Although the information needed to measure progress toward FASA’s criteria is not available, federal agencies have reported executing relatively few procurement actions through FACNET. Agencies and vendors reported that FACNET has resulted in lower prices and expanded markets in some cases but, more generally stated that FACNET was not providing the benefits expected. Similarly, at least 14 of the 18 agencies we contacted cited the lack of a sound FACNET infrastructure and the lack of effective engineering and operational management as great or very great obstacles to efficient and effective implementation of FACNET. Buyers and vendors have been reluctant to do business through FACNET, in part, because of operational problems. Vendor registration in, and agency use of, the CCR database is mandated in the governmentwide Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) implementing FASA’s requirements for FACNET. More generally, however, government buyers have found that using FACNET to award contracts of $25,000 or less takes longer and requires more resources than traditional methods. As mandated by FASA, FACNET focuses primarily on competitive solicitations and new contract awards,requiring a federal agency to provide widespread public notice and exchange information with multiple vendors—not just one. Several OFPP, ECA-PMO, GSA, and other agency officials said that focusing FACNET’s implementation on competitive procurements has contributed significantly to FACNET’s problems and the skepticism that surrounds the existing infrastructure. The Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and other agency officials also told us that FASA’s requirement to focus FACNET principally on awarding relatively low dollar value contracts competitively may not have been a good idea. Agencies and vendors have consistently cited the lack of clear leadership, direction, and adequate program management governmentwide as major reasons for delays in problem resolution and implementation of FACNET. A governmentwide strategy for FACNET implementation has not been clearly and convincingly communicated. The DCI specifically asked for agency data and information related to (1) current FACNET operations, (2) current and potential FACNET procurement transactions, (3) benefits from using FACNET, (4) obstacles to governmentwide implementation of FACNET, (5) potential use of FACNET for simplified acquisitions, and (6) changes needed in the FACNET development and implementation strategies. We asked electronic commerce program managers and comparable agency officials at Department of Defense, its 4 major buying components, and 18 federal civilian agencies to give us information and observations on their agencies’ efforts to implement the Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET). GAO Comments

1. 2. 3.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the federal government's progress in developing and implementing the Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET), focusing on: (1) federal agencies' use of FACNET; (2) problems and benefits of using FACNET; (3) concerns relating to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act's (FASA) requirements for FACNET; and (4) management obstacles to effective governmentwide implementation of FACNET.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) overall, the federal government has executed relatively few procurement actions through FACNET; (2) the Department of Defense executed the vast majority of all FACNET procurement actions that federal agencies have reported; (3) difficulties doing business through FACNET have overshadowed the benefits of using it; (4) officials from at least 14 of the 18 agencies GAO contacted rated the lack of a sound FACNET infrastructure, effective engineering and operational management, and a well-populated and fully functional centralized contractor registration database as great or very great obstacles to effective FACNET implementation; (5) officials of many federal agencies said the current FACNET approach is out of step with new, cost-effective technologies and buying practices; (6) although FACNET has, in some instances, resulted in lower prices and expanded access to vendors, agency officials and vendors often said that FACNET is not producing the benefits expected; (7) agencies' analyses have concluded that using FACNET to award contracts of $25,000 or less often takes longer and requires more resources than traditional simplified purchasing methods for such awards; (8) as mandated by FASA, FACNET implementation has focused primarily on competitive contract awards, requiring agencies to exchange information with multiple, often unknown vendors; (9) organizations with the most success in using electronic data interchange technology for purchasing, however, typically use it to transmit high-volume, routine, and repetitive transactions with a small group of known suppliers; (10) federal officials have stated that FASA's requirement to focus FACNET's implementation principally on competitive contract awards may not have been a good approach and has contributed significantly to FACNET's problems; (11) agencies and vendors have consistently cited leadership and management shortcomings as major reasons for delays and unresolved problems in FACNET implementation; and (12) agency officials also expressed considerable uncertainty about what the governmentwide strategy for FACNET implementation is.