United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to the Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs U S Senate August 1996 TAX SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION Cyberfile Project Was Poorly Planned and Managed G A O years 1921 - 1996 GAO AIMD-96-140 GAO United States General Accounting Office Washington D C 20548 Accounting and Information Management Division B-271015 August 26 1996 The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Dear Mr Chairman This report responds to your February 1996 request that we assess whether applicable procurement laws and regulations were adhered to in the acquisition of Cyberfile an electronic filing system being developed for the Internal Revenue Service IRS by the Department of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service NTIS Specifically as agreed with your staff we determined whether 1 IRS’ decision to use NTIS to develop Cyberfile was based on sound analysis 2 applicable procurement laws and regulations were followed in acquiring Cyberfile equipment and services 3 Cyberfile obligations and costs1 were accounted for properly and 4 equipment and services were acquired cost-effectively This report contains recommendations to the Commissioner of the IRS and the Secretary of the Department of Commerce Details of our scope and methodology are in appendix I The Department of the Treasury IRS and Commerce commented on a draft of this report Their comments are discussed in the “Agency Comments” section and are reprinted in appendixes II III and IV Results in Brief IRS’ selection of NTIS to develop Cyberfile was not based on sound analysis did not adequately analyze requirements consider alternatives or assess NTIS’ capabilities to develop and operate an electronic filing system even though the need for these critical prerequisites was brought to management’s attention as early as July 1995 Instead IRS selected NTIS because it was expedient and because NTIS promised IRS without any objective support that it could develop Cyberfile in less than 6 months and have it operating by February 1996 IRS In order to meet these self-imposed time constraints the project was hastily initiated Development and acquisition were undisciplined and Cyberfile was poorly managed and overseen As a result it was not 1 The financial measure of resources consumed in accomplishing a specified purpose such as performing a service carrying out an activity or completing a unit of work or a specified project Page 1 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 delivered on time and after advancing $17 1 million to NTIS IRS has suspended Cyberfile’s development and is reevaluating the project IRS and NTIS did not follow all applicable procurement laws and regulations in developing Cyberfile IRS cited the Brooks ADP Act 40 U S C 759 for its authority to procure Cyberfile However IRS did not perform requirements and alternatives analyses as required by the Federal Information Resources Management Regulation which implemented the Brooks ADP Act also violated applicable procurement laws and regulations in implementing Cyberfile To obtain contractor services quickly NTIS modified an existing sole source contract awarded through the Small Business Administration’s SBA small and disadvantaged businesses program referred to as the “Section 8 a ” program providing $3 3 million for Cyberfile and increasing the total contract value to $4 3 million NTIS did not submit this modification to SBA for review as required under the Section 8 a program Further this modification circumvented SBA rules requiring that contracts over $3 0 million be competed among eligible Section 8 a firms rather than being issued on a sole source basis In addition at the time of modification the contractor was not an eligible 8 a firm under SBA regulations and had NTIS submitted the modification to SBA as required responsible officials at SBA said they would have rejected it NTIS Cyberfile obligations and costs were not accounted for properly IRS 1 significantly understated the obligations related to the project and 2 improperly accounted for the $17 1 million advanced to NTIS In addition NTIS did not promptly and accurately account for Cyberfile obligations and costs Specifically significant financial transactions were not properly documented and obligations and costs were not recorded promptly and accurately Finally adequate financial and program management controls were not implemented to ensure that Cyberfile was acquired cost-effectively As a result excess costs were incurred For example the interagency agreement between IRS and NTIS was not structured to minimize costs and Cyberfile costs continued to be incurred after the project was suspended Specifically the agreement allowed NTIS to assess a 10 percent management fee for 1 costs associated with NTIS’ failure to follow preferred management practices such as late payment penalties and 2 items which IRS could have readily obtained directly and provided to Page 2 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 NTIS such as computer equipment acquired under existing government contracts Background In August 1995 IRS signed a $22 million interagency agreement with NTIS To date $17 1 million has been advanced to NTIS $10 million in August 1995 and $7 1 million in December 1995 The agreement stipulated that NTIS would develop and operate Cyberfile a tax systems modernization TSM project that would allow taxpayers to prepare and electronically submit their tax returns using their personal computers Electronic returns would be submitted via the public switch telephone network or the Internet accepted at a new NTIS data center and then forwarded to designated IRS Service Centers Taxpayers would not be charged a fee to file their returns using Cyberfile To obtain contractor support to develop Cyberfile NTIS modified an existing technical services contract awarded on a sole source basis through SBA’s Section 8 a program for small and disadvantaged businesses This program permits the award of a contract to the SBA which then subcontracts with a firm owned by economically and socially disadvantaged individuals After award SBA requires the agency to manage the contract and ensure goods and services are received for dollars expended Further SBA officials told us that the procuring agency is supposed to obtain SBA approval before modifying the contract NTIS also acquired systems hardware and services via existing Department of the Navy Treasury and General Services Administration GSA contracts and other sources Because NTIS did not have a contracting activity with the authority to make purchases over $50 000 the agency used contracting officers from two other Commerce Department activities to support the Cyberfile procurement Initially the Office of Acquisition Management provided a contracting officer In late November 1995 the Cyberfile procurement was transferred to a contracting officer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology In December 1995 we briefed the IRS Commissioner on the risks associated with proceeding with Cyberfile as planned We explained that Cyberfile was not being developed using disciplined systems development processes and that adequate steps were not being taken to protect taxpayer data on the Internet At that time Cyberfile development was scheduled for limited operational use by a selected population of taxpayers in February 1996 Page 3 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 In March 1996 testimony 2 we noted that Cyberfile development reflected many of the same management and technical weaknesses we found in TSM systems and delineated in our July 1995 report 3 We also reported that Cyberfile contractual issues warranted further review IRS’ Chief Inspector reviewed the Cyberfile acquisition and in an April 1996 briefing to management concluded that IRS did not follow internal procurement procedures failed to sufficiently oversee the project and was vulnerable to outside criticism The Chief Inspector is also performing a physical inventory of equipment purchased by NTIS which is scheduled to be completed in late August 1996 The Commerce Department’s Inspector General is reviewing NTIS’ operations including its contracting efforts Inspector General officials told us they have serious concerns about how NTIS and the department contracted for Cyberfile as