The Results Act: Observations on GSA's April 1997 Draft Strategic Plan
(Correspondence, 07/07/97, GAO/GGD-97-147R).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the latest available
version of the General Services Administration's (GSA) draft strategic
plan, focusing on: (1) whether the draft plan complied with the
Government Performance and Results Act; (2) whether GSA's key statutory
authorities were reflected; (3) whether discussions about crosscutting
functions and interagency involvement were included; (4) whether the
draft plan addressed major management problems; and (5) GSA's capacity
to provide reliable information about its operations and performance.
GAO noted that: (1) the April 28, 1997 plan that GAO reviewed includes
the six components required by the Act; (2) however, GAO's analysis
showed that the plan could better meet the purposes of the Act by
providing more descriptive information on how goals and objectives will
be achieved, how program evaluations were used in setting goals, and
what the schedule will be for future evaluations, providing greater
clarity and context in the four remaining, required, components, and
generally, providing better linkages among the plan's components; (3) in
addition, the plan could be more useful if it provided a fuller
discussion of key statutory authorities and an explicit discussion of
crosscutting functions, major management challenges, and GSA's capacity
to provide reliable information on achievement of its strategic goals;
(4) two of the required components of the plan--how the goals and
objectives will be achieved and program evaluations--did not contain
sufficient information to fully achieve the purposes of the Results Act
and related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance; (5) although
the other four required components generally complied with the intent of
the Act and related OMB guidance, they could be made more useful and
informative; (6) although the plan reflects the major pieces of
legislation that establish GSA's mission and explains how GSA's mission
is linked to key statutes, GSA could provide other useful information;
(7) in addition, the plan is silent on crosscutting issues and makes no
mention of whether GSA coordinated with related stakeholders; (8) it
does not explicitly discuss the potential for crosscutting issues to
arise or how these issues might affect the successful accomplishment of
goals and objectives; (9) furthermore, the plan is silent on the
formidable management problems GAO has identified over the years, issues
that are important because they could affect GSA's development, or
ability to meet, its strategic goals; (10) also, GAO and others,
including GSA's Inspector General, have identified problems with the
reliability and availability of data in GSA's program-related and
financial management information systems; (11) according to GSA, it has
developed a new system, one GAO has not evaluated, that has corrected
some of these deficiencies; (12) however, GSA makes no mention of how
data limitations would affect its ability to measure performance and
ultimately manage its programs; and (13) GAO believes that consideration
of these areas would give GSA a better framework for developing and
achieving its goals and help stakeholders better understand
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-97-147R
TITLE: The Results Act: Observations on GSA's April 1997 Draft
Strategic Plan
DATE: 07/07/97
SUBJECT: Strategic planning
Agency missions
Interagency relations
Public administration
Data integrity
Congressional/executive relations
Management information systems
Program evaluation
Internal controls
IDENTIFIER: Federal Buildings Fund
GSA Federal Operations Review Model
National Performance Review
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
September 1997
GAO/GGD-97-147R
GSA's Draft Strategic Plan
(240256)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
FORM - Federal Operations Review Model
GSA - General Services Administration
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-277377
July 7, 1997
The Honorable Richard K. Armey
Majority Leader
House of Representatives
The Honorable John Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives
The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman, Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
The Honorable Bob Livingston
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Subject: The Results Act: Observations on GSA's April 1997 Draft
Strategic Plan
On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans
submitted by the cabinet departments and selected major agencies for
consultation with Congress as required by the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). This letter is our
response to that request concerning the General Services
Administration (GSA).
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Our overall objective was to review and evaluate the latest available
version of GSA's draft strategic plan. Specifically, we (1) assessed
the draft plan's compliance with the Act's requirements and its
overall quality, (2) determined if GSA's key statutory authorities
were reflected, (3) identified whether discussions about crosscutting
functions and interagency involvement were included, (4) determined
if the draft plan addressed major management problems, and (5)
discussed GSA's capacity to provide reliable information about its
operations and performance. We obtained a copy of the April 28,
1997, strategic plan draft that GSA provided to the House of
Representatives staff team working with the agency. On June 13,
1997, GSA provided us with a new mission statement and updated goals
and objectives and said that it was in the process of revising the
other parts of the plan. Where appropriate, we examined the updated
information GSA provided, but, for the most part, we based our review
on the April plan. As agreed, our assessment of the agency's draft
plan was generally based on previous work.
Specifically, to review the GSA plan, we relied on our May 1997
guidance for congressional review of the plans;\1 OMB guidance on
developing the plans (Circular A-11, Part 2); our past work reviewing
selected Results Act pilot efforts;\2 our general knowledge of GSA
operations; and many reports and testimonies on GSA we have issued
over the years. A list of our major products related to GSA
operations is on pages 26 through 28. As you requested, we
coordinated our work on GSA's key statutory authorities and GSA's
capacity to provide reliable information with the Congressional
Research Service and the GSA Inspector General's office,
respectively. We did our work between June 13 and July 2. GSA
officials provided oral comments on a draft of this correspondence,
which are reflected in the Agency Comments section on page 20.
--------------------
\1 Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate
Congressional Review (GAO/GGD-10.1.16, May 1997).
\2 GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
As the federal government's principal real estate and business agent,
GSA's activities and programs are diverse and have governmentwide
implications. Its real estate portfolio, supply procurement and
distribution activities, travel and transportation services,
telecommunication and computer services, and property management and
disposal function involve huge sums of money and extensive
interaction with both the federal and private sectors. GSA, in many
respects, is comparable to a large, diversified commercial business.
If GSA were a private sector company, it would rank high, in terms of
sales, on the Fortune 500 list of the largest U. S. companies.
