Detailed Information on the
General Services Administration - Office of Governmentwide Policy Assessment

Develop governmentwide performance measures for each of OGP's major programs. (See Part Questions 2.5 and 3.2) In addition to the performance measure data already collected for real property management. OGP will develop performance measures with governmentwide, not agency, targets for each of its major programs (including Technology Strategy, Personal Property, Travel, and Transportation). Milestones: 1.) Develop performance measurement strategy and approach by July 31, 2007. 2.) Complete peer review of performance measures and methodology by August 31, 2007. 3.) Finalize data collection and analysis methods by September 30, 2007. 4.) Begin governmentwide performance measurement period for FY08 by October 1, 2007.

Develop an independent assessment process for OGP. (See Part Questions 2.6 and 4.5) OGP will carefully consider and incorporate the feedback generated from the qualitative the portion of the 3PS survey instrument. Subject to funding availability, OGP will then develop a statement of work to establish a contract to conduct regularly-scheduled independent assessments. In addition to existing program assessment, the scope of work will include recommendations to improve program effectiveness and efficiency.

OGP to collect effectiveness survey data. (See Part Question 3.1) Collection of the 3PS stakeholder and customer survey data before the PART database is locked for FY 2006 with the percentage of stakeholders and customers who rate OGP policy initiatives as "effective" or "very effective". Milestone: Collect data and update the PARTWeb by September 15, 2006.

Measure: Extent to which OGP policy initiatives achieved improvement targets

Explanation:This measure directly supports OGP's first long-term outcome goal to: "Improve management effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal government in providing or obtaining 'best value' administrative services through the implementation of governmentwide policies and tools developed or managed by OGP." OGP utilizes a portfolio-based approach to performance measurement called the Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS). Per the 3PS requirements, OGP selects a set of five to eight policy initiatives that represent its strategic priorities for that specific year. Each policy initiative has an individual performance metric that measures improved outcomes achieved as a result of OGP's efforts that year. To determine the success of the performance measure as a whole, OGP aggregates the results observed for the underlying component measures specific to a fiscal year to obtain that year's success rate. OGP can then compare the success or failure of the annual portfolio over multiple years. In this manner, the "roll-up" portfolio measure remains constant over time while also enabling OGP to adjust its strategic policy priorities in a dynamic environment on an annual basis. The purpose of the conservative targets for this measure is a product of the uncertainties created by not knowing exactly which initiatives and underlying performance drivers will be present in the portfolio in future years. Since 3PS's inception, roughly 70% of the policy initiatives in a given fiscal year will not be carried into the 3PS portfolio for the following year. By maintaining conservative targets that incrementally reach 100% by 2011, OGP (in the intervening years) is able to mitigate the risk of data aberrations caused by unforeseen events in the policy environment such as changes in strategic direction issued by Congress or the Executive Office of the President.

Measure: Percentage of key policy stakeholders and agency users who rate OGP policy initiatives effective

Explanation:This measure directly supports OGP's first long-term outcome goal to: "Improve management effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal government in providing or obtaining 'best value' administrative services through the implementation of governmentwide policies and tools developed or managed by OGP" by eliciting feedback directly from the federal community. Under this performance metric, OGP measures the perceived effectiveness of its policies by external federal groups. OGP utilizes a portfolio-based approach to performance measurement called the Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS). As required by 3PS, OGP annually selects a set of five to eight policy initiatives that represent its strategic priorities for that specific year. OGP identifies the "Key Policy Stakeholders" and "Agency Users" associated with each 3PS portfolio initiative for a given fiscal year. The Key Policy Stakeholders are given an opportunity to quantitatively and qualitatively rate the OGP initiatives' effectiveness in a focus group conducted by a third party. The Agency Users, alternatively, receive an electronic web survey to quantitatively rate OGP's effectiveness. Individual initiative results and focus group notations are analyzed and compared to improve the management of each initiative. Ultimately, the substance of this performance measure is the sum of the quantitative results which are aggregated into a final percentage of key policy stakeholders and agency users who rate OGP policy initiatives effective. The purpose of the conservative targets for this measure is twofold. First, they are a function of the uncertainties created by not knowing exactly which initiatives will be present in the portfolio in future years. Second, the closest analog of this "effectiveness survey" process is customer satisfaction surveys. In such surveys, it is rare to achieve an overall satisfaction rating over 80%. This fact was made painfully clear to OGP when their inaugural FY2006 survey failed to meet their overly ambitious target of 80%. The result of the FY2006 survey was essentially a baseline year for this performance measure. Future targets were designed to incrementally improve the initial FY2006 54% rating by 3% in each subsequent year. FY2006's rating significantly contrasted to the FY2007 rating, which was rated highly effective due to an aggregate result of 70%. Whether or not this is an aberration or a trend of future survey performance is uncertain. Since 3PS's inception, roughly 70% of the policy initiatives in a given fiscal year will not be carried into the 3PS portfolio for the following year. The conservative targets between FY2008 and FY2011 reflect the fact that future surveys will be electronically sent to unknown Agency Users and focus groups will be held with unknown Key Policy Stakeholders. The inherent uncertainty of the portfolio mechanism necessitates a more conservative performance approach, hence OGP's reasoning behind establishing FY2006 as the baseline.

