GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work As
Intended (Letter Report, 04/10/97, GAO/GGD-97-36).
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on the
Government Performance and Results Act's (GPRA) implementation during
the initial pilot phase, fiscal years (FY) 1994 to 1996, focusing on:
(1) whether the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot worked
as intended and the reasons why it did or did not; and (2) the lessons
learned from this pilot and their possible implications for
governmentwide implementation of GPRA.
GAO noted that: (1) the GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility
pilot did not work as intended; (2) the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) did not designate any of the 7 departments and 1 independent
agency that submitted a total of 61 waiver proposals as GPRA managerial
accountability and flexibility pilots; (3) three major factors
contributed to the failure of GPRA's managerial accountability and
flexibility pilot phase to work as intended; (4) first, changes in
federal management practices and laws that occurred after GPRA was
enacted affected agencies' need for the GPRA process; (5) second, GPRA
was not the only means by which agencies could receive waivers from
administrative requirements, and thereby obtain needed managerial
flexibility; (6) third, OMB did not work actively with agencies that
were seeking to take part in the managerial accountability and
flexibility pilot, in contrast to its more proactive posture toward
other GPRA requirements, such as the pilots for the performance planning
and reporting requirements; (7) overall, officials in five of the eight
agencies that submitted a waiver proposal to OMB said that they never
received: (a) feedback from OMB on the status of their waiver proposals;
(b) notification of specific concerns that OMB may have had about the
quality and scope of the proposals; or, most important, (c) explicit
instructions from OMB on how their proposals could be improved to better
meet OMB's expectations; (8) even though the pilot process did not
result in any GPRA-authorized waivers and thus did not work as intended,
the process provided lessons for agencies and may have important
implications for governmentwide GPRA implementation; (9) while preparing
their waiver requests, several participating agencies learned that the
burdens and constraints that confronted their managers often were
imposed by the agency itself or its parent department and were not the
result of requirements imposed by central management agencies; (10) the
administration's effort to develop federal management "templates" that,
in part, document the range of flexibility agencies have under existing
central management agency requirements is a promising means for
disseminating knowledge about available flexibility among federal
agencies; and (11) in addition, the pilot experience should provide
useful information for Congress to consider as GPRA is implemented gove*
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-97-36
TITLE: GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did
Not Work As Intended
DATE: 04/10/97
SUBJECT: Waivers
Interagency relations
Communication
Personnel management
Budget authority
Reengineering (management)
Accountability
Statutory law
******************************************************************
** 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
Report to Congressional Committees
April 1997
GPRA - MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
AND FLEXIBILITY PILOT DID NOT WORK
AS INTENDED
GAO/GGD-97-36
Managerial Accountability and Flexibility
(410007)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DLA - Defense Logistics Agency
FMS - Financial Management Service
FTE - full-time equivalent
GPO - Government Printing Office
GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
GSA - General Services Administration
IRS - Internal Revenue Service
NPR - National Performance Review
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
OPM - Office of Personnel Management
PBO - Performance Based Organization
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-275511
April 10, 1997
The Honorable Fred D. Thompson
Chairman
The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
Congress intended for the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) to fundamentally shift the focus of federal management and
accountability from a preoccupation with rigid adherence to
prescribed processes to a focus on achieving desired outcomes and
results. In crafting GPRA, Congress recognized that if federal
managers were to be held accountable for achieving results, they
would need the authority and flexibility to achieve those results.
GPRA provides for a series of pilot projects so that federal agencies
can gain experience in using the act's provisions and provide lessons
to other agencies before GPRA's governmentwide implementation, which
is to begin in the fall of 1997. One set of these GPRA pilot
projects focused on managerial accountability and flexibility.
This report was developed in partial response to GPRA's requirement
that we report on the act's implementation during the initial pilot
phase--fiscal years 1994 to 1996--and on the prospects for its
governmentwide implementation. Our objectives were to (1) determine
whether the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot worked as
intended and the reasons why it did or did not and (2) identify the
lessons learned from this pilot and their possible implications for
governmentwide implementation of GPRA.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The experiences of foreign governments that are considered leaders in
implementing results-oriented management reforms, such as such as
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, have
suggested that substantial improvements in performance are possible
when managers are provided with expanded authority over spending,
human resource, and other management functions while being held more
accountable for achieving results.\1 Congress was aware of the
experiences of these foreign governments--and the similar experiences
of some state and local governments in the United States--when it
developed GPRA.
As one avenue of providing managers with needed authority and
flexibility, GPRA allows agencies to propose, and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to approve, waivers of certain
nonstatutory administrative requirements and controls. A waiver
proposal must describe and quantify any anticipated effects on an
agency's performance and be endorsed by the agency that imposed the
requirement or control. These waivers could include the delegation
of additional procurement authority to line managers or the lifting
of limitations on personnel compensation and remuneration by central
management agencies. However, GPRA does not provide any new
authority to waive statutory requirements. \2 Finally, GPRA does not
provide any new authorities to any agency to waive requirements, nor
does it restrict or redefine waiver authorities already in existence.
However, if an agency has authority under a law other than GPRA to
waive a statutory requirement or control, it may do so and only needs
to satisfy the requirements of that law.
Under GPRA, managerial accountability and flexibility waivers were to
be piloted during fiscal years 1995 and 1996. OMB was to select at
least five agencies to participate in the managerial accountability
and flexibility pilot from among the eligible GPRA performance
planning and reporting agencies during fiscal years 1994 to 1996.
(See app. I for an overview of GPRA, including the pilot phases.)
Agency proposals to OMB were to identify the requirement or control
to be waived, quantify how relief from the control or requirement was
expected to affect performance, and compare the anticipated
performance improvements with (1) current performance levels and (2)
levels that could be expected without the waiver.
Agency proposals for participation in this phase of the GPRA pilot
process were to be sent to OMB for consideration. OMB would not
approve a waiver request unless it was endorsed by the agency that
established the requirement--for example, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), the General Services Administration (GSA), or the
Department of the Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS). OMB
was then to use the relevant central management agency's endorsement
of waiver requests in deciding whether to designate a line agency as
a managerial accountability and flexibility pilot.\3
--------------------
\1 See Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for
Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995).
\2 The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report that
accompanied GPRA specified that the act does not authorize waivers of
any regulation promulgated in accordance with the Administrative
Procedures Act, unless the public notice and comment provisions of
the Administrative Procedures Act are satisfied (5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq.).
\3 For a more detailed description of GPRA's requirements, see
appendix I.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilot did not work
as intended. OMB did not designate any of the 7 departments and 1
independent agency that submitted a total of 61 waiver proposals as
GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilots. For about
three-quarters of the waiver proposals, OMB or other central
management agencies determined that the waivers were not allowable
for statutory or other reasons or that the requirement for which the
waivers were proposed no longer existed. For the remaining
proposals, OMB or other central management agencies approved waivers
or developed compromises by using authorities that were already
available independent of GPRA.