well as other projects These officials said they expect to issue a report in late August 1996 In March 1996 IRS decided to delay Cyberfile operations until after April 15 1996 Because milestones for delivering Cyberfile kept slipping IRS contracted with its Federally Funded Research and Development Center on April 16 1996 to provide options available to IRS for delivering the system for the 1997 or 1998 tax filing seasons NTIS continued to work on Cyberfile until the $17 1 million advanced from IRS had been obligated NTIS then requested an additional advance from IRS to fund the $22 million obligation incurred by IRS IRS did not provide the advance Instead it directed NTIS on May 10 1996 to stop work on Cyberfile The contractor reported to IRS in July 1996 with options for proceeding with Cyberfile However IRS is awaiting the completion of its Electronic Commerce Strategic Plan before deciding on the future course of Cyberfile IRS has not yet established a completion date for the plan IRS Selected NTIS Without Adequate Analysis did not use disciplined processes to manage and control the Cyberfile acquisition IRS did not perform the necessary requirements analysis for Cyberfile or identify alternative ways to satisfy these requirements Neither did it prepare an acquisition strategy documenting how it would acquire the most cost-effective alternative Further IRS selected NTIS without evaluating its 1 capabilities to build such a system 2 experience in building similar systems or 3 ability to deliver IRS 2 Tax Systems Modernization Management and Technical Weaknesses Must Be Overcome To Achieve Success GAO T-AIMD-95-75 March 26 1996 3 Tax Systems Modernization Management and Technical Weaknesses Must Be Corrected If Modernization Is To Succeed GAO AIMD-95-156 July 26 1995 Page 4 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 cost-effectively as compared with private-sector and other government sources Federal information management and acquisition regulations and IRS’ own policies and procedures require the use of disciplined decision-making processes for planning managing and controlling the acquisition of information systems and services These regulations and policies direct that prior to initiating system procurements such as Cyberfile IRS 1 identify its information needs 2 perform a requirements analysis to determine how to support agency needs 3 identify alternative ways to meet requirements including the costs and benefits of each alternative and 4 prepare an acquisition strategy that demonstrates how the agency plans to acquire the most cost-beneficial alternative These processes would have mitigated the risks of acquiring a system that has yet to be delivered is over budget and failed to meet IRS’ objectives dispensed with disciplined analyses because IRS officials believed that had the capabilities to deliver Cyberfile by February 1996 They said this belief was based on 1 the fact that NTIS had provided taxpayers access to tax forms via NTIS’ FedWorld Network and 2 briefings by NTIS officials in which they claimed that NTIS could complete Cyberfile by February 1996 in time for the 1996 tax filing season However the technical challenge of providing tax forms is not comparable to the much more complex Cyberfile system Further NTIS offered no convincing analytical support for its claim that it could deliver Cyberfile by February 1996 For example it provided no detailed task definitions work breakdown structures or interim schedules IRS NTIS top management did not heed warnings dating back to July 1995 from its acquisitions support staff that IRS’ Cyberfile procurement approach would lead to failure and jeopardize TSM Our December 1995 briefing to the IRS Commissioner and Deputy Secretary of Commerce on the risks of continuing with Cyberfile as planned also did not dissuade IRS from its goal to field Cyberfile for the 1996 tax filing season Only after NTIS informed IRS in April 1996 that the $17 1 million had been obligated and that the system still was not finished did IRS stop to reconsider the project IRS Page 5 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 IRS Did Not Fully Comply With Procurement Regulations for Its Cyberfile Acquisition In procuring Cyberfile IRS did not fully comply with federal acquisition regulations which are designed to help agencies develop and acquire automated systems that meet agency needs and are delivered on time and within budget IRS cited the Brooks ADP Act rather than the Economy Act 4 for its authority to enter into its interagency agreement with NTIS In this regard IRS concluded that the Economy Act was not applicable to its agreement with NTIS and therefore IRS did not attempt to comply with the requirements of that act IRS’ position is supported by a recent amendment to the Federal Information Resources Management Regulation which formalizes GSA’s position that the Economy Act is not applicable to information technology procurements subject to the Brooks ADP Act Congress may not have contemplated the exemption of such a large portion of federal procurements from the requirements of the Economy Act 5 Nonetheless the amendment was not unreasonable and was issued pursuant to GSA’s authority to implement the Brooks ADP Act Accordingly we have no basis to object to it Because section 5101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 Public Law No 104-106 1996 repealed the Brooks ADP Act effective August 8 1996 any authority to initiate interagency agreements under the Brooks ADP Act has expired However the Brooks ADP Act was in effect when IRS initiated the interagency agreement with NTIS Although it cited the Brooks ADP Act as its authority in acquiring Cyberfile IRS did not follow the Federal Information Resources Management Regulation that implements this law Specifically the regulations require agencies to conduct requirements and alternatives analyses prior to procuring information technology IRS did not conduct either analysis Without these analyses IRS could neither define the software capabilities and features needed for Cyberfile nor determine which acquisition and technical options were most advantageous to the government Further the Federal Information Resources Management Regulation also requires agencies acquiring information systems and services to obtain a delegation of procurement authority from GSA Treasury had a delegation from GSA and in turn required IRS to obtain a delegation of procurement authority from the department for information system initiatives over $15 million When IRS signed the $22 million interagency agreement with NTIS it did not obtain the required approval from Treasury 4 31 U S C 1535 5 See Off-Loading The Abuse of Inter-Agency Contracting to Avoid Competition and Oversight Requirements Senate Print No 61 103d Cong 2d Sess 1994 Page 6 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 NTIS Did Not Fully Comply With Procurement Laws and Regulations for the Cyberfile Acquisition In procuring Cyberfile NTIS did not fully comply with federal acquisition laws and regulations which are intended to encourage full and open competition and help agencies develop and acquire information systems that meet their needs and are delivered on time and within budget Specifically NTIS 1 awarded a Section 8 a contract on a sole source basis without making a reasonable determination that the value of the contract was below SBA competition thresholds 2 improperly modified the contract to add a requirement to develop Cyberfile and 3 did not effectively hold the contractor accountable for specific deliverable dates attributes and quality NTIS Awarded Sole Source Contract Without Reasonable Estimate of Its Value According to SBA regulations Section 8 a procurements with an estimated award value over certain dollar thresholds must be competed among eligible 8 a firms while procurements under the threshold can be awarded on a sole source basis For procurements such as NTIS’ technical services support contract the threshold is $3 million In determining whether this threshold is met the agency is required to make a reasonable estimate of the contract value In September 1995 NTIS awarded a sole source contract for $2 3 million to an 8 a firm to provide technical support services for its FedWorld and other related tasks We found however that NTIS did not have a reasonable basis for its cost estimate prior to awarding