Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and
Budget's Initiatives (25-APR-05, GAO-05-420).
In accordance with the President's Management Agenda, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has sponsored initiatives to
promote electronic government--the use of information technology,
such as Web-based Internet applications, to enhance government
services. Generally, these "e-gov" initiatives do not have direct
appropriations but depend on a variety of funding sources,
including monetary contributions from participating agencies. GAO
was asked to review the funding of e-gov initiatives that relied
on such contributions: specifically, to determine, for fiscal
years 2003 and 2004, whether agencies made contributions in the
amounts planned and to determine the timing of these
contributions.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-420
ACCNO: A22578
TITLE: Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of
Management and Budget's Initiatives
DATE: 04/25/2005
SUBJECT: Electronic government
Federal agencies
Federal funds
Funds management
Information technology
Interagency relations
Regulatory agencies
Strategic planning
E-Government Fund
******************************************************************
** 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-05-420
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
April 2005
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
Funding of the Office of Management and Budget's Initiatives
GAO-05-420
[IMG]
April 2005
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
Funding of the Office of Management and Budget's Initiatives
What GAO Found
As shown below, most federal agencies contributed funds as originally
planned by the managing partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on such
contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Nevertheless, 6 of the 10
initiatives experienced shortfalls from their funding plans in fiscal year
2003 and 9 in 2004. The rationale provided by agencies for contributions
that were less than planned included: (1) substitution of in-kind
resources in lieu of funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from OMB
reflecting planned funding amounts, (3) inability to obtain permission to
reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4) organizational realignments
associated with creation of the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal
year 2003. For example, the e-Rulemaking initiative (managed by the
Environmental Protection Agency) received only 51 percent of its planned
fiscal year 2004 contributions. Although the initiative's funding plan
called for adding new funding partners in that year, OMB did not reflect
this expansion when it issued its annual budget guidance to agencies. As a
result, the newly added agencies generally did not contribute. According
to E-Rulemaking officials, the resulting shortfall in funds, along with
delays in receiving funds from other agencies, required them to
significantly scale back their plans.
In most cases, fiscal year 2003 and 2004 contributions from partner
agencies were made in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year.
Agency officials identified the administrative burden associated with
drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as the
delayed enactment of the fiscal year 2003-2004 appropriations bills, as
contributing to this timing of contributions. However, according to
officials from several agencies, although the administrative burden is
still high, agencies have become more accustomed to funding strategies
based on partner agency contributions.
Numbers of Contributing Partner Agencies by Initiative Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal
year 2004
Initiative
# of funding partners
# contributing as planned
# of funding partners
# contributing as planned
Disaster Management 9 5 8 6
e-Authentication 14 8 15 13
e-Loans 5 4 5 4
e-Rulemaking 9 7 35 9
Geospatial One-Stop 8 7 8 6
GovBenefits 10 10 10 9
Grants.gov 11 11 12 11
Integrated Acquisition
Environment 31 19 24 21
Project SAFECOM 9 4 7 6
Recreation One-Stop 4 4 4 4
Total 110 79 128 89
Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Although Agencies Generally Contributed Amounts as Planned,
Shortfalls Nevertheless Occurred Contributions Were Often Made Late in the
Fiscal Year Conclusions Recommendation for Executive Action Agency
Comments 1
2 3
8 12 14 15 15
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on Financial
Contributions from Partner Agencies
Disaster Management
e-Authentication
e-Loans
e-Rulemaking
Geospatial One-Stop
GovBenefits
Grants.gov
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE)
Project SAFECOM
Recreation One-Stop
18
18 20 23 24 29 31 32 34 37 39
Tables
Table 1: Funding Strategies Employed by the 25 OMB-Sponsored e-Government
Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 6 Table 2: E-Government Fund
Money Allocated to the 25 OMB-
Sponsored e-Gov Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 8 Table 3:
Numbers of Contributing Partner Agencies by Initiative 9 Table 4: Disaster
Management Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-
2004 18 Table 5: e-Authentication Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
21 Table 6: e-Loans Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 24 Table 7:
e-Rulemaking Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 25 Table 8:
Geospatial One-Stop Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 30
Table 9: GovBenefits Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 32 Table 10:
Grants.gov Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 33 Table 11: Integrated
Acquisition Environment Partner
Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 34 Table 12: Project SAFECOM
Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 38 Table 13: Recreation One-Stop
Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 40
Figures
Figure 1: OMB Management Structure for e-Government Initiatives 5 Figure
2: Shortfalls in Contributions and Agency Rationale for Fiscal Years 2003
and 2004 10 Figure 3: Finalization of Agency Funding Obligations by
Quarter for One e-Gov Initiative 13
Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOD Department of Defense
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GSA General Services Administration
IAE Integrated Acquisition Environment
IT information technology
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OMB Office of Management and Budget
SBA Small Business Administration
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.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
April 25, 2005
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Adam H. Putnam
House of Representatives
Generally speaking, e-government refers to the use of information
technology (IT), particularly Web-based Internet applications, to enhance
the access to and delivery of government information and service to
citizens, to business partners, to employees, and among agencies at all
levels of government. In 2001, under the leadership of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), a team known as the E-Government Task
Force identified a set of high-profile initiatives to lead the federal
government's drive toward e-government transformation. These
initiatives-now numbering 251-cover a wide spectrum of government
activities, ranging from centralizing various types of government
information on the Web to eliminating redundant, nonintegrated business
operations and systems. OMB has been overseeing the implementation of
these 25 high-priority, cross-agency e-government initiatives in support
of
the President's Management Agenda. Generally, these initiatives do not
have direct appropriations but depend on a variety of funding sources,
including, for 10 of the initiatives, joint funding from participating
agencies.
This report responds to your request that we review funding of the OMB
sponsored e-government initiatives. Specifically, as agreed with your
office, our objectives were, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to (1)
determine
whether federal agencies made contributions in the amounts planned to
the 10 e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions and (2)
determine
the timing of these contributions and reasons for any contributions made
late in each fiscal year.
1For more information on the objectives and progress of these initiatives,
see GAO, Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by the Office of
Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress, GAO-04-561T (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004).
Results in Brief
To address our objectives, we obtained and analyzed detailed funding data
and supporting documentation from the managing and funding partners of
these initiatives to identify the amount and timing of contributions for
fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Through interviews with agency officials, we
obtained explanations for any shortfalls in making planned contributions
and the circumstances that affected timing of contributions. Details of
our objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I. Our
work was conducted in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, from
September 2004 to April 2005, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Most federal agencies contributed funds as originally planned by the
managing partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on such contributions
in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.2 Specifically, in fiscal year 2003, 79 of
the 110 funding partner agencies made contributions as planned, as did 89
of 128 funding partner agencies in fiscal year 2004. Nevertheless,
shortfalls from originally planned contributions occurred; 6 of the 10
initiatives experienced shortfalls from their funding plans in fiscal year
2003 and 9 in fiscal year 2004. The rationale provided by agencies for
contributions that were less than planned included (1) substitution of
in-kind resources in lieu of monetary funds, (2) lack of budget guidance
from OMB reflecting the original planned amounts, (3) inability to obtain
congressional approval to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4)
organizational realignments associated with creation of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2003. For example, the General
Services Administration (GSA), the managing partner for the Integrated
Acquisition Environment initiative, agreed to accept in-kind contributions
from the Department of Defense (DOD) consisting of staff and the use of
existing DOD systems instead of the funding contribution originally
planned for fiscal year 2004. As another example, in fiscal year 2004,
although the e-Rulemaking initiative's governing board had reached
agreement on a funding plan that called for expanding the number of
funding partners from 9 to 35 over the previous fiscal year, OMB did not
reflect this planned expansion in the budget guidance it provided to
agencies. As a result, the newly added agencies that did not receive
budget guidance to provide funds for e-Rulemaking in fiscal year 2004
generally did not contribute,
2These initiatives are Disaster Management, e-Authentication, e-Loans,
e-Rulemaking, Geospatial One-Stop, GovBenefits, Grants.gov, Integrated
Acquisition Environment, Project SAFECOM, and Recreation One-Stop.
except in three instances.3 Without receiving planned contributions,
officials had to delay implementation of key elements of the planned
initiative.