Three major factors contributed to the failure of GPRA's managerial
accountability and flexibility pilot phase to work as intended.
First, changes in federal management practices and laws that occurred
after GPRA was enacted affected agencies' need for the GPRA process.
These changes included the elimination of the bulk of the Federal
Personnel Manual, which provided instructions and guidance on
virtually every facet of government employment, and the enactment of
the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act. This act established a new
personnel ceiling for all of the executive branch, which had the
effect of limiting OMB's ability to waive agency personnel ceilings
established in the budget. With a statutory cap on the number of
executive branch employees being set, OMB believed it would not be
able to manage the federal government's full-time equivalent (FTE)
reductions while ensuring that downsizing statutory requirements were
met if one or more agencies were given the authority to exceed their
FTE limits.
Second, GPRA was not the only means by which agencies could receive
waivers from administrative requirements, and thereby obtain needed
managerial flexibility. For example, as previously noted, a number
of waivers that were initially proposed as part of the GPRA process
were approved under authorities existing independent of GPRA.
Moreover, under the National Performance Review (NPR), about 185
reinvention labs were created.\4 The goal of the reinvention lab
effort was similar to that of the GPRA managerial accountability and
flexibility provision--in essence, to improve performance by
providing managers with added operational authority. However,
obtaining a waiver as a reinvention lab was easier than using the
GPRA process. For example, in contrast to GPRA, agencies obtaining
waivers through the reinvention labs were not required to show how,
and the degree to which, program performance would be changed as the
result of receiving a waiver.
Third, OMB did not work actively with agencies that were seeking to
take part in the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot, in
contrast to its more proactive posture toward other GPRA
requirements, such as the pilots for the performance planning and
reporting requirements. As of November 1996, almost 11 months after
OMB had received the endorsements by the central management agencies,
OMB had not formally notified two of the eight agencies that nine of
their requested waivers had been approved outside of the GPRA pilot
process or that a compromise had been developed. According to
officials in those agencies, in the absence of formal notification
from OMB, they continued to operate under the old requirements, even
though they were not required to do so. Overall, officials in five
of the eight agencies that submitted a waiver proposal to OMB said
that they never received (1) feedback from OMB on the status of their
waiver proposals; (2) notification of specific concerns that OMB may
have had about the quality and scope of the proposals; or, most
important, (3) explicit instructions from OMB on how their proposals
could be improved to better meet OMB's expectations. However, under
the performance planning and reporting pilot, OMB assessed the
strengths and weaknesses of agency proposals and suggested ways to
improve them.
Even though the pilot process did not result in any GPRA-authorized
waivers and thus did not work as intended, the process provided
lessons for agencies and may have important implications for
governmentwide GPRA implementation. While preparing their waiver
requests, several participating agencies learned that the burdens and
constraints that confronted their managers often were imposed by the
agency itself or its parent department and were not the result of
requirements imposed by central management agencies. The
administration's effort to develop federal management "templates"
that, in part, document the range of flexibility agencies have under
existing central management agency requirements is a promising means
for disseminating knowledge about available flexibility among federal
agencies.\5
In addition, the pilot experience should provide useful information
for Congress to consider as GPRA is implemented governmentwide. The
report of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which
accompanied the act, recognized that the limited nature of the
flexibility waivers authorized by GPRA may not be sufficient to
enable managers to address barriers to improved performance.
However, the report stated that neither the Senate Committee nor the
agencies were able to identify the statutory and other controls for
which waivers should be considered. In addition, the report urged
OMB to develop (1) a list of possible statutory barriers to improved
program performance that Congress may wish to consider modifying or
abolishing and (2) an analysis of the performance benefits and other
effects that legislative changes would produce. The relatively large
number of proposals to waive statutory requirements should be helpful
to OMB in fulfilling these tasks.
--------------------
\4 NPR is the administration's major management reform initiative and
has issued recommendations intended to make the government "work
better and cost less." A key part of that initiative has been the
establishment of reinvention labs, which are designed to test ways
that agencies could improve their performance and customer service by
reengineering work processes and eliminating unnecessary regulations.
See Management Reform: Status of Agency Reinvention Lab Efforts
(GAO/GGD-96-69, Mar. 20, 1996) for our assessment of the status of
NPR's efforts to encourage reinvention labs.
\5 These templates are being developed as part of the
administration's initiative to create Performance Based Organizations
(PBO). The PBO initiative is intended to give agencies that deliver
measurable services a greater degree of autonomy from governmentwide
rules in exchange for greater accountability for achieving results.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To meet our two objectives of (1) determining whether the managerial
accountability and flexibility pilot worked as intended and the
reasons that it did or did not and (2) identifying the lessons
learned from this pilot and possible implications for governmentwide
implementation of the GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility
provision, we first reviewed GPRA and its legislative history to
determine congressional intent. We interviewed the OMB official who
managed the GPRA waiver process and OMB's review of the 61 waiver
proposals. At the other central management agencies--GSA, OPM, and
FMS--we interviewed officials and reviewed documents to determine
each agency's role in the waiver process. We reviewed guidance on
the scope of allowable and unallowable waiver proposals that OMB and
the other central management agencies had developed for line
agencies. We also reviewed documents showing the agencies'
proposals, management agencies' decisions on the proposals, and the
reasons for those decisions. However, we did not assess the final
waiver determinations made by OMB and the other central management
agencies on whether the pilot agencies' waiver proposals should or
should not have been approved.
We supplemented our work at the central management agencies by
interviewing officials from the 28 agencies participating as GPRA
performance planning and reporting pilots that were eligible to
develop waivers. An additional seven performance planning and
reporting pilots were designated too late to participate in the
managerial accountability and flexibility waiver pilot. The 28
eligible agencies had a total of 70 individual pilots or components
that were involved in the performance planning and reporting pilot
phase. (See app. II for a list of these eligible performance
planning and reporting pilot organizations.) We interviewed officials
in 68 of these 70 organizations. (The remaining two organizations
could not identify a knowledgeable official for us to interview.) For
the majority of the performance planning and reporting pilots, our
discussions focused on identifying the reasons that a waiver proposal
was not submitted to OMB for consideration.
For the 14 of the 70 organizations, representing 8 agencies, that did
submit a waiver proposal, we conducted more in-depth interviews and
reviewed documents to determine how those agencies developed their
proposals, what were the characteristics of the waiver proposals, and
how much interaction agency officials had with OMB and the other
central management agencies after the proposals were submitted. (See
app. III for the results of these 14 organizations' waiver
proposals.)
We also reviewed our recent and ongoing work on GPRA and related
management reform efforts to help identify the implications of the
GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process for
governmentwide implementation of GPRA. A list of our recent reports
related to these issues is at the end of this report.
We conducted our review from December 1995 to February 1997 in
Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. We obtained written comments on the draft of
this report from the Office of Management and Budget. These comments
and our evaluation are discussed on pages 17 and 18, and the OMB
letter is reprinted in appendix IV.
