the usefulness of financial-statement-level
information; take an active role in AOC near-term efforts to develop
agencywide performance measures; and review all available options to
determine whether substantial work can begin, prior to fiscal year 2006,
on the analyses needed to identify changes necessary to implement useful
cost accounting at AOC, and (2) have senior management visibly demonstrate
its continuing commitment to and support for making AOC-wide system,
procedural, and cultural changes necessary to provide managers with timely
financial, cost, and performance information by monitoring the efforts'
implementation and related milestones, ensuring the commitment to and
support for the efforts by participating AOC units, and acting to resolve
any impediments that may arise.
Information Security Management: Information security is critical to AOC's
ability to ensure the reliability, availability, and confidentiality of
its information and technology assets. Accordingly, our January 2003
report provided AOC with recommendations for establishing and implementing
an effective information security program. In our January 2004 report, we
noted that AOC had made progress toward implementing these
recommendations. Since then, AOC has continued to make progress in
implementing our recommendations. For example, it has brought on
contractor staff to support security operations, developed employee
awareness and security training policies and begun implementing them, and
developed policy and guidance on system risk assessments. Over the next 8
months, AOC plans to complete employee awareness activities, complete
system risk assessments on major applications and systems, and complete
the initial data gathering on security policy and control metrics and
issue its first report on their effectiveness. Although much important
work remains in the basic areas of information security management, if AOC
follows through on its plans and actions it should have the management
foundation in place for effective information security management. Until
it does, it will remain challenged in its ability to effectively secure
its information and technology assets.
Worker Safety Performance Measures: Although AOC has made progress in
developing performance measures to track worker safety, the implementation
of these measures is a work in progress. AOC has developed several broad
performance measures, including a measure of the extent to which unsafe
conditions exist within AOC and a measure to assess employees' perceptions
of safety. In addition, AOC has developed
several specific performance measures to track worker safety, including
performance measures for several of the 34 safety policies and measures to
assess the impacts of workers' compensation injuries and costs.
Nonetheless, work remains to ensure successful implementation of these
measures. For example, AOC views the safety perception survey as a
communications tool that provided useful information about employees'
perceptions about safety in their environment. However, AOC does not view
the survey as a strategic measure of its performance. Although there were
weaknesses with the survey design, it holds promise as a measure of how
employees believe safety is valued at AOC. To enhance worker safety
performance measures at AOC, we recommend that the Architect of the
Capitol direct the COO to expand upon the safety perception survey by
developing a more rigorous methodological approach and collecting such
information on a more regular basis.
Capitol Complex Master Planning: AOC has taken steps to improve
construction project management by developing a Capitol complex master
plan, but more needs to be done to ensure the successful completion of the
plan in a timely manner. AOC expects to award a contract for the
development of the Capitol complex master plan in August 2004. However,
the expected completion date for the plan has twice been changed to a
later date. Currently, a draft plan is to be available for stakeholder
comment in February 2006, and the final version published June 2007. Given
the importance and sensitivity of the master plan and the condition of the
Capitol complex, as well as the difficult trade-offs that the current
budget environment demands, congressional and other stakeholder
involvement early and throughout the development of the master plan is key
to the plan's ultimate acceptance and value. Facility condition
assessments (FCA), which are key components of a master plan, are also
being carried out at the House and Senate office buildings as well as the
Capitol building.4 Senior agency officials reported that AOC intends to
define the scope of work for the remaining jurisdictions after they
complete lessons learned from the first round of FCAs to identify areas
that may improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the process. This is
an appropriate step if it does not delay the start of future FCAs.
Although AOC has created a clear, well-documented, and transparent process
for evaluating and prioritizing
4 In previous GAO reports, we used the phrase building condition
assessments. In his written comments, the Architect requested that the
term "building" be replaced with "facility" to ensure consistency with the
AOC strategic plan. We have made this change throughout the report.
projects internally, the process does not address the underlying need to
get agreement from and inform congressional and other stakeholders on how
AOC sets priorities. In order to improve Capitol complex master planning
efforts, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from
the COO, lead efforts to ensure that congressional and other stakeholders
are engaged early and throughout the development of the master plan. In
order to improve the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend that
the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the COO, lead efforts to
ensure that AOC informs and obtains agreement from congressional and other
stakeholders on how and why specific projects are submitted for funding.
Strategic Management of Recycling: The mission statement and goals for the
agency's recycling program are being developed as part of AOC's broader
Environmental Program Plan. During the 6 months we reviewed, AOC completed
a baseline assessment that evaluated the compliance of AOC facilities and
operations with federal, state, and local environmental regulations, as
well as a waste stream analysis, which identified the types of and amounts
of waste created at AOC facilities and possible pollution prevention
opportunities. AOC's current waste stream analysis, which is being
expanded to include electronic waste, such as outdated computer equipment,
is to be used to develop pollution prevention plans. Although AOC received
valuable input from internal stakeholders on its environmental plan in May
2004, it does not plan to obtain congressional stakeholder input until
after the plan is completed-an important omission in our view.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO
to obtain preliminary input from congressional stakeholders on its
environmental program plan-particularly as the plan relates to the mission
and goals of AOC's recycling program-prior to completion of the plan.
The COO's Action Plan: The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,
required the COO of AOC to prepare an action plan describing the policies,
procedures, and actions to carry out his responsibilities, which we were
mandated to assess. The action plan, which was submitted to congressional
committees on December 22, 2003-59 days after it was required to have been
submitted-listed 31 action items across six business areas. The plan
assumes Congress and other users of the plan have a deep and detailed
knowledge of AOC's goals, internal operations, and management functions-a
level of knowledge that is not reasonable to expect. The plan also does
not clearly describe how the COO would fulfill his legislated
responsibilities or help lead transformational change at AOC.
For example, while the plan and its accompanying report acknowledge the
need for organizational changes and highlight expected improvements, they
do not describe what specific changes the COO envisions or how those
changes would be accomplished. To enhance the usefulness of the COO action
plan, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol and the COO consult
with members of Congress and key committees on specific information about
AOC's plans, policies, procedures, actions, and proposed organizational
changes. As part of this effort, the Architect and the COO should work
with Congress to determine Congress' information needs and the timing and
format of delivery of that information that will best meet Congress'
needs. Furthermore, consistent with our findings and recommendations in
regard to congressional and other stakeholder involvement in general and
the Capitol complex master plan in particular, as well as our original
January 2003 management review, specific emphasis should be placed on
AOC's project management. Subsequent COO action plans and status reports
will likely be most helpful to Congress to the extent that they are
rigorously specific as to the problem or issue that needs to be addressed,
the actions that are being taken in response, the progress to date, and
milestones for additional actions.
On July 26, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to the Architect for
review and comment. We received written comments August 13, 2004, which
are reprinted in appendix I. In his comments, the Architect generally
agreed with our findings and conclusions. He suggested technical changes
and provided additional information related to information security,
safety performance measures, and Capitol complex master planning that were
incorporated into our report where appropriate. The Architect also noted
his agreement with each new recommendation, except for those regarding
worker safety performance measures, Capitol complex master planning, and
the process for prioritizing projects.
Regarding worker safety performance measures, we recommended that AOC
expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more rigorous
methodological approach. In response, the Architect stated AOC's response
rate was 68 percent and that the survey used a number of benchmark
questions that have previously been used in other surveys. Nonetheless, as
frontline employees (e.g. carpenters, plumbers, and custodial workers) are
most at risk of work-related injuries, their low response rate of 49
percent makes it difficult for AOC to draw meaningful conclusions about
this at risk group's attitudes towards safety. In addition, the lack of a
pretest of the survey does not give AOC assurance that employees
interpreted the questions in the manner AOC had expected.
Thus, we believe that AOC's safety perception survey would still benefit
from a more rigorous methodological approach.
