Detailed Information on the
General Services Administration - Assisted Acquistion Services (AAS) Portfolio Assessment

Eliminate design flaws and take additional action to increase the program's efficiency and effectiveness.

Ensure resources are aligned to customer requirements and level of business volume.

Implementing nationwide performance standards to improve performance, coordination and oversight of all AAS customer service centers.

Measure: Customer Satisfaction: % of satisfied customers (ACSI survey).

Explanation:% of satisfied customers as measured by FAS-wide ACSI customer satisfaction survey. FTS legacy assisted services programs conducted ACSI surveys in 2003 and 2004, but did not conduct these surveys in 2005 or 2006 due to the reorganization of FTS and FSS. FTS legacy programs also never set customer satisfaction targets prior to 2007.

Measure: Timeliness: % of negotiated award dates for services and commodities that are met or bettered

Explanation:This measures the length of time it takes AAS national and regional business units to deliver high quality assisted acquisition services. *Note: The historical performance data are associated only with the legacy Regional IT Services business line. The out-year targets apply to the entire AAS portfolio.

Measure: Timeliness: % of legacy National IT Solutions negotiated award dates for services and commodities that are met or bettered

Explanation:This measures the length of time it took the legacy FTS National IT Solutions business line to deliver high quality assisted acquisition services. Going forward, the AAS portfolio is applying the same set of targets to all of its business lines.

Measure: Timeliness: % of legacy Professional Services negotiated award dates for services and commodities that are met or bettered

Explanation:This measures the length of time it took the legacy Professional Services business line to deliver high quality assisted acquisition services. Going forward, the AAS portfolio is applying the same set of targets to all of its business lines.

Measure: Timeliness: Number of calendar days from receipt of modification request to issuance of modification for services and commodities (Regional IT/PS).

Explanation:This is a new timeliness measure of the length of time it takes Regional IT/PS to execute all types of modification requests (options, administrataive, scope, etc.)

Measure: Number of calendar days from receipt of modification request to issuance of modification for services and commodities (National IT/PS).

Explanation:This is a new timeliness measure of the length of time it takes National IT/PS to execute all types of modification requests (options, administrataive, scope, etc.)

Measure: Competition: % of new task orders awarded subject to competition/fair opportunity.

Explanation:This measures the total number of new task orders that were awarded (defined as providing opportunity to bid to all contract holders on a GWAC or by using E-Buy) divided by the total number of new task orders issued. A high percentage demonstrates competition for applicable qualified contractors (excludes sole source, 8A (<$3M), blanket BPA). *Note: The historical performance data are associated only with the legacy Regional IT Services business line. The out-year targets apply to the entire AAS portfolio.

Measure: Competition: % of legacy National IT Solutions task orders awarded subject to competition/fair opportunity.

Explanation:Total number of new task orders that were awarded (defined as providing opportunity to bid to all contract holders on a GWAC or by using E-Buy) divided by the total number of new task orders issued. Ensures competition for applicable qualified contractors (excludes sole source, 8A (<$3M), blanket BPA).

Measure: Competition: % of legacy Professional Services task orders awarded subject to competition/fair opportunity.

Explanation:Total number of new task orders that were awarded (defined as providing opportunity to bid to all contract holders on a GWAC or by using E-Buy) by the legacy Professional Services business line divided by the total number of new task orders issued. Ensures competition for applicable qualified contractors (excludes sole source, 8A (<$3M), blanket BPA). *Note: Actual results were not measured for thie business line for FY 2006 due to FAS reorganization.

Measure: Operating Expenses as a % of Gross Margin (Regional IT Solutions)

Explanation:This is the efficiency measure used by the legacy FTS programs that make up the AAS portfolio. Beginning in FY 2007, AAS will use Direct Cost as a % of Gross Margin as its efficiency measure to be consistent with the other FAS portfolios.

Measure: Operating Expenses as a % of Gross Margin (National IT Solutions)

Explanation:This is the efficiency measure used by the legacy FTS programs that make up the AAS portfolio. Beginning in FY 2007, AAS will use Direct Cost as a % of Gross Margin as its efficiency measure to be consistent with the other FAS portfolios.

