This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-187 
entitled 'Property Management: NASA's Goal of Increasing Equipment 
Reutilization May Fall Short without Further Efforts' which was 
released on March 3, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

January 2009: 

Property Management: 

NASA's Goal of Increasing Equipment Reutilization May Fall Short 
without Further Efforts: 

NASA Equipment Management: 

GAO-09-187: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-187, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Science and Technology, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2010, the planned retirement of the space shuttle will require the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to make disposal 
and reutilization decisions regarding over 1.2 million types of 
equipment. To facilitate these and other equipment management 
decisions, NASA recently invested $29 million in a new program: the 
Plant, Property, and Equipment (PP&E) Module—a component of NASA’s 
Integrated Enterprise Management Program. GAO was asked to assess the 
effectiveness of NASA’s processes, systems, and controls for managing 
its PP&E. This report addresses whether NASA (1) effectively designed 
controls over steps NASA identified as key to its controlled equipment 
reutilization process, including sending equipment to disposal, and (2) 
implemented policies, controls, and processes to enhance equipment 
reutilization. To answer these questions, GAO reviewed NASA equipment 
reutilization policy and conducted on-site visits at five NASA centers. 

What GAO Found: 

Inconsistent descriptions and inaccurate information on the condition 
of equipment hamper the PP&E Module’s ability to produce equipment 
matches and enhance reutilization. Although descriptions of equipment 
items are crucial for the new module to succeed in identifying 
equipment for reutilization, NASA has not provided detailed guidance on 
what should be included in the description field, leading to widely 
varying descriptions. For example, the same type of computer server 
equipment was described as a “disk array,” “disk drive unit,” and 
“storage array unit.” GAO’s physical inspections at two centers found 
that 83 of the 84 equipment items inspected were incorrectly coded as 
new and unused in the PP&E Module. These problems may lead to 
reutilization opportunities being overlooked. 

Further hampering equipment reutilization is the PP&E Module’s lack of 
detailed equipment availability information. The module does not 
identify the extent to which each piece of equipment is in use, 
necessitating a potentially lengthy search process. For example, an end 
user searching for an oscilloscope could currently have to contact up 
to 1,700 other end users to determine the availability status of these 
equipment items. 

These conditions contribute to inadequate end user utilization of the 
NASA Property Web interface (N-PROP), the PP&E Module’s automated 
component. N-PROP allows end users to perform online equipment 
management functions, which NASA anticipated would generate cost 
savings by facilitating equipment reutilization and eliminating manual 
processes. However, 98 of the 121 end users who were responsible for 
equipment selected from a NASA-wide statistical sample stated that they 
had never used either N-PROP or the prior systems, limiting the 
potential savings from implementing the new PP&E Module. 

NASA’s existing policies and procedures regarding equipment screenings 
and annual walk-through inspections—both key controls in the equipment 
reutilization process—were carried out inconsistently, if at all, at 
the five centers GAO visited. Without specific guidance on how to 
implement NASA’s equipment screening policy, centers failed to ensure 
that screenings occurred prior to purchasing new equipment, undermining 
the purpose of the screenings. Further, NASA does not require users to 
justify the need to purchase new equipment when a screening has 
identified equipment available for reutilization. In addition, required 
walk-through inspections intended to identify idle equipment were not 
conducted at one center and were ineffective at the other four. 
Equipment managers did not always follow up to ensure that the PP&E 
Module was updated and GAO’s testing estimated that about 16 percent of 
NASA’s controlled equipment (with a value of at least $230 million) was 
improperly listed as being actively in use and had been overlooked 
during annual walk-through inspections. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending five actions for improving the effectiveness of 
NASA’s equipment reutilization efforts, including actions directed at 
obtaining accurate information on equipment descriptions, condition, 
and availability. NASA agreed with four recommendations, but disagreed 
with GAO’s recommendation to improve equipment availability data. GAO 
continues to believe additional actions are warranted in this area. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-187]. For more 
information, contact Susan Ragland at (202) 512-9095 or 
raglands@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Ineffective Controls Hindered Equipment Reutilization: 

NASA Has Not Implemented Effective Policies and Detailed Procedures to 
Enhance Equipment Reutilization: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Examples of NASA Equipment That Walk-Through Inspections Did 
Not Identify as Excess or Underutilized (as of September 30, 2007): 

Table 2: Description of the Populations and Sample Transactions: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: NASA Equipment Reutilization Process: 

Figure 2: NASA's Equipment Screening Process: 

Figure 3: Equipment End User Screening Process in PP&E Module: 

Abbreviations: 

ARC: Ames Research Center: 

DFRC: Dryden Flight Research Center: 

DLIS: Department of Defense Logistics Information System: 

EMR: Equipment Master Record: 

GRC: John Glenn Research Center: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

GSFC: Goddard Space Flight Center: 

HQ: Headquarters: 

IEMP: Integrated Enterprise Management Program: 

JFMIP: Joint Financial Management Improvement Program: 

JSC: Johnson Space Center: 

KSC: Kennedy Space Center: 

LARC: Langley Research Center: 

MSFC: Marshall Space Flight Center: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NEMS: NASA Equipment Management System: 

NPD: NASA Policy Directive: 

NPDMS: NASA Property Disposal Management System: 

NPR: NASA Procedural Requirements: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

PP&E: Property, Plant, and Equipment: 

SSC: Stennis Space Center: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

January 30, 2009: 

The Honorable Bart Gordon: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Science and Technology: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stands at one 
of the most important crossroads it has faced since its inception in 
1958. The implementation of its new space exploration policy--A Renewed 
Spirit of Discovery: The President's Vision for U.S. Space 
Exploration[Footnote 1]--and the planned retirement of the space 
shuttle in 2010 will require NASA to move into a period of major 
transition. The planned retirement of the shuttle will require the 
agency to make disposal and reutilization decisions regarding over 1.2 
million types of equipment, including "controlled equipment," which is 
the focus of this report.[Footnote 2] During this transition period, it 
will be crucial that NASA have the processes, systems, and controls in 
place to ensure maximum reutilization and effective management and 
control of its equipment. 

In response to your request, this report addresses whether NASA has 
effectively (1) designed controls over steps NASA identified as key to 
its controlled equipment reutilization process, including equipment 
sent to disposal, and (2) implemented policies, controls, and processes 
to enhance equipment reutilization. During our review, NASA implemented 
its new Integrated Asset Management Property, Plant, and Equipment 
(PP&E) Module on May 19, 2008, and we examined the initial 
implementation of this module. However, we did not review or assess 
whether NASA followed best practices in customizing and implementing 
the PP&E Module, which NASA designed to enhance visibility, 
accountability, and management of PP&E. 

In conducting this review, we: 

* evaluated the design of key steps in NASA's reutilization process by 
reviewing and comparing NASA's equipment management policies and 
procedural guidance for equipment management and reutilization with 
federal property management regulations and other property management 
standards, including GAO's standards for internal control, and assessed 
key aspects of PP&E Module controls;[Footnote 3] 

* reviewed information regarding the equipment reutilization process at 
five centers,[Footnote 4] interviewed relevant NASA personnel to obtain 
their views on the equipment reutilization process and the design and 
implementation of the PP&E Module in facilitating equipment 
reutilization, and observed NASA employees as they demonstrated the 
PP&E Module's equipment management, search, and disposal 
capabilities;[Footnote 5] and: 

* selected a statistical random sample of equipment recorded in NASA's 
legacy NASA Equipment Management System (NEMS) and visited five centers 
to determine whether equipment recorded as actively being used was 
accurately recorded and transferred to the PP&E Module for reuse or 
disposal.[Footnote 6] 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 through January 
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional 
details of our scope and methodology are provided in appendix I. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the NASA 
Administrator or his designee. Written comments from the Deputy 
Administrator are presented and evaluated in the Agency Comments and 
Our Evaluation section of this report and are reprinted in their 
entirety in appendix II. 

Results in Brief: 

Inconsistent descriptions and inaccurate information on the condition 
of equipment hamper the PP&E Module's ability to produce equipment 
matches. Descriptions should focus on equipment features and 
capabilities that accurately reflect users' needs based upon 
performance criteria. Although descriptions of equipment items are 
crucial for the new module to succeed in identifying equipment for 
reutilization, NASA has not provided adequate oversight and detailed 
guidance on what type of information should be included in the 
description field, leading to widely varying equipment descriptions 
among the five centers we visited. For example, the same type of 
computer server equipment was described as a "disk array," "disk drive 
unit," and "storage array unit." These differences in descriptions may 
lead to reutilization opportunities being overlooked. Inaccurate 
information regarding the physical condition--or usability--of 
equipment in the PP&E Module creates another barrier to reutilization. 
At two centers, we determined that 83 of 84 equipment items we 
physically inspected that had been transferred to disposal were 
incorrectly coded as new and unused in the PP&E Module. These problems 
discourage use of the PP&E Module, and several end users told us that 
they do not have confidence in the equipment's condition as reported in 
the PP&E Module. 