In our draft report, we also recommended that the Architect direct the COO
to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts and the process to
prioritize projects by (1) ensuring that congressional and other
stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the
Capitol complex master plan and (2) ensuring that AOC informs and obtains
agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why
specific projects are submitted for funding. According to the Architect,
he has and will continue to lead the Capitol complex master plan
initiative and he plans to meet with stakeholders at the beginning and
throughout the development of the master plan. The Architect's personal
involvement is critical to success of the Capitol complex master plan, and
his plan to engage stakeholders is consistent with our recommendation.
However, the COO should also be involved in the master planning process,
project prioritization, and communication with stakeholders because the
COO position was created to serve as a central leadership point at AOC. As
such, we made revisions to the two recommendations so that the Architect,
with support from the COO, leads efforts to implement the recommendations.
The Architect also questioned the direct link between the master plan and
the prioritization process. Although we continue to believe that the
Capitol complex master plan and the prioritization process should be
linked because the master plan could help guide day-to-day project
prioritization, we now address them separately for the sake of clarity.
Background AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new
construction of the buildings and grounds primarily located within the
Capitol Hill complex. Organizationally, AOC consists of a centralized
staff that performs administrative functions and separate "jurisdictions"
responsible for the day-to-day operations at the U.S. Capitol Building,
the Senate Office Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the Library of
Congress Buildings and Grounds, the Supreme Court Buildings and Grounds,
the Capitol Grounds, the Capitol Power Plant, and the Botanic Garden. The
historic nature and high profile of many of these buildings creates a
complex environment in which to carry out AOC's mission. AOC must perform
its duties in an environment that requires balancing the divergent needs
of congressional leadership, committees, individual members of Congress,
congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The challenges of operating
in
this environment were complicated by the events of September 11, 2001, and
the resulting need for increased security.
We issued a report in January 2003 that contained 35 recommendations to
assist AOC in establishing a strategic management and accountability
framework, including strong management infrastructure and controls, to
drive its agency transformation effort, and to address long-standing
program issues. As a part of ongoing work to monitor AOC's efforts to
implement the recommendations, we issued a report in January 2004 that
covered the agency's progress from January 18, 2003, through November 30,
2003.
In our January 2004 report, we reiterated that many of AOC's management
problems are long-standing and that organizational transformation would
take time to accomplish. Not surprisingly, AOC's efforts to address the 35
recommendations were, at that time, very much a work in progress. We
highlighted the agency's first steps to develop a management and
accountability framework, including the issuance of a draft strategic plan
and efforts to strengthen individual accountability for goals. We noted,
however, that additional steps were needed to enhance communications with
congressional and other stakeholders and employees. In addition, we found
that AOC began to draft new human capital policies and procedures and
developed three broad-based action plans to help institutionalize
financial management best practices, although many of the actions were not
scheduled for completion until 2007.
We also reported that AOC was making progress developing an agencywide
approach to information technology (IT) management, although additional
steps were needed to ensure that, for example, mature information security
management, investment management, and enterprise architecture (EA)
management processes are implemented. In addition, we found that AOC was
beginning to address worker safety concerns by developing a hazard
assessment and control policy, although it is not expected to be fully
implemented until May 2006; was taking steps to establish a project
prioritization framework for better management and accountability; and was
progressing toward adopting a more strategic approach to recycling.
Overall, we concluded that AOC fulfilled three recommendations, and we
made four additional recommendations-which brought to 36 the number of
open recommendations.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This report is part of our effort under a congressional mandate to monitor
AOC's progress to establish a strategic management and accountability
framework, improve its management infrastructure and internal control, and
address long-standing areas of concern. Our first objective was to assess
AOC's progress over the 6-month period from December 1, 2003, through May
31, 2004, on eight key issues that deserve near-term attention and focus:
(1) stakeholder involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable
financial statements and related internal controls, (4) financial
reporting for operating units and cost accounting, (5) information
security management, (6) worker safety performance measures, (7) Capitol
complex master planning, and (8) strategic management of recycling. Our
second objective, which was mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), was to assess AOC's COO action plan
that was issued in December 2003.
To address our first objective, we collected documentation to determine
AOC's progress on addressing each key issue and the 16 corresponding prior
recommendations. For example, we reviewed documents such as AOC's 5-year
strategic and annual performance plans; strategic communications plan;
process manuals; funds control administration order; policy for inventory
management; security risk management policy; information security
training, education, and awareness policy; IT security metrics policy;
inspection, audit, and evaluation policy; and updated occupational safety
and health program plan. We also interviewed AOC officials responsible for
implementing the 16 recommendations and other related improvement efforts
under way at AOC.
To address our second objective, we reviewed and analyzed several
documents, including (1) the requirements of the Deputy Architect/Chief
Operating Officer Action Plan described in the legislation; (2) the Report
to the Congress from the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, dated
December 22, 2003; (3) the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer Action
Plan, dated December 22, 2003; and (4) the Architect of the Capitol
Strategic Plan, dated December 15, 2003.
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from April 2004 through July
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
AOC Has Yet to Fully Engage Congressional and Other Stakeholders
AOC must perform its duties in an environment that requires balancing the
divergent needs of congressional leadership, committees, individual
members of Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The
challenges of operating in this environment were complicated by the events
of September 11, 2001, and the resulting need for increased security. As
we stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, it is critical for
AOC to engage Congress and other stakeholders to ensure that its strategic
and other planning efforts fully consider the interests and expectations
of these stakeholders. Successful stakeholder involvement requires
continuously engaging Congress and other stakeholders to obtain their
input and feedback for organizational or operational changes at AOC,
ensuring that AOC's finite resources are efficiently targeted at the
highest project priorities, and fostering a basic understanding with
Congress and other stakeholders of how to balance competing demands.
Successful stakeholder involvement also includes improving AOC's
accountability reporting, which helps communicate what AOC has
accomplished and its plan for continued progress.
In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that would help
AOC improve its relations with Congress and other stakeholders:
o Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving
key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC's strategic
planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from
these efforts.
o Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications by improving annual accountability reporting through annual
performance planning and reporting.
o Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications by completing the development of congressional protocols by
involving stakeholders.
As noted in our January 2004 report, AOC improved its strategic planning
process and provided more specificity to its strategic goals and
objectives, as well as developed milestone dates and actions to assist AOC
in monitoring its progress. AOC also made progress in improving annual
accountability reporting by implementing a strategic management framework,
which includes issuing a strategic plan every 2 years, developing an
annual performance plan, and developing an annual
performance report that discusses how AOC is progressing on meeting its
goals, as well as holding midyear status briefings. An AOC official stated
the agency recognizes that the next step in the strategic planning process
is to more fully incorporate outcome-and performance-based measures into
the agency's strategic and performance plans, and AOC has recently
developed a statement of work to seek assistance in developing both
quantitative and qualitative performance measures to demonstrate progress
toward its strategic goals and objectives. In addition, we noted that AOC
was partially addressing the development of congressional protocols. To
further assist these efforts, we made an additional recommendation for AOC
to conduct a pilot of its congressional protocols in one or more of its
jurisdictions to determine how well its protocols would work in addressing
customer requests for service while balancing the needs of multiple
requests with the requirements of the strategic plan and corresponding
project priorities of the agency.
During the 6-month review period, AOC did not fully engage its
congressional and other stakeholders. For example, AOC has not reached
agreement with Congress on how best to develop a clear, transparent, and
documented understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how
progress will be assessed. In addition, as detailed in other sections of
this report, AOC needs to expand Congress' involvement in the development
of the Capitol complex master plan and the mission and goals for the
agency's recycling program. AOC did take some steps to inform these
stakeholders by delivering planning documents to Congress, responding to
requests for information, and attending monthly or biweekly meetings with
congressional stakeholders. AOC officials stated that they delivered AOC's
final strategic plan, performance plan, and COO action plan to
congressional stakeholders in December 2003 to inform them of planned
activities. (See our assessment of the COO action plan below.) AOC also
generated a detailed report, at the request of its congressional
stakeholders, that outlined AOC's progress in implementing our
recommendations. Furthermore, AOC did take some steps to communicate with
congressional and other stakeholders by attending monthly meetings held by
House leadership; biweekly meetings with other House stakeholders, such as
the House Clerk and Sergeant At Arms; monthly meetings with the Senate
Rules Committee; and bimonthly meetings with the Senate Sergeant At Arms.