OMB DID NOT SELECT ANY AGENCIES
AS MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
AND FLEXIBILITY PILOTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Of the 70 organizations participating in the performance planning and
reporting pilot phase and eligible to participate as managerial
accountability and flexibility pilots, 14--from 8 independent
agencies--submitted 61 waiver proposals to OMB. However, OMB did not
designate any of the agencies as pilots for GPRA's managerial
accountability and flexibility provision. Figure 1 shows the results
of the central management agencies' decisions--including OMB's--on
the 61 GPRA waiver proposals.
Figure 1: Results of Waiver
Proposals
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Sources: OMB, GSA, OPM, and FMS data.
Of the 61 waiver proposals, OMB and the other central management
agencies found 35 not to be allowable under GPRA for statutory or
other reasons. (App. III provides a listing of the 61 waiver
proposals and the decisions of the central management agencies.) Of
the remaining 26 of the 61 waiver proposals, 9 were approved by
relevant central management agencies using authorities existing
independently of GPRA. For example, the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) had four waiver proposals approved by GSA outside of the GPRA
pilot process under GSA's existing authority. Also, Treasury's FMS
granted one waiver outside of the pilot, which was initially proposed
as part of the GPRA pilot, for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
to convert disbursements to foreign currencies through commercial
banks rather than through U.S. embassies. For an additional 7 of
the 26 waiver proposals, an office in OMB developed a compromise with
the proposing agencies. The compromises generally streamlined and
expedited, but did not remove, OMB's review and approval of agencies'
customer surveys. For 5 of the remaining 10 waiver proposals, the
requirement for which the waiver had been proposed was eliminated
through other initiatives, making a waiver unnecessary. For example,
some of the proposals asked for a waiver of requirements that GSA
eliminated for all agencies. No decisions were made on four other
waiver proposals, and one proposal was withdrawn.
These 26 waivers and compromises were not carried out under the GPRA
process because the act does not require an agency to use its
provision as the exclusive means for obtaining a waiver for an
increase in managerial flexibility. As long as the separate
authority exists, GPRA does not prevent line and central management
agencies from agreeing on waivers outside of the GPRA pilot process.
Therefore, central management agencies were able to approve these
waivers and compromises under their independent authority, even
though OMB believed that the line agencies' proposals did not satisfy
the GPRA requirements because they did not (1) show sufficiently how
the waivers would help agency performance and (2) quantify the degree
to which performance would be changed.
Of the 35 waiver proposals that OMB and the other central management
agencies found not to be allowable under the GPRA pilot, the
majority, or 25 proposals, sought waivers of statutory requirements.
An additional 9 of the 35 waiver proposals were not allowable because
the agencies were requesting waivers from nonstatutory requirements
that the central management agencies were not authorized to grant.
The remaining proposal was denied because granting it would
contradict the central management agency's policy. Figure 2 shows
the reasons that the 35 proposals were not allowable under GPRA.
Figure 2: Reasons That the 35
Proposals Were Not Allowable
Under GPRA
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Sources: OMB, GSA, OPM, and FMS data.
According to the information furnished by the central management
agencies, of the 25 proposals that sought waivers of statutory
requirements, 8 requested waivers of human resource requirements that
can only be waived as an OPM-designated demonstration project
authorized under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.\6
An additional 9 of the 35 waiver proposals that OMB and the other
central management agencies found not to be allowable under GPRA were
not allowable because the agencies were requesting waivers from
nonstatutory requirements that the central management agencies were
not authorized to grant. Of these nine proposals, three were for
waivers of Government Printing Office printing requirements that,
according to OMB, could only be granted by the Congressional Joint
Committee on Printing. OMB could not consider granting waivers from
government printing requirements since GPRA's managerial
accountability and flexibility provision applied only to executive
branch agencies, not legislative agencies. The remaining proposal of
the 35 was denied by FMS because granting a waiver that would create
the appearance of currency speculation is not permissible by FMS
policy.
--------------------
\6 Demonstration projects are meant to allow agencies to use
alternative ways to implement personnel functions, such as hiring,
pay, and performance management, and to show the feasibility of the
application of these alternatives to other agencies.
CONTINUING FEDERAL MANAGEMENT
REFORM EFFORTS REDUCED THE NEED
FOR THE GPRA WAIVER PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Changes to federal management practices that have been undertaken
since GPRA was enacted reduced the need for the GPRA waiver
mechanism. According to agency officials both in agencies that
submitted waiver proposals and those agencies that did not, these
changes in federal management practices, in some cases, addressed the
central barriers to agencies' improved performance. For example, as
previously noted, five of the proposals submitted to OMB sought
waivers from requirements that were eliminated for all agencies,
thereby making waivers unnecessary. The following reform efforts are
examples of changes in federal management practices that limited the
use of the GPRA waiver process.
THE ELIMINATION OF THE
FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
OPM eliminated the Federal Personnel Manual as part of its NPR
reinvention effort in January 1994. Before its elimination, the
approximately 10,000-page manual provided instructions and guidance
on virtually every facet of government employment, including a
section specifying how federal employees should label file folders.
The manual's elimination and other initiatives were designed to
provide federal managers with the flexibility needed to (1) determine
the work processes that would enhance the agencies' performance and
ability to meet their missions and (2) hire the staff that would best
implement those work processes.
ENACTMENT OF THE FEDERAL
WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
About 22 percent, or 15, of the 68 organizations we contacted told us
that they had planned to seek waivers under GPRA from OMB's
administrative controls over agencies' FTE staffing ceilings.\7
According to officials in the GPRA performance planning and reporting
pilot agencies, FTE controls could be barriers to improving an
agency's performance because such controls may limit its flexibility
in allocating resources in the most efficient way possible. For
example, some agencies whose costs are covered by fees collected for
services said that the FTE controls prevented them from hiring
additional staff to help improve their agencies' performance, even
though they had the funds to pay the additional staff. In fact, GPRA
specifically mentions "specification of personnel staffing levels" as
a possible area for waivers that could be available to pilot
agencies.
However, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, which was enacted
after GPRA, established new FTE ceilings for the executive branch of
the federal government and required reductions in the federal
workforce totaling 272,900 FTEs by fiscal year 1999. Although the
act did not set FTE ceilings for individual agencies, an increase in
the FTE levels of any one agency would need to be met by offsetting
reductions of FTEs in other agencies. As a result, OMB concluded, at
that time, that it could not manage the governmentwide FTE reduction
requirements if one or more agencies were given the authority to
exceed their FTE limits. Therefore, OMB's guidance discouraged
agencies from seeking such waivers, and, as a result, of the three
waiver proposals requesting relief from the FTE limitations, OMB did
not approve the two proposals it received, and OPM did not approve
the one proposal it received from OMB. Officials from agencies that
did not submit any waiver proposals, as well as officials from those
agencies that did submit proposals, cited the exclusion of FTE
ceilings as a factor that limited the usefulness of the GPRA
managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process.
