Results Act: Observations on NASA's May 1997 Draft Strategic Plan
(Correspondence, 07/22/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-205R).

GAO reviewed the draft strategic plan submitted by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act.

GAO noted that: (1) to its credit, NASA has been actively pursuing a
strategic planning process since 1992, before enactment of the Results
Act; (2) of the six elements required by the act, four are included in
the draft strategic plan--a mission statement, goals and objectives,
strategies for achieving the goals and objectives, and a discussion of
external factors (discussed in the context of NASA's environmental
assessment); (3) two of those four elements have weaknesses, some more
significant than others; (4) the other elements--relating annual
performance goals to general goals and objectives and a description of
program evaluations used to establish general goals and objectives and a
schedule for future program evaluations--are not explained in enough
detail in the draft plan itself; (5) the draft plan sets forth NASA's
primary legislative mandate, the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as
well as other key statutory authorities of the agency; (6) for example,
as discussed in the plan, the agency carries out is requirement to
expand knowledge of the earth through the earth sciences, remote
sensing, and upper atmospheric research activities of the Mission to
Planet Earth enterprise; (7) though many of NASA's objectives are shared
with involve other agencies, the draft plan does not discuss what
interagency coordination occurred to address the issues of duplication
and overlap; (8) the draft plan does note the importance of working with
other agencies in achieving its objectives, and NASA officials stated
that coordination has occurred at the program level; (9) these efforts,
though, are not discussed in the plan, and coordination at higher agency
levels may be needed to ensure consistency of program objectives between
agencies; (10) major management problems facing the agency that could
affect its ability to achieve its mission are not explicitly discussed
in the draft plan; (11) for example, problems with managing contracts,
managing information technology, and developing a fully integrated
accounting system are three long-standing problems the agency faces that
are not discussed in the draft plan, even though the agency has
recognized them as problems and has taken steps to address them; (12)
GAO's work has shown that the agency's capability to generate reliable
information needed to measure the achievement of its strategic goals is
questionable; and (13) problems with the agency's financial management
system may make it difficult for the agency to accurately determine
whether, for example, it is meeting its goal to reduce the cost of
placing payloads into orbit.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-97-205R
     TITLE:  Results Act: Observations on NASA's May 1997 Draft 
             Strategic Plan
      DATE:  07/22/97
   SUBJECT:  Interagency relations
             Program evaluation
             Congressional/executive relations
             Agency missions
             Space exploration
             Strategic planning
             International relations
             Internal controls
             Federal agency accounting systems
             Federal procurement
IDENTIFIER:  NASA Mission to Planet Earth Program
             
******************************************************************
** 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/NSIAD-97-205R

NASA's Draft Strategic Plan

(707280)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BOP - Federal Bureau of Prisons
  CFO - Chief Financial Officers
  CIO - chief information officer
  DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
  NASA - x
  NPR - National Performance Review
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-277470

July 22, 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:  Results Act:  Observations on NASA's May 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 the 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 National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA). 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Our overall objective was to review and evaluate the latest version
of NASA'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 NASA's key statutory authorities were
reflected; (3) identified whether decisions about crosscutting
functions and interagency involvement were included; (4) determined
if the draft plan addressed major management problems; and (5)
discussed NASA's capacity to provide reliable information about its
operations and performance. 

Our overall assessment of NASA's draft plan was generally based on
our knowledge of NASA's operations and programs, our numerous reviews
of the agency, and other existing information available at the time
of our assessment.  Specifically, the criteria we used to determine
whether NASA's draft strategic plan complied with the requirements of
the Results Act were the Results Act itself supplemented by Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on developing strategic plans
(Circular A-11,
part 2).  To make judgments about the overall quality of the plan and
its components, we used our own guidance (GAO/GGD-10.1.16, May 1997)
for congressional review of the plans as a tool.  To determine
whether the plan contained information on interagency coordination
and addressed management problems we previously identified, we relied
on our general knowledge of NASA's operations and programs and the
results of our previous reports.  A list of our major products
related to NASA operations is at the end of this letter.  We
conducted our assessment between June 13, and July 11, 1997, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We based our assessment on the May 1997 draft strategic plan that
NASA provided to the House of Representatives congressional staff
team working with the agency.  However, we did not examine other
related planning documents or examine the strategic plans prepared by
NASA's four enterprises:  Mission to Planet Earth, Aeronautics and
Space Transportation Technology, Human Exploration and Development of
Space, and Space Science.  NASA considers these enterprises to be its
four principal business units, and each enterprise has developed its
own strategic plan to supplement the overall NASA plan. 

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 NASA
is continuing to revise the draft with input from OMB, congressional
staff, and other stakeholders. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

NASA conducts aeronautics and space research and develops,
constructs, tests, and operates space vehicles.  It conducts
activities required for the exploration of space with manned and
unmanned vehicles.  The agency is currently undertaking programs such
as the International Space Station to provide a permanently inhabited
international space station in earth orbit, and the Mission to Planet
Earth program to provide data relevant to the study of global change. 
NASA's annual budget is about $13 billion and the agency employs
about 20,000 workers located in headquarters and nine field centers
across the country. 

There is no more important element in results-oriented management
than a strategic plan that defines what the agency seeks to
accomplish, identifies strategies for achieving desired results, and
provides the starting point for determining how well results-oriented
goals and objectives are being achieved.  Leading results-oriented
organizations focus on the process of strategic planning, rather than
on a strategic planning document.  When done well, strategic planning
is continuous, provides the basis for everything the organization
does each day, and fosters communication between the organization and
its customers and stakeholders. 

NASA's efforts to develop a strategic plan and performance
measurements predate the passage of the Results Act.  In 1992, NASA
revised its strategic planning process.  Previous attempts at
strategic planning did not fully consider budget realities and other
external pressures on the agency and did not outline true goals and
strategic outcomes.  Consequently, these plans were not widely
accepted.  In 1994, NASA issued its first strategic plan under the
new planning process and updated this plan in 1995 and 1996.  Its
fiscal year 1995 and 1996 accountability reports provided a summary
of the agency's progress towards achieving the goals of its strategic
plan.\1 NASA submitted its draft May 1997 version of its strategic
plan to Congress to meet the consultative requirements of the Results
Act. 