AOC is also preparing to issue its third building services customer
satisfaction survey in June 2004 to measure the agency's performance.
However, it has yet to release the results of the 2003 survey, which was
originally scheduled for December 2003, because it has yet to be approved
by several AOC jurisdictions.
As we reported in January 2003, AOC drafted an initial set of
congressional protocols to help AOC work with its congressional customers
using clearly defined, consistently applied, and transparent policies and
procedures. Since then, AOC completed draft congressional protocols and
submitted them to key congressional stakeholders. An AOC official stated
that, based on stakeholder feedback, the protocols are not viable because
congressional stakeholders do not believe they are applicable to the
operation of and services conducted by AOC. Based on this feedback, an AOC
official said that the agency may not pursue implementing the
congressional protocols.
As a legislative branch agency, we have found congressional protocols to
be a successful vehicle in helping us work with Congress. Successful
development and implementation of these protocols first required us to
reach out to and solicit feedback from congressional and other
stakeholders to develop an understanding of congressional customer needs
and identify concerns before we developed an initial draft. Further, we
continuously engaged our congressional and other stakeholders throughout
pilot testing and implementation. Thus, if AOC decides not to further
pursue the congressional protocols or some other vehicle, neither AOC nor
congressional stakeholders can be assured that agency efforts and
resources are targeted at their highest project priorities and
transparency exists for strategic and tactical decisions and trade-offs.
AOC has taken some steps to involve congressional and other stakeholders;
however, it has yet to fully engage these stakeholders. AOC can strengthen
its stakeholder relationships by informing congressional and other
stakeholders of AOC's progress and activities, as well as more effectively
consulting with these stakeholders to build a mutual understanding of each
other's priorities.
Recommendations for To strengthen the relationship between AOC and its
congressional and
Agency Action other stakeholders, we recommend the Architect of the
Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to
o actively consult with Congress on the design and implementation of
meaningful outcome- and performance-based measures that are useful to both
AOC and Congress and thereby enable AOC and Congress to assess AOC's
progress;
o expedite the release of the 2003 building services customer
satisfaction survey, as a transparency and accountability mechanism and to
provide Congress and other stakeholders assurance that actions are being
taken in response to their feedback; and
o work with Congress on the design and implementation of a transparent
process to facilitate an understanding between AOC and its congressional
stakeholders about how AOC targets its efforts and resources at the
highest project priorities and how strategic and tactical decisions and
trade-offs are made.
AOC Has Made Progress toward Implementing an Employee Communications Strategy
Strong internal communication with employees is vital to any
organizational transformation by helping employees understand their
contribution to overall agency goals and facilitate feedback that helps an
organization develop strategies for improvement. Strong employee
communications would also help AOC address its history of employee
relations problems and complaints. Effective communication efforts include
receiving employee input, which can be obtained from existing offices that
interact directly with employees, or via other methods, including employee
surveys or focus groups. Regardless of the source, systematically
collecting and analyzing employee data are important for identifying
agencywide issues affecting employee relations and improving human capital
policies and procedures. Another useful practice for dealing with issues
affecting employee relations and collecting employee data is to establish
an ombudsperson position.
In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations to improve AOC's
ability to communicate with employees:
o Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications by providing opportunities for routine employee input and
feedback.
o Strengthen AOC's human capital policies, procedures, and processes by
assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and analyze
data from the various employee relations offices and employee advisory
council while maintaining employee confidentiality.
o Establish a direct reporting relationship between the ombudsperson and
the Architect consistent with professional standards.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was partially addressing the
development of a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external
communications. As such, we made an additional recommendation for AOC to
gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys before
fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking actions to
address any identified employee concerns.
Over the 6-month period reviewed, AOC continued to make progress
addressing employee communications by obtaining employee input and
providing employees with feedback, as well as assessing the data gathered
during these efforts. To help implement these steps, AOC management issued
a communications plan, a draft employee feedback manual, a customer
satisfaction survey manual, and a focus group guide. Specifically, AOC's
Employee Feedback Process Manual stated that it is AOC's policy "to
periodically and systematically obtain and report employee feedback, to
assess satisfaction levels on activity-related topics, and to use this
feedback in improvement actions."5
To obtain employee input and provide employee feedback, AOC developed a
guide that outlines procedures for conducting focus groups and discusses
AOC's intent to contract out the facilitation of focus groups. AOC
management also prepared a statement of work that provides requirements a
contractor must follow when conducting focus groups, including a
requirement for providing a written report containing general conclusions
and findings. AOC officials stated that they awarded the contract on June
28, 2003, to facilitate AOC's focus groups, so they may begin no later
than August 1, 2004.
AOC also obtains employee input by requiring key managers to document and
track employees' concerns or issues each month. Key AOC officials from
AOC's Employee Assistance Programs, Labor Relations, Employment Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity, Employee Advisory Council (EAC), senior
management, and Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) meet monthly to
assess employee concerns and identify systematic concerns. Agency
officials stated that at each of the meetings, all attendees are reminded
that employee confidentiality must be maintained. In May 2004, the
attendees agreed to pursue a number of actions in response to employee
concerns discussed at the monthly
5 Architect of the Capitol, Employee Feedback Process Manual, AOC-SP1.4
(Washington, D.C., June 2004), 1.
meetings. Furthermore, AOC has included as an objective in its Human
Capital Plan to solicit feedback from its EAC. AOC also plans to use exit
interviews to collect employees' views upon leaving AOC as well as
regularly obtain input from employees through its customer satisfaction
surveys, to gauge AOC's internal customers', including employees',
perceptions of AOC's performance.
To provide feedback to its employees, AOC continues to publish its weekly
and quarterly agencywide newsletters (AOC This Week and Shop Talk) and
issues HR Bulletins that provide updates on changes in human resource
practices and highlight information regarding issues such as employee
benefits. AOC also published a pamphlet that summarizes the agency's
strategic plan. According to agency officials, every AOC employee has
received a copy of the pamphlet, while "town hall" briefings have been
held with over 400 employees to further discuss the strategic plan.
Regarding the use of an ombudsperson, AOC officials agreed with the
recommendation in our January 2004 report to adhere to the standard of
independence for the office of an ombudsperson. Agency officials also
noted that direct meetings between the Ombudsperson and the Architect were
planned, but they never took place because the Ombudsperson's contract
expired on September 30, 2003, and the position has not been filled. AOC
does not have plans to fill the position of ombudsperson. According to AOC
officials, the ombudsperson was to serve as an independent provider of
advice and counsel to nonunion employees on employment policies,
practices, and other employment-related matters. The ombudsperson's duties
and responsibilities focused on resolving employee issues that may have
not been resolved by other offices, according to AOC officials.
AOC has made progress in addressing employee communications issues by
creating the basic framework in its communications plan and process
manuals by which AOC will regularly obtain employee input, systematically
analyze those data, and provide feedback to employees on improvement
actions that results from those efforts. For instance, AOC has committed
itself to initiating employee focus groups not later than August 1, 2004.
AOC also needs to issue and implement its draft Employee Feedback Manual.
AOC can maintain momentum in this area by fully implementing the policies
and procedures that it drafted or issued as part of its employee
communication efforts. As we noted in our October 2003 report on the
Government Printing Office's transformation,6 developing a comprehensive
communications strategy that reaches out to employees and seeks to engage
them in a two-way exchange helps to build trust and cultivate stronger
working relationships. Most important, AOC's top leadership must make
visible and timely adjustments as appropriate in policy or procedures in
response to employee concerns.
AOC's decision to not fill the vacant ombudsperson position raises
questions as to whether the services previously provided by the
ombudsperson are being met by other offices or are no longer needed. Given
the history of employee relations issues at AOC, a critical component of
such a management decision would be to conduct a thorough analysis of the
agency's and employees' needs, as well as an assessment of the capacity of
existing offices, both internal and external to AOC, to fulfill those
needs. Without a thorough analysis AOC cannot be assured that the need for
an ombudsperson no longer exists, or that AOC units are prepared to
fulfill the responsibilities an ombudsperson would have performed.
