Information Management: Challenges in Implementing an Electronic
Records Archive (14-MAY-08, GAO-08-738T).
Since 2001, the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA) has been working to develop a modern Electronic Records
Archives (ERA) system, a major information system that is
intended to preserve and provide access to massive volumes of all
types and formats of electronic records. The system is being
developed incrementally over several years; the first system
increment is to provide an initial set of functions, with
additional capabilities to be added in future increments.
However, in 2007, NARA's contractor acknowledged that it would
not be able to meet the planned date for the initial operational
capability of the first ERA increment. GAO was asked to provide
information on the steps that NARA has taken to respond to the
delays encountered in the development. To prepare this testimony,
GAO reviewed its previous work in this area, as well as the
preliminary results of an ongoing performance audit. For this
ongoing audit, GAO analyzed NARA reports, contract documents, and
other material related to the ERA development project, and
interviewed agency and contractor officials.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-738T
ACCNO: A82117
TITLE: Information Management: Challenges in Implementing an
Electronic Records Archive
DATE: 05/14/2008
SUBJECT: Archives
Electronic records
Electronic records archive
Information disclosure
Information management
Management information systems
Operational testing
Procurement planning
Product evaluation
Records
Records management
Requirements definition
Risk management
Schedule slippages
Software
Strategic information systems planning
Strategic planning
Systems integration
Systems testing
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-738T
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 3:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, May 14, 2008:
Information Management:
Challenges in Implementing an Electronic Records Archive:
Statement of Linda Koontz, Director Information Management Issues:
GAO-08-738T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-738T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
and International Security, Senate Committee on Homeland Security &
Governmental Affairs.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since 2001, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has
been working to develop a modern Electronic Records Archives (ERA)
system, a major information system that is intended to preserve and
provide access to massive volumes of all types and formats of
electronic records. The system is being developed incrementally over
several years; the first system increment is to provide an initial set
of functions, with additional capabilities to be added in future
increments. However, in 2007, NARA�s contractor acknowledged that it
would not be able to meet the planned date for the initial operational
capability of the first ERA increment.
GAO was asked to provide information on the steps that NARA has taken
to respond to the delays encountered in the development. To prepare
this testimony, GAO reviewed its previous work in this area, as well as
the preliminary results of an ongoing performance audit. For this
ongoing audit, GAO analyzed NARA reports, contract documents, and other
material related to the ERA development project, and interviewed agency
and contractor officials.
What GAO Found:
NARA is working to overcome the ERA schedule delays that occurred in
2007 by changing to a two-pronged development strategy, but
uncertainties remain. First, NARA developed plans to achieve an initial
operational capability for the ERA system in June 2008 with somewhat
reduced capabilities from those that had been planned. For this initial
system, known as the �base� system, software development deadlines have
been met, and testing began on schedule. However, NARA has extended
some test periods beyond what was originally planned, leaving less time
at the end of the schedule for completing final activities. Although
officials remain confident that the schedule changes will not affect
the date of the initial operational capability, problems uncovered
through testing could lead to its delay. Archives officials said they
are mitigating the risk of delays by closely monitoring the testing
process.
Second, the development delays of 2007 put at risk NARA�s plan to use
ERA to receive the presidential records of the Bush Administration in
January 2009. In response to this risk, NARA and its contractor are
pursuing a parallel development of a separate part of the system that
is to be dedicated initially to the Bush records; this part of
ERA�referred to as the �EOP (Executive Office of the President)
system��uses a different architecture from that of the base system: it
is being built on a commercial product that can provide basic
requirements for processing presidential electronic records, such as
rapid ingest of records and ability to search content. Pursuing this as
a separate development decouples the EOP system from dependence on the
base system. However, completing the EOP system in time for the
presidential transition remains uncertain, primarily because NARA and
its contractor are still negotiating the precise scope of work and
system requirements. These negotiations are challenging because, among
other things, NARA does not know the exact nature of the presidential
records that it is to receive in 2009. Although NARA and Bush
Administration officials have held meetings on this topic, according to
NARA officials, the Administration has not yet provided specific
information on the volume and types of data to be transferred. System
development is nonetheless proceeding based on NARA�s volume estimates
and the information available so far. According to NARA, developing the
EOP system in time for the presidential transition is critical so that
it can respond in a timely fashion to the information requirements of
the Congress, the former and incumbent Presidents, and the courts.
