Telecommunications: Agencies Should Fully Implement Established Transition Planning Practices to Help Reduce Risk of Costly Delays

GSA is responsible for contracts that provide telecommunications services for federal agencies. In preparation for the expiration of current telecommunications programs, including one called Networx, GSA has developed a successor program, known as EIS. GSA and agencies now must carry out the task of successfully transitioning to EIS contracts. Previous contract transitions experienced significant delays. Those delays during the transition to Networx resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in missed savings.

GAO was asked to review agencies' EIS transition preparations. This report discusses (1) selected agencies' plans for, and status in, transitioning to EIS; and (2) the extent to which selected agencies were implementing established transition planning practices.

GAO administered a survey to 19 selected agencies that spent at least $10 million on telecommunications in fiscal year 2018 regarding their plans for and status in transitioning to EIS. GAO also selected five of these agencies for further review—Commerce, HHS, NASA, State, and VA—based on, among other things, agency size and structure. For these agencies, GAO evaluated documentation to determine the extent to which they had implemented five planning practices identified in a previous GAO report.

As of October 2019, the 19 selected agencies were in different stages of transitioning from their soon-to-be-expiring telecommunications contracts to the new Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS) program. All of these agencies reported that they plan to fully transition to EIS before current contracts expire in May 2023. However, 11 agencies did not plan to fully transition by the General Services Administration's (GSA) September 30, 2022, milestone. The majority of the selected agencies also did not meet GSA's milestones for completing critical contracting actions in 2019 (see table). While transitioning to EIS is a complex undertaking, delaying this transition will cause agencies to miss potential cost savings that would result from the generally lower rates for services on EIS.

Five selected agencies—the Departments of Commerce (Commerce), Health and Human Services (HHS), State (State), and Veterans Affairs (VA); and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—had partially implemented established planning practices that can help agencies successfully transition their telecommunications services to new contracts. These practices are to: (1) develop an accurate inventory of telecommunications services, (2) perform a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements, (3) develop a structured transition management approach, (4) identify the resources needed for the transition, and (5) develop a transition plan. The agencies provided several reasons for partially implementing the practices. For example, transition officials at Commerce, NASA, and VA said that they were not responsible for tracking all of the telecommunications services in use at their agencies; as such, they were unable to provide complete telecommunications inventories. The agencies also planned to implement certain practices after they issue their EIS task orders. However, the limited time remaining to complete the transition makes it critical that agencies conduct early planning with the information available and fully implement these transition planning practices to reduce the risk that the agencies experience the types of delays that occurred in previous transitions.

GAO is making a total of 25 recommendations to Commerce, HHS, NASA, State, and VA, to fully implement the established transition planning practices. These agencies concurred with all of the recommendations.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for ensuring  that federal agencies have access to the telecommunications services  and solutions that they need to meet mission requirements. GSA’s current  telecommunications contracts—awarded under programs known as  Networx, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3, and  Regional Local Service Agreements—support not only agencies’ basic  telephone needs, but also provide an acquisition vehicle for wireless and  satellite services, as well as managed network services and information  technology (IT) security services. According to data provided by GSA  officials, in fiscal year 2019, federal agencies spent about $2.5 billion on  services acquired through these contracts.

In preparation for the end of these telecommunications contracts in May  2023, GSA developed a successor program, known as Enterprise  Infrastructure Solutions (EIS). As part of this program, on August 1, 2017,  GSA announced that it had awarded EIS contracts—with a combined  value of up to $50 billion—to 10 vendors. Agencies now have to  undertake the difficult task of transitioning their telecommunications  services to the EIS contracts. This transition is expected to involve more  than 135 agencies, about 32 types of services, and millions of voice and  data circuits.

The last two GSA government-wide telecommunications contract  transitions experienced significant delays that led to hundreds of millions  of dollars in increased costs and missed savings. In particular, the  transition that began in 1998 experienced delays that hindered the timely  achievement of program goals and resulted in an estimated $74 million in  missed savings. The most recent transition to Networx, which began in  2007, took 33 months longer than planned and the majority of agencies  experienced transition delays. In 2013, we reported that these delays led  to an increase of $66.4 million in costs to GSA and an estimated $329  million in lost savings as a result of agencies continuing to order services  from a predecessor contract even after the services were available  through Networx at generally lower rates. We also reported that  inadequate project planning was a key factor that contributed to the  delays.

Given the importance of agencies’ successful telecommunications  transitions and the potentially significant costs if agencies experience  delays in transitioning, you asked us to review agencies’ preparations for  transitioning to EIS program contracts. Specifically, our objectives were to  (1) describe selected agencies’ plans for transitioning from the current  telecommunications contracts to EIS program contracts and provide  updates on the status of agency efforts to implement this transition; and  (2) evaluate the extent to which selected agencies were implementing  established planning practices for transitioning from the current  telecommunications contracts to EIS program contracts.

To address the first objective, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of  federal agencies to review. Using telecommunications billing data  provided by GSA for the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial  Officers Act of 1990, we selected for review the agencies that had billing  charges of at least $10 million in fiscal year 2018. This resulted in 19  agencies to review: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce  (Commerce), Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services  (HHS), Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the  Interior, Justice, Labor, State (State), Transportation, the Treasury, and  Veterans Affairs (VA); GSA, the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration (NASA), the Small Business Administration, and the Social  Security Administration.

We then developed and administered a survey to these 19 agencies. In  the survey, we asked each agency to identify its plans for the transition to  EIS, including the planned number of key contracting actions (fair  opportunity solicitations and task orders), planned schedules for  transitioning to EIS contracts, and key factors that contributed to delays, if  any, in meeting GSA’s critical milestones for 2019. We also interviewed  relevant agency officials to obtain additional insights on their survey  responses.

Further, for the seven agencies that reported in their survey responses  that they planned to meet GSA’s milestone to finish issuing all EIS task  orders by September 30, 2019, we asked those agencies in October 2019  to identify whether they actually met that milestone. For the agencies that  did not meet the milestone, we asked them to identify the key factors that  contributed to their delays in issuing the task orders. In November 2019,  we also asked all of the 19 selected agencies to provide updated  responses regarding their planned dates for fully transitioning to EIS  contracts.

To address the second objective, we selected for review a  nongeneralizable subset of five agencies from the 19 agencies included  in the first objective. To select these agencies, we first excluded the four  Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 agencies that were included as part  of our most recent prior review of agencies’ telecommunications transition  planning efforts. We then used the telecommunications billing data  provided by GSA to categorize the 15 remaining agencies as large,  medium, or small based on the total charges billed to the agencies for  fiscal year 2018. We also identified whether each agency had a  centralized or decentralized structure related to its Chief Information  Officer’s office. Further, we identified the number of fair opportunity EIS  solicitations that each agency had released, as of October 31, 2018, and  the total number of solicitations each agency planned to release, as  reported on GSA’s website for tracking agencies’ EIS transition  progress.

Based on the above considerations, we selected five agencies that  exhibited a variety of sizes and structures, and a range of planned and  released fair opportunity EIS solicitations. The selected agencies were  Commerce, HHS, NASA, State, and VA.

We then obtained and reviewed documentation (including  telecommunications inventories and transition-related plans) and  interviewed relevant officials from each of the selected agencies. We  assessed each agency’s documentation against telecommunications  transition planning practices and associated activities identified in our  prior work.

When assessing agencies, we classified an activity as “fully implemented”  if agency officials provided evidence that they had implemented all of the  aspects of the practice activity, or the agency had approved plans and  related policies to fully implement the practice activity at a later time  during the transition. We classified an activity as “partially implemented” if  agency officials provided evidence that they had implemented some, but  not all, aspects of the practice activity.

As part of this analysis, we gathered copies of the five selected agencies’  telecommunications inventories and assessed their reliability. To do so,  we asked the agencies for documentation of their quality control  procedures and practices related to ensuring the accuracy of the  inventories. In addition, we interviewed knowledgeable agency officials  about the systems and processes in place to collect and verify the data.

Further, we searched the data on USASpending.gov to identify the  contractors that received telecommunications-related contracts from the  selected agencies in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. We then compared the  resulting list of contractors to those identified in the agencies’ inventories  and, when the list of contractors identified did not match, we interviewed  agency officials about the completeness of their inventories.

We determined that the inventory information provided by all of the five  agencies was not reliable, due to the lack of documented procedures to  ensure the data’s accuracy and completeness. This conclusion was  considered during our assessment of the selected agencies’ efforts to  implement the transition planning practice related to telecommunications  inventories. A detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and  methodology can be found in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2018 to April 2020  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

GSA’s existing government-wide telecommunications program is called  Networx. As part of this program, in 2007 GSA awarded two sets of  Networx contracts, which had an estimated combined value of $20 billion.  These sets of contracts had differing characteristics:

GSA awarded Networx Universal contracts to AT&T, Verizon  Business Services, and Qwest Government Services. Networx  Universal offers voice and data services, wireless services, and  management and application services, including video and audio  conferencing, as well as mobile and fixed satellite services, with  national and international coverage.

Networx Universal contracts were set to expire in March 2017;  however, GSA has twice extended these contracts. According to GSA  officials, the most recent extension, which GSA announced in  November 2018, is to include one base year and two 1-year options,  plus an additional option for the number of months required for the  contracts to reach May 31, 2023. If the extension is executed and all  options are exercised, the contracts will expire in May 2023.