Recommendations for Agency Action
To improve communications with employees, we recommend that the Architect
of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to
o fully and effectively implement the basic framework as defined in its
communications plan and process manuals, and finalize its draft employee
feedback manual to assure that the current progress already made is
maintained and
o conduct an analysis of both AOC management and employee needs with
respect to resolving employee concerns and issues, as well as assessing
the capacity of existing offices to fulfill those needs.
6 GAO, Government Printing Office: Advancing GPO's Transformation Effort
through Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-04-85 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 20, 2003).
Progress Made in Preparing Auditable Financial Statements and Establishing
Related Internal Controls
Preparing auditable financial statements and establishing related internal
controls are fundamental components of a foundation of control and
accountability. In our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, we discussed
the value of a system of checks and balances over assets and financial
reporting. These steps are a key foundation for implementing our January
2003 recommendation that AOC continue to improve its approach to financial
management by institutionalizing practices that will support budgeting,
financial, and program management.7 AOC's goals of preparing auditable
financial statements and establishing effective internal controls are
significant components of AOC's plan to build a foundation of financial
control and accountability-one of the three broad-based action plans
established by AOC's Office of Chief Financial Officer to respond to our
recommendation.
In preparing for an audit of its September 30, 2003, balance sheet, AOC
prepared a full set of agencywide financial statements for fiscal year
2003 and has, in fiscal year 2004, begun preparing quarterly agencywide
financial statements. This first-ever audit of AOC's balance sheet is
nearing completion and AOC officials expect the auditor's report to be
issued in the near future. Completing the first agencywide balance sheet
audit represents a key step in AOC's efforts to build a foundation of
financial control and accountability. As we reported in January 2004, AOC
planned to begin issuing a complete set of audited financial statements
for fiscal year 2004. However, according to AOC officials, the fiscal year
2003 audit has taken longer and required more effort to support than
initially planned and, as a result, management has now modified its plan
for the fiscal year 2004 audit. In particular, AOC officials noted that
establishing the historical cost for AOC building and improvement assets
and values for AOC liabilities took longer and required more work than
initially expected. AOC has decided to forgo an audit of a complete set of
financial statements for fiscal year 2004 and instead will have its
September 30, 2004, balance sheet audited. According to AOC officials,
after consulting with AOC's audit committee and its auditor, AOC decided
to defer the audit of a full set of statements to fiscal year 2005 because
of the limited time and CFO staff resources available to begin preparing
for an audit of a complete set of
7 In response to our recommendation to institutionalize financial
management best practices, AOC's CFO developed three broad-based action
plans-each of which contains several individual planned actions. In
focusing on the financial management issues we considered key for this
report, we reviewed AOC's reported progress on those planned actions that
directly relate to each key financial management issue we identified.
statements for fiscal year 2004 and the need to work on strengthening
internal controls, including ongoing efforts to address issues identified
during the fiscal year 2003 audit. In conjunction with the audit of the
September 30, 2004, balance sheet, AOC officials plan to ask the external
auditor to perform additional procedures, which will be designed to help
AOC better prepare for the audit of a complete set of AOC financial
statements for fiscal year 2005. However, even though the auditor's work
for fiscal year 2004 will be limited to a balance sheet audit and some
additional procedures, AOC has not revised its stated goal of receiving an
unqualified opinion on a complete set of fiscal year 2005 financial
statements.
Regarding progress on internal controls during the 6-month period, AOC has
adopted and implemented key policies and procedures in the areas of
account reconciliations and funds control administration, and
institutionalized its policies on inventory management and control. In
addition, during this period, AOC's external auditor has, as part of the
balance sheet audit, been reviewing relevant internal controls. Account
reconciliations, such as those adopted by AOC for accounts receivable and
fund balance with Treasury, are a fundamental control over financial
reporting. Funds control administration is a group of control processes
that provide a means of establishing responsibilities and delegating
authority to the managers who are to be accountable for the use and
control of appropriated funds. In addition, AOC has made progress in
institutionalizing its policies on inventory management and control. AOC
finalized an inventory management policy in January 2004 and, shortly
thereafter, initiated a major effort to train all inventory personnel on
related procedures and controls. According to AOC officials,
implementation of these policies and procedures came about as part of
efforts to prepare the fiscal year 2003 agencywide financial statements.
Finally, as we discussed, AOC expects the auditor to report on the results
of the audit, including its internal control work, in the near future. The
results of the auditor's internal control work will provide AOC with
valuable information as it pursues other efforts to strengthen internal
controls and enhance financial control and accountability.
We reported in January 2004 that AOC plans to issue a policy statement on
internal controls by September 30, 2004. In this regard, AOC has begun the
process of obtaining contractor support to assist management in developing
an internal control framework, a related policy statement on internal
controls, and related training. To speed their efforts and enhance its
acceptance within the agency, AOC officials hope to model their internal
control framework and related guidance after ones that are currently in
use elsewhere in the legislative branch. As AOC prepares to implement an
internal control framework, AOC needs to realize that establishing
appropriate and effective accounting, compliance, and operational
controls, which potentially may affect all aspects of AOC operations and
activities, represents a significant agencywide challenge-one that will
require senior management attention and support.
During the 6-month review period, AOC made progress in preparing
agencywide financial statements; supporting the audit of its September 30,
2003, balance sheet; and establishing related internal control policies
and procedures. This progress provides a valuable baseline from which to
further leverage the audit process through related efforts to improve
internal controls over financial reporting and institutionalize financial
management best practices. In addition, as plans move forward for a full
scope audit of a complete set of financial statements for fiscal year
2005, AOC needs to provide strong and visible support for these efforts.
Recommendation for Agency Action
To help strengthen and sustain AOC's emerging foundation of financial
accountability and control, we recommend that the Architect of the
Capitol, the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and
other senior management provide strong and visible support for efforts to
prepare auditable financial statements and implement an effective internal
control framework by monitoring the implementation and related milestones
for each effort, ensuring the commitment to and support for each effort by
participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any impediments that may
arise.
Substantial Work Remains on Providing Financial Reporting for Operating Units
and Implementing Cost Accounting Processes and Procedures
Developing and using meaningful financial reports by major operating units
and implementing effective cost accounting processes and procedures can
help extend responsibility for financial accountability and control to
AOC's operating units. An important aspect of having meaningful financial
information available to managers in operating units is the ability to
implement an appropriate level of cost accounting processes and procedures
that can provide the kind of cost information needed to effectively manage
operations. Using financial information at the major operating unit level
that incorporates effective cost accounting processes and procedures can
be a key component of AOC's ongoing efforts to
institutionalize financial management best practices in support of
budgeting, financial, and program management at AOC.8
AOC has made progress in developing the capacity to produce automated
financial reports for its major operating units (jurisdictions). The
financial reports, which currently consist of financial statements for
each major operating unit, are developed with the same basic processes and
data used to produce AOC's agencywide financial statements. AOC officials
said that operating unit financial reports have not yet been provided to
managers because CFO staff need to conduct an initial review and analysis
of their content and operational managers need to receive some training on
the content of the reported information and how it might be useful to
them. AOC officials expect to begin distributing the financial reports and
providing related training to operating unit managers by the end of March
2005. AOC officials acknowledged that providing managers with
financialstatement-level information for their major operating units is
only an initial step in developing financial and cost-related information
that managers can use to enhance their operations.
AOC's December 2003 performance plan makes provisions for a multiyear plan
for establishing AOC's cost accounting goals and objectives and
identifying and implementing system and procedural changes needed to
accomplish them. However, the plan calls for only limited work to be
completed through the end of fiscal year 2005, with major work scheduled
for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2007 to identify and implement
system and procedural changes needed to have a cost accounting system
operational in fiscal year 2008.