--------------------
\7 An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who
collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. Therefore,
both one full-time employee and two half-time employees equal one
FTE.
AGENCIES USED ANOTHER MECHANISM
TO OBTAIN SOME WAIVERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Since GPRA did not convey any new authority to waive rules or alter
any existing authorities, agencies were able to use another mechanism
to obtain needed managerial flexibility. Under NPR, 26 federal
departments, agencies, and other federal entities were participating
in about 185 NPR reinvention labs. The reinvention labs, like GPRA's
managerial accountability and flexibility provisions, were to be
agency-level efforts designed to test ways agencies could improve
performance and customer service by reengineering work processes and
eliminating unnecessary regulations. Many of the waiver requests
developed by the reinvention labs were targeted at the same types of
requirements that could be waived under GPRA. From our review on the
status of the reinvention labs, we determined that about 32.4
percent, or 317, of 977 waivers that had been requested by the labs
were directed at obtaining relief from rules imposed by central
management agencies, including OMB, GSA, and OPM.\8 Over 30 percent,
or 97, of these 317 requests had been approved at the time we did our
review, and decisions on an additional 41 percent, or 130, were
pending.
An agency seeking a waiver generally found that it was much easier to
take another avenue, such as to become an NPR lab, than it was to
obtain a waiver under GPRA. Unlike the agencies submitting waiver
proposals under the GPRA pilot process, NPR reinvention lab agencies
negotiated directly with the central management agency that imposed a
requirement, thereby seeking relief under the management agency's
existing waiver authority without OMB's involvement in the process.
Also, labs were not required, before they could be approved, to show
how and the degree to which their performance would change as a
result of receiving added flexibility. Finally, labs were not
required to subsequently report on the effectiveness of their use of
a waiver in improving performance and service to customers.
--------------------
\8 About another 52 percent of the waiver requests were directed at
agency-specific rules, while the remaining 16 percent were directed
at other sources (e.g., executive memorandums). See GAO/GGD-96-69,
page 39.
OMB CONTRIBUTED TO PILOT
PHASE'S NOT WORKING AS INTENDED
BY NOT ACTIVELY WORKING WITH
AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
OMB did not actively work with agencies on their managerial
accountability and flexibility proposals to (1) provide feedback, (2)
notify the agencies of specific concerns, or (3) provide explicit
instructions, especially after it received those waiver proposals and
concluded that they did not meet GPRA requirements. According to an
OMB official, the waiver proposals did not reflect well thought-out
efforts on the part of the agencies to identify requirements that
significantly hindered their ability to achieve their missions and
goals. In addition, according to OMB, in some cases the agencies did
not adequately research the requirements from which they were seeking
waivers. As evidence, OMB pointed to the relatively large number of
requests for exemptions from statutory requirements, which are not
allowable under GPRA. OMB believed that the calculations of
projected changes in performance either were lacking or, in many
instances, were of such minimal nature as to not merit, by
themselves, designating a pilot. Overall, OMB believed that the
proposals it received were generally limited to seeking waivers from
minor annoyances rather than significant barriers to improved
performance.
However, OMB also did not consistently provide feedback to the
agencies that submitted waiver proposals. Officials from all eight
of the agencies that submitted waiver proposals requested feedback
from OMB. Officials from 5 of the 8 agencies--covering 45 of the 61
waiver proposals--said that they never received (1) feedback from OMB
on the status of their waiver proposals, (2) notification of specific
concerns that OMB may have had about the quality and scope of those
proposals, or (3) explicit guidance from OMB on how their proposals
could be improved to better meet OMB's expectations.
OMB believed that an aggressive effort to work with the pilot
agencies to improve the quality and scope of the proposed waivers
would not have been fruitful. On the basis of its 1994 reviews of
agencies' initial GPRA performance plans under the performance
planning and reporting GPRA pilot phase, OMB believed that most pilot
agencies had made only limited progress in setting program goals,
developing performance measures, and managing on the basis of those
goals and measures. As a result, OMB concluded, the pilot agencies
were not in a position to successfully undertake an added step of
determining whether, and the degree to which, changes in their
processes would help the agencies better achieve program goals.
OMB's conclusion, which was made, in general, without attempting to
work with the agencies to confirm that they could not develop more
comprehensive waiver proposals, was a major factor that led OMB not
to work with the majority of the agencies to try to produce what it
would consider to be a more acceptable set of proposals.
OMB's approach to the waiver pilot process differed significantly
from its approach to the performance planning and reporting pilot
process. For example, under the planning and reporting pilots, OMB
issued a summary assessment of the agencies' fiscal year 1994
performance plans. This assessment included a discussion of the
plans' strengths and weaknesses and additional actions the agencies
needed to take to improve these plans.
In addition, as of November 1996, almost 11 months after receiving
the central management agencies' endorsements, OMB had not formally
notified two of the eight agencies that for nine of their requested
waivers, the central management agencies had either approved them
outside of the GPRA pilot process, or a compromise had been
developed. Therefore, the relevant performance pilots in these two
agencies--Treasury's Internal Revenue Service and the Department of
Health and Human Services' Office of Child Support
Enforcement--continued to operate under the old requirements,
according to officials.
In contrast, an official at DLA said that the agency learned that it
had been granted waivers outside of the GPRA pilot process when
officials questioned OMB in June 1996, which was about 8 months after
GSA approved the waivers, about the status of their proposals. The
Department of Commerce was notified that OMB offered compromises to
(1) a proposal to allow for (but not specifically expedite) a
customer service survey clearance and (2) a proposal concerning the
change of an in-house function to a contract. However, Commerce did
not believe that these compromises provided the flexibility desired
and decided not to implement them.
According to OMB, it informally notified agencies when waiver
proposals were approved or compromises were developed outside of the
GPRA process. However, records of these informal contacts did not
exist, and officials in relevant agencies could not recall such
informal notifications. Some of these officials also said that they
would have needed formal approval before they would have felt
comfortable varying from required procedures.
WAIVER PILOT PROCESS PROVIDED
LESSONS FOR AGENCIES AND MAY
HELP THEM IMPLEMENT GPRA
GOVERNMENTWIDE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
Even if no waivers were approved under the GPRA pilot process, the
GPRA waiver pilot process provided lessons for the agencies that
submitted waiver proposals. Several agencies, in preparing waiver
proposals for external requirements, found that they first had to
identify (1) the burdens and constraints that confronted their
managers, which often were primarily imposed by the agency itself and
not by the requirements of statutes or central management agencies,
and (2) the authorities that were already available. Furthermore,
the relatively large number of proposals to waive statutory
requirements should be helpful to OMB in identifying statutory
barriers to agency performance. In the report of the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs that accompanied GPRA, OMB was
encouraged to develop a list of statutory requirements for which
Congress, in future legislation, should consider authorizing waivers.