Another potential barrier to equipment reutilization is the limited 
amount of information in the PP&E Module on the availability of 
equipment. According to NASA officials, the PP&E Module was intended to 
facilitate temporary transfers of equipment among end users so they 
could share, and more fully utilize, equipment. Although the module 
provides visibility to these types of equipment in use at NASA, it does 
not identify the extent to which each piece of equipment is being used. 
Without more specific information on the availability status of 
equipment, end users must perform a potentially lengthy search by 
contacting other equipment end users individually to determine if their 
equipment is available for utilization. An end user searching for an 
oscilloscope, for example, could currently have to contact up to 1,700 
other end users to determine the availability status of their 
oscilloscopes. 

These conditions contribute to inadequate end user utilization of the 
NASA Property Web interface (N-PROP), the PP&E Module's automated 
component, limiting potential cost savings. N-PROP allows end users to 
perform online equipment management functions, such as screening NASA's 
existing inventory for equipment to reutilize. NASA anticipated that 
this would generate operational cost savings by facilitating equipment 
reutilization and eliminating manual processes. However, 98 of the 121 
end users we interviewed stated that they had never used N-PROP (or the 
prior systems) to identify equipment they could reutilize. So, although 
this lack of use of N-PROP may be due in part to the timing of our 
review, which coincided with initial implementation of the PP&E Module, 
these responses also reflect a lack of end user familiarity with and 
use of equipment management functions in the prior systems. Among the 
reasons that some end users gave for not using N-PROP were that they 
preferred new equipment, viewed existing equipment as undesirable, did 
not consider the PP&E Module equipment information to be reliable, or 
were unfamiliar with the module. Because most end users we spoke with 
had not used the PP&E Module at the time of our visits, property 
custodians had assumed many equipment management responsibilities, 
lessening the impact of automating this process through N-PROP. 

NASA's existing policies and procedures related to equipment 
reutilization--required equipment screenings and annual walk-through 
inspections--were carried out inconsistently at the five centers we 
visited, if at all. Although 92 percent of equipment in the PP&E Module 
consisted of items costing less than $25,000, NASA's policy does not 
require end users to screen for such equipment. Because NASA has not 
provided specific guidance on how to implement its screening policy, 
the centers have failed to implement effective controls to ensure that 
required screenings occur before new equipment is purchased. One 
problem was that the five centers we visited were not following up to 
see if end users were purchasing new equipment in lieu of reutilizing 
equipment items identified during screening. For example, when one 
screener notified a requester of a potential equipment match, the 
screener was told that new equipment had already been purchased, 
undermining the purpose of the screening. Further, NASA policy does not 
require that requesters utilize such equipment or justify their need 
for new equipment. NASA also lacked the oversight to ensure that 
required screenings occurred. 

Required annual walk-through inspections--intended to identify idle 
equipment and ensure that it is fully utilized--were not conducted at 
one center and were conducted to varying degrees at the other four 
centers. In addition, the four center equipment managers told us that 
they did not follow up to ensure that the equipment management system-
-neither the legacy system nor the PP&E Module--was updated to reflect 
the changes identified by the inspections. Because of these 
inconsistencies, NASA was unable to demonstrate whether the annual walk-
through inspections met their objectives. Since many end users we 
interviewed were not using the PP&E Module to update information on 
their equipment, it is even more critical to perform walk-through 
inspections correctly and use them as a mitigating control. Our testing 
of equipment in NASA's legacy NEMS (as of September 30, 2007) estimated 
that about 16 percent of NASA's controlled equipment (with a value of 
at least $230 million) was improperly listed as being actively in use 
in an ongoing program, and had been overlooked during annual walk- 
through inspections. 

We are recommending five actions for improving the effectiveness of 
NASA's equipment reutilization efforts. These recommendations relate to 
actions needed to ensure that the PP&E Module contains accurate 
information on equipment descriptions, condition, and availability; the 
importance of providing incentives to end users to reutilize equipment; 
enhancing NASA policy for screening for available equipment; and 
improving procedures for and oversight of walk-through equipment 
inspections. NASA concurred with four of our five recommendations. NASA 
did not concur with our recommendation to modify the PP&E Module to 
capture information on the anticipated and actual usage (availability) 
of equipment assigned to end users. NASA stated that because NASA's 
equipment listed as "active" is now visible NASA-wide, there is no need 
to design and implement a separate additional status category in the 
PP&E Module. NASA further commented that the current visibility of 
"active" equipment provides the opportunity for programmatic, 
technical, and scientific experts to discuss possible reuse through 
loans or borrowing, coordinating through their property custodians or 
equipment managers. 

We continue to believe that not including information in the PP&E 
Module on the availability of equipment (the extent to which "active" 
equipment is actually or anticipated to be used) presents a barrier to 
equipment reutilization. Specifically, because the module does not 
provide status information on the extent to which each piece of 
"active" equipment is being (or is likely to be) used, such as on a 
weekly or monthly basis, potential end users must perform a potentially 
lengthy labor-intensive search by contacting other equipment end users, 
and discussing actual and intended use, to determine the extent to 
which the equipment listed as "active" is actually available for 
utilization. In addition, the Financial Systems Integration Office's 
property management systems requirements initially published by the 
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) directs that 
property management systems capture an equipment item's current use 
status, which includes identifying whether an equipment item is 
currently in use. 

Background: 

NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, 
scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. To accomplish its 
mission, NASA procures, fabricates, and maintains significant amounts 
of equipment. For example, as of September 30, 2008, NASA reported that 
it had approximately 307,000 controlled equipment items, costing $11.5 
billion.[Footnote 7] 

In April 2000, NASA launched the Integrated Enterprise Management 
Program (IEMP), which is expected to improve the efficiency of many of 
its financial and management functions. The IEMP system is intended to 
promote standardization and integration of business processes and 
systems across the agency, and various components have been designed 
and implemented since its launch in 2000. On May 19, 2008, NASA 
implemented the PP&E Module agencywide, which cost about $29 million, 
and is designed to improve its management of and provide accountability 
over the entire life cycle of controlled equipment. 

The PP&E Module replaced NASA's legacy equipment management systems-- 
NEMS and the NASA Property Disposal Management System (NPDMS). The 
module was intended to allow end users to perform such tasks as 
equipment searches--to identify equipment that may be available for 
reutilization--acceptance, rejection, and transfer. The module was 
designed, among other things, to allow equipment end users to compare 
their equipment needs with equipment located anywhere within NASA 
through two critical reutilization subcomponents, N-PROP and DSPL. N- 
PROP is a Web-based interface that allows end users to directly access 
the module and view equipment located at all NASA centers, while DSPL 
is the new disposal interface, which allows users to view equipment 
located in disposal warehouses agencywide. Prior to the implementation 
of the PP&E Module, NASA employees and contractors were limited to 
viewing underutilized or excess equipment physically located at their 
local centers.[Footnote 8] 

NASA anticipates annual operational cost savings as a result of 
implementing the PP&E Module. As part of the President's fiscal year 
2009 budget submission, NASA reported that the implementation of the 
PP&E Module would result in annual operational cost savings of 
approximately $19.6 million by eliminating manual processes and 
increasing the reutilization of equipment. 

NASA's Property Management Organizational Responsibilities: 

According to NASA's equipment management policy and procedural 
guidance, property management and equipment reutilization at NASA 
involves several key players:[Footnote 9] 

* The Logistics Management Division, located at NASA headquarters in 
Washington, D.C., is part of NASA's Office of Infrastructure and 
Administration and is responsible for establishing policies and 
procedures that govern the agency's equipment management activities. 
The Logistics Management Division is also responsible for (1) assisting 
NASA centers in the development and operation of internal processes, 
procedures, and systems to ensure their compatibility with agency 
programs; (2) establishing necessary agency performance measures and 
reports on the overall implementation of equipment management programs; 
(3) conducting reviews and overseeing the implementation of equipment 
management activities; and (4) defining training requirements to ensure 
properly trained property personnel across the agency. 

* Individual end users, such as scientists or engineers, have a duty to 
protect and conserve government property assigned to them and should 
not use such property, or allow its use, for other than authorized 
purposes. Each piece of equipment is assigned to an end user, who is 
responsible for ensuring that the equipment is used only in approved 
NASA programs and projects and notifying the property custodian when 
the equipment is no longer being actively used. 

* Property custodians are designated by the director or chief for each 
property management area or program. Their responsibilities include 
maintaining records for all controlled equipment assigned to them, 
identifying controlled equipment no longer needed for NASA programs or 
projects, and coordinating its disposition with the end users. 

* NASA division directors (or equivalent organization heads) are the 
primary officials responsible for equipment assigned to their 
organizations. This responsibility includes performing annual walk- 
through inspections to identify inactive equipment and ensuring that 
equipment no longer required for the performance of a specific NASA 
program or project is made available to others or properly disposed of. 