Challenges remain for the ERA program in both the near and long term.
In the near term, NARA has to finish testing the base system, define
the scope and requirements of the EOP system, and complete its
development. In the long term, it plans to merge the two architectures
of these systems into an integrated whole. Meeting these challenges
will be important to achieving NARA�s ultimate aims for the ERA system:
preserving and providing access to all types and formats of electronic
records.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-738T]. For more
information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or [email protected]
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on
challenges and progress in overseeing the preservation of our nation's
historical documents. As you know, since 2001, the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA or the Archives) has been working to
develop a modern Electronic Records Archives (ERA) system. This major
information system is intended to preserve and provide access to
massive volumes of all types and formats of electronic records. ERA is
to automate NARA's records management and archiving life cycle; the
system is to consist of:
* infrastructure elements, such as hardware and operating systems;
* business applications that will support the transfer, preservation,
dissemination, and management of all types of records and the
preservation of and online access to electronic records; and:
* a means for public access via the Internet.
In view of its complexity, the system is being developed incrementally
over several years; the first piece (or increment) of the ERA system is
to provide an initial set of functions, with additional capabilities to
be added in future increments. However, in 2007, NARA's contractor
acknowledged that it would not be able to meet the planned date for the
initial operational capability of the first ERA increment.
As agreed, in my testimony today, I will provide information on the
steps that NARA has taken to respond to the delays encountered in the
development. My comments today are based on our previous work in this
area, as well as the preliminary results of an ongoing performance
audit, which began in February 2008 in response to a legislative
mandate.[Footnote 1] For this ongoing performance audit, we analyzed
NARA reports, contract documents, and other material related to the ERA
development project, interviewed agency and contractor officials, and
observed an ERA software demonstration. All work on which my statement
is based was conducted 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.
Results in Brief:
NARA changed its approach to developing ERA in response to schedule
delays that occurred in 2007, but uncertainties remain. The ERA program
is currently pursuing a two-pronged development strategy:
* First, NARA has developed plans to achieve an initial operational
capability with somewhat reduced capabilities from those that had
previously been planned; it refers to this initial system as the "base"
ERA system. Initial operational capability for the base system is
scheduled for the end of June 2008. Although software development
deadlines have all been met, and testing began on schedule, NARA has
extended some test periods beyond what was originally planned, leaving
less time than had been planned at the end of the schedule for final
security certification and accreditation.[Footnote 2] Although
officials remain confident that these schedule changes will not affect
the date for the initial operational capability, problems uncovered
through testing could lead to its delay. According to NARA officials,
they are mitigating the risk of delays by paying close and continuing
attention to the testing process, through such actions as weekly
meetings of NARA's test team.
* The development delays in 2007 meant that the original plan to use
ERA to receive the presidential records of the Bush Administration in
January 2009 was put at risk. In response, NARA and its contractor are
pursuing a parallel development of a separate part of the ERA system
that is to be dedicated initially to these records; this part of ERA is
referred to as the "EOP (Executive Office of the President) system."
This system uses a different architecture from that of the base system:
it is being built on a commercial product that provides some of the
basic requirements for processing presidential electronic records, such
as rapid ingest of records and ability to search content. This separate
development decouples the EOP system from dependence on the development
of the base system. However, it is uncertain whether the EOP system
will be developed to the point that it can receive the Bush records in
January 2009, primarily because NARA and its contractor are still
negotiating the precise scope of work and system requirements.
Finalizing the negotiations is challenging because, among other things,
uncertainties remain regarding the exact nature of the presidential
records that will be transferred to NARA in 2009. Although NARA and
Bush Administration officials have held meetings on this topic,
according to NARA, the Administration has not yet provided NARA with
specific information on the volume and the types of data to be
transferred. System development is nonetheless proceeding based on
NARA's volume estimates and the information available so far. According
to NARA, receiving the electronic presidential records and being able
to search, process, and retrieve them immediately after the
presidential transition is critical so that it can respond in a timely
fashion to the information requirements of the Congress, the former and
incumbent Presidents, and the courts.
Challenges remain for the ERA program in both the near and long term.