WAIVER PILOT PROCESS
HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR
AGENCIES TO MAKE FULL USE OF
EXISTING AUTHORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
The GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process
showed that agencies were not taking full advantage of existing
authorities and flexibilities. The experiences of agencies that
proposed waivers underscored the fact that the major burdens and
constraints that confronted agency managers often were imposed by the
agency itself and not by central management agencies. For example,
one agency found that most of its waiver proposals concerned
requirements that its parent department had imposed. The department
and the agency have since worked together to more fully make use of
existing flexibilities. In another example, a Department of Defense
agency, in preparing its GPRA waiver proposal, also found that most
of its needed flexibilities could be granted by Defense and did not
require the approval of a central management agency. The Department
has since implemented policies and procedures to streamline the
process its components should take to obtain relief from internally
imposed requirements. The experiences of the agencies proposing GPRA
waivers are more broadly confirmed by our work on the NPR reinvention
labs. We reported that over half of the waivers that the labs
requested were for relief from requirements imposed by a lab's own
agency.\9
Agency managers also said that, in many cases, they were not sure
which federal management requirements they had to follow by law,
regulation, or administrative requirement. The managers said that
the rapid and significant changes to federal management practices
that Congress and the administration were making compounded their
confusion. Therefore, managers were uncertain which management
practices and procedures were imposed by their own agencies, eligible
for a waiver under GPRA, or based in statute.
Efforts that are under way as part of the administration's PBO
initiative are to assist agencies in identifying the requirements
they now face. Under the initiative, a series of templates is being
developed for selected management areas, such as human resources
management and procurement.\10 These templates are to describe for
agencies the current requirements, the authorities that currently
exist for agencies, and the procedures for obtaining additional
flexibility. For example, the human resources management template,
which has been developed, has three parts. The first part presents
governmentwide interests, such as accountability for adherence to
merit system principles, that must be maintained even as additional
authorities are provided to agencies. The second part provides a
detailed discussion of the existing personnel flexibilities and
authorities. The third part discusses how OPM's existing authority
to establish demonstration projects under the Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978 can be used as a vehicle to waive existing laws and
regulations. In fact, for 8 of the 11 GPRA waiver proposals that OPM
denied because they asked for a waiver from statutory or other
requirements that were beyond the scope of GPRA, OPM expressed its
willingness to explore with the requesting agency the possibility of
creating a demonstration project.
--------------------
\9 GAO/GGD-96-69, page 150.
\10 The PBO initiative is based on the approach that the United
Kingdom has used to create and manage its "Next Steps" agencies. For
information on Next Steps and similar reform efforts, see
GAO/GGD-95-120.
POSSIBLE STATUTORY BARRIERS
IDENTIFIED IN WAIVER
PROPOSALS PROVIDE BASELINE
FOR OMB IN DEVELOPING FUTURE
REPORT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.2
The report of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that
accompanied GPRA recognized that the establishment of improved
performance levels may be inhibited because the act does not allow
the waiver of statutory requirements or controls. However, the
report states that neither the Senate Committee nor the agencies were
able to identify the specific statutory requirements or controls for
which a waiver should be considered. These unidentified requirements
or controls are to be addressed, in part, by a GPRA-required report
from OMB, which is due by May 1, 1997, on the performance planning
and reporting and managerial accountability and flexibility pilot
phases of GPRA. As part of that report, OMB is to discuss any
significant difficulties that agencies experienced in developing
waiver proposals.
The Senate Committee report urged OMB to develop (1) a list of
possible statutory barriers to improved program performance that
Congress may wish to consider modifying or abolishing and (2) an
analysis of the performance benefits and other effects that
legislative changes would produce. The waiver proposals seeking
relief from statutory requirements should provide a starting point
for OMB's efforts. However, according to OMB, it will need to
undertake a significant amount of additional analysis because the
agencies requesting relief from statutory requirements did not
adequately provide an assessment of the benefits a waiver would
yield. Therefore, OMB plans to work separately with the agencies to
develop this information for its report.
CONCLUSION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
The GPRA managerial accountability and flexibility pilot phase did
not work as intended because it did not generate the experimental
waivers from administrative requirements that Congress sought in
crafting this provision of the act. Several factors contributed to
this. For example, as recognized when GPRA was passed, the GPRA
waiver provision does not allow central management agencies or OMB to
waive statutory requirements that agencies saw as impediments to
their ability to better manage for results. Waivers from statutory
requirements were not allowable under GPRA. In addition, line
agencies were able to obtain waivers through another avenue without
meeting the GPRA requirement that agencies specify the direct and
quantifiable improvements in their performance that would result from
the proposal. Agencies' need or opportunity for waivers also
decreased after GPRA's enactment as the administration and Congress
initiated management reforms, such as altering personnel requirements
and adopting federal FTE ceilings, that expanded or limited the
flexibilities available to federal agencies governmentwide. Finally,
in part through their efforts to obtain GPRA waivers, several
agencies discovered that restrictive rules often were their own
creation and that these rules could be altered without any external
waivers. The management templates now under development should, if
widely disseminated, assist managers in identifying the requirements
they face and the sources of those requirements.
OMB did not actively work with agencies to develop waiver proposals
that it would find acceptable, which also undermined the pilot
effort. For example, OMB's feedback to agencies was very limited,
and in some cases in which a waiver had been approved or a compromise
had been developed outside of the GPRA process, the agency was not
informed. As a result, some agencies were operating under procedures
that were no longer required.
As shown by the number of waiver proposals requesting relief from
statutory requirements, agencies continued to believe that certain
statutory requirements limited their abilities to better manage and
effectively achieve their goals and objectives. The Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs recognized the possibility that statutory
barriers to better program management exist, and, therefore,
encouraged OMB to include in its May 1997 report a list of statutes
for which Congress should consider authorizing waivers. The
requirements identified in agencies' waiver proposals provide a
useful starting point for that effort.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE DIRECTOR
OF OMB
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10
For those GPRA waiver proposals that a central management agency has
approved or for which a compromise has been developed, we recommend
that the Director of OMB formally notify the relevant agency of the
waiver approval or proposed compromise so that the new flexibilities,
if still available, can begin to be used.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11
We requested comments on the draft of this report from the Director
of OMB or his designee. On February 27, 1997, the Deputy Director
for Management provided us with comments on the draft. In general,
OMB found our review to be a useful resource as the agency prepares
its own report to Congress on the GPRA pilot projects and confirmed
that the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot process had
yielded some useful lessons. OMB generally agreed with the draft
report's content and recommendation and, as a result, plans to send
letters to the participating agencies notifying them of the status of
their waiver proposals.