GSA spends billions of dollars to provide many of the facilities,
goods, and services that federal agencies need to carry out their
missions. Through various revolving or trust fund-type arrangements,
GSA buys most of these goods and services from private vendors and
resells them to agencies. Additionally, GSA arranges for federal
agencies to purchase billions of dollars worth of goods and services
directly from private vendors through its governmentwide supply,
travel and transportation, automated data processing, and
telecommunications contracts. Furthermore, when it was established
in 1949, GSA was envisioned, primarily but not exclusively, as a
policymaking body with the option of delegating its authorities while
maintaining comprehensive accountability to Congress for economy and
efficiency.
GSA has been preparing strategic plans for several years and is
currently in the process of revising its plan to reflect the
requirements of the Results Act. It is important to recognize that
under the Act, the final plan is not due until September 1997.
Furthermore, the Results Act anticipated that it may take several
planning cycles to perfect the process and that the final plan would
be continually refined as various planning cycles occur. Thus, our
comments reflect a snapshot status of the plan at a given point in
time. We recognize that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic
process and that GSA is continuing work to revise the draft with
input from OMB, congressional staff, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
The April 28 plan that we reviewed includes the six components
required by the Act. In particular, the goals in the plan reflect
GSA's major statutory responsibilities, and the plan indicates that
several quantitative performance objectives and measures will be
used. However, our analysis showed that the plan could better meet
the purposes of the Act by providing more descriptive information on
how goals and objectives will be achieved, how program evaluations
were used in setting goals, and what the schedule will be for future
evaluations; providing greater clarity and context in the four
remaining, required components; and, generally, providing better
linkages among the plan's components. In addition, the plan could be
more useful if it provided a fuller discussion of key statutory
authorities reflected in the plan and a more explicit discussion of
crosscutting activities and agency stakeholder involvement, major
management challenges, and GSA's capacity to provide reliable
information on achievement of its strategic goals.
More specifically, two of the required components of the plan--how
the goals and objectives will be achieved and program
evaluations--did not contain sufficient information to fully achieve
the purposes of the Results Act and related OMB guidance. For
example, the Act requires that the section on achievement of goals
and objectives describe the processes and resources needed to meet
the goals and objectives of the plan, while OMB guidance on the
program evaluations section states that the plan should, among other
things, (1) describe how program evaluations were used to prepare the
plan and (2) outline the scope and methodology and key issues to be
addressed in future evaluations. These elements were not included in
the two sections.
Although the other four required components generally complied with
the intent of the Act and related OMB guidance, they could be made
more useful and informative. For example, GSA's mission statement
and general goals and objectives could benefit from greater emphasis
and clarity on GSA's key statutory responsibilities related to
economy and efficiency, as a reflection of the taxpayers' interests.
The key external factors section could be clearer and more
informative and does not include some key factors, such as changes in
market activities affecting real property management, that need to be
considered. The section on relating performance goals to general
goals/objectives is a good attempt at outlining how GSA plans to link
goals, objectives, and measures; however, as GSA recognized in the
draft plan, this section would benefit from additional detail, such
as making performance goals and objectives more quantitative or
specific.
We also think that the plan could be made more useful to GSA,
Congress, and other stakeholders by providing a fuller description of
statutory authorities and an explicit discussion of crosscutting
functions, major management problems, and the adequacy of data and
systems. Although the plan reflects the major pieces of legislation
that establish GSA's mission and explains how GSA's mission is linked
to key statutes, GSA could provide other useful information. For
example, it could describe its responsibilities under specific
provisions of its key statutes and other laws that broaden the scope
of GSA's responsibilities when its plan includes goals and objectives
based on such statutes. In addition, the plan is silent on
crosscutting issues and makes no mention of whether GSA coordinated
with related stakeholders. It does not explicitly discuss the
potential for crosscutting issues to arise or how these issues might
affect successful accomplishment of goals and objectives.
Furthermore, the plan is silent on the formidable management problems
we have identified over the years--issues that are important because
they could affect GSA's development of, or ability to meet, its
strategic goals. Also, we and others, including GSA's Inspector
General, have identified problems with the reliability and
availability of data in GSA's program-related and financial
management information systems. In its Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act Report, GSA recognized for the past several years that
it has had problems with providing management with timely and
accurate data reporting throughout the year. According to GSA, it
has developed a new system, one we have not evaluated, that has
corrected some of these deficiencies. However, GSA makes no mention
of how data limitations would affect its ability to measure
performance and ultimately manage its programs. We believe that
consideration of these areas would give GSA a better framework for
developing and achieving its goals and help stakeholders better
understand GSA's operating constraints and environment.
DRAFT PLAN DOES NOT FULLY
ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT'S REQUIREMENTS, AND THE
QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL
COMPONENTS COULD BE IMPROVED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Six of the seven components of GSA's April draft plan--with the
exception of the values section that GSA voluntarily
included--correspond with the six components required by the Results
Act. Table 1 shows the Result Act's required components and the
corresponding sections in GSA's plan--the numbers show the order in
which the components appear in the Act and the plan.
Table 1
Strategic Plan Components Required in
the Results Act and Corresponding
Components in GSA's Draft Strategic Plan
Strategic plan components listed Strategic plan components in GSA
by Results Act April 1997 draft plan
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
1.Comprehensive Mission Statement 1. Comprehensive Mission Statement
Covering the Major Functions and
Operations of the Agency
2. General Goals and Objectives 3. General Goals and Objectives
for the Major Functions and
Operations of the Agency
3. Description of How the Goals 5.How the Goals and Objectives
and Objectives Are to Be Achieved Will Be Achieved--Schedule and
Resource Implications
4.Description of How the 4. Relating Performance Goals to
Performance Goals Included in the General Goals and Objectives
Performance Plan Shall be Related
to the General Goals and
Objectives in the Strategic Plan
5. Identification of Key External 6. Key External Factors
Factors to the Agency and Beyond
Its Control That Could Affect
Achievement of General Goals and
Objectives
6. Description of the Program 7. Program Evaluations
Evaluations Used to Establish/
Revise General Goals with Schedule
for Future Program Evaluations
(Values section not required by 2. Values
the Act.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and GSA's
April 1997 Draft Strategic Plan.