this sole source contract NTIS officials said that at the time of contract award they estimated that the FedWorld work would cost $1 0 million but had no idea what Cyberfile tasks would ultimately cost Rather than developing a cost estimate analytically NTIS officials said they “plugged in a cost” of $1 3 million for Cyberfile for a total contract value of $2 3 million After contract award the contractor estimated the cost to develop Cyberfile at $3 3 million which resulted in a $2 0 million contract modification on November 7 1995 a month and a half after contract award As of July 11 1996 the contractor had spent a total of about $3 6 million Accordingly NTIS did not have an adequate basis for determining that a sole source award was proper in these circumstances NTIS Improperly Modified 8 a Contract SBA officials told us that under the Section 8 a program SBA requires federal agencies to submit 8 a contract modifications to SBA for review and approval prior to making the change Responsible SBA officials told us SBA reviews the modifications to ensure that they do not constitute a circumvention of competition requirements to determine whether the Page 7 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 work is within the scope of the original contract and to validate that the firm is still eligible for work under the 8 a program SBA will not approve modifications that are beyond the scope of the contract if the firm is no longer eligible for the work under the 8 a program We found NTIS’ modification of the 8 a contract improper for three reasons First NTIS did not submit the modification to SBA for review and approval Instead NTIS executed the modification on its own Second SBA officials told us that had they received the modification they would have disapproved it because such a substantial increase so soon after contract award would have been a circumvention of the $3 million threshold for competition Third the contractor was not eligible under the 8 a program for this type of work In this regard SBA considered the Cyberfile work envisioned in the modification to be beyond the scope of the work in the original contract and determined that the contractor was no longer eligible to perform this work because its income exceeded 8 a eligibility requirements Accordingly SBA’s Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development has taken the position that had NTIS submitted the modification for its approval SBA would have rejected it NTIS Did Not Hold Contractor Accountable Federal acquisition regulations require that under cost reimbursement contracts like the one awarded to NTIS’ contractor only costs that are properly allocable to the contract can be paid In order to make these determinations the contract’s statement of work must be clear enough to determine whether costs claimed by the contractor are incurred for specified work The work statements should describe the government’s requirements including definitions of all deliverables and the condition of their acceptability We found that the contract work statement for Cyberfile was too vague to properly allocate costs Specifically the contracting officer from Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology told us that the statement of work did not include all the deliverables and milestones needed to verify payments due and was too vague to determine whether to pay the contractor In this regard when the contractor requested an additional $4 million on April 30 1996 to finish the project the contracting officer could not determine if the request was for work that should have been completed under the existing contract or for additional work not authorized by the contract To make this determination the contracting officer directed NTIS to rewrite the statement of work with sufficient detail and sent it to the contractor on May 14 1996 requesting supporting Page 8 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 documentation for all costs incurred The contractor provided documentation on July 11 1996 and it is being reviewed by the contracting officer IRS Did Not Adequately Oversee NTIS’ Systems Development and Acquisition Efforts IRS abdicated its responsibility to ensure that NTIS was managing the Cyberfile effort efficiently and effectively Program oversight was generally limited to 1 weekly progress meetings with NTIS officials who repeatedly assured IRS officials that Cyberfile would be ready for the 1996 tax filing season without providing any convincing basis for these assurances 2 reviewing monthly budget and schedule reports which IRS project managers said were useless because the information provided was inaccurate and not current and 3 participating in acceptance testing of portions of the system as they were delivered Under the interagency agreement and IRS’ policy for implementing it IRS was required to review and approve invoices submitted by NTIS to ensure that NTIS’ performance was consistent with terms and conditions of the interagency agreement However IRS officials said that they were unaware of this requirement and did not request the invoices from NTIS Neither NTIS Nor IRS Properly Accounted for Cyberfile Obligations and Costs Agencies are required to maintain adequate systems of internal controls to ensure effective stewardship of public funds However our review of Cyberfile transactions recorded in NTIS’ financial management system disclosed significant internal control weaknesses which resulted from not following generally accepted practices Specifically for the Cyberfile transactions reviewed NTIS often failed to record obligations and costs promptly and accurately and properly document financial transactions Because of these weaknesses neither IRS nor NTIS management had the reliable financial management information needed to effectively oversee and monitor the progress of the Cyberfile project In this regard the total obligations and costs reported to IRS by NTIS on June 28 1996 were inaccurate We also found that IRS did not properly account for Cyberfile obligations and costs because it did not effectively discharge its financial management responsibilities for the project Page 9 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 Agencies Are Required to Maintain Adequate Systems of Internal Controls The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 31 U S C 3512 requires that agency systems of internal and accounting and administrative control must comply with internal control standards prescribed by the Comptroller General and must provide reasonable assurances that • • • obligations and costs comply with applicable law assets are safeguarded against waste loss unauthorized use and misappropriation and revenues and expenditures applicable to agency operations are recorded and accounted for properly so that accounts and reliable financial and statistical reports may be prepared and accountability of the assets may be maintained Agency heads are required to prepare an annual report which is to be transmitted to the President and the Congress on whether their agency’s internal control systems fully comply with the act’s requirements The act requires that the report identify any material systems weaknesses together with plans for corrective actions The internal control standards that agencies are to follow are contained in the Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government These were issued in 1983 by GAO as required by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act and provide 12 internal control standards that agencies should follow Further the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires agencies to develop and maintain financial management systems that comply with internal control standards and provide complete reliable consistent and timely information In addition the financial data are to be prepared uniformly and be responsive to the financial information needs of agency management As envisioned by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act and the Chief Financial Officers Act the ultimate responsibility for good internal controls rests with management An internal control system is not a specialized or separate system Rather internal controls are to be an integral part of each system that management uses to regulate and guide its operations In this sense they are management’s controls Good internal controls are