GSA awarded Networx Enterprise contracts to AT&T, Verizon  Business Services, Qwest Government Services, Level 3  Communications, and Sprint Nextel. Networx Enterprise offers  services similar to those of Networx Universal, with a focus on those  that are internet-based. Networx Enterprise requires  telecommunications services to be available in a smaller geographic  area than Networx Universal.

Networx Enterprise contracts were set to expire in May 2017;  however, GSA has twice extended these contracts to each  participating vendor, except one. According to GSA officials, the  most recent extension, which GSA announced in November 2018, is  to include one base year and two 1-year options, plus an additional  option for the number of months required for the contracts to reach  May 31, 2023. If the extension is executed and all options are  exercised, the contracts will expire in May 2023.

In addition, GSA provides telecommunications services through programs  called Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3 and  Regional Local Service Agreements.

Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3: these  contracts support a variety of telecommunications services available  to all federal agencies in Washington, D.C., and surrounding Maryland  and Virginia counties. For example, among other things, these  contracts provide data and voice services, as well as cloud services.  These contracts were set to expire on or before May 2020. As of  December 2019, GSA planned to extend these contracts. GSA  officials stated that the extension is to include one base year and two  1-year options, plus an additional option for the number of months  required for the contracts to reach May 31, 2023. If the extension is  executed and all options are exercised, the contracts will expire in  May 2023.

Regional Local Service Agreements: these contracts provide local  telecommunications services in every state and major city in the  United States. According to GSA officials, the expiration dates for  these contracts ranged from October 2019 through March 2023. As of  December 2019, GSA was in the process of extending these  contracts. In particular, GSA officials reported that certain contracts  had already been extended to May 2023, and the officials planned to  extend the remaining contracts through May 2023, as well.

According to data provided by GSA officials, in fiscal year 2019, federal  agencies spent approximately $2.5 billion on services acquired through  Networx, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3, and  Regional Local Service Agreements contracts. About $2 billion of this  spending was on services acquired through Networx alone.

Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions Provides Contracts for Agencies to Acquire IT and Telecommunications Services

EIS is the replacement for Networx, Washington Interagency  Telecommunications System 3, and Regional Local Service Agreements  telecommunications contracts. GSA intends for EIS to address federal  agencies’ global telecommunications and IT infrastructure requirements.

GSA plans for EIS to provide agencies with traditional and emerging  services to meet current and future requirements by:  simplifying the government’s process of acquiring IT and  telecommunications products and services; providing cost savings to each agency through aggregated volume  buying and pricing (with generally lower costs for services on EIS  compared to the costs for similar services on Networx), and spending  visibility; enabling the procurement of integrated solutions; promoting participation by small businesses and fostering competition; offering a flexible and agile suite of services supporting a range of  government purchasing patterns into the future; and providing updated and expanded security services to meet current  and future government cybersecurity requirements.

In addition, GSA has identified several benefits that EIS is expected to  provide to the agencies that participate in its telecommunications  programs. These projected benefits include streamlined contract  administration, a possible 15-year period of performance, simplified  pricing, and enhanced management and operations support.

On August 1, 2017, GSA announced that it had awarded EIS contracts to  10 vendors. These contracts have a combined value of up to $50 billion  and are for a possible period of up to 15 years (one 5-year base period  and two 5-year option periods). According to GSA’s plans as of  November 2019, the transition to EIS is expected to be completed by May  2023, when the current Networx, Washington Interagency  Telecommunications System 3, and Regional Local Service Agreements  telecommunications contracts are expected to expire (if all contract  options are exercised, as discussed earlier).

To help ensure that agencies’ services are fully transitioned to EIS before  the current contracts expire, GSA issued guidance that identified several  critical milestones that agencies should meet. These milestones include:  (1) releasing all planned fair opportunity solicitations to EIS vendors by  March 31, 2019; (2) issuing all planned task orders by September 30,  2019; and (3) achieving 100 percent transition of services by September  30, 2022.

Figure 1 provides a timeline of the planned transition to EIS, including  GSA’s critical milestones, as of November 2019.

GSA, Agencies, and Contractors Have Transition Responsibilities

Central to the successful transition from GSA’s current  telecommunications services contracts to EIS are transition planning and  execution activities that involve GSA, federal agencies, the incumbent  telecommunications contractors, and EIS contractors. GSA serves as the  facilitator for all transition management activities. The agency is using  contractors to assist in tracking transition activities, in order to avoid  delays and other problems that can arise throughout the process.

In particular, GSA’s primary responsibility is to provide program  management for the current telecommunications programs (Networx,  Washington Interagency Telecommunications System 3, and Regional  Local Service Agreements) and EIS. As part of this, GSA is responsible  for  conducting government-wide strategy and project management; providing tailored assistance to agencies for transition planning and  help with contractor selection and ordering;  tracking and reporting the use of metrics that convey the relative  complexity and transition progress; and providing customer support, training, and self-help tools and  templates.

GSA developed two contracting vehicles to provide transition assistance  to agencies: (1) a Transition Coordination Center vehicle that includes  assistance with inventory validation, transition planning, and solicitation  development; and (2) a Transition Ordering Assistance vehicle that  addresses tasks including requirements development and source  selection assistance, and proposal evaluation. The Coordination Center  vehicle was put in place in January 2016 and the Ordering Assistance  vehicle was initially awarded in September 2016, but was not finalized  until March 2017, after the conclusion of a bid protest.

Agencies have principal responsibility for the transition. They are  responsible for coordinating transition efforts with the incumbent  contractors and EIS contractors to ensure that existing  telecommunications services are disconnected and that new services are  ordered under EIS. According to GSA, agencies’ responsibilities under  EIS include:  identifying key personnel, chiefly a Senior Transition Sponsor, Lead  Transition Manager, and Transition Ordering Contracting Officer; engaging expertise from Chief Information Officers, Chief Acquisition  Officers, and Chief Financial Officers to build an integrated transition  team of telecommunications managers, acquisition experts, and  financial staff; developing a financial strategy and budget for transition costs  beginning in fiscal year 2017; analyzing and confirming the accuracy of the inventory of active  services that must be transitioned; developing a transition plan that describes technological goals, a  transition schedule that includes GSA’s major transition milestones  (e.g., releasing all fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019, and  issuing all task orders by September 30, 2019), a strategy for issuing  task orders on EIS for transitioning services, and any constraints or  risks; preparing solicitations for task orders; placing task and service orders;  coordinating resources to facilitate scheduling and communications  for implementing and maintaining services; and  reviewing, accepting or rejecting, and paying for services.

At the agencies we reviewed, the staff responsible for the transition were  part of their agencies’ offices that were headed by the Chief Information  Officers.

Finally, the incumbent and EIS contractors are responsible for  disconnecting existing services under the current contracts and installing  new services that agencies order under EIS. They are also to collaborate  with GSA and agencies to share transition planning and execution best  practices and help resolve issues.

GAO’s Prior Work Has Examined Agencies’ Efforts to Plan for Transitioning between Telecommunications Contracts

We have previously reported on efforts by GSA and agencies to transition  from one telecommunications program to another. In a June 2006 report,  we identified a range of transition planning practices that can help  agencies reduce the risk of experiencing adverse effects of moving from  one broad telecommunications contract to another. These planning  practices were to: (1) develop an accurate inventory of  telecommunications assets and services, (2) perform a strategic analysis  of telecommunications requirements, (3) develop a structured transition  management approach, (4) identify the resources needed for the  transition, and (5) develop a transition plan. In that report, we also noted  the progress of six selected agencies in preparing for the transition to  Networx and found that the agencies generally had not implemented the  practices, but were planning to do so. We recommended, among other  things, that two of the agencies take actions to address gaps in their  transition planning efforts. Both agencies agreed with the  recommendations and implemented them.

In addition, in 2008, we reported on the extent to which six selected  agencies were following the transition planning practices during the  Networx transition. We noted that the agencies were generally  implementing the practices, but three of them had not fully implemented  some of the key activities of the practices and were not planning to do so.  For example, one agency was not planning to clearly define all key  transition roles and responsibilities and another agency was not planning  to identify local and regional points of contact. We made  recommendations focused on addressing the gaps in transition planning  to the three agencies that had not implemented key practice activities and  did not plan to do so. One of the three agencies agreed with the  recommendations and two agencies partially agreed with them. One  agency implemented the recommendation we made to it, one  implemented one of the two recommendations directed to it, and one  agency implemented one of the seven recommendations we made to it.

In 2013, we reported on factors that had contributed to the delay in the  Networx transition and the consequences of the delay. We pointed out  that weak project planning and complex acquisition processes were factors that had contributed to the delay. As a result, we recommended,  among other things, that GSA take two actions to improve planning and  execution of the next telecommunications transition. GSA agreed with  these recommendations. The agency then implemented one of the  recommendations and did not implement the other one, which was to  examine, in coordination with the Office of Personnel Management,  potential government-wide telecommunications expertise shortfalls and  use the study to shape the next telecommunications acquisition (now  called EIS).