Although GSA included the six required components, our analysis
showed that the components dealing with how the goals and objectives
will be achieved (strategies) and program evaluations do not fully
reflect the purpose these sections are supposed to fulfill as
outlined in the Act.
-- The section on strategies to achieve the general goals and
objectives ("How the Goals and Objectives will be Achieved:
Schedule and Resource Implications") focuses for the most part
on several mission-critical capital requirements issues and
briefly describes the status of GSA's staffing stability and
culture. It does not describe GSA's strategy for implementing
the plan or achieving goals. Under the Results Act, strategic
plan sections on strategies are to briefly describe the
operational processes, staff skills, and technologies, as well
as the human, capital, information, and other resources, needed
to meet the goals and objectives of the plan. Additionally,
according to OMB Circular A-11, Part 2, strategies should also
outline how GSA will communicate strategic goals throughout the
organization and hold managers and staff accountable for
achieving these goals. Neither of these requirements were
addressed in this section of the plan.
-- The section on program evaluations does not fully achieve the
purposes of the Act or meet OMB's guidance. This section of the
plan is intended to show how program evaluations were used to
establish strategic goals and to lay out a schedule for future
program evaluations. According to OMB's guidance, this section
should briefly describe program evaluations that were used in
preparing the strategic plan and should outline (1) the general
scope and methodology for planned evaluations, (2) key issues to
be addressed, and (3) a schedule for future evaluations. This
section in GSA's draft plan is quite general and brief. It says
that GSA will (1) continue to track results against plans and
review performance, (2) do general performance reviews to
evaluate nationwide business lines and include required
performance reviews, and (3) do quarterly reviews of selected
activities. It does not (1) describe how program evaluations
done by it or others, such as its Inspector General or GAO, were
used to establish strategic goals; (2) provide much specific
information on the scopes and methodologies of issues to be
addressed in forthcoming evaluations; or (3) identify when
various evaluations will be done, except for the "quarterly
review of selected activities" mentioned.
One way that GSA could improve the strategies component of the plan
would be to describe the key strategies it intends to use to
accomplish its major program goals. For example, in GSA's revised
Federal Telecommunications Service Program strategy and business plan
analyses, issued prior to the draft strategic plan, it described its
five key strategies for achieving the program's goals. GSA said that
it generally planned to achieve the two program goals of ensuring the
best service and price for the government and maximizing competition
by
-- using multiple overlapping, staggered contracts;
-- using comprehensive and niche contracts;
-- awarding minimum revenue guarantees to vendors that compete and
win;
-- leveraging the government's large traffic volumes; and
-- aggressively pursuing opportunities to maximize competition.
By including this type of information in its proposed strategies for
all of its strategic goals, GSA could help stakeholders with their
review of GSA's plan.
We also noted that the draft plan does not contain a discussion of
GSA's information technology strategy although development of this
strategy is under way. In developing this strategy, it may be
helpful if GSA addresses the "year 2000 problem" as well as any
significant information security weaknesses--two issues that we have
identified as high risk across government. In addition, the
information technology strategy may benefit from a discussion of how
GSA plans to comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. This act
calls for agencies to implement a framework of modern technology
management based on practices followed by leading private sector and
public sector organizations that have successfully used technology to
dramatically improve performance and meet strategic goals.
The four other components of GSA's plan that correspond to the
sections required by the Act appear, overall, to be headed in the
right direction. They could, however, be made more useful and
informative. These sections are the comprehensive mission statement,
general goals and objectives, relating performance goals to general
goals and objectives, and key external factors.
MISSION STATEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
GSA's April 28, 1997, draft plan contains both simple and formal
mission statements. The simple mission statement in this version of
the plan is "GSA is About Great Work Environments." The formal
mission statement is "To improve the cost-effectiveness of the
federal government while ensuring quality work environments for its
employees." According to the plan, GSA developed the simple mission
statement so that it could be easily communicated to all levels of
its organization. On June 13, 1997, GSA provided us with the
following updated mission statement: "We provide expertly managed
space, supplies, services and solutions, at the best value, to enable
Federal employees to accomplish their missions."
GSA's updated mission statement is an improvement over the prior
version because it is more specific in describing GSA's statutory
mission. It is results oriented and clearly states the public need
GSA fulfills--enabling federal employees to accomplish their
missions. We noted, however, that the narrative supporting the
comprehensive mission statement section in the April 1997 plan
explained GSA's commitment to being "good stewards of the taxpayer's
dollar" and "safeguarding the taxpayers' resources." But the
accompanying mission statement, as well as the updated mission
statement provided in June, makes no direct mention of GSA's
statutory responsibility to ensure economy and efficiency as a
reflection of the taxpayers' interests. If the reference to "best
value" in the updated mission statement is intended to address the
issue of economy and efficiency, GSA may wish to incorporate this
concept more directly in the mission statement or other components of
its plan where it believes doing so would be appropriate.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
GSA's April 1997 draft plan contained the following five goals:
-- reduce costs: reduce overall costs to the government for the
goods and services GSA makes available;
-- invest wisely: invest taxpayers' money wisely, obtaining the
best yield on the expenditure of federal funds through
cost-effective solutions;
-- manage assets: improve management of the federal government's
assets;
-- spread best practices: help all federal agencies reflect the
best practices for policies and operations; and
-- plan for the future: provide leadership for the future of
federal work.
On June 13, 1997, GSA provided us with the following four revised
goals:
-- competition: become the space/supplies/telecommunications
provider of choice for all federal agencies by delivering
quality products and services at the best value;
-- thrilling customers: thrill our federal customers by
anticipating their needs and working with them to develop
creative solutions to their mission-related problems;
-- asset management: conserve government assets in GSA's care and
provide supportive policy solutions for governmentwide asset
management; and
-- innovation: design and develop future federal work environments
with state-of-the-art technology, innovation, and �best
practice� in use of space, furniture, equipment, telephones,
contracts, and other tools.