* Supply equipment management officers are responsible for managing 
each centers' equipment program, including implementing the necessary 
equipment control procedures to ensure proper accountability for center 
equipment; establishing a process to ensure that all personnel 
associated with the utilization of government equipment receive 
documented, up-to-date property end user training; ensuring that end 
users are aware of the requirement to identify inactive equipment and 
ensure its reuse or disposal; and designating property disposal 
officers and center equipment managers to perform screenings for 
equipment estimated to cost $25,000 or more. 

* Property disposal officers are responsible for managing and screening 
NASA's excess equipment inventory--equipment recorded in DSPL--prior to 
a NASA or contractor employee initiating a purchase request for new 
equipment costing $25,000 or more. 

* The center equipment managers are responsible for ensuring each 
center's compliance with the federal property management regulations to 
maximize equipment reutilization and to minimize procurement of new 
equipment. New purchase requests costing more than $25,000 are to be 
routed through the center equipment manager, or designee, to perform a 
second screening of excess equipment recorded in the PP&E Module. In 
addition, the center equipment manager is responsible for ensuring that 
equipment records are adjusted to reflect the results of all equipment 
inspections. 

Overview of Reutilization Process at NASA Centers: 

To reduce the unnecessary procurement of new equipment, federal 
property management regulations require each executive agency to make 
underutilized and excess equipment available for reutilization within 
the agency and, if not needed, to other agencies.[Footnote 10] NASA 
equipment management policy and procedural guidance require centers to 
continuously inspect equipment under their control to ensure maximum 
utilization.[Footnote 11] Excess and underutilized equipment that is 
available for reutilization should be identified in the PP&E Module 
through ongoing review by equipment end users, annual walk-through 
inspections, and each center's periodic physical inventories.[Footnote 
12] 

Once a piece of equipment is determined to be excess or underutilized, 
NASA end users have the option to decide whether to transfer it to 
disposal--through the property disposal officer--or make it available 
to others through a transfer. If the end user elects to send the 
equipment to disposal, the equipment is physically transferred to the 
center's disposal warehouse and made available--through DSPL--to all 
NASA centers for 21 days. If the equipment is not claimed by any NASA 
projects or programs within this time period, it is transferred to the 
General Services Administration (GSA) and made available to other 
federal and state agencies for 21 days and is donated or sold to other 
institutions thereafter. 

The PP&E Module was designed to facilitate the process of transferring 
excess and underutilized equipment among end users by providing 
transparency on all NASA-wide equipment and allowing end users to 
directly make excess equipment available to other end users. End users, 
who are not currently using a certain equipment item, may decide not to 
transfer it to disposal because it is still in good working condition, 
continues to have technological relevance, or has potential for future 
use within the user's project or program area. Upon using the module to 
find existing equipment that may suit their needs, end users are to 
contact other end users to whom that equipment is assigned to determine 
if it is available for reutilization. If available, a direct end user 
to end user transfer can take place. Figure 1 shows the key steps 
involved in NASA's equipment reutilization process. 

Figure 1: NASA Equipment Reutilization Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a flowchart showing the NASA equipment reutilization 
process. 

Source: GAO analysis based on NASA data. 

[End of figure] 

Overview of NASA's Equipment Screening Process: 

Equipment screening is a key part of NASA's reutilization process and 
is critical to identifying controlled equipment that can be reutilized. 
Prior to purchasing new equipment, NASA equipment management policy and 
procedural guidance require NASA employees and contractors to evaluate 
alternative methods for meeting their equipment needs, such as 
utilizing existing equipment and leasing or borrowing equipment from 
other NASA projects or programs on a temporary basis. As such, 
equipment screening is a control that should prevent unnecessary new 
equipment purchases when equipment is on hand and available to meet the 
purchaser's needs. However, users are not required to reutilize 
equipment identified through the screening process or to provide any 
justification for purchasing new equipment instead. 

Prior to initiating a procurement request for controlled equipment that 
is expected to cost $25,000 or more, NASA equipment policy and 
procedural guidance require the requesting office to contact the 
center's property disposal officer, or designee, and request a 
screening of NASA's equipment that has been transferred to disposal to 
determine the availability of equipment that could satisfy the 
requirement. If a match is not identified, a purchase request can be 
prepared. All such purchase requests ($25,000 or more) are to be routed 
through the center equipment manager, or designee, who is required to 
conduct a second screening of NASA's existing equipment recorded in the 
PP&E Module before processing the purchase requests. The center 
equipment manager, property disposal officer, or their designees are 
required to search based on the manufacturer model and, if no items are 
found, optionally on the item description. As an optional screening 
step, NASA guidance also permits the screening of non-NASA excess 
equipment sites--such as GSA's XCESS (excess equipment depository) 
database. For controlled equipment purchases of less than $25,000, 
NASA's policy and procedural guidance encourage, but do not require, 
end users to use the PP&E Module to search NASA-wide for excess 
equipment. Figure 2 illustrates NASA's equipment screening process. 

Figure 2: NASA's Equipment Screening Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a flowchart showing NASA's equipment screening process. 

Source: GAO analysis based on NASA data. 

[End of figure] 

Ineffective Controls Hindered Equipment Reutilization: 

Improvements in the design of key controls associated with the PP&E 
Module could help NASA increase equipment reutilization and better 
enable it to realize cost savings. Inconsistent and unreliable 
descriptive information and limited information about equipments' 
availability hinder NASA's ability to effectively identify and 
reutilize equipment. If end users lack confidence in the reliability of 
the PP&E Module's information they will be less likely to use it, 
thereby limiting opportunities to identify equipment available for 
reutilization. 

Unclear Guidance on Equipment Descriptions and Usability Prevent 
Matches That Could Identify Equipment for Reuse: 

Inconsistent descriptions, inaccurate information on physical 
condition, and limited information about the equipment's availability 
hamper the PP&E Module's ability to produce equipment matches. Though 
NASA equipment management policy and procedural guidance only require 
screeners to search by manufacturer model, screeners told us that they 
seldom used manufacturer model numbers, but immediately searched the 
description field and that the model numbers were not always available. 
When users ask for a new piece of equipment, such as a digital camera, 
they do not need to provide a preferred manufacturer or model number. 
The descriptions should focus on equipment features and capabilities 
that accurately reflect users' needs based upon performance criteria, a 
basic component of the federal procurement process. The descriptions of 
equipment items, therefore, are crucial to the success of the new 
module in identifying equipment for reutilization. 

NASA has not provided adequate oversight and detailed guidance on what 
type of information should be included in the description field. We 
found that without detailed guidance, equipment descriptions varied 
widely among NASA centers. According to NASA officials, along with 
entering model number information, property management officials are 
responsible for entering the descriptions in the PP&E Module using the 
Department of Defense Logistics Information System (DLIS) cataloging 
system.[Footnote 13] For example, a digital phosphor oscilloscope, a 
color digital oscilloscope, an analog oscilloscope, and an infinium 
oscilloscope can all be described as an oscilloscope. Unfortunately, we 
found that this system does not ensure that equipment descriptions are 
consistently and accurately entered into the PP&E Module. For example, 
items that should have been listed as video frequency equipment racks 
were described as "disciplined frequency standard" and a camera lens 
cover as a "rear cover multicontrol." In addition, the same type of 
computer server equipment was described as a "disk array," "disk drive 
unit," and "storage array unit." Similarly, a generator was variously 
described as a "signal plug in generator," "modulator," "plug in unit," 
and "tuning unit." These differences in descriptions may lead to 
reutilization opportunities being overlooked. 

Inaccurate information regarding the physical condition--or usability-
-of equipment in the PP&E Module creates another barrier to 
reutilization. The PP&E Module has a field where users can indicate the 
physical condition of equipment items. At two centers, our physical 
inspection of 84 equipment items that were transferred to disposal 
determined that 83 of the items were incorrectly coded as new and 
unused in the PP&E Module. Based on our physical inspections of these 
items, none of the 83 equipment items were in original packaging and 
all appeared used. Three of the 83 equipment items were computers with 
their hard drives removed, in accordance with NASA policy, and thus not 
in usable condition. Further, several end users we interviewed reported 
that they had retrieved excess computers described as new and unused 
(in the NASA legacy property disposal system NPDMS) only to find that 
the hard drives had been removed. As a result, these end users told us 
that they do not have confidence in the equipment's condition as 
reported in the PP&E Module. 