Measure: Percentage of OGP policy initiatives meeting their scheduled development milestones

Explanation:This measure directly supports OGP's second long-term outcome goal to ensure that: "Policies are developed on schedule and on budget". This performance measure is designed to measure OGP's internal efficiency by tracking its ability to meet its scheduled milestones. OGP utilizes a portfolio-based approach to performance measurement called the Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS). Under 3PS, OGP annually selects a set of five to eight policy initiatives that represent its strategic priorities for that specific year. OGP then develops an aggressive milestone plan for each policy initiative. Each initiative in the portfolio is considered a unit of measure. In the event an OGP policy initiative fails to complete a single milestone on schedule, the entire initiative cannot be counted as "on time" for the calculation of this measure. This ensures OGP maintains a high standard of accountability for each milestone. For example, if there are five policies in the 3PS portfolio and one fails to complete a milestone on time, then four out of five initiatives are considered "on-time" and therefore the measure would be calculated at 80% (4 out of a possible 5). The percentage of decrease varies by the number of initiatives in the portfolio. In a year when there are eight policy initiatives in the portfolio, the rate of decrease for a failed milestone plan would equal 12.5% (or one eighth). This is a "negative" measure in that the mathematical operation assumes each initiative will operate at 100% on schedule throughout the year unless a failure occurs and then the performance indicator will drop to a lower percentage. The reason OGP established 100% as its eventual target for FY2011 is to maintain allowance for a margin of error due to the likelihood that during the intervening years, OGP may encounter a scenario where circumstances lead to one missed milestone. OGP performed above expectations in FY2006 and FY2007, achieving a 100% for the milestones associated with those two years. However, this 100% achievement does not preclude the possibility that in future years a milestone plan associated with an unknown initiative may not meet all of its assigned deadlines.

Measure: Percentage of OGP policy initiatives meeting cost targets

Explanation:This measure directly supports OGP's second long-term outcome goal to ensure that: "Policies are developed on schedule and on budget." This performance measure is designed to ensure that OGP accurately projects cost requirements for initiatives that have been designated as strategic priorities. OGP utilizes a portfolio-based approach to performance measurement called the Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS). Under 3PS, OGP annually selects a set of five to eight policy initiatives that represent its strategic priorities for that specific year. OGP then develops a target FTE amount and contract budget for each initiative in the portfolio. Looking at the wording of the performance measure itself, one will notice that it tracks "percentage of policy initiatives." Therefore, each initiative in the portfolio is considered a unit of measure. In the event an OGP policy initiative requires an unplanned additional allocation of resources during the fiscal year and thereby fails to remain at or below its cost target, the initiative cannot be counted as "on budget" for the calculation of this measure. This is to ensure OGP maintains a high standard of accountability for policy initiatives. For example, if there are five policies in the 3PS portfolio and one fails to remain at or below its cost target, then four out of five initiatives are considered "on-time" and therefore the measure would be calculated at 80% (4 out of a possible 5). The percentage of decrease varies by the number of initiatives in the portfolio. In a year when there are eight policy initiatives in the portfolio, the rate of decrease for a failed milestone plan would equal 12.5% (or one eighth). This is a "negative" measure in that the mathematical operation assumes each initiative will operate at 100% "on budget" throughout the year unless a failure occurs and then the performance indicator will drop to a lower percentage. The reason OGP established 100% as its eventual target for each fiscal year for this measure is largely because the baseline observed in FY2004 was 100%. Also, maintaining a 100% target provides a management tool that ensures all of OGP strategic priorities maintain the highest level of fiscal planning and accountability. OGP performed below expectations in FY2006 and FY2007, failing to achieve a 100% for those years. During both years, OGP's Real Property Guidance policy initiative exceeded its budget and thereby lowered the overall performance measure. In both years, the Federal Real Property Council directed OGP to increase the capabilities of the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) data system. These enhanced capabilities (including a vital data security improvement) were unforeseen requirements prescribed by an external interagency committee that had a direct and adverse performance consequence for OGP. In the case of the FY2007 budget overage, the enhancements accelerated the FRPP's security resilience and created a cost avoidance for OGP in the FY2008 budget.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: In December 1995, GSA created the Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP) to consolidate into a single organization the policy and regulatory authorities assigned to the GSA Administrator by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, other statutes, and Executive guidance. These authorities cover most internal business processes of Federal agencies, including personal and real property, travel and transportation, information technology, regulatory information and the use of Federal advisory committees. OGP's strategic goal is to improve the management effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal government in providing or obtaining "best value" administrative services through the implementation of governmentwide policies and tools developed or managed by OGP.

Evidence: Public Buildings, Property, and Works (40 U.S.C. Chapter 16); GSA Order ADM 5440.473 12/20/95; GSA Order OHR P 5440. 1; Executive Order 12866; Executive Order 13123, Executive Order 13101, Energy Policy Act of 2005 Public Law 109-58 § 1803 (a), Regulatory Flexibility Act; Paperwork Reduction Act 3504 (d)(f); Federal Advisory Committee Act, Clinger Cohen Act § 5401 (a), eGov Act, Government Performance & Results Act of 1993, and The Rehabilitation Act Amendments, 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508). See also FY2006 and FY2007 OMB Budget Passback documents for GSA.

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

Explanation: The GAO, agency IG, and other evaluators are constantly reporting on the Federal government's problems in carrying out various administrative activities, e.g., the recent GAO high risk designation for real property management. Each Administration also sponsors various management reform efforts to respond to these problems or to management priorities unique to that Administration, e.g., the current Presidential Management Agenda Initiatives on Electronic Government and Real Property Asset Management. The OGP carries out policy and regulatory responsibilities assigned to the Administrator of General Services by Congress for many of the business practices subject to these reform initiatives. In addition, the OGP ensures regulatory systems conform to the requirements of Executive Order 12866 and OMB directives, monitors Federal advisory committees for compliance with the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, and carries out other responsibilities assigned under Executive Guidance.