In the near term, NARA has to complete the testing of the base system
and define the requirements and scope of the EOP system and complete
its development. In the long term, it also plans to merge the two
architectures of the ERA base and EOP systems into an integrated whole.
Meeting these challenges will be important to achieving the ultimate
aims for the ERA system: automating NARA's records management and
archiving life cycle and preserving and providing access to all types
and formats of electronic records.
Background:
The ability to find, organize, use, share, appropriately dispose of,
and save records--the essence of records management--is vital for the
effective functioning of the federal government. In the wake of the
transition from paper-based to electronic processes, records are
increasingly electronic, and the volumes of electronic records produced
by federal agencies are vast and rapidly growing, providing challenges
to NARA as the nation's recordkeeper and archivist.
Besides sheer volume, other factors contributing to the challenge of
electronic records include their complexity and their dependence on
software and hardware. Electronic records come in many forms: text
documents, e-mails, Web pages, digital images, videotapes, maps,
spreadsheets, presentations, audio files, charts, drawings, databases,
satellite imagery, geographic information systems, and more. They may
be complex digital objects that contain embedded images (still and
moving), drawings, sounds, hyperlinks, or spreadsheets with
computational formulas. Some portions of electronic records, such as
the content of dynamic Web pages, are created on the fly from databases
and exist only during the viewing session. Others, such as e-mail, may
contain multiple attachments, and they may be threaded (that is,
related e-mail messages are linked into send-reply chains).
In addition, the computer operating systems and the hardware and
software that are used to create electronic documents can become
obsolete. If they do, they may leave behind records that cannot be read
without the original hardware and software. Further, the storage media
for these records are affected by both obsolescence and decay. Media
may be fragile, have limited shelf life, and become obsolete in a few
years. For example, few computers today have disk drives that can read
information stored on 8-or 5�-inch diskettes, even if the diskettes
themselves remain readable.
In response to these widely recognized challenges, the Archives began a
research and development program to develop a modern archive for
electronic records. In 2001, NARA hired a contractor to develop
policies and plans to guide the overall acquisition of an electronic
records system. In December 2003, the agency released a request for
proposals for the design of ERA. In August 2004, NARA awarded two firm
fixed-price[Footnote 3] contracts for the design phase totaling about
$20 million--one to Harris Corporation and the other to Lockheed Martin
Corporation. On September 8, 2005, NARA announced the selection of
Lockheed Martin Corporation to build the ERA system. The contract with
Lockheed is a cost plus award fee contract[Footnote 4] with a total
value through 2012 of about $317 million. As of March 2008, the life
cycle cost of the system through 2011 was estimated at $453 million;
total life cycle cost includes not only the development contract costs,
but also program management, research and development, and program
office support, among other things.
The ERA system is planned as a comprehensive and systematic means for
preserving electronic records, free from dependence on any specific
hardware or software. NARA plans for the system to manage the entire
lifecycle of electronic records, from their ingestion into the system
through preservation and dissemination to customers. According to the
Archives, the most fundamental characteristic of ERA is that it must be
able to evolve over time to allow new types of electronic records to be
brought into the system and preserved.
As planned, the ERA system will consist of six major components, each
of which supports a specific business area:
* "Ingest" enables transfer of electronic records from federal
agencies.
* "Managed Storage" enables stored records to be managed in a way that
guarantees their integrity and availability.
* "Dissemination" enables users to search descriptions and business
data about all types of records, and to search the content of
electronic records and retrieve them.
* "Records Management" supports scheduling,[Footnote 5]
appraisal,[Footnote 6] description, and requests to transfer custody
(from agencies to the Archives) of all types of records, as well as
ingesting and managing electronic records, including the capture of
selected records data (such as origination date, format, and
disposition).
* "Preservation" enables secure and reliable storage of files in
formats in which they were received, as well as creating backup copies
for offsite storage.
* "Local Services and Control" regulates how the ERA components
communicate with each other, manages internal security, and enables
telecommunications and system network management.
Acquiring a major information technology system like ERA is a
significant challenge for a relatively small organization such as NARA,
which had no previous experience in acquiring major information
systems. In 2002 and 2003, we pointed out this and other challenges
facing the ERA project: for example, the solution to the electronic
records archiving challenge had not been developed,[Footnote 7] and no
electronic archive system existed that was comparable in complexity or
scale to NARA's vision.[Footnote 8] Further, some key technologies
associated with electronic document archiving and storage were not
available commercially. As a result, ERA was technically and
managerially complex and challenging, requiring the development of an
advanced architecture for the conversion and preservation of electronic
records.