Measure: Operating Expenses as a % of Gross Margin (Professional Services)

Explanation:This is the efficiency measure used by the legacy FTS programs that make up the AAS portfolio. Beginning in FY 2007, AAS will use Direct Cost as a % of Gross Margin as its efficiency measure to be consistent with the other FAS portfolios.

Measure: Gross Margin: Direct Cost as a % of Gross Margin for AAS- new measure in FY07.

Explanation:This measure provides AAS business units with indicators of internal operating efficiency . (The lower this %, the higher the efficiency of resource utilization). Direct costs for AAS = approx $100M annually. Gross Margin captures the fee we've charged to customers for services provided. By decreasing the ratio of direct costs to gross margin even 2% per year, the result would be savings in the millions of dollars. Actual results for 2006 are used as the baseline for outyear targets.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of GSA's Assisted Acquisition Services (AAS) program, a part of the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), is to assist agencies in acquiring and deploying information technology and professional services worldwide by providing them with expert acquisition, technical, and project management support services. AAS provides this assistance on a fee-for-services basis through National and Regional Client Support Centers.

Evidence: ??AAS Mission Statement ??AAS Website - http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?programId=10810&channelId=-17545&ooid=20945&contentId=21999&pageTypeId=8199&contentType=GSA_BASIC&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaBasic.jsp&P=FAS1 ??GSA ADM 5440.591 Change 1 Order Announcing Changes in the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), (October 12, 2006) ??FY 2007 Congressional Justification

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Many agencies lack sufficient numbers of staff or the specific expertise needed to acquire the goods and services needed to support the successful execution of their missions. The Assisted Acquisition Services (AAS) program provides agencies with acquisition and project management expertise and services to help them acquire and deploy IT and non-IT professional services solutions in support of their missions. The AAS program eliminates the need for agencies to award and administer their own contracts and task orders by using solutions created by other FAS programs or other governmentwide sources to satisfy agency needs.

Evidence: ?? H.R. Report 104-450 Conference Report, Division E - Information Technology Management Reform in connection with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 ?? Accenture Study "GSA Delivery of Best Value Information Technology Services to Federal Agencies, (April 30, 2002) ?? Blue Print Study, (2004) ?? Services Acquisition Management Improvement (SAMI) Program, Headquarters U.S. Air Force ?? AF Procurement Executive Offsite Services Meeting Minutes ?? GAO report "Acquisition Workforce Department of Defense's Plans to Address Workforce Size and Structure Challenges" April 2002 - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02630.pdf ?? March 26, 2007 GAO letter to Senate Armed Services Committee ref subject: "Defense Services Acquisition: Questions for the Record" http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07640r.pdf ?? December 2002 GAO Report "Acquisition Workforce Status of Agency Efforts to Address Future Needs" http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0355.pdf

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The acquisition support provided by AAS duplicates the acquisition support agencies provide for themselves and, to some extent, the acquisition support provided to their customers by some of the contracting offices within FAS. However, within FAS, AAS is unique in assisting agencies in solving problems that involve multiple FAS contracting offices. Functional duplication with other agencies should not negatively impact AAS as long as AAS is not staffed up to handle business that other agencies have decided to retain for themselves. Similarly, functional duplication between AAS and other FAS business entities should only be a problem if it results in excess resources being assigned to duplicate activities.

Evidence: ?? AAS Mission Statement ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006) ?? GovWorks homepage describing services provided - http://www.govworks.gov/about/about_us.asp ?? Treasury's FedSource homepage describing services provided -http://www.fedsource.gov/FedSourceSite/fedsourcehome.aspx ?? NASA SEWP homepage describing services provided - http://www.sewp.nasa.gov/info/services.shtml