Limited Information on Equipment Availability Impedes Reutilization: 

Another potential barrier to equipment reutilization is the limited 
amount of information in the PP&E Module on the availability of 
equipment. All equipment listed in the PP&E Module is categorized as 
actively in use until a determination is made that it will no longer be 
needed and the applicable record is transferred to the DSPL submodule 
and classified as inactive. According to NASA officials, this "active" 
equipment includes equipment that is used daily as well as idle 
equipment that is still in working condition--and still technologically 
relevant--that may be needed at some future date by the end user to 
whom it is assigned. For example, equipment that is used on a daily 
basis; on a regular basis, such as 2 days a week or monthly; or 
episodically--2 months and then not again for 2 months--or even 
equipment that is used once a year is all classified as "active" in the 
module. According to NASA officials, the PP&E Module was partially 
designed to facilitate temporary transfers of this idle equipment among 
end users. Although the PP&E Module provides visibility to these types 
of idle equipment, it does not identify the extent to which the 
individual equipment items are being used. Lacking more specific 
information on the availability status of equipment, end users must 
perform a potentially lengthy search process of calling or e-mailing 
other equipment end users individually to determine if the equipment 
identified through the PP&E Module is available for utilization, as 
shown in figure 3. As of September 30, 2008, NASA's PP&E Module 
reported approximately 60,000 computers, 38,000 display units, 10,000 
printers, 10,000 computer servers, 2,700 digital cameras, and 1,700 
oscilloscopes. An end user searching for an oscilloscope, for example, 
would currently have to choose which of 1,700 other end users to 
contact to determine the availability status of their "active" 
oscilloscopes. Several equipment end users and property custodians we 
interviewed told us that information relating to the availability 
status of the equipment would be critical in deciding whether to search 
for existing equipment to reutilize. 

Figure 3: Equipment End User Screening Process in PP&E Module: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a flowchart showing equipment end user screening process 
in PP&E module. 

Source: GAO analysis based on NASA data. 

[End of figure] 

According to IEMP program managers, a field indicating the availability 
status of equipment was not included in the PP&E Module because the 
information in NASA's legacy NEMS, which included an equipment 
availability status field, was not accurate. Rather than taking the 
necessary steps to improve the accuracy of the information in NEMS, 
NASA elected to exclude this field from the PP&E Module. However, the 
Financial Systems Integration Office's property management systems 
requirements (initially published by JFMIP) directs property management 
systems to capture an equipment item's current use status, which 
includes identifying whether an equipment item is currently in 
use.[Footnote 14] 

Because of unreliable equipment descriptions and limited information on 
availability, NASA did not require the PP&E Module to consistently 
identify available equipment that could satisfy the needs of equipment 
requesters. At the time of our visits to the five centers--occurring 
from May through July 2008--the equipment screeners told us that the 
searches that they performed up to that point in fiscal year 2008 had 
failed to identify any equipment matches that would satisfy the needs 
of equipment requesters.[Footnote 15] Because the NASA center screeners 
we interviewed did not maintain detailed documentation on the number of 
equipment searches performed during the fiscal year, we were unable to 
determine the number of screenings that had been made up to the time of 
our visit. 

Inadequate End User Participation May Limit Potential Cost Savings: 

Unreliable equipment descriptions and limited information on 
availability contribute to inadequate end user utilization of N-PROP 
and limit potential cost savings that could be achieved through process 
automation and increased equipment reutilization. N-PROP is the window 
to the PP&E Module and the only automated component that provides 
direct access to the equipment database. It allows end users to perform 
online equipment management and accountability functions, such as 
accepting or rejecting new equipment from vendors, declaring equipment 
as excess, and screening for equipment to reutilize throughout the 
agency. According to a September 2008 NASA Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) report, it was anticipated that these features would generate 
operational cost savings and reduce unnecessary procurements by 
facilitating equipment reutilization, promoting intercenter equipment 
transfers and loans, and eliminating manual processes.[Footnote 16] 

The majority of end users we interviewed--98 of 121--stated that they 
had never used N-PROP (or the prior systems) to screen equipment for 
reutilization. Although this lack of use of N-PROP may be due in part 
to the timing of our review, which coincided with initial 
implementation of the PP&E Module, these responses also reflect a lack 
of end user familiarity with and use of equipment management functions 
in the prior systems. In addition, as the NASA OIG reported in 
September 2008, NASA took steps to incorporate stakeholders in the 
requirements development process of the PP&E Module to ensure that 
their needs were met. Stakeholders identified and reviewed project 
requirements and, during system development, helped determine whether 
each portion of the system would meet their requirements. However, 
during our site visits we observed that few end users appeared to be 
interested in learning about the new module or taking a greater role in 
equipment reutilization. The reasons end users said that they had not 
used the PP&E Module included that they (1) had not taken the training 
NASA has made available on the new module, (2) were not familiar with 
the equipment management and screening features, or (3) had not 
obtained a password needed to use the module. Considering the key role 
that end users need to play in achieving cost savings through equipment 
management responsibilities, these facts indicate that steps taken by 
NASA to encourage end user participation may have been insufficient to 
change end users' perceptions and expectations. 

Our interviews further disclosed that a substantial number of end users 
did not view equipment management as necessary or important, another 
factor that could limit the likelihood that they would use the new 
module. Among the reasons that some end users gave for not screening 
through N-PROP before initiating a new procurement was that they 
preferred new equipment; others told us that they viewed existing 
equipment as undesirable and unlikely to meet their projects needs and 
they did not consider the equipment description and physical condition 
reported in the PP&E Module to be reliable, or that they were 
unfamiliar with the module. Furthermore, in addition to responding to 
our interview questions, 29 of the 121 end users we spoke with 
volunteered that they had more important tasks to perform than managing 
equipment, did not view property management as a key responsibility in 
their day-to-day duties, did not want to learn how to use the module 
for equipment management, or were not familiar with or had never heard 
of the new module.[Footnote 17] 

End users were not required to use the PP&E Module and most end users 
we spoke with had not used the PP&E Module at the time of our visits. 
Therefore, property custodians had assumed many equipment management 
responsibilities, perpetuating manual procedures that the new module 
sought to automate. Because property custodians cannot accept, receive, 
or transfer equipment for the end users, they must obtain the end 
users' signatures and submit the documentation to the centers' 
logistics property management officials. As we previously reported, the 
number of equipment items and end users assigned to each property 
custodian can vary widely--with some property custodians responsible 
for as many as 4,000 equipment items.[Footnote 18] According to NASA 
officials, one use envisioned for the PP&E Module includes end users 
negotiating with each other to work out when to share equipment. This 
is one of NASA's approaches to enhance equipment reutilization, but if 
many end users are not using the system this is unlikely to occur. It 
is unrealistic to expect property custodians to keep up on the nuances 
of equipment usage, such as whether equipment that is used on an 
episodic basis is currently in use or not, and therefore they are not 
in a position to determine whether other uses could be negotiated. 
Continuing to rely upon property custodians rather than focusing 
efforts to encourage direct end user involvement will likely reduce the 
potential savings that NASA intended to achieve through the PP&E Module 
by automating manual processes. Therefore, it will be important that 
NASA take steps to enhance or provide additional incentives so that end 
users recognize the benefits of reutilizing equipment and encourage 
them to use the PP&E Module to identify potential matches and negotiate 
with other users to help NASA increase equipment reutilization. Steps 
to enhance end user participation could include setting performance 
expectations for end users, setting equipment reutilization goals by 
program or project, tracking agency performance measures on equipment 
reutilization, providing awards and recognition to highlight effective 
reutilization practices, emphasizing available N-PROP training, and 
including goals for equipment reutilization in Senior Executive Service 
contracts. 

NASA Has Not Implemented Effective Policies and Detailed Procedures to 
Enhance Equipment Reutilization: 

NASA's existing policies and procedures related to equipment 
reutilization were either not being carried out or were being carried 
out inconsistently at the five centers we visited. In addition, NASA's 
equipment screening policy is not sufficiently detailed. Before 
purchasing equipment costing $25,000 or more, NASA equipment management 
policy requires centers to screen the agency's property records to 
determine whether existing equipment could satisfy the request, but 
does not require that requesters utilize such equipment or justify 
their need for new equipment.[Footnote 19] NASA further requires that 
annual walk-through inspections be conducted to identify excess or 
underutilized equipment that may be reutilized elsewhere in the agency. 
These walk-through inspections provide a key control to help ensure 
that equipment is fully utilized. During our visits we found that not 
every center complies with these requirements and those that were doing 
the walk-through inspections had different processes and effectiveness, 
sometimes undermining NASA's goal of equipment reutilization. As noted 
earlier, end users' perception of the new module may limit the extent 
to which they use it for managing property, including equipment 
reutilization. 

Equipment Screening Policies and Procedures Are Not Sufficient to 
Ensure Comprehensive and Consistent Implementation of NASA's Equipment 
Reutilization Policy: 

Although NASA provides general screening policy for centers, it has not 
provided centers with specific guidance on how to implement this policy 
to conduct effective and consistent screenings. NASA encourages centers 
to customize their equipment management procedures to meet local 
requirements; however, none of the five centers we visited had 
developed local screening procedures despite the lack of reliable 
information in the PP&E Module that would help identify potential 
matches. The centers have failed to implement effective screening 
controls to ensure that existing equipment is screened before they 
purchase new equipment. NASA's screening policies state that all center 
procurement requests for items of equipment with an estimated cost of 
$25,000 or more must be routed through the center equipment manager for 
screening. However, as of September 30, 2008, 92 percent of NASA's 
controlled equipment consisted of items costing less than $25,000. 