In view of this complexity, the ERA program planned to use an
acquisition and implementation approach in which the system would be
deployed in five separate increments. The increments were to provide
the following capabilities:
* Increment 1: provide the hardware, software, and communications
needed to deploy the system; capabilities for unclassified and
sensitive records (enabling online transfer of electronic records to
NARA, annual transfers of records, and secure storage of electronic
records in original formats); and support for certain records
management functions (such as scheduling and appraisal).
* Increment 2: provide additional capabilities, such as content
searching, responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, and
preservation planning.[Footnote 9] It is also to handle classified
data.
* Increment 3: provide public access.
* Increments 4 and 5: provide additional preservation capability and
storage.
Under the ERA program plan, developed in September 2006, Increment 1
was to take 2 years to develop, and the remaining increments were each
to take 1 year.
Among the requirements that ERA is to fulfill are storing and providing
access to electronic records from past presidential administrations.
The Presidential Records Act gives the Archivist of the United States
responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of
presidential records upon the conclusion of a President's term of
office.[Footnote 10] The act states that the Archivist has an
affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as
rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of
the act. At the time of the last presidential transition, NARA met
these requirements by recreating the Clinton Administration's computer
systems (software and hardware) that originally held the records and
developing simple search interfaces so that NARA personnel could search
for requested information. NARA reported that it took about 400 days to
process the 2 terabytes of data from the Clinton
administration.[Footnote 11] According to NARA, it planned to use ERA
to receive the Bush Administration's presidential records when the
Archivist takes custody of them in January 2009. The ERA schedule had
planned for the required capabilities (part of Increment 2) to be
available in mid-2008.
We have issued several reports on ERA and its development.[Footnote 12]
Most recently, in July 2007,[Footnote 13] we reported that NARA had
taken action to implement our prior recommendations. The agency (1)
established a baseline and target architecture, a plan to transition
from the baseline to the target, and an architecture review board; (2)
revised four of five key acquisition policies and planned to comply
with appropriate standards; and (3) developed a fiscal year 2007
expenditure plan that contained an appropriate level and scope of
information needed for the Congress to understand its plans and
commitments relative to system capabilities, benefits, schedules, and
costs.
However, we also reported that the ERA project had experienced schedule
delays and cost increases. Factors contributing to the delays included
low productivity of contractor software programmers, difficulties in
securing an acceptable contract to prepare the site that was to house
the system, and problems with software integration. Although the
contractor took actions to address the factors causing these delays and
overruns, including replacing several programmers with a more
experienced software development staff, NARA concluded that the project
schedule should be revised so that reduced functionality would be
available by the initial operational capability date. Subsequently, the
schedule as of July 2007 delayed the date of the initial operational
capability (IOC) from September 7, 2007, to March 31, 2008. NARA and
the contractor projected that the estimated cost at completion of the
IOC would be between $8 million and $12 million over budget. In May
2007, NARA and the contractor were in the process of negotiating
additional mitigating actions needed and changes to the project's cost
and schedule.
NARA Is Working to Overcome ERA Schedule Delays through Parallel
Development Projects, but Uncertainties Remain:
In response to the delays that occurred in 2007 and their effect on the
Archives' readiness to receive the presidential records of the Bush
Administration in January 2009, NARA developed a two-pronged strategy
for continuing ERA development. First, it has developed plans to
achieve IOC by June 2008 with somewhat reduced capabilities from those
that had been planned; it refers to the system to be delivered at IOC
as the "base" ERA system.[Footnote 14] Second, it is planning to pursue
a parallel development of another part of the ERA system that is to be
dedicated initially to presidential records from the Bush
Administration; this part of ERA, which is being developed using a
different architecture from that of the base system, is referred to as
the "EOP (Executive Office of the President) system."[Footnote 15] When
these developments are complete, NARA plans to merge the two
architectures into one ERA system.[Footnote 16]
This strategy was developed through a series of negotiations that
followed the contractor's acknowledgement that the IOC deadline would
not be met. In July 2007, NARA issued a cure notice[Footnote 17] to the
developer, asking for a recovery plan that would include revised
delivery dates, complete cost and schedule estimates, and a cost
overrun sharing plan. In response to NARA's cure notice, the contractor
provided a plan in August to deliver software in three iterations (or
"drops") that would lead to IOC in May 2008; as part of this plan, the
software to be delivered would not include all the capabilities that
had been planned: for example, support for certain records management
functions was postponed.[Footnote 18] After review of the contactor's
proposed plan, NARA determined that more time would be needed to
complete and test the software and achieve security certification and
accreditation of the system; accordingly, it adjusted the schedule to
put IOC at the end of June 2008.