In most cases, fiscal year 2003 and 2004 contributions from partner
agencies were made in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year.
Specifically, seven of the initiatives reported that they had finalized
half or more of their funding agreements with partner agencies in the
third or fourth quarter of the fiscal year. According to managing and
funding partner agency officials, factors contributing to this timing of
contributions included the administrative burden associated with drafting,
negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as the timing of
enactment of the fiscal year 2003-2004 appropriations bills.4 However,
according to officials from several agencies, although the administrative
burden is still high, over time agencies have become more accustomed to
the requirements of the interagency agreement process.
In order to avoid errors and to better assist the managing partner
agencies in obtaining funds to execute the OMB-sponsored initiatives, we
are recommending that the Director of OMB take steps to ensure that OMB's
budget guidance to partner agencies correctly reflects the funding plans
of each of the initiatives that rely on funding contributions. In
commenting on a draft of this report, officials from OMB generally agreed
with its content and our recommendation.
Background E-government is seen as promising a wide range of benefits
based largely on harnessing the power of the Internet to facilitate
interconnections and information exchange between citizens and their
government. A variety of actions have been taken in recent years to
enhance the government's ability to realize the potential of e-government.
The President designated e-government as one of five priorities in his
fiscal year 2002 management agenda for making the federal government more
focused on citizens and results. According to the agenda, e-government is
expected to
3These instances include monetary contributions by the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Small Business
Administration; the National Archives and Records Administration made an
in-kind contribution in lieu of funds.
4Appropriations for fiscal year 2003, which began on October 1, 2002, were
not enacted for most agencies until February 20, 2003. Appropriations for
fiscal year 2004, which began on October 1, 2003, were not enacted for
most agencies until January 23, 2004.
o provide high-quality customer services regardless of whether the
citizen contacts the agency by phone, in person, or on the Web;
o reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with the
government;
o cut government operating costs;
o provide citizens with readier access to government services;
o increase access for persons with disabilities to agency Web sites and
e-government applications; and
o make government more transparent and accountable.
As the lead agency for implementing the President's management agenda, OMB
developed a governmentwide strategy for expanding e-government, which it
published in February 2002.5 In its strategy, OMB organized the 25
selected e-government initiatives into five portfolios: "government to
citizen," "government to business," "government to government," "internal
efficiency and effectiveness," and "cross-cutting." Figure 1 provides an
overview of this structure.
5Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 27, 2002).
Figure 1: OMB Management Structure for e-Government Initiatives
Sources: GAO and OMB.
For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency to be the
initiative's "managing partner," responsible for leading the initiative,
and assigned other federal agencies as "partners" in carrying out the
initiative. Partner responsibilities can include making contributions of
funding or in-kind resources (e.g., staff time). Most of the initiatives
do not have direct appropriations but rely instead on a variety of
alternative funding
strategies. Table 1 summarizes the funding strategies employed by the 25
OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 1: Funding Strategies Employed by the 25 OMB-Sponsored e-Government
Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004
Initiative Managing partner Funding strategies
Business Gateway Small Business Managing partner funded,
Administration E-Government Fund
Consolidated Health Department of Health and In-kind contributions (no
Human monetary funds)
Informatics Services
Disaster Management Department of Homeland Partner agency contributions
Security
e-Authentication General Services Partner agency contributions
Administration
e-Clearance Office of Personnel Managing partner funded
Management
e-Loans Partner agency contributions
Department of Education (Some partner agencies also
separately funded their own
specific component projects.)
Enterprise Human Resources Office of Personnel Management Managing partner
funded, fee for service Integration
Office of Personnel Managing partner funded, fee
e-Payroll Management for service, E-Government
Fund
e-Records National Archives and
Records Managing partner funded
Administration
e-Rulemaking Environmental Protection Partner agency contributions
Agency
Office of Personnel Managing partner funded, fee
e-Training Management for service, E-Government
Fund
e-Travel General Services Managing partner funded
Administration
e-Vital Social Security Managing partner funded
Administration
Expanding Electronic Department of the
Tax Treasury Managing partner funded
Products for
Businesses
Federal Asset Sales General Services Managing partner funded
Administration
Department of the
Geospatial One-Stop Interior Partner agency contributions
GovBenefits Department of Labor Partner agency
contributions
Department of Health Partner agency
Grants.gov and Human contributions
Services
General Services Partner agency
Integrated Acquisition Administration contributions
Environment
International Trade Managing partner funded
Process (Partner agencies also
Department of Commerce separately
Streamlining funded their own specific
component projects.)
IRS Free File Department of the Managing partner funded
Treasury
Project SAFECOM Department of Homeland Partner agency
Security contributions
Department of the Partner agency
Recreation One-Stop Interior contributions, E-Government
Fund
Managing partner funded,
Office of Personnel participating agencies
Recruitment One-Stop Management assessed
fees
USA Services General Services Managing partner funded,
Administration fee for service
Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
A common strategy used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 was to reach
agreement among the participating agencies on monetary contributions to be
made by each-10 of the 25 initiatives used this strategy. Initiatives used
different approaches in determining how much an agency should contribute.
For example, some adopted complex allocation formulas based on agency size
and expected use of the initiative's resources, while others decided to
have each agency contribute an equal share. In most cases, the funding
strategy and allocation formula adopted for an initiative was determined
by its governing board, with input from partner agencies and OMB. To
further reinforce the strategy of having partner agencies make financial
contributions, OMB generally reflected planned agency allocations in its
annual budget guidance to partner agencies, known as passback
instructions.
The remaining 15 initiatives used other funding approaches. Specifically,
for 7 of the 15, the managing partner contributed all necessary funds.
Seven others6 used a combination of managing partner funding and other
sources, such as charging fees for services provided, or received support
from the E-Government Fund, established by the E-Government Act of 2002.7
The E-Government Fund was intended to be used to support projects that
enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities
electronically. The Director of OMB, supported by the E-Government
Administrator, is responsible for determining which projects are to
receive support from the E-Government Fund. Table 2 summarizes support
from the E-Government Fund given to the 25 OMB-sponsored initiatives in
fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
6The Consolidated Health Informatics initiative was supported by in-kind
contributions (no monetary funds).
744 U.S.C. 3604.
Table 2: E-Government Fund Money Allocated to the 25 OMB-Sponsored e-Gov
Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004
Dollars in millions
Fiscal
year Appropriated Initiatives supported Spent
2003 $5 Business Gateway, e-Payroll, Recreation $3.1
One-Stop, e-Training
2004 3 Business Gateway; independent
verification and validation of the 25
e-government initiatives
Total $8 $5.4
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the General Services
Administration.
Note: Table does not reflect all activities for which E-Government Fund
money was allocated in each fiscal year.
As shown in table 2, $5.4 million of the available $8 million in the
E-Government Fund was spent on, among other things, 4 of the 25
initiatives. In addition to its use for the e-gov initiatives, OMB also
used the E-Government Fund to support development of its "lines of
business" initiatives8 (a total of $1.9 million) in fiscal years 2003 and
2004.
For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, agencies generally made funding
contributions in the amounts originally planned by the managing partners
of the 10 initiatives that relied on funding contributions. Table 3 shows
the specific numbers of partner agencies that made such contributions as
planned.
Although Agencies Generally Contributed Amounts as Planned, Shortfalls
Nevertheless Occurred
8In March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine five
lines of business: case management, federal health architecture, grants
management, human resources management, and financial management.