OMB also elaborated on the reasons that it did not designate any
pilots from the waiver proposals it received, noting that many of
them were narrow or applied to entities too small to have a
demonstrable effect on performance. In retrospect, according to OMB,
the managerial accountability and flexibility pilots may have
followed too closely on the heels of the performance measurement
pilots to permit a meaningful--and required--relationship between the
two sets of GPRA pilots. As noted in this report, we did not assess
the final waiver determinations made by OMB and the other central
management agencies or whether waiver proposals should or should not
have been approved. However, we did note that OMB's approach to the
waiver pilot process differed significantly from its approach to the
performance planning and reporting pilot process. Under the planning
and reporting pilots, OMB issued a summary assessment of the
agencies' fiscal year 1994 performance plans. This assessment
included a discussion of the plans' strengths and weaknesses and
additional actions the agencies needed to take to improve these
plans. Finally, OMB suggested additional information, such as the
quality of OMB's initial guidance to agencies on the managerial
accountability and flexibility pilot process, that would, in OMB's
view, make the report more useful. However, we did not include this
information because our review was not designed to collect this
systematically.
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11.1
We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of
Congress; the Director and Deputy Director of OMB; officials at FMS,
GSA, and OPM; officials at GPRA pilot agencies; and other interested
parties. We also will make copies available to others on request.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Please
contact me at (202) 512-8676 if you have any questions concerning
this report.
L. Nye Stevens
Director, Federal Management and
Workforce Issues
OVERVIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT
PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
=========================================================== Appendix I
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is the primary
legislative framework through which agencies will be required to set
strategic goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to
which goals were met. It requires federal agencies to develop, no
later than the end of fiscal year 1997, strategic plans that cover a
period of at least 5 years and that include the agency's mission
statement; identify the agency's long-term strategic goals; and
describe how the agency intends to achieve those goals through its
activities and through its human, capital, information, and other
resources. Under GPRA, agency strategic plans are the starting point
for agencies to set annual goals for programs and to measure the
performance of the programs in achieving those goals.
Also, GPRA requires each agency to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), beginning for fiscal year 1999, an annual
performance plan. The first annual performance plans are to be
submitted in the fall of 1997. The annual performance plan is to
provide the direct linkage between the strategic goals outlined in
the agency's strategic plan and what managers and employees do day to
day. In essence, this plan is to contain the annual performance
goals the agency will use to gauge its progress toward accomplishing
its strategic goals and to identify the performance measures the
agency will use to assess its progress. Also, OMB will use agencies'
individual performance plans to develop an overall federal government
performance plan that OMB is to submit annually to Congress with the
president's budget, beginning for fiscal year 1999.
GPRA requires that each agency submit an annual report to the
president and to the appropriate authorization and appropriations
committees of Congress on performance for the previous fiscal year
(copies are to be provided to other congressional committees and to
the public upon request). The first of these reports, on performance
for fiscal year 1999, is due by March 31, 2000, and subsequent
reports are due by March 31 for the years that follow. However, the
report for fiscal year 2001 is also to include actual results for the
preceding 2 fiscal years, and the report for fiscal year 2002 and all
subsequent reports are to include actual results for the preceding 3
fiscal years.
In crafting GPRA, Congress also recognized that managerial
accountability for results is linked to managers' having sufficient
flexibility, discretion, and authority to accomplish desired results.
GPRA authorizes agencies to apply for managerial flexibility waivers
in their annual performance plans beginning with fiscal year 1999.
The authority of agencies to request waivers of administrative
procedural requirements and controls is intended to provide federal
managers with more flexibility to structure agency systems to better
support program goals. An example of increased flexibility would be
to allow an organization to recapture unspent operating funds because
of increased efficiencies and then to use these funds to purchase new
equipment or expand employee training. Another example might involve
delegating more authority to line managers to make procurement
decisions. Agencies must report in their annual performance reports
on the use and effectiveness of any GPRA managerial flexibility
waivers that they receive.
GPRA calls for phased implementation so that selected pilot projects
in the agencies can develop experience from implementing its
requirements in fiscal years 1994 through 1996 before implementation
is required for all agencies. As of January 1996, of the 77 pilot
projects for performance planning and performance reporting
originally designated by OMB, about 68 were still under way across
most major federal agencies. OMB also was required to select at
least five agencies from among the initial pilot agencies to pilot
managerial accountability and flexibility for fiscal years 1995 and
1996.
Finally, GPRA requires OMB to select at least five agencies, at least
three of which have had experience developing performance plans
during the initial GPRA pilot phase, to test performance budgeting
for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Performance budgets to be prepared
by pilot projects for performance budgeting are intended to provide
Congress with information on the direct relationship between proposed
program spending and expected program results and the anticipated
effects of varying spending levels on results.
PERFORMANCE PILOTS ELIGIBLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN MANAGERIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY
PILOT
========================================================== Appendix II
Fiscal year
organization was
designated a
performance planning
Performance planning and reporting pilot and reporting pilot
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Department of Agriculture:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-- 1994
agricultural quarantine inspection program
Cooperative Extension Service--selected 1994
national initiatives
Farmers Home Administration--single family 1994
housing program
Forest Service 1994
Natural Resources Conservation Service-- 1995
conservation operations programs
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement 1994
Office of Communications 1994
Packers and Stockyards Administration--scales 1995
and weighing operations
Department of Commerce :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Census Bureau, Patent and Trademark Office, 1994
and National Technical Information Service--
information dissemination
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 1994
Administration
Department of Defense:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Air Combat Command 1995
Army Research Laboratory 1995
Corps of Engineers--civil works operation and 1995
maintenance program
Defense Commissary Agency 1995
Defense Logistics Agency 1994
Department of Education:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Postsecondary Education--student 1994
financial assistance programs
Department of Energy:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Information Administration 1995
Morgantown Energy Technology Center 1994
Oak Ridge National Laboratory--technology 1995
partnership/transfer program
Office of Defense Programs--non-nuclear 1994
component production
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 1994
Energy
Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste 1994
Management
Department of Health and Human Services:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Support Enforcement Program 1994
Food and Drug Administration--prescription 1995
drug program
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Chief Financial Officer-- 1994
departmentwide debt collection
Department of the Interior:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs--forestry and 1995
ecosystem restoration in the Pacific
Northwest program
Fish and Wildlife Service--North American 1994
waterfowl management program
Geological Survey--national water quality 1995
assessment program
Minerals Management Service--royalty 1994
management program
Department of Justice:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Bureau of Investigation--DRUGFIRE 1994
program
Federal Bureau of Investigation--national name 1994
check program
Federal Bureau of Investigation--organized 1994
crime/drug program
Federal Bureau of Investigation--property 1994
procurement and management
Federal Bureau of Prisons--program review 1994
division
Office of Debt Collection Management-- 1994
nationwide central intake facility
Weed and Seed Program--new sites 1995
Department of Labor:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Training Administration--economic 1994
dislocation and worker adjustment assistance
and trade adjustment assistance programs
Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1994
Department of State:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Diplomatic Security--investigative 1995
functions
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs-- 1995
business and trade promotion
Department of Transportation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration--airway 1994
facilities
Federal Highway Administration--Federal Lands 1994
Highway Organization
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1994
United States Coast Guard--marine safety, 1994
security, and environmental protection
Department of the Treasury:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Engraving and Printing 1994
Internal Revenue Service 1994
United States Customs Service--office of 1994
enforcement
United States Mint 1994
Department of Veterans Affairs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Cemetery System 1994
Veterans Benefits Administration--loan 1994
guaranty operations
Veterans Benefits Administration--New York 1994
regional office
Agency for International Development:\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainable development activities 1995
Environmental Protection Agency:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program 1995
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Management Information Systems 1995
General Services Administration:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Resources Management Service-- 1994
procurement of micro-computer workstations
and related software
Public Buildings Service--real estate 1994
activities
National Science Foundation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Education and Training Program Evaluation 1994
Electronic Proposals 1994
High Performance Computing and Communication 1994
Program
Science and Technology Centers 1994
Specialized Research Facilities 1994
Office of Personnel Management:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirement Adjudication Division 1995
Small Business Administration 1994
Social Security Administration 1994
Federal Communications Commission:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of Service function 1994
Merit Systems Protection Board:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjudication and Alternative Dispute 1994
Resolution in Appellate Cases
National Archives and Records Administration:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Records Center program 1994
Railroad Retirement Board:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Survivor Benefits--survivor claims 1994
processing
Tennessee Valley Authority:\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Management 1994
National Endowment for the Humanities:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Publications and Public Affairs 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This agency could not identify a knowledgeable official for us to
interview.
