The U.S. Additionally,  in December 2015, in the explanatory statement for the Consolidated  Appropriations Act, 2016, Congress stated that USDS, an OMB  component, was to provide a quarterly status report on its current  projects, including the top 10 high priority programs. In doing  so, the office is to consult with both OMB and the Office of Science and  Technology Policy. OMB Identified High Priority IT Programs, but Did Not Ensure Federal CIO Oversight or Continued and Timely Reporting

OMB reported that it undertook a structured approach to identifying the  top 10 high priority IT programs it reported to Congress in June 2015 and  June 2016. OMB Oversight Efforts Did Not Ensure Federal CIO Involvement

E-Gov staff reported that the high priority programs were already  receiving greater oversight than what was provided to the other major  programs due to their high impact designation. According to the E-Gov staff, the Federal CIO does not typically get  involved with overseeing individual IT programs due to the large number  of programs. Specifically, as previously  mentioned, CIO-led TechStat reviews of IT investments performed in  2010 resulted in $3 billion in savings and cost avoidance. Thus, without the involvement of the Federal CIO  more directly and regularly in the oversight of high impact and high  priority programs, including leading TechStat reviews for the programs,  OMB is likely to miss significant opportunities to improve accountability for  and achieve positive results from the federal government’s IT  investments. According to the E-Gov staff, OMB was  not able to report quarterly on the programs because of other competing  reporting requirements, limited resources available to draft the report, and  the amount of time it takes to get its reports fully reviewed. Specifically, the explanatory  statement directed USDS to provide a quarterly report to the Committees  on Appropriations of the House and Senate describing the status of  current USDS teams and projects, including the top 10 high priority  programs, a list of USDS accomplishments, and agency project  proposals. Both E-Gov staff and USDS staff said they determined this to  mean that OMB should report on the USDS projects considered to be  high priority given USDS’s responsibilities. However, continued identification and reporting on the top ten high priority  programs, and not just USDS projects, would further enhance  congressional oversight by providing congressional stakeholders with  information on high priority programs that is not readily available. In addition, 6 projects that were discussed in the  December 2016 report were not included in the July 2017 report. USDS staff stated that they did not  address all of the top 10 high priority programs because, as stated earlier  in this report, they interpreted Congress’s 2016 request as being focused  on USDS’s priority projects and not on the programs previously identified  by E-Gov. As mentioned earlier, however, continuing to identify and  report on the top 10 high priority IT programs while also reporting on  USDS’s projects would further enhance congressional oversight and  current administration IT governance entities’ efforts by providing  stakeholders with information on high priority programs and USDS  projects that is not readily available. Conclusions

While OMB’s 2015 and 2016 reports to Congress on the top 10 high  priority programs included the status of the programs, their total IT  spending, and other information to assist Congress in monitoring the  progress of critical programs, OMB did not issue the reports quarterly as  directed in the explanatory statement. Moreover, OMB did not issue the high priority programs and USDS  reports on a quarterly basis as requested. Finally, while additional OMB oversight of the high impact programs (and,  accordingly, the identified high priority programs) is a positive step, the  Federal CIO was not directly involved in the oversight of these programs. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following three recommendations to OMB:
The Director of OMB should continue to identify and report to  Congress on the status of the top 10 high priority IT programs and the  extent to which USDS is involved in the programs, as was done in  June 2015 and June 2016. As stated in our report, in the explanatory statement  accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations  Act, 2015, Congress directed OMB to identify the 10 highest priority IT  investment programs (referred to in our report as the top 10 high priority  programs) that are under development across federal agencies and  report on their status each quarter. In addition, OMB stated that, while it agreed that the reports have not  been submitted on a quarterly basis, it provided Congress with the  requested information for the four quarters of the relevant fiscal years.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government plans to spend almost $96 billion on IT investments in fiscal year 2018; however, as GAO has previously found, too often these investments have cost overruns and schedule delays. To enhance oversight of IT programs, for 2015, Congress directed OMB to identify the 10 highest priority IT programs that are under development across federal agencies and report on their status each quarter. Further, for 2016, Congress directed USDS to provide a quarterly report of current USDS projects, including the top 10 high priority programs.
GAO was asked to review OMB's oversight of high priority programs. This review evaluated (1) OMB's process for identifying, overseeing, and reporting on the high priority IT investment programs and (2) USDS's process for identifying and prioritizing its projects, including its consideration of the high priority programs, and its reporting on the projects. GAO analyzed OMB memorandums and reports to Congress and interviewed OMB staff, including from USDS. In addition, GAO compared USDS's processes with IT management best practices.

What GAO Found

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of E-Government and Information Technology (E-Gov) reported that it undertook a structured approach to identify the top 10 high priority IT programs in reports to Congress in June 2015 and June 2016. Specifically, OMB staff stated that they chose the top 10 programs from a longer list of agency programs requiring additional oversight (referred to as high impact programs). E-Gov staff reported that the high priority programs were already receiving greater oversight than what was provided to the other major programs due to their high impact designation. This additional oversight included frequent meetings with agency Chief Information Officer (CIO) leadership and quarterly meetings with OMB staff. However, the Federal CIO was not directly involved in this oversight. According to E-Gov staff, the Federal CIO does not typically get involved in individual programs due to the large number of programs. However, past experience has shown that Federal CIO involvement has had a significant impact. For example, Federal CIO-led reviews of troubled projects, known as TechStat reviews, resulted in $3 billion in savings in 2010. Until OMB ensures that the Federal CIO is more directly involved in the oversight of these high priority programs, it may be missing a key opportunity to improve accountability and achieve positive results.
OMB's 2015 and 2016 reports to Congress on the top 10 high priority programs identified the status of the programs and major milestones. However, the reports were not issued on a quarterly basis, as directed. E-Gov staff stated that they were unable to do so because of other competing reporting requirements and the limited resources available to draft and fully review the report on a quarterly basis. In addition, OMB stopped issuing the reports on the top 10 high priority IT programs after June 2016. OMB stated that Congress' 2016 direction to the U.S. Digital Service (USDS)—an OMB component—to provide a quarterly report that described the status of USDS teams and projects, including the top 10 high priority programs, meant that OMB should only report on USDS projects considered to be high priority. However, continued identification and reporting on the top 10 high priority programs, and not just USDS projects, would further enhance congressional oversight by providing congressional stakeholders information that is not readily available on those programs in the greatest need of attention.
USDS issued reports to Congress on the status of its key projects in December 2016 and July 2017; however, the reports did not address the top 10 high priority programs as directed by Congress, according to OMB staff, because of OMB's interpretation of Congress's direction. In addition, the reports were not issued quarterly, as directed. USDS staff attributed this to the time and effort needed to review and prepare the report. However, continuing to identify and report on the top 10 high priority programs while also reporting on USDS's projects would help to enhance congressional oversight and current administration IT governance entities' efforts by providing stakeholders with information that is not readily available.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three recommendations to OMB for enhancing the oversight of high priority programs and continuing to report on both these programs and USDS projects. OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations but disagreed with several of GAO's conclusions, which GAO continues to believe are valid as discussed in the report.