Table 3: Numbers of Contributing Partner Agencies by Initiative
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Number of Partners contributing
Number of funding
Partners contributing as plannedInitiative funding partners as planned
partners
Disaster Management 9 5 8
e-Authentication 14 8 15
e-Loans 5 4 5
e-Rulemaking 9 7 35
Geospatial One-Stop 8 7 8
GovBenefits 10 10 10
Grants.gov 11 11 12
Integrated Acquisition
Environment 31 19 24
Project SAFECOM 9 4 7
Recreation One-Stop 4 4 4
Total 110 79 128
Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
Note: The count of agencies contributing as planned also includes partner
contributions that were greater than planned.
Although most contributions were made in the amounts planned, 6 of the 10
initiatives experienced funding shortfalls from their planned budgets in
fiscal year 2003, and 9 experienced shortfalls in fiscal year 2004.
Shortfalls in fiscal year 2003 totaled approximately $31 million (22
percent) of a planned budget of $138.7 million. In fiscal year 2004,
shortfalls totaled approximately $25.4 million (20 percent) of a planned
$124.2 million. The rationale provided by agencies for contributions that
were less than planned included (1) substitution of in-kind resources in
lieu of funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from OMB reflecting the
original planned amounts, (3) inability to obtain congressional approval
to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4) organizational
realignments associated with creation of DHS in fiscal year 2003. Figure 2
shows the shortfalls in contributions for each fiscal year and the primary
rationale provided by agencies for those shortfalls.
Figure 2: Shortfalls in Contributions and Agency Rationale for Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2004
Fiscal year 2003
Fiscal year 2004
Other (12%) $0.2M Organizational realignments associated
In-kind resources with the creation
provided in lieu of full of DHS (1%)
requested amount
(9%) Other (11%)
Planned amount not Reprogramming reflected in OMB request denied by
passback (15%) Congress (19%)
Organizational In-kind resources provided in lieu of full requested
amount
(29%) (28%)
Reprogramming Planned amount not request denied by reflected in OMB
Congress (35%) passback (41%) Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided
data.
As shown in figure 2, in some cases partner agencies negotiated with the
initiatives' managing partners for reductions in monetary contributions,
which often included an agreement for transfer of in-kind resources. For
example, in fiscal year 2004, the Social Security Administration provided
in-kind resources in lieu of requested funding to the e-Authentication
initiative, managed by GSA. Specific details of all initiative shortfalls
and associated agency explanations can be found in appendix II.
Most of the shortfalls that occurred in each fiscal year were concentrated
in one or two of the initiatives. For example, shortfalls in fiscal year
2003 experienced by the Project SAFECOM initiative-which is to serve as
the umbrella program within the federal government to help local, tribal,
state, and federal public safety agencies improve public safety response
through more effective and efficient interoperable wireless
communications- accounted for 57 percent of the total shortfall in that
year. According to program officials, these shortfalls resulted from two
major causes: (1) the inability of the Departments of Justice and the
Interior to obtain congressional approval to reprogram funds from other
accounts and
(2) the impact of organizational realignments associated with the creation
of DHS in fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported that the fiscal
year 2003 shortfalls resulted in delays in the development of standards
and architecture efforts related to communications interoperability. For
example, the timeline for development of a methodology for assessing
communications interoperability nationwide was postponed until sufficient
funding could be made available.
In fiscal year 2004, shortfalls experienced by the e-Rulemaking and
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) initiatives accounted for nearly
two-thirds (64 percent) of the total shortfall. The e-Rulemaking
initiative, managed by EPA, received only $5,850,208 (51 percent) of its
planned fiscal year 2004 budget of $11,505,000 in partner agency
contributions. Although the initiative's funding plan had called for an
expanded number of funding partners (from 9 to 35) over the previous
fiscal year, OMB did not reflect that plan with passback instructions to
the new funding partners. According to OMB officials, the disconnect
between the initiative's funding strategy and OMB's passback instructions
represented a "timing problem," in that the passback instructions were
based on the previously defined project scope of 9 partners. However,
according to e-Rulemaking's funding plan for fiscal year 2004, the
project's scope had already been broadened at the time OMB issued its
passback instructions. Without passback instructions in fiscal year 2004,
planned partner agencies did not make contributions, except in a few
instances.9 E-Rulemaking officials reported that the resulting shortfall
in funds, compounded with delays in reaching agreements regarding
contributions from other agencies, required them to significantly scale
back agency migration to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), the
centerpiece of the initiative. Specifically, the number of agencies
planned to migrate to the system in its first phase of implementation was
reduced
9Three agencies contributed funds: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
Federal Trade Commission, Small Business Administration. One agency, the
National Archives and Records Administration, contributed in-kind
resources in lieu of funds.
Contributions Were Often Made Late in the Fiscal Year
from 10 to 5, and 2 of those represented only component organizations
rather than entire agencies.10
In IAE's case, the shortfall in fiscal year 2004 also resulted in part
from OMB passback instructions to the Department of Energy not reflecting
the amount originally planned by GSA. According to OMB and GSA officials,
the passback instructions did not reflect the planned amount due to an
administrative error. IAE officials reported that as a result of this
shortfall, implementation of several planned systems applications was
postponed indefinitely. In addition, IAE received a smaller than
anticipated contribution in fiscal year 2004 from the Department of
Defense, because Defense provided in-kind resources in lieu of the
originally planned funding contribution.
Although initiatives generally received funding contributions from federal
agencies in the amounts planned, in most cases, funds were contributed in
the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Specifically, seven of
the initiatives reported that they had finalized half or more of their
agreements with partner agencies in the third or fourth quarter of the
fiscal year. In providing a rationale for contributions made late in the
fiscal year, officials from both managing and funding partner agencies
reported that the administrative burden associated with drafting,
negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as the timing of
appropriations bill enactment, contributed to these delays.
For illustrative purposes, figure 3 shows the timing of funding
obligations for one of the initiatives, IAE. As the figure shows, most
funding obligations were finalized in the last quarter of the fiscal year.
10The agencies originally included for phase 1 implementation included the
Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior,
and Transportation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Federal Reserve System, the General Services Administration, the National
Archives and Records Administration, and the Small Business
Administration. Agencies scheduled to migrate to FDMS in phase 1 now
include EPA, Housing and Urban Development, the Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service (a component of Agriculture), portions of the
Department of Homeland Security, and the National Archives and Records
Administration.
Figure 3: Finalization of Agency Funding Obligations by Quarter for One
e-Gov Initiative
Both managing and funding partner agencies reported that the extended
process of drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements
contributed significantly to the timing of funding contributions in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004. Officials from 5 of the 10 initiatives that relied on
funding contributions from partner agencies specifically cited the
administrative burden as a factor in interagency agreements being reached
in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Officials from the
Geospatial One-Stop initiative, managed by Interior, reported that
potential partner agencies that could have provided modest funding
contributions were sometimes not invited to do so because the resource
investment required to reach interagency agreements was prohibitively
high.
In addition to the administrative burden associated with finalizing
interagency agreements, managing and funding partner agencies also
attributed the timing of contributions to the enactment of appropriations
bills relatively late in the fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year
2003, appropriations were not enacted for most agencies until February 20,
2003, almost 5 months into the fiscal year.11 Further, managing partner
agencies did not begin the process of establishing memorandums of
understanding with partner agencies until after relevant appropriations
had been enacted. Although OMB instructed agencies in fiscal year 2004 to
make their funding obligations to managing partner agencies within 45 days
of enactment of appropriations, agencies reported that this deadline was
rarely achieved.
According to OMB officials overseeing the initiatives, partner agencies
should make every effort to provide promised contributions as early as
possible within a funding cycle because of the benefits in facilitating
implementation of the initiatives. However, for both fiscal years, agency
officials generally did not report that obtaining funds late in the fiscal
year caused their initiatives to suffer significant setbacks in executing
planned tasks or achieving planned goals. Further, several agency
officials noted that the process of drafting and negotiating memorandums
of understanding among agencies had improved over time and was becoming
more efficient in fiscal year 2005, for example, than in the two fiscal
years we examined.12 These officials attributed the greater efficiency to
increased knowledge and experience among officials involved in managing
the e-gov initiatives.