In addition, the policy does not require reuse nor does it ask for a 
justification for decisions not to reutilize available equipment. 
Further, the policy does not require users to provide support that they 
have a valid program need to purchase new equipment instead of 
reutilizing available equipment. Interviews with equipment screeners at 
the five centers we visited disclosed that the screening processes 
varied among the centers and none of the processes provided assurance 
that existing equipment was thoroughly screened on a consistent basis 
before new equipment was purchased. One problem was that NASA has not 
required uniform implementation of a PP&E Module feature that officials 
from two of the five centers we visited were unaware of, and thus were 
not using. This feature was designed to suspend new procurements until 
the screening process has been completed. Another problem was that the 
five centers we visited were not following up to see if end users were 
purchasing new equipment in lieu of reutilizing equipment items 
identified during screening. One center did not have a designated 
center equipment screener to conduct searches. Another center made 
equipment procurements regardless of the outcome of the screening 
process. For example, an equipment screener at one of the centers 
identified a digital oscilloscope--an instrument commonly used at NASA 
for testing--that was available at another center. However, upon 
notifying the purchaser that a potential equivalent oscilloscope was 
available, the screener was told that the requester preferred to 
purchase a new oscilloscope. In another case, upon notifying a 
purchaser who had requested a spectrometer--test equipment--that six 
equivalent spectrometers were located, the screener was told that new 
equipment had already been purchased. As a result, the screening 
process failed to prevent the procurement of new equipment when 
equivalent equipment was available. 

Although the other three centers were using the procurement suspension 
control function to ensure screening, the equipment screener for one 
center told us that only NASA contractor equipment requests were 
screened, rather than all new procurements. Furthermore, we found that 
NASA's Logistics Management Division lacked the oversight to ensure 
that this required screening occurs. At the time of our visits, 124 of 
220 equipment end users and property custodians stated that they had 
never requested a screening through the property disposal officer or 
center equipment manager or used the PP&E Module or its predecessor-- 
NEMS--to screen existing equipment before initiating and processing a 
request to purchase equipment.[Footnote 20] 

NASA-Wide Implementing Procedures for Walk-Through Inspections Are Not 
Sufficient to Ensure Consistent Performance: 

At the time of our visits the five NASA centers were not conducting 
required annual walk-through inspections consistently, and sometimes 
not at all. According to NASA equipment management policy, the annual 
walk-through inspections are intended to identify equipment that is not 
being used or is no longer needed for ongoing NASA programs or 
projects, and can be made available for utilization in another program 
or NASA center or transferred to disposal. At each NASA center, the 
division director or equivalent organization head is responsible for 
ensuring that his or her staff conduct annual walk-through inspections. 
After staff complete an annual walk-through inspection, the division 
director is required to prepare and send a written memorandum, 
documenting the results of the inspection, to the center's supply 
equipment management officer. In addition, the center equipment manager 
is required to ensure that the PP&E Module is updated to reflect the 
results of the inspection. 

One of the five centers we visited did not conduct these required 
inspections and the other four did so in varying manners and to varying 
degrees. For example, none of the centers maintain sufficient 
documentation to determine whether the PP&E Module was updated to 
reflect the results of the walk-through inspections, thus offering no 
assurance that this control was effective. At two of these four 
centers, directors prepared memorandums to document the results of the 
annual walk-through inspections that outlined the equipment items' 
names and equipment control numbers and what specific actions were 
needed. At the remaining two centers, directors documented that walk- 
through inspections were performed, but not the detailed results of the 
inspections. All four center equipment managers told us that they did 
not follow up to ensure that the equipment management system--either 
NEMS or the PP&E Module--was updated to reflect the changes identified 
by the inspections. And none of the centers maintained any evidence to 
show when the property system was updated, if it was updated at all. 

Because of these inconsistencies, NASA was unable to demonstrate 
whether the annual walk-through inspections met their objectives. Our 
testing of equipment in NASA's legacy NEMS (as of September 30, 2007) 
estimated that about 16 percent of NASA's controlled equipment (with a 
value of at least $230 million[Footnote 21]) was improperly listed as 
being actively in use in an ongoing program, and had been overlooked 
during annual walk-through inspections. In accordance with NASA 
equipment management policy, this equipment should have been identified 
as excess or underutilized and made available for reutilization or 
disposal. We selected our sample in April 2008, before the PP&E 
Module's implementation. All equipment in our sample was transferred 
from NEMS to the PP&E Module, including the sample items that were 
inaccurately described as actively in use. Table 1 contains examples of 
equipment that we identified during our visits to the five centers 
during the months of May through July 2008 that was inaccurately 
reported in NASA's NEMS as actively used by a NASA program or project. 

Table 1: Examples of NASA Equipment That Walk-Through Inspections Did 
Not Identify as Excess or Underutilized (as of September 30, 2007): 

Equipment: Micro computer; 
Initial cost: $2,509; 
Time elapsed since last use: About 10 years; 
Comments: Annual walk-through inspections failed to identify the 
computer, along with other equipment, that remained unused after the 
project closed. 

Equipment: Computer display unit; 
Initial cost: 633; 
Time elapsed since last use: Over 3 years; 
Comments: The unit was stored with other unused equipment. Another 
display unit costing $934 in storage had not been used in over 2 years. 

Equipment: Oscilloscope; 
Initial cost: 8,783; 
Time elapsed since last use: Over 2 years; 
Comments: The end user had not used this oscilloscope, commonly used 
for testing at NASA, for over 2 years. The end user has no plans to use 
it in the near future. 

Equipment: Controller vacuum pump; 
Initial cost: 30,200; 
Time elapsed since last use: About 1 year; 
Comments: The pump was assigned to an end user who passed away, and 
although the equipment was transferred to a new end user, it had never 
been used. 

Equipment: Transmitter; 
Initial cost: 13,137; 
Time elapsed since last use: About 6-8 months; 
Comments: The transmitter had not been used for a year, and the end 
user did not anticipate using it on future projects. 

Equipment: Video camera; 
Initial cost: 3,523; 
Time elapsed since last use: Over 1 year; 
Comments: The end user had not used the camera and did not anticipate 
using it on future projects. 

Equipment: Printer; 
Initial cost: 1,780; 
Time elapsed since last use: Over 18 months; 
Comments: At the time of our visit, the printer was not connected and 
was stored in an empty cubicle. 

Equipment: Power module; 
Initial cost: 1,250; 
Time elapsed since last use: Over 18 months; 
Comments: The end user did not anticipate using the module as part of 
any ongoing projects. 

Source: GAO analysis of NASA data. 

[End of figure] 

We did not assess whether any of the above equipment could have been 
reutilized to avoid the purchase of new equipment because NASA could 
not provide this information. However, these items should have been 
identified during prior annual walk-through inspections and the 
property management systems should have been updated to reflect that 
this equipment was not being used. Correctly following NASA policy in 
this area would have increased the chance that the equipment could have 
been reutilized by other end users. In addition, NASA officials 
reported that in fiscal year 2008, the agency reinstituted performing 
compensating controls reviews, which are designed to evaluate the 
adequacy and consistency of NASA policy execution and procedural 
compliance with NASA guidance. NASA reported that it conducted four 
reviews in the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2008. 

Conclusions: 

NASA has attempted to more efficiently manage its controlled equipment. 
Given NASA's current and projected budget constraints, cutting costs 
through equipment reutilization and improved equipment management 
efficiencies will be critical if it is to free up vital resources for 
other mission-related objectives. Unfortunately, ineffective controls 
over equipment reutilization and limited utilization of the new system 
may prevent the PP&E Module from fully delivering on its potential cost 
savings. These shortcomings may prevent the PP&E Module from providing 
NASA employees and contractors with the tools needed to make informed 
decisions regarding the disposal or reutilization of equipment, 
including over 1.2 million types of equipment if the space shuttle is 
retired in 2010 and NASA transitions to its new space exploration 
policy as planned. 

Strong leadership will be critical to promoting and enforcing existing 
equipment reutilization requirements, emphasizing the need for better 
equipment accountability, and stressing the importance of reutilizing 
equipment. Strengthening NASA-wide oversight and monitoring controls 
and processes could help NASA managers more effectively oversee NASA's 
compliance with its policies and procedures. Effectively managing the 
new PP&E Module could help NASA achieve increased savings from 
equipment reutilization and provide Congress and other stakeholders 
with more accurate and up-to-date information needed to make sound 
management decisions. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the NASA Administrator direct the Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Infrastructure and Administration to 
take the following five actions to enhance comprehensive and consistent 
equipment reutilization: 

* Develop and implement specific guidance, establish a mechanism to 
oversee implementation, and provide the necessary training to assist 
NASA employees and contractors in providing clear, consistent, and 
accurate equipment descriptions and key information in the PP&E Module, 
including the physical condition (usability). NASA management should 
determine the extent to which it is cost effective to apply this new 
guidance retroactively. 