The Results Act requires each federal agency to develop a strategic
plan by September 30, 1997.  Each plan is to include the following
six elements:  (1) a comprehensive mission statement covering the
major functions and operations of the agency, (2) the agency's
general goals and objectives, (3) a description of how the goals and
objectives are to be achieved, (4) a description of how the
performance goals included in the annual performance plan shall be
related to the agency's general goals and objectives, (5)
identification of key factors external to the agency and beyond its
control that could affect achievement of general goals and
objectives, and (6) a description of the program evaluations used to
establish/revise strategic goals with a schedule for future program
evaluations. 


--------------------
\1 NASA was one of six pilot agencies selected by OMB to produce
accountability reports.  These reports cover the agency's financial
activities for the fiscal year, including (1) an agency profile, (2)
performance planning and assessment information, (3) management's
discussion and analyses of controls required by the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act, (4) auditors' reports, and (5) financial
statements. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To its credit, NASA has been actively pursuing a strategic planning
process since 1992--before enactment of the Results Act.  Of the six
elements required by the Act, four are included in the draft
strategic plan--a mission statement, goals and objectives, strategies
for achieving the goals and objectives, and a discussion of external
factors (discussed in the context of NASA's environmental
assessment).  Two of those four elements have weaknesses, some more
significant than others.  The other elements-- relating annual
performance goals to general goals and objectives and a description
of program evaluations used to establish general goals and objectives
and a schedule for future program evaluations--are not explained in
enough detail in the draft plan itself. 

The draft plan sets forth NASA's primary legislative mandate, the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the Space Act), as well
as other key statutory authorities of the agency.  For example, as
discussed in the plan, the agency carries out its requirement to
expand knowledge of the earth through the earth sciences, remote
sensing, and upper atmospheric research activities of the Mission to
Planet Earth enterprise. 

Though many of NASA's objectives are shared with or involve other
agencies, the draft plan does not discuss what interagency
coordination occurred to address the issues of duplication and
overlap.  The draft plan does note the importance of working with
other agencies in achieving its objectives, and NASA officials stated
that coordination has occurred at the program level.  These efforts,
though, are not discussed in the plan, and coordination at higher
agency levels may be needed to ensure consistency of program
objectives between agencies. 

Major management problems facing the agency that could affect its
ability to achieve its mission are not explicitly discussed in the
draft plan.  For example, problems with managing contracts, managing
information technology, and developing a fully integrated accounting
system are three long-standing problems the agency faces that are not
discussed in the draft plan, even though the agency has recognized
them as problems and has taken steps to address them. 

Our work has shown that the agency's capability to generate reliable
information needed to measure the achievement of its strategic goals
is questionable.  Problems with the agency's financial management
system may make it difficult for the agency to accurately determine
whether, for example, it is meeting its goal to reduce the costs of
placing payloads into orbit.  To evaluate the effectiveness of the
agency's efforts to achieve its goals and objectives, the agency and
the Congress will need complete, reliable, and timely performance,
program cost, and management information. 


   NASA'S DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN
   INCLUDES FOUR OF SIX REQUIRED
   ELEMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Of the six elements required by the Results Act, four are included in
NASA's draft strategic plan--a mission statement, goals and
objectives, strategies to achieve the goals and objectives, and
external factors.  The discussion of two of those four elements in
the draft plan needs to be improved.  The other required
elements--relating annual performance goals to general goals and
objectives and a description of program evaluations used to establish
goals and objectives and a schedule of future program
evaluations--are not explained in enough detail in the draft plan
itself.  Table I shows the Results Act's required components and,
where applicable, the corresponding sections in NASA's draft plan. 



                                Table I
                
                 Strategic Plan Required Components and
                  Corresponding Sections in NASA's May
                       1997 Draft Strategic Plan

                                    Corresponding sections in draft
Strategic plan required component   plan
----------------------------------  ----------------------------------
1.Comprehensive mission statement   Vision, Mission and Strategic
                                    Outcomes

2.General goals and objectives for  NASA's Strategic Roadmap to the
the major functions and operations  Future
of the agency                       Four Strategic Enterprises for a
                                    Single NASA

3.Description of how the goals and  NASA's Strategic Roadmap to the
objectives are to be achieved       Future
                                    Framework

4.Description of how the            NASA's Strategic Roadmap to the
performance goals included in the   Future
annual performance plan shall be    Four Strategic Enterprises for a
related to the general goals and    Single NASA
objectives in the strategic plan.   NASA's Crosscutting Processes
                                    Implementing Strategies to
                                    Revolutionize NASA

5.Identification of key factors     Environmental Assessment
external to the agency and beyond
its control that could affect
achievement of general goals and
objectives.

6.Descriptions of how program       Framework
evaluations were used to            NASA's Crosscutting Processes
establish/revise strategic goals    Implementing Strategies to
with a schedule for future program  Revolutionize NASA
evaluations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  The Results Act of 1993 and NASA's May 1997 draft Strategic
Plan. 

The following discusses the extent the draft plan meets the
requirements of the Results Act and specific areas where the plan
could be strengthened. 


      MISSION STATEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The Results Act requires each agency's strategic plan to include a
comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and
operations of the agency.  OMB's guidance on preparing strategic
plans gives the agencies discretion about whether the mission
statement should lay out statutory authorities.  OMB's guidance
states that "the mission statement may include a concise discussion
of enabling or authorizing legislation, as well as identification of
the issues that Congress specifically charged the agency to address."

NASA's draft plan contains a comprehensive mission statement that
covers the major functions and operations of the agency.  The mission
statement identifies three key missions for the agency.  In short,
NASA's mission is to

  -- advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding
     of the earth, the solar system, and the universe and use the
     environment of space for research;

  -- explore, use, and enable the development of space for human
     enterprise; and

  -- research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics,
     space, and related technologies. 