essential to achieving the proper conduct of government business with full accountability for the resources made available They also facilitate the achievement of management objectives Page 10 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 by serving as checks and balances against undesired actions and the resulting negative consequences Many Cyberfile Transactions Were Not Recorded Promptly or Accurately One of the 12 internal control standards requires that transactions be promptly and properly classified This is essential to maintaining good financial management information and effectively tracking project obligations and costs Therefore management needs to ensure that adequate controls are implemented to ensure that transactions are promptly and accurately recorded Transactions Often Not Recorded Promptly Our review of Cyberfile transactions disclosed that it sometimes took months before an obligation was recorded Specifically we reviewed about $16 million of obligations and found that about $10 8 million 67 percent of them were recorded more than 30 days after the obligation date Such delays create an unnecessary risk of financial commitments exceeding spending authority Some examples follow • • An $886 100 obligation for a computer system was made on November 28 1995 but was not recorded in the accounting records until February 20 1996 A major Cyberfile contract was signed in September 1995 with an initial value of about $2 3 million However this obligation was not recorded promptly Specifically obligations totaling about $2 million were recorded in the accounting system between December 1995 and April 1996 as the invoices were received Similarly the contract was modified in November 1995 and the total contract value was raised to about $4 3 million but an obligation for about $2 1 million was not recorded until June 17 1996 As of June 27 1996 the remaining $200 000 had not been recorded 6 In addition we identified cases where NTIS did not record costs when goods and services were received and accepted For example invoices totaling $3 4 million for goods and services provided for the project were dated March 26 1996 $1 2 million and June 13 1996 $2 2 million NTIS officials agreed that the goods and services associated with the $1 2 million invoice had been received and accepted by April 2 1996 while the goods and services for the $2 2 million invoice had been received and accepted by NTIS by June 14 1996 However as of June 27 1996 only about $46 000 of these costs were recorded 6 In a letter dated July 11 1996 the vendor provided NTIS with additional information about the costs incurred Based on this information NTIS officials believe that the obligation necessary for this contract will be about $3 6 million Page 11 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 Obligation and Cost Amounts Recorded Inaccurately Transactions must be recorded accurately to ensure that the financial management system can be used to effectively oversee and monitor a project’s progress However we identified the following examples where obligations and or costs were recorded inaccurately • • • NTIS Did Not Maintain Proper Documentation to Support Cyberfile Transactions We identified two cases where items coded as belonging to other projects were improperly obligated for the Cyberfile project These obligations which totalled about $256 000 were charged to the Cyberfile project until they were credited in late July 1996 NTIS personnel and IRS internal auditors reviewed the items charged to the project and have identified several items totaling over $300 000 that should not have been charged to the project Although all but about $11 000 has now been credited to the project for these items other related costs have not For example the Cyberfile project was initially charged about $138 000 for computers that were used by NTIS’ FedWorld project Cyberfile was subsequently credited for this amount However this purchase also required the payment of about $5 500 in administrative fees to the agency administering the contract These fees were also charged to Cyberfile but the project was not credited for these fees until July 10 1996 According to NTIS officials these fees were paid separately from the equipment and were overlooked when the credit for the equipment was recorded NTIS personnel also identified about $7 000 in equipment costs which should have been charged to the Cyberfile project but were erroneously charged to NTIS’ FedWorld project Another of the 12 internal control standards requires that agencies clearly document all transactions and other significant financial events and that the documentation be readily available for examination Our review found that NTIS did not maintain adequate supporting documentation for many Cyberfile transactions For example between March 22 1996 and April 17 1996 NTIS recorded obligations totaling $850 000 to another federal agency for renovation costs of the space to be used for the Cyberfile project However at that time NTIS did not have a signed interagency agreement with this agency and thus did not have a valid basis for obligating funds In cases such as this 31 U S C 1501 requires that obligations only be recorded “when supported by documentary evidence ” NTIS eventually signed an interagency agreement with this federal agency on May 22 1996 This agreement also covered rental costs for the Cyberfile space Page 12 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 Agencies are also required to only make disbursements against valid obligations However we identified problems with some payments made for the renovation NTIS disbursed $70 6097 in September 1995 and $28 860 in November 1995 for space renovations 8 months and 6 months respectively before the interagency agreement was signed We also noted documentation problems with other transactions For example NTIS made payments totaling $44 548 to a vendor However when the funds were disbursed only $24 560 was supported by a valid obligating document a purchase order The remaining $19 988 was obligated based on a purchase order dated 2 weeks after the last payment was made Financial Information Reported to IRS by NTIS Was Inaccurate Because of the internal control weaknesses relating to Cyberfile transactions neither IRS nor NTIS management had the financial management information needed to effectively oversee and monitor the project In particular although the interagency agreement required NTIS to submit monthly billings to IRS for costs incurred these billings were not requested or provided Moreover because of the financial weaknesses identified above NTIS did not have the reliable financial management information needed to properly prepare such billings In addition the total obligations and costs reported to IRS in a June 28 1996 letter were incorrect On June 28 1996 NTIS sent a letter to IRS which summarized the obligations and costs of the Cyberfile project An attachment to the letter showed that NTIS had incurred Cyberfile obligations of $20 5 million and about $13 6 million of costs had been incurred against these obligations through June 27 1996 These amounts excluded June 1996 labor benefits and other related costs such as overhead However as discussed above the reliability of the reported amounts is questionable because of NTIS’ failure to consistently record Cyberfile obligations and costs promptly and accurately We also noted that the June 28 1996 letter did not identify the amount of obligations that may be deobligated in the future Specifically because of changing IRS requirements data storage devices costing over $650 000 that were originally purchased for Cyberfile were no longer needed for the Cyberfile project NTIS officials stated that they are in the process of 7 Documentation provided later by NTIS supported all but about $700 of this disbursement NTIS officials stated that this disbursement amount was based on a telephone call with the performing agency When NTIS received the supporting documentation the difference was noted and the agency agreed to give NTIS a credit for this overpayment Page 13 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 returning these items However they are unable to determine the amount of funds that will be credited to the project since they have not yet obtained the necessary information to determine the costs such as restocking fees associated with