Background According to the President’s budget, the federal government plans to  invest more than $96 billion for IT in fiscal year 2018—the largest amount  ever. However, as we have previously reported, investments in federal IT  too often result in failed projects that incur cost overruns and schedule  slippages, while contributing little to the desired mission-related  outcomes. For example: The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Scheduling Replacement Project  was terminated in September 2009 after spending an estimated $127  million over 9 years. The tri-agency National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental  Satellite System was halted in February 2010 by the White House’s  Office of Science and Technology Policy after the program spent 16  years and almost $5 billion. The Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative  Network program was ended in January 2011, after the department  obligated more than $1 billion for the program. The Office of Personnel Management’s Retirement Systems  Modernization program was canceled in February 2011, after the  agency had spent approximately $231 million on its third attempt to  automate the processing of federal employee retirement claims. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Financial and Logistics  Integrated Technology Enterprise program was intended to be  delivered by 2014 at a total estimated cost of $609 million, but was  terminated in October 2011. The Department of Defense’s Expeditionary Combat Support System  was canceled in December 2012 after spending more than a billion  dollars and failing to deploy within 5 years of initially obligating  funds. Our past work found that these and other failed IT projects often suffered  from a lack of disciplined and effective management, such as project  planning, requirements definition, and program oversight and  governance. In many instances, agencies had not consistently applied  best practices that are critical to successfully acquiring IT. Such projects have also failed due to a lack of oversight and governance.  Executive-level governance and oversight across the government has  often been ineffective, specifically from chief information officers (CIO).  For example, we have reported that some CIOs’ roles were limited  because they did not have the authority to review and approve the entire  agency IT portfolio. Implementing FITARA Can  Improve Agencies’  Management of IT FITARA was intended to improve agencies’ acquisitions of IT and enable  Congress to monitor agencies’ progress and hold them accountable for  reducing duplication and achieving cost savings. The law includes  specific requirements related to seven areas. Federal data center consolidation initiative (FDCCI). Agencies are  required to provide OMB with a data center inventory, a strategy for  consolidating and optimizing their data centers (to include planned  cost savings), and quarterly updates on progress made. The law also  requires OMB to develop a goal for how much is to be saved through  this initiative, and provide annual reports on cost savings achieved. Enhanced transparency and improved risk management. OMB  and covered agencies are to make detailed information on federal IT  investments publicly available, and agency CIOs are to categorize  their investments by level of risk. Additionally, in the case of major IT  investments rated as high risk for 4 consecutive quarters, the law  requires that the agency CIO and the investment’s program manager  conduct a review aimed at identifying and addressing the causes of  the risk. Agency CIO authority enhancements. CIOs at covered agencies  are required to (1) approve the IT budget requests of their respective  agencies, (2) certify that OMB’s incremental development guidance is  being adequately implemented for IT investments, (3) review and  approve contracts for IT, and (4) approve the appointment of other  agency employees with the title of CIO. Portfolio review. Agencies are to annually review IT investment  portfolios in order to, among other things, increase efficiency and  effectiveness and identify potential waste and duplication. In  establishing the process associated with such portfolio reviews, the  law requires OMB to develop standardized performance metrics, to  include cost savings, and to submit quarterly reports to Congress on  cost savings. Expansion of training and use of IT acquisition cadres. Agencies  are to update their acquisition human capital plans to address  supporting the timely and effective acquisition of IT. In doing so, the  law calls for agencies to consider, among other things, establishing IT  acquisition cadres or developing agreements with other agencies that  have such cadres. Government-wide software purchasing program. The General  Services Administration is to develop a strategic sourcing initiative to  enhance government-wide acquisition and management of software.  