In explaining the limited near-term progress planned for implementing cost
accounting, AOC officials noted that successfully implementing cost
accounting depends on an organization's strategic goals, objectives, and
related performance measures, which tend to drive the categories of costs
and how the related data should be collected and reported. However, AOC
officials noted that a recent AOC effort to study the potential for
developing performance-based budgets indicated that AOC's current
strategic and performance plans do not define either the expected level of
8 In response to our recommendation to institutionalize financial
management best practices, AOC's CFO developed three broad-based action
plans-each of which contains several individual planned actions. In
focusing on the financial management issues we considered key for this
report, we reviewed AOC's reported progress on those planned actions that
directly relate to each key financial management issue we identified.
program performance or the actual results that should be achieved.
Recognizing these limitations, AOC's recently issued Cost Accounting
Feasibility Study noted that AOC staff working on strategic planning are
developing an agencywide approach that will identify appropriate and
consistent performance metrics across major operating units. The effort is
scheduled for completion some time in fiscal year 2005. The December 2003
performance plan indicates that the CFO staff plan to begin substantive
work on the underlying studies and analyses needed to support
recommendations on implementing cost accounting at AOC in fiscal year
2006. In explaining the schedule for implementing cost accounting, AOC
officials said that it made more sense to defer substantive work on
implementing cost accounting until agencywide performance measures and
metrics are established, especially in light of the other ongoing tasks
and priorities that the CFO's office is responsible for leading.
While AOC can now generate financial reports for major operating units
annually and quarterly, substantial work remains to be done to conduct an
initial review and analyze the form and content of the recently developed
reports and to train operating managers on the information's content and
its potential use in managing and overseeing operating units. Also, while
it may now be relatively easy and efficient to generate quarterly and
annual financial reports for major operating units consisting of
financialstatement-level information, it is not clear at this time how
useful operating managers will find the information they contain. In
addition, AOC does not have outcome and performance-based measures and
metrics that can be used by operating managers to link financial
information to outcomes and performance. As a result, substantial work
remains to be done before AOC can provide managers with the meaningful
financial, cost, and performance information needed to enhance their
management of operating units and extend responsibility for financial
accountability and control to the units.
We consider AOC's ongoing efforts to provide managers with operating unit
financial information and training on the meaning and potential use of
such information to be good initial steps in orienting AOC's managers on
the use of financial data to enhance operational management. However, once
the managers are provided with timely financial statements for major
operating units and the related training, AOC officials need to work with
operating managers to assess the usefulness of the
financial-statement-level information and to identify opportunities to
expand or otherwise enhance the nature and type of information (e.g.,
detailed cost accounting information for specific projects and operating
activities) made available to managers.
With regard to cost accounting, AOC does not have the cost accounting
processes and procedures needed to produce operation-specific cost
information that can be used by managers to enhance their management of
major operating units. Furthermore, AOC officials noted that they do not
expect to begin substantive work on a multiyear effort to develop and
implement system and procedural changes necessary to implement appropriate
cost accounting at AOC until fiscal year 2006. The officials anticipate
completing the needed system and procedural changes in fiscal year 2007
and having a cost accounting system operational in fiscal year 2008.
AOC officials acknowledged that, in the interim, some opportunity exists
to develop and apply selected high-level cost allocations that would
allocate-over some reasonable basis-selected categories of overhead costs
(e.g., the costs associated with operating functional activities such as
human resources, finance, and budget) to major operating units. However,
the officials also noted that the value or usefulness of such information
is limited by the lack of specific cost accounting data on performance
measures and metrics. The officials noted that the allocations would be,
by their nature, done after the fact and operating unit managers would
likely have little to no reasonable frame of reference or perspective on
the level of overhead costs allocated to their operating unit or how those
costs relate to their unit.
While each of the reasons cited by AOC officials to support the
anticipated time frame for implementing the needed cost accounting system
has merit, we think it is reasonable to determine whether, prior to fiscal
year 2006, substantial work can begin on the underlying studies and
analyses that will be needed to identify options and develop tentative
recommendations for implementing a cost accounting system at AOC. In
addition, it is important for the CFO's office to actively support and
facilitate AOC's efforts to develop organizational performance measures
and metrics, which along with cost accounting information can be tracked
and used to improve the operations and management of AOC's major operating
units. As we noted in our January 2003 report, it is also important for
management to demonstrate its commitment to making and supporting needed
changes, which include implementing operating unit financial reports and
cost accounting throughout the organization.
Recommendations for Agency Actions
To enhance the successful development of useful financial, cost, and
performance reporting for major operating units and appropriate cost
accounting, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol direct the
Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to
o work with operating managers to assess the usefulness of
financialstatement-level information, take an active role in AOC near-term
efforts to develop agencywide performance measures, and review all
available options to determine whether substantial work can begin, prior
to fiscal year 2006, on the analyses needed to identify changes necessary
to implement useful cost accounting at AOC, and
o have senior management visibly demonstrate its continuing commitment to
and support for making AOC-wide system, procedural, and cultural changes
necessary to provide managers with timely financial, cost, and performance
information by monitoring the efforts' implementation and related
milestones, ensuring the commitment to and support for the efforts by
participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any impediments that may
arise.
AOC Has Continued to Make Progress Implementing Its Information Security
Program
Information security is an important consideration for any organization
that depends on information technology to carry out its mission. Without
the proper safeguards, unauthorized access to systems can result in
disclosure of sensitive information, fraud, disruption to operations, or
attacks against other organizations' sites.
In our January 2003 report, we stated that effective information security
management is critical to AOC's ability to ensure the reliability,
availability, and confidentiality of its information technology assets.
Such AOC assets include the Computer-Aided Facilities Management system
that is used to request and fulfill work orders for maintenance of the
Capitol and the surrounding grounds, and the Records Management system
that is used to archive architectural drawings pertaining to the U.S.
Capitol, Library of Congress, Botanic Garden, and other buildings. We also
reported that AOC took important steps to establish an effective
information security program, but that much remained to be done before the
agency would be in a position to effectively safeguard its information and
technology assets. Accordingly, we recommended that the agency establish
and implement an information security program. More specifically, we
recommended that AOC (1) designate a security officer and provide him or
her with the
authority and resources to implement an agencywide security program, (2)
develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the
associated training, (3) develop and implement policies and guidance to
perform risk assessments continually, (4) use the results of the risk
assessments to develop and implement appropriate controls, and (5) monitor
and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.
In our January 2004 report, we stated that AOC laid some of the foundation
for establishing an effective security program, such as designating an
information security officer, giving this official the authority and
responsibility to implement an agencywide security program, and beginning
to draft information security policies. We also reported that AOC
partially allocated the resources needed to begin to implement its
security program, although more work remained to define and then execute
the program. For example, we reported that AOC needed to follow through on
its stated commitments to provide needed program resources, finalize its
security policies, define processes for implementing the policies, and
implement them.
Since then, AOC has continued to make progress in implementing our
recommendations, but important work remains in five basic areas of
information security management. First, AOC has contracted to conduct
security operations, risk management, policy assessment, and metrics
activities, but it still needs to provide resources to its security
program, including hiring two security specialists to conduct system risk
assessments. Second, AOC has developed security training and awareness
policies and began implementing them, but it still needs to provide the
training and awareness to all employees who use information technology
assets. Third, AOC has developed policies and guidance to perform system
risk assessments and conducted risk assessments on agency missioncritical
support systems, but it still needs to complete assessments on 4
mission-critical major applications and 34 other agency systems. Fourth,
AOC has developed guidance that for resolving identified risks and begun
implementing it on those support systems that it has assessed, but it
still needs to develop and implement controls to address any risks that
may be identified by the yet-to-be-completed assessments. Fifth, AOC has
defined a metrics policy and a plan for monitoring and evaluating the
effectiveness of its controls and begun measuring its support systems
controls, and it plans to complete initial data gathering on defined
metrics by December 2004 and report on them by March 2005. However, the
agency still needs to do the same for any controls assessments implemented
as a result of any yet-to-be compiled risks.
AOC plans to complete work in most of these areas over the next 8 months.