* Modify the PP&E Module to capture information on the anticipated and 
actual usage (availability) of equipment assigned to end users at the 
time the equipment is accepted and provide a mechanism to ensure that 
this information is updated as appropriate. 

* Provide incentives so that end users recognize the benefits of 
reutilizing equipment and encourage them to fully use the PP&E Module 
to identify potential matches and negotiate with other users to help 
NASA increase equipment reutilization. 

* Revise NASA equipment management policy to require end users to 
justify any valid program needs to purchase new equipment instead of 
reutilizing available equipment and consider whether the $25,000 
screening threshold adequately maximizes reutilization. Establish NASA-
wide screening procedures across the centers and a process for 
monitoring implementation to maximize reutilization of controlled 
equipment. 

* Establish NASA-wide procedures for conducting and reporting the 
results of annual walk-through inspections to update the data in the 
PP&E Module to facilitate equipment reutilization and disposal, along 
with an oversight mechanism to ensure implementation. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in 
appendix II, NASA's Deputy Administrator agreed with four of our five 
recommendations. NASA did not concur with our recommendation to modify 
the PP&E Module to capture information on the anticipated and actual 
usage (availability) of equipment assigned to end users at the time the 
equipment is accepted and provide a mechanism to ensure that this 
information is updated as appropriate. NASA stated that records for 
equipment in the PP&E Module reside within the Equipment Master Record 
(EMR) module and are listed as "active." NASA's further stated that 
because NASA's "active" equipment is now visible NASA-wide, there is no 
need to design and implement a separate status category for equipment 
listed in the EMR. Further, it stated that this current level of 
"active" equipment visibility provides the opportunity for 
programmatic, technical, and scientific experts to discuss possible 
reuse through loans or borrowing, coordinating through their property 
custodians or equipment managers. 

We continue to believe that not also including information in the PP&E 
Module on the availability of equipment (the extent to which "active" 
equipment is used, or is likely to be used) will present a barrier to 
effective and efficient equipment reutilization. Specifically, because 
the module does not identify the extent to which each piece of 
equipment is being, or is likely to be, used, such as on a weekly or 
monthly basis, potential end users must perform a potentially lengthy 
search by contacting other equipment end users to determine the extent 
to which their "active" equipment is available for utilization. For 
some types of equipment commonly used in NASA, the potential users one 
would need to contact to research actual availability of equipment 
listed as "active" could number in the hundreds. This potentially labor-
intensive research may serve as a disincentive for users to try to 
identify when they could share equipment rather than purchase new 
equipment. 

Moreover, as discussed in our draft, our review identified some 
equipment in storage that NASA listed as actively in use. In addition, 
the Financial Systems Integration Office's property management systems 
requirements direct property management systems to capture an equipment 
item's current use status. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested 
congressional committees, the NASA Administrator, and the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget. The report also will be available 
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9095 or raglands@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Susan Ragland: 

Acting Director, Financial Management and Assurance: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) has effectively (1) designed controls over steps NASA identified 
as key to its controlled equipment reutilization process, including 
equipment sent to disposal, and (2) implemented policies, controls, and 
processes to enhance equipment reutilization, we reviewed prior NASA's 
Office of Inspector General reports and independent public accountants' 
reports as well as our own prior reports and related recommendations. 
We also evaluated NASA management's responsiveness to observations and 
recommendations made in prior audit reports related to NASA's property 
management and utilization of equipment. 

We evaluated the design of NASA's internal controls by reviewing and 
analyzing NASA equipment policy and procedural guidance[Footnote 22] 
for equipment management, reutilization, and disposal[Footnote 23] and 
comparing NASA's equipment management policy and procedural guidance to 
federal property management regulations and other standards, including 
GAO's standards for internal control.[Footnote 24] We also obtained and 
reviewed NASA equipment management policy and procedural guidance for 
screening existing equipment inventory; performing annual walk-through 
inspections; and managing, reutilizing, and disposing of equipment. To 
enhance our understanding of NASA's process for ensuring maximum 
utilization of equipment, we conducted walk-throughs at five NASA 
centers where our sample equipment items were assigned: Goddard Space 
Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Langley 
Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. We interviewed NASA 
officials responsible for equipment management and reutilization, 
including the Director of the Logistics Management Division, Logistics 
Management Division management analysts, asset managers, agency 
equipment program managers, and supply equipment management officers at 
headquarters and at each of the five NASA centers we visited and 
warehouse officials, property disposal officers, center equipment 
managers, center equipment screeners, property managers, property 
custodians, procurement officials, equipment end users, and officials 
from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

To determine the accuracy of the equipment recorded as 
"active"[Footnote 25] in the NASA Equipment Management System (NEMS) 
database at the time we started our review, we selected a random 
probability sample of all equipment in NEMS, with an availability 
status code of "active." We obtained data from NEMS as of September 30, 
2007, and identified 299,386 equipment items with availability status 
code "A" or "active," representing the sample universe. Based on 
previous audit work regarding the reliability assessment of NASA's 
accounting and property data,[Footnote 26] we determined if inactive 
equipment was erroneously coded as active in NEMS. We tested the random 
probability sample of 160 transactions, from five NASA centers, from 
the population of transactions with the availability status code "A" to 
determine the accuracy of the recorded availability status code. NASA 
implemented its new Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E) Module on May 
19, 2008. To ensure that the sample transactions we extracted from the 
legacy system were transferred and recorded in the PP&E Module, we 
traced each sample item to the PP&E Module, and verified that the 
sample transactions were transferred and recorded in the module. 
However, we did not determine whether all legacy system transactions 
were recorded in the PP&E Module, nor did we review or assess whether 
NASA followed best practices in designing and implementing the PP&E 
Module. 

We selected a two-stage cluster sample with probability proportional to 
size with replacement at the first stage of selection. At the first 
stage, we selected eight NASA centers (clusters) with the probabilities 
of selection being proportional to the number of pieces of equipment 
each center had in the database (i.e., the larger centers had a better 
chance of being selected in the sample). Each time a center was 
selected, it was returned to the sample universe and given an 
additional chance of being selected. Therefore, it was possible for a 
center to be selected more than one time in the sample. We sampled 
eight clusters that yielded five distinct NASA centers. 

At the second stage, we selected a simple random sample of 20 pieces of 
equipment, independently for each time a center was selected at the 
first stage. The total sample size of items is 160 (8 clusters of 20 
items per cluster). Table 2 shows the description of the sample 
population and total number of sample of transactions. 

Table 2: Description of the Populations and Sample Transactions: 

NASA center: KSC; 
Number of equipment items: 80,428; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 2; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 40. 

NASA center: JSC; 
Number of equipment items: 43,145; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 1; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 20. 

NASA center: MSFC; 
Number of equipment items: 40,619; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 1; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 20. 

NASA center: GSFC; 
Number of equipment items: 40,088; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 3; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 60. 

NASA center: LARC; 
Number of equipment items: 30,112; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 1; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 20. 

NASA center: ARC; 
Number of equipment items: 22,760; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 0; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 0. 

NASA center: GRC; 
Number of equipment items: 17,544; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 0; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 0. 

NASA center: SSC; 
Number of equipment items: 13,266; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 0; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 0. 

NASA center: DFRC; 
Number of equipment items: 8,193; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 0; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 0. 

NASA center: HQ; 
Number of equipment items: 3,231; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 0; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 0. 

NASA center: Total; 
Number of equipment items: 299,386; 
Number of times center was selected in stage 1: 8; 
Number of equipment items selected in stage 2: 160. 

Source GAO. 

Note: Kennedy Space Center (KSC); Johnson Space Center (JSC); Marshall 
Space Flight Center (MSFC); Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC); Langley 
Research Center (LARC); Ames Research Center (ARC); John Glenn Research 
Center (GRC); Stennis Space Center (SSC); Dryden Flight Research Center 
(DFRC); and Headquarters (HQ). 

[End of table] 

Because we selected a sample of equipment, our results are estimates of 
the population and thus are subject to sample errors that are 
associated with samples of this size and type. Our confidence in the 
precision of the results from this sample is expressed in 95 percent 
confidence intervals, which are expected to include the actual results 
in 95 percent of the samples of this type. We used a ratio estimator to 
generate estimates of the proportion and the total dollar amounts 
associated with equipment that were inaccurate and calculated a one- 
sided 95 percent confidence lower bound. Based on our sample results we 
estimate that about 16 percent (the 95 percent confidence interval 
ranges from 10 to 26 percent) of the equipment with availability status 
code "A" in the NEMS database as of September 30, 2007, was miscoded. 
Further, we are 95 percent confident that this miscoded equipment 
represents at least 2 percent of the total dollar amount of the 
equipment in NEMS with availability status code "A," or at least $230 
million. We also traced each sample item to the PP&E Module to verify 
that the sample transactions were transferred and recorded in the 
module. However, we did not determine whether all legacy NEMS 
transactions were recorded in the PP&E Module. 