In doing so, the law requires that, to the maximum extent practicable,  the General Services Administration should allow for the purchase of  a software license agreement that is available for use by all executive  branch agencies as a single user. Maximizing the benefit of the Federal Strategic Sourcing  Initiative. Federal agencies are required to compare their  purchases of services and supplies to what is offered under the  Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative. OMB is also required to issue  regulations related to the initiative. In June 2015, OMB released guidance describing how agencies are to  implement FITARA. This guidance is intended to, among other things: assist agencies in aligning their IT resources with statutory establish government-wide IT management controls that will meet the  law’s requirements, while providing agencies with flexibility to adapt to  unique agency processes and requirements;  clarify the CIO’s role and strengthen the relationship between agency  CIOs and bureau CIOs; and  strengthen CIO accountability for IT costs, schedules, performance,  and security. The guidance identified several actions that agencies were to take to  establish a basic set of roles and responsibilities (referred to as the  common baseline) for CIOs and other senior agency officials, which were  needed to implement the authorities described in the law. For example,  agencies were required to conduct a self-assessment and submit a plan  describing the changes they intended to make to ensure that common  baseline responsibilities were implemented. Agencies were to submit their  plans to OMB’s Office of E-Government and Information Technology by  August 15, 2015, and make portions of the plans publicly available on  agency websites no later than 30 days after OMB approval. As of  November 2016, all agencies had made their plans publicly available. In addition, in August 2016, OMB released guidance intended to, among  other things, define a framework for achieving the data center  consolidation and optimization requirements of FITARA. The guidance  includes requirements for agencies to: maintain complete inventories of all data center facilities owned,  operated, or maintained by or on behalf of the agency; develop cost savings targets for fiscal years 2016 through 2018 and  report any actual realized cost savings; and measure progress toward meeting optimization metrics on a quarterly  basis. The guidance also directs agencies to develop a data center  consolidation and optimization strategic plan that defines the agency’s  data center strategy for fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018. This strategy  is to include, among other things, a statement from the agency CIO  indicating whether the agency has complied with all data center reporting  requirements in FITARA. Further, the guidance indicates that OMB is to  maintain a public dashboard that will display consolidation-related costs  savings and optimization performance information for the agencies. IT Acquisitions and  Operations Identified by  GAO as a High-Risk Area In February 2015, we introduced a new government-wide high-risk area,  Improving the Management of IT Acquisitions and Operations. This area  highlighted several critical IT initiatives in need of additional congressional  oversight, including (1) reviews of troubled projects; (2) efforts to increase  the use of incremental development; (3) efforts to provide transparency  relative to the cost, schedule, and risk levels for major IT investments; (4)  reviews of agencies’ operational investments; (5) data center  consolidation; and (6) efforts to streamline agencies’ portfolios of IT  investments. We noted that implementation of these initiatives was  inconsistent and more work remained to demonstrate progress in  achieving IT acquisition and operation outcomes. Further, our February 2015 high-risk report stated that, beyond  implementing FITARA, OMB and agencies needed to continue to  implement our prior recommendations in order to improve their ability to  effectively and efficiently invest in IT. Specifically, from fiscal years 2010  through 2015, we made 803 recommendations to OMB and federal  agencies to address shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations.  These recommendations included many to improve the implementation of  the aforementioned six critical IT initiatives and other government-wide,  cross-cutting efforts. We stressed that OMB and agencies should  demonstrate government-wide progress in the management of IT  investments by, among other things, implementing at least 80 percent of  our recommendations related to managing IT acquisitions and operations  within 4 years. In February 2017, we issued an update to our high-risk series and  reported that, while progress had been made in improving the  management of IT acquisitions and operations, significant work still  remained to be completed. For example, as of November 2017, OMB  and agencies had fully implemented 452 (or about 56 percent) of the 803  recommendations. This was an increase of about 284 recommendations  compared to the number of recommendations we reported as being fully  implemented in 2015. Figure 1 summarizes the progress that OMB and  agencies have made in addressing our recommendations as compared to  the 80 percent target, as of November 2017. In addition, in fiscal year 2016, we made 202 new recommendations, thus  further reinforcing the need for OMB and agencies to address the  shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations. Also, beyond addressing  our prior recommendations, our 2017 high-risk update noted the  importance of OMB and federal agencies continuing to expeditiously  implement the requirements of FITARA.  To further explore the challenges and opportunities to improve federal IT  acquisitions and operations, we convened a forum on September 14,  2016, to explore challenges and opportunities for CIOs to improve federal  IT acquisitions and operations—with the goal of better informing  policymakers and government leadership. Forum participants, which  included 13 current and former federal agency CIOs, members of  Congress, and private sector IT executives, identified key actions related  to seven topics: (1) strengthening FITARA, (2) improving CIO authorities,  (3) budget formulation, (4) governance, (5) workforce, (6) operations, and  (7) transition planning. A summary of the key actions, by topic area,  identified during the forum is provided in figure 2. In addition, in January 2017, the Federal CIO Council concluded that  differing levels of authority over IT-related investments and spending  have led to inconsistencies in how IT is executed from agency to agency.  According to the Council, for those agencies where the CIO has broad  authority to manage all IT investments, great progress has been made to  streamline and modernize the federal agency’s footprint. For the others,  where agency CIOs are only able to control pieces of the total IT footprint,  it has been harder to achieve improvements. Current Administration  Has Undertaken Efforts to  Improve Federal IT The current administration has initiated additional efforts aimed at  improving federal IT, including digital services. Specifically, in March  2017, the administration established the Office of American Innovation,  which has a mission to, among other things, make recommendations to  the President on policies and plans aimed at improving federal  government operations and services and on modernizing federal IT. In  doing so, the office is to consult with both OMB and the Office of Science  and Technology Policy on policies and plans intended to improve  government operations and services, improve the quality of life for  Americans, and spur job creation. In May 2017, the administration also established the American  Technology Council, which has a goal of helping to transform and  modernize federal agency IT and how the federal government uses and  delivers digital services. The President is the chairman of this council, and  the Federal CIO and the United States Digital Service administrator are  members. Congress Has Taken  Action to Continue  Selected FITARA  Provisions and Modernize  Federal IT Congress has recognized the importance of agencies’ continued  implementation of FITARA provisions, and has taken legislative action to  extend selected provisions beyond their original dates of expiration. For  example, Congress has passed legislation to:  remove the expiration date for enhanced transparency and improved  risk management provisions, which were set to expire in 2019;  remove the expiration date for portfolio review, which was set to  expire in 2019; and extend the expiration date for FDCCI from 2018 to 2020. In addition, Congress is considering legislation to ensure the availability of  funding to help further agencies’ efforts to modernize IT. Specifically,  recently proposed legislation calls for agencies to establish working  capital funds for use in transitioning from legacy systems, as well as for  addressing evolving threats to information security. The legislation also  proposes the creation of a technology modernization fund within the  Department of the Treasury, from which agencies could borrow money to  retire and replace legacy systems as well as acquire or develop systems. Agencies Have Taken  Steps to Implement  FITARA, but  Additional Actions are  Needed to Address  Related  Recommendations Agencies have taken steps to improve the management of IT acquisitions  and operations by implementing key FITARA initiatives. However,  agencies would be better positioned to fully implement the law and, thus,  realize billions in cost savings and additional management improvements,  if they addressed the numerous recommendations we have made aimed  at improving data center consolidation, increasing transparency via  OMB’s IT Dashboard, implementing incremental development, and  managing software licenses. Agencies Have Made  Progress in Consolidating  Data Centers, but Need to  Take Action to Achieve  Planned Cost Savings One of the key initiatives to implement FITARA is data center  consolidation. OMB established FDCCI in February 2010 to improve the  efficiency, performance, and environmental footprint of federal data  center activities, and the enactment of FITARA reinforced the initiative.  However, in a series of reports that we issued from July 2011 through  August 2017, we noted that, while data center consolidation could  potentially save the federal government billions of dollars, weaknesses  existed in several areas, including agencies’ data center consolidation  plans, data center optimization, and OMB’s tracking and reporting on  related cost savings. In these reports, we made a matter for  Congressional consideration, and a total of 160 recommendations to  OMB and 24 agencies to improve the execution and oversight of the  initiative. Most agencies and OMB agreed with our recommendations or  had no comments. As of November 2017, 84 of these recommendations  remained open. For example, in May 2017, we reported that the 24 agencies  participating in FDCCI collectively had made progress on their data center  closure efforts. Specifically, as of August 2016, these agencies had  identified a total of 9,995 data centers, of which they reported having  closed 4,388, and having plans to close a total of 5,597 data centers  through fiscal year 2019. Notably, the Departments of Agriculture,  Defense, the Interior, and the Treasury accounted for 84 percent of the  completed closures. In addition, that report noted that 18 of the 24 agencies had reported  achieving about $2.3 billion collectively in cost savings and avoidances  from their data center consolidation and optimization efforts from fiscal  year 2012 through August 2016. The Departments of Commerce,  Defense, Homeland Security, and the Treasury accounted for  approximately $2.0 billion (or 87 percent) of the total. Further, 23 agencies reported about $656 million collectively in planned  savings for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. This is about $3.3 billion less  than the estimated $4.0 billion in planned savings for fiscal years 2016  through 2018 that agencies reported to us in November 2015. Figure 3  presents a comparison of the amounts of cost savings and avoidances  reported by agencies to OMB and the amounts the agencies reported to  us. As mentioned previously, FITARA required agencies to submit multi-year  strategies to achieve the consolidation and optimization of their data  centers no later than the end of fiscal year 2016. Among other things, this  strategy was to include such information as data center consolidation and  optimization metrics, and year-by-year calculations of investments and  cost savings through October 1, 2018. Further, OMB’s August 2016 guidance on data center optimization  contained additional information for how agencies are to implement the  strategic plan requirements of FITARA, and stated that agencies were  required to publicly post their strategic plans to their agency-owned digital  strategy websites by September 30, 2016. As of April 2017, only 7 of the 23 agencies that submitted their strategic  plans—the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security,  and Housing and Urban Development; the General Services  Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of  Personnel Management—had addressed all five elements required by the  OMB memorandum implementing FITARA. The remaining 16 agencies  either partially met or did not meet the requirements. For example, most  agencies partially met or did not meet the requirements to provide  information related to data center closures and cost savings metrics. The  Department of Defense did not submit a plan and was rated as not  meeting any of the requirements. To better ensure that federal data center consolidation and optimization  efforts improve governmental efficiency and achieve cost savings, in our  May 2017 report, we recommended that 11 of the 24 agencies take action  to ensure that the amounts of achieved data center cost savings and  avoidances are consistent across all reporting mechanisms. We also  recommended that 17 of the 24 agencies each take action to complete  missing elements in their strategic plans and submit their plans to OMB in  order to optimize their data centers and achieve cost savings. Twelve  agencies agreed with our recommendations, 2 did not agree, and 10  agencies and OMB did not state whether they agreed or disagreed. More recently, in August 2017, we reported that agencies needed to  address challenges in optimizing their data centers in order to achieve  cost savings. Specifically, we noted that, according to the 24 agencies’  data center consolidation initiative strategic plans as of April 2017, most  agencies were not planning to meet OMB’s optimization targets by the  end of fiscal year 2018. Further, of the 24 agencies, 5—the Department of  Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science  Foundation, Small Business Administration, and U.S. Agency for  International Development—reported plans to fully meet their applicable  targets by the end of fiscal year 2018; 13 reported plans to meet some,  but not all, of the targets; 4 reported that they did not plan to meet any  targets; and 2 did not have a basis to report planned optimization  milestones because they do not report having any agency-owned data  centers. Figure 4 summarizes agencies’ progress in meeting OMB’s  optimization targets as of February 2017, and planned progress to be  achieved by September 2017 and September 2018, as of April 2017.  Figure 4: Agency-Reported Plans to Meet or Exceed the Office of  Management and Budget’s (OMB) Data Center Optimization Targets  FITARA required OMB to establish a data center optimization metric  specific to measuring server efficiency, and required agencies to report  on progress in meeting this metric. To effectively measure progress  against this metric, OMB directed agencies to replace the manual  collection and reporting of systems, software, and hardware inventory  housed within agency-owned data centers with automated monitoring  tools and to complete this effort no later than the end of fiscal year 2018.  Agencies were required to report progress in implementing automated  monitoring tools and server utilization averages at each data center as  part of their quarterly data center inventory reporting to OMB. As of February 2017, 4 of the 22 agencies reporting agency-owned data  centers in their inventory— the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration, National Science Foundation, Social Security  Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development—reported  that they had implemented automated monitoring tools at all of their data  centers. Further, 10 reported that they had implemented automated  monitoring tools at between 1 and 57 percent of their centers, and 8 had  not yet begun to report the implementation of these tools. In total, the 22  agencies reported that automated tools were implemented at 123 (or  about 3 percent) of the 4,528 total agency-owned data centers, while the  remaining 4,405 (or about 97 percent) of these data centers were not  reported as having these tools implemented. Figure 5 summarizes the  number of agency-reported data centers with automated monitoring tools  implemented, including the number of tiered and non-tiered centers. To address challenges in optimizing federal data centers, in our August  2017 report, we made recommendations to 18 agencies and OMB. Ten  agencies agreed with our recommendations, three agencies partially  agreed, and six (including OMB) did not state whether they agreed or  disagreed. Risks Need to Be Fully  Considered When  Agencies Rate Their Major  Investments on OMB’s IT  Dashboard To facilitate transparency across the government in acquiring and  managing IT investments, OMB established a public website—the IT  Dashboard—to provide detailed information on major investments at 26  agencies, including ratings of their performance against cost and  schedule targets. Among other things, agencies are to submit ratings  from their CIOs, which, according to OMB’s instructions, should reflect the  level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment’s ability to  accomplish its goals. In this regard, FITARA includes a requirement for  CIOs to categorize their major IT investment risks in accordance with  OMB guidance. Over the past 6 years, we have issued a series of reports about the  Dashboard that noted both significant steps OMB has taken to enhance  the oversight, transparency, and accountability of federal IT investments  by creating its Dashboard, as well as concerns about the accuracy and  reliability of the data. In total, we have made 47 recommendations to  OMB and federal agencies to help improve the accuracy and reliability of  the information on the Dashboard and to increase its availability. Most  agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no comments. As of  November 2017, 25 recommendations remained open. In June 2016, we determined that 13 of the 15 agencies selected for in- depth review had not fully considered risks when rating their major  investments on the Dashboard. Specifically, our assessments of risk for  95 investments at the 15 selected agencies matched the CIO ratings  posted on the Dashboard 22 times, showed more risk 60 times, and  showed less risk 13 times. Figure 6 summarizes how our assessments  compared to the selected investments’ CIO ratings. Aside from the inherently judgmental nature of risk ratings, we identified  three factors which contributed to differences between our assessments  and the CIO ratings: Forty of the 95 CIO ratings were not updated during April 2015 (the  month we conducted our review), which led to differences between  our assessments and the CIOs’ ratings. This underscores the  importance of frequent rating updates, which help to ensure that the  information on the Dashboard is timely and accurately reflects recent  changes to investment status. Three agencies’ rating processes spanned longer than 1 month. Longer processes mean that CIO ratings are based on older data, and  may not reflect the current level of investment risk. Seven agencies’ rating processes did not focus on active risks. According to OMB’s guidance, CIO ratings should reflect the CIO’s  assessment of the risk and the investment’s ability to accomplish its  goals. CIO ratings that do no incorporate active risks increase the  chance that ratings overstate the likelihood of investment success. As a result, we concluded that the associated risk rating processes used  by the 15 agencies were generally understating the level of an  investment’s risk, raising the likelihood that critical federal investments in  IT are not receiving the appropriate levels of oversight. To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk,  we made 25 recommendations to 15 agencies to improve the quality and  frequency of their CIO ratings. Twelve agencies generally agreed with or  did not comment on the recommendations and three agencies disagreed,  stating that their CIO ratings were adequate. However, we noted that  weaknesses in these three agencies’ processes still existed and that we  continued to believe our recommendations were appropriate. Agencies Need to  Increase Their Use of  Incremental Development  Practices OMB has emphasized the need to deliver investments in smaller parts, or  increments, in order to reduce risk, deliver capabilities more quickly, and  facilitate the adoption of emerging technologies. In 2010, it called for  agencies’ major investments to deliver functionality every 12 months and,  since 2012, every 6 months. Subsequently, FITARA codified a  requirement that agency CIOs certify that IT investments are adequately  implementing incremental development, as defined in the capital planning  guidance issued by OMB. Further, subsequent OMB guidance on the  law’s implementation, issued in June 2015, directed agency CIOs to  define processes and policies for their agencies which ensure that they  certify that IT resources are adequately implementing incremental  development. However, in May 2014, we reported that 66 of 89 selected investments  at five major agencies did not plan to deliver capabilities in 6-month  cycles, and less than half of these investments planned to deliver  functionality in 12-month cycles. We also reported that only one of the five  agencies had complete incremental development policies. Accordingly,  we recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on incremental  development and that the selected agencies update their associated  policies to comply with OMB’s revised guidance (once made available),  and consider the factors identified in our report when doing so. Four of the six agencies agreed with our recommendations or had no  comments, one agency partially agreed, and the remaining agency  disagreed with the recommendations. The agency that disagreed did not  believe that its recommendations should be dependent upon OMB taking  action to update guidance. In response, we noted that only one of the  recommendations to that agency depended upon OMB action, and we  maintained that the action was warranted and could be implemented. Subsequently, in August 2016, we reported that agencies had not fully  implemented incremental development practices for their software  development projects. Specifically, we noted that, as of August 31, 2015,  22 federal agencies had reported on the Dashboard that 300 of 469  active software development projects (approximately 64 percent) were  planning to deliver usable functionality every 6 months for fiscal year  2016, as required by OMB guidance. The remaining 169 projects (or 36  percent) that were reported as not planning to deliver functionality every 6  months, agencies provided a variety of explanations for not achieving that  goal. These included project complexity, the lack of an established project  release schedule, or that the project was not a software development  project. Further, in conducting an in-depth review of seven selected agencies’  software development projects, we determined that 45 percent of the  projects delivered functionality every 6 months for fiscal year 2015 and 55  percent planned to do so in fiscal year 2016. However, significant  differences existed between the delivery rates that the agencies reported  to us and what they reported on the Dashboard. For example, for four  agencies (the Departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human  Services, and Treasury), the percentage of delivery reported to us was at  least 10 percentage points lower than what was reported on the  Dashboard. These differences were due to (1) our identification of fewer  software development projects than agencies reported on the Dashboard  and (2) the fact that information reported to us was generally more current  than the information reported on the Dashboard. We concluded that, by not having up-to-date information on the  Dashboard about whether the project is a software development project  and about the extent to which projects are delivering functionality, these  seven agencies were at risk that OMB and key stakeholders may make  decisions regarding the agencies’ investments without the most current  and accurate information. As such, we recommended that the seven  selected agencies review major IT investment project data reported on  the Dashboard and update the information as appropriate, ensuring that  these data are consistent across all reporting channels. Finally, while OMB has issued guidance requiring agency CIOs to certify  that each major IT investment’s plan for the current year adequately  implements incremental development, only three agencies (the  Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation) had  defined processes and policies intended to ensure that the CIOs certify  that major IT investments are adequately implementing incremental  development. Accordingly, we recommended that the remaining four  agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human  Services, and the Treasury—establish policies and processes for  certifying that major IT investments adequately use incremental  development. The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services agreed  with our recommendation, while the Department of Defense disagreed  and stated that its existing policies address the use of incremental  development. However, we noted that the department’s policies did not  comply with OMB’s guidance and that we continued to believe our  recommendation was appropriate. The Department of the Treasury did  not comment on its recommendation. More recently, in November 2017, we reported that agencies needed to  improve their certification of incremental development. Specifically,  agencies reported that 62 percent of major IT software development  investments were certified by the agency CIO for implementing adequate  incremental development in fiscal year 2017, as required by FITARA as of  August 2016. Table 1 identifies the number of federal agency major IT  software development investments certified for adequate incremental  development, as reported on the IT Dashboard for fiscal year 2017. Officials from 21 of the 24 agencies in our review reported that challenges  hindered their ability to implement incremental development, which  included: (1) inefficient governance processes; (2) procurement delays;  and (3) organizational changes associated with transitioning from a  traditional software methodology that takes years to deliver a product, to  incremental development, which delivers products in shorter time frames.  Nevertheless, 21 agencies reported that the certification process was  beneficial because they used the information from the process to assist  with identifying investments that could more effectively use an  incremental approach, and used lessons learned to improve the agencies’  incremental processes. In addition, as of August 2017, only 4 of the 24 agencies had clearly  defined CIO incremental development certification policies and processes  that contained descriptions of the role of the CIO in the process and how  the CIO’s certification will be documented; and included definitions of  incremental development and time frames for delivering functionality  consistent with OMB guidance. Figure 7 summarizes our analysis of  agencies’ policies for CIO certification of the adequate use of incremental  development in IT investments. Lastly, we reported that OMB’s capital planning guidance for fiscal year  2018 (issued in June 2016) lacked clarity regarding how agencies were  to address the requirement for certifying adequate incremental  development. While the 2018 guidance stated that agency CIOs are to  provide the certifications needed to demonstrate compliance with  FITARA, the guidance did not include a specific reference to the provision  requiring CIO certification of adequate incremental development. We  noted that, as a result of this change, OMB placed the burden on  agencies to know and understand how to demonstrate compliance with  FITARA’s incremental development provision. Further, because of the  lack of clarity in the guidance as to what agencies were to provide, OMB  could not demonstrate how the fiscal year 2018 guidance ensured that  agencies provided the certifications specifically called for in the law. Accordingly, in August 2017, OMB issued its fiscal year 2019 guidance,  which addressed the weaknesses we identified in the previous fiscal  year’s guidance. Specifically, the revised guidance requires agency CIOs  to make an explicit statement regarding the extent to which the CIO is  able to certify the use of incremental development, and to include a copy  of that statement in the agency’s public congressional budget justification  materials. As part of the statement, an agency CIO must also identify  which specific bureaus or offices are using incremental development on  all of their investments. In our November 2017 report, we made 19 recommendations to 17  agencies to improve reporting and certification of incremental  development. Eleven agencies agreed with our recommendations, 1  partially agreed, and 5 did not state whether they agreed or disagreed.  OMB disagreed with several of our conclusions, which we continued to  believe were valid. In total, from May 2014 through November 2017, we have made 42  recommendations to OMB and agencies to improve their implementation  of incremental development. As of November 2017, 34 of our  recommendations remained open. Agencies Need to Better  Manage Software  Licenses to Achieve  Savings Federal agencies engage in thousands of software licensing agreements  annually. The objective of software license management is to manage,  control, and protect an organization’s software assets. Effective  management of these licenses can help avoid purchasing too many  licenses, which can result in unused software, as well as too few licenses,  which can result in noncompliance with license terms and cause the  imposition of additional fees. As part of its PortfolioStat initiative, OMB has developed policy that  addresses software licenses. This policy requires agencies to conduct an  annual, agency-wide IT portfolio review to, among other things, reduce  commodity IT spending. Such areas of spending could include software  licenses. In May 2014, we reported on federal agencies’ management of software  licenses and determined that better management was needed to achieve  significant savings government-wide. In particular, 22 of the 24 major  agencies did not have comprehensive license policies and only 2 had  comprehensive license inventories. In addition, we identified five leading  software license management practices, and the agencies’  implementation of these practices varied. As a result of agencies’ mixed management of software licensing,  agencies’ oversight of software license spending was limited or lacking,  thus potentially leading to missed savings. However, the potential savings  could be significant considering that, in fiscal year 2012, 1 major federal  agency reported saving approximately $181 million by consolidating its  enterprise license agreements, even when its oversight process was ad  hoc. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB issue needed guidance to  agencies; we also made 135 recommendations to the 24 agencies to  improve their policies and practices for managing licenses. Among other  things, we recommended that the agencies regularly track and maintain a  comprehensive inventory of software licenses and analyze the inventory  to identify opportunities to reduce costs and better inform investment  decision making. Most agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no  comments. As of November 2017, 112 of the recommendations had not  been implemented. Table 2 reflects the extent to which agencies  implemented recommendations in these areas. In conclusion, with the enactment of FITARA, the federal government has  an opportunity to save billions of dollars; improve the transparency and  management of IT acquisitions and operations; and to strengthen the  authority of CIOs to provide needed direction and oversight. The forum  we held also recommended that CIOs be given more authority, and noted  the important role played by the Federal CIO. Most agencies have taken steps to improve the management of IT  acquisitions and operations by implementing key FITARA initiatives,  including data center consolidation, efforts to increase transparency via  OMB’s IT Dashboard, incremental development, and management of  software licenses; and they have continued to address recommendations  we have made over the past several years. However, additional  improvements are needed, and further efforts by OMB and federal  agencies to implement our previous recommendations would better  position them to fully implement FITARA. To help ensure that these efforts succeed, OMB’s and agencies’  continued implementation of FITARA is essential. In addition, we will  continue to monitor agencies’ implementation of our previous  recommendations. Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly,  and Members of the Subcommittees, this completes my prepared  statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may  have at this time. GAO Contacts and  Staff  Acknowledgments If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Dave Powner, Director, Information Technology at (202) 512- 9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony  are Kevin Walsh (Assistant Director), Chris Businsky, Rebecca Eyler,  Meredith Raymond, and Bradley Roach (Analyst in Charge). This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The federal government plans to invest almost $96 billion on IT in fiscal year 2018. Historically, these investments have too often failed, incurred cost overruns and schedule slippages, or contributed little to mission-related outcomes. Accordingly, in December 2014, Congress enacted FITARA, aimed at improving agencies' acquisitions of IT. Further, in February 2015, GAO added improving the management of IT acquisitions and operations to its high-risk list. This statement summarizes agencies' progress in improving the management of IT acquisitions and operations. It is based on GAO's prior and recently published reports on (1) data center consolidation, (2) risk levels of major investments as reported on OMB's IT Dashboard, (3) implementation of incremental development practices, and (4) management of software licenses. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies have taken steps to improve the management of information technology (IT) acquisitions and operations through a series of initiatives, and as of November 2017, had fully implemented about 56 percent of the approximately 800 related GAO recommendations made between fiscal years 2010 through 2015. However, important additional actions are needed. Consolidating data centers . OMB launched an initiative in 2010 to reduce data centers, which was reinforced by the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) in 2014. However, in a series of reports that GAO issued over the past 6 years, it noted that, while data center consolidation could potentially save the federal government billions of dollars, weaknesses existed in several areas, including agencies' data center consolidation plans, data center optimization, and OMB's tracking and reporting on related cost savings. These reports contained a matter for Congressional consideration, and a total of 160 recommendations to OMB and 24 agencies, to improve the execution and oversight of the initiative. Most agencies and OMB agreed with the recommendations or had no comments. As of November 2017, 84 of the recommendations remained open. Enhancing transparency . OMB's IT Dashboard provides information on major investments at federal agencies, including ratings from Chief Information Officers that should reflect the level of risk facing an investment. Over the past 6 years, GAO has issued a series of reports about the Dashboard that noted both significant steps OMB has taken to enhance the oversight, transparency, and accountability of federal IT investments by creating its Dashboard, as well as concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the data. In total, GAO has made 47 recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to help improve the accuracy and reliability of the information on the Dashboard and to increase its availability. Most agencies agreed with the recommendations or had no comments. As of November 2017, 25 of these recommendations remained open. Implementing incremental development . OMB has emphasized the need for agencies to deliver investments in smaller parts, or increments, in order to reduce risk and deliver capabilities more quickly. Since 2012, OMB has required investments to deliver functionality every 6 months. Further, GAO has issued reports highlighting additional actions needed by OMB and agencies to improve their implementation of incremental development. In these reports, GAO made 42 recommendations. Most agencies agreed or did not comment on the recommendations. As of November 2017, 34 of the recommendations remained open. Managing software licenses . Effective management of software licenses can help avoid purchasing too many licenses that result in unused software. In May 2014, GAO reported that better management of licenses was needed to achieve savings, and made 136 recommendations to improve such management. Most agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no comments. As of November 2017, 112 of the recommendations remained open.