Specifically, it plans to (1) expedite the modification of an existing
contract to hire two security specialists by August 2, 2004; (2) complete
security awareness activities for all AOC employees between July and the
end of November 2004, develop role-based security training and begin
implementing it in fiscal year 2006; (3) complete the risk assessments on
its mission-critical major applications by September 30, 2004; (4)
subsequently develop and implement controls to address any risks
identified by the yet to be completed assessments; and (5) complete the
initial data gathering on security policy and control metrics by December
2004 and issue its first report on their effectiveness by March 2005.
As we reported in January 2003, successfully completing these plans
depends in large part on the commitment and leadership of AOC senior
managers. Such commitment and leadership will require the timely
allocation and application of needed resources and close oversight of plan
execution. Without such support and the resultant improvements to AOC's
information security management capabilities, the agency will be
challenged in its ability to effectively safeguard its data and
information assets.
AOC Has Made Progress in Developing Safety Performance Measures, but
Implementation of Measures Are a Work in Progress
Worker safety has been a long-standing concern at AOC because it has had
higher injury and illness rates than many other federal agencies. As we
stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, identifying,
developing, and implementing performance measures is important for holding
employees and management accountable, evaluating the effectiveness of the
safety training curriculum, and reducing workers' compensation injuries
and costs. These performance measures are an important link between the
achievement of AOC's safety plan goals and the organizations' strategic
goals. Moreover, meaningful, transparent, and timely performance measures
are critical to worker safety efforts because they help organizations
gather feedback on performance, evaluate the effectiveness of policies,
and make worker safety the cultural norm.
In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that relate to
AOC developing performance measures to track worker safety across the
organization:
o Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives,
including measures for how AOC will implement the 43 specialized
safety programs9 and how superintendents and employees will be held
accountable for achieving results.
o Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the
goals of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness of the
training provided.
o Establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss
workers' compensation cases and costs and develop strategies to reduce
these injuries and costs.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress in
addressing all three of these recommendations.
Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in developing performance
measures to track the agency's worker safety efforts, but the
implementation of these measures is a work in progress. AOC developed
several broad performance measures to judge the success of its safety and
health program. First, AOC developed a measure of the number and severity
of safety and health deficiencies that exist at AOC (a baseline assessment
was completed). Second, AOC developed a measure to assess employees'
attitudes and beliefs about safety within their organization-a gauge of
employees' perceptions of safety at AOC.10 The initial survey was
administered between December 2003 and January 2004. In February 2004, AOC
completed analysis of the survey responses and developed recommendations
to improve worker perceptions about safety. Finally, AOC uses the rate at
which employees suffer a job-related injury and illness to monitor
workplace safety as established by the Department of Labor's Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). AOC discussed its injury and
illness rate in public testimony to demonstrate its commitment to a safe
and healthy work environment.
AOC is also developing specific performance measures related to worker
safety. First, AOC senior management, through quarterly council meetings
known as the Safety, Health and Environmental Council (SHEC), has
9 AOC now refers to the safety programs as safety policies and has reduced
the number of policies to 34.
10 The measure-a safety perception survey-was part of a safety
communications assessment that included focus group meetings designed to
validate and expand on the survey results.
developed measures to assess and control workers' compensation costs
including (1) the number and severity of injuries and illnesses, (2) the
number and cost of workers' compensation injuries and illnesses, (3) the
number of lost production days associated with workers' compensation
cases, and (4) the number of modified work assignments. In addition, SHEC
has developed several tools aimed at raising employee awareness of safety
and the link between safety and workers' compensation. Second, AOC has
developed performance measures for several of the 34 safety policies. The
purpose of the safety policies is to establish consistent requirements for
AOC with agencies such as OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency.
These safety policy measures include (1) the number of safety inspections
and audits performed, (2) the number of safety deficiencies, and (3) the
number of employees trained. Finally, AOC has continued to assess training
performance by asking participants to evaluate training courses; having
subject matter experts from the Safety, Fire, and Environmental Program
Office audit the courses; and soliciting informal feedback from
participants' supervisors. Moreover, AOC has begun to notice that safety
training participants are applying lessons learned from training. For
example, AOC officials reported that training on blood-borne pathogens
resulted in employees applying the principles learned during a recent
event. In addition, AOC plans to assess employee knowledge and behavior to
ensure compliance with the policy, including interviewing employees on the
requirements of a jurisdictional standard operating procedure. However,
AOC has made little progress on developing tools necessary for more
complex assessments of its training and development efforts, such as
measuring their impact on overall program or organizational results, or
comparing the benefits of training efforts against their costs. We have
previously reported on the potential value-and challenges-associated with
these more complex approaches of assessing training and development.11
When deciding on an evaluation strategy, agencies (such as AOC) should
select an appropriate analytical approach that will best measure the
effect of their programs while also considering what is realistic and
reasonable given the broader context and fiscal constraints.
AOC has made progress in its safety performance measures. However, AOC can
strengthen its efforts to evaluate workplace safety. First, while AOC's
measure of the number and severity of safety and health deficiencies
11 See GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004).
is a positive step, time frames to correct these deficiencies still need
to be established. Although AOC has plans to develop a measure of the
timeline in which hazards and deficiencies are corrected, it has yet to
complete this measure. Second, while the safety perception survey provided
information on how employees' perceive safety in their work environment,
the full potential of this tool has not been fully recognized. AOC
officials stated that the survey should not be considered a measure of
safety performance and have no plans to administer the survey on a
recurring basis. However, the survey is a valuable performance measure of
employees' perceptions about workplace safety and could prove useful if
conducted in the future. For any future use, AOC would need to first
address design and implementation weaknesses. For example, pretests of the
survey were not conducted, survey instructions were poorly worded, the
questions allowed for a biased response, and the design did not allow for
a non-response analysis. Moreover, given the low response rate of
frontline employees, AOC should be hesitant to represent findings as
reflective of the employee population.
AOC has fulfilled our third worker safety recommendation listed above by
developing performance measures to assess the long-term impacts and trends
of workers' compensation injuries and costs. Through SHEC, safety
officials working with HRMD are coordinating an exchange of information
and data in order to control workers' compensation injuries and costs.
HRMD, through its Workers' Compensation Program Unit, gathers workrelated
injury and illness data. In addition, the increased emphasis on safety and
its relationship to workers' compensation injuries and illnesses is being
promoted at SHEC meetings.
Recommendation for To enhance worker safety performance measures at AOC,
we recommend
Agency Action that the Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating
Officer to expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more
rigorous methodological approach and collecting such information on a more
regular basis.
AOC Has Taken Steps to Develop a Capitol Complex Master Plan, but Lack of
Congressional and Other Stakeholder Involvement and Delays Hamper Additional
Progress
Developing a Capitol complex master plan is critical to strategic project
management because it would help facilitate consistent management and
oversight of projects and establish long-term priorities. A key component
of a master plan is conducting facility condition assessments (FCA), which
are systematic evaluations of an organization's capital assets. Such
evaluations would help AOC to "compare conditions between facilities;
provide accurate and supportable information for planning and justifying
budgets; facilitate the establishment of funding priorities; and develop
budget and funding analyses and strategies."12 FCAs also help to assure
that the Capitol complex's preventative maintenance needs are fully
documented and provide data for an overall plan with which to address
those needs. Further, a Capitol complex master plan could help guide
dayto-day prioritization by being the basis for communicating, both
internally and externally, the trade-offs that result from prioritizing
one project over another, or how individual projects fit within a broader
AOC framework.
In our January 2003 report, we identified two recommendations that would
help AOC facilitate consistent management and oversight of projects and
establish long-term priorities:
o Develop a Capitol complex master plan and complete condition
assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of AOC.
o Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on
clearly-defined, well-documented, consistently-applied, and transparent
criteria.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress
initiating the Capitol complex master planning process, although the
expected completion date had already been pushed back 8 months to December
2006. FCAs for the three largest jurisdictions were also behind the
original schedule because all the contracts were not to be awarded until
December 2003. AOC was also making progress creating a clearly defined,
well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing
projects by developing criteria to managers for scoring projects across
five
12 National Research Council, Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A
Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation's Public Assets (Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), p.
43.
rating areas-preservation, impact on mission, economic impact, safety, and
security.