GSA's general goals and objectives, from both the April plan and the
update provided in June, reflect a positive attempt to define results
that GSA expects from its major functions. In comparing the two sets
of goals/objectives, it seems to us that GSA consolidated the five
April goals into three more general goals--competition, asset
management, and innovation--and added a new goal related to customer
satisfaction. The first and third goals--competition and asset
management--address GSA's major mission-related functions--space,
supplies, telecommunications, and overall asset management--while the
others seem to represent concepts that go hand-in-hand with good,
strategic management.
These four goals appear to be results oriented and do address, in
some form or another, GSA's primary activities. Even so, we offer
the following observations for consideration as the plan evolves.
GSA seems to have de-emphasized economy and efficiency in the
goals/objectives. Although GSA's responsibilities to economy and
efficiency could be implicit in the phrase �at the best value� in the
first goal, the importance of this GSA core value does not seem
explicit enough in the goals/objectives. By being more explicit
about economy and efficiency GSA would, in our view, greatly improve
the goals/objectives as a whole.
In addition, GSA's first goal, to become the �provider of choice� for
all federal agencies, could be confusing because it may imply that
agencies always have a choice when obtaining space, supplies, and
telecommunications. Although GSA is moving toward greater
competition in some areas such as supplies and leasing, it is still
the required provider for most federal agencies in other areas, such
as construction and major alteration of general purpose office space.
Therefore, greater clarity on the result GSA is aiming to achieve
vis-a-vis the services it provides to federal agencies would be
beneficial. In addition, GSA's updated goals/objectives seem to be
expressed in terms that may be difficult to translate into
quantitative or measurable analysis. We believe that it will be
challenging for GSA to develop corresponding performance measures
that will enable stakeholders to determine whether its goals are
actually being achieved.
As another point, OMB Circular A-11 specifies that strategic plans
are to set forth long-term management goals as well as programmatic
goals. To better meet the purposes of the Act and the Circular A-11
guidance, GSA could reflect in its goals the need to resolve
long-standing management problems. As an example, in developing
strategic goals, GSA could be sensitive to the need for better
program-related and financial data needed to oversee programs and
measure performance. The problems GSA has experienced in the data
reliability area are discussed later in this letter.
RELATING ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS/MEASURES TO GENERAL
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
The April plan's section on relating annual performance goals and
measures to general goals and objectives represents a good attempt at
linking goals/objectives with performance measures. This linkage is
important because it will allow Congress to judge whether GSA is
achieving its goals. GSA's use of a matrix was helpful in
illustrating the linkages among goals, objectives, and measures. In
fairness to GSA, the text of the plan we reviewed stated that this
section was intended to stimulate discussion within GSA and that
additional details, such as baseline and future year projections,
would be added in the plan development process. In addition, this
section was based on the five goals contained in its April 28, 1997,
version of its draft plan and was incomplete in parts. Overall, the
performance goals, objectives, and measures developed thus far were
linked to GSA's general goals. However, to better allow GSA and its
stakeholders to measure actual performance against targets, it is
important that GSA effectively (1) follow through on its commitment
to add additional detail and (2) reflect all of its major programs in
its performance goals and measures.
GSA's draft plan includes some specific performance goals,
performance objectives, and measures. In reviewing them, we noted
that in many instances, the performance goals are fairly general;
and, in some instances, what the draft plan shows as a measure is
really a performance objective. For example:
-- Under the general goal of reducing overall costs to the
government for the goods and services GSA makes available, one
of GSA's draft performance goals is to reduce overall costs to
the federal government for the goods and services made available
through the Federal Supply Service. The corresponding
performance objective is to reduce costs in the interagency
fleet management program, and the performance measure is cost
per mile. Although the proposed measure is specific and
quantitative, the performance objective and goal are fairly
general and are not quantitative or time bound. Therefore, GSA,
Congress, or other stakeholders would not be able to easily
gauge progress since there is no specific target. One way GSA
could improve this situation would be to set a specific,
quantitative cost reduction goal covering a multiple-year period
that would then support specific, quantifiable, annual
performance objectives, or targets. To illustrate, the
performance goal could be to reduce costs per mile of managing
the interagency fleet by a specific amount between fiscal years
1998 and 2001, and the performance objectives could be to
achieve a specifically identifiable reduction in the cost per
mile annually.
-- Under the same general goal as the first example, another of
GSA's performance goals is to effectively manage Public Building
Service operations to maintain costs at or below those
prevailing in comparable private sector activities. Although
use of a private sector comparison in the goal is noteworthy,
stakeholders would have difficulty tracking progress against the
goal, because it is not quantitative or time bound. Further,
one of the performance objectives for the goal is to reduce
costs for building operations; and one of the measures reads,
"In FY 98 cost per sq. ft. for cleaning will be ____ vs ____
in FY 97." As with the goal, the performance objective also is
not quantitative, and it appears that the measure as stated is
more suited to be the performance objective. One way to improve
this situation would be for GSA to set a specific, quantitative
cost per square foot reduction goal over a multiple-year period,
use what is now shown as the measure as the objective, and show
the measure as cost per square foot. GSA would also need to
provide context in terms of the prevailing comparable cost per
square foot in the private sector.
KEY EXTERNAL FACTORS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4
OMB Circular A-11 points out that agencies' achievement of their
goals and objectives can be influenced by certain external factors
that exist, occur, or change over the time period covered by their
plans. The circular notes that these factors can be economic,
demographic, social, or environmental and states that the strategic
plan should describe each external factor, indicate its link with a
particular goal(s), and describe how the achievement of the goal
could be affected by the factor.