More recently, we reported in 2017 that, among other things, the five  agencies we selected had yet to fully apply most of the five planning  practices. Specifically, we noted that one agency fully implemented one  practice, partially implemented three practices, and did not implement  another. The other four agencies partially implemented each of the five  practices. Accordingly, we recommended, among other things, that the  five agencies complete adoption of the planning practices to avoid  schedule delays and unnecessary costs. Four of the five agencies agreed  with all of our recommendations. The other agency agreed with two  recommendations, partially disagreed with one, and disagreed with two  recommendations. All five agencies have efforts underway to address our  recommendations, but had not yet fully implemented them as of  November 2019.

Agencies Have Various Plans for, and Are in Different Stages of, Transitioning from Their Current Telecommunications Contracts to Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions

The 19 selected agencies have varied plans for transitioning from their  current telecommunications contracts to EIS program contracts. As of  October 2019, these agencies were also in different stages of their EIS  transitions. All of the selected agencies reported that they plan to fully  transition their telecommunications services to EIS before the current  contracts are set to expire in May 2023. However, over half of the  selected agencies did not plan to complete the transition by GSA’s  September 30, 2022, milestone. In addition, the majority of selected  agencies did not meet GSA’s two critical EIS transition milestones in  2019—to (1) release all fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019,  and (2) issue all task orders by September 30, 2019.

Selected Agencies Had Varied Plans for Completing Their Transitions to Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions

The 19 selected agencies had various plans for completing their  transitions to EIS. In particular, eight of the selected agencies reported  that they planned to finish their transitions to EIS by GSA’s September  30, 2022, milestone. The 11 remaining agencies did not plan to complete  their transitions by that date. Table 1 identifies the 19 selected agencies’  plans for completing the transition to EIS by GSA’s September 30, 2022,  milestone.

Officials from the 11 selected agencies that did not plan to finish their  transitions to EIS by GSA’s September 30, 2022, milestone—the  Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, HHS, Homeland  Security, the Interior, Justice, Transportation, the Treasury, and VA; and  the Social Security Administration—reported that they planned to  complete the transitions before the current telecommunications contracts  are set to expire in May 2023. Specifically,

Commerce and the Social Security Administration planned to  complete their transitions in December 2022;  the Department of Transportation planned to do so in January 2023;  the Departments of Agriculture, HHS, Homeland Security, and the  Treasury planned to complete their transitions in March 2023; and  the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Justice, and VA planned to  complete their transitions in May 2023, just before the current  telecommunications contracts are set to expire.

In addition, the planned scope and amount of effort that is expected to be  required to fully transition to EIS varied among the selected agencies.  Specifically, agencies varied in the scope of their planned efforts related  to two of GSA’s critical transition milestones—to release EIS fair  opportunity solicitations and issue EIS task orders. Specifically,

Eighteen of the selected agencies planned to release between one  and six EIS fair opportunity solicitations, and the final agency—the  Department of Defense—planned to release 54 solicitations.

Thirteen of the agencies planned to issue between one and five EIS  task orders, while the remaining six agencies—the Departments of  Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, the Treasury, and VA; and  NASA—planned to issue more than five task orders.

Table 2 identifies the estimated number of planned EIS fair opportunity  solicitations and task orders for the 19 selected agencies, as of  November 2019.

Further, the selected agencies had different plans for the types of  transitions that they would implement. Specifically, as of November 2019,  four of the selected agencies planned to implement primarily a like-for-like  transition of their services. The remaining 15 agencies planned to  conduct a combination of a like-for-like transition and upgrading or  transforming services. Table 3 identifies the 19 selected agencies’ plans  for the types of transitions to EIS that they will implement, as of  November 2019.

Selected Agencies Were in Different Stages of Their Transitions to Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions

As of October 2019, the 19 selected agencies were in different stages of  their EIS transitions. Eighteen of the agencies were in the acquisition  planning and/or acquisition decision phases, during which the agencies  release fair opportunity solicitations for vendor proposals and issue task  orders to selected vendors, respectively. GSA established two critical  milestones for agencies to complete these acquisition activities: (1)  release all fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019, and (2) issue  all task orders by September 30, 2019.

Regarding the first milestone—to release all EIS fair opportunity  solicitations by March 31, 2019—five of the 19 selected agencies  reported that they released all of their solicitations by this date. The 14  remaining selected agencies reported that they did not release all of their  solicitations by this date. Table 4 identifies the 19 selected agencies’  status in meeting GSA’s milestone to release all EIS fair opportunity  solicitations by March 31, 2019.

Officials from each of the five agencies that met GSA’s milestone to finish  releasing all of their planned EIS solicitations by March 31, 2019, reported  that their agencies released either one or two solicitations. In particular,  officials from GSA and the Departments of Justice and Transportation  reported that their agencies each released one solicitation, and  Commerce and Social Security Administration officials reported that their  agencies each released two solicitations.

While eight of the 14 other selected agencies had also planned to release  either one or two solicitations in total for their transitions, officials from  these agencies reported that they did not finish releasing them by March  31, 2019. These agencies were the Departments of Agriculture,  Education, Energy, HHS, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and  State; and the Small Business Administration.

We asked officials from the 14 selected agencies that did not release all  of their planned EIS solicitations by March 31, 2019, to identify the key  factors that contributed to their agencies’ delays in releasing these  solicitations. In response, agency officials cited numerous key factors for  the delays, including the complexity of their telecommunications  requirements, changes to the agency’s or GSA’s contracting strategy, and  insufficient staff availability. Figure 2 identifies the key factors that  contributed to delays in releasing all EIS solicitations by GSA’s March 31,  2019, milestone, as identified by agency officials.

In addition, regarding GSA’s second milestone—to issue all EIS task  orders by September 30, 2019—one of the selected agencies (the Small  Business Administration) reported that it issued all of its task orders by  this date. The 18 other agencies reported that they did not issue all of  their EIS task orders by this date. Table 5 identifies the 19 selected  agencies’ status in meeting GSA’s milestone to issue all EIS task orders  by September 30, 2019.

Officials from the Small Business Administration—the only agency that  met GSA’s September 30, 2019, milestone—reported that the agency  issued its lone task order on September 27, 2019.

We asked officials from the 18 agencies that did not issue all of their EIS  task orders by September 30, 2019, to identify the key factors that  contributed to their agencies’ delays in issuing these task orders. In  response, agency officials cited 19 key factors that led to the delays. Nine  of the identified factors were the same factors that officials cited for their  agencies’ delays in releasing EIS solicitations, including the complexity of  requirements and having insufficient staff available.

The officials also identified 10 other factors unique to their delays in  issuing EIS task orders. For example, officials from two agencies reported  that the EIS vendors needed clarification on the agencies’ requests for  proposals. In addition, officials from three agencies reported that they  needed clarification from the EIS vendors on the proposals that the  agencies received. Figure 3 identifies the key factors that contributed to  delays in issuing all EIS task orders by GSA’s September 30, 2019,  milestone, as identified by agency officials.

Several of the identified factors, such as the partial government shutdown  and the need for vendors to receive authorities to operate, have  subsequently been resolved. For other factors, agencies can leverage  GSA’s available EIS training and customer support to help minimize  delays in meeting GSA’s transition milestones. However, given that the  majority of the selected agencies did not meet these transition milestones  in 2019, it will be important for agencies to meet the remaining transition  milestones to ensure that they complete the transition before the current  telecommunications contracts expire in May 2023.

Selected Agencies Had Taken Steps to Implement Established Transition Planning Practices, but None Had Fully Implemented Them

In a June 2006 report, we identified five transition planning practices that  can help agencies reduce the risk of experiencing adverse effects of  moving from one broad telecommunications contract to another.  Implementing these transition planning practices represents a  comprehensive and rigorous management approach that can help  agencies make the most of the opportunity for change that such a major  telecommunications transition provides.

Each of the five transition planning practices that we identified consists of  various activities that should be implemented to fully address the planning  practices. Table 6 identifies the five established transition planning  practices and their associated activities.

All five selected agencies—Commerce, HHS, NASA, State, and VA—had  taken steps to implement the five established transition planning  practices. However, none of these agencies had fully implemented any of  the practices.

All of the Selected Agencies Had Developed Telecommunications Inventories, but None Were Complete

The five selected agencies had all partially implemented the first  established transition planning practice—to develop an accurate inventory  of telecommunications assets and services. In particular, all of the  selected agencies had partially implemented the two activities associated  with this practice. Table 7 summarizes the extent to which the selected  agencies had implemented the transition practice to develop an accurate  inventory of telecommunications services.

Identify a complete telecommunications inventory at every site,  facility, and component. The five selected agencies had all partially  implemented this activity. While all of these agencies had developed  inventories of their telecommunications assets and services, none of  the inventories were complete. Specifically, the inventories that  Commerce, NASA, and VA developed included the enterprise-wide  assets and services in use at their agencies; however, the inventories  did not include all of the assets and services that individual mission  offices ordered for their own use. In addition, HHS’s and VA’s  inventories did not include their assets and services that were  associated with commercial contracts not managed by GSA.

Moreover, none of the agencies’ inventories included all of the  relevant contractors that were listed on USASpending.gov as having  received telecommunications-related contracts from those agencies in  fiscal years 2018 or 2019. As such, the inventories also did not  include assets and services provided by those contractors.