Source: OMB.
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT AGENCIES'
DETERMINATIONS ON 61 WAIVERS
REQUESTED BY 14 ORGANIZATIONS
========================================================= Appendix III
Central management agency determination
-----------------------------------------
Agency/
Number of
waiver Agen Waiver Reason for waiver
requests Waiver description cy decision denial
------------ ----------------------- ---- ---------- -----------------------
Department of Commerce:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Waiver of requirements FMS No Not applicable
Technical related to federal decision
Information credit programs and
Service collection of
(2 waiver nontaxable receivables
requests)
Waiver of requirement OMB Compromise Not applicable
for OMB approval of developed,
customer surveys no need
for waiver
Patent and Waiver of requirement OMB Compromise Not applicable
Trademark to complete a study developed,
Office before converting an no need
(3 waiver in-house function to for waiver
requests) one performed under
contract
Waiver of requirements GSA Denied GSA cannot grant waiver
mandating the use of since schedules are
GSA schedules for contractual
purchase of items requirements that would
be breached if waiver
request were granted
Waiver of requirements OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
inhibiting the use of a under Chapter 47, Title
special occupational 5, U.S.C., except under
pay system demonstration project
authority
Department of Defense:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Waiver of requirement GSA Approved Not applicable
Logistics for bidder inspection outside of
Agency before selling excess the GPRA
(7 waiver property pilot
requests) process
Waiver of requirement GSA Approved Not applicable
to use Standard Form outside of
114C when selling the GPRA
excess property pilot
process
Waiver of requirements GSA Denied GSA cannot grant a
that prevent DLA from waiver from the Federal
charging sales Property and
preparation expenses to Administrative Services
the recipient of Act of 1949
federally transferred
or donated property
Waiver of requirement GSA Denied GSA cannot grant a
limiting authority for waiver from the Federal
negotiated sales of Property and
property to sales of Administrative Services
$15,000 or less, and Act of 1949
for negotiated firm
fixed price sales of
property to sales of
$25,000 or less
Waiver of requirement GSA Approved Not applicable
to give public notice outside of
of property that is the GPRA
about to be abandoned pilot
or destroyed process
Waiver of requirement GSA Approved Not applicable
to prepare an Analysis outside of
of Alternatives and the GPRA
Market Survey before pilot
purchasing ADP process
equipment from a DLA or
interagency contract
using delivery order
Waiver of requirement GSA Denied GSA cannot waive dollar
that limits DLA from limitation on
selling property negotiated sales per
(valued at $15,000 or the Federal Property
less) back to the Act
original equipment
manufacturer, at
negotiated prices
rather than original
dollar value, when such
property cannot be
resold elsewhere
Department of Energy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgantown Waiver of requirement GSA Requiremen Not applicable
Energy to establish qualified t
Technology manufacturer lists and eliminated
Center product lists , no need
(4 waiver for a
requests) waiver
Waiver of requirements OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
hindering the ability under Chapter 47, Title
to direct hire 5, U.S.C., except under
employees demonstration project
authority
Waiver of requirements OPM Requiremen Not applicable
related to the ts
procedures and sequence eliminated
of actions to be , no need
followed before for a
terminating a poorly waiver
performing employee
Waiver of requirements GSA Requiremen Not applicable
related to the donation ts
of surplus property to eliminated
public agencies and , no need
eligible nonprofit for a
agencies waiver
Department of Health and Human Services:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Waiver of OMB approval OMB Compromise Not applicable
Child of proposed data developed,
Support collection and no need
Enforcement reporting effort for waiver
(1 waiver
request)
Department of Transportation:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Waiver of requirements OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
Aviation that preclude under Chapter 47, Title
Administrati establishing a new 5, U.S.C., except under
on performance appraisal demonstration project
(1 waiver system authority
request)
National Waiver of requirements OMB Compromise Not applicable
Highway limiting the ability to developed,
Traffic conduct customer no need
Safety surveys for waiver
Administrati
on
(3 waiver
requests)
Waiver of requirements OMB Denied OMB does not have the
mandating that printing authority to grant
be done through the waivers from GPO
Government Printing requirements
Office (GPO)
Waiver of requirements OMB Denied Small Business
impeding the agency Administration
from negotiating and requirements are
contracting directly statutory
with 8a firms
Department of the Treasury:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Waiver of requirements GSA Denied Mechanism to obtain
Revenue specifying UNICOR relief from mandatory
Service (Federal Prisons requirements of UNICOR
(IRS) Industries) as a source requires a petition to
(16 waiver for procuring system the Department of
requests) furniture Justice for clearance
Waiver of requirements GSA Denied GSA is mandated by law
impeding IRS and state to provide space and
tax agencies from being related services to
housed in the same federal activities
building
Waiver of selected GSA No Not applicable
requirements that decision
prolong the awarding of
Outside Fee Appraisal
contracts
Waiver of requirements GSA No Not applicable
providing for decision
procurement and legal
office review of uses
of commercial/vendor
equipment or software
for no-cost test/
evaluation purposes
Waiver of requirement GSA Approved Not applicable
prescribing that GSA outside of
issue a negative the GPRA
availability statement pilot
before obtaining process
commercial lease
authority for an
indefinite assignment
lease for multiple
motor vehicles
Waiver of requirement GSA No Not applicable
that IRS report on GSA- decision
leased vehicles in
annual energy report
Waiver of requirement GSA Approved Not applicable
that a government bill- outside of
of-lading be used when the GPRA
using small carriers pilot
for shipments greater process
than $250
Waiver of requirement GSA Requiremen Not applicable
that envelopes be t
purchased through GSA eliminated
, no need
for a
waiver
Waiver of requirement OMB Denied Granting of this waiver
precluding IRS from would be in violation
charging fees after of the Budget
service is rendered or Enforcement Act
product is delivered
Waiver of requirement OMB Compromise Not applicable
for clearance of developed,
surveys and focus no need
groups, particularly for waiver
those related to
completion rates, and
honoraria caps
Waiver of requirements OPM Approved Not applicable
preventing release of outside of
Standard Form 52 the GPRA
directly into the pilot
automated personnel process
system
Waiver of requirement OMB Denied OMB does not have the
to reduce internal authority to waive
regulations by 50 executive order
percent by 1996 requirements
Waiver of requirement OMB Compromise Not applicable
that OMB approve all developed,
form revisions, no need
including minor ones for waiver
Waiver for biennial GSA GSA Approved Not applicable
approval for monitoring outside of
incoming customer calls the GPRA
pilot
process
Waiver of competition GSA Denied GSA cannot grant waiver
requirements under since competition
Federal Acquisition requirements are