In GSA's April plan, the key external factors section identified the
following factors: service to state and local governments,
technology changes and missed opportunities, where federal workers
will work, and the size of the federal workforce. However, regarding
the factor about service to state and local governments, the text is
unclear as to how enabling state and local governments to use GSA
contracts would affect the goals. Although GSA recognizes that there
are some concerns about providing services to state and local
governments within the executive and legislative branches, the plan
would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the issues and the
steps GSA plans to take to mitigate these concerns. For the factor
on technology changes, the narrative states that GSA may lose
customers if it is restrained from taking advantage of newer
technologies--an understandable external factor. However, the
narrative is not explicit about the underlying external factor or
factors that could cause this to happen. In addition, the plan does
not address such factors as the Telecommunications Act of 1996--a
comprehensive rewrite of U.S. communications law--which should
provide both opportunities and challenges for GSA in its procurement
of telecommunications services.
The discussion on the key external factor on where federal workers
will work could benefit from an explanation of why greater reliance
on working at home will require more money than traditional
approaches. It seems logical that this shift would in fact be more
cost effective in the long run because of less reliance on expensive
office space. Finally, it is unclear from the narrative why the
changing size of the federal workforce is an external factor that
would affect GSA's ability to achieve its goals. More discussion
about GSA's perspective on this factor would be helpful.
In addition to the factors GSA identified, we noted that this section
had limited or no information on some other important external
factors we have identified over the years. These factors pertain
mostly to GSA's real property activities and include: shortfalls in
the Federal Buildings Fund (which were alluded to in GSA's plan but
were not explicitly identified as a major external factor); the
current budget process (i.e. the lack of a capital budget); and the
nature of the prospectus authorization process. These factors, which
tend to impede GSA's ability to be more businesslike in the real
property area, are fully explained in our October 1991 testimony on
real property issues facing Congress. (See Related GAO Products on
p. 20.)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5
Overall, the relationships between some of the various components
could be clearer and more direct. For example, the strategies, key
external factors, and program evaluations sections are not directly
linked to the general goals and objectives. Improving these linkages
could make the plan easier to follow and allow the reader to better
understand how the relationships among the various components affect
GSA's ability to meet its goals.
As previously noted in table 1, the components in GSA's plan do not
appear in the same order as they are outlined in the Results Act.
For example, the strategies section (how the goals and objectives
will be achieved) in GSA's plan appears after the section on relating
performance goals to general goals and objectives. It seems to us
more logical that the strategies section would appear before the
section on relating performance goals to general goals and
objectives.
KEY STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
GENERALLY REFLECTED IN GSA'S
STRATEGIC PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
GSA's draft plan discusses the three major pieces of legislation that
serve as the basis for the mission statements it sets forth, and the
goals and objectives identified thus far reflect GSA's underlying
statutory responsibility. The three laws cited by GSA are as
follows:
-- The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
makes GSA responsible for providing an economical and efficient
system for the purchase of personal property and nonpersonal
services for federal agencies, utilizing and managing available
government property, and disposing of surplus government
property. GSA is also responsible for the assignment and
reassignment of space for federal agencies in government-owned
and leased buildings and for the operation, maintenance, and
management of federal buildings;
-- The Public Buildings Act of 1959 authorizes GSA to construct and
alter public buildings for federal agencies if it is deemed to
be most advantageous to the United States; and,
-- The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996
continues GSA's authority to manage and coordinate long-distance
telecommunications services for federal agencies.
Although GSA is authorized to provide telecommunications services to
federal agencies under the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, the draft strategic plan states that GSA has
direct authority for telecommunications under the Information
Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (renamed the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996 in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997).
The April 1997 version of the draft plan indicates the linkages of
the mission, as spelled out in that version, to the key statutory
authorities and OMB's designation in the information technology area.
The general and performance goals, objectives, and measures shown in
the April draft plan also relate to the mission as described in that
version and to the key statutes and OMB's designation. Similarly,
the goals, as revised in June 1997, also relate to the key statutes
and OMB's designation.
However, as previously mentioned, GSA's statutory responsibilities to
promote economy and efficiency are not explicitly reflected in either
GSA's April or June mission statements, even though discussions in
the draft plan emphasize GSA's responsibility to be a good steward of
the taxpayer's dollar. Also, amendments to the original statutes
governing GSA and other statutes broaden the scope of GSA's
responsibilities. These include laws related to homeless assistance,
environmental concerns, and child care centers, to name a few.
Although the Results Act does not require it, a listing that briefly
summarizes GSA's responsibilities under laws that are reflected in
various components of the plan might help stakeholders better
understand the diversity and complexity of GSA's overall mission and
the linkages between stated goals and objectives and the underlying
statutory authorities on which they rest.
For example, under the general goal of helping all federal agencies
reflect the best practices for policies and operations, the draft
plan lists a performance goal and three performance objectives to
improve child care centers overseen by GSA. One of the objectives is
to ensure that child care centers remain economically accessible to
the average federal employee--the measure for this objective is the
percentage of slots filled by children of federal workers. It would
be helpful to stakeholders to know that GSA does have specific
statutory responsibilities related to allotting space for child care
centers and for GSA to briefly describe what they are so stakeholders
can have a basis on which to evaluate GSA's proposed goals and
objectives. In fact, Public Law 100-202 [40 U.S.C. 490b] specifies
that federal employees shall be given priority for available child
care services and it states that at least 50 percent of the children
for whom child care services are provided are to be children of
federal employees.
CROSSCUTTING ACTIVITIES AND
AGENCY STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
NOT FULLY DISCUSSED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
GSA is a central management agency that has responsibility for the
performance of a wide range of policymaking and service functions.
Given this, it is involved in a number of crosscutting issues for
which successful performance depends on actions by GSA and other
agencies. For example, in the public buildings area, GSA seeks to
provide leadership to federal agencies in the use and management of
real property. It is responsible for the development, coordination,
administration, and issuance of governmentwide real property
principles, guidelines, standards, criteria, policies, and asset
management principles concerning real property programs. The federal
government's real property portfolio includes almost 450,000
buildings and 650 million acres of land that together are worth
hundreds of billions of dollars. In the federal procurement area,
GSA researches, develops, and publishes policy guidance to support
the federal acquisition system, through which federal agencies
obligate over $200 billion annually. Despite the potential for
crosscutting issues that affect GSA's mission, the plan is silent on
whether GSA coordinated with its governmentwide stakeholders and does
not discuss the potential for crosscutting issues to arise as a major
part of doing business and as an ingredient to GSA meeting its goals
and objectives.