The draft plan notes that the agency's mission is based on NASA's
primary legislative mandate, the National Aeronautics and Space Act
of 1958 (the Space Act).  NASA's mission statement is consistent with
the Space Act, which gives NASA the responsibility for carrying out
aeronautical and space activities for the general welfare and
security of the United States.  NASA is required to carry out this
activity to satisfy objectives such as expanding knowledge of the
earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space, developing and
improving aeronautical and space vehicles, and preserving the role of
the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and
technology.  NASA must also disseminate information about its
activities and their results as widely as possible, encourage the
fullest commercial use of space, and conduct its work in cooperation
with other nations and groups of nations. 

In our opinion, the clarity of NASA's mission statement as stated in
the draft plan is clouded by the inclusion of several questions in
the draft plan's introduction.  In this introductory section, the
NASA Administrator discusses the agency's strategic outlook.  Seven
questions are identified that the agency says it plans to use to
"implement its mission and define its goals." However, these
questions are not discussed in the context of the three stated
missions of the agency.  These questions are also identified in the
sections discussing the goals of each strategic enterprise.  It is
unclear from the Administrator's statement and the rest of the draft
plan whether these seven questions are intended to drive the mission
of the agency or are subparts of the agency's mission. 


      GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The Results Act requires that strategic plans describe the agency's
general goals and objectives, including outcome-oriented goals and
objectives, for major agency functions.  OMB's guidance on preparing
strategic plans notes that the goals and objectives should be
specific and permit assessment of whether the goals are being
achieved. 

NASA's draft plan includes a "strategic roadmap" that outlines
agencywide goals for each of its three missions identified in the
mission statement.  Separate goals are listed for near-, mid-, and
long-term time periods over the next 25 years and beyond.  In
addition to listing agencywide goals, the draft plan includes a
"strategic roadmap" for each of the four major NASA strategic
enterprises.  Near-, mid-, and long-term objectives for each of the
three agency missions are described for Mission to Planet Earth,
Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology, Human Exploration
and Development of Space, and Space Science. 

As required by the Results Act, most of the goals listed in NASA's
draft plan elaborate on the agency's mission and are specific.  The
goals in the agencywide roadmap and the objectives in the enterprise
strategic roadmaps are related to both outcomes (describing desired
results) and outputs (describing levels of activity).  For example,
NASA cites improved space shuttle safety--an outcome-oriented goal--
and the use of robotic explorers in space--an output-oriented
goal--as near-term goals for the agency's mission to explore, use,
and develop space. 

While the goals outlined by NASA appear to meet the Results Act's
requirements, progress towards some of the goals NASA has outlined
may prove difficult to assess.  For example, the goals to
"characterize the earth system," "explore nature's processes in
space," and "acquire and promote knowledge and technologies that
promise to promote our quality of life" will be difficult to measure. 
As we recently reported, it is inherently difficult to measure the
performance of research and development programs because the results
are typically not apparent until many years later.\2 A large part of
NASA's mission is to research, develop, and advance knowledge. 
Developing effective performance measures for these program goals
will be a major challenge for science agencies, including NASA. 

One other challenge not addressed in the draft plan, but relevant to
NASA and many other agencies, will be developing measurable goals and
measures for agency missions that involve multiple federal agencies
and/or private industry.  The Results Act is based on the premise
that budget decisions should be more clearly informed by expectations
about program performance.  Without clear and precise measures of
agency-unique contributions, the Congress will be unable to determine
the relative contributions of each agency, and this goal of the
Results Act will not be realized.  For example, the draft plan cites
as a goal the reduction of the civil aircraft accident rate.  The
Federal Aviation Administration also shares this goal, and airlines
and aircraft manufacturers will play a decisive role in the
achievement of the goal. 


--------------------
\2 Measuring Performance:  Strengths and Limitations of Research
Indicators (GAO/RCED-97-91, Mar.  21, 1997). 


      STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE THE
      GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND
      NEEDED RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The Results Act requires strategic plans to address how the goals and
objectives are to be achieved, including a description of the
operational processes, skills, technology, and other resources
required to meet these goals and objectives.  OMB guidance to the
agencies on preparing strategic plans directs the agencies to include
schedules for completing actions and to project staffing and funding
levels.  OMB guidance also requires strategic plans to discuss how
they will assign accountability to managers and staff for achieving
goals and how they will communicate goals throughout the agency. 

NASA's draft plan describes in general terms the agency's strategy to
achieve its goals and objectives. 

  -- NASA's draft plan identifies four strategic enterprises through
     which it implements its mission and satisfies the needs of its
     external customers. 

  -- The draft plan includes a "strategic roadmap" for each
     enterprise that defines the near-, mid-, and long-term goals
     NASA seeks to achieve in the three mission areas and discusses
     the roles that will be played by NASA's nine centers.\3 The plan
     very briefly notes that other agencies have roles in these
     missions. 

  -- Each center has a mission that provides a basis for building
     human resource capabilities and a physical infrastructure in
     direct support of enterprise requirements.  In addition, each
     center has responsibility as a "Center of Excellence" to
     maintain leadership responsibility for an area of technology as
     well as responsibility as a "Lead Center" to manage specific
     programs across the agency. 

The draft plan loses some focus following the discussion of its four
enterprises.  The draft plan identifies four "crosscutting processes"
(essentially key internal functions) that NASA uses to achieve its
mission, support the strategic enterprises, and develop and deliver
products and services to internal and external customers.\4 In
addition, the draft plan includes a section on "Implementing
Strategies to Revolutionize NASA" that also discusses internal
processes and functions, such as internal evaluation and contracting. 
The use of the term "implementing strategies" is unclear because it
implies (under the terms of the Results Act) a discussion of how the
agency will achieve its goals and objectives rather than changes to
internal processes.  We believe that it would be more helpful if this
section of the plan was more clearly integrated with the discussion
of internal crosscutting processes. 

While the draft plan only briefly mentions the staff and resources
required to carry out the plan, NASA officials noted that the plan
states that it assumes a stable budget for NASA.  They also stated
that more detailed resource and budgetary information is contained in
the agency's budget documents. 