In addition, in September 2007, the contractor demonstrated to NARA a
prototype for the EOP system that would address basic requirements for
processing presidential electronic records, such as rapid ingest of
records and ability to search content. To ensure that a system to
receive presidential records would be available by the next change of
Administration, NARA decided to pursue development of the contractor's
prototype system.
Although NARA's cure notice asked for a cost overrun sharing plan, the
contractor did not offer such a plan. According to NARA, the contractor
developed the prototype EOP system at its own expense, in partial
mitigation of the cost overrun incurred in 2007. Officials also stated
that the contractor was independently funding research on issues
related to preservation, whose results would be applied to future work.
In addition, the Archives applied the development contractor's
allocated award fee to the cost overrun. According to NARA, it would
continue to work with the development contractor to devise ways to
mitigate the cost overrun without loss of functionality, but officials
acknowledged that under a cost plus contract, achieving such mitigation
was uncertain.
In December 2007, NARA estimated a cost overrun for the development of
ERA of about $15 million.[Footnote 19] NARA now estimates this cost
overrun at $16.3 million.
ERA Base System Is Generally on Schedule to Achieve IOC, but Testing
Delays Are a Risk:
Under the most recent plan, the base system is to achieve IOC at the
end of June 2008; this is a 9-month delay from the earlier plan (of
September 2006) for an IOC in September 2007. In carrying out this
plan, the contractor met all deadlines for delivering the software
drops, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: Delivery of Software Drops for ERA Base System:
Software drops with selected functions provided: Drop 1:
* Ability to manage (create, modify, delete) new records schedules,
legal transfer Instruments, and transfer requests;
* Secure storage of assets placed in ERA;
* Network security and perimeter defense;
* Common interface for user interaction with ERA system;
Date planned: September 28, 2007;
Actual date: September 27, 2007.
Software drops with selected functions provided: Drop 2:
* Ability to manage (create, modify, delete) legacy records schedules,
legal transfer Instruments, and transfer requests;
* Transfer and ingest of records;
* Backup and restore;
* Expanded look and feel, help functions;
Date planned: December 21, 2007;
Actual date: December 19, 2007.
Software drops with selected functions provided: Drop 3:
* Verification of ingested records;
* Enforcement of access restrictions;
* Further expanded look and feel, help functions;
Date planned: March 7, 2008;
Actual date: March 5, 2008.
Source: GAO analysis of NARA information.
[End of table]
In preparation for achieving IOC, NARA is currently conducting a series
of tests aimed at verifying that ERA requirements are met. As part of
this process, according to NARA officials, a NARA "Tiger Team" meets
weekly to discuss testing and other activities leading to IOC and may
adjust the schedule in response to test progress and results. Table 2
shows the status of the testing compared to the current schedule and
the high-level schedule provided by the contractor.
Table 2: Progress and Changes in Test Schedule for ERA Base:
Test milestones[A]: Test readiness review;
Date planned as of December 4, 2007: April 11;
Date planned as of May 2, 2008: --;
Actual date: April 11.
Test milestones[A]: Product acceptance test/;
Date planned as of December 4, 2007: April 14-30;
Date planned as of May 2, 2008: April 14-May 23;
Actual date: Began April 14.
Test milestones[A]: operational acceptance test[B];
Date planned as of December 4, 2007: [Empty];
Date planned as of May 2, 2008: May 19-23;
Actual date: [Empty].
Test milestones[A]: Security test and evaluation;
Date planned as of December 4, 2007: April 24-May 15;
Date planned as of May 2, 2008: June 2-13;
Actual date: [Empty].
Test milestones[A]: Certification and accreditation;
Date planned as of December 4, 2007: May 15;
Date planned as of May 2, 2008: June 26;
Actual date: [Empty].