Evidence: Public Buildings, Property, and Works (40 U.S.C. Chapter 16); GSA Order ADM 5440.473 12/20/95; GSA Order OHR P 5440. 1; Executive Order 12866; Regulatory flexibility Act; Paperwork Reduction Act 3504 (d)(f); E.O.13327; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Clinger Cohen Act § 5401 (a); Executive Order 13101 of July 16, 1996, Section 7; OMB letter dated 7/10/96 assigning GSA as lead in electronic commerce issues; OMB letter dated 12/16/05 designating OGP as the FSIO FMLOB Lead; OMB Directive Implementation of HSPD-12 M-05-24; GAO Report 05-207 (High Risk Series Update); GAO-03-122 (High Risk Series: Federal Real Property); and GAO-04-644 (GAO endorsed OGP's Fleet Review Survey results). OGP has a lead role in implementing the President's Management Agenda, especially the e-Gov initiatives, such as Federal Asset Sales and the organizing functions for the Lines of Business. DOJ letter and survey report on Section 508 compliance describing agencies reporting requirements to GSA.

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

Explanation: OGP was designed to play a unique policy development and support role for the administrative services under GSA's purview. No other organization has the governmentwide policy development, policy support, regulatory, and oversight responsibilities assigned to OGP.

Evidence: Public Buildings, Property, and Works (40 U.S.C. Chapter 16); GSA Order ADM 5440.473 12/20/95; Executive Order 13101 of July 16, 1996, Section 7; OMB letter dated 7/10/96 assigning GSA as lead in electronic commerce issues; OGP has transferred operational responsibility for OGP-piloted programs such as FedBizOps, Smart Cards, ACES, and FirstGov, where OGP was initially the major driver, to FAS/OCS. Similarly, Grants.gov was deployed governmentwide and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services. Governmentwide guidance, benchmarks, and Real Property tools include Performance Results, Space Use Guidance, and Cost Per Person Model. OGP lead the following governmentwide Line of Business initiatives: Financial Management (2004), Human Resources (2004), Grants Management (2004), Information Security (2005), Geospatial (2006), Budget Formulation (2006) and IT Infrastructure Optimization (2006). HSPD-12 Identity Management Handbook has been recognized by agencies and private industry.

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

Explanation: OGP is designated the organization within GSA responsible for planning, policy and evaluation functions for the management and disposal of property, and certain other management activities. OGP's policies guide the behavior of Executive Branch agencies, including, where appropriate, the services provided by the operational components of GSA. In OGP's 2004 PART review, OMB cited a single design flaw: "[OGP's] intended role has not been well understood or accepted by the [GSA] Services and its performance in affecting GSA's operational activities has been uneven, and sometimes less than expected." Over the last two years, OGP has dramatically strengthened its policy role as it relates to GSA's two operational activities, the Public Building Service (PBS) and the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). See the evidence section below for details.

Evidence: Assessing Agency Compliance Report 2006. Examples: PBS Oversight - OGP/MP has a functioning policy oversight role over PBS in the areas such as the Provider of Choice Delegated Leasing Program, Telework, Sustainability, and Disposal, as well as the establishment of an FMR Evaluation & Review Panel, and development of a Policy Compliance Review Model. From a broader perspective, OGP/MP's governmentwide policy role directly impacts PBS via the Federal Real Property Profile and the submission of inventory data annually; OGP/MP's revision of GSA Bulletin FPMR D-240, Federal Real Property Asset Principles into the FRPC Guiding Principles; E.O.13327 and OGP/MP co-chairs the Federal Real Property Advisory Group of which PBS is a member. Real Property Performance - OGP/MP tracks three Office of Disposal performance measures. The three measures include: 1) Sales proceeds as a % of Estimated Fair Market Value (EFMV); 2) Percentage of Public Sales awarded within 170 days and 3) Percentage of U&D Property Awarded within 240 days. FAS Oversight- The Associate Administrator for Governmentwide Policy is a member of the FAS Management Council to provide functioning policy oversight. SEC508 and FAS -Through joint compliance efforts, the Networx RFP now includes approximately five pages of detailed Section 508 requirements (developed using the Buy Accessible Wizard. Section 508 language, developed by OGP's Office of Technology Strategy (OGP/ME), is included in the Alliance RFI, the Smartpay draft RFP, as well as the SmartBuy basic agreement. In addition, the Alliance RFI includes language that requires vendors to submit information to the Buy Accessible Data Center. OGP/ME has also worked with FAS on the GSA Advantage redesign rolling out at the end of the year. OGP worked with GSA's OCIO to identify weaknesses and improve Sec508 compliance in GSA-led systems such as eTravel, Feddesk, CHRIS; coordinated with OCSC Firstgov and webcontent managers to drive Sec508 practices; working with FAS to include the capability of collecting product specific 508 data in GSA Advantage redesign. HSPD12 - Through joint OGP/FAS efforts HSPD12 compliant products will easily be procured by agencies through a special SIN in the FAS schedules program. SmartPay - The new SmartPay draft solicitation includes substantially improved provisions for data collection than the previous contracts. OGP/MT is reviewing for comments now. Pre-Operational Programs - OGP's Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (OGP/MT) OGP/MT researched and developed policy compliant programs (such as eTravel and FedRooms) before converting them to an operational mode and incorporating them into the FAS business model. Relocation - FAS recently changed Schedule 48 to address several GRAB recommendations. Specifically, in November 2005, they added Special Item Number (category) 653-3 to Schedule 48, titled: "Relocation Software, Technology, and Support Services". They also added data reporting requirements - both to the ordering agency and to GSA. E-Travel - OGP and FAS work together to ensure that the e-Gov Travel Service an end-to-end travel management service through which agencies can management their travel programs in a policy compliant, electronic environment. Federal Asset Sales - OGP is leading the effort to consolidate the sale of personal property to a small number of Centers of Excellence. OGP co-chaired the Executive Steering Committee for the re-competition of GSA's SmartPay?? contracts (FSS/FAS provides the other co-chair).