Though the draft plan notes that communicating the agency's direction
is an objective of the managing strategically crosscutting process,
it does not explicitly indicate how the goals of the plan will be
communicated throughout the agency.  Similarly, while the plan
indicates that employees' annual performance plans are used to ensure
the alignment of individual activities with the goals of the
strategic plan, and that the Administrator urges all employees to
read the plan, it only briefly describes how accountability will be
assigned.  NASA officials noted that for several years the agency has
had in place management processes--now included in NASA's Strategic
Management Handbook--that help ensure that each employee understands
the goals and objectives of the agency and the way that activities
contribute to the achievement of these goals and objectives.  We
believe that it would be helpful if the plan noted and explained the
role of the Strategic Management Handbook and other relevant plans
and guidance.\5


--------------------
\3 NASA's nine centers are the Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight
Center, Johnson Space Center, Stennis Space Center, Marshall Space
Flight Center, Lewis Research Center, Kennedy Space Center, Langley
Research Center, and Goddard Space Flight Center.  In addition to the
nine centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory also plays a role in
implementing NASA's programs. 

\4 The crosscutting processes include (1) generate knowledge, (2)
communicate knowledge, (3) provide aerospace products and
capabilities, and (4) manage strategically. 

\5 The NASA Strategic Management Handbook was developed to define and
document how NASA does strategic planning, implementation planning,
execution, and performance evaluation.  The handbook also ties
together the results of several management and policy studies. 


      RELATING ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
      GOALS TO GENERAL GOALS AND
      OBJECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

The Results Act and OMB guidance require that strategic plans outline
the type of performance goals to be included in the annual
performance plan, the relation between those performance goals and
the agency's strategic goals and objectives, and the relevance and
use of annual performance goals in helping determine the achievement
of general goals and objectives. 

In the sections "NASA's Crosscutting Processes" and "Implementing
Strategies to Revolutionize NASA" (i.e., internal agency functions),
the draft plan indicates that the agency will review its performance
against its goals and objectives.  However, NASA's draft plan does
not include a specific discussion or demonstrate a direct
relationship between annual performance goals and the agency's
general goals and objectives.  A clear explanation of these issues
would be helpful to show linkages among the several goals and
questions discussed in the plan.  For example: 

  -- The description of each enterprise in the draft plan includes
     two sections labeled "Goals" and "Questions to Address." The
     draft plan does not fully explain the relationship between these
     various goals and questions with the agency goals and questions,
     nor does it indicate which goal or question will be measured to
     assess the agency's performance. 

  -- NASA's draft plan includes a listing of "strategic outcomes" for
     the agency.  The plan also includes a strategic roadmap for the
     agency and each strategic enterprise that identifies near-, mid-
     and long-term objectives for the agency.  The draft plan,
     however, does not indicate whether performance will be measured
     against the strategic outcomes, agencywide goals, those of
     individual enterprises, or some combination of these. 

  -- The draft plan does not clearly indicate whether near-term,
     mid-term, or long-term goals will be used for performance
     measurement. 

According to NASA officials, the agency plans to measure performance
against the near-term objectives outlined in the strategic roadmaps
for each enterprise and the objectives of the crosscutting processes. 
The draft plan, however, does not clearly explain this and does not
discuss how measuring performance at the enterprise level will allow
an assessment of agencywide goals.  NASA officials noted that a full
discussion of the methodology for evaluating performance will be
included in the agency's annual performance plan. 


      KEY EXTERNAL FACTORS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

OMB guidance requires agencies to identify each key external factor,
indicate its link with a particular goal, and describe how attainment
of each goal would be affected.  Rather than identifying key external
factors, NASA's draft plan discusses the "external and internal
environment" and "key assumptions" that could affect the agency's
ability to implement its plan.  For example, the draft plan assumes
that NASA's budget will remain stable for the foreseeable future,
international cooperation will be increasingly important in achieving
NASA's mission, and the international space station will be
successfully developed.  The draft plan does not, however, explain
how these assumptions are linked to particular goals of the agency
and how these goals might be affected if assumptions are not met. 


      HOW PROGRAM EVALUATIONS WERE
      USED TO ESTABLISH OR REVISE
      STRATEGIC GOALS AND SCHEDULE
      FOR FUTURE EVALUATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.6

The Results Act requires "a description of the program evaluations
used in establishing or revising general goals and objectives, with a
schedule for future program evaluations." OMB's guidance notes that
the strategic plan should include an outline of the methodology to be
used, issues to be addressed, and a schedule for future evaluations
covering, at a minimum, the fiscal years prior to the next revision
of the strategic plan. 

The draft plan mentions that NASA plans to review performance against
the goals and objectives contained in the strategic plan and states
that the agency's Program Management Council and Capital Investment
Council will continue to review programs and investments.  The draft
plan notes that it builds on three previous editions and identifies
the plan's most recent changes and improvements.  However, the draft
plan does not explicitly discuss or demonstrate how program
evaluations were used in establishing or revising agency goals and
objectives, nor does it provide a schedule for future evaluations. 

NASA officials explained that program evaluation has been extensively
used since the agency's first strategic plan was issued in 1994. 
They stated that evaluating the strategic plan is part of its
strategic management process and that this is discussed in its
Strategic Management Handbook.  We believe that it would be useful if
NASA's plan cited these past efforts as well as the agency's plans
for program evaluations. 


   KEY STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ARE
   ADDRESSED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

NASA's primary legislative mandate is contained in the Space Act. 
The act gives NASA the responsibility for aeronautical and space
activities to be carried out for the general welfare and security of
the United States.  NASA is required to satisfy such objectives as
expanding knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere
and space, developing and improving aeronautical and space vehicles,
and preserving the role of the United States as a leader in
aeronautical space science and technology.  NASA must disseminate
information about its activities as widely as possible, encourage the
fullest commercial use of space, and conduct its work in cooperation
with other nations and groups of nations. 

NASA's draft plan, including its mission statement, goals, and
objectives, addresses the Space Act requirements.  For example, as
outlined in the plan, NASA carries out the statutory requirement to
expand knowledge of the earth through the earth sciences, remote
sensing, and upper atmospheric research activities of its Mission to
Planet Earth enterprise.  The requirement to develop and improve
aeronautical and space vehicles is exemplified by the plan's
references to the Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology
enterprise, whose goals include the reduction of accident rates of
global civil aviation and the development of next-generation design
tools and experimental aircraft.  The requirement to preserve the
role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical space sciences
and technology is set out in the plan's references to the
high-performance computing research objectives of the Aeronautics and
Space Transportation enterprise. 