returning the items They expect this information to be provided shortly While it was correct to show the $650 000 as a Cyberfile related obligation and cost until the credit is received the letter should have noted that a significant deobligation will be recorded once the credit is received from the vendor IRS Did Not Properly Account for Cyberfile Compounding the problems we noted at NTIS IRS also did not effectively discharge its financial management responsibilities for the Cyberfile project Our review identified two problems related to IRS’ treatment of Cyberfile related transactions First it improperly treated the $17 1 million in advances as an expense Therefore the information contained in IRS’ financial management system did not accurately reflect the expenses incurred based on the goods and services provided by NTIS and accepted by IRS Second it did not properly record the amount of obligations associated with Cyberfile in its financial management records As a result IRS’ financial management system significantly understates the obligations available to pay for Cyberfile IRS Improperly Accounted for Cyberfile Advances NTIS received two advances totaling about $17 1 million from IRS IRS erroneously recorded these payments as expenses instead of advances IRS’ procedures require it to obtain evidence that goods and services called for under the terms of an interagency agreement and related detailed statements of work are received and accepted before recording an expense Accordingly IRS should have recorded the $17 1 million as an advance and then transferred amounts to expense as the goods and services were received and accepted However as previously noted NTIS did not submit and IRS did not request the required monthly billings for costs incurred As a result IRS could not determine the amount of goods and services NTIS provided The problems we found in IRS’ accounting for the Cyberfile project with NTIS are consistent with the results of our financial audits We reported in our audits of IRS’ financial statements for fiscal years 1992 through 1995 8 that IRS often does not have adequate support for amounts it reported as 8 Financial Audit Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1995 Financial Statements GAO AIMD-96-101 July 11 1996 Financial Audit Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1994 Financial Statements GAO AIMD-95-141 August 4 1995 Financial Audit Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1993 Financial Statements GAO AIMD-94-120 June 15 1994 and Financial Audit Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1992 Financial Statements GAO AIMD-93-2 June 30 1993 Page 14 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 operating expenses Our reports noted that IRS did not have documentation to support that the goods or services had been received for expenses recorded and that this problem was most evident in transactions for goods and services provided by other government agencies IRS Did Not Properly Record Cyberfile Obligations The August 21 1995 interagency agreement between IRS and NTIS had an expiration date of December 31 1996 and provided for a maximum cost of $22 million which the parties estimated to be necessary for the work The agreement required NTIS to notify IRS when costs incurred and outstanding allowable commitments equalled 75 percent of the estimated total cost and provided that no further costs would be incurred or further work performed when the maximum was reached In accordance with 31 U S C 1501 IRS should have recorded a $22 million obligation in its financial management system on August 21 1996 9 As of August 3 1996 however IRS has only recorded about $17 1 million IRS was unable to provide information which would support it recording an obligation of less than $22 million for Cyberfile Excess Costs Were Incurred for Cyberfile Adequate financial and program management controls were not implemented to ensure that Cyberfile was acquired cost-effectively As a result excess costs were incurred Specifically • • • Schedule Driven System Development Approach Contributed to Excessive Costs the Cyberfile project was schedule driven rather than event driven which led to goods and services not always being acquired cost-effectively neither NTIS nor IRS acted promptly to avoid incurring unnecessary costs once the project was suspended and the agreement between IRS and NTIS was inadequately structured to minimize Cyberfile project costs We have previously reported that Cyberfile was schedule rather than event driven and delineated the system development problems caused by this approach 10 This exaggerated focus on schedule which was self-imposed and lacked convincing justification also led to goods and services not always being acquired cost-effectively We found • Premiums were paid to expedite equipment delivery We identified 19 cases of expedited overnight or Saturday delivery totaling over $10 000 In one case almost $725 was paid for overnight delivery of a rack costing 9 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-34 Section 23 5 November 1994 10 GAO T-AIMD-96-75 March 26 1996 Page 15 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 • Prompt Action Not Taken to Avoid Incurring Unnecessary Costs $1 670 In two other cases about $7 700 was paid in shipping charges to expedite delivery of computers Requirements were not accurately determined before goods and services were procured As a result data storage devices costing about $600 000 were purchased later determined to be unneeded and are in the process of being returned NTIS told us that restocking fees are about $90 000 or 15 percent of the equipment’s cost The necessary actions have not been undertaken to reduce the costs associated with Cyberfile Specifically since the suspension period began costs have continued to be incurred for goods and services through ongoing rental agreements e g equipment leases that could have been avoided if the underlying agreements were canceled In a letter dated May 13 1996 the Deputy Director of NTIS confirmed a conversation held between NTIS and IRS concerning the “orderly shutdown” of Cyberfile 11 This letter stated that “NTIS understands that it is to stop all work on CyberFile and furthermore NTIS will suspend all contracts and or agreements that would constitute a further obligation of IRS funds As a result of this action NTIS will shut down all equipment suspend telecommunications services and remove NTIS and contractor personnel from the project ” According to the IRS contracting officer the NTIS letter accurately portrayed the verbal order to NTIS The IRS contracting officer also stated that she told NTIS in their May 10 1996 conversation that IRS had no more funding and all contracts were to stop The IRS contracting officer further stated that she believed the letter meant that NTIS would terminate any existing contracts where possible However IRS did not follow up with a letter ensuring that the parties clearly understood the specific actions NTIS would take to control obligations and costs NTIS officials stated that the May 13 1996 letter to IRS did not require them to terminate existing contracts where possible Our review disclosed since the suspension period began costs have continued to be incurred for goods and services through ongoing rental agreements e g equipment leases Although these avoidable costs were not detailed in NTIS’ June 28 1996 letter to IRS on July 17 1996 NTIS provided IRS a list of these recurring costs that could have been avoided if the underlying agreements were terminated A review of this list shows 11 According to the June 28 1996 letter to IRS this discussion was held on May 10 1996 Page 16 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 that the monthly costs for these items are about $30 000 and the underlying contracts can be terminated with 30 days notice Only one of these contracts required a cancellation fee Examples of these recurring costs follow • • • $10 40412 per month for Internet service $7 954 per month for a mail sorting machine and $5 172 per month for rental and maintenance of a high speed printing machine officials stated that they prepared this list to notify IRS that costs were still being incurred and were awaiting direction from IRS on whether the agreements should be terminated According to the IRS contracting officer when this letter was received