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Of all the FAS business portfolios, AAS has had the most serious problems financially and programmatically. It lost over $70 million in FY 2006 and is still projecting annual losses through FY 2008. The contracting irregularities that caused GSA to institute the "Get It Right" campaign occurred in one of the AAS business activities. Although several DoD and GSA IG audits have determined that these irregularities have been corrected, the resulting corrective actions contributed to a subsequent loss of business volume. A recent internal study has done an excellent job in documenting numerous organizational and procedural problems. For example, the study reported that "customers perceive GSA as 'not easy' and 'confusing' to work with because of disparate practices, processes, and systems between regional and national legacy FSS and FTS assisted acquisition organizations...." The report also makes several useful recommendations, which should provide a blueprint for solving those problems. The most recent Strategic Assessment of the AAS portfolio also identifies many structural and procedural flaws that need to be addressed. The FAS management team is commended for its efforts in identifying the problems facing the AAS porfolio and needs to begin focussing its effiorts on addressing these problems.

Evidence: ?? FAS Organizational charts (includes AAS National and Regional programs) ?? Potential Anti-Deficiency Act Violations on DoD Purchases Made through Non-DoD Agencies, Report #D-2007-042, dated January 2 ?? Compendium of Audits CSC's 9-29-2006 ?? Federal Technology Service Milwaukee Accords ?? AAS 2007 financial plan - shows resource allocation for each customer service center ?? Get-It-Right Plan ?? Get-It-Right ?? GIR Updates ?? Defining Assisted Services Working Group study, March 2007

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: AAS claims that its resources are allocated according to its projected business volume and customer base. The evidence provided to support this claim includes a chart showing the organization of FEDSIM resources, which accounts for 14% of the total AAS business volume. For FEDSIM, 60% of program staff are assigned to the defense sector against the 58% of the corresponding National IT Solutions business volume that comes from DoD customers. No information showing the relationship between the distribution of AAS resources and customer business activities was provided for the non-FEDSIM activities.

Evidence: ?? AAS Website - http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?programId=10810&channelId=-17545&ooid=20945&contentId=21999&pageTypeId=8199&contentType=GSA_BASIC&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaBasic.jsp&P=FAS1 ?? Professional Services Phase 1 Implementation Letter, (May 2003) ?? GSA ADM 5440.591 Order (Change 1) Announcing Changes in the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), (October 12, 2006) ?? Federal Technology Service Milwaukee Accords ?? AAS FY07 Financial plan ?? Business opportunity planning ?? FEDSIM Business Plan, (FY 2006-2007) ?? Map of GSA customer business volume by state based on 2004 FPDS obligation data ?? Chart of FTE resource allocations broken out by AAS customer service center

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: AAS has established four long-term outcome performance goals and measures which support its mission of providing expert acquisition, technical, and project management support services to assist agencies in acquiring and deploying information technology and professional services worldwide. The measures are (1) Customer Satisfaction as measured by an annual ACSI survey; (2) Timeliness of contract awards: % of negotiated award dates for services and commodities that are met or bettered; (3) Timeliness of contract modifications: number of calendar days to process contract modifications; and (4) Competition: % of new task orders subject to competition/fair opportunity. These measures are linked to the FAS Strategic Assessment Long-Term Outcome Goal "Provide solutions that best meet the client agencies' mission needs at competitive prices."

Evidence: ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? GSA Annual Performance and AccountabilityReport 2006 http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/programView.do?pageTypeld+8199&ooid+10645&programPage+%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaDocument.jsp&programid+9666&channelId+-13346#Performance%20Plans ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006) ?? Blue Print 2004 Survey Questions ?? FEDSIM Study of Customer Perceived Value - Report of Findings, (April 2006) ?? Customer Surveys (Regions 3, 4, 7) ?? Potential Anti-Deficiency Act Violations on DoD Purchases Made Through Non-DoD Agencies, Report #D-2007-042, (dated January 2) ?? FAS Guidance for the Implementation of DoD Policy Regarding Non-Economy Act Orders, (dated January 18, 2007) ?? Implementation of the DoD Policy - Non-Economy Act Orders, dated October 16, 2006 ?? FEDSIM Business Plan, (FY 2006-2007) ?? Customer Outreach presentation

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for each of its four long-term measures.

