GSA’s Plan Does Not Provide a Clear Picture of Intended Performance Across the Agency

We found that overall, GSA’s performance plan does not provide a clear picture of expected performance across the agency. First, most of the performance goals and related measures are not quantifiable or results oriented. Connecting Mission, Goals, and Activities

Contrary to the Results Act and OMB guidance, GSA’s performance plan does not always show clear connections between the performance goals and the specific program activities and funding in its budget. The plan includes GSA’s mission statement and gives abbreviated versions of its strategic goals presented in its strategic plan, but they are not identified as such. For example, according to the plan, three of the performance goals under the goal to “promote responsible asset management” involve “collaboration among many federal agencies brought together by GSA” and “measurement of the results of policy initiatives will require collection of other agencies’ costs.” However, although the discussion of some of the efforts contain references to coordination with other federal agencies, the plan does not discuss how GSA will coordinate these efforts. Target percentages for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 are listed. GSA’s Plan Provides Partial Confidence That Performance Information Will Be Credible

We found that GSA’s performance plan partially meets the Results Act criteria related to including information on verifying and validating performance data. Also, we found that the plan does not contain a discussion of actions GSA will take or has taken to address known data limitations. Conclusions

GSA’s performance plan falls short of meeting the criteria set forth in the Results Act and related OMB guidance. Specifically, in developing the next plan, we recommend that the Administrator take steps to refine GSA’s performance goals to make them more quantifiable and results clarify how GSA’s performance goals link to specific program activities in GSA’s budget; explain how GSA has coordinated its crosscutting functions with the discuss GSA strategies to be used and resources needed to achieve its performance goals and their intended results, as well as external factors that could affect its overall performance; and discuss specific controls for verifying and validating data used to measure performance, recognize existing data limitations, and explain GSA efforts to overcome those limitations. 1115(a)(3). Additional copies are $2 each.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the General Services Administration's (GSA) fiscal year (FY) 1999 annual performance plan, which was submitted to Congress as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) GSA's performance plan has several performance goals for each of its strategic goals; (2) some of its performance goals and measures are objective and quantified and provide a way to compare actual to planned performance; (3) in addition, the plan contains some goals and measures that involve comparisons of GSA and the private sector; (4) however, for the most part, the plan falls short of meeting the criteria set forth in the Results Act and related guidance; (5) it does not adequately provide a clear picture of expected performance across the agency because: (a) like the goals in its strategic plan, many performance goals, and related measures, are not quantifiable or results oriented; (b) performance plan goals are not always linked to the specific program activities and funding in its budget; and (c) also like the strategic plan, the performance plan does not discuss GSA's coordination efforts for many crosscutting activities; (6) GAO also found that the performance plan generally does not have an explicit discussion of the strategies and resources that will be needed to achieve goals or the external factors that will affect accomplishment of the goals; and (7) although the plan includes a discussion of how GSA plans to verify performance data that provides partial confidence that performance information will be credible, it does not discuss the actions GSA has taken or will take to address known data limitations.