Thompson Letter on GPRA - GSA
August 17, 1999
The Honorable David J. Barram
Administrator
General Services Administration
Eighteenth and F Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20405
Dear Administrator Barram:
As you know, the Congress is focused on ensuring that the federal government delivers better results to its citizens and taxpayers. The Congress has enacted a statutory framework to achieve these results. This statutory framework includes the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); financial management statutes, such as the Chief Financial Officers Act; and information resources management statutes, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act. Each of these reforms aims at achieving more efficient and effective performance throughout the federal government.
As part of our oversight agenda, the Committee has developed information on how effectively the General Services Administration (GSA) is using the above statutory tools to improve performance in several key areas such as becoming more results-oriented and resolving long-standing problems of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The purpose of this letter is to share with you the information we have developed and obtain your response to certain questions pertaining to it. With this dialog as a start, we hope to work with you on a continuing basis to ensure that GSA delivers the best possible results for the government and the American people.
Performance plan assessment
The Congress continues to look closely at how well departments and agencies are implementing GPRA. At the request of this Committee and others, GAO recently completed an assessment of GSA’s annual performance plan for fiscal year (FY) 2000. According to GAO, GSA’s plan "should be useful to decisionmakers in that it provides a clear picture of intended performance across the agency."
The FY 2000 plan’s major strengths are that it provides sufficient context for understanding GSA’s operations and what it intends to achieve; contains clear connections between GSA’s mission, strategic goals, and performance goals; includes goals and measures that are quantifiable, with related baselines and targets; and contains clear relationships between goals and measures.
GAO found that the FY 2000 plan had several key weaknesses. Those weaknesses include the fact that GSA did not sufficiently discuss how the performance goals and measures link to the program activities and funding in GSA’s budget, and that it did not explain how it will ensure that its performance data are reliable.
Need to implement audit recommendations on major management problems
Like many agencies throughout the federal government, GSA has been plagued by mismanagement. GAO and GSA’s IG have identified a number of major management challenges that affect GSA, which include government wide high risk areas, such as the Year 2000 computer problem and information security.
I am particularly concerned with GSA’s challenge to provide quality space to federal agencies with an aging and deteriorating building inventory and critical budgetary limitations. Providing such space is at the core of GSA’s mission, and fulfilling that responsibility efficiently and effectively should be among your top priorities. GSA must be prepared to act on the many substantive, constructive recommendations made to solve such problems.
Need for specific performance goals to address major management problems
I recognize that many major management problems are complex and will take time to resolve. However, it is essential that agency heads and other managers commit themselves to tangible steps that will eventually lead to solutions and that they accept accountability for following through on these commitments. One obvious way to do this is to establish specific and measurable goals in your annual GPRA performance plans. Indeed, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance implementing GPRA states:
Performance goals for management problems should be included in the annual plan, particularly for problems whose resolution is mission-critical, or which could potentially impede achievement of program goals . . .
In its review of GSA’s FY 2000 performance plan, GAO evaluated the extent to which the plan contains specific performance goals to address the high-risk and other most serious management problems confronting GSA that your IG has identified. According to the GAO evaluation, which is detailed in an enclosure, GSA’s FY 2000 performance plan includes no specific performance goals for many of the major management challenges that confront GSA. In its FY 2000 performance plan, for instance, GSA includes no specific and measurable performance goal to resolve issues related to outstanding recommendations regarding information security and human capital management.
I am concerned about the absence of specific and measurable goals for these major management challenges. Without specific and measurable performance goals, it is difficult if not impossible to assess progress in addressing major management problems and to hold agencies accountable. For the reasons stated above, the absence of goals to resolve many of the aforementioned outstanding recommendations is inexcusable.
Congressional follow-up
With so many tax dollars being wasted, this Committee expects agencies to take every opportunity to use the many tools available to them, such as GPRA plans, to resolve major management problems. Furthermore, the GAO and your own IG exist to work in partnership with you to solve longstanding issues of waste, fraud, and abuse.
I hope that the information provided with this letter will stimulate you to make greater use of these tools and resources. In this regard, I ask that you review the enclosed information and respond to the following questions:
- Do you disagree with any of the GAO or IG recommendations described in the enclosures? If so, what is the basis for your disagreement?
- Where you agree with the recommendations, what specific actions are you taking to implement each one and how long will they take to complete?
- Do you disagree with any of the GAO or IG designations of management problems facing GSA? If so, which ones and why?
- Where you agree with the problem designations, are you prepared to establish specific and measurable commitments to address each one of them in your next performance plan?
- If so, could you outline preliminarily what approach you plan to take for each problem?
- If you believe that any of these problems do not lend themselves to specific and measurable performance plan goals, please explain why. Please also explain what alternative steps you are taking to solve the problem.
I would appreciate your early attention to this letter. After receiving your response, I will ask Committee staff to arrange a meeting with your representatives to discuss it. My Governmental Affairs Committee staff contact is Robert Shea.
Sincerely,
Fred Thompson
Chairman
FT/rs
Enclosures