Evidence: ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? GSA Annual Performance Accountability Report 2006 ?? GSA Draft Strategic Plan FY 2008-2012 ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006) ?? 2007 Government Satisfaction ASCI data -http://www.theacsi.org/images/stories/images/govsatscores/e-gov_Q1_2007.xls ?? Implementation of the DoD Policy - Non-Economy Act Orders, dated October 16, 2006

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: AAS has established four annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving AAS long-term goals as discussed in the Explanation to Q 2.1 (Customer Satisfaction, Timeliness of New Contract Awards, Timeliness of Contract Modifications, and Competition). The portfolio has also established one efficiency measure - Direct Operating Expense as % of Gross Margin.

Evidence: ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? GAO: Contract Management - Guidance Needed to Promote Competition for Defense Task Orders, (July 2004) ?? Potential Anti-Deficiency Act Violations on DoD Purchases Made through Non-DoD Agencies, Report #D-2007-042, dated January 2 ?? Compendium of Audits CSC's 9-29-2006 ?? DoD Final Rule on Section 803 - http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/changenotice/docs/2001d017f.txt ?? Federal Computer Week article describing intention of Section 803 and GSA's role - http://www.fcw.com/buyers_guides/2003/DOD/Train803.asp ?? Acquisition on-line article describing details of Section 803 implications for GSA Schedules - http://www.acqsolinc.com/docs/upd02-10.pdf

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets for each of its four annual outcome measures. The targets for the Customer Satisfaction, Timeliness of Contract Awards, and Competition measures apply to both the national and regional programs under the AAS portfolio. Separate national and regional targets have been set for the Timeliness of Contract Modifications measure due to the fundamental differences in the nature of the contracts and business processes to modify them. The annual and long-range targets for the efficiency measure, direct cost as a percentage of gross margin, are not very ambitious, probably because the portfolio is still struggling to improve its ability to control its costs.

Evidence: ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006)

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: AAS uses its own resources, not contractors or other intermediaries, to assist agencies in identifying their requirements for acquisitions that require a mix of various products and services. Therefore, this question is Not Applicable to this program.

Evidence: ?? FEDSIM Study of Customer Perceived Value - Report of Findings, (April 2006) ?? Blue Print Study, (2004) ?? 2004 Emerging Trends Study ?? Customer Outreach presentation ?? DoD-GSA Partnership ?? Services Acquisition Management Improvement (SAMI) Program, Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Although numerous independent evaluations (e.g., IG audits, GAO audits, customer surveys, etc.) have been conducted to evaluate various aspects of the effectiveness of several the AAS business units, there have been no evaluations of the AAS portfolio in its entirety. There is also no plan to conduct such a comprehensive evaluation in the future, although IG reviews of elements of the portfolio are scheduled.

Evidence: ?? Potential Anti-Deficiency Act Violations on DoD Purchases Made through Non-DoD Agencies, Report #D-2007-042, dated January 2 ?? Compendium of Audits CSC's 9-29-2006 ?? GAO Briefing Closed, Sept 2005 ?? GSA OIG Audit Plans for 2006 and 2007

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: GSA has linked funding and performance information at the business line level for the legacy FTS programs within the AAS portfolio for several years. However, the presentation methods used in the past made it difficult to associate the business line costs reported with the performance data with the corresponding costs reported elsewhere at the portfolio or fund (i.e., ASF) level. GSA has developed an improved presentation approach that fixes this problem and will be used in future budget justifications.

Evidence: ?? FY 2007 Congressional Justification ?? PMP guide ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006) ?? GSA Strategic Plan 2008-2012

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: In conjunction with the development of the GSA Strategic Plan and the annual organizational strategic assessments, strategic action plans, strategic action plan initiatives, performance improvement initiatives, working with newly established FAS Office of Strategic Planning, and ongoing audits and reviews as identified in the answer to 2.6, there are numerous initiatives identified to address strategic planning deficiencies and improve the strategic planning process across the enterprise. The strategic assessment process includes an analysis of the program's performance,an internal and external environmental assessment (including meeting customer's needs and other external stakeholder's influences to include a SWOT analysis), a strategic analysis and description of the program's goals, pricing, and proposed initiatives and priorities. Through the GSA Performance Management Process, strategic action plan initiatives are reviewed and approved by the GSA CFO, the FAS Controller and the FAS management council for funding.