IRS called the NTIS program manager and instructed him to cancel the contracts The IRS contracting officer said that she did not believe IRS had to formally document this decision However in another case IRS did document its decision to cancel a contract relating to Cyberfile Specifically in a May 21 1996 letter to NTIS from the Acting Executive for Electronic Filing IRS formally notified NTIS to cancel a contract relating to support services This contract was canceled NTIS As of August 2 1996 NTIS officials stated they still had not received formal notification to terminate the contracts identified in the July 17 1996 letter Since these contracts were not canceled shortly after the May 13 1996 letter from NTIS to IRS unnecessary rental costs for July and August of about $60 000 have been incurred If it is determined that these costs are appropriate charges for the Cyberfile project then these costs would also appear subject to NTIS’ 10 percent management fee Either IRS or NTIS could have prevented these costs For example IRS could have clearly documented its understanding of the actions that NTIS would take to avoid additional costs As discussed above IRS clearly instructed NTIS to cancel a support services contract and the contract was promptly terminated On the other hand NTIS could have clearly documented its understanding of IRS’ desire to retain these contracts much earlier than the July 17 1996 letter Interagency Agreement Did Not Minimize IRS’ Costs did not structure its agreement with NTIS to minimize its costs Our review of the agreement disclosed that it allowed NTIS to assess a management fee for IRS 12 According to NTIS this item requires a $10 404 cancellation fee Page 17 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 • • NTIS Management Fee Assessed for Items Purchased on Existing Government Contracts items which IRS could have readily obtained directly and provided to NTIS and costs associated with NTIS’ mismanagement such as interest costs associated with paying vendors late NTIS procured over $5 5 million in equipment and services using existing contracts held by other government agencies which are then subject to NTIS’ 10 percent management fee IRS could have reduced its costs by either 1 stating in the agreement that certain costs such as the costs of items procured under existing contracts were not subject to the NTIS management fee or 2 procuring the items itself based on NTIS requirements and providing them to NTIS If IRS had exercised either of these options it could have significantly reduced the costs subject to the management fee For example • • NTIS purchased computers costing almost $300 000 under a contract administered by another federal agency In this case NTIS simply placed an order IRS could have avoided about $30 000 for NTIS management fees if it had placed the order itself NTIS purchased items costing over $886 000 under an existing Treasury contract which is administered by IRS If IRS had purchased these items directly and provided them to NTIS it could have avoided NTIS management fees totaling about $89 000 Cyberfile Project Assessed for Costs Associated With NTIS Mismanagement The Prompt Payment Act of 198213 requires agencies to pay interest penalties to compensate vendors when agencies do not pay their bills on time NTIS records show that it incurred about $2 100 in penalties through June 27 1996 because it did not pay Cyberfile bills on time Even though the late payments were NTIS’ fault they were included in Cyberfile’s costs and subject to the 10 percent management fee Recommendations In light of the severity of acquisition and financial problems identified we recommend that before resuming the Cyberfile project the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service • Provide to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight the Senate and House Appropriations Committees the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means a report detailing 13 31 U S C Chapter 39 Page 18 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 the weaknesses in IRS’ acquisition and financial management processes and controls that permitted Cyberfile mismanagement e g permitted IRS to disregard system acquisition policies and procedures disregard federal acquisition regulations and provide inadequate oversight of NTIS system development and acquisition efforts • actions that have been taken to ensure that these weaknesses in IRS’ processes and controls have been corrected and that resulting mismanagement does not recur and • IRS’ plans for Cyberfile including a business case analysis addressing costs mission-related benefits and technological risks schedule and milestones and acquisition strategy Ensure that a IRS’ Chief Financial Officer adjusts the obligations and costs recorded for Cyberfile to reflect the actual obligations and costs associated with the interagency agreement with NTIS and b NTIS identifies all obligations and costs that can be avoided while Cyberfile is suspended and takes needed contractual action to do so Report the acquisition weaknesses as material weaknesses in the agency’s system of internal controls under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act to the extent they remain uncorrected at the close of fiscal year 1996 and reassess these controls periodically to ensure they are adequate and are being adhered to as required by the act • • • We recommend that before permitting NTIS to resume work on the Cyberfile project or accept new systems development projects from other federal agencies e g work NTIS solicits such as providing information management solutions performing program management and software development and building state-of-the-art customized programs the Secretary of Commerce • Provide to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight the Senate and House Appropriations Committees the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Science a report detailing • the weaknesses in NTIS’ acquisition and financial management processes and controls that permitted Cyberfile mismanagement e g permitted NTIS to disregard procurement laws and regulations and dispense with acceptable financial accounting practices and • actions that have been taken to ensure that these weaknesses in NTIS’ processes and controls have been corrected and that resulting mismanagement does not recur Page 19 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 • • • • Agency Comments and Our Evaluation Ensure that NTIS’ Director immediately identifies all costs that can be avoided while Cyberfile is suspended and takes needed contractual action to do so Rescind all charges made to IRS associated with NTIS mismanagement such as costs and fees for prompt payment penalties Rescind management fees for all items purchased from existing government contracts Report the acquisition and financial management weaknesses as weaknesses in the agency’s system of internal controls under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act to the extent they remain uncorrected at the close of fiscal year 1996 and reassess these controls periodically to ensure they are adequate and are being adhered to as required by the act In commenting on our report Treasury agreed with our findings and recommendations It stated that it shared our concerns regarding IRS’ management of the Cyberfile project and that the experience with the project underscores the importance of IRS implementing our recommendations In its comments IRS agreed that Cyberfile was not successful and had encountered problems even though IRS expected to expand its technical capability by using NTIS IRS explained that it is conducting an internal review of Cyberfile to identify a full range of corrective actions Commerce also supported many of our recommendations 14 However it disagreed that NTIS should 1 rescind management fees associated with ordering equipment from existing government contracts and 2 refrain from accepting new projects from other agencies until the reported weaknesses are corrected First in refusing to rescind the management fees Commerce stated that IRS agreed to pay these fees on equipment ordered from existing government contracts “for its own convenience ” and that NTIS was entitled by the interagency agreement to collect them This position misses the point of the recommendation The issue is not whether Commerce is entitled