An example in this area relates to one of GSA's proposed goals that
it identified in its June 1997 mission and goals/objectives
statement. The goal relates to conserving the government's assets in
GSA's care and providing supportive policy solutions for
governmentwide asset management. Reducing space occupied by federal
agencies that are downsizing could fall under this goal. A review we
are conducting on GSA's and agencies' efforts to save costs by
reducing space that is no longer needed due to downsizing has shown
that at least in one area, GSA and the agencies must depend on one
another to achieve this goal. To illustrate, one obstacle some
agencies face in reducing space is the lack of funds to consolidate
space. To assist the agencies, GSA is experimenting with a program
called "Ponding," which is an effort to consolidate small amounts of
unneeded or underutilized space, and demonstrating to Congress that
by funding the cost of space consolidations, long-term savings can be
achieved.
STRATEGIC PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Over the years, we have reported on the major management problems
that GSA faces in carrying out its mission. In response to our work
and the work of others, including the GSA Inspector General and the
National Performance Review, GSA has undertaken efforts to
reorganize, reform, and reengineer its overall mission-related
management approaches. For example, in 1995, GSA attempted to
identify the most cost-effective methods of carrying out each of its
16 major mission support functions or business lines under its
Federal Operations Review Model (FORM). In addition, GSA's June 1997
revisions to its goals recognized the importance of competition in
providing goods and services--a concept initially discussed in our
1992 Transition Report.\3
Nonetheless, GSA's draft strategic plan is silent on the status of
its reform efforts. In addition, the draft makes no mention of how
GSA has worked to address the formidable management problems that
have been identified over the years or the status of its efforts to
address them.
This type of information could help GSA and its stakeholders in at
least two ways. First, it could help in the processes of developing
and reviewing the selection of goals, strategies, and objectives.
Second, major management problems could impede GSA's efforts to
achieve its goals and objectives, and stakeholders could benefit from
knowing what GSA has done, is doing, or plans to do to address such
problems. GSA clearly recognized the importance of considering
problems identified by GAO and others in its previously issued
strategy and business plan analyses for the Federal
Telecommunications Service Program. This plan recognized that the
lessons learned and verified over the years through reviews by GAO
and others were integral to its development of a new program
strategy.
We have not recently examined GSA's efforts to address the problems
we have identified over the last several years and have made only
limited examinations of reform efforts, such as FORM. Accordingly,
we are not in a position to comment on GSA's success in these areas.
The GSA Inspector General's office has been involved with the FORM
process and believes it has been instrumental in improving the
delivery of GSA's services and reducing their costs. However, the
Inspector General reported that FORM evaluations should not be relied
upon because better cost data are needed for comparing competing
service delivery options. The Inspector General also reported that
the benchmarking criteria used in each FORM analysis were either
limited in number or were not necessarily comparable to other private
or public entities engaged in similar activities.
We believe our past work, as well as that of GSA's Inspector General,
identified problem areas significant enough to warrant some
discussion in the plan. At a minimum, in problem areas where GSA has
taken successful corrective actions, some discussion of how GSA
addressed the problems and intends to prevent them from resurfacing
would be more informative and useful. If the problems resurface,
they could have a negative impact on GSA's ability to achieve its
goals and measure performance. For other problems where GSA may have
had less success, the plan could identify these and discuss how GSA
plans to resolve them, because its ability to successfully implement
the Results Act may be hampered if these management problems persist.
The challenges GSA faces to correcting major management problems that
we have reported over the years generally fall into four categories:
(1) resolving conflicting roles, (2) making GSA more businesslike,
(3) strengthening GSA's internal management systems, and (4)
improving GSA's governmentwide procurement practices.
-- Resolving Conflicting Roles. When GSA was established in 1949,
it was envisioned, primarily but not exclusively, as a
policymaking body with the option of delegating its authorities
while maintaining comprehensive accountability to Congress for
efficiency and economy. Since its creation, however, GSA has
been torn between an internal dynamic that favors a centralized
approach for directly providing services and a largely external
expectation that its primary role should be to issue
governmentwide policy guidance and oversee decentralized
operations within the departments and agencies themselves. We
have reported over the years that building delegations, staffing
reductions, increasing customer demands, and changing work
technologies and concepts collectively dictate that GSA
recognize that its traditional predilection for direct
operations must become secondary to strategic leadership. We
have said that GSA should not directly operate all the support
services that federal agencies need to accomplish their
missions. Instead, it should set governmentwide policy, provide
effective and comprehensive oversight, and operate activities
only where it makes sense to do so and is cost effective to have
a central agency involved. (See, for example, GAO/T-GGD-92-4,
GAO/OCG-93-28TR, and GAO/T-GGD-95-96.)\4
-- Making GSA More Businesslike. As previously mentioned, GSA is
in many respects a large, diversified business enterprise. Its
real estate portfolio, supply procurement and distribution
activities, travel and transportation services,
telecommunications and computer services, and property
management and disposal functions involve a cash flow of over
$13 billion annually. We reported in 1992 that if GSA were a
private company, it would rank among the top 50 on the Fortune
500 list. Despite its businesslike mission, however, our work
over the last several years showed that GSA had difficulty
operating in a businesslike manner in such areas as depot
operations and management of its real estate portfolio. For
example, in 1992, we reported that GSA spent millions of dollars
to modernize two of its four large depots at a time when the
private sector was reducing the need for depots and moving
toward direct deliveries of supplies. (See, for example,
GAO/GGD-93-32, GAO/T-GGD-95-96, GAO/T-GGD-95-149, and
GAO/T-GGD-92-4.)