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

Explanation: GSA's annual strategic assessment process asssures that OGP's resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries. OGP management prepares a strategic assessment document two years in advance of the fiscal year. This document is the framework and the contextual basis of the Strategy and Action Plan (SAP) that assesses all OGP programs and sets priorities for the budget year and beyond. New initiatives proposed by OGP that fall outside the scope of its current work are written up in a document similar to the SAP called a "Strategic Action Plan Initiative" (SAPI). During the annual SAP/SAPI process, intended beneficiaries of OGP's policy initiatives are identified on an initiative-by-initiative basis. The top five to eight priority initiatives identified in the SAP/SAPI process are presented in the 3PS portfolio of strategic initiatives for that fiscal year. OGP's continuous interaction with Congressional committees, OMB, governmentwide councils and interagency groups assures OGP's various programs address relevant issues and customers needs.

Evidence: FY05 Performance and Accountability Report, FY2006, FY2007 and FY2008 Strategic Assessments for additional information. Under OGP's Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS), resources associated strategic priorities are tracked in conjunction with outcome-related performance measures. One of these measures includes an effectiveness survey that polls intended beneficiaries on the effectiveness of OGP's policy formulation activities. Example of policies reaching intended beneficiaries: The number of Gold Standard Certificates issued, number of agencies requesting ARMS reviews, and ICAP aviation safety officer certificates earned directly correlates to the decrease in aviation accidents resulting in an increase in lives saved and federal property protected and better management of aviation programs. Examples of OMB as a major beneficiary: OGP allocates resources to the Regulatory Information Service Center, management and coordination of the Line of Business Initiatives, OGP supports the OMB-chaired Federal Real Property Counsel, and the HSPD12 initiative.

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: OGP has four long-term outcome measures that directly support its two long-term outcome goals. OGP developed this methodology, called the Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS), during CY 2005 with direct oversight and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the GSA CFO. Under the 3PS, each year OGP will select a "policy set" of five to eight policy initiatives that represent its strategic priorities for that year. Each policy initiative has individual performance measures that correspond to the four "portfolio performance measures". To determine the success of a portfolio performance measure, OGP will aggregate the results observed for the component policy initiatives. The methodology will remain constant from year to year. In this manner, the four portfolio measures can also remain constant over multiple years and be considered truly "long-term" while also reflecting changes in OGP's policy priorities.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS). See the Performance Measures section of this document for a full list of measures and targets.

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

Explanation: OGP has specific quantifiable ambitious targets for the four long-term performance measures through FY2011. In consultation with the Office of Management and Budget and the GSA CFO, OGP established an 80% target for three of the four long-term measures in OGP's policy portfolio and a 100% target for the forth budget tracking measure. These 80% targets will increase by 4% each fiscal year until the target reaches the 100% in 2011. In FY2011, OGP will reevaluate the fundamental structure and value of the long-term portfolio measures for future years.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS)

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: A crucial component of OGP's portfolio measurement model is establishing a limited number of discrete and quantifiable annual performance measures. Each policy initiative contained in the portfolio must include a performance measure that demonstrates the initiative's progress in attaining outcome improvements. These annual measures directly contribute to OGP's progress toward its long-term goals because their results quantifiably impact the performance calculation of OGP's long-term measure #1: "Extent to which OGP policy initiatives achieved improvement targets". Furthermore, each policy initiative also includes two annual efficiency measures, which measure time and cost efficiencies associated with the policy development process. These also directly contribute to OGP's measurement of its long-term goals in that their results impact the calculation of OGP's long-term measure #3: "Percentage of OGP policy initiatives meeting their scheduled development milestones"; and # 4 "Percentage of OGP policy initiatives meeting cost targets".

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS)

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

Explanation: OGP has established baselines and aggressive targets for its program-specific annual measures with direct oversight from the Office and Management and Budget and the GSA CFO.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS)

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: OGP does a very good job collaborating with its partners, which include the Federal agencies affected by its policies, agencies with complementary policy authorities (such as OPM and OMB); and with FAS and PBS, the GSA operational programs that provide the services to support policy implementation. Although governmentwide performance measures exist for a few programs, e.g., real property, these are the exceptions rather than the norm. GSA has begun to address this shortcoming, but much more work is required to expand the development of performance measures and targets across all OGP programs.

Evidence: Under E.O.13327 OGP's Office of Real Property Management (OGP/MP) collects and analyzes governmentwide data on real property and tracks four related performance measures. OGP/MP partners with the Office of Personnell Management to to promote telework across the government. OGP's Office of Technology Strategy (OGP/ME) works with FAS to ensure that agencies only purchase policy compliant products through FAS in areas such as Section 508 Accessibility, Identity Authentication, and financial management software. OGP's Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (OGP/MT) works with the Property Management Executive Council that includes representatives from a dozen agencies, as well as OMB and GAO. The goal of this interagency collaboration is to advance the efficiency and effectiveness of governmentwide personal property programs. OGP/MT and the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) have established the Travel Policy and Programs Networking Group. This group brings OGP's travel policy areas of travel, per diem, and relocation together with FAS' travel-related programs-- e-Gov Travel, City Pair Program, Travel Services Solution, GSALodging/FedRooms, Relocation (TDRS/TMSS), and SmartPay. OGP/MT's work with the Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP) is also an example of diverse agency partners working together to achieve our program goals such as strategic planning, Aviation Safety, Exchange/Sale, and the OMB 300. The Federal Fleet Policy Council (FedFleet) is composed of agency representative who manage & operate federal motor vehicle fleets. The council provides a forum to communicate information, to discuss shared concerns, and to agree on solutions to common problems. The council addresses subjects such as the size, complexity, and cost of the Federal Fleet, laws affecting fleet operations, as well as issues affecting the effective and efficient management of the fleet. The Executive Relocation Steering Committee includes representatives from 13 major federal agencies, whose basic purpose is to review, analyze, develop, and make recommendations to GSA on relocation policy initiatives. Their long-term goals are to ensure that: Transferees and their families settle in their new locations and focus on their new assignments as quickly and efficiently as possible; GSA and the agencies have the necessary processes, data, controls, and expertise to manage relocation efficiently and effectively; and Federal relocation processes incorporate current industry best practices to the maximum extent possible.