Regulations for all statutory
items under $25,000
Waiver of requirement OMB Denied OMB does not have
to use GPO for printing authority to grant
waivers from GPO
requirements
U.S. Mint Waiver of requirements GSA Denied Small Business
(8 waiver specifying external Administration has
requests) review of small denied waiver with GSA
business set-aside concurrence
decisions
Waiver of requirements GSA Denied GSA does not have the
for processing service authority to grant the
contract wage waiver (authority
determinations belongs to the
Secretary of Labor)
Waiver of requirement GSA Denied GSA does not have the
for separate equal authority to grant the
employment opportunity waiver (authority
clearances for belongs to the
recurring contracts Secretary of Labor)
with the same
contractor
Waiver of FTE ceilings OMB Denied OMB cannot grant
waivers from the
Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act
Waiver of budget object OMB Denied Statutory requirements
class and budget mandate information in
activity controls budget by object class
Waiver of budget OMB Denied Statutory requirements
obligation accounting mandate accounting and
and reporting reporting by fund
requirements for
Numismatic Public
Enterprise Fund
Waiver of limitations OMB Compromise Not applicable
on conducting customer developed,
surveys without prior no waiver
OMB approval needed
Waiver of requirements OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
inhibiting the Mint under Chapter 47, Title
from using term 5, U.S.C., except under
appointment employees demonstration project
other than those on OPM authority
registers
Bureau of Waiver of requirement GSA Denied GSA cannot grant waiver
Engraving specifying travel because of statutory
and voucher must be requirement in Title
Printing submitted after travel 31, U.S.C., which
(10 waiver is complete mandates that all
requests) claims against the
government must be in
writing, and requires
submission of a voucher
Waiver of FTE ceiling OPM Denied OPM cannot grant
waivers from the
Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act
Waiver of requirement OMB Denied Statutory requirements
to report by budget mandate information in
object class and for budget by object class
obligation accounting/
reporting
Waiver of requirements OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
covering the lengths of under Chapter 47, Title
appointment and 5, U.S.C., except under
benefits available to demonstration project
temporary employees authority
Waiver of requirements OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
inhibiting agency from under Chapter 47, Title
receiving direct-hire 5, U.S.C., except under
authority demonstration project
authority
Waiver of requirements OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
impeding the under Chapter 47, Title
establishment of pay- 5, U.S.C., except under
banding for general demonstration project
schedule employees authority
Waiver of requirements OPM Requiremen Not applicable
specifying that t
personnel performance eliminated
appraisal systems have , no need
a minimum of three for a
rating levels for each waiver
critical element and
three summary rating
levels for each
critical element and
three summary rating
levels, thus precluding
introduction of a
"pass/fail" system
Waiver of requirements FMS Approved Not applicable
that all foreign outside of
disbursements be the GPRA
processed through the pilot
Department of State process
Waiver of requirements FMS Denied FMS cannot grant the
impeding the ability to waiver since its policy
purchase insurance does not allow granting
against negative waivers that would
fluctuations in create the appearance
exchange rates when of currency
contracting with speculation, thereby
foreign vendors contravening Treasury
Financial Manual
section 9050.10
Waiver of requirements FMS Denied Denied under Title 31,
precluding the Bureau U.S.C., section 5142
from using accumulated
cash to make short-
term investments in
government securities
U.S. Customs Waiver of FTE ceiling OMB Denied OMB cannot grant
Service (1 waivers from the
waiver Federal Workforce
request) Restructuring Act
Department of Veterans Affairs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Waiver of requirement OPM Denied OPM cannot grant waiver
Regional prescribing an under Chapter 47, Title
Office evaluation/approval 5, U.S.C., except under
(3 waiver timeline for personnel demonstration project
requests) compensation authority
demonstration projects
Waiver of requirement GSA Waiver Not applicable
mandating the use of withdrawn
GSA contract guard
service in federal
office buildings
Waiver of requirement OMB Denied OMB does not have the
that employee W-2 forms authority to grant
be adjusted to reflect waivers from statutory
the use of government requirements
vehicles by employees
conducting government
business
Benefits Waiver of OMB Denied Granting this waiver
Administrati administrative costs would be in violation
on definition to allow for of the Budget
(1 waiver certain costs to be Enforcement Act
request) categorized as program
costs
National Waiver of requirement OMB Denied OMB does not have the
Endowment to use GPO for printing authority to grant
for the waivers from GPO
Humanities requirements
(1 waiver
request)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fifteen organizations in eight agencies submitted waiver
proposals to OMB. One managerial accountability and flexibility
nominee--the Department of Health and Human Services' Bureau of
Health Professions--was ineligible since it had not been previously
designated as a performance pilot. Two other organizations--the
Department of Commerce's Patent and Trademark Office and the National
Technical Information Service--submitted individual waiver proposals
for the same pilot--Department of Commerce's Information
Dissemination.
Sources: Data from OMB, GSA, FMS, and OPM.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
========================================================= Appendix III
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Michael Brostek, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce
Issues, (202) 512-9039
J. Christopher Mihm, Assistant Director, (202) 512-3236
Joseph L. Santiago, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7813
Marshall W. Barrett
Thomas M. Beall
Kathleen M. Peyman
Kiki Theodoropoulos
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and
Executive Branch Decisionmaking (GAO/T-GGD-97-43, Feb. 12, 1997).
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).
Acquisition Reform: Regulatory Implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (GAO/NSIAD-96-139, June 28,
1996).
Management Reform: Completion Status of Agency Actions Under the
National Performance Review (GAO/GGD-96-94, June 12, 1996).
Paperwork Reduction: Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to be Met
(GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-186, June 5, 1996).
Management Reform: Status of Agency Reinvention Lab Efforts
(GAO/GGD-96-69, Mar. 20, 1996).
Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA's Objectives Requires Strong
Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).
GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).
Managing for Results: Status of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27, 1995).
Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for
Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995).
Government Reform: Goal-Setting and Performance
(GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-130R, Mar. 27, 1995).
Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights for Federal
Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, Dec. 21, 1994).
Management Reform: Implementation of the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, 1994).
*** End of document. ***