Incomplete and inaccurate data precluded us from examining the extent 
to which waste and inefficiencies exist in NASA's reutilization of 
equipment. Lack of common data fields, missing information such as 
equipment's model and manufacturer, and the lack of clear and 
consistent descriptions prevented us from comparing fiscal year 2007 
equipment purchase transactions to NASA's disposal activity; this 
prevented us from identifying instances and dollar values where NASA 
purchased new equipment rather than reutilizing available equipment. 

To determine the extent to which NASA's planning and initial 
implementation of the new PP&E Module addressed problems and control 
weaknesses we identified in NASA's reutilization of equipment, we 
reviewed and analyzed NASA equipment management policy and procedural 
guidance for the PP&E Module and module implementation and planning 
documents, including briefings and overviews of PP&E Module 
requirements. We reviewed and analyzed NASA equipment management policy 
and procedural guidance for equipment reutilization at the five centers 
we visited. We also interviewed the five visited centers' PP&E Module 
project managers to obtain their views on the PP&E Module and its 
impact on equipment reutilization. 

We administered a data collection instrument to obtain end users' and 
property custodians' views on the PP&E Module and its impact on 
equipment reutilization. We interviewed a total of 220 end users and 
property custodians who are accountable for all government-owned 
equipment assigned to them. We interviewed 121 end users and 99 
property custodians who were responsible for the items selected in our 
statistical sample. We also observed equipment screeners and property 
disposal officials as they demonstrated the PP&E Module's equipment 
search, disposal, and management capabilities. In addition, we 
conducted physical inspections of equipment at two of the five centers 
visited that reported new and unused equipment in the disposal system-
-DSPL--at the time of our visit. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 through January 
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

See the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of this report. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 
Office of the Administrator: 
Washington, DC 20546-0001: 

January 16, 2009: 

Ms. Susan Ragland: 
Acting Director: 
Financial Management and Assurance: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ragland: 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) welcomes the 
opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled, "NASA's Goal of 
Increasing Equipment Reutilization May Fall Short Without Further 
Efforts." 

On May 19, 2008, NASA took a significant, positive step in managing its 
controlled personal property by implementing the NASA Property, Plant, 
and Equipment (PP&E) Module to improve the accountability and 
visibility of assets utilized by all NASA installations, programs, and 
projects. One note of success was referenced in a NASA Inspector 
General report dated September 25, 2008. The report "determined that 
the Integrated Asset Management (IAM)/PP&E module, as designed, and the 
corresponding changes in NASA's business processes and controls should 
help mitigate deficiencies reported as material weaknesses." 

In the January 2009 draft report, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) makes five recommendations to the NASA Administrator to enhance 
comprehensive and consistent equipment reutilization: (It should be 
noted that the supporting surveys and sampling done by GAO during this 
review were conducted during the initial deployment of the NASA PP&E 
System implementation and stabilization phases. Therefore, definitive 
conclusions and findings within the report may be premature.) 

Recommendation 1: Develop and implement specific guidance, establish a 
mechanism to oversee implementation, and provide the necessary training 
to assist NASA employees and contractors in how to provide clear, 
consistent, and accurate equipment descriptions and key information in 
the PP&E Module, including the physical condition (usability). NASA 
management should determine the extent to which it is cost effective to 
apply this new guidance retroactively. 

Response: Concur. NASA currently utilizes the Federal Cataloging 
standard for item naming for all controlled property. NASA is in full 
compliance with current Federal regulations and applies the same naming 
conventions as other Federal Agencies. Within NASA, the Center 
Equipment Managers are responsible for interpreting the Federal Catalog 
H2 Series when creating new equipment records and maintaining 
consistency with naming conventions. The NASA PP&E System allows for a 
complete name search or partial "wild-card" search of available active 
equipment to enhance potential reuse. NASA's current policy, as 
provided in the interim NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 4200.1F 
entitled "NASA Equipment Management Procedural Requirements," was 
issued in May 2008 to assist NASA users with this search capability. 

NASA acknowledges that further improvements may be realized through the 
consolidation of current decentralized Center processes into a single 
Agency cataloging operation. To further enhance data quality assurance 
and standardization, NASA will determine the feasibility of 
consolidating asset cataloging at one central location for new 
equipment and separately consider retroactive data cleansing for 
existing NASA- controlled property. NASA anticipates that completion of 
this task may be heavily impacted by resource availability. 

Recommendation 2: Modify the PP&E Modules to capture information on the 
anticipated and actual usage (availability) of equipment assigned to 
end users at the time the equipment is accepted and provide a mechanism 
to ensure this information is updated as appropriate. 

Response: Non-Concur. The PP&E Module was designed and developed by 
evaluating the total business process for property management and 
equipment accountability. As a result, two modules of the NASA PP&E 
system were designed to accurately manage property. 

All active records reside in the Equipment Master Record (EMR) module. 
At no time should equipment in the EMR depict any status other than 
ACTIVE. Thus, there is no need to design a separate status category for 
the EMR. Active equipment is visible Agency wide. This visibility 
provides the opportunity for programmatic, technical, and scientific 
experts to discuss possible reuse through loans or borrowing, 
coordinating through their property custodians or equipment managers. 

After property is declared excess, it becomes eligible for 
reutilization. All excess property is processed through NASA's 
disposition module. Equipment no longer required for performance of a 
specific NASA requirement will be reported for reutilization screening 
throughout NASA. This is accomplished when an item is declared EXCESS. 
Declaration of excess can be made at any time or as the result of an 
annual walk-through. 

The culmination of years of process reengineering and best practice 
assessments from both commercial and private sector entities resulted 
in a property system that achieved the goal of increasing property 
accountability and the accurate valuation of controlled property across 
the Agency. A resultant benefit is the heightened potential for 
property reutilization through Agency-wide visibility and accessibility 
to all NASA users. This was not previously available through the legacy 
system. 

NASA plans to utilize its Performance Measurement Plan to monitor the 
Module's performance with regard to asset reutilization and other key 
processes and will make the necessary continuous process improvement 
changes to policy, processes, and/or systems, as warranted. 

Recommendation 3: Provide incentives so that end users recognize the 
benefits of reutilizing equipment and encourage them to fully use the 
PP&E Module to identify potential matches and negotiate with the other 
users to help NASA increase equipment reutilization. 

Response: Concur. Under a cost-constrained budget, NASA remains 
dedicated to cutting costs for the American taxpayer. NASA programs and 
projects are focused on cost savings Agency wide as the greatest 
incentive to leverage equipment reutilization. In fact, to date, the 
Constellation program is actively reviewing property reutilization 
opportunities from the Shuttle program. Early estimates are that nearly 
500,000 line items of property will be directly transferred and 
reutilized by the Constellation program to offset acquisition costs. 

As part of this property awareness campaign, NASA has reinforced 
efforts to achieve equipment reutilization. NASA has just revised a 
property management video to align with the IAM/PP&E May 2008 launch 
date. This video stresses the importance of property accountability and 
the day-to-day management of NASA property. The video also introduces 
the Module's ability to provide visibility of total property assets and 
directs the end user to contact the appropriate property official 
(property custodian, property disposal officer, and supply and 
equipment manager [SEMO]) for all actions pertaining to property 
accountability. The video is part of the official Agency training 
educational system. 

In accordance with NASA policy, during the annual walk-through, all 
property identified as inactive or no longer needed becomes available 
for reuse or is identified as excess property to the program and enters 
NASA's equipment reutilization process. The new PP&E system separates 
utilizations into two categories. The first captures property 
reutilizations (as a borrow within NASA or inter-Center transfer) prior 
to the property being declared excess. The second category occurs after 
the property is declared excess to the user's need. Within the Business 
Warehouse module of the PP&E System, NASA can track real-time data for 
transfers for NASA internal programmatic reuse, transfers to other 
Federal agencies, and donations to eligible non-Federal recipients. 
Previous to the deployment of the PP&E system, this data was tracked 
manually which was time consuming and lent itself to potentially 
inaccurate reporting. 

Recommendation 4: Revise NASA equipment management policy to require 
end users to justify any valid program needs to purchase new equipment 
instead of reutilizing available equipment and consider whether the 
$25,000 screening threshold adequately maximizes reutilization. 
Establish NASA-wide screening procedures across the Centers and a 
process for monitoring implementation to maximize reutilization of 
controlled equipment.