Establish a documented process for updating and maintaining  the inventories. All five selected agencies partially implemented this  activity by taking steps to document their inventory update and  maintenance processes. However, none of the agencies had fully  documented these processes. Specifically, Commerce, HHS, NASA,  and State had documented and finalized their processes for updating  and maintaining certain telecommunications assets and services  within their inventories. However, these processes did not apply to all  assets and services in use at the agencies. For example, NASA’s  inventory maintenance processes applied to the agency’s enterprise- level assets and services, but did not apply to assets and services  ordered by individual mission centers. VA had developed draft  procedures for updating its inventories when new service requests  were submitted, but it had not finalized these processes. In addition,  VA had not documented processes for maintaining its inventories  (e.g., removing telecommunications services from the inventories  when they are disconnected).

Officials from three of the selected agencies—Commerce, NASA, and  VA—cited the same cause for not having complete inventories or  associated inventory maintenance procedures. Specifically, the officials  from these agencies—all of whom were responsible for their agencies’  transitions to EIS—stated that they did not track all of the assets and  services ordered by the agencies. The officials added that they were not  responsible for maintaining inventories of all of their agencies’ assets and  services. Further, officials in NASA’s and VA’s offices of the Chief  Information Officer did not provide inventories of the assets and services  ordered by those agencies’ individual mission offices, or any  documentation of their agencies’ associated inventory maintenance  processes.

Commerce officials acknowledged their lack of a complete  telecommunications inventory and stated that they were working to  identify the agency’s assets and services associated with individual  mission offices. The officials stated that they planned to complete this  identification effort by 2023, but this schedule was not documented.

State officials said that their telecommunications inventories did not  include all of the relevant contractors that were listed on  USASpending.gov as having received telecommunications-related  contracts from the agency in fiscal years 2018 or 2019 because some of  the contracts listed on USASpending.gov were for telecommunications  services that State does not plan to purchase from EIS. State officials  said that their initial focus for the EIS transition is to replace their current  domestic services that are ordered through GSA’s telecommunications  contracts before those contracts expire. However, all of the relevant  telecommunications contractors used by State and reported at  USASpending.gov should be included in State’s telecommunications  inventory. The lack of a complete inventory that includes these  contractors and their associated services will likely limit State’s ability to  fully identify areas for optimization and the sharing of telecommunications  resources across the agency.

Officials from the one remaining agency—HHS—attributed their agency’s  lack of a complete telecommunications inventory and associated  maintenance procedures to the agency’s decentralized structure.  Specifically, the HHS officials stated that the agency’s components are  responsible for managing the services that are unique to them, including  those associated with commercial contracts not managed by GSA.  However, the officials stated that the agency did not have a policy that  required its components to maintain an inventory of telecommunications  assets and services that they acquired independently.

Without complete and accurate telecommunications inventories, the  selected agencies may be unable to avoid unnecessary transition delays  related to an inability to plan for services not identified in the inventory.  The agencies will also likely be limited in their ability to determine areas  for optimization and the sharing of telecommunications and IT resources  across the agencies. In addition, without documented processes for  maintaining inventories of all of their telecommunications assets and  services in use, the agencies may not be able to consistently and  accurately incorporate into their telecommunications inventories any  changes made during and after the transition (e.g., adding new services  or removing disconnected services), thus hindering their ability to ensure  that they are billed appropriately by the vendor.

The Selected Agencies Took Steps to Strategically Analyze Their Telecommunications Requirements, but None Used a Complete Inventory to Determine Needs

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the second  established transition planning practice—to perform a strategic analysis of  telecommunications requirements. In particular, of the four activities  associated with this practice, NASA had fully implemented three of the  activities and partially implemented one activity; HHS and VA had fully  implemented two of the activities and partially implemented the other two  activities; State had fully implemented one of the activities and partially  implemented the other three activities; and Commerce had partially  implemented each of the four activities. Table 8 summarizes the extent to  which the selected agencies had conducted strategic analyses of their  telecommunications requirements.

Identify current and future telecommunications needs using an  inventory of existing services. All of the selected agencies had  partially implemented this activity by identifying certain current and  future telecommunications needs. However, as discussed earlier,  none of the agencies had a complete inventory of current services. As  a result, the agencies could not use such an inventory to fully identify  their needs.

Identify areas for optimization or sharing of telecommunications  and IT resources. Three agencies—HHS, NASA, and VA—had fully  implemented this activity by completing strategic analyses to identify  areas for optimization or sharing of telecommunications resources.  The two remaining agencies—Commerce and State—had partially  implemented this activity. Specifically, while Commerce had  developed a draft strategic analysis to justify the potential optimization  and sharing across the agency of a telecommunications service for  how hardware devices connect to the internet, it had not yet finalized  this analysis. One Commerce bureau had also conducted a strategic  analysis to justify potentially optimizing or sharing multiple  telecommunications services and IT resources within that bureau, but  Commerce was unable to provide documentation demonstrating that  its remaining bureaus had conducted similar analyses. Further, while  State had conducted a strategic analysis to identify services that could  be optimized across the agency and agency officials had also  identified potential areas for sharing of resources, State did not  provide a documented analysis to justify the sharing of those  resources.

Evaluate the costs and benefits of any new technology and  alternative options. Four agencies—HHS, NASA, State, and VA— had fully implemented this activity by evaluating the costs and benefits  of various technologies and alternative options for  telecommunications services that they could implement as part of the  transition. The one remaining agency—Commerce—had partially  implemented this activity. Specifically, while Commerce demonstrated  that it had evaluated the costs and benefits of upgrading one service  by which hardware devices connect to the internet, and two  Commerce bureaus had analyzed the costs and benefits of  implementing another type of service for connecting to networks, the  remaining Commerce bureaus did not conduct such analyses.

Determine that identified telecommunications needs and  opportunities are aligned with the agency’s mission, long-term IT  plans, and enterprise architecture plans. One agency—NASA— had fully implemented this activity by determining that its  telecommunications needs aligned with its mission and plans. The  four remaining agencies had partially implemented this activity.  Specifically, HHS had determined that its telecommunications needs  aligned with its mission and enterprise architecture, but it did not  demonstrate a similar alignment with its long-term IT plans. In  addition, State had demonstrated that its needs aligned with its  mission, but it did not determine and document that these needs  aligned with the agency’s long-term IT plans and enterprise  architecture. Further, one Commerce bureau had determined that its  needs aligned with its mission, long-term IT plans, and enterprise  architecture. However, the remaining Commerce bureaus did not  determine and document that their telecommunications needs were  aligned with the agency’s long-term IT plans and enterprise  architecture. VA also had determined that its identified needs aligned  with its mission and enterprise architecture, as they relate to an  ongoing telecommunications modernization project. However, while  VA officials stated that their telecommunications needs were aligned  with the agency’s long-term IT plans, the officials did not provide  documentation demonstrating this alignment.

Agency officials cited several reasons for not fully implementing the  activities associated with this practice. For example, NASA did not use a  complete inventory of existing telecommunications assets and services to  identify its future telecommunications needs because, as discussed  earlier, NASA officials stated that the agency’s telecommunications  inventory included only enterprise-level assets and services, and did not  include assets and services ordered by individual mission centers. The  officials further explained that they were not responsible for maintaining  inventories of those mission offices’ telecommunications assets and  services and, therefore, did not track all of those assets and services.

In addition, Commerce officials stated in May 2019 that the majority of the  agency’s bureaus did not conduct cost-benefit analyses that considered  implementing new telecommunications technologies because Commerce  was planning to transition its services on a like-for-like basis in order to  complete the transition before May 2020, which was when the current  telecommunications contracts were previously set to expire. As such,  the officials stated that the agency was not planning to implement new  technologies and, thus, a cost-benefit analysis of such technologies was  not necessary. However, in October 2019, Commerce officials stated that  the agency’s EIS solicitation included options for vendors to propose the  implementation of new technologies.

State officials explained that they had not conducted and documented an  analysis to identify areas for the sharing of telecommunications resources  because they did not believe that there were any additional State  telecommunications resources that could be shared. State officials  attributed this to the agency’s security requirements and regulations, and  noted that services on State’s classified network may not be shared with  services on its unclassified network. Nevertheless, while services may not  be able to be shared between these networks, State did not provide  documentation that demonstrated that the agency had determined that  there were no additional resources that could be shared on State’s  unclassified network.

In November 2019, VA officials stated that they thought their  telecommunications needs were aligned with the agency’s long-term IT  plans. However, the officials did not provide documentation  demonstrating this alignment.

HHS officials stated that they intend to align the agency’s  telecommunications needs and IT strategic plans after the agency  establishes a centralized transition program management office.  Specifically, the agency decided to centralize its transition management  approach in March 2019 and, as of December 2019, HHS officials  expected the office to be fully established by March 2020. However, the  officials did not have documented plans for when they would align the  agency’s telecommunications needs and IT strategic plans.

Agencies that do not use complete inventories of their current  telecommunications services to identify their future needs are likely not  fully identifying these needs. They may also miss opportunities to  optimize or share services by consolidating them on EIS. In addition, by  not using a rigorous management approach that includes strategically  analyzing, identifying, and documenting areas for optimization and  sharing of resources, agencies may miss opportunities to upgrade their  telecommunications services or to shift these services to more cost- effective technologies.

Further, agencies that do not fully assess the costs and benefits of  alternatives for meeting their telecommunications needs may miss the  opportunity that the transition provides to optimize their  telecommunications services. Moreover, without aligning their  telecommunications needs and opportunities with their missions and  plans, agencies risk missing opportunities to use the new contract to  address their highest priorities, or may make decisions that are not  aligned with their long-term goals.