Evidence: ?? FY 2007 Congressional Justification ?? PMP Guide ?? "FTS Business Strategy" - Gartner Consulting Final Deliverable (April 2004) ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006) ?? GSA Strategic Plan 2008-2012 ?? FAS Process Improvement Initiative description and AAS' specific FY07 initiatives ?? Prioritizing FY 2007 AAS strategies and activities, (March 15, 2007) ?? Description of AAS' long term and short term goals and priorities

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: AAS regularly collects timely and credible performance information from its customers through surveys such as the April 2006 FEDSIM: Study of Customer Perceived Value. Going forward, AAS will collect ACSI customer satisfaction data through annual surveys. GSA monitors program performance measure data on timeliness and competition produced by its financial management systems on a quarterly and annual basis through the Performance Management Process, through internal quarterly performance reviews, and through monthly monitoring and review of the program's financial data for each regional and national customer service center.

Evidence: ?? Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Section 16-505 ?? FEDSIM Study of Customer Perceived Value - Report of Findings, (April 2006) ?? Task Order Funding Document Closeout Guide ?? Contract Administration Checklist , (October 1, 2003) ?? Sample Performance Based Service Contract Statement of Work (Region 7 QASP, Region 8 Award Fee Plan, Region 9 PBSOW, Region 9 QASP, Region 10 Incentive Plan, FEDSIM TOR Template) ?? Customer surveys (Region 3, 4, 7, FEDSIM Study of Customer Perceived Value - Report of Findings, (April 2006) ?? Acquisition Planning Wizard System ?? AAS 1stQ FY07 QPR

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: AAS identifies managers who are responsible for achieving clearly defined performance results and holds them accountable through the GSA "Associate Performance Plan and Appraisal System (APPAS)." APPAS includes an annual performance review process, which is directly tied to the Program's Performance Plan and Scorecard; i.e., the Program's measures are the manager's measures. Prior to 2007, the regional components of the legacy Regional IT Solutions business line were permitted to establish performance measures and targets independently of the measures and targets set by the national program management. Beginning in 2007, however, national measures and targets will be applied to regional progams as well.

Evidence: ?? A Guide to Best Practices for Performance-Based Service Contracting, OFPP, OMB, dated October 1998 ?? GSA Associate Performance Plan and Appraisal System, (December 31,2003) ?? FY 2007 Congressional Justification ?? Sample Contractor Progress Report ?? Sample Past Performance Evaluation ?? Sample Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (Region 7 and 9) ?? Acquisition Planning Wizard System ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The AAS portfolio, in cooperation with the FAS Controller's office, utilizes a rigorous financial planning process which establishes resource requirements for its operations prior to the execution of the current year's budget and operations. These plans are tracked throughout the year on a monthly basis and compared with actual spending as funds are utilized to execute program operations. Any large variations between planned and actual spending are researched to ensure that program operations are being executed according to plan. Monthly financial reports are also provided for each business unit to ensure funds are obligated and expensed according to plan. GSA and FAS financial practices and processes are also certified through the annual financial audit as documented in the Annual Performance and Accountability Report for GSA. Through tracking the use of funds on a monthly basis within the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) Controller's Office the program ensures that its funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose.

Evidence: ?? GSA Annual Performance and Accountability Report 2006 ?? Monthly financial reports ?? Client financial reports ?? Guidance and Information Concerning Interagency Transactions and Proper Management of Reimbursable Agreements in Revolving Funds, (June 7, 2004) ?? Implementation of the DoD Policy - Non-Economy Act Orders, (dated October 16, 2006) ?? FAS Guidance for the Implementation of DoD Policy Regarding Non-Economy Act Orders, (dated January 18, 2007)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The AAS efficiency measure is: direct operating expense as a percent of gross margin. This measure provides the program with information needed to monitor cost recovery achievement against goals and plan for each AAS business unit and allocate resources according to successfully achieving stated targets. This information is reviewed monthly by the FAS Controller's Office, the Assistant Commissioner for AAS and AAS regional and national program business management staff.

Evidence: ?? GSA Annual Performance and Accountability Report 2006 ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? AAS 1stQ FY07 QPR ?? FAS Controller's 3 levers presentation and suggested target of 3.6% surcharge as well as DOE/GM ratio targets

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: AAS is a major user of contracts established by the FAS ITS and GSS Portfolios. AAS also coordinates with the FAS Customer Accounts and Research organization to use customer intelligence such as spend data, budget data, strategic account plans to identify potential new business opportunities and offerings. The Assistant Commissioner of AAS co-chairs OMB's Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative with the Dept. of Treasury which includes four inter-agency groups with participation of 25 Federal agencies. AAS is also supporting a DHS/GSA partnership to develop, implement and manage a strategic sourcing program for DHS. The DHS/GSA team recently received the Coalition for Government Procurement's Excellence in Partnership Award for this effort.

Evidence: ?? GSA Support to DoD from Administrator Doan, (February 14, 2007) ?? Memorandum of Agreement Between GSA and DoT - transferring ITOP to GSA ?? MOU Between DHS and GSA for the Development, Implementation, and Management of a Strategic Sourcing Pilot Partnership, (May 10, 2006) ?? Accenture: "GSA Delivery of Best Value Information Technology Services to Federal Agencies - Analysis of FSS and FTS Structure and Services", (April 2002)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: AAS is subject to FAS policies and internal controls and the FTS action plan that establishes national standard governing internal controls for task order acquisition activities (covering pre-and post-award oversight, training requirements, and management controls. A detailed contract/project closeout policy has been established. The AAS Portfolio is supported by Pegasys, the GSA official financial system of record. The Federal Acquisition Service Controller's Office monitors monthly spending and prepares monthly operating expense reports to ensure that the program is operating within the annually established budget levels. The accounts that fund AAS are subject to the standards of GSA's annual financial audit and received a favorable opinion on its FY 2006 audit. An archive of annual reports containing the financial audit findings (cited below) are evidence of strong financial management practices within the Portfolio and GSA.

Evidence: ?? GSA Annual Performance and Accountability Report 2006 ?? FTS Policy/Internal Controls Memorandum, (September 17, 2003) ?? FTS Action Plan, (November 25, 2003) ?? FTS Contract/Project Close-Out Policy and Decision Tree, (January 10, 2005) ?? FTS Management Plan dated November 16, 2006 ?? FTS Policy on Issuance and Use of Purchase Cards, (February 10, 2004) ?? Potential Anti-Deficiency Act Violations on DoD Purchases Made through Non-DoD Agencies, Report #D-2007-042, dated January 2 ?? Compendium of Audits CSC's 9-29-2006

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: FAS has established guidelines that AAS is following. The AAS legacy program (Information Technology Solutions) took a number of steps to evaluate program management controls and correct deficiencies: (1) established a Procurement Management Review (PMR) Program that systematically reviews Client Support Centers (CSCs) on a scheduled basis; (2) established an Acquisition Checklist that is required for use by all CSCs; (3) established a legal review process for new contract awards; (4) strengthened the procedures of the regional and national contract review panels; (5) conducted periodic reviews of CSCs through the Management Control Program; and (6) Institutionalization of a formal Management Control Plan and Testing Schedule. In addition, FAS has taken a number of steps to evaluate program management controls and correct deficiencies: 1) established a FAS organization that systematically reviews all business lines, including AAS, on a scheduled basis, 2) established and implemented guidance used by all business units, and 3) conducted periodic reviews with AAS, FAS and GSA management. Quarterly Program Reviews (QPR) are conducted by the GSA Comptroller's Office and Commissioner/Administrator.