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: OGP conducts an annual survey of stakeholders and agency users to gauge their assessment of OGP's effectiveness. Long-term performance measure #2: "Percentage of key policy stakeholders and agency users who rate OGP policy initiatives effective" shows the results of this survey. OGP has not had an independent evaluation of its overall program for such evaluations on a regular basis. There have been GAO audits, IG reviews, and other external studies on certain high-visibility program areas in which OGP is involved. However, most of these reviews identify overall material weaknesses with program execution, rather than evaluate OGP effectiveness. The Per Diem Advisory Board Report was one of the few external evaluations to comment on OGP's performance.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS); GAO reports: GAO-03-122 (High Risk Series: Federal Real Property); GAO-03-144 Electronic Government, Progress in Promoting Adoption of Smart Card Technology; GAO-03-679 Telework Efforts; GAO-03-952 Electronic Government, Planned E-Authentication Gateway Faces Formidable Development Challenges; GAO-03-983 Contract Management; GAO-04-157 Information Security, Status of Federal Public Key Infrastructure Activities at Major Federal Departments and Agencies; GAO-03-316 Federal Mail Screening. Independent studies: Utilization and Donation study; Per Diem Advisory Board Report, Government Transportation Management Policy Review performed by Maximus in partnership with George Mason University, Governmentwide Relocation Advisory Board Report.

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's Performance Management Process has enabled a more focused approach in linking the annual budget to strategic goals and specific initiatives intended to help achieve those goals. OGP also works closely with the OMB and GSA CFO in the annual budget formulation process to ensure resource needs are formulated based on strategic assessments of the program functions and responsibilities. Budget documents display resources required for program execution and align with performance goals and measures. When necessary, OGP reallocates existing resources or requests additional funding for specific initiatives to meet performance targets.

Evidence: FY05, FY06 and FY07 Congressional Budget Justifications; FY06, FY07 and FY08 OGP Strategic Assessments. Examples: Shifted additional resources to "increase the number of Federal programs using effective web-enabled real property management systems" and support of E.O.13327.

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

Explanation: In FY2004, OGP's major strategic planning deficiency was the lack of long-term outcome measures and targets and annual measures and targets that contribute to the long-term targets. The creation and implementation of OGP's Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS) rectified that deficiency in FY2006.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS)

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: OGP's long-term goals are based on its statutory authority and related Federal laws, executive orders and other Executive Branch guidance. OGP follows the Administrative Procedures Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and other pertinent requirements in the issuance of all its regulations. In addition, OGP works closely and continuously with its customers and stakeholders to ensure the regulations are necessary, relevant, and timely, and link to the goal of improving Government management. The Preambles to OGP's regulations discuss in broad terms how the regulations contribute to the achievement of the overall program goals. In the future, however, OGP should make sure that the Preambles of regulations that are intended to affect the achievement of specific performance measures are more specific about the intended results.

Evidence: FMR Bulletin 2005-B1, Delegations of Lease Acquisition Authority - Notification, Usage, and Reporting Requirements for General Purpose, Categorical, and Special Purpose Space Delegations: The purpose is clearly stated as, "This bulletin reemphasizes and modifies certain procedures associated with the use of the delegation of general purpose leasing authority provided by GSA in 1996 as part of the leasing program called 'Can't beat GSA Leasing' and two other longstanding delegations for categorical and agency-specific special purpose space." Agency performance is defined in the regulation as, "Section (7) The general purpose delegation requires agencies to provide GSA with leasing performance information periodically. In addition, GSA is now requiring agencies to provide lease performance information on categorical and special purpose lease delegation actions. Accordingly, agencies using any of the GSA lease delegations are hereafter required to provide GSA with reports semi-annually on April 30 and October 31 that detail the leasing activities conducted under the delegations." Motor vehicle regulation section (FMR 102-34), Subpart A covers "Obtaining Fuel Efficient Motor Vehicles" and section 102-34.30 cites the purpose as being that "maximum energy conservation benefits may be realized in obtaining, operating and managing motor vehicles owned or leased by the Government." Section 102-34.355 provides the mechanism for determining agency performance in meeting the purpose; it imposes an annual motor vehicle data requirement by agencies into OGP that includes vehicle acquisitions by agency, by type. Mail Management (FMR 102-192) - In the mail regulation, section 102-192.5 - "What does this part cover? prescribes policy and requirements for the efficient, effective, economical, and secure management of incoming, internal, and outgoing mail in federal agencies." In section 102-192.60 - "What must we report to GSA about our mail operations? if you meet the definition of a large agency you must report to GSA annually either your mail management and security plan, revised section(s) of that plan, or a statement verifying that your plan has been reviewed and that there are no changes to it. The annual report must state that a competent authority has reviewed all facility security plans within the past year. In section 102-192.80 - Why does GSA require these mail reports? GSA requires these annual agency mail management and security plans to: (a) ensure that the large federal mail programs have the tools and procedures in place to manage their operations efficiently and effectively; (b) ensure that appropriate security measures are in place; and (c) allow GSA to fulfill its responsibilities under the Federal Records Act, especially with regards to sharing best practices, training, standards, and guidelines." Exchange/sale - In the exchange/sale regulation (FMR section 102-39.15) cites the purpose of the regulation through the question, "Why should I use the Exchange/sale authority", with the two-part answer of " (a) To reduce the cost of replacement personal property," and " (b) Avoid costs (administrative and storage) that may be incurred when declaring the property to be replaced and processing it through the normal disposal process." Section 102-39.75 provides the mechanism for determining agency performance in meeting the purpose; it imposes a reporting requirement by agencies into OGP on their fiscal year exchange/sale activity.