Test milestones[A]: Operational readiness review;
Date planned as of December 4, 2007: (Not specified);
Date planned as of May 2, 2008: June 27;
Actual date: [Empty].
Test milestones[A]: Initial operational capability;
Date planned as of December 4, 2007: June 30;
Date planned as of May 2, 2008: June 27;
Actual date: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of NARA information.
[A] Test readiness review: Review of plan and procedures status,
procedure deviations, known problems, requirements and performance
metrics, test schedule, and other information relevant to beginning of
testing phase.
Product acceptance test: Verification that system hardware and software
meets agreed measures of maturity and stability, among other things.
Operational acceptance test: Verification that usability and
accessibility meet requirements, and critical and high-priority errors
are addressed, among other things.
Security test and evaluation: Process to establish a high degree of
confidence in the security of ERA and to minimize threats.
Certification: Formal technical evaluation of the management,
operational, and technical controls established in the system's
security plan.
Accreditation: Formal authorization by agency management officials for
the system to process information.
Operational readiness review: Review similar to test readiness review
that occurs before IOC.
[B] NARA's original plans showed the product acceptance test and the
operational acceptance test being run concurrently; in later plans, the
two tests overlap as shown.
Note: All dates are 2008.
[End of table]
As the table shows, the dates for product acceptance testing and
operational acceptance testing have been extended, and later test dates
have been adjusted in response. According to NARA, it decided to extend
the time to ensure adequate time for government testing review of the
delivered systems and related documentation. Further, NARA stated that
when the Tiger Team analyzed the contractor's high-level schedule, it
determined that NARA's systems engineering test team required 6 weeks
for product acceptance testing, and the end users required only 1 week
for operational acceptance testing. Accordingly, product acceptance
testing was extended to May 23, and operational acceptance testing was
scheduled for the end of that period. NARA officials remain confident
that their testing will be completed and necessary fixes made in time
for IOC at the end of June.
However, the ERA program faces near-term challenges in achieving IOC of
the base system. Unforeseen problems uncovered through testing could
lead to further delays. According to NARA, it is mitigating the risk of
delays by paying close and continuing attention to the testing process,
through such actions as the weekly meetings of NARA's test team. Delays
in achieving IOC could lead to further delays in the development of ERA
and the success of the Archives' long-term plan for electronic records
management and preservation.
EOP System Is Being Developed, but Completing the Development in Time
for the Presidential Transition Is Uncertain:
In September 2007, the contractor demonstrated to NARA a prototype for
the EOP system, designed to show the ability to address basic
requirements for processing presidential electronic records, such as
rapid ingest of records and ability to search content. To ensure that
the EOP system would be available by the change of Administration, NARA
decided to modify its architectural approach to the EOP system by
continuing development of the system along the lines provided by the
contractor's prototype. However, details of the system requirements and
capabilities, as well as the specific development plans, are still
being defined and final contract terms negotiated while development
continues.
Under the new approach, the EOP system would be separately designed,
use a dedicated system team (separate from the team working on the ERA
base), and be developed concurrently with the work to complete the base
system. The EOP system is to use an architecture based on a commercial
off-the-shelf (COTS) product that supplies basic EOP requirements,
including rapid ingest of records and immediate and flexible search of
content.[Footnote 20] (According to NARA, the EOP system is also to use
key elements of the base system infrastructure.) Developing the EOP
system in this way decouples it from dependence on the completion of
IOC for the base system.
From October 2007 to March 2008, NARA spent $13 million on EOP system
planning and development, of which $7 million was used to buy hardware.
At this point, the contractor has delivered three initial software
drops for the EOP system; it demonstrated Drop 3 software to NARA on
April 28 and 29. (As of March 2008, two additional drops were planned,
but the ultimate number of software drops is still being negotiated.)
Table 3 shows the dates that the contractor is to provide the planned
drops as well as selected functions associated with each.[Footnote 21]
As the table shows, the first three drops were provided later than
originally planned.
Table 3: Software Drops for EOP System:
Software drops with selected functions provided or planned: Drop 1:
* Upload (ingest) information about the record or file (metadata);
* Upload original and adapted files into COTs product;
* Simple search and access retrieval;
Date planned[A]: October 31, 2007;
Actual date: December 21, 2007.
