GAO: How not to write a performance plan

As Congress enters its first budget cycle with the Government Performance and Results Act in full force, the General Accounting Office has decided that at least one agency's Results Act planning efforts won't help congressional decision makers.

In a report released last week (Results Act: Observations on the General Services Administration's Annual Performance Plan, GAO/GGD-98-110), GAO panned the General Services Administration's proposed fiscal 1999 performance plan.

"For the most part, the plan falls short of meeting the criteria set forth in the Results Act and related guidance. It does not adequately provide a clear picture of expected performance across the agency," GAO said.

Of GSA's 31 proposed performance goals, only nine "have measures and targets that decision makers can use to gauge progress," GAO said.

For example, under the goal of promoting sound acquisition management governmentwide, GSA's explanation of its measurements read: "We are constantly evaluating and promoting best practices, and learning how to share and adopt them. We will also learn how to create measures to show success. As we learn what they are, we will incorporate them into our performance measurement system."

GAO also complained that the performance plan did not explain how GSA, the federal government's biggest landlord, would measure how efficiently it manages the government's building space.

GAO noted that GSA's measurements tended to describe activities rather than results. Under the goal of sound asset management, GSA "measures" included awarding master contracts for payment systems and developing contracts for temporary services.

Such items, GAO said, "appear to us to be activities rather than measures, and the accompanying narrative provides no information that describes what these activities are or what outcomes they aim to achieve so that decision makers can understand their importance and gauge progress over time."

In February, GSA and most other federal agencies submitted proposed performance plans with their budget requests for fiscal 1999. The performance plans are based on five-year strategic plans each agency devised last year. In March 2000, agencies will report on whether they met the goals of their 1999 performance plans.

Last month, staff members from the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which have jurisdiction over GSA, gave the agency a score of 14 out of 100 possible points for its performance plan. GSA's grade was the lowest in the government. The scale was designed by House Majority Leader Dick Armey's office.

A GSA spokesperson said the agency is working with Congress to address concerns so that future plans can be improved.

Of GSA's planned fiscal 1999 budget of $13.8 billion, the Clinton administration requested only $140.7 million in direct appropriations. The rest of GSA's budget comes from payments other agencies make to GSA for services and products. Still, GAO said GSA needs to explain how its budget relates to its performance goals.

"We found that only three of the 31 performance goals specified any amount of budgetary resources associated with the achievement of the performance goal. Even in these three cases, there is no explanation of specifically how the funds will be used," GAO said.

Congressional staffers who helped grade several of agencies' performance plans have said that the plans will not help Congress make budgetary decisions this year.