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: OGP's implementation of the Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS) will enable it to roll up its internal performance data and provide an overall assessment of its performance across its high priority program areas. OGP has begun collecting performance and cost data for the portfolio monthly. This includes data collected from program partners and will include the results of an annual stakeholder and customer survey once the survey has been implemented. In addition to 3PS, each of OGP's divisions and program offices has individual measures, which they also track monthly or annually. OGP has only recently implemented 3PS and its data collection systems are still being developed.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS) Real Property -- OGP/MP collects and analyzes office lease data (based on seven indicators) from federal agencies and the private sector. This information is used to generate cost per person models, tools, measures and benchmarks for federal leased office space. In 2005, MP published their findings in two publications: (1) Benchmarking Monumental Building and (2) Real Property Results 2005. In FY 2006/2007, OGP/MP plans to publish (1) RP Performance Results 2006 (2) Updated Space Use Guidance and (3) Benchmarking Lab Space. In addition, OGP/MP is a member of the Global Workplace Network. In FY06 prepared the "Workplace Network Survey Report" that compiled, analyzed and compared survey data regarding space management and performance from sixteen countries including the United States. Personal Property Exchange/Sale - Each year, OGP/MT collects reports from the agencies and data from FSS regarding the agencies' exchange/sale activity in the Annual Report of Exchange/Sale Transactions (Exchange/Sale Report). The report consists of a list of each 2-digit Federal Supply Classification (FSC) Group of property sold showing the total number of items sold, the total original acquisition cost of the property, and the total net proceeds received. A second list, also sorted by FSC shows the total number of items exchanged, the total acquisition cost of the property, and the total exchange allowance received. Advisory Committees - As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.), and E.O. 12024, OGP/MC conducts an Annual Comprehensive Review (ACR) of approximately 1000 Federal advisory committees. The ACR also includes performance measures which address significant program outcomes associated with advisory committees, the disposition of advisory committee recommendations to Federal agencies, associated cost savings, and the actions taken by agencies in response to the recommendations. eForms - GSA gathered and presented quarterly reports to agencies and the ESC on agency progress toward populating the eforms.gov data base. Agences were scored red, yellow, green depending on their performance against set expectations. Section 508 - GSA performed the legislatively required Section 508 survey of agency performance of compliance metrics and developed feedback for agencies reports. Federal PKI - GSA maintains an on-going inventory of agencies complying to PKI policy standard and cross-certification with the Federal Bridge Authority. HSPD-12 GSA maintains a monthly agency status report of agency progress compliance with implementing HSPD-12. This is maintained through regular contact with agency program officials. Financial Systems Standards Compliance - FSIO maintains an annual survey and report of agency Financial Systems and those which are FSIO compliant which is the performance expectation. Software Asset Management - OGP maintains a listing of agencies that have some degree of software asset management to meet evolving program expectations. This information is gathered through interviews, and is used to guide other agencies toward a common plan. IPv6 - GSA assisted in the agency data calls for transition plans to help measure initial compliance with OMB mandate of IPv6 compliance in 2008.

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: OGP managers are held accountable for their program performance through the annual performance evaluation process, where individual performance is tied to the GSA and OGP strategic goals. OGP has worked with its customer agencies to develop governmentwide performance goals that are meaningful and measurable in many of programs. However, OGP has only begun to identify performance measures for a few of its programs and has only set governmentwide, not agency, targets for most of those measures. OGP is on track to improve this situation as it implements it new 3PS performance management approach, but needs to demonstrate substantial progress in this area to change this answer to Yes.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS); SES performance agreements (J. Sindelar & M. Wagner); Assessing Agency Compliance Report 2006 describes sets the framework for the OGP's various policy compliance review initiatives; A-11 report process for vehicles; and Fleet Review Survey in FAST and proposed Fleet Performance Scorecard. Examples: eForms - Agency non-compliance of performance expectations is escalated to high level executives, producing accountability to their agency executives when performance did not meet schedule and the performance goals set for populating the centralized public forms data base. All OGP eGov program areas are reported quarterly to OMB and scorecard reports generate accountability. FSIO performs systems tests on vendor financial management software annually to ensure compliance with requirements. Vendors that do not meet performance requirements can loose their certification and rights to sell to Federal agencies. Vendors work hard to ensure compliance and pass by their second test. HSPD-12 - OGP tests vendor products for complance with government standards. Vendors that fail cannot sell products to the Federal government. This is the ultimate form of accountability for compliance. Property donation - Regarding the property donation program outlined in 41 CFR 102-37 where the federal government transfers to state and local entities federal surplus personal property: State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASPs), are program partners, and held accountable for their operations via periodic state reviews conducted by GSA and can hold SASPs accountable by deferring them from eligibility to acquire property for donation. Also, through GSAs reviews, SASPs are also held accountable for maintaining operations in accordance with their GSA-approved State Plan of Operation. 40 USC and 41 CFR 102-37 address requirements for State Plans.

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

Explanation: OGP works closely with the GSA CFO in developing its annual spending plan based on approved funding levels. Based on annual spending plan, program components establish projected spending schedules and work closely with the CFO budget analysts to ensure all funds are obligated in a timely manner and for the intended purposes. OGP also conducts monthly fund status reviews, and meets with its Comptroller to ensure funding issues are addressed in a timely manger. In addition to obligations by object class, OGP also reviews actual spending by major projects to ensure resources are targeted toward prioritized initiatives.

Evidence: GSA Annual Financial Statements.

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: OGP meets with its Comptroller and Office Chief Information Officer representatives to review budget execution relative to its annual spending plan. OGP's continually monitors its cost and schedule goals under 3PS.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS); Ex. 300 Business Cases: FRPAM and ROCIS II

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OGP collaborates with customers and stakeholders throughout the formal policy development process to ensure their input and buy-in, and leads networks of agency representatives to facilitate the adoption of smarter solutions and consistent processes. OGP's role as a leader and partner in numerous cross-agency initiatives have resulted in improved business processes and use of standards. OGP also coordinates with internal GSA organizations to ensure policy alignment, and collaborates on the development and implementation of programs (see answer to question and evidence for question 1.4 above). This results in regulations that implement Administration policies in ways that agencies find workable and assures that GSA products and services support the implementation of those policies.