to assess these charges under the interagency agreement the report explicitly states that it is but rather whether these charges represent judicious management of federal funds In executing an interagency agreement all parties are required to ensure that the best interests of the government are served and that federal funds are prudently expended Charging IRS an $89 000 management fee for 14 NTIS’ comments were incorporated into Commerce’s response Page 20 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 purchasing equipment from an existing contract administered by the IRS itself and in addition hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessry fees for placing orders with other federal agencies that IRS could have placed itself is not judicious management of federal funds and is not in the best interest of the federal government Second Commerce said that it would not refrain from accepting new projects from other agencies before the causes of Cyberfile mismanagement had been identified corrected and reported to the Congress because most NTIS projects involve routine information dissemination This recommendation was not intended to address NTIS projects involving only routine information dissemination Our intent was to ensure that NTIS accepted no new systems analysis development or management projects such as those solicited on NTIS’ Internet site i e providing other agencies with information management solutions performing program management and software development and building state-of-the-art customized programs while weaknesses in NTIS acquisition and financial management processes persist We have modified the recommendation to state our intention more precisely In its response Commerce also took the position that 1 the project took longer than the scheduled 6 months because IRS increased systems requirements after major milestones were met and 2 when IRS suspended the Cyberfile project in May 1996 the system was near completion However as we testified in March 1996 15 there was no formal process in place to define manage and control Cyberfile systems requirements For example there were no established security requirements or requirements baseline Further since Cyberfile was developed using undisciplined and ad hoc software development processes NTIS has no analytical basis to determine whether the system was “near completion ” when it would be complete or how much it would cost Finally Commerce claimed that it did not have enough time to review the facts in the draft report However NTIS was well aware of all the facts and had commented on them orally and in writing before the draft report was sent Specifically before sending the draft report we provided NTIS with written statements detailing the facts held meetings with NTIS to discuss the facts on July 26 August 2 and August 6 1996 and received and responded to NTIS’ written comments on the facts We then sent Commerce the draft report on August 8 1996 and allowed 8 days for the response 15 GAO T-AIMD-96-75 March 26 1996 Page 21 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile B-271015 Given that the facts already had been thoroughly discussed this should have been adequate time for a complete review As agreed with your office unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier we will not distribute it until 30 days from its date At that time we will send copies to the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs as well as the Chairmen and the Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight the Senate Committee on Finance the House Committee on Ways and Means the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations the Subcommittees on Treasury Postal Service and General Government of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Science We are also sending copies to the Secretary of the Treasury the Secretary of Commerce Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service the Director of the National Technical Information Service the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget Copies will also be made available to others upon request If you have questions about this letter please contact me at 202 512-6412 Major contributors are listed in appendix V Sincerely yours Dr Rona B Stillman Chief Scientist for Computers and Telecommunications Page 22 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile Page 23 TSM Cyberfile Contents Letter 1 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 26 Appendix II Comments From the Department of the Treasury 28 Appendix III Comments From the Internal Revenue Service 29 Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Commerce 31 Appendix V Major Contributors to This Report 33 Abbreviations ADP GSA IRS NTIS SBA TSM Page 24 automated data processing General Services Administration Internal Revenue Service National Technical Information Service Small Business Administration Tax Systems Modernization GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile Page 25 TSM Cyberfile Appendix I Scope and Methodology To determine IRS’ rationale for selecting NTIS to develop and acquire Cyberfile we reviewed IRS policies and procedures for initiating and justifying new information system projects and the documentation that IRS prepared for the Cyberfile project in accordance with the guidance We also reviewed NTIS’ Cyberfile study and proposal as well as the August 1995 interagency agreement between IRS and NTIS and supporting documentation Finally we reviewed IRS’ and NTIS’ December 1994 interagency agreement to develop an electronic bulletin board for tax forms We interviewed IRS and NTIS program and information system officials to understand 1 why NTIS was considered to develop Cyberfile 2 how IRS evaluated NTIS and 3 how NTIS performed on other projects done for IRS We also coordinated with IRS’ internal auditors reviewing their audit memoranda and write-ups to ensure no duplication of effort To determine whether IRS and NTIS followed applicable procurement laws and regulations in acquiring Cyberfile equipment and services we reviewed the Competition in Contracting Act the Economy Act the Brooks ADP Act the Federal Acquisition Regulation the Federal Information Resources Management Regulation and SBA’s Section 8 a regulations We also examined procurement policies and procedures for IRS and NTIS including the IRS policy on interagency agreements We reviewed pertinent Cyberfile contract files to document the chronology of events and verified them through interviews with IRS NTIS National Institute of Standards and Technology and SBA procurement officials We then compared the contracting actions with the laws and regulations to assess their appropriateness We also interviewed Department of Commerce Inspector General staff who were reviewing procurement and other management practices at NTIS to confirm our understanding of Commerce’s procurement processes and verify our findings To determine if Cyberfile purchases were properly accounted for and were cost-effective we worked in conjunction with IRS’ internal auditors who were performing a full inventory of all purchases related to Cyberfile For selected transactions we compared obligation and disbursement dates to dates recorded in the accounting records and reviewed supporting documentation We also reviewed procurement files to verify the validity of obligations and disbursements and reviewed related interagency agreements and contracts In addition we contacted the federal agency personnel working with NTIS to renovate space for the Cyberfile computer center Page 26 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile Appendix I Scope and Methodology Our work was performed at IRS headquarters in Washington D C the IRS facilities in Bethesda and Oxon Hill Maryland the Department of Commerce headquarters in Washington D C NTIS in Springfield Virginia the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg Maryland SBA headquarters and Washington District Office in Washington D C and the technical services contractor’s location in Bethesda Maryland Our work was conducted from April 1996 through early August 1996 We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards Page 27 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile Appendix II Comments From the Department of the Treasury Page 28 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile Appendix Comments From the Internal Revenue Service DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON D C 20224 COMMISSIONER August 19 1996 Mr Gene L Dodaro Assistant Comptroller General United States General Accounting Office 441 Street NW Washington 0 0 20548 Dear Mr Dodaro We have received your draft Report Tax Systems Modernization Cyberfile Proiect was Poorlv PLanned and Managed and appreciate the opportunity to comment on it The lnternal Revenue Service initiated the Cyberfile project in 1995 to explore additional ways of encouraging the electronic filing of tax returns In particular Cyberfile was conceived as a way of receiving returns that would be prepared on personal computers by individual taxpayers As a part of the ongoing Tax System Modernization TSM Program reviews the importance of the IRS devising a strategy that would attract this important segment of the taxpaying public was underscored The IRS agreed then as it does now that it is important to effectively bring this group of taxpayers into an environment which allows them to file electronically We expected that a partnership with the Commerce Department's NTIS organization would present the opportunity for us to expand our technical capacity to deliver Cyberfile However as you point out in your draft report the effort was not successful and there were problems The results of a comprehensive internal review of Cyberfile are currently being evaluated for the purpose of identifying the full range of appropriate corrective action As a result of the review we will be able to prepare the report to Congress that the draft Report recommends In the interim however I know you are aware of many of the steps we have taken to strengthen our ability to modernize the tax system At its core the Investment Review Process that is already in place as well as the work undenIvay on completing the TSM architecture institutionalizing the Systems Life Cycle for all new information technology development efforts implementing contractor Capability Maturity Model reviews establishing software development metrics and establishing the Integration Testing and Control Center are important ways by which we will ensure future systems Page 29 TSM Cyber le Appendix 111 Comments From the Internal Revenue Service Mr Gene L Dodaro development is done well Similarly the addition of a CIO who has previous experience with a significant modernization effort and the installation of a Government Program Management Office has enhanced our ability to design and build effective systems and mitigate many of the risks that were experienced by the Cyberfile effort If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us Sincerely Margaret Milner Richardson Page 30 TSM Cyberfile Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Commerce UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Under Secretary for Technology Washington DC 20230 Mr Gene L Dodaro Assistant Comptroller General General Accounting Of ce 441 Street N W Room 6101 Washington DC 20548 Dear Mr Dodaro The General Accounting Of ce draft report on tax systems modernization presents some troubling ndings as to the management of the Cyber le Project and I intend to see they are quickly resolved It is unclear if the problems you raised are as serious as presented but we were unable to verify or refute them in the short time allowed for reviewing the draft report The Department s Inspector General is now completing its own review which will shed more light on the subject The draft report suggests that the Project was terminated because an acceptable product had not been delivered within the promised time 'ame In May 1996 the National Technical Information Service NTIS reported that obligations had reached 75 percent of the budget as it was required to do by the terms of its agreement with lntemal Revenue Service IRS It appears that by that time Cyber le had in place all proposed hardware systems and components and the software necessary to permit extensive initial performance tests and simulations This included IRS systems acceptance testing and independent testing such as that performed for the IRS by the National Cash Register Corporation At the time of the Project s suspension NTIS and its contractors behaved that the system was near completion The Cyber le accomplishments did take more than the scheduled six months to achieve NTIS and the IRS conceived the project as a pilot program aimed at demonstrating whether the concept of a home ler system could work and be expanded at some future time to a full-scale operation However as major milestones were met in the fall of 1995 IRS began to increase its requirements NTIS always kept it informed as to what the impact would be on the schedule Although we have not been able to complete our research of the report s ndings we do support many of the recommendations Secretary Kantor has directed the Department s Acting Chief Financial Of cer and Assistant Secretary for Administration Raymond Kammer Jr to begin work on a report covering acquisition and nancial management processes and controls and our steps to resolve whatever problems are Page 31 TSM Cyberfile Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Commerce Mr Gene L Dodaro Page 2 uncovered That e 'ort in conjunction with the Inspector General s ndings will also enable us to determine if the situation warrants identi cation as a material weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act As for your other three recommendations concerning cost issues related to the Cyber le Project our report will describe our decisions and their rationale in detail We agree that late payment penalties and the associated surcharge should not have been charged to the Project and NTIS is rescinding the $2 276 in charges NTIS is also working to identify all costs that can be avoided while Cyber le is suspended However the decision to use NTIS for Cyber le-related purchases was made by for it own convenience with full understanding that the NTIS fee would be assessed In the meantime before we complete our report however I cannot agree to preventing NTIS from accepting new projects from other Federal agencies The work NTIS performs for other agencies generally involves routine information dissemination activities and produces a signi cant amount of its total revenues The Cyberfile Project is an important initiative for the taxpayer and represents a responsibility I take very seriously My staff and I will follow-up aggressively on your ndings L Good Under Secretary for Technology Page 32 TSM Cyberfile Appendix V Major Contributors to This Report Accounting and Information Management Division Washington D C Leonard Baptiste Jr Senior Assistant Director Gary N Mountjoy Project Director Gary T Engel Assistant Director Joan B Hawkins Assistant Director John C Martin Technical Assistant Director Robert L Crocker Jr Senior Information Systems Analyst Tamara J Lilly Senior ADP Telecommunications Analyst Peter C Wade Senior Business Process Analyst David R Fisher Senior Auditor Mickie E Gray Senior Auditor Laura C Filipescu Turner Senior Auditor Office of General Counsel Frank Maguire Senior Attorney 511517 Page 33 GAO AIMD-96-140 TSM Cyberfile Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free Additional copies are $2 each Orders should be sent to the following address accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents when necessary VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted also Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent Orders by mail U S General Accounting Office P O Box 6015 Gaithersburg MD 20884-6015 or visit Room 1100 700 4th St NW corner of 4th and G Sts NW U S General Accounting Office Washington DC Orders may also be placed by calling 202 512-6000 or by using fax number 301 258-4066 or TDD 301 413-0006 Each day GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days please call 202 512-6000 using a touchtone phone A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET send an e-mail message with info in the body to info@www gao gov or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at http www gao gov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER United States General Accounting Office Washington D C 20548-0001 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate Postage Fees Paid GAO Permit No G100
OCR of the Document
View the Document >>