All of the Selected Agencies Had Begun to Develop a Structured Management Approach, but None Had Fully Implemented It

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the third transition  planning practice—to develop a structured management approach for the  telecommunications transition. Specifically, of the three activities  associated with this practice, NASA had fully implemented two activities  and partially implemented one activity; HHS and VA had fully  implemented one activity and partially implemented the other two  activities, and Commerce and State had partially implemented each of the  three activities. Table 9 summarizes the extent to which the selected  agencies had established a structured management approach.

Establish a transition management team and clearly define  responsibilities for key transition roles. One agency—VA—had  fully implemented this activity by establishing a transition  management team and defining all key transition responsibilities for  the planning and execution phases of the transition, including for  project, asset, human capital, and information security management;  and contract and legal expertise. The remaining four agencies had  partially implemented this activity by establishing transition  management teams, but none had defined all key roles and  responsibilities for their transitions. Specifically, NASA had not defined  a role and related responsibilities for managing human capital  throughout the transition, nor for providing legal expertise during the  execution phase of the transition. While Commerce had identified the  need for managing human capital and telecommunications assets  throughout the planning and execution phases of the transition, and  for providing legal expertise during the execution phase of the  transition, it had not yet assigned these roles and related  responsibilities to staff members. In addition, Commerce, State, and  HHS had identified the need for an information security management  role during the transition. However, Commerce and State had not yet  finalized the responsibilities for this role, and Commerce and HHS had  not yet assigned this role to a staff member. State and HHS had also  not identified roles and responsibilities for managing  telecommunications assets throughout the transition, nor for providing  legal expertise during the execution phase of the transition. Moreover,  while HHS officials stated that a staff member was providing human  capital management-related assistance to the agency’s centralized  EIS program management office, the agency had not documented this  role for the transition, nor defined specific responsibilities for this role.

Develop transition communications plans in order to facilitate  information sharing during transition planning and execution.  Two agencies—HHS and NASA—had fully implemented this activity  by developing transition communications plans and identifying all key  parties that need to be involved during the agency’s transition effort.  The remaining three agencies—Commerce, State, and VA—partially  implemented this activity. For example, each of these agencies  identified stakeholders responsible for communicating transition  information to other stakeholders. While Commerce and VA also  identified the frequency with which transition status updates and  meetings are to occur, State did not identify this frequency. In  addition, State and one bureau within Commerce did not include a  description of how changes and disruptions related to the transition  would be communicated to end users. Further, Commerce, State, and  VA did not identify the key local and regional agency transition  officials responsible for disseminating information about the transition  to employees and working with the vendor to facilitate transition  activities. While VA had identified a potential list of these officials in a  previous version of the agency’s transition communications plan, the  agency removed this list from the latest version of the plan.

Use established project, configuration, and change management  processes in the agency’s transition planning efforts. One  agency—NASA—had fully implemented this activity by demonstrating  the use of all established management processes called for in the  activity. The four remaining agencies—Commerce, HHS, State, and  VA—had partially implemented this activity by demonstrating the use  of project management processes for their transitions, such as  tracking transition costs and developing schedules and risk logs.  However, VA did not demonstrate that it was applying approved cost  and schedule management processes to its transition. In addition,  Commerce, HHS, and State did not demonstrate that they were  applying established configuration management processes to their  transitions. Further, Commerce and HHS did not demonstrate that  they had implemented change management processes for their  transitions.

Officials from four of the selected agencies—Commerce, HHS, NASA,  and VA—generally attributed their lack of full implementation of this  practice to the fact that, at the time of our review, the agencies were early  in their transition planning processes. For example, NASA officials stated  that they had not defined a role or responsibilities related to human  capital management because their human capital needs for the transition  will depend on the vendors selected (incumbents or new vendors). As  such, the officials stated that they had not yet determined whether a  human capital management role was needed for the transition. The  officials said that they would consider adding such a role after they issue  their EIS task orders. However, NASA did not conduct an analysis to  determine whether there was a need for a human capital manager during  the planning phase of the transition. As a result, NASA is risking delays  that could lengthen its transition due to the lack of an assigned staff  member to manage its human capital needs during the transition planning  phase.

In addition, State officials said that they did not identify the key local and  regional agency transition officials responsible for working with the vendor  to facilitate transition activities because, as part of State’s security  processes, vendors must work with State’s bureau-level points-of-contact  to be escorted to State facilities, as necessary. The State officials said  that their bureau-level points-of-contact would coordinate with the local  and regional agency transition officials, as appropriate.

VA officials stated that they removed from their transition communications  plan the list of key local and regional agency transition officials because,  in part, as of November 2019 it was still early in the agency’s transition  and they expected the contacts to change as the transition is  implemented. As such, VA officials also stated that they only identified  key transition positions, rather than individuals, in order to ensure the  accuracy of the information in the communications plan.

Commerce officials explained that they had not yet implemented all of the  key management processes for the transition because they planned to  work with their selected EIS vendors to establish those processes. These  officials further stated that they planned to implement this activity after  they issue their EIS task orders.

Moreover, HHS officials attributed their lack of established configuration  and change management processes to the agency’s previous  decentralized management approach, which did not require HHS’s  components to establish such processes for the transition. As discussed  earlier, in March 2019, the agency decided to centralize its transition  management approach. HHS officials stated that, as part of the  centralized approach, they planned to develop change and configuration  management processes for the transition. However, they did not have  documented time frames for establishing and implementing these  processes.

While the selected agencies were early in their transition planning  processes at the time of our review, the limited time remaining to  complete the transition makes it critical that agencies conduct early  planning with the information that is available. Agencies that do not define  all key roles and related responsibilities for their transition management  teams risk extending their transition period as they attempt to assign  appropriate personnel and update them on transition progress and  issues. Further, without identifying all of the key officials that need to be  involved with the transition, including the local and regional agency points  of contact, agencies may lack the information that is necessary for  comprehensive understanding, accountability, and shared expectations  among all those with transition responsibilities.

Finally, by not using a rigorous management approach that implements  established configuration management and change management  processes for the transition, agencies risk additional financial costs,  extended timelines, and disruptions to the continuity of their  telecommunications systems. The limited time available for agencies to  complete the transition makes it more important for them to use rigorous  management processes in their transition efforts.

All of the Selected Agencies Had at Least Partially Identified Their Transition Resource Needs, but None Had Fully Determined These Needs

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the fourth  established transition planning practice—to identify their transition  resource needs. In particular, of the four activities associated with this  practice, NASA had fully implemented one of the activities and partially  implemented the remaining three activities; and the four other agencies— Commerce, HHS, State, and VA—had partially implemented each of the  activities. Table 10 summarizes the extent to which the selected agencies  had identified their transition resource needs.

Identify the level of funding needed to support transition  planning. One of the selected agencies—NASA—had fully  implemented this activity by identifying the costs needed to support its  transition management team and all years of its transition planning  efforts. The four other agencies—Commerce, HHS, State, and VA— had partially implemented this activity. In particular, HHS had  developed a cost estimate that partially identified the funding needed  for its transition management team, but this estimate did not identify  the costs for all transition management staff at each of the agency’s  components. Commerce had developed a draft analysis that identified  the funding needed for government and contractor staff working on  the transition, but this analysis was not approved. In addition, one  Commerce bureau had not yet identified the funding needed for all  years of transition planning support. Further, while State had partially  identified the funding needed to support federal and contractor staff  working on the transition, it had not identified the funding needed for  all transition staff or for all years of transition planning support.  Moreover, while VA officials stated that they had identified the costs  needed for the transition, the officials did not provide documentation  that identified costs for all years of transition planning support.

Identify the organizational need for investments and justify  resource requests. The five selected agencies had all partially  implemented this activity by identifying the need for investments,  including funding to obtain GSA transition assistance; however, none  of the agencies had fully justified their resource requests for the  transition. Specifically, Commerce, State, and VA had not justified  their resource requests related to transition program management  staff. In addition, HHS lacked justification for its requests for hardware  and software upgrades. Moreover, while NASA had identified  anticipated cost savings as part of its justification for resource  requests related to hardware and software upgrades, it was unable to  provide documentation of an analysis to support these identified  savings. NASA also did not justify its resource requests related to  transition program management staff.

Identify human capital needs for the entire transition effort. All of  the selected agencies had partially implemented this activity by  identifying the need for certain staff to work on the transition, including  government and contractor staff. However, none of the agencies had  conducted and documented analyses of their human capital needs, to  determine the total number of staff required to support their entire  transition efforts.

Identify and require training for the transition. All of the agencies  had partially implemented this activity by identifying training needed  by certain transition management staff. In addition, four of the  agencies—Commerce, HHS, NASA, and State—had also provided  training to transition support staff. However, Commerce, HHS, NASA,  and VA had not conducted and documented analyses to identify all of  the training needed for their transitions, including training for staff  carrying out the transition or operating and maintaining new  equipment or services. In addition, while State had developed a draft  analysis to identify training needed by staff carrying out the transition,  it had not finalized this analysis.