-- Strengthening GSA's Internal Management Systems. It is
especially critical that GSA's operations be supported by
reliable information systems and adequately protected from
fraud, waste, and mismanagement. However, our work found that
GSA's general management and internal control systems and
practices needed substantial improvement. Our September 1992
report on internal controls found that GSA's operations were not
adequately protected from fraud, waste, and mismanagement. GSA
agreed with the bulk of this work and committed to implement
various recommendations we made to correct problems. (See, for
example, GAO/GGD-90-14 and GAO/GGD-92-98.)
-- Improving GSA's Governmentwide Procurement Practices. GSA is
responsible for operating or overseeing several governmentwide
procurement programs. However, our past work showed that the
government's procurement practices need improvement. In
September 1992, we identified procurement of common use supplies
and supply depot operations as two of eight areas that were
highly vulnerable to fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Further,
in January 1993, we found that GSA continued to award
competitive supply contracts to vendors who repeatedly had
supplied defective or poor-quality products or who were late
with deliveries. (See, for example, GAO/GGD-92-98,
GAO/GGD-93-34, and GAO/GGD-94-137.)
--------------------
\3 GAO/OCG-93-28TR, Dec. 1992.
\4 All reports referred to by number are identified in full in the
Related GAO Products section at the end of this letter.
GSA'S CAPACITY TO PROVIDE
RELIABLE INFORMATION ON
ACHIEVEMENT OF STRATEGIC GOALS
IS UNCLEAR
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
To efficiently and effectively operate, manage, and oversee its
diverse array of public buildings, supply and transportation,
information technology, and telecommunications, and excess real and
personal property responsibilities, GSA needs reliable data. These
data are needed so that GSA can measure its progress and monitor,
record, account for, summarize, and interpret millions of
transactions, as well as prevent, detect, and combat instances of
fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement.
As discussed previously, GSA relies on a number of automated
management information systems to carry out central management and
governmentwide service provider roles. However, our past work showed
that GSA lacks the timely, accurate, and reliable program data that
it needs to effectively manage and oversee its various activities and
programs. Several GAO and GSA Inspector General reports documented a
variety of operational and oversight problems at GSA that were caused
by poor management information.\5 In the public buildings area, many
of GSA' s program-related information systems have been obsolete,
inaccurate, and/or unreliable. Consequently, we found that the
systems did not permit or facilitate planning or decisionmaking. In
its fiscal year 1996 accountability report, GSA's auditors noted that
financial management practices in the Public Buildings Service
continued to require improvement.
OMB guidance implementing the audit requirements of the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires agency auditors to determine
whether the agency's internal control structure provides reasonable
assurance that the data supporting the reported performance measures
exist and are complete, so as to permit preparation of reliable and
complete performance information. Between 1994 and 1997, the GSA
Inspector General's office made limited audits of the internal
controls over the production of reliable data to support various GSA
performance measures and found mixed results. Specifically, of the
eight audits, controls over producing reliable data to support the
performance measures were considered to be low risk for four
performance measures, moderate risk for three, and high risk for one.
Regarding financial management information systems, GSA reported for
several years in its Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act Report
that deficiencies identified in the financial reporting area
precluded managers from having the appropriately detailed, accurate,
and complete reports on which to gauge financial performance and take
appropriate actions. Also, as GSA's auditors noted in its fiscal
year 1996 accountability report, a number of reportable conditions
are related to its financial statements, including (1) the Public
Buildings Service's financial management practices need improvement,
(2) procedures to identify completed construction projects are
insufficient, (3) procedures for establishing reserves for past due
accounts require improvement, and (4) procedures for establishing and
evaluating the accuracy and completeness of year-end accruals were
not operating effectively. According to GSA, it has developed a new
system, one we have not evaluated, that has corrected some of these
deficiencies. On a positive note, GSA has been able to make its
year-end financial reports generally complete and has successfully
received unqualified audit opinions on its financial statements for a
number of years.
If GSA is to use data from its existing management information
systems to measure and manage program results, it needs to ensure
that such data are complete, reliable, and timely. At a minimum, GSA
could discuss this issue in its strategic plan especially with regard
to (1) what it has done, is doing, or plans to do, to address
previously cited data problems; and (2) the ease or difficulty it
foresees with obtaining data to measure results, such as private
sector data that to its credit, it plans to use as a benchmark for
some goals and objectives. For example, one of its draft performance
goals is to manage public building operations at or below the
prevailing cost for comparable private sector activities.
It would also be helpful to GSA's stakeholders to explain in the plan
how GSA intends to obtain data on the second general goal in its June
1997 plan revision--thrilling its customers. It would seem as though
at least one performance goal, objective, and measure would relate to
customer satisfaction with GSA's services, but getting good
information from customers is sometimes problematic. For example,
some organizations experience low response rates when they attempt to
survey their customers. Thus, it could be helpful if GSA were to
discuss its proposed approach and the ease or difficulty it
anticipates with measuring how well it is thrilling its customers.
--------------------
\5 See, for example, GAO/T-GGD-96-19, GAO/GGD-94-145, GAO/GGD-93-34,
and GAO/GGD-92-98.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
On June 30, 1997, we provided a draft of this letter to GSA for oral
comment. On July 2, 1997, we met with, and obtained comments from,
the two coordinators of strategic planning from the Office of
Financial Management and Office of Public Affairs, who are
responsible for preparing the strategic plan. These officials agreed
with our observations and said they found our comments informative
and useful. They reiterated that the development of the plan is an
evolutionary and iterative process. They added that it is especially
important to recognize the need to reach agreement or consensus on
the mission statement and the general goals and objectives before
developing and then linking the other sections of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter
until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies
of this letter to the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives; Ranking Minority Members of your Committees; the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other Committees that have
jurisdiction over GSA activities; the Administrator of GSA; and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made
available to others on request.