Software drops with selected functions provided or planned: Drop 2:
* Management of misclassified information ("digital shredding");
* E-mail conversion;
* User interface for data-set-specific search;
* User access permissions for search results;
* Asset retrieval;
* Strong password rules;
* Creation of user profiles;
* Backup and restore;
Date planned[A]: December 14, 2007;
Actual date: February 4, 2008.
Software drops with selected functions provided or planned: Drop 3:
* Full access review case management;
* Full backup and restore;
* User administration for entering permissions;
* User profile deletion;
* Session lock mechanism;
* Integrity monitoring;
Date planned[A]: March 28, 2008;
Actual date: April 29, 2008.
Software drops with selected functions provided or planned: Drop 4;
* Generate output for access request;
* Log management;
* Access control service;
Date planned[A]: May 13, 2008;
Actual date: [Empty].
Software drops with selected functions provided or planned: Drop 5;
* Expansion and refinement of established features;
Date planned[A]: June 13, 2008;
Actual date: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of NARA information.
[A] Dates for drops 1 to 3 were planned as of December 4, 2007; dates
for drops 4 and 5 were planned as of March 2008.
[End of table]
Although the development is continuing, challenges remain. In
particular, because NARA and the contractor are still negotiating the
detailed development plans and specific system requirements, the IOC
date for the EOP system and specific details regarding functionality
remain uncertain.
* The scope of work and requirements for the EOP are not settled. In
response to NARA's request for a proposal describing detailed plans for
developing the system, the contractor delivered a proposal in February
2008. After review, NARA asked the contractor to respond to over 200
comments and provide a revised proposal. The revision, delivered April
25, 2008, is currently being reviewed. NARA expects to complete its
review on or before May 16, and it expects to reach agreement with its
contractor no later than May 30, with a signed contract modification by
mid-June.
* Currently, NARA and its contractor plan to develop physically
separate EOP system segments (or "instances") for classified and
unclassified presidential records, with IOC for the unclassified
instance preceding that for the classified instance. NARA is planning
for both instances to achieve IOC by the end of 2008, but the dates are
not settled.
Among the difficulties of finalizing the negotiations are uncertainties
regarding the exact nature of the presidential records that will be
transferred to NARA in 2009. Although NARA and the Administration have
held meetings on this topic, according to NARA, the Administration has
not yet provided NARA with specific information required for it to plan
for reliable ingest, indexing, and accessing of the electronic records
involved. Both the volume and many of the data types are uncertain:
* NARA has estimated that the volume of data from the Bush
Administration will likely be 100 terabytes--about 50 times greater
than that received from the Clinton Administration, and it has based
its capacity requirements on that estimate.
* The COTS product on which the EOP system is based supports about 370
common data formats, so it can already accommodate some portion of the
Bush Administration records. NARA has also obtained limited information
regarding the e-mail and image records that will be transferred.
However, it has not received details on the data types and formats for
about 32 systems for which the Administration has provided brief
descriptions, nor has it received sample data on which it could base
its planning. According to NARA officials, if further information is
received too late to be included in initial system development, they
would plan, where possible, to convert the data types received to a
generic format that would allow the EOP system to ingest and search the
information.
These uncertainties mean that achieving a working EOP system in time
for the presidential transition in January 2009 will be a challenging
goal. According to NARA, if it cannot ingest the electronic classified
and unclassified records from the Bush Administration in a way that
supports the search, processing, and retrieval of records immediately
after the presidential transition, it will not be able to meet the
requirements of the Congress, the former and incumbent Presidents, and
the courts for information in these records in a timely fashion.
In summary, NARA has developed a strategy to overcome the earlier ERA
schedule delays: it has developed the software and begun testing for
the base system, and it has begun development of the EOP system.
However, in the near term it faces the challenge of completing the
testing of the base system and the larger challenge of defining the
requirements and scope of the EOP system and completing its
development. In the long term, NARA also plans to merge the two
architectures of the ERA base and EOP systems into a coordinated whole.