Most e-gov initiative partner agencies made contributions as planned to
the 10 initiatives that relied on such contributions in fiscal years 2003
and 2004, although shortfalls occurred for a variety of reasons. In fiscal
year 2004, the e-Rulemaking and IAE initiatives experienced shortfalls
when OMB did not reflect the initiatives' funding plans in budget guidance
to partner agencies. Without corresponding budget guidance from OMB,
partner agencies generally did not make planned contributions, and as a
result, officials had to delay implementation of elements of the planned
initiatives.
Conclusions
11Public Law 108-7. Fiscal year 2003 began on October 1, 2002.
12We did not include fiscal year 2005 in our review because data for that
year were not complete at the time of our review.
Recommendation for Executive Action
Agency Comments
Agreements on contributions often were not finalized until late in the
fiscal year, in large part because the administrative burden in obtaining
funds through interagency agreements was cumbersome. However, managing
partners generally did not report significant disruptions in their planned
milestones and objectives, and several commented that the interagency
agreement process was becoming more efficient over time.
In order to avoid errors and to better assist the managing partner
agencies in obtaining funds to execute the OMB-sponsored e-gov
initiatives, we recommend that the Director of OMB take steps to ensure
that OMB's budget guidance to partner agencies correctly reflects the
funding plans of each of the initiatives that rely on funding
contributions.
We received oral comments on a draft of this report from representatives
of OMB's Office of E-Government, including the Associate Administrator for
E-Government and Information Technology. These representatives generally
agreed with the content of our draft report and our recommendation and
provided technical comments, which have been incorporated where
appropriate.
OMB officials stated that, while there had been some problems in
administering the funding of the e-government initiatives in fiscal years
2003 and 2004, agencies had made substantial progress in fiscal year 2005
in executing memorandums of understanding as early as possible.
Specifically, OMB officials reported that as of April 8, 2005, about 80
percent of fiscal year 2005 funding commitments had been finalized.
Although we did not evaluate fiscal year 2005 as part of our review, we
noted in the report that the process of drafting and negotiating
memorandums of understanding among agencies had reportedly improved over
time. As described in the report, agency officials attributed the greater
efficiency to increased knowledge and experience among officials involved
in managing the e-gov initiatives.
Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan
no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time,
we will provide a copy of this report to the Director of OMB. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
Should you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6335.
We
can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and deferrarij@gao.gov,
respectively. Other key contributors to this report included Barbara
Collier; Felipe Colon, Jr.; Wilfred Holloway; Sandra Kerr; Frank Maguire;
and Jamie Pressman.
Linda D. Koontz
Director, Information Management Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our objectives were, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to (1) determine
whether federal agencies made contributions in the amounts planned to the
10 e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions, and (2) determine
the timing of these contributions and reasons for any contributions made
late in each fiscal year.
To determine whether federal agencies made monetary contributions to
OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 in the
amounts planned, we analyzed detailed funding data and supporting
documentation from both managing partner and funding partner agencies.
This documentation included the initiative's agreed-upon funding plans for
both fiscal years, as well as signed interagency agreements for each
contribution. We also held follow-up discussions with agency officials to
clarify the timing and amounts of contributions. For example, to determine
shortfalls, we compared planned contributions with amounts obligated by
funding partner agencies in their signed agreements and obtained rationale
from agency officials regarding any differences.
We determined the timing of partner agency contributions based on when in
the fiscal year funds were obligated-the dates on which formal agreements
such as memorandums of understanding and/or interagency agreements were
signed by both managing and funding partner agencies. We also obtained
rationale from agency officials regarding the major reasons why monetary
contributions were made late in the fiscal year.
Our work was conducted in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, from
September 2004 to April 2005, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Disaster Management
Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Purpose: Provide federal, state, and local emergency managers online
access to disaster management-related information, planning, and response
tools.
Funding: Disaster Management project officials reported that their fiscal
year 2003 and 2004 funding plans were developed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and communicated to partner agencies through
passback instructions. In fiscal year 2003, seven of nine partner agencies
were to make equal contributions totaling approximately $1.5 million each,
with DHS contributing a larger share than the others. In fiscal year 2004,
for most partners the per-partner contribution was decreased to $681,250,
again with DHS contributing a larger share. The decrease was due to a
rescoping of the initiative that cancelled plans to develop new tool sets
and reduced funding for the Disaster Management Web portal. Table 4
details contributions to the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 4: Disaster Management Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planneda Obligated Comment
Agriculture $1,480,000 Same $681,250 Same
Commerce 1,480,000 Same 681,250 0 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration was legally restricted from contributing to e-gov
initiatives
Defense 1,480,000 Same 681,250 Same
Environmental 1,480,000 Same 681,250 Same
Protection
Agency
Health and 1,480,000 Same 681,250 Same
Human
Services
Homeland 11,800,000 10,230,000 Federal Emergency 14,296,924 Same
Security Management Agency
(FEMA) moved to DHS
in fiscal year 2003;
unpaid amount was
subsequently paid by
DHS in fiscal year 2004
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planneda Obligated Comment
Interior 1,163,000 0 President's fiscal year 1,844,250 0 Reprogramming
2003 budget did not request denied by
include Interior Congress
funding;
amount re-requested but
still unpaid in fiscal
year
2004
Justice 1,480,000 0 Reprogramming request 1,480,000 Same
denied by Congress;
amount re-requested
and paid in fiscal year
2004
Transportation 1,480,000 1,016,000 Transportation Security 0 N/A
Administration and
Coast Guard moved to
DHS in fiscal year 2003;
amount was
subsequently paid by
DHS in fiscal year 2004
Total $23,323,000 $18,646,000 $21,027,424 $18,501,924
Source: GAO analysis of DHS-provided data.
aThe fiscal year 2004 planned amount reflects revisions due to revised
cost estimates. Note that fiscal year 2004 planned requests include unpaid
fiscal year 2003 amounts from Interior and Justice. The fiscal year 2004
DHS request also includes $1.57 million unpaid from DHS/FEMA and unpaid
amounts from two former Transportation agencies, the Transportation
Security Administration and Coast Guard.
Funding shortfalls occurred that were related to two funding partner
agencies: Interior did not make planned fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year
2004 contributions, and Commerce did not make its planned fiscal year 2004
contribution. Interior officials stated that their request to reprogram
funds in 2004 to support Disaster Management was not approved by Congress.
Commerce officials reported that they did not make their fiscal year 2004
contribution because Commerce's appropriations bill included a restriction
preventing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
principal Commerce participant for Disaster Management, from contributing
fiscal year 2004 funds to any of the e-gov initiatives.
DHS officials reported that the late timing of contributions was
predominantly the result of agencies having to reformulate internal
financial plans to meet the unforeseen e-government requirement. For
example, Justice and two agencies transferred from Transportation made
their fiscal year 2003 contributions in fiscal year 2004 for a variety of
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
reasons. Justice officials reported that they were not permitted to
reprogram the required funds during fiscal year 2003. Instead, they
negotiated with OMB to make their fiscal year 2003 contribution in fiscal
year 2004. A portion of Transportation's fiscal year 2003 contribution was
delayed by the transfer of key organizations-the Coast Guard and
Transportation Security Administration-to DHS.
According to Disaster Management officials, interruptions caused by late
funding contributions and shortfalls included a delay in adding new
responder groups to Disaster Management Interoperability Services (DMIS),1
delays in holding meetings and workshops with the emergency management
community (including first responders) to facilitate development of
interoperability standards, and delays in implementing an alternative site
to ensure continuity of operations for the DMIS and DisasterHelp.gov
servers.
e-Authentication
Managing partner agency: General Services Administration (GSA)
Purpose: Minimize the burden on businesses, the public, and government
when obtaining services online by providing a secure infrastructure for
online transactions, eliminating the need for separate processes for the
verification of identity and electronic signatures.