Major contributors to this letter are listed in the enclosure.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4232 if you or your staffs have any
questions concerning this letter.
Bernard L. Ungar
Director, Government Business
Operations Issues
Enclosure
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=================================================== Appendix Enclosure
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
------------------------------------------------- Appendix Enclosure:1
Gerald Stankosky, Assistant Director, Government Business Operations
Issues
John F. Mortin, Senior Evaluator
David E. Sausville, Senior Evaluator
William J. Dowdal, Senior Evaluator
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION WASHINGTON,
D.C.
------------------------------------------------- Appendix Enclosure:2
Linda D. Koontz, Associate Director
Joan B. Hawkins, Assistant Director
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
------------------------------------------------- Appendix Enclosure:3
Alan L. Belkin, Acting Associate General Counsel
Susan Michal-Smith, Senior Attorney
============================================================ Chapter 0
============================================================ Chapter 1
============================================================ Chapter 2
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 3
Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance
Facility Planning and Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-39, May 19, 1997).
Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More
Informed Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-27, Dec. 31, 1996).
Federal Courthouse Construction: More Disciplined Approach Would
Reduce Costs and Provide For Better Decisionmaking (GAO/T-GGD-96-19,
Nov. 8, 1995).
General Services Administration: Opportunities For Cost Savings in
the Public Buildings Area (GAO/T-GGD-95-149, July 13, 1995).
General Services Administration: Opportunities For Cost Savings and
Service Improvements (GAO/T-GGD-95-96, March 29, 1995).
Public Buildings: GSA's Reinvention Initiatives (GAO/T-GGD-95-100,
March 2, 1995).
Federal Office Space: More Businesslike Leasing Approach Could
Reduce Costs and Improve Performance (GAO/GGD-95-48, Feb. 27, 1995).
Management Reform: Implementation of the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, 1994).
Real Property Management: Reforms in Four Countries Promote
Competition (GAO/GGD-94-166, Sept. 30, 1994).
Budget Issues: Budget Scorekeeping for Acquisition of Federal
Buildings (GAO/T-AIMD-94-189, Sept. 20, 1994).
General Services Administration: Better Data and Oversight Needed to
Improve Construction Management (GAO/GGD-94-145, June 27, 1994).
Supply Contract Terminations: GSA Is Missing Opportunities to
Recover Costs From Vendor Default (GAO/GGD-94-137, June 15, 1994).
Public-Private Mix: Extent of Contracting Out for Real Property
Management Services in GSA (GAO/GGD-94-126BR, May 16, 1994).
Management Reforms: Examples of Public and Private Innovations to
Improve Service Delivery (GAO/AIMD/GGD-94-90BR, Feb. 11, 1994).
Management Reform: GAO's Comments on the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-94-1, Dec. 3, 1993).
Public Buildings: Budget Scorekeeping Prompts Difficult Decisions
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-94-43, Oct. 28, 1993).
Federal Judiciary Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision
(GAO/T-GGD-94-18, Oct. 7, 1993 and GAO/GGD-93-132, Sept. 28, 1993).
Federal Real Property: National Performance Review Recommendations
(GAO/T-GGD-93-47, Sept. 21, 1993).
Multiple Award Schedule Contracting: Changes Needed in Negotiation
Objectives and Data Requirements (GAO/GGD-93-123, Aug, 25, 1993).
Federal Real Property: Key Acquisition and Management Obstacles
(GAO/T-GGD-93-42, July 27, 1993).
Federal Buildings Fund Limitations (GAO/GGD-93-34R, Apr. 5, 1993).
General Services Administration: Actions Needed to Stop Buying
Supplies From Poor-Performing Vendors (GAO/GGD-93-34, Jan. 11,
1993).
General Services Issues (GAO/OCG-93-28TR, Dec. 1992).
General Services Administration: Increased Direct Delivery of
Supplies Could Save Millions (GAO/GGD-93-32, Dec. 28, 1992).
General Services Administration: Actions Needed to Improve
Protection Against Fraud, Waste, and Mismanagement (GAO/GGD-92-98,
Sept. 30, 1992).
General Services Administration: Distribution Center Modernization
Was Mismanaged (GAO/GGD-92-71, May 20, 1992).
Federal Office Space: Obstacles to Purchasing Commercial Properties
From RTC, FDIC, and Others (GAO/GGD-92-60, Mar. 31, 1992).
Real Property Management Issues Facing GSA and Congress
(GAO/T-GGD-92-4, Oct. 30, 1991).
GSA: A Central Management Agency Needing Comprehensive Congressional
Oversight (GAO/T-GGD-92-3, Oct. 29, 1991).
Long-term Neglect of Federal Building Needs (GAO/T-GGD-91-64, Aug.
1, 1991).
Federal Buildings: Actions Needed to Prevent Further Deterioration
and Obsolescence (GAO/GGD-91-57, May 13, 1991).
General Services Administration: Status of Management Improvement
Efforts (GAO/GGD-91-59, Apr. 3, 1991).
Facilities Location Policy: GSA Should Propose a More Consistent and
Businesslike Approach (GAO/GGD-90-109, Sept. 28, 1990).
General Services Administration: Delegated Buildings Adequately
Operated But Better GSA Oversight Needed (GAO/GGD-90-76, May 15,
1990).
The Disinvestment in Federal Office Space (GAO/T-90-24, Mar. 20,
1990).
Federal Office Space: Increased Ownership Would Result in
Significant Savings (GAO/GGD-90-11, Dec. 22, 1989).
General Services Administration: Sustained Attention Required to
Improve Performance (GAO/GGD-90-14, Nov. 6, 1989).
Building Purchases: GSA's Program Is Successful But Better Policies
and Procedures Are Needed (GAO/GGD-90-5, Oct. 31, 1989).
Public Buildings: Own or Lease? (GAO/T-GGD-89-42, Sept. 26, 1989).
*** End of document. ***