In addition to the Space Act, several other important statutory
requirements are addressed in more specific areas of the draft plan. 
For example: 

  -- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
     Act of 1988, as amended, required NASA's Administrator to
     construct a permanently manned space station to be used to
     conduct scientific, applications, and engineering experiments
     and establish a space base for other civilian and commercial
     space activities.  NASA's draft plan includes assembly of the
     international space station as one of NASA's short-term goals
     for the 1997-2002 time period and aligns this goal with its
     overall mission of exploring, using, and enabling the
     development of space for human development. 

  -- Section 102 of the fiscal year 1993 National Aeronautics and
     Space Administration Act directed the NASA Administrator to
     carry out an Earth Observing System program that addresses the
     highest priority international climate change research goals. 
     Activity in this area aligns with NASA's Mission to Planet Earth
     enterprise, which, according to the draft plan, "is pioneering
     the new discipline of Earth system science, with a near-term
     emphasis on global climate change." According to the draft plan,
     the agency plans to deploy the first series of Earth Observing
     System missions, including Landsat 7, in the 1997 through 2002
     time period. 

Statutory directives addressing specific aspects of biomedical
research in space are set out in 42 U.S.C.  2487a-2487f.  While these
provisions are not specifically addressed in the draft plan,
biomedical research in general is discussed in the Human Exploration
and Development of Space enterprise section.  A listing of NASA's key
statutory authorities is provided in enclosure I. 


   CROSSCUTTING ACTIVITIES ARE NOT
   DISCUSSED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Given the broad mission of many agencies, some of the general goals
and objectives identified in their strategic plans will overlap or be
shared with other agencies.  In such cases, they may have a shared
responsibility for defining and achieving these crosscutting
objectives.  Recognizing the importance of interagency coordination
in such cases, OMB guidance requires that "appropriate and timely
consultation occurs with other agencies during development of
strategic plans with crosscutting goals and objectives."

Though several of NASA's objectives are shared with those of other
agencies, the draft plan does not identify specific programs and
activities that are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal
agencies.  Many of NASA's objectives, however, are shared with other
agencies. 

  -- The Human Exploration and Development of Space enterprise
     objective for space medicine research involves the National
     Institutes of Health. 

  -- The Mission to Planet Earth enterprise objectives on long-term
     climate and ozone research involve the National Science
     Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic
     and Atmospheric Administration. 

  -- The Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology enterprise
     objectives to improve civil air safety and reduce air travel
     costs are shared with the Federal Aviation Administration. 

The draft plan acknowledges in several places the need to work with
other agencies (as well as private industry).  However, the plan's
discussions of crosscutting programs are brief and do not explain
what, if any, coordination was done in developing goals and
objectives.  NASA officials stated that each strategic enterprise
coordinated its objectives with the relevant agencies at the program
level.  They noted that NASA officials participate in many
crosscutting groups, like the Research Roundtable, where programmatic
objectives are discussed.  They also noted that for the last few
years the agency has shared its strategic plan with other federal
agencies.  However, these activities, and the extent to which they
addressed the issue of duplication and overlap, are not discussed in
the plan.  In addition, these activities are primarily at the program
level.  The plan could be enhanced by being more descriptive of how
NASA priorities are consistent with the priorities of other agencies. 
Such interagency coordination may have to take place at the senior
management level. 


   MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES ARE
   NOT EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

For several years, we have reported on many of the major management
problems NASA faces in carrying out its mission.  The agency faces
many problems and challenges such as controlling costs of major
programs like the space station and earth observing system,
determining its environmental liability, overseeing space shuttle
operations, and managing budget carryover balances.  In response to
our work and the work of others, including NASA's Inspector General,
NASA has undertaken efforts to improve its mission-related management
approaches. 

NASA's draft plan does not comment on its major management challenges
or the status of its reform efforts.  This information could be
beneficial to NASA and its stakeholders because major management
problems could impede the agency's efforts to achieve its goals and
objectives.  Examples of three significant areas are (1) managing
contracts, (2) managing information technology, and (3) developing a
fully integrated accounting system.  While the draft plan includes
information technology as a specific objective of the managing
strategically crosscutting process, specific objectives are not
listed for contract management or improving the agency's accounting
system. 


      CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

In 1990, we identified NASA contract management as an area of high
risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.  When looked at
functionally, NASA can be seen principally as a procurement
organization.  In a typical year, NASA uses between 85 percent and 90
percent of its budget for purchasing goods and services--about $12
billion or more each year.  NASA has made considerable progress in
addressing its contract management problems, including restructuring
contract award fees so that space system performance is emphasized,
and changing how it shares risk under research and development
contracts.  In our most recent high-risk report to NASA, we noted
that NASA has effectively addressed many problems throughout the
procurement cycle but that the agency still lacked relevant and
reliable contract performance measurements as well as periodic
performance reviews that would allow it to effectively oversee
contracts.\6 NASA indicated it would take action in this area. 


--------------------
\6 NASA Procurement Contract Management Oversight (GAO/NSIAD-97-114R,
Mar.  18, 1997). 


      INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2

NASA is one of the federal government's top information technology
investors.  The agency estimates that it will spend $1.4 billion on
information technology in fiscal year 1997.  Since establishing the
position of chief information officer (CIO) in February 1995, NASA
has been working to correct information technology acquisition and
management practices that had previously been criticized as
fragmented, duplicative, and lacking adequate oversight.  In August
1996, we reported on the CIO's activities to date, noting that NASA
still faces significant challenges in managing its investment in
information technology.\7

The draft plan includes information technology management as an
objective under its process for managing strategically.\8 The draft
plan, however, does not discuss

  -- how NASA plans to comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,
     which 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;

  -- how the agency's new CIO management structure, which depends on
     the cooperation of NASA's diverse enterprises and field centers,
     will be able to provide strategic direction to information
     technology investments; and

  -- how NASA plans to address the "year 2000 problem" (which
     requires that computer systems be changed to accommodate dates
     beyond the year 1999) as well as any significant information
     security weaknesses--two issues that we have identified as high
     risk across the federal government.\9 Both the "year 2000
     problem" and information security weaknesses could seriously
     undermine the integrity of NASA's information systems if not
     adequately addressed. 