Continuing careful oversight by NARA and the Congress will be important
in achieving the ultimate aims for the ERA system: to automate NARA's
records management and archiving life cycle and preserve and provide
access to all types and formats of electronic records.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony today. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Contacts and Acknowledgements:
If you have any questions concerning this testimony, please contact
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, at (202) 512-
6240, or [email protected]. Other individuals who made key contributions
to this testimony were Barbara Collier, Pamlutricia Greenleaf, Charles
C. Hinnant, Tarunkant N. Mithani, and James R. Sweetman, Jr.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. D,
title V, 121 Stat. 1844, 2006 (Dec. 26, 2007).
[2] The Office of Management and Budget requires that agency management
officials formally authorize their information systems to process
information and accept the risk associated with their operation. This
management authorization (accreditation) is to be supported by a formal
technical evaluation (certification) of the management, operational,
and technical controls established in an information system's security
plan.
[3] According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a firm-fixed-price
contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on
the basis of the contractor's cost experience in performing the
contract. This type of contract places on the contractor maximum risk
and full responsibility for costs and resulting profit or loss.
[4] A cost plus award fee contract is a cost reimbursement contract
that provides for a fee consisting of a base amount fixed at inception
of the contract plus an award amount that may be given based upon a
judgmental evaluation by the government of contract performance. The
theory behind these contracts is that although the government assumes
most of the cost risk, it retains control over most or all of the
contractor's potential fee as leverage.
[5] A records schedule is a document that describes agency records,
establishes a period for their retention by the agency, and provides
mandatory instructions for what to do with them when they are no longer
needed for current government business. Scheduling records includes,
among other things, reviewing the organization's functions and
recordkeeping requirements for organization and determining how long
records are needed for conducting agency operations and meeting legal
obligations.
[6] Records appraisal is the process of determining the value and the
final disposition of records, making them either temporary or
permanent.
[7] GAO, Records Management: National Archives and Records
Administration's Acquisition of Major System Faces Risks, GAO-03-880
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 22, 2003); Information Management: Challenges
in Managing and Preserving Electronic Records, GAO-02-586 (Washington,
D.C.: June 17, 2002).
[8] NARA officials believed that many relevant hardware and software
components were available in the marketplace, and that potential
integrators would have both an understanding of NARA's needs and
appropriate strategies for addressing them.
[9] Preservation planning is an ERA function that will help ensure that
researchers have continued reliable access to records over time,
regardless of the complexity or format of the records.
[10] 44 U.S.C. 2203(f)(1).
[11] A terabyte is about one trillion bytes or about 1000 gigabytes.
[12] GAO, Records Management: Planning for the Electronic Records
Archives Has Improved, GAO-04-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2004);
Information Management: Acquisition of the Electronic Records Archives
Is Progressing, GAO-05-802 (Washington, D.C; July 15, 2005); Electronic
Records Archives: The National Archives and Records Administration's
Fiscal Year 2006 Expenditure Plan, GAO-06-906 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
18, 2006).
[13] GAO, Information Management: The National Archives and Records
Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 Expenditure Plan, GAO-07-987
(Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007).
[14] In the "increment" terminology, the base ERA system generally
corresponds to Increment 1, although certain capabilities have been
postponed.
[15] The EOP system generally corresponds to Increment 2 with the
eventual addition of certain capabilities from Increment 1.
[16] Although ERA is conceived as one system, it is to include multiple
"instances." An instance is a single segment of the ERA system,
consisting of the integrated system hardware and software. Separate ERA
instances will be installed according to the classification of data:
for example, unclassified and classified data will be housed on
separate, unconnected instances.
[17] A cure notice is issued by the government to inform the contractor
that the government considers the contractor's failure a condition that
is endangering performance of the contract. The cure notice specifies a
period (typically 10 days) for the contractor to remedy the condition.
If the condition is not corrected within this period, the cure notice
states that the contractor may face the termination of its contract for
default.
[18] The postponed functions include expanded capabilities for
scheduling, disposition agreements, ingest, search, and dissemination,
as well as initial capabilities for appraisal management and life cycle
management planning. These functions, originally planned for inclusion
in Increment 1, were moved to a future increment.
[19] NARA, The Electronic Records Archives Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure
Plan (Dec. 4, 2007).
[20] The COTS product lacks other records management features that the
ERA system as a whole requires, but these are not required to meet
NARA's immediate needs for receiving and managing the presidential
records.
[21] The schedules in the table are for "handoff" dates: when the
contractor provides the software but before NARA completes its review
and accepts it.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***