During the 6-month review period, AOC took steps to develop the Capitol
complex master plan. For example, senior AOC officials reported that the
contract for the Capitol complex master plan would be awarded in August
2004. These officials also stated that work has been initiated on a
facilities plan for the House office buildings, which will be incorporated
into the Capitol complex master plan. FCAs for the three largest
jurisdictions-the House, Capitol, and Senate-are under way and scheduled
to be completed in October 2004. While AOC's fiscal year 2004 annual
performance plan established November 2005 as the target to publish a
draft Capitol complex master plan, and December 2006 as the target to
publish the final version of the plan, senior AOC officials reported that
they now intend to publish a draft of the Capitol complex master plan in
February 2006, with the final version published in June 2007.
With respect to project prioritization, AOC reported that the process of
scoring projects in 2004 went smoothly. Specifically, agency officials
noted that there were very few scoring discrepancies between
jurisdictional superintendents and senior AOC officials. AOC officials
also noted that the scoring process will be used to determine what
projects will be submitted for funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget.
While AOC has taken steps to develop the Capitol complex master plan, AOC
officials noted that 12-16 months were added to incorporate comments and
finalize the plan. This is the second time target completion dates have
been changed to a later date. In addition, AOC officials need to involve
their stakeholders early and throughout the Capitol complex master
planning process. Given the importance and sensitivity of the master plan
and the condition of the Capitol complex, as well as the difficult
trade-offs that the current budget environment demands, congressional and
other stakeholder involvement early and throughout the development of the
master plan is key to its ultimate acceptance and value, which did not
occur during the development of a similar plan in 1981. Senior agency
officials reported that AOC intends to define the scope of work for the
remaining jurisdictions after they complete lessons learned from the first
round of FCAs to identify areas that may improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the process. This is an appropriate step if it does not
delay the start of future FCAs. Furthermore, completion of the FCAs for
the remaining jurisdictions will depend on when funding is received. While
FCAs are a key component of the master plan, and
ultimately need to be integrated into the plan, AOC's master planning
efforts can begin before FCAs are completed. Further, once the FCAs are
completed it is critical that they are updated regularly.
With regard to project prioritization, AOC has created a clearly-defined,
well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing
projects. The evaluation criteria will be used to determine which projects
will be submitted for funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle. In
addition, although the project prioritization process is a useful tool
internally, the process does not address the underlying need to inform and
get agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why AOC
submits specific projects for funding.
Recommendations for Agency Action
In order to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts, we recommend
that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the Chief Operating
Officer, lead efforts to ensure that congressional and other stakeholders
are engaged early and throughout the development of the Capitol complex
master plan.
In order to improve the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend
that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the Chief Operating
Officer, lead efforts to ensure that AOC informs and obtains agreement
from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why specific projects
are submitted for funding.
AOC Made Progress Toward Adopting a More Strategic Approach to its
Recycling Program
It is estimated that recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 3.3
cubic yards of landfill space, 7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil,
4,100 kilowatt hours of energy, and 60 pounds of air pollutants. Over
12,000 tons of waste is created annually within the Capitol Hill
complex.13 Much of the waste generated is from office, construction, and
maintenance activities and includes such materials as paper, wood,
plastic, and metal. AOC is responsible for implementing recycling programs
for much of the Capitol Hill complex and has taken steps both centrally,
and at the jurisdiction level, to improve the overall effectiveness of its
recycling programs.
13 Waste tonnage does not include hazardous and non-hazardous chemical
waste.
In our January 2003 report, we recommended that AOC take a more strategic
approach to improve the effectiveness of its recycling programs.
Specifically, we recommended that AOC develop a clear mission and goals
for AOC's recycling programs with input from key congressional
stakeholders as part of its proposed environmental program plan. We
further recommended that AOC establish reasonable goals based on the total
waste stream that could potentially be recycled-information it plans to
obtain as part of its long-term environmental program plan.
In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC had begun taking the first
steps toward a more strategic approach for its recycling programs. In
accordance with our recommendation, and as part of its broader
environmental program plan, AOC began collecting information on its
facilities and operations through a baseline assessment and waste stream
analysis. The baseline assessment evaluated the compliance of AOC
facilities and operations with federal, state, and local environmental
regulations; the waste stream analysis identified the types of waste
created at AOC facilities and possible pollution prevention opportunities,
such as waste elimination, reuse, or recycling. AOC will clarify the
mission, goals, and measures of its recycling programs as a component of
pollution prevention. According to AOC officials, the results of the
assessment and analysis will provide a basis for establishing program
priorities and measuring future progress. We further noted in our January
2004 report, that AOC was planning to obtain stakeholder input on the
environmental program plan beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year
2004, after completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream
analysis.
Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in the development of its
environmental program plan and its movement toward a more strategic
approach. In particular, AOC has completed the baseline assessment as well
as the waste stream analysis for its facilities and operations.14
Moreover, AOC is expanding its waste stream analysis-which currently
covers office, construction, and maintenance waste-to include electronic
waste (e-waste), such as outdated computer equipment. AOC is also
developing pollution prevention plans based on the results of the waste
steam analysis. In May 2004, AOC received input from internal stakeholders
on the draft environmental plan and expects to complete the
14 The baseline assessment for AOC facilities and operations was actually
completed in November 2003.
environmental plan in October 2004 as well as receive congressional input
early next year.
AOC has made progress toward developing a mission and goals for its
recycling programs in accordance with our January 2003 recommendation. The
completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis are good
first steps toward developing a more comprehensive environmental program
plan and should provide a sound basis for establishing program priorities
and measuring future progress. The results from these efforts should also
help AOC develop targeted pollution prevention plans. Finally, the input
received from internal stakeholders on the environmental plan, as well as
the expected input from congressional stakeholders early next year, should
prove to be invaluable in keeping AOC moving forward strategically. It is
critical, however, that at least preliminary congressional input be
obtained prior to the environmental plan's completion to help ensure that
the plan is consistent with the interests and expectations of
congressional stakeholders and that AOC's efforts and resources are
targeted at the highest priorities.
Recommendation for To further assist AOC in developing a more strategic
approach for its
Agency Action recycling programs and to ensure that congressional input is
obtained when it would be most useful, we recommend that the Architect of
the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to obtain preliminary input
from congressional stakeholders on its environmental program plan-
particularly as the plan relates to the mission and goals of AOC's
recycling programs-prior to the completion of the plan.
COO Action Plan Addresses Six Business Areas, but Lacks Sufficient Details to
Guide and Communicate the COO's Performance and Progress
One of the most important issues raised in our January 2003 report was the
need for Congress to create a Chief Operating Officer (COO) position to
serve as the central leadership point to improve AOC's executive
decisionmaking capacity and accountability. The Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7) established, in section
1203 of Division H, the new position of Deputy Architect/Chief Operating
Officer within the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. Subsection
1203(e) required that the COO prepare an action plan describing "the
policies, procedures, and actions the [COO] will implement and time frames
for carrying out the responsibilities under this section." The
responsibilities described include implementing AOC's mission and goals,
providing overall organization
management, assisting the Architect in promoting reform, and measuring
results.
The action plan was to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate not later than 90 days after appointment of
the COO, which occurred on July 28, 2003. The COO Action Plan, however,
was not submitted to the committees until December 22, 2003- 59 days late.
