Supply equipment management officers are responsible for managing each  centers’ equipment program, including implementing the necessary  equipment control procedures to ensure proper accountability for center  equipment; establishing a process to ensure that all personnel associated  with the utilization of government equipment receive documented, up-to- date property end user training; ensuring that end users are aware of the  requirement to identify inactive equipment and ensure its reuse or  disposal; and designating property disposal officers and center equipment  managers to perform screenings for equipment estimated to cost $25,000  or more. Figure 2 illustrates NASA’s  equipment screening process. Unclear Guidance on Equipment Descriptions and Usability Prevent Matches That Could Identify Equipment for Reuse

Inconsistent descriptions, inaccurate information on physical condition,  and limited information about the equipment’s availability hamper the  PP&E Module’s ability to produce equipment matches. The descriptions of  equipment items, therefore, are crucial to the success of the new module  in identifying equipment for reutilization. NASA has not provided adequate oversight and detailed guidance on what  type of information should be included in the description field. For example, items that should have been listed as  video frequency equipment racks were described as “disciplined frequency  standard” and a camera lens cover as a “rear cover multicontrol.” In  addition, the same type of computer server equipment was described as a  “disk array,” “disk drive unit,” and “storage array unit.” Similarly, a  generator was variously described as a “signal plug in generator,”  “modulator,” “plug in unit,” and “tuning unit.” These differences in  descriptions may lead to reutilization opportunities being overlooked. At two centers, our physical inspection of  84 equipment items that were transferred to disposal determined that 83 of  the items were incorrectly coded as new and unused in the PP&E Module. Limited Information on Equipment Availability Impedes Reutilization

Another potential barrier to equipment reutilization is the limited amount  of information in the PP&E Module on the availability of equipment. An end user  searching for an oscilloscope, for example, would currently have to  choose which of 1,700 other end users to contact to determine the  availability status of their “active” oscilloscopes. The majority of end users we interviewed—98 of 121—stated that they had  never used N-PROP (or the prior systems) to screen equipment for  reutilization. NASA Has Not Implemented Effective Policies and Detailed Procedures to Enhance Equipment Reutilization

NASA’s existing policies and procedures related to equipment reutilization  were either not being carried out or were being carried out inconsistently  at the five centers we visited. NASA-Wide Implementing Procedures for Walk- Through Inspections Are Not Sufficient to Ensure Consistent Performance

At the time of our visits the five NASA centers were not conducting  required annual walk-through inspections consistently, and sometimes not  at all. Our  testing of equipment in NASA’s legacy NEMS (as of September 30, 2007)  estimated that about 16 percent of NASA’s controlled equipment (with a  value of at least $230 million) was improperly listed as being actively in  use in an ongoing program, and had been overlooked during annual walk- through inspections. These shortcomings may prevent the PP&E Module from  providing NASA employees and contractors with the tools needed to make  informed decisions regarding the disposal or reutilization of equipment,  including over 1.2 million types of equipment if the space shuttle is retired  in 2010 and NASA transitions to its new space exploration policy as  planned. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To address whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA) has effectively (1) designed controls over steps NASA identified as  key to its controlled equipment reutilization process, including equipment  sent to disposal, and (2) implemented policies, controls, and processes to  enhance equipment reutilization, we reviewed prior NASA’s Office of  Inspector General reports and independent public accountants’ reports as  well as our own prior reports and related recommendations. To determine the extent to which NASA’s planning and initial  implementation of the new PP&E Module addressed problems and control  weaknesses we identified in NASA’s reutilization of equipment, we  reviewed and analyzed NASA equipment management policy and  procedural guidance for the PP&E Module and module implementation  and planning documents, including briefings and overviews of PP&E  Module requirements.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2010, the planned retirement of the space shuttle will require the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to make disposal and reutilization decisions regarding over 1.2 million types of equipment. To facilitate these and other equipment management decisions, NASA recently invested $29 million in a new program: the Plant, Property, and Equipment (PP&E) Module--a component of NASA's Integrated Enterprise Management Program. GAO was asked to assess the effectiveness of NASA's processes, systems, and controls for managing its PP&E. This report addresses whether NASA (1) effectively designed controls over steps NASA identified as key to its controlled equipment reutilization process, including sending equipment to disposal, and (2) implemented policies, controls, and processes to enhance equipment reutilization. To answer these questions, GAO reviewed NASA equipment reutilization policy and conducted on-site visits at five NASA centers.

What GAO Found

Inconsistent descriptions and inaccurate information on the condition of equipment hamper the PP&E Module's ability to produce equipment matches and enhance reutilization. Although descriptions of equipment items are crucial for the new module to succeed in identifying equipment for reutilization, NASA has not provided detailed guidance on what should be included in the description field, leading to widely varying descriptions. For example, the same type of computer server equipment was described as a "disk array," "disk drive unit," and "storage array unit." GAO's physical inspections at two centers found that 83 of the 84 equipment items inspected were incorrectly coded as new and unused in the PP&E Module. These problems may lead to reutilization opportunities being overlooked. Further hampering equipment reutilization is the PP&E Module's lack of detailed equipment availability information. The module does not identify the extent to which each piece of equipment is in use, necessitating a potentially lengthy search process. For example, an end user searching for an oscilloscope could currently have to contact up to 1,700 other end users to determine the availability status of these equipment items. These conditions contribute to inadequate end user utilization of the NASA Property Web interface (N-PROP), the PP&E Module's automated component. N-PROP allows end users to perform online equipment management functions, which NASA anticipated would generate cost savings by facilitating equipment reutilization and eliminating manual processes. However, 98 of the 121 end users who were responsible for equipment selected from a NASA-wide statistical sample stated that they had never used either N-PROP or the prior systems, limiting the potential savings from implementing the new PP&E Module. NASA's existing policies and procedures regarding equipment screenings and annual walk-through inspections--both key controls in the equipment reutilization process--were carried out inconsistently, if at all, at the five centers GAO visited. Without specific guidance on how to implement NASA's equipment screening policy, centers failed to ensure that screenings occurred prior to purchasing new equipment, undermining the purpose of the screenings. Further, NASA does not require users to justify the need to purchase new equipment when a screening has identified equipment available for reutilization. In addition, required walk-through inspections intended to identify idle equipment were not conducted at one center and were ineffective at the other four. Equipment managers did not always follow up to ensure that the PP&E Module was updated and GAO's testing estimated that about 16 percent of NASA's controlled equipment (with a value of at least $230 million) was improperly listed as being actively in use and had been overlooked during annual walk-through inspections.