--------------------
\7 NASA Chief Information Officer:  Opportunities to Strengthen
Information Resource Management (GAO/AIMD-96-78, Aug.  15.  1996). 

\8 The objective is to "ensure that information technology provides
an open and secure exchange of information, is consistent with agency
technical architectures and standards, demonstrates a projected
return on investment, reduces risk, and directly contributes to
mission success."

\9 The year 2000 problem refers to the potential for computer
programs to generate incorrect results when using dates from the year
2000 and beyond to perform calculations, comparisons, or sorting. 


      DEVELOPING A FULLY
      INTEGRATED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.3

It is especially critical that NASA's operations be supported by
reliable information systems.  Our past work has shown that NASA's
financial management systems do not provide complete, accurate, or
timely information.  For many years, NASA has reported its systems as
either high risk or a material weakness in its Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act reports because its systems are center-unique
and nonintegrated.  The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires
that each agency develop and maintain an integrated agency accounting
and financial management system that provides for (1) the integration
of accounting and budgeting information, (2) the development and
reporting of cost information, and (3) the systematic measurement of
performance--information needed to meet the requirements of the
Results Act. 

Although the draft plan states that the agency will tie its budget
process to the strategic plans, it does not address the challenges
NASA faces in implementing its new accounting system and the
importance of this effort to (1) providing agency management and the
Congress with better financial information and (2) allowing the
agency to move to full cost accounting.  In February 1995, NASA
initiated the Integrated Financial Management Project, with a goal to
establish an integrated financial management system for the agency. 
NASA plans for the system to provide a financial management core as
well as other modules, such as budget, procurement, time and
attendance, asset management, and travel, that it believes will meet
the needs of all levels of decisionmakers.  The implementation of the
integrated financial management system has been delayed from October
1998 to sometime in 1999. 


   CAPACITY TO PROVIDE RELIABLE
   INFORMATION ON ACHIEVEMENT OF
   STRATEGIC AND PERFORMANCE GOALS
   IS QUESTIONABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To evaluate the effectiveness of the goals and objectives contained
in its strategic plan, NASA and its stakeholders need complete,
reliable, and timely performance, program cost, and management
information.  NASA needs data to measure its performance and monitor
the progress of its work.  The plan does not address how NASA will
collect and evaluate this data.  Although NASA has prepared summary
performance data in its prior accountability reports, being able to
fully and effectively measure the progress towards the agency's goals
is contingent upon various events, such as the implementation of the
integrated financial management system. 

NASA currently relies on several automated accounting systems to
carry out its mission.  Despite the lack of an integrated system,
NASA was one of the few agencies to receive an unqualified audit
opinion for the past 3 years.  While this is a necessary and
important first step to generating complete and accurate financial
information, it is not a guarantee that useful financial information
will be available for decisionmakers at all levels to measure
performance and results and, in fact, NASA's financial reporting
process could be improved.  For example, in its 1996 audit, NASA's
independent public accountant identified two reportable conditions
dealing with this issue:  (1) NASA's financial reporting process
requires improvement to ensure the accuracy and completeness of its
financial information and (2) NASA's accounting and financial
reporting procedures require improvements to ensure that transactions
are properly recorded and internal controls are properly designed and
operating effectively. 

NASA does not have all the information it needs to measure the costs
associated with its proposed goals.  Without an effective full-cost
accounting system, it will be difficult for NASA to completely
accumulate the cost of its activities and operations.  NASA's draft
plan, for example, calls for more affordable air and space travel and
a reduction in the cost per pound of payloads from $10,000 to $1,000
per pound by the next decade.  Cost accounting information is needed
to help automate the agency's operations and link data results and
all agency costs to major agency activities, budgets, accounts, and
reports.  NASA's 1996 accountability report describes the agency's
plans for a full cost accounting system and states that cost
accounting should also enhance its cost-effective mission performance
by providing more complete cost information for improved and more
fully informed decision-making and management. 

NASA's plans to implement full cost accounting are contingent upon
the timely completion of the Integrated Financial Management Project. 
Because the project is in its early phases, it is too soon to know
whether progress toward a number of NASA's strategic goals can be
measured in a meaningful way. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We provided a draft of this report to NASA's Administrator for his
review and comment.  On July 18, 1997, the Acting Deputy
Administrator provided us with NASA's comments.  (NASA's comments are
in enclosure II.) He stated that our report reflected a comprehensive
analysis of the strategic plan, and that NASA intended to incorporate
a number of changes into the final version of the plan.  However, he
stated that NASA firmly believes that its strategic plan meets all
six elements of the Results Act, as well as the requirements set
forth in OMB Circular A-11.  He further stated that our addition of
suggested "tactical sections" and other reporting requirements--such
as management challenges--go well beyond Results Act requirements. 
NASA's comments focused on the extent to which its draft plan (1)
relates annual performance goals to general goals and objectives, (2)
uses program evaluations to establish/revise strategic goals and a
schedule for future program evaluations, (3) communicates goals
throughout the agency, (4) measures performance against established
goals, (5) identifies crosscutting issues, and (6) highlights major
management issues.  Our evaluation of each of these points is as
follows. 

Regarding the relationship between annual performance goals and
general goals and objectives, NASA commented that the agency will
measure performance against the goals and objectives in the
Strategic, Enterprise, and Annual Performance Plans; use development
cycle times, cost, launch rate to measure performance; and measure
the outcomes of NASA activities focused on"generating communicating
knowledge".  We agree that a building block approach is useful in
relating annual objectives and goals to general objectives and goals. 
However, OMB guidance on strategic planning states that the strategic
plan should outline the type, nature, and scope of the performance
goals; the relationship between the performance goals and the general
goals and objectives; and the relevance and use of performance goals
in helping determine the achievement of general goals and objectives. 
NASA's draft plan does not provide a clear explanation of these
points. 