Officials from these agencies cited several reasons for not fully identifying  their transition resource needs. In general, Commerce, HHS, and VA  officials explained that they were too early in their transition efforts to  identify all of the funding, human capital, and training needed for their  transitions. NASA and State officials also cited this as the reason for why  they had not identified all of their human capital needs. In particular,  officials from all five of the agencies stated that they will not be able to  determine their complete transition resource needs until after they issue  their EIS task orders. For example, officials from all of these agencies  explained that their human capital needs will depend on which vendors  are selected and what new technology will be implemented, if any.  Officials from these agencies also stated that they planned to identify all  of their human capital needs after they issue their EIS task orders, but  none of the agencies had documented plans for doing so.

In addition, Commerce officials said that they did not document a cost- benefit justification for using contractor staff to assist with transition  program management because they knew that their existing resources  (i.e., government staff) were not sufficient. As such, the officials stated  that the agency determined that further analysis for justification of using  contractor staff was not necessary.

State officials also explained that they had not identified all of the funding  needed to support transition planning because, per agency policy, they  were not required to do so. In particular, the officials explained that the  division responsible for the EIS transition operates under a working  capital fund. As part of this, the division provides telecommunications  services to State customers and charges those customers for the  services provided. In accordance with State policy, the division  determines the costs for these services on an annual basis. As such, the  officials stated that they were not required by agency policy to determine  the total funding needed for the entire transition. However, although State  policy does not require the agency to identify all of the funding needed to  support transition planning, as part of a comprehensive management  approach to the transition State should identify its complete transition  funding requirements to ensure that sufficient resources are available  when needed during the transition.

While these agencies may be early in their transition efforts, there is  limited time remaining to complete the transition before the current  telecommunications contracts expire. If the agencies do not conduct early  planning to identify and justify all of their resources needed for the  transition, they may underestimate the complexity and demands of their  transition efforts. In addition, without using a rigorous management  approach to analyze and document the total number of staff required to  support the transition and to identify all of the required training for  transition staff, agencies risk having insufficient staff available or may  experience gaps in staff competencies. Such gaps may lead to delays  and unexpected costs as the agencies try to quickly address the lack of  resources during the transition’s limited time frame.

All of the Selected Agencies Had Begun to Develop Transition Plans, but These Plans Were Not Complete

All of the selected agencies had partially implemented the fifth  established transition planning practice—to develop transition plans.  Specifically, of the three activities associated with this practice, three  agencies—Commerce, NASA, and State—had fully implemented two  activities and partially implemented the remaining activity; and two  agencies—HHS and VA—had fully implemented one activity and partially  implemented the other two activities. Table 11 summarizes the extent to  which the selected agencies had developed transition plans.

Identify agency-specific transition objectives and measures of  success. Three agencies—Commerce, NASA, and State—had fully  implemented this activity by identifying transition objectives and  associated measures of success that were based on the transition  objectives. The remaining two agencies—HHS and VA—had partially  implemented this activity. In particular, while these agencies had  identified transition objectives and measures of success, their  measures were unable to be used to assess transition progress.  Specifically, HHS and VA had identified measures that could be used  to determine success at the completion of the transition (e.g., all  planned services have been transitioned to EIS). However, the  measures did not enable the agencies to compare expected  performance with actual results in order to track progress during the  course of the transition (e.g., identifying the expected number of  services that would be moved to EIS during each year of the  transition).

Identify risks that could affect transition success, including  information security risks, and evaluate the importance of these  risks relative to the agency’s mission critical systems and  continuity of operations plans. All of the selected agencies— Commerce, HHS, NASA, State, and VA—had fully implemented this  activity. Specifically, each of the agencies had identified transition  risks and evaluated the importance of those risks relative to the  agencies’ mission critical priorities.

Clearly define transition preparation tasks and develop a time  line that takes into account the agency’s mission critical  systems, contingency plans, and identified risks. All of the  selected agencies partially implemented this activity by developing  time lines with clearly defined transition preparation tasks. However,  none of these time lines accounted for all key priorities identified in the  activity. Specifically, while a 2016 version of Commerce’s transition  time line took into account one of the agency’s identified transition  risks, Commerce’s more recent transition time lines did not account  for its transition risks or for priorities related to its mission critical  systems and contingency plans. In addition, NASA’s time lines took  into account its transition risks, but did not account for priorities  related to its mission critical systems and contingency plans. State’s  and VA’s transition time lines did not account for any of these  priorities. Further, while HHS had developed time lines with clearly  defined transition preparation tasks for certain components of the  agency, it did not develop time lines that defined such tasks for all of  its components. The time lines that HHS had developed also did not  account for priorities related to all of HHS’s mission critical systems,  contingency plans, and identified risks.

Agency officials identified several reasons for not yet fully implementing  the activities associated with developing a transition plan. For example,  HHS officials attributed their lack of transition measures of success that  could be used to assess transition progress to the agency’s previous  decentralized transition management approach. The HHS officials stated  that, as part of their new centralized management approach, they planned  to develop such measures by the time the agency issues its EIS task  order. However, the officials did not have documented plans for  developing these measures.

In addition, VA officials stated that they had not identified agency-specific  transition measures of success that could be used to assess transition  progress because these measures will be dependent on the EIS vendors  that the agency selects. The officials stated that they expected to define  these measures after they issue their EIS task orders. However, as of  November 2019, the officials did not have documented plans for finalizing  these measures.

Moreover, officials from all of the selected agencies generally said that  they had not yet developed complete transition time lines because they  were focused on activities associated with the acquisition planning phase  of the transition, including developing their EIS solicitations. Officials from  all of the agencies said that they planned to develop complete transition  time lines after they issue their EIS task orders.

While agencies’ lack of issued EIS task orders contributed to delays in  developing complete transition plans, the limited time remaining to  complete the transition makes it critical that agencies conduct early  planning with the information that is available. In addition, agencies that  do not identify transition objectives and measures of success that can be  used to assess transition progress may find it difficult to provide those  involved in their transitions with clear expectations. Without measurable  metrics, managers will also lack information that could be used to track  progress toward transition objectives and inform management decisions.  Further, agencies that do not assess risks relative to their mission critical  systems and do not incorporate agency priorities related to those systems  and contingency plans into transition time lines, may encounter problems  and delays during the transition because they are not adequately  prepared to mitigate such risks.

Although the 19 selected agencies reported that they plan to fully  transition to EIS before the current telecommunications contracts expire  in May 2023, over half of the agencies do not plan to complete the  transition by GSA’s September 30, 2022, milestone to do so. By waiting  until close to the end of the current contracts to finish the transition, these  agencies are at risk of experiencing disruptions in service if any issues  arise that result in transition delays, such as inadequate human capital  resources or the need to transition previously unidentified services.  Moreover, given agencies’ poor performance during the last two  transitions—which resulted in significant delays and cost increases—and  their lack of meeting GSA’s two critical EIS transition milestones for 2019,  agencies are again at high risk of experiencing delays during this  transition. Further, agencies will miss out on potential cost savings by  delaying their transitions to the new contracts, which generally have lower  rates for services.

The five agencies we reviewed had taken steps to prepare for the  transition of their telecommunications services to EIS contracts. However,  these agencies’ lack of full implementation of established planning  practices increases the risk that they will experience adverse effects— such as schedule delays or cost increases—while transitioning to the new  contracts. Several agencies stated that they intend to implement the  planning practices after they have issued their EIS task orders. However,  limited time remains to complete the transition before the current  telecommunications contracts expire. Further, inadequate project  planning was a key factor that contributed to delays during the prior  transition to Networx. Accordingly, it is critical for agencies to apply a  rigorous management approach from the start of the current transition  using the information that is currently available, even though changes  may be necessary as conditions evolve. Agencies that do not fully adopt  the comprehensive approach captured in these planning practices may  not make the most of the opportunity for change, and the potential to save  costs, that such a major telecommunications transition provides.

We are making a total of 25 recommendations to five agencies, which  includes five each to Commerce, HHS, NASA, State, and VA.

The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer updates the telecommunications inventory to include  all telecommunications assets and services in use at the agency, and  updates Commerce’s process for ongoing maintenance of the inventory  to include the complete inventory. (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer completes efforts to identify future telecommunications  needs using a complete inventory of existing telecommunications  services; conducts and documents a comprehensive strategic analysis at  all bureaus to identify areas for optimization and sharing of  telecommunications resources; evaluates the costs and benefits of  implementing new telecommunications technology and alternative options  at all bureaus; and fully aligns Commerce’s telecommunications needs  with its long-term IT plans and enterprise architecture. (Recommendation  2)

The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer finalizes the responsibilities related to the information  security management role during the telecommunications transition, and  assigns the roles for providing legal expertise during the transition, as well  as for managing human capital, telecommunications assets, and  information security during the transition, to staff members; describes how  changes and disruptions related to the transition will be communicated to  end users at all bureaus and identifies the key local and regional agency  transition officials responsible for disseminating information about the  transition to employees and working with the vendor to facilitate transition  activities in Commerce’s transition communications plan; and establishes  and implements configuration and change management processes for its  transition. (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer identifies all of the funding needed to support the  telecommunications transition; justifies requests for resources related to  transition program management staff; conducts an analysis to identify  staff resources needed for the entire transition effort; and analyzes  training needs for staff assisting with the transition. (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer takes into account the agency’s telecommunications  transition risks, mission critical systems, and contingency plans in  Commerce’s transition time line. (Recommendation 5)