Funding: In fiscal year 2003, e-Authentication had 14 funding partner
agencies, and the funding plan called for $25 million in agency
contributions to be divided among these partners based on criteria such as
expected transaction volume and agency size. For fiscal year 2004, the
total funding requirement was divided equally among the partner agencies
($377,000 per partner), with GSA contributing a larger amount ($600,000).
On June 29, 2004, the e-Authentication project manager sent a memorandum
out to members of the Executive Steering Committee explaining that the new
federated identity architecture approach that the initiative had decided
to adopt could be completed at a lower cost ($1.86 million less) than the
original approach (developing an e-authentication gateway),2 and
therefore, the initiative was reducing expected fiscal year
1Disaster Management Interoperability Services provides information on
interoperability services to the responder community.
2For more information regarding the initiative's original approach, see
GAO, Electronic Government: Planned E-Authentication Gateway Faces
Formidable Development Challenges, GAO-03-952 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12,
2003).
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
2004 agency contributions from $377,000 to $244,361. Table 5 details
contributions to the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 5: e-Authentication Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner a Planned Obligated Comment Plannedb Obligated Comment
Agriculture $1,200,000 Same $244,361 Same
Commerce 500,000 Same 244,361 $234,969 NOAA was
legally restricted
from contributing to
e-gov
projects in fiscal year
2004
Defense 2,500,000 Same 244,361 Same
Education 2,500,000 2,000,000 Negotiated reduction; 244,361 Same
Education agreed to
lead a proof-of-
concept effort
Energy 0 N/A 244,361 Same
Environmental 2,300,000 350,000 Negotiated reduction; 244,361 Same
Protection included agreement
Agency (EPA) for in-kind resources
and grant to be
administered by EPA
General 2,800,000 Same 600,000 Same
Services
Administration
Health and 500,000 Same 244,361 Same
Human
Services
279,000 Negotiated Same
Housing and 300,000 reduction; 244,361
Urban agency did not have
Development enough funds
available
Justice 0 N/A 244,361 Same
Labor 2,000,000 Same 244,361 Same
National 450,000 Negotiated Same
500,000 reduction; 244,361
Aeronautics agency did not have
and Space enough funds
Administration available
Social Same 0 In-kind resource
3,000,000 244,361 provided in
Security lieu of
requested funds
Administration
State 2,000,000 Same 0 N/A
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partnera Planned Obligated Comment Plannedb Obligated Comment
Treasury 3,200,000 3,179,000 Negotiated reduction; 244,361 Same
agency did not have
enough funds
available
Veterans 1,700,000 Same 244,361 Same Affairs
Total $25,000,000 $22,458,000 $4,021,054 $3,767,301
Source: GAO analysis of GSA-provided data.
aIn July 2003, the Executive Steering Committee voted to add an additional
10 members (the Departments of Energy, Justice, Homeland Security, the
Interior, and Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, the Small
Business Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International
Development); however, only two members (Energy and Justice) were asked to
contribute in fiscal year 2004. Funds were to be requested of all 10
members in fiscal year 2005.
bPlanned amounts reflect the fiscal year 2004 reduction based on the lower
cost of the federated identity architecture approach.
GSA officials reported that five agencies did not make their full monetary
contributions as planned in fiscal year 2003 and two agencies did not do
so in fiscal year 2004. In each of these instances, reductions were
negotiated between GSA and the funding partner agency and generally
included a provision for in-kind resources (e.g., staff time) in lieu of
the full monetary amount. For example in fiscal year 2003, in lieu of the
$2.3 million contribution planned for EPA, GSA agreed to a $350,000 cash
transfer; a $125,000 grant to be funded, administered, and managed by EPA;
and various in-kind contributions. As another example, the Department of
Education agreed to lead a proof-of-concept effort to test the use of its
federal student aid personal identification number identity credential
through the planned E-Authentication gateway in lieu of providing the full
requested monetary amount. Project officials reported that NASA, the
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development's contributions were reduced
because these agencies simply did not have the funds available to
contribute the planned amounts. In fiscal year 2004, the Social Security
Administration provided in-kind resources in lieu of its planned funding
contribution. Finally, in fiscal year 2004, Commerce did not make its full
planned contribution because a stipulation in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill prohibited NOAA from spending any fiscal year 2004
appropriations on the OMB-sponsored e-government initiatives.
GSA officials reported that the administrative burden associated with the
memorandum of understanding process and appropriations enacted late in the
fiscal year contributed to the late timing of contributions in fiscal
years
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
2003 and 2004. For example, the officials noted that in some cases
proposed memorandums of understanding that had already been signed by GSA
officials were lost in the process of traversing partner agency offices,
resulting in the need to obtain signatures from high-level officials
multiple times.
e-Loans
Managing partner agency: Department of Education
Purpose: Create a single point of access for citizens to locate
information on federal loan programs, and improve back-office loan
functions.
Funding: Although the funding allocation for each of the e-Loans
initiative's five partners is very simple ($397,000 per agency for both
fiscal years), the initiative is somewhat unusual in that the managing
partner does not centrally manage all the funds or activities of the
initiative. Rather, the initiative is divided into four work streams with
partner agencies taking the lead on specific work streams. The lead
agencies used their own funding up to $397,000 per fiscal year, and if
planned costs exceeded that amount, they obtained contributions from other
funding partner agencies. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development manages one of the four work streams and used its own fiscal
year 2003-2004 funds to support it, as well as receiving contributions
from Agriculture in 2003 and 2004 and from Veterans Affairs in 2004. Table
6 details monetary contributions to the e-Loans initiative for fiscal
years 2003 and 2004.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Table 6: e-Loans Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2004
Funding partner Planned Obligated Comment Planned Obligated Comment
Agriculture $397,000 Same $397,000 Same
Education 397,000 Same 397,000 Same
Housing and 397,000 Same 397,000 Same
Urban
Development
Negotiated Negotiated
Small 397,000 175,000 reduction due 397,000 97,000 reduction;
work
to reduced could be
Business contract costs supported
under
for work existing
Administration stream contract at
no
additional
deliverable cost
Veterans 397,000 Same 397,000 Same Affairs
Total $1,985,000 $1,763,000 $1,985,000 $1,685,000
Source: GAO analysis of Education-provided data.
Two shortfalls from planned amounts were associated with the Small
Business Administration (SBA); however, both instances represent
negotiated reductions. In fiscal year 2003, as a result of e-Loans budget
negotiations between SBA and OMB and the expected contract cost of work
stream deliverables, SBA's fiscal year 2003 contribution was reduced.
Education officials stated that this decision was supported by the partner
agencies. In fiscal year 2004, SBA originally intended to spend $300,000
of its $397,000 commitment for activities that SBA subsequently determined
could be supported under an existing contract at no additional cost.
Accordingly, SBA reallocated the funds to support other e-gov work.
Education officials noted that all partner agencies were affected by the
enactment of appropriations late in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, which
affected agencies' ability to transfer or make funds available.