Response: Concur. Interim NASA NPR 4200.1, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.3.2, 
states that "Prior to acquisition of equipment valued at $25,000 or 
more, existing equipment resources will be screened in accordance with 
NPR 4300.1, NASA Personal Property Disposal Procedural Requirements. 
Equipment valued at less than $25,000 may be screened at the option of 
the purchaser or the equipment management organization, on a case-by-
case basis." Appendix F, Section F.4 of that policy also states that 
"before new items of equipment are procured, purchase requests which 
have a unit cost of $25,000 or more must be screened to determine if 
the desired item, or an acceptable substitute, is available, active or 
excess in the Business Warehouse (BW) module in the NASA PP&E System. 
All Center procurement requests for items of equipment with an 
estimated unit cost of $25,000 or more will be routed through the 
Center Equipment Manager for screening, or the SEMO will coordinate 
with their Center procurement office where the Procurement Specialist 
has access to BW to accomplish the screening." 

NASA agrees to review existing Agency policies on the screening 
threshold for property acquisition to ensure that integration between 
procurement, logistics, and financial functions is in place and 
current. 

Recommendation 5: Establish NASA-wide procedures for conducting and 
reporting the results of annual walk-through inspections to update the 
data in the PP&E Module to facilitate equipment reutilization and 
disposal, along with an oversight mechanism to ensure implementation. 

Response: Concur. NASA already has an established policy (interim NPR 
4200 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.6.1) for conducting annual walk-through 
inspections at both the Agency and Installation levels. The policy 
states that NASA Division Directors or equivalent "shall perform annual 
walk through inspections to ensure that equipment assigned to the 
organization is classified in the appropriate use status. Equipment no 
longer required for the performance of a specific NASA requirement 
shall be declared excess by using proper documentation and forwarded to 
the property Disposal Officer." 

Further, interim NPR 4200 1, Chapter 3, Section 3.6.5 states "walk-
through inspections are required by the Federal Property Management 
Regulation, Section 101-43.101 and 40 U.S.C., Section 524(a) (2) and 
shall be performed by each Division Director or designee, accompanied 
by the property custodian." The walk-through inspection includes all 
locations both onsite and offsite for each property management area, 
identifying inactive or underused equipment that is no longer required 
or that is expected to become inactive in the near future. NASA policy 
also states that the SEMO shall prepare a report annually for the 
Center Director describing the walk-through program and results. 

As the policy above validates, property declared excess will be updated 
in the PP&E DSPL system by the property disposal officer or the 
property custodian for disposition and reutilization within NASA or the 
Federal Government.

Additionally, in 2002, NASA reinstated management reviews to evaluate 
the performance of NASA Center Logistics Operations. The goals of the 
Compensating Control Group in the Logistics Management Division are to 
ensure that: 

* Programs are efficiently and effectively carried out in accordance 
with legislative requirements and Agency policy to achieve their 
strategic goals. 

* Obligations and costs comply with applicable laws. 

* Assets are safeguarded against fraud, waste, loss, and unauthorized 
use. 

NASA will ensure that the annual property inspection is a priority 
review area in all future logistics functional management reviews. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Susan Kinney, 
Director for Logistics, on (202) 358-0721 or at susan.kinney-
1@nasa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Shana Dale: 

Deputy Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Susan Ragland, (202) 512-9095 or raglands@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff members 
made key contributions to this report: Donald Neff, Assistant Director; 
James Ashley; Fannie Bivins; Yvonne Dorcas; Patrick Frey; Inna Livits; 
and Jean Mathew. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes:  

[1] The new space exploration policy includes returning humans to the 
moon by 2020, which is intended ultimately to enable future exploration 
of Mars and other destinations. To accomplish this, NASA initially 
plans to (1) complete its work on the International Space Station by 
2010; (2) begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to replace 
the space shuttle; and (3) return to the moon in preparation for 
future, more ambitious missions. NASA estimates that it will spend 
nearly $230 billion implementing this new exploration policy. 

[2] NASA defines controlled equipment as (1) equipment costing $5,000 
or more that has a service life of 2 years or more, which will not be 
consumed or expended as part of an experiment, and (2) items that are 
pilferable or possibly hazardous with acquisition cost of $500 or more-
-such as laptop computers, cameras, and cell phones--and weapons and 
hazardous devices, regardless of acquisition cost. In this report, we 
refer to controlled equipment as equipment. 

[3] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[4] NASA's space exploration, discovery, and research programs are 
performed largely at its nine centers. Based on our sample selection, 
we visited the following five centers: Goddard Space Flight Center, 
Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Langley Research Center, 
and Marshall Space Flight Center. These five centers accounted for 78 
percent of the total number of equipment items recorded in the NASA 
Equipment Management System--NASA's legacy equipment management system--
as of September 30, 2007. 

[5] We interviewed a total of 220 end users and property custodians to 
obtain their views on the equipment reutilization process and the 
impact of the PP&E Module on facilitating and increasing equipment 
reutilization. We interviewed 121 end users and 99 property custodians 
who were responsible for the items selected in our statistical sample. 

[6] The sample was randomly selected prior to the NASA-wide rollout of 
the new PP&E Module. We traced our sample items to the PP&E Module to 
confirm that the items were transferred and recorded in the new system. 
We did not verify whether records related to all items from NEMS were 
transferred to the new PP&E Module. 

[7] Of this amount, $10.5 billion was controlled equipment costing 
$25,000 or more. 

[8] NASA defines excess and underutilized equipment as equipment that 
is no longer required for the performance of specific NASA 
requirements. 

[9] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Equipment 
Management, NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 4200.1B (rev. Jan. 23, 2006); 
Equipment Management Procedural Requirements, NASA Procedural 
Requirements (NPR) 4200.1F (rev. May 19, 2008); NASA Personal Property 
Disposal Policy, NPD 4300.1B (rev. Jan. 31, 2006); and NASA Personal 
Property Disposal Procedural Requirements, NPR 4300.1A (rev. Feb. 17, 
2006). 

[10] Federal Property Management Regulations, codified at 41 C.F.R. pt. 
102-36, Disposition of Excess Personal Property. 

[11] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Equipment 
Management Procedural Requirements. 

[12] NASA's equipment management policy and procedural guidance require 
NASA to perform physical inventories at least on a triennial basis, but 
they can be conducted more often. Physical inventories are one method 
used by NASA to identify excess, unused, or underutilized equipment for 
reutilization. However, we did not assess the impact of the physical 
inventory process on equipment reutilization or the effectiveness of 
physical inventories in identifying equipment for reutilization as part 
our review. 

[13] The DLIS cataloging system is a centralized and consolidated 
cataloging activity for all Department of Defense cataloging, which 
provides a centralized federal item name directory that provides 
approved names for equipment. 

[14] Property Management Systems Requirements, Federal Financial 
Management System Requirements 4, Joint Financial Management 
Improvement Program, October 2000. See Financial Systems Integration 
Office Web site for system requirements documents at [hyperlink, 
http://www.fsio.gov/fsio/fsiodata/docs_systemrequirements.shtml] to 
find a copy of these requirements. 

[15] After our visit to one center, one equipment screener informed us 
that she had found equipment matches for three purchase requests from 
July through September 2008. However, for various reasons, none of the 
matches were used to satisfy the needs of the requester. One requester 
preferred to purchase new equipment, the second purchased new equipment 
prior to the screening process, and the third was unable to obtain the 
equipment because the end user was still actively using the equipment. 

[16] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Inspector 
General, Final Memorandum on NASA's Development of the Integrated Asset 
Management--Property, Plant, and Equipment Module to Provide Identified 
Benefits, IG-08-032 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2008). 

[17] We interviewed 220 equipment end users and property custodians--
121 end users and 99 property custodians--during our visits to the five 
centers. 

[18] GAO, Property Management: Lack of Accountability and Weak Internal 
Controls Leave NASA Equipment Vulnerable to Loss, Theft, and Misuse, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-432] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 25, 2007). 

[19] NASA's equipment purchases costing $25,000 or more for fiscal year 
2008 make up about $748 million, or 90 percent, of the $831 million in 
equipment purchases recorded in NASA's PP&E Module as of September 30, 
2008. 

[20] We asked 220 equipment end users and property custodians--121 
equipment end users and 99 property custodians--questions relating to 
their experience with screening existing equipment before purchasing 
new equipment. 

[21] This estimated value represents the 95 percent confidence lower 
bound of our random statistical sample projection. See app. I for more 
details. 

[22] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Equipment 
Management, NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 4200.1B (rev. Jan. 23, 2006), 
and Equipment Management Procedural Requirements, NASA Procedural 
Requirements (NPR) 4200.1F (rev. May 19, 2008). 

[23] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Personal 
Property Disposal Policy, NPD 4300.1B (rev. Jan. 31, 2006), and 
Personal Property Disposal Procedural Requirements, NPR 4300.1A (rev. 
Feb. 17, 2006). 

[24] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[25] Active equipment is defined as equipment used in the performance 
of and support of a specific requirement as part of an ongoing NASA 
program or project. 

[26] GAO, Property Management: Lack of Accountability and Weak Internal 
Controls Leave NASA Equipment Vulnerable to Loss, Theft, and Misuse, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-432] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 25, 2007). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: