Goals and History of MIDAS

In early 2004, FSA began planning the MIDAS program to streamline and  automate farm program processes and to replace obsolete hardware and  software. Poor Program Performance and Uncertainty Regarding Future Plans Led to the Decision to Halt Further MIDAS Development

In a July 2014 memo, the Secretary of Agriculture decided to halt the  MIDAS program after deploying minimal functionality due to performance  challenges in the early months after the system became operational, and  delays in determining the remaining scope, schedule, and cost for the  program. For example, by August 2012, FSA had  overrun its cost estimates by 11 percent and schedule estimates by  10 percent. When FSA implemented its first software release in April 2013,  MIDAS experienced significant technical problems, which is not  surprising given its lack of testing. However, FSA did not deliver a  new baseline by the deadline. As of  March 2015, FSA had spent about $423 million on MIDAS, which was  $93 million higher than the 2012 baseline estimate of $330 million. FSA Delivered a Fraction of the Functionality Envisioned for MIDAS

FSA has delivered a fraction of what was originally planned for MIDAS. At that time, MIDAS was envisioned to provide a single  SAP platform to host data, applications, and business processes for  administering farm program benefits, and advanced tools for customers  and FSA employees.seamlessly with other USDA systems, including USDA’s financial system,   In addition, it was expected to integrate  geospatial information system, and enterprise data warehouse. MIDAS currently  provides farm and customer record data on a SAP platform that is  integrated with USDA’s geospatial information system. FSA Did Not Adequately Implement Key Program Management Disciplines on MIDAS and Lacks the Capacity to Effectively Manage Successor Programs

FSA did not adequately implement program management disciplines on  MIDAS in four key areas—requirements development and management,  project planning and monitoring, system testing, and executive-level  governance—and lacks the demonstrated capacity to manage successor  programs. Until FSA addresses shortfalls in key program management disciplines on  successor programs to MIDAS, the agency will be at an increased risk of  producing additional projects with cost overruns and schedule slippages  while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. The agency tasked a contractor  with assessing the results and lessons learned from portions of MIDAS  that were implemented; however, it did not conduct a comprehensive  review of the lessons learned on the program as a whole. FSA Is Planning Next Steps after MIDAS as Required, but Has Not Demonstrated the Capacity to Manage Future IT Initiatives

Required by law to automate, integrate, and modernize its farm program  services, FSA has begun planning how it will do so. Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to institutionalize sound IT management practices and build  FSA’s IT management capacity while improving service to the Nation’s  farmers and ranchers, we are making five recommendations to the  Secretary of Agriculture to:
Direct the FSA Administrator to establish and implement an  improvement plan to guide the agency in adopting recognized best  practices and following agency policy. We  subsequently received written comments from the FSA Administrator. While the agency did not explicitly agree or disagree with the  recommendations, it cited steps it had taken and plans to take to  implement best practices in the areas of requirements management,  project planning and monitoring, system testing, and executive IT  governance. However, until FSA  establishes and implements a plan to adhere to agency policies and  best practices, we believe the agency has not yet demonstrated that it  has the capacity to effectively manage IT acquisitions. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) describe what led to the recent decision to halt  further development on MIDAS, (2) compare the functionality that MIDAS  has implemented to its original plans, and (3) evaluate the adequacy of  key program management disciplines in place for MIDAS and successor  programs.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2004, FSA has spent about $423 million to modernize IT systems through a program known as MIDAS. FSA planned for this program to replace aging hardware and software applications and to provide a single platform to manage all of the agency's farm programs. However, the agency experienced significant challenges in managing this program. In July 2014, the Secretary of Agriculture decided to halt MIDAS after the completion of a second software release.
GAO was asked to review the MIDAS program. This report (1) describes what led to the decision to halt further MIDAS development, (2) compares the functionality that MIDAS has implemented to its original plans, and (3) evaluates the adequacy of key program management disciplines in place for MIDAS and successor programs.
To do so, GAO analyzed agency policies and guidance; evaluated program management plans and related artifacts, program and contractor status reports, program milestone artifacts, and lessons learned; obtained a live demonstration of MIDAS; and interviewed agency and contractor officials.

What GAO Found

The key factors that led to the decision to halt the Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program were poor program performance and uncertainty regarding future plans. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) experienced significant cost overruns and schedule delays, deferred the majority of the envisioned features, skipped key tests, and deployed software in April 2013 that was slow and inaccurate. In addition, FSA struggled to establish a new program baseline as estimates grew from $330 million to $659 million and time frames were delayed from early 2014 to late 2016. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and FSA did not approve three different baseline proposals by the time the program was halted. By March 2015, MIDAS had overrun its baseline cost estimate by $93 million.
FSA has delivered about 20 percent of the functionality that was originally planned for MIDAS. FSA envisioned MIDAS as a single platform to host data, tools, and applications for administering farm program benefits that would be integrated with USDA financial, geospatial, and data warehouse systems. However, FSA delivered a platform that hosts data for administering farm program benefits and is integrated with USDA's geospatial system; it does not host tools and applications for administering benefits, and is not integrated with USDA's financial system or data warehouse.
FSA did not have key program management disciplines in place for MIDAS, and lacks the capacity to effectively manage successor programs. Of 18 key practices associated with sound IT acquisition and investment management and required by USDA or FSA policy, FSA implemented 2, partially implemented 7 practices, and did not implement 9 others. For example, USDA and FSA did not establish a complete set of requirements, perform key tests before deploying the system, or provide effective oversight as the program floundered for 2 years. Moving forward, FSA has begun planning how it will continue to automate, integrate, and modernize its farm program services through additional system development initiatives. However, the agency has not yet established plans to improve its management capabilities. Until FSA establishes and implements such a plan, the agency will continue to lack the fundamental capacity to manage IT acquisitions. Further, until FSA addresses shortfalls in key program management disciplines on successor programs to MIDAS, the agency will be at an increased risk of having additional projects that overrun cost and schedule estimates and contribute little to mission-related outcomes.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making five recommendations to FSA, including establishing and implementing a plan for adopting recognized best practices. GAO received written comments from the FSA administrator. While the agency did not explicitly agree or disagree with the recommendations, it cited steps it has taken or plans to take to implement best practices.