Nevertheless, the officials reported that despite the timing of
appropriations, partner agencies made their contributions in a timely
manner.
e-Rulemaking Managing partner agency: Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
Purpose: Allow citizens to easily access and participate in the rulemaking
process. Improve access to, and quality of, the rulemaking process for
individuals, businesses, and other government entities while streamlining
and increasing the efficiency of internal agency processes.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Funding: In fiscal year 2003, the e-Rulemaking project management office
requested $100,000 apiece from nine partner agencies to support the
initiative's activities. These allocations were reflected in OMB's
passback instructions to the agencies. In addition, the Department of
Transportation-the former managing partner of the initiative-was asked to
transfer $5 million to EPA. For fiscal year 2004, the initiative's funding
workgroup developed a plan allocating a budget of $11.5 million among 35
anticipated funding partners, based on criteria such as agency budget size
and average number of rules issued per year. OMB, however, issued passback
instructions to only eight of the nine agencies that had funded the
initiative in fiscal year 2003 and DHS.3 Table 7 details contributions to
the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 7: e-Rulemaking Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planneda Obligated Comment
$0 $775,000 $0 Planned amount not
Agriculture N/A reflected in
OMB passback
Commerce 0 300,000 0 Planned amount not
N/A reflected in
OMB passback
0 85,000 0 Planned amount not
Commodity N/A reflected in
Futures Trading OMB passback
Commission
Defense 100,000 Same 775,000 Same
Education 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 150,000 reflected in
OMB passback
Same 186,000 Planned amount
Energy 100,000 300,000 not reflected in
OMB passback
Environmental 100,000 Same 775,000 Same
Protection
Agency
Federal 0 300,000 0 Planned amount not
N/A reflected in
Communications OMB passback
Commission
0 0 Planned amount not
Federal Deposit N/A 85,000 reflected in
Insurance OMB passback
Corporation
3In fiscal year 2004, OMB did not issue passback instructions to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for funding contributions to e-Rulemaking.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planneda Obligated Comment
Federal Election 0 185,000 0 N/A
Commission
0 0 Planned amount not
Federal Energy N/A 300,000 reflected in
Regulatory OMB passback
Commission
Federal 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 85,000 reflected in
Maritime OMB passback
Commission
Federal Reserve 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 150,000 reflected in
Board OMB passback
Federal Trade 0 N/A 85,000 Same
Commission
General 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 150,000 reflected in
Services OMB passback
Administration
Health and 100,000 Same 775,000 Same
Human Services
Homeland 0 N/A 750,000 Same
Security
Housing and 100,000 Same 300,000 Same
Urban
Development
Interior 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 750,000 reflected in
OMB passback
Justice 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 300,000 reflected in
OMB passback
Labor 100,000 Same 775,000 Same
National 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 150,000 reflected in
Aeronautics and OMB passback
Space
Administration
National 0 0 In-kind resource
N/A 85,000 provided in
Archives and lieu of requested
funds
Records
Administration
National 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 85,000 reflected in
Science OMB passback
Foundation
Nuclear 0 Planned amount not
100,000 0 Agency unable to 150,000 reflected in
Regulatory contribute funds to OMB passback
Commission development
Office of 0 N/A 85,000 0 No reason given
Management
and Budget
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planneda Obligated Comment
Office of 0 150,000 0 Planned amount not
N/A reflected in
Personnel OMB passback
Management
Pension Benefit 0 N/A 85,000 Same
Guaranty
Corporation
0 0 Planned amount not
Security and N/A 300,000 reflected in
Exchange OMB passback
Commission
25,000 Planned
Small Business 0 amount not reflected
N/A 150,000 in
Administration OMB passback
0 $0 Planned amount
Social Security N/A 300,000 not reflected in
Administration OMB passback
State 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 150,000 reflected in
OMB passback
544,208 Balance to
4,847,500 In-kind be paid in fiscal
Transportation 5,100,000 resources 775,000 year
provided in lieu 2005
of
full requested
amount
Treasury 100,000 Same 775,000 Same
Veterans Affairs 0 0 Planned amount not
N/A 300,000 reflected in
OMB passback
Total $5,900,000 $5,732,500 $11,505,000 $5,850,208
Source: GAO analysis of EPA-provided data.
aPlanned amount reflects the amount requested by the e-Rulemaking project
management office based on the plan approved by the initiative's funding
workgroup.
E-Rulemaking officials reported that the combination of shortfalls and
late contributions negatively affected the initiative, specifically in
fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2003, two agencies, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Transportation, did not make their full
contributions as planned. Although OMB's passback to NRC for fiscal year
2003 included the $100,000 amount allocated to each partner, NRC asserted
that it was not subject to OMB's budget guidance because it derives most
of its budget from user fees. Accordingly, NRC did not make its planned
contribution. Transportation, the former managing partner of the
initiative, provided monetary funds and in-kind support in lieu of its
full planned contribution in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004,
Transportation did not make its full contribution because it believed the
amount should be reduced because of the transfer of the Transportation
Security Administration and the Coast Guard to DHS in fiscal year 2003.
However, based on subsequent discussions between E-Rulemaking and
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Transportation officials, Transportation officials told us that they have
agreed to pay the remaining fiscal year 2004 balance in fiscal year 2005.
Additionally, the Department of Energy did not make its full contribution
as planned because the OMB passback did not reflect the planned amount.
This occurred because OMB erroneously assessed the Department of Energy at
the same total contribution to e-gov initiatives in the passback as it had
the Department of Education (the two departments have similar
abbreviations).
In fiscal year 2004, although e-Rulemaking requested funds from 35
agencies based on the budget workgroup's funding plan, OMB issued passback
instructions to just nine agencies, resulting in a shortfall of $5.6
million, nearly half of the initiative's planned budget. Of the agencies
that did not receive passback instructions, only three agencies
contributed monetary resources in fiscal year 2004, and one agency
contributed in-kind resources in lieu of funds. E-Rulemaking officials
reported that they were not provided with an explanation as to why OMB did
not issue passback instructions to all 35 agencies as had been planned.
According to OMB officials, the disconnect between the initiative's
funding strategy and OMB's passback instructions represented a "timing
problem," in that the passback instructions were based on the previously
defined project scope of nine partners. The OMB officials did not state
that the planned expansion of e-Rulemaking was inappropriate, noting that
fiscal year 2005 passback instructions did reflect the larger number of
partners. However, without passback instructions in fiscal year 2004,
planned partner agencies did not make contributions, except in a few
instances.4 E-Rulemaking officials reported that the resulting shortfall
in funds, compounded with delays in receiving funds from other agencies,
required them to scale back agency migration to the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS), the centerpiece of the initiative. Specifically,
although the initiative planned to migrate 10 agencies to the FDMS in its
first phase of
4Three agencies contributed funds: the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Small Business
Administration. One agency, the National Archives and Records
Administration, contributed in-kind resources in lieu of funds.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
implementation, the revised schedule now includes only 5 agencies, 2 of
which are component agencies of larger departments.5
Geospatial One-Stop
Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior
Purpose: Provide federal and state agencies with a single point of access
to map-related data to enable consolidation of redundant data.
Funding: Planned contributions to the Geospatial One-Stop initiative were
initially distributed among the agencies that were major federal
geospatial data producers or were members of the Federal Geographic Data
Committee. Partner agency concurrence in both fiscal years was obtained at
a meeting hosted by the Interior. Partners willing to contribute more than
the minimum $100,000 agency allocation indicated their intention to do so.
Table 8 details funding for the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
5The agencies originally included for phase 1 implementation included the
Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior,
and Transportation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Federal Reserve System, the General Services Administration, the National
Archives and Records Administration, and the Small Business
Administration. Agencies scheduled to migrate to FDMS in phase 1 now
include EPA, Housing and Urban Development, the Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service (component of Agriculture), portions of DHS, and
National Archives and Records Administration.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Table 8: Geospatial One-Stop Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Planned Obligated Comment
Comment
Agriculture $135,000 Same $135,000 Same
Commerce 200,000 Same 300,000 100,000 NOAA was legally
restricted from
contributing to e-gov projects
in fiscal
year 2004
aDefense 425,000 625,000 425,000 624,200
Environmental 160,000 Same 160,000 Same
Protection
Agency
Homeland 100,000 Same 100,000 Same
Securityb
Interior 245,000 Same 1,925,000 225,000 Requested $1.5 million
increase was
not funded by Congress; $200,000
in
in-kind resources provided
National 200,000 Same 200,000 Same
Aeronautics
and Space
Administration
Transportation 200,000 100,000 Negotiated reduction 200,000 Same due to
in-kind resources provided
Total $1,665,000 1,765,000 $3,445,000 $1,744,200
Source: GAO Analysis of Interior provided data.
aThe Defense components involved were the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
bUpon formation of DHS, e-gov funding moved from FEMA to DHS department
level.