The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the  agency’s Chief Information Officer develops a policy that requires the  agency’s components to maintain an inventory of the telecommunications  assets and services that they acquire independently from headquarters;  updates the telecommunications inventory to include all  telecommunications assets and services in use at HHS, and updates the  agency’s process for ongoing maintenance of the inventory to include the  complete inventory. (Recommendation 6)

The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the  agency’s Chief Information Officer completes efforts to identify future  telecommunications needs using a complete inventory of existing  telecommunications services; and aligns HHS’s telecommunications  needs with its long-term IT plans. (Recommendation 7)

The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the  agency’s Chief Information Officer identifies and documents  telecommunications transition roles and responsibilities related to (1)  managing assets and human capital during the planning and execution  phases of the transition and (2) providing legal expertise during the  execution phase of the transition, and assigns the transition information  security management role to a staff member; and establishes and  implements configuration and change management processes for HHS’s  transition. (Recommendation 8)

The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the  agency’s Chief Information Officer identifies all of the funding needed to  support the telecommunications transition at each of the agency’s  components, justifies requests for transition resources related to  hardware and software upgrades, conducts an analysis to identify staff  resources needed for the entire transition effort, and analyzes training  needs for staff assisting with the transition. (Recommendation 9)

The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the  agency’s Chief Information Officer completes efforts to identify  telecommunications transition measures of success that can be used to  assess transition progress; and takes into account all of the agency’s  components, as well as its mission critical systems, contingency plans,  and telecommunications transition risks, in HHS’s transition time line.  (Recommendation 10)

The Secretary of State should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information  Officer updates the telecommunications inventory to include all  telecommunications assets and services in use at the agency, and  updates State’s process for ongoing maintenance of the inventory to  include the complete inventory. (Recommendation 11)

The Secretary of State should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information  Officer completes efforts to identify the agency’s future  telecommunications needs using a complete inventory of existing  telecommunications services; conducts and documents a strategic  analysis to justify the sharing of telecommunications resources; and  aligns State’s telecommunications needs with its long-term IT plans and  enterprise architecture. (Recommendation 12)

The Secretary of State should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information  Officer identifies telecommunications transition roles and responsibilities  related to (1) managing assets during the planning and execution phases  of the transition and (2) providing legal expertise during the execution  phase of the transition, and finalizes the responsibilities related to the  information security management role for the transition; includes in  State’s transition communications plan the frequency with which transition  status updates and meetings will occur throughout the transition, a  description of how changes and disruptions related to the transition will be  communicated to end-users, and the key local and regional agency  transition officials responsible for disseminating information about the  transition to employees and working with the vendor to facilitate transition  activities; and establishes configuration management processes for the  agency’s transition. (Recommendation 13)

The Secretary of State should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information  Officer identifies all of the funding needed to support the  telecommunications transition, justifies requests for resources related to  transition program management staff, conducts an analysis to identify  staff resources needed for the entire transition effort, and finalizes its  analysis of training needs for staff assisting with the transition.  (Recommendation 14)

The Secretary of State should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information  Officer takes into account the agency’s telecommunications transition  risks, mission critical systems, and contingency plans in State’s transition  time line. (Recommendation 15)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer updates the telecommunications inventory to include  all telecommunications assets and services in use at the agency, and  updates and finalizes VA’s process for ongoing maintenance of the  inventory to include the complete inventory. (Recommendation 16)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer completes efforts to identify future telecommunications  needs using a complete inventory of existing telecommunications  services, and determines and documents that VA’s telecommunications  needs are aligned with its long-term IT plans. (Recommendation 17)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer includes in its telecommunications transition  communications plan the key local and regional agency officials  responsible for disseminating information about the transition to  employees and working with the vendor to facilitate transition activities;  and establishes and uses cost and schedule management processes in  the agency’s transition. (Recommendation 18)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer identifies and documents all of the funding needed to  support the telecommunications transition, including costs for all years of  transition planning support; justifies requests for transition resources  related to program management staff; conducts an analysis to identify  staff resources needed for the entire transition effort; and analyzes  training needs for staff assisting with the transition. (Recommendation 19)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the agency’s Chief  Information Officer completes efforts to identify telecommunications  transition measures of success that can be used to assess transition  progress; and takes into account the agency’s telecommunications  transition risks, mission critical systems, and contingency plans in VA’s  transition time line. (Recommendation 20)

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information Officer updates the  telecommunications inventory to include all telecommunications assets  and services in use at the agency, and updates NASA’s process for  ongoing maintenance of the inventory to include the complete inventory.  (Recommendation 21)

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information Officer completes  efforts to identify the agency’s future telecommunications needs using a  complete inventory of existing telecommunications services.  (Recommendation 22)

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information Officer identifies  telecommunications transition roles and responsibilities related to (1)  managing human capital during the planning and execution phases of the  transition and (2) providing legal expertise during the execution phase of  the transition. (Recommendation 23)

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information Officer conducts an  analysis to support the anticipated cost savings identified as part of the  agency’s justification for its resource requests related to hardware and  software upgrades for the telecommunications transition, and justifies its  resource requests for transition program management staff; conducts an  analysis to identify staff resources needed for the entire transition effort;  and analyzes training needs for staff assisting with the transition.  (Recommendation 24)

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  should ensure that the agency’s Chief Information Officer takes into  account the agency’s mission critical systems and contingency plans in  NASA’s telecommunications transition time line. (Recommendation 25)

We provided a draft of this report to the 19 selected agencies for their  review and comment. In response, all five agencies to which we made  recommendations (Commerce, HHS, State, VA, and NASA) stated that  they concurred with the recommendations. In addition, of the 14 agencies  to which we did not make recommendations, one (the Department of the  Treasury) provided comments on the report, and one (the Small Business  Administration) provided a technical comment via email, which we  incorporated into the report, as appropriate. The remaining 12 agencies  did not have any comments on the report.

The following five agencies concurred with our recommendations:  In written comments (reprinted in appendix II), Commerce concurred  with our five recommendations to the agency and stated that it will  take steps to implement them.

In written comments (reprinted in appendix III), HHS concurred with  our five recommendations to the agency and described actions it has  taken or plans to take to address them. For example, with regard to  our recommendation that HHS identify and document key  telecommunications transition roles and responsibilities, among other  things, the agency stated that it had (1) established an integrated  program team to coordinate all telecommunications transition  activities, in conjunction with its EIS program management office; (2)  assigned two legal counsel staff to support the EIS transition during its  current procurement phase, as well as for the transition; and (3)  included the agency’s Office of Information Security in reviewing and  providing input into its EIS solicitation. The agency also stated that it  intends to engage the Office of Information Security throughout the  lifecycle of the EIS transition, among other things.

HHS also provided general comments in response to the findings in  the report. Specifically, the agency described actions that it had taken  to improve its management of the EIS transition. For example, the  agency stated that the Assistant Secretary for Administration decided  to centralize HHS’s EIS transition efforts in March 2019, after it had  conducted a study of risks and costs associated with the  decentralized transition approach that the agency had been taking  since 2017. HHS further stated that it had identified the issues that we  brought up during our review and had proactively worked since March  2019 to establish processes and procedures to manage its transition  in a comprehensive manner. In particular, the agency stated that it  established a fully funded, centralized EIS program management  office to support all of HHS’s operating divisions during the transition.

Establishing and effectively implementing such management  processes will be critical to the agency’s successful transition to EIS.

In written comments (reprinted in appendix IV), State concurred with  our five recommendations to the agency.

In written comments (reprinted in appendix V), VA stated that it  agreed with our conclusions and concurred with our five  recommendations to the agency. VA also stated that it would provide  the actions it plans to take to address the recommendations in its 180- day update to the final report.

In written comments (reprinted in appendix VI), NASA concurred with  our five recommendations to the agency. It also described actions it  has taken or plans to take to address each recommendation. For  example, the agency described actions it has taken to address our  recommendation calling for NASA to update its telecommunications  inventory to include all telecommunications assets and services in use  at the agency, among other things. Specifically, the agency stated that  the NASA communications contractor, under NASA management  oversight, maintains an inventory of telecommunications assets and  services. The agency added, nevertheless, that unique mission assets  are not included in the inventory, are managed by programs and  projects, and are available to the NASA Office of the Chief Information  Officer.

We agree that NASA has established an inventory of certain  telecommunications assets and services in use at the agency.  However, as discussed earlier in this report, this inventory includes  only the enterprise-wide assets and services in use at the agency; it  does not include all of the assets and services that individual mission  offices ordered for their own use. During our review, we asked  NASA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer to provide an inventory  of the assets and services ordered by the agency’s individual mission  offices and NASA did not provide such an inventory.

We maintain that NASA should have a complete inventory of all of its  telecommunications assets and services in order to ensure that it is  able to transition all services to EIS, as appropriate, before the current  GSA telecommunications contracts expire. A complete inventory is  also needed for the agency to be able to strategically plan for the  transition, including fully identifying the agency’s future  telecommunications needs and opportunities to optimize or share  services by consolidating them on EIS.

In addition, NASA described actions it has taken to address our  recommendation calling for the agency to complete efforts to identify  its future telecommunications needs using a complete inventory of  existing telecommunications services. Specifically, the agency stated,  among other things, that it (1) maintains an inventory of  telecommunications services that are within the scope of the EIS  program, and (2) continually identifies and plans for future NASA  telecommunications needs using this inventory.