The COO Action Plan and the Report to the Congress from Deputy
Architect/Chief Operating Officer provide a list of 31 action items and
their expected completion dates across six business areas:
1. Organizational Management and Structure - 12 action items,
2. Project Management - 6 action items,
3. Customer Service - 3 action items,
4. Strategic Planning - 5 action items,
5. Communications - 3 action items, and
6. GAO Management Review Recommendations - 2 action items.
Overall, the plan's high-level description of the action items assumes
that Congress and other users have a deep and detailed knowledge of AOC's
goals, internal operations, and management functions-a level of knowledge
that is not reasonable to expect. The plan's action items are described at
such a high-level that it does not make clear how the COO would carry out
his legislated responsibilities or help lead transformational change at
AOC. For example, the legislation states that the COO is responsible for
proposing organizational changes and staffing needed to carry out AOC's
mission and goals. While the COO's report expresses the need for
organizational changes and highlights expected improvements, it does not
describe what specific changes the COO envisions or how changes would be
accomplished. However, AOC included proposed organizational changes in its
fiscal year 2005 budget justification. The House Appropriations committee
did not approve those changes because, in the committee's view, the AOC
proposal does not reflect Congress' intent
to assign the COO the responsibility for AOC's overall direction,
operation, and management to improve AOC's performance.15
The COO action plan also does not detail how the individual action items
would be accomplished or how performance would be measured. For example,
the first item listed in the action plan is to "review/update AOC's
organizational structure to better align with the strategic plan and
operational mandates," yet the plan lacks necessary details, including how
such a review would be conducted, the time frame in which it would be
completed, who would be involved in the review, or how progress would be
measured. While the plan does list action items according to broad subject
areas, for example "organizational management and structure," the plan
does not prioritize items that appear to be related nor does it identify
the required resources or organizational units that are being delegated
those action items. The plan could also better communicate whether the
action items are standalone or dependent upon each other to accomplish the
COO's responsibilities. Finally, even though the legislation required that
the COO action plan be developed concurrently and consistently with the
strategic plan,16 the plan did not include a direct crosswalk to the AOC
strategic plan, which was released on December 15, 2003, nor did it
provide a clear picture of how the action items will help accomplish the
agency's mission and goals.
Recommendation for Agency Action
To enhance the usefulness of the COO action plan, we recommend the
Architect of the Capitol and the Chief Operating Officer consult with
members of Congress and key committees on the specific information
regarding AOC's plans, policies, procedures, actions, and proposed
organizational changes. As part of this effort, the Architect and the COO
should work with Congress to determine Congress' information needs and the
timing and format of delivery of that information that will best meet
Congress' needs. Furthermore, consistent with our findings and
recommendations with respect to congressional and other stakeholder
involvement in general and the Capitol complex master plan in particular,
as well as our original January 2003 management review, specific emphasis
should be placed on AOC's project management. Particular issues to be
discussed could include how
15 H.R. Rep. No. 108-577, accompanying H.R. 4755 (Jul. 1, 2004). 16 Pub.
L. No. 108-7, S:1203(e)(2)(B).
o AOC's projects' priorities are determined,
o AOC monitors and controls project cost, quality, and timeliness,
o AOC uses lessons learned from projects and seeks to incorporate best
practices,
o project management accountability is assigned and managed, and
o AOC determines the best mix of in-house and contractor support when
designing projects.
Subsequent COO action plans and status reports will likely be most helpful
to Congress to the extent that they are rigorously specific as to the
problem or issue that needs to be addressed, the actions that are being
taken in response, the progress to-date, and milestones for additional
actions.
Concluding Observations
As we noted in our two previous reviews, organizational transformation
does not come quickly or easily and the changes under way at AOC require a
long-term concerted effort. AOC has made progress in addressing the eight
key management control issues and the corresponding recommendations
outlined in this report; however, AOC management will need to build on its
efforts to date and more fully engage congressional and other stakeholders
to ensure that their interests and expectations are incorporated into
AOC's organizational transformation. For example, involving stakeholders
in the development of a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and
external communications, the formulation of a Capitol complex master plan,
and the establishment of a recycling mission and goals will be critical in
successfully addressing these key issues. As AOC works to establish its
strategic management and accountability framework and address
long-standing areas of concern, it must continue to demonstrate progress
on each of these eight key issues to help it sustain the momentum needed
to accomplish its organizational transformation, particularly in engaging
its congressional and other stakeholders.
Agency Comments and We provided the Architect of the Capitol a draft of
this report on July 26, 2004, for review and comment. We received written
commentsOur Evaluation from the Architect on August 13, 2004, and they are
reprinted in appendix I. In his comments, the Architect generally agreed
with our findings and
conclusions. He suggested technical changes and provided additional
information related to information security, safety performance measures,
and Capitol complex master planning that were incorporated into our report
where appropriate. The Architect also noted his agreement with each new
recommendation, except for those regarding worker safety performance
measures, Capitol complex master planning, and the process for
prioritizing projects.
Regarding worker safety performance measures, we reported that AOC's
safety perception survey had design and implementation weaknesses and,
therefore, we recommended a more rigorous methodological approach to the
survey. In response, the Architect stated that they found AOC's employee
response rate to be 68 percent. While this rate is approaching the 70
percent cut-off that is considered minimally acceptable for this type of
survey, only 49 percent of the subgroup of frontline employees (e.g.
carpenters, plumbers, and custodial workers) returned a completed survey,
according to AOC's summary report. As frontline employees are most at risk
of work-related injuries, their low response rate makes it difficult for
AOC to draw meaningful conclusions about these employees' attitudes and
beliefs towards safety. The Architect also noted that the survey used a
number of benchmark questions that have previously been used in other
surveys. Nonetheless, AOC's lack of a pre-test of the entire instrument
does not give AOC assurance that employees interpreted the questions in
the manner AOC had expected. In fact, officials in one AOC jurisdiction
were concerned that some questions could be misinterpreted and therefore
had employees complete their individual survey in a group like setting.
Thus, we believe that AOC's safety perception survey would still benefit
from a more rigorous methodological approach.
In our draft report, we also recommended that the Architect direct the COO
to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts and the process to
prioritize projects by (1) ensuring that congressional and other
stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the
Capitol complex master plan, and (2) ensuring that AOC informs and obtains
agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why
specific projects are submitted for funding. According to the Architect,
he has and will continue to lead the Capitol complex master plan
initiative. In addition, the Architect noted his plan to get an
Architect/Engineer (AE) onboard so that they can jointly meet with and
ensure that stakeholders are engaged at the beginning and throughout the
development of the master plan. We agree that the Architect's personal
involvement in the development of the Capitol complex master plan will be
critical to its success and the Architect's commitment to engage
stakeholders is consistent with our recommendation. However, because the
COO position was created to serve as the central leadership point to
improve AOC's executive decision-making capacity and accountability, the
COO should also be involved in the master planning process, project
prioritization, and communication with stakeholders. As such, we made
revisions to the two recommendations to address the Architect's concerns
so that the Architect, with support from the COO, leads efforts to
implement the recommendations. In addition, the Architect questioned the
direct link between the master plan and the prioritization process. We
continue to believe that the Capitol complex master plan and project
prioritization should be linked because a master plan could help guide
dayto-day prioritization by being the basis for communicating, both
internally and externally, the trade-offs that result from prioritizing
one project over another, or how individual projects fit within a broader
AOC framework. We made revisions to the two recommendations to provide
greater clarity by addressing the master plan and the prioritization
process separately.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional parties.
We are also sending a copy to the Architect of the Capitol. This report is
also available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have general questions concerning this report, or
specific questions concerning strategic management or human capital
issues, please contact J. Christopher Mihm or Steven Lozano at (202)
5126806 or by e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected]. In addition, if
you have specific questions concerning financial management issues, please
contact Jeanette Franzel or John Reilly at (202) 512-9471 or by e-mail at
[email protected] or [email protected]. If you have specific questions
concerning information technology issues, please contact Randolph Hite or
Carl Higginbotham at (202) 512-3439 or by e-mail at [email protected] or
[email protected]. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II.
J. Christopher Mihm Managing Director, Strategic Issues
Jeanette M. Franzel Director, Financial Management and Assurance
Randolph C. Hite Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems
Issues
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix I
Comments from the Architect of the Capitol
Appendix II
Staff Acknowledgments
Individuals making key contributions to this report included Kevin J.
Conway, Jeffery Bass, Thomas Beall, Justin Booth, Terrell Dorn, Andrew
Edelson, Steven Elstein, Brett Fallavollita, Joel Grossman, Carl
Higginbotham, Dan Hoy, John Johnson, Steven Lozano, Mamesho Macaulay, Jeff
McDermott, David Merrill, John Reilly, Kris Trueblood, Carl Urie, Michael
Volpe, and Daniel Wexler.
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 The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00
United States
Government Accountability Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***