Although the Geospatial One-Stop initiative experienced no shortfalls from
its overall planned budget in fiscal year 2003, one agency,
Transportation, contributed less than planned because in-kind resources
were provided in lieu of the full requested amount. In fiscal year 2004
there were two shortfalls. Geospatial One-Stop officials reported that
shortfall from Interior arose because its fiscal year 2004 requested
increase was not funded by Congress and an agreement was made for Interior
to provide $200,000 of in-kind resources in lieu of monetary funds.
Additionally, there was a shortfall of $200,000 from Commerce because of
the prohibition on NOAA contributing funds to e-government projects in
fiscal year 2004.
Project officials stated that extensive paperwork and staff time were
invested in getting agreements drafted, reviewed, finalized, and signed.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Some potential partners who could have participated at a lower level of
funding were not invited because of the high overhead required to
establish interagency agreements. The project officials stated their
belief that the considerable amount of staff time required for managing
the cross-agency approach to funding could be more effectively used
carrying out the actual work of the project. They also stated that the
burden of the administrative overhead to administer agreements made it
infeasible to allocate costs fairly among partner agencies.
GovBenefits
Managing partner agency: Department of Labor
Purpose: Provide a single point of access for citizens to locate and
determine potential eligibility for government benefits and services.
Funding: Planned funding partner contributions for the GovBenefits
initiative were based on a funding plan developed in October 2002 that
placed each of the 10 partner agencies, including Labor, into one of three
categories based on the anticipated volume of benefit program information
each agency would generate for the GovBenefits Web site. The same approach
was used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. As managing partner, Labor
contributed the largest share. Table 9 details GovBenefits funding for
fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Table 9: GovBenefits Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal
year 2004
Funding partner Planned Obligated Planned Obligated Comment
Agriculture $1,019,000 Same $1,019,000 Same
Educationa 1,019,000 Same 1,019,000 Same
Energy 491,000 Same 491,000 Same
Health and 1,019,000 Same 1,019,000 Same
Human Services
Homeland Same 0 Planned amount not
491,000 491,000 reflected in
Security OMB passback
Housing and 1,019,000 Same 1,019,000 Same
Urban
Development
Labor 2,000,000 Same 4,000,000 Same
Social Security 1,019,000 Same 1,019,000 Same
Administration
State 755,000 Same 755,000 Same
Veterans Affairs 1,019,000 Same 1,019,000 Same
Total $9,851,000 Same $11,851,000 $11,360,000
Source: GAO analysis of Labor-provided data.
aIn addition to its fiscal year 2003 contribution, the Department of
Education transferred $500,000 to the GovBenefits initiative to build a
Web site for the e-Loans initiative, which is not reflected in the planned
or obligated amount.
The GovBenefits initiative received all planned contributions from funding
partners in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004, only one agency, DHS,
failed to make its contribution as planned, resulting in a $491,000
shortfall. According to OMB officials, the planned allocation for
GovBenefits was erroneously not included in its annual budget guidance to
DHS. GovBenefits project officials reported that funding partner agencies
transferred funds as soon as memorandums of understanding were agreed
upon.
Grants.gov Managing partner agency: Health and Human Services
Purpose: Create a single portal for all federal grant customers to find,
apply for, and ultimately manage grants online.
Funding: Planned contributions for Grants.gov's 11 partner agencies were
allocated based on a fiscal year 2002-2004 funding algorithm that
classified grant-making agencies by size. In addition to the 11 partner
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
agency requests, OMB identified development, modernization, and
enhancement funds in specific agencies' budgets for Grants.gov funding.6
Health and Human Services also received contributions in fiscal year 2004
from the Department of Energy and GSA. Table 10 details funding for
Grants.gov for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 10: Grants.gov Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Planned Obligated Comment
Comment
Agriculture $450,000 Same $445,500 Same
Commerce 450,000 Same 225,000 118,038 NOAA legally restricted
from contributing
to e-gov initiatives; in-kind
resource
provided in lieu of full
requested amount
Defense 450,000 Same 1,442,000 Same
Education 1,365,000 Same 855,000 Same
Health and 1,365,000 Same 1,902,500 Same
Human
Services
Homeland 450,000 Same 635,000 Same
Security
Housing and 1,365,000 Same 1,076,500 Same
Urban
Development
Justice 910,000 Same 805,000 Same
Labor 910,000 Same 630,000 Same
National 910,000 Same 455,000 Same
Science
Foundation
Transportation 1,365,000 Same 682,500 Same
U.S. Agency 0 N/A 1,132,000 Same
for
International
Development
Total $9,990,000 Same $10,286,000 $10,179,038
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Health and Human Services.
6The agencies that contributed development, modernization, and enhancement
funds included the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health
and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development,
Labor, and Justice and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Note: The table reflects agency contributions allocated by year, but these
were not necessarily provided during that year. For example, the National
Science Foundation provided its entire fiscal year 2002-2004 contribution
in fiscal year 2002. Most Grants.gov partners provided funding in one
fiscal year that covered more than one fiscal year.
In addition, Grants.gov received funding of $799,800 in fiscal year 2004
from nonpartner agencies. These funds consisted of $262,000 from the
Department of Energy and $537,800 from the GSA.
Grants.gov received all of its planned partner contributions from its
funding partner agencies in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004,
Grants.gov received almost all of its planned partner contributions from
its funding partner agencies; the exception was Commerce, because of the
appropriations bill restriction on NOAA contributing funds to e-gov
initiatives. Commerce contributed in-kind resources in lieu of the full
requested funds in fiscal year 2004.
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE)
Managing partner agency: General Services Administration
Purpose: Create a secure business environment that will facilitate and
support the cost-effective acquisition of goods and services by agencies,
while eliminating inefficiencies in the current acquisition environment.
Funding: In addition to funding from GSA's General Supply Fund, the IAE
initiative relied on monetary contributions from partner agencies in
fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Planned contributions were allocated based on
each agency's procurement volume as reported in the Federal Procurement
Data System. Table 11 details funding for the IAE initiative for fiscal
years 2003 and 2004.
Table 11: Integrated Acquisition Environment Partner Contributions for
Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planned Obligated Comment
Agriculture $635,334 $740,000 $759,909 Same
6,868 0 Decision made not
Broadcasting to 0 N/A
Board of pursue funding
Governors
Commerce 245,229 129,385 NOAA legally
205,196 204,997 restricted
from contributing to
e-gov initiatives
Defense 8,585,596 Same 14,652,000 8,083,000 Negotiated reduction; inkind
resources provided in lieu of full requested amount
Education 79,846 Same 95,000 Same
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year
2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planned Obligated
Comment
4,792,480 93,000 Planned amount 5,344,555 95,000 Planned
Energy not amount not
reflected in OMB reflected in
OMB
passback passback
Environmental 190,600 Same 228,000 Same
Protection
Agency
Equal 4,293 0 Decision not to pursue 0 N/A
Employment funding
Opportunity
Commission
Executive 2,576 0 Decision not to pursue 0 N/A
Office of the funding
President
Federal 0 FEMA transfer to DHS 0
26,615 in N/A
Emergency fiscal year 2003; unpaid
Management amount included in
Agency DHS's fiscal year 2004
(FEMA) request
General 3,250,507 Same 3,869,486 Same
Services
Administration
Health and 794,168 Same 953,000 Same
Human
Services
Homeland 0 206,910 Coast Guard
contribution 944,090 1,181,000
Security (moved from
Transportation to DHS in
fiscal year 2003)
Housing and 66,968 Same 81,000 Same
Urban
Development
Interior 371,756 Same 446,000 Same
Justice 734,068 Same 556,492 Same
Labor 240,397 Same 288,000 Same
National 2,120,000 Negotiated Same
2,729,361 reduction; 2,183,104
Aeronautics agency did not have
and Space enough funds available
Administration
National 4,293 Same 0 N/A
Archives and
Records
Administration
National 15,454 Same 18,000 Same
Science
Foundation
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding
partner Planned Obligated Comment Planned Obligated Comment
Nuclear 6,868 0 Agency restriction on 8,000 Same
Regulatory spending funds on
Commission development
Office of 24,040 Same 29,000 Same
Personnel
Management
Peace Corps 2,576 Same Decision made to not 0 N/A
pursue funding in
subsequent year
Securities and 2,576 0 Decision made to not 0 N/A
Exchange pursue funding
Commission
Small 6,010 Same 7,000 Same
Business
Administration
Smithsonian 8,586 0 Decision made to not 0 N/A
Institution pursue funding
Social 95,300 Same 57,217 Same
Security
Administration
State 364,888 Same 438,000 Same
Transportation 418,119 181,830 Coast Guard and 171,514 Same
Transportation Security
Administration moved to
DHS in fiscal year 2003;
Coast Guard contribution
was made apart from
Transportation, unpaid
TSA amount was
included in DHS fiscal
year 2004 request
Treasury 557,205 Same 443,280 Same
U.S. Agency 65,251 Same 78,000 Same
for
International
Development
Veterans 1,510,206 Same 1,812,000 Same Affairs
Total $25,798,001 $20,505,866 $33,707,876 $22,010,387
Source: GAO analysis of GSA-provided data.