Concerning program evaluations, NASA commented that responsibility
for assessing performance and investments of capital and resources is
vested in various intra-agency councils.  Further, the Acting Deputy
Administrator stated that the Strategic Management Handbook addresses
evaluation processes and the Senior Management's role in the overall
performance evaluation process.  The point expressed in our report
centers on the draft plan's lack of (a) a discussion on how program
evaluations were used in establishing and revising general goals and
objectives, and (b) a schedule for future evaluations, both key
requirements of the Results Act.  Regarding NASA's response that its
Handbook contains the schedule for reviews, we note that our analysis
of the elements in NASA's draft plan is based on information
contained solely in the plan itself, and not in other
documents--which are beyond the scope of our review. 

In commenting on NASA's efforts to communicate the agency's
direction, the Acting Deputy Administrator pointed to several
initiatives as illustrative, such as the alignment of employees'
activities with agency goals, and the Administrator's urging of NASA
employees to read the plan.  Our report acknowledges NASA's effort to
integrate employee contributions to the plan and has been revised to
reflect the Administrator's action.  As previously noted, our
analysis of the elements in NASA's draft plan is based on information
contained solely in the draft plan itself, and not in other
documents.  We continue to believe that (a) the draft plan, by
itself, only provides a brief description of how accountability will
be assigned and
(b) it would be helpful if the plan noted and explained the role of
other relevant NASA guidance which agency officials reference as
providing further details. 

In reference to our discussion on measuring performance against
established goals, the Acting Deputy Administrator said that it is
incorrect to conclude that NASA's draft plan does not indicate
whether performance will be measured against the strategic outcomes,
agencywide goals, those of individual enterprises, or some
combination of these.  He referenced the statement in the draft plan
that said that performance will be measured against the goals and
objectives contained in the strategic plan, the Enterprise Strategic
Plans, and the Annual Performance Plan.  Our position on this issue
remains unchanged as NASA's response provides no additional
information.  We continue to believe that a clear explanation to show
linkages would be helpful in NASA's plan. 

Responding to our inclusion of crosscutting issues in this report,
NASA noted that the Results Act does not explicitly require agencies
to address crosscutting activities in their Strategic Plans. 
Reporting on this issue was specifically identified by our
requesters.  In addition, we note that crosscutting issues are
addressed in OMB Circular A-11 in the context of consultations with
other agencies; and that such consultations be completed prior to the
development of strategic plans with crosscutting goals and
objectives.  In our opinion, recognition of having completed such
coordination activities would be helpful to the Congress as such
information provides perspective to agency funding requests that
involve collaborative projects. 

In commenting on the section of our report discussing major
management challenges and the status of NASA's reform efforts, the
Acting Deputy Administrator indicated that it is NASA's position that
the Results Act does not require agencies to address specific
management challenges in their strategic plans.  He indicated that
such information should be addressed in more detailed implementation
plans.  Reporting on this issue was specifically identified by our
requesters.  Moreover, we believe some of these challenges could
affect the extent to which NASA can achieve its goals and objectives
in an effective and timely manner.  Therefore, we believe that their
identification in the plan would be helpful. 

NASA also made several suggestions to improve the technical accuracy
of this report.  We made changes where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after its issue date.  At that time, we will send
copies to the Ranking Minority Members of your Committees and to the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other Committees that have
jurisdiction over NASA activities; the Administrator of NASA; and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget.  We will send copies to
others on request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staffs have any
questions concerning this letter.  Major contributors to this letter
are listed in enclosure III. 

Allen Li
Associate Director
Defense Acquisitions Issues

Enclosures - 3


KEY STATUTORY AUTHORITIES OF THE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
=========================================================== Appendix I

15 U.S.C.  5522 Requires the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) to conduct basic and applied research in
high-performance computing, particularly in the field of
computational science, with emphasis on aerospace sciences, earth and
space sciences, and remote exploration and experimentation. 

15 U.S.C.  5631 Directs the Administrator of NASA and the Secretary
of Defense to continue and to enhance programs of remote sensing
research and development through experiments, technology development,
and cooperative research. 

42 U.S.C.  2451 Sets out general objectives of NASA aeronautical and
space activities, as well as specific objectives in the areas of
commercial use of space; ground propulsion systems research and
development; advanced automobile propulsion systems; and
bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs. 

42 U.S.C.  2465d, 2465f Requires NASA to purchase required launch
services for its primary payloads from commercial providers.  NASA
space shuttles may only accept commercial payloads when the NASA
Administrator determines that the payload requires the unique
capabilities of the shuttle or a space shuttle payload launch is
important for national security or foreign policy purposes. 

42 U.S.C.  2473 Sets out general responsibilities of the NASA
Administrator, as well as specific responsibilities in the areas of
ground propulsion, solar heating, and cooling technologies. 

42 U.S.C.  2481 Authorizes and directs the NASA Administrator to
develop and carry out a comprehensive program of research,
technology, and monitoring of upper atmospheric phenomena. 

42 U.S.C.  2486c Requires the NASA Administrator to establish and
maintain a national space grant college and fellowship program. 

42 U.S.C.  2487a-2487f Requires the NASA Administrator and the
Director of the National Institutes of Health to establish a working
group to coordinate biomedical research activities related to a
microgravity environment and to also establish biomedical grant and
research fellowship programs.  Requires the NASA Administrator to
create and maintain a national electronic data archive for biomedical
research data obtained from space-based experiments.  Requires NASA
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Office of Foreign
Disaster, and the Surgeon General of the United States to jointly
create and maintain an international telemedicine satellite
consultation capability to support emergency medical services in
disaster-stricken areas. 

42 U.S.C.  5553 Requires membership of a NASA Associate Administrator
on the Solar Energy Coordination and Management Project.  Gives NASA
responsibility to cooperate with the project in the areas of
management capability and technology development. 

47 U.S.C.  721 Sets out responsibilities of NASA related to the
communications satellite system, including advice on technical
characteristics, research and development, and the provision of
launching services. 

Permanently Manned Space Station
P.L.  100-147, Title I, secs.  106-112, Oct.  30, 1987, 101 Stat. 
863-865, as amended, and P.L.  102-195, sec.  16, Dec.  9, 1991, 105
Stat.  1614 Requires the NASA Administrator to construct a
permanently manned space station to be used to (a) conduct
scientific, applications, and engineering experiments; (b) service,
rehabilitate, and construct satellites and space vehicles; (c)
develop and demonstrate commercial products and processes; and (d)
establish a space base for other civilian and commercial space
activities. 

National Aeronautics and Space Capital Development Program (Space
Station)
P.L.  100-685, Title I, sec.  101, Nov.  17, 1988, 102 Stat.  4083
Expands on purposes of the manned space station (as set out in P.  L. 
100-147, as amended) to also include the requirement that the space
station serve as an outpost for further exploration of the solar
system. 

National Aero-Space Plane Program
P.L.  101-611, Title I, sec.  116, Nov.  16, 1990, 104 Stat.  3202
Requires the NASA Administrator and the Secretary of Defense to
jointly pursue a National Aero-Space program whose objective shall be
the development and demonstration, by 1997, of a primarily air
breathing single-stage-to-orbit and long-range hypersonic cruise
research flight vehicle. 


Earth Observing System Program
P.L.  102-588, Title I, Sec.  102(g), Nov.  4, 1992, 106 Stat.  5111
Requires the NASA Administrator to carry out an Earth Observing
System program that addresses the highest priority international
climate change research goals as defined by the Committee on Earth
and Environmental Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Enclosure II
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III


   NATIONAL SECURITY AND
   INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.  C. 
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Frank Degnan
Jerry Herley
David C.  Trimble


   OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,
   WASHINGTON, D.  C. 
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

William Woods
Maureen A.  Murphy


   ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
   MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.  C. 
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Elizabeth M.  Mixon
John DeFerrari


============================================================ Chapter 0


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1

Space Station:  Cost Control Problems Continue to Worsen
(GAO/T-NSIAD-97-177, June 18, 1997). 

NASA Procurement:  Contract Management Oversight (GAO/NSIAD-97-114R,
Mar.  18, 1997). 

NASA Procurement Assessments (GAO/NSIAD-97-80R, Feb.  4, 1997). 

High-Risk Series:  Quick Reference Guide (GAO/HR-97-2, Feb.  1997). 

NASA Infrastructure:  Challenges to Achieving Reductions and
Efficiencies (GAO/NSIAD-96-187, Sept.  9, 1996) and
(GAO-T-NSIAD-96-238, Sept.  11, 1996). 

NASA Chief Information Officer:  Opportunities to Strengthen
Information Resource Management (GAO/AIMD-96-78, Aug.  15, 1996). 

NASA Personnel:  Challenges to Achieving Workforce Reductions
(GAO/NSIAD-96-176, Aug.  2, 1996). 

NASA Budget:  Carryover Balances for Selected Programs
(GAO-NSIAD-96-206, July 16, 1996) and (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-207, July 18,
1996). 

Space Station:  Cost Control Difficulties Continue (GAO/NSIAD-96-135,
July 17, 1996) and (GAO-T-NSIAD-96-210, July 24, 1996). 

Earth Observing System:  Concerns Over NASA's Basic Research Funding
Strategy (GAO/NSIAD-96-97, July 11, 1996). 

Telecommunications Network:  NASA Could Better Manage Its Planned
Consolidation (GAO/AIMD-96-33, Apr.  9, 1996). 

Space Shuttle:  Need to Sustain Launch Risk Assessment Process
Improvements (GAO/NSIAD-96-73, Mar.  26, 1996). 

Earth Observing System:  Cost and Research Issues
(GAO/T-NSIAD-96-116, Mar.  6, 1996). 

NASA Contract Management (GAO/NSIAD-96-95R, Feb.  16, 1996). 

Space Shuttle:  Declining Budget and Tight Schedule Could Jeopardize
Space Station Support (GAO/NSIAD-95-171, July 28, 1995). 

Space Shuttle:  NASA Must Reduce Costs Further to Operate Within
Future Projected Funds (GAO/NSIAD-95-118, June 15, 1995). 

Space Station:  Estimated Total U.S.  Funding Requirements
(GAO/NSIAD-95-163, June 12, 1995). 

NASA's Earth Observing System:  Estimated Funding Requirements
(GAO/NSIAD-95-175, June 9, 1995). 

NASA Budget:  Gap Between Requirements and Projected Budget Has Been
(GAO/NSIAD-95-155BR, May 12, 1995). 

NASA Procurement:  Contract and Management Improvements at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (GAO/NSIAD-95-40, Dec.  30, 1994). 

Space Station:  Plans to Expand Research Community Do Not Match
Available Resources (GAO/NSIAD-95-33, Nov.  22, 1994). 

NASA Contract Management:  Improving the Use of DCAA's Auditing
Services (GAO/NSIAD-94-229, Sept.  30, 1994). 

Environmental Management (GAO/NSIAD-94-264R, Sept.  21, 1994). 

Space Station:  Update on the Impact of the Expanded Russian Role
(GAO/NSIAD-94-248, July 29, 1994). 

Space Station:  Impact of the Expanded Russian Role on Funding and
Research (GAO/NSIAD-94-220, June 21, 1994). 

NASA Property:  Improving Management of Government Equipment Provided
to Contractors (GAO/NSIAD-93-191, Sept.  9, 1993). 

NASA's FMFIA Assertions and CFO Plan (GAO/AFMD-93-65R, June 11,
1993). 

Financial Management:  NASA's Financial Reports Are Based on
Unreliable Data (GAO/AFMD-93-3, Oct.  29, 1992). 

NASA:  Large Programs May Consume Increasing Share of Limited Future
Budgets (GAO/NSIAD-92-278, Sept.  4, 1992). 

Financial Management:  NASA's Decisions Are Based on Unreliable
Systems Data and Reports (GAO/T-AFMD-92-9, May 7, 1992). 

NASA Procurement:  Improving the Management of Delegated Contract
Functions (GAO/NSIAD-92-75, Mar.  27, 1992). 

Earth Observing System:  NASA's EOSDIS Development Approach Is Risky
(GAO/IMTEC-92-24, Feb.  25, 1992). 

Financial Management:  Actions Needed to Ensure Effective
Implementation of NASA's Accounting System (GAO/AFMD-91-74, Aug.  21,
1991). 

Environmental Protection:  Solving NASA's Current Problems Requires
Agencywide Emphasis (GAO/NSIAD-91-146, Apr.  5,1991). 

*** End of document. ***