Evidence: ?? GSA Memorandum, For Technology Service Associates: Guidance and Information Concerning Interagency Transactions and Proper Management Reimbursable Agreements in Revolving Funds, (June 7, 2004; June 27, 2005) ?? FTS Management Plan Summary, (December 5, 2005) ?? Memorandum on Legal Review FTS Contractual Matters, (October 1, 2003) ?? FEDSIM Contract Review Panel SOP, (December 15, 2006) ?? FTS Action Plan, (November 25, 2003) ?? Establishment of FEDSIM Policy Council, (August 14, 2006) ?? FEDSIM Business Plan, (FY 2006-2007) ?? GSA Memorandum, "Guidance Concerning Procurement Management Review (PMR) Program for FTS Acquisition Matters", (November 2003) ?? Internal Control Development & testing (DASTON), (August 18, 2005) ?? AAS 1stQ FY07 QPR ?? FTS Management Control Plan

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The three legacy FTS programs that comprise this portfolio have a poor record of progress in achieving their long-term targets. For the four performance measures related to long-term outcome improvements, the legacy programs were only able to show progress in three of the 13 measured reporting periods.

Evidence: ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? FY 2007 AAS Scorecard ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006) ?? FY 2007 Congressional Justification ?? Defining Assisted Services Working Group study - March 2007

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The three legacy FTS programs that comprise this portfolio have a fair record of meeting or coming close to their annual performance targets. For the three performance measures related to long-term outcome improvements for which the legacy programs had annual targets*, the legacy programs were able to meet their annual targets in three of the 17 measured reporting periods, but were able to come close in another eight of the 17 reporting periods. Therefore, they met or came close to their annual targets almost two-thirds of the time. *Note: The legacy FTS programs did not set Customer Satisfaction targets prior to 2007.

Evidence: ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006) ?? Pensacola info ?? FY 2004- 2005 ITS performance measures study ?? FY07 AAS Financial Plan and actual results through February 2007

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Although the FAS Comptroller has instituted strong cost control policies that should lead to improved efficiencies in the future, the three legacy programs in this portfolio have shown decreased efficiencies in five out of the nine measured reporting periods since 2004. The portfolio is still having difficulty in improving its efficiency.

Evidence: ?? Assistant Commissioner AAS memo establishing AAS goals and measures (April 9, 2007) ?? Assisted Acquisition Services in FAS, DASWG Findings and Recommendations, (March 14, 2007) ?? FAS Controller's 3 levers presentation and suggested target of 3.6% surcharge as well as DOE/GM ratio targets ?? FY07 AAS Financial Plan and actual results through February 2007

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The FY 2006 FEDSIM Customer Perceived Value Report shows that FEDSIM, a third of the AAS portfolio, was perceived by customers as "providing only comparable value compared to its competitors" and "as being not much better than its competitors" in contracting expertise, the most important factor to its customers. The 2003 Gartner study found that client agencies perceived that IT Solutions, the majority of the AAS portfolio, only provided "limited additional value over internal procurement shops."

Evidence: ?? Customer surveys (Region 3, 4, 7) ?? FEDSIM Study of Customer Perceived Value - Report of Findings, (April 2006) ?? Gartner, "Performance Measurement Assessment, (November 2003) ?? "ITS Alternate Sources Matrix", Gartner Consulting, (November 2003) ?? GAO Audit Report, "Contract Management", (July 2002) ?? Booz-Allen & Hamilton, "FTS: Benchmarking IT Solutions Final Report", (December 1999) ?? GSA ADM 5440.591 Change 1 Order Announcing Changes in the Federal Acquisition Services (FAS), (October 12, 2006) ?? FY 2007 Congressional Justification ?? AAS Strategic Assessment (draft), (FY 2006)

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There have not been any evaluations of sufficient scope that have determined that this program is effective and achieving results. Several evaluations have been done on individual business lines within the AAS portfolio, but all have identified problems that have impaired the effectiveness of those business lines.

Evidence: ?? Doherty & Associates, Inc., "Blueprint Project, (December 2003) ?? Blue Print Study, (2004) ?? FEDSIM Study of Customer Perceived Value - Report of Findings, (April 2006) ?? Gartner, "Performance Measurement Assessment, (November 2003) ?? Booz-Allen & Hamilton, "FTS: Benchmarking IT Solutions Final Report", (December 1999) ?? Accenture: "GSA Delivery of Best Value Information Technology Services to Federal Agencies", (April 30, 2002) ?? GSA CAO PMR