Evidence: The Federal Travel Regulation and the Federal Acquisition Regulation are all results of collaborative efforts with OMB and customers. Other examples include OGP's participation in the E-Rulemaking Governance Board and Advisory Committee helped develop requirements for a central docket system, and participation in the T-Rex Extensible Markup Language group to identify common data elements across rulemaking and Paperwork Act systems environment. Some other examples include the governmentwide Telework website jointly hosted by GSA/OPM; the Fleet Review; Aircraft Acquisition Plan; co-sponsorship of the Fleet and Travel Management Policy Conferences; an agreement with the Department of Defense Computer/Electronic Accommodation Program (CAP) to provide Government-wide support for S.508 requirements. OGP was heavily involved in the development of Federal Asset Sales, Federal Real Property Profile, and the Lines of Business Initiative. OGP/MP collaborates with OMB and customer agencies through the Federal Real Property Advisory Group, U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Federal Facility Council and its Standing Committees.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: No material weaknesses have been identified in the OGP program. OGP follows the GSA financial system, which meets statutory requirements and integrates with its performance management and budget planning processes. OGP also works closely with the CFO to monitor and ensure obligations and payments are made accurately and timely. OGP works closely with OMB to manage interagency council funds and the eGov fund.

Evidence: FY05 Performance and Accountability Report

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

Explanation: In addition to GAO and IG audits, OGP annually reviews and updates its Management Control Plan and conducts Management Control Evaluations for its responsible program areas in accordance with the audit schedule. When there is a deficiency, OGP works with appropriate program managers and/or IG/GAO to identify the best solution and develop action plan for corrective action if necessary. Internal deficiencies are identified at quarterly OGP senior executive management strategy meetings. Deficiencies are also identified and corrected through regular status reporting between the agencies.

Evidence: Annual Management Control Plan. Desk Officers - The Federal Advisory Committee office redirected its human resources in implementing the Desk Officer customer relationship model and its Federal staff training programs serve to maximize customer satisfaction and enhance compliance with Federal Advisory Committee Act. See also FY08 OGP Strategic Assessments. Matrix Management - As a result of a reduction in resources in FY2006, OGP/MT developed instituted a matrix management system to extend managerial expertise across the division and cross train management analysts to development skill capacities in areas beyond their initial policy expertise. Reimbursable Details - As a result of a reduction in resources in FY2006, OGP/ME and OGP/MP have used reimbursable details to obtain employees from other agencies to increase vital policy expertise.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: Through interagency working groups and various governmentwide councils, OGP collaborates extensively with customers and stakeholders throughout the policy development process, to seek input and ensure buy-in. Regulations are published in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act for public comment, and all issues are evaluated and results of those evaluations are documented through GSA's formal eRulemaking process.

Evidence: The Federal Management Regulation FMR Amendment 2005-3, Real Property Policies Update; FMR 2005-B1, Delegations of Lease Acquisition, Usage, Reporting Requirements for General Purpose, Categorical, and Special Purpose Delegations; FMR 2006-B3, Guidelines for Alternative Workplace Arrangements and the Federal Travel Regulation are all results of collaborative efforts with OMB, work with FRPC, agencies, the FRPAG and customers. 40 U.S.C. 587(c)(2) & (3), (d)(2), Pub. L. 106-346 section 359. Smartcard Interagency Board industry input to resolve technical issues related to HSPD-12. Multiple RFI's on Line of Business and HSPD12 effort.

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: Regulatory impact analysis is conducted when appropriate, but this is rare since most GSA regulations are exempt from these requirements. OGP's analysis of proposed regulations fully complies with OMB's clearance process

Evidence: The FAR update for S.508 required compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since GSA's Office of Acquisition Policy was removed from OGP: The regulatory impact analyses required by E.O. 12866 do not apply because OGP does not develop significant regulatory actions pursuant to E.O. 12866, section (f). Regulatory flexibility analyses required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA do not apply because OGP does not publish general notices of proposed rulemaking pursuant to second. 603(a) of the Act and 5USC553. Cost benefit analyses required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply because OGP does not issue regulations that impose unfunded federal mandates on state or local governments.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: OGP issues regulations to implement Congressional intent and to incorporate best business rules designed to improve program effectiveness and efficiency. Best business rules are identified and modified to fit the government environment to achieve the greatest benefit. OGP uses a collaborative process, so customers and stakeholders are involved in the analysis of the net effects of the proposed regulations at the beginning of the rule-making process. Working groups representing affected customers and stakeholders identify and evaluate additional compliance or reporting requirements. OGP also incorporates industry and other stakeholder feedback through formal Federal Advisory Committee Act boards.

Evidence: Existing regulatory procedures support an efficient and effective way to implement the OGP program. Examples are 41 CFR 102-118 which implements PL 105-264 or prepayment audit systems for all transportation acquisitions and billings, and 41 CFR 102-33 which improves aviation safety, effectiveness, and efficiency, and FMR 2005-03, Real Property Policies Update, dated 11/09/05 which is designed to improve Federal Real Property Asset Management.