However, as discussed earlier, NASA’s inventory of  telecommunications assets and services is not complete because it  does not include the assets and services ordered by the agency’s  individual mission offices. Identifying NASA’s future  telecommunications needs using a complete inventory of  telecommunications services, as we recommended, would help to  ensure that the agency fully identifies these needs. It would also  reduce the likelihood that the agency may miss opportunities to  optimize or share services by consolidating them on EIS.

In written comments (reprinted in appendix VII), the Department of the  Treasury offered additional information intended to clarify our findings  regarding the agency’s compliance with GSA’s milestones to (1) release  all EIS fair opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019; (2) issue all EIS  task orders by September 30, 2019; and (3) fully transition to EIS by  September 30, 2022. In this regard, the agency stated that it had released four of its six EIS fair opportunity solicitations—which  the agency said represented the majority of its telecommunications  requirements—prior to GSA’s March 31, 2019, milestone; and had  released its two other solicitations in July 2019.   issued one of its six EIS task orders in September 2019, prior to  GSA’s September 30, 2019, milestone and planned to issue its five  remaining EIS task orders in March and April 2020. expected to transition all of its telecommunications services  associated with its largest EIS solicitation by GSA’s milestone date of  September 30, 2022. The agency stated that this solicitation is to  provide enterprise managed services (e.g., voice and data services)  for all Treasury bureaus except the Office of the Comptroller of the  Currency. The agency also stated that it believes it will meet its  transition goals for its other five solicitations. While the Department of  the Treasury did not specify in its written comments a date for  completing the transition of services associated with these other five  solicitations, agency officials stated during our review that they  planned to complete the transition to EIS in March 2023.

The additional clarifications provided by the Department of the Treasury  did not change our findings that the agency did not (1) meet GSA’s March  31, 2019, milestone to release all EIS fair opportunity solicitations; (2)  meet GSA’s September 30, 2019, milestone to issue all EIS task orders;  and (3) plan to fully transition to EIS by GSA’s September 30, 2022,  milestone.

Finally, 12 agencies responded that they did not have any comments on  the report. Ten of these agencies responded via email: the Departments  of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, the  Interior, Justice, Labor, and Transportation; and the General Services  Administration. Two agencies (the Department of Housing and Urban  Development and the Social Security Administration) provided written  responses, which are reprinted in appendices VIII and IX, respectively.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Administrator of the General Services Administration,  Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,  Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Health and Human Services,  Secretary of State, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and other interested  parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Carol Harris at (202) 512-4456 or HarrisCC@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix X.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In particular, as part of this survey, we asked agencies to identify the following:

their plans for the transition to EIS, including the total number of fair opportunity  solicitations and task orders planned;  their planned schedules for transitioning to EIS contracts; and  key factors that contributed to delays, if any, in meeting two critical transition  milestones that GSA established for 2019—to (1) finish releasing all EIS fair  opportunity solicitations by March 31, 2019, and (2) finish issuing all EIS task  orders by September 30, 2019.

After receiving the agencies’ survey responses, we electronically extracted the  survey data and examined the results to identify missing data, inconsistencies, and  other indications of error. We then addressed such issues, as necessary, including  through follow-up communications with the selected agencies. In addition, due to the  open-ended responses related to the key factors for delays, we conducted a content  analysis of the responses we received in order to identify categories for the reported  factors. We also interviewed relevant agency officials for further information  regarding their agencies’ plans for transitioning to EIS.

Further, for the seven agencies that reported in their survey responses that they  planned to meet GSA’s milestone to finish issuing all EIS task orders by September  30, 2019, we asked those agencies in October 2019 to identify whether they actually  met that milestone. One of the seven agencies reported that it met the milestone. For  the six other agencies that did not meet the milestone, we asked them to identify the  key factors that contributed to their delays in issuing the task orders. In November  2019, we also asked all of the 19 selected agencies to provide updated responses  regarding their planned dates for fully transitioning to EIS contracts.

To address the second objective, we selected for review a nongeneralizable subset  of five agencies included in the first objective and assessed those agencies against  activities associated with established transition planning practices.

To select these five agencies from the 19 agencies included in our first objective, we  first excluded the four Chief Financial Officers Act agencies that were included in our  most recent prior review of agencies’ telecommunications transition planning efforts.  We then used the telecommunications billing data provided by GSA to categorize the  15 remaining agencies based on the total charges billed to the agencies for fiscal  year 2018. Specifically, in order to ensure that we would select agencies with  different levels of telecommunications spending, we used the following three cost  ranges to categorize the agencies as large, medium, or small:  large – $100 million or more, medium – $25 million to less than $100 million, and  small – less than $25 million.

We also identified whether each agency had a centralized or decentralized structure  related to its Chief Information Officer office. Further, we identified the number of fair  opportunity EIS solicitations that each agency had released, as of October 31, 2018,  and the total number of solicitations each agency planned to release, as reported on  GSA’s website for tracking agencies’ EIS transition progress.

Based on the above considerations, we selected five agencies that exhibited a  variety of sizes and structures, and a range of planned and released fair opportunity  EIS solicitations. The selected agencies were Commerce, HHS, NASA, State, and  VA.

Because we did not review a statistically representative sample of federal agencies,  we could not conclude that our results represent the entire federal government’s  level of preparation. However, the five cases we studied illustrate the levels of  planning that these agencies had put into their transitions to EIS.

We then obtained and reviewed relevant transition planning documentation from the  agencies and assessed it against the following five telecommunications transition  planning practices identified in our prior work:  1.  develop an accurate inventory of telecommunications assets and services,  2.  perform a strategic analysis of telecommunications requirements,  3.  develop a structured transition management approach,  4.  identify the resources needed for the transition, and  5.  develop a transition plan.

Specifically, for each of the agencies, we obtained and analyzed documentation,  such as EIS transition plans; telecommunications inventories; telecommunications  inventory maintenance documentation; EIS fair opportunity solicitations;  documentation of strategic analyses completed while the agencies reviewed their  telecommunications requirements (e.g., cost-benefit analyses of new technology and  alternative options); program management documentation applicable to the  transition, including program management plans, communications plans, cost  estimates, integrated master schedules, risk logs, and oversight board briefing slides  and meeting minutes; agency staffing plans for the EIS transition; and training  completion documentation specific to the EIS transition. We also interviewed agency  officials—including those that were responsible for managing their agencies’  transitions to EIS—regarding their agencies’ implementation of the established  transition planning practices.

Regarding our assessments of the agencies’ implementation of each of the activities  associated with the five transition planning practices, we assessed an activity as  “fully implemented” if agency officials provided evidence that they had implemented  all of the aspects of the practice activity, or the agency had approved plans and  related policies to fully implement the practice activity at a later time during the  transition. We assessed an activity as “partially implemented” if agency officials  provided evidence that they had implemented some, but not all, aspects of the  practice activity.

To assess the reliability of the fiscal year 2018 telecommunications billing data that  we used to select the agencies for review, we reviewed the GSA-provided data to  identify outliers, missing data, and other potential errors (e.g., components that were  not associated with the correct agency). We also interviewed knowledgeable GSA  officials about the reliability of the billing data provided.

In addition, to assess the reliability of the agency-reported information we used to  support the findings in this report, we reviewed relevant program documentation to  substantiate evidence obtained through interviews with agency officials. For  computer-processed data, such as the telecommunications inventories, we reviewed  the data to identify outliers, missing data, and other potential errors; interviewed  agency officials regarding the completeness and accuracy of the data; and reviewed  related documentation, where available. For example, regarding the  telecommunications inventories, we assessed agency documentation of the quality  control procedures and practices related to ensuring the accuracy of the inventories.  We also interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the systems and  processes in place to collect and verify the inventory data.

Further, to determine if the agencies had established complete telecommunications  inventories, we searched the data on USASpending.gov to identify the contractors  that received telecommunications-related contracts from the selected agencies in  fiscal years 2018 and 2019. We then compared the resulting list of contractors to  those identified in the agencies’ inventories and, when the list of contractors  identified did not match, we interviewed agency officials about the completeness of  their inventories.

We determined that the data used to select the agencies for review and to support  the findings in this report were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting  objectives, with the exception of agencies’ telecommunications inventories.  Specifically, we determined that the inventory information provided by all five of the  agencies was not reliable, due to the lack of documented procedures to ensure the  completeness and accuracy of the data. This conclusion was considered during our  assessment of the agencies’ efforts to implement the planning practice to develop an  accurate inventory of telecommunications assets and services. We discuss  limitations of these data in the report. We have also made appropriate attribution  indicating the sources of the data.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2018 to April 2020 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of the Treasury

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appendix IX: Comments from the Social Security Administration

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff made key  contributions to this report: James R. Sweetman, Jr. (Assistant Director),  Emily Kuhn (Analyst-in-Charge), James Brefo, Chris Businsky, Rebecca  Eyler, Javier Irizarry, Amber McCants, and Andrew Stavisky.

Federal agencies must transition their telecommunications services to new contracts before their current contracts expire in May 2023.

However, most agencies we looked at did not meet key dates for completing contract transition activities (such as soliciting vendor proposals or issuing work orders to selected vendors).

These agencies also do not plan to complete the transition by the September 2022 deadline set by the General Services Administration. Delays in transitioning will cause agencies to miss out on cost savings and may cause disruptions in service.

We made 25 recommendations to help agencies effectively plan for the transition.