IAE project officials reported that for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the
Department of Energy contribution was lower than the planned amount
because of an error by OMB that assessed the Department of Energy the
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
same amount as the Department of Education (the two departments have
similar abbreviations). This resulted in nearly a $10 million shortfall
over fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Officials reported that this indirectly
impacted the initiative and reported that several applications were
postponed and are now indefinite because the funds were not available at
that time. In fiscal year 2004, remaining shortfalls from the planned
amount represented negotiated reductions. For example, as reported by both
IAE and DOD officials, DOD contributed less than the planned amount,
instead providing in-kind support (e.g., staff time and existing IT
resources) for project activities. Commerce's fiscal year 2004 shortfall
was again attributable to the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill
language that prohibited NOAA from contributing to any of the e-gov
initiatives.
GSA officials reported that continuing resolutions and "red-tape" issues
such as paperwork and lost documents prolonged the transfer of funds.
Specifically noted was the administrative burden on both the managing and
funding partner agencies in crafting interagency agreements. Although in
fiscal year 2003, requests were made from the smaller agencies (including
the Broadcasting Board of Governments, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Executive Office of the President, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Peace Corps),
only the Peace Corps made its requested contribution. The IAE project
manager reported that a decision was made that the administrative costs to
process the memorandum of understanding and funding requests could not be
offset by the funds collected and therefore fiscal year 2003 contributions
were not pursued and funds were not sought from these agencies in fiscal
year 2004.
Project SAFECOM Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security
Purpose: Serve as the umbrella program within the federal government to
help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety agencies improve
public safety response through more effective and efficient interoperable
wireless communications.
Funding: According to SAFECOM project officials, contributions were
determined by OMB and communicated through budget passback instructions.
Table 12 summarizes funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
Table 12: Project SAFECOM Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 Fiscal year 2003
Fiscal year 2004
Funding partner Planned Obligated Comment Planned Obligated Comment
Agriculture $1,431,000 Same $1,520,000 Same
Defense 3,345,000 Same 1,770,000 Same
Energy 1,431,000 Same 1,430,000 Same
Federal 0 FEMA transfer to 0
Emergency 3,435,000 DHS in fiscal N/A
Management year 2003; unpaid
Agency amount was
(FEMA) not re-requested
in fiscal year
2004
Health and Same Same
Human 1,431,000 1,520,000
Services
Homeland 0 N/A 12,520,000 Same
Security
Interior 0 President's
1,431,000 fiscal year 2003 2,951,000 0 Reprogramming
budget did not request denied
include Interior
funding; amount
re-requested in
fiscal year 2004,
still unpaid
Justice 9,485,000 0 Reprogramming request denied 4,312,000 Same
by Congress; negotiated a
reduced amount to be paid in
fiscal year 2004
Transportation 3,435,000 0 Transportation Security 0 N/A
Administration transfer to DHS
in fiscal year 2003; unpaid
amount was not re-requested in
fiscal year 2004
Treasury 9,485,000 9,500,000 0 N/A
Total $34,909,000 $17,138,000 $26,023,000 $23,072,000
Source: GAO analysis of DHS-provided data.
SAFECOM officials reported experiencing shortfalls and receiving funds
from partner agencies late in the fiscal year. As we previously reported,
SAFECOM has been managed by three different agencies since its inception.7
In fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM received only about $17 million of the $34.9
million OMB had allocated as contributions from funding partners.
According to program officials, these shortfalls resulted from two major
causes: (1) the inability of the Departments of Justice and the Interior
to obtain congressional approval to reprogram funds from other accounts
and (2) the impact of organizational realignments associated
7GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort
Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16,
2004).
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
with the creation of DHS in fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported
that the shortfall experienced in fiscal year 2003 resulted in delays in
the development of the standards and architecture efforts related to
communications interoperability. For example, the timeline of the National
Baseline Methodology and Assessment of communications interoperability was
extended until sufficient funding was available. According to agency
officials, Justice was not authorized to reprogram funds and negotiated to
provide its fiscal year 2003 allocation in fiscal year 2004. The total
amount contributed was a reduced amount negotiated with OMB. Although
SAFECOM re-requested Interior's unpaid fiscal year 2003 contribution in
addition to its fiscal year 2004 allocation, Interior officials reported
that their reprogramming request was denied. According to DHS officials,
fiscal year 2003 unpaid amounts from FEMA and the Transportation Security
Administration were not re-requested in fiscal year 2004 at the direction
of the DHS Under Secretary for Management.
SAFECOM officials also reported that in fiscal year 2004, they were unable
to collect funding resources in a timely manner because of enactment of
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill late in the fiscal year. Project
officials reported that this affected the initiative's progress by
delaying start dates for certain tasks and creating breaks in project
service and performance.
Recreation One-Stop
Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior
Purpose: Provide a single-point-of-access, user-friendly, Web-based
resource to citizens, offering information and access to government
recreational sites.
Funding: The Recreation One-Stop initiative relied on monetary
contributions from four partner agencies, including Interior, in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004. Additionally, the initiative received $800,000 from
the E-Government Fund8 in fiscal year 2003. According to project
officials, Recreation One-Stop partners agreed that agencies receiving
major benefits from the initiative would contribute $50,000 annually, and
agencies receiving fewer benefits would contribute $25,000 annually, with
8Title I, Section 101 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Section 3604 of
Title 44) establishes the E-Government Fund, which is to be used to
support projects that enable the federal government to expand its ability
to conduct activities electronically.
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on
Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies
the managing partner contributing a larger share. Table 13 details
contributions for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 13: Recreation One-Stop Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004
Fiscal year a 2003 Fiscal year 2004
Funding partner Planned Obligated Planned Obligated
Agriculture $50,000 Same $50,000a Same
Defense (Corps of 50,000 Same 50,000
Engineers) Same
Interior 200,000 Same 200,000 Same
Smithsonian Institution 25,000 Same 25,000 Same
Total $325,000 Same $325,000 Same
Source: GAO analysis of Interior-provided data.
Note: Recreation One-Stop also received $800,000 from the E-Government
Fund in fiscal year 2003.
aUSDA's Forest Service directly paid for a Recreation One-Stop activity,
in lieu of funds coming through the managing partner.
Recreation One-Stop officials reported that all fiscal year 2003 and 2004
planned contributions had been received; however, officials noted that the
logistics of transferring funds according to agency-specific procedures
was time-consuming, and as a result funding requests from "minor partners"
were eliminated for fiscal year 2006.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
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.
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 posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
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: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***