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

Explanation: OGP's new Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS) establishes a very good framework for assessing OGP's progress in achieving its long-term performance goals. It is clear from the initial 3PS end-of-year report produced for FY '06, however, that OGP still has to perfect some of the mechanical aspects of the system. OGP also needs to establish a process for coordinating changes in 3PS metrics and targets with OMB to avoid some of the confusion caused by differences between the initial 3PS measures and targets and those reported in the end-of-year report. Based on the initial 3PS report and the information provided in the end-of-year report, OGP did not do well in meeting 1 of its 4 long-term outcome goals, nearly met a second goal, but exceeded the two remaining goals.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS)

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

Explanation: OGP's new Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS) establishes a very good framework for assessing OGP's progress in achieving its long-term performance goals. It is clear from the initial 3PS end-of-year report produced for FY '06, however, that OGP still has to perfect some of the mechanical aspects of the system. OGP also needs to establish a process for coordinating changes in 3PS metrics and targets with OMB to avoid some of the confusion caused by differences between the initial 3PS measures and targets and those reported in the end-of-year report. Based on the initial 3PS report and the information provided in the end-of-year report, OGP has met 5 of its 7 annual performance targets, since these measurements began.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS)

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

Explanation: OGP's new Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS) establishes a very good framework for assessing OGP's progress in achieving its long-term performance goals. It is clear from the initial 3PS end-of-year report produced for FY '06, however, that OGP still has to perfect some of the mechanical aspects of the system. OGP also needs to establish a process for coordinating changes in 3PS metrics and targets with OMB to avoid some of the confusion caused by differences between the initial 3PS measures and targets and those reported in the end-of-year report. Based on the initial 3PS report and the information provided in the end-of-year report, OGP missed one of its two FY 06 efficiency goals, but not by much.

Evidence: OGP FY 2006 Policy Portfolio Performance System (3PS). In FY 2006 OGP is continuing to provide the majority of programs and services provided in FY05 at dramatically reduced staffing levels.

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

Explanation: Even though some program areas are unique to OGP and there are no similar programs at the state or local level, OGP compares favorably in program areas that have similar counterparts at the state and local level as well as foreign governments. This is evident by such organizations adopting or adapting policies developed by OGP.

Evidence: OGP has been a leader in Section 508 policy implementation. Over 30 states have adopted the section 508 as OGP implemented in whole or in part. Some state's representatives have attended GSA sponsored meetings and events to learn more on how to implement concepts in their own states. Federal PKI has been adopted or utilized by many states and organizations. EDUCAUSE, a consortium of state and higher education organizations has adopted the federal bridge as its policy standard for internet work PKI communications. Another university consortium is using the e-authentication federation standards. The states of IL and CO have bought and are using GSA ACES certificates for personal Identification. Canada is working to adopt and mirror image the Federal PKI policy standards and become part of the Federal Bridge. The management council structure (CIO,CFO) has been adopted by many states and many national governments as a mechanism to organize and implement IT policy. The construct invented here at GSA has been one of the most popular ideas adopted around the world. The efforts of OGP in Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) has been adopted by National Association of State CIOs and many national governments. A recent report by the IAC and University of Copenhagen indicates that the United Kingdom, Korea, and Taiwan are using the US enterprise architecture framework models: work developed in part here in OGP. Over 15 state governments rely upon the FSIO (formerly JFMIP) financial management systems standards in the purchase and use of financial management systems. Per Diem - The the Governmentwide Per Diem Advisory Board found that many States depend on the OGP per diem program as the basis for their program. Survey data collected by the Board indicates that roughly half of the State governments rely on the federal diem rates set by OGP. Motor vehicles -Regarding fleet allocation methodology, the state of California, concerned about the number and types of vehicles in their fleet, is using OGP's guidance on vehicle allocation methodology as a part of their policy development process. The Building Owners and Managers Association International Magazine, featured the pilot study to benchmark operating costs of monumental Federal buildings was made possible with the cooperation of several state government and industry organizations, including the Institute of Real Estate Management, International Facilities Management Association, Institute of Real Estate Management, and the Kahler Slater Architect Group. OGP took the lead in developing and providing key benchmarking real property data for owned and leased workspace facilities to complete the 2006 edition of "The Workplace Network Survey Report." The Workplace Network (TWN) is an international organization comprised of senior real estate executives from the public and private sector. OGP's CPPM for office lease space model serves as a valuable tool to assist public, private, and international facility managers. Organizations that have taken advantage of this tool include; such as Public Works and Government Services Canada; the Office of Facilities Planning and Management; Takenaka, Japan; Charles Russell LLP, UK; Booz Allen Hamilton, Venezuela; Arizona State University, Carnegie-Mellon University; HOKC, Inc; Trammell Crow; Bank of America; Capital One; Maven Management, LLC; Measurable Results.

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

Explanation: There has not been an independent evaluation of OGP as a whole, and the results of GAO audits and IG reviews on high-visibility program areas generally point out program weaknesses. Some government advisory boards created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act provided independent reviews for some programs, i.e. per diem, aircraft, and relocation

Evidence: AO reports: GAO-05-207; GAO-03-122 (High Risk Series: Federal Real Property); GAO-03-144 Electronic Government, Progress in Promoting Adoption of Smart Card Technology; GAO-03-679 Telework Efforts; GAO-03-952 Electronic Government, Planned E-Authentication Gateway Faces Formidable Development Challenges; GAO-03-983 Contract Management; GAO-04-157 Information Security, Status of Federal Public Key Infrastructure Activities at Major Federal Departments and Agencies; GAO-03-316 Federal Mail Screening; GAO-04-664 which endorses OGP recommendations for fleet improvement; Per Diem Advisory Board Report and March 2004 IG review of per diem which endorsed the overall direction of the per diem program.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: The OGP program provides an effective policy framework so the government can operate better. The basic intent of achieving an effectively managed government is to maximize the benefits to the American taxpayers. The implementation of OGP regulations and policies promote improved management, and OGP estimates the net benefits in the increased effectiveness/efficiency and cost savings/cost avoidance governmentwide. There has been no cost study of OGP's total impact since it would be cost prohibitive to quantify the benefits for all of OGP's regulations and initiatives. Various accomplishments in specific program areas demonstrate our success.

Evidence: FY05 Performance and Accountability Report; lists of accomplishments that improved effectiveness/efficiency and increased cost savings (FY03, FY04 and FY05).