Detailed Information on the
General Services Administration - Travel Management Assessment

Program Code 10004383
Program Title General Services Administration - Travel Management
Department Name General Services Admin
Agency/Bureau Name General Services Administration, activities
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2006
Assessment Rating Adequate
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 60%
Strategic Planning 88%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 53%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $16
FY2008 $20
FY2009 $21

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Continue to work with customer agencies and vendors to ensure that policy compliant and efficient travel services are provided to customers. Collect annual data from customer satisfaction surveys to ensure that services that are desired by customer agencies are provided. Continuously monitor program offerings to ensure compliance with government travel policy.

Action taken, but not completed These activities are done each year on a continuous cycle.

Monitor the performance measures for each of the travel services offered by GSA to ensure the programs continue to refine operations and provide "best value" solutions to the Federal customer. Performance Data is collected each year to ensure program performance is improving and operations are becoming more efficient to save taxpayer dollars.

Action taken, but not completed The program developed measures in conjunction with OMB through the PART process that will be used to monitor the value of the progams.

Reorganize GSA's travel operational programs so that they are accountable to a single manager with responsibility only for the full range of those programs, including responsibility for determining the requirements of the various travel contracts. Milestones include: 1) the new Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) established this organizational design; and 2) complete integration of FAS travel programs and resources.

Action taken, but not completed All travel operational programs are accountable to a single manager with responsibility for those programs, including responsibility for determining the requirements of the various travel contracts.

Develop "best value" and efficiency measures for each of the travel services offered by GSA, e.g. eTravel, FedRooms, city pairs, etc. Milestones include: 1) monitor and update Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) and 2) evaluate and update Strategic Action Plan.

Action taken, but not completed GSA Travel performance measures within PMT is monitored and updated regularly as established measures and initiatives require change. Annually, the Travel program participates in GSA's PMP cycle to include a strategic assessment and strategy and action plan. The SAP is evaluated and updated annually whereby incorporating key performance measures that are aligned with the current initiatives and GSA/FAS strategic objectives.

Modify GSA's governmentwide travel and charge card contracts, as needed, to obtain the data necessary for OMB & OGP to provide proper oversight of agency travel activities and spending. Milestones include: 1) finalize and validate data needed by OGP and OMB; 2) analyze data requirement from OGP/OMB against what the contracts currently provide; 3) execute contract modifications to close gap where feasible; and 4) utilize business intelligence data gathering to replace or supplement contract data.

Action taken, but not completed 1. Reporting requirements for OGP have been validated and finalized. 2. Current contracts provide the bulk of OGP/OMB data requirements; with the exception of data on relocation activities. 3. The TSS solicitation requests additional data from TMCs principally around lodging reservations. 4. The MIS contract was awarded to TRX in 2Q07 to aggregate the data from the travel operational program contractors and other sources. 5. GSA's charge card operation is not managed by Travel.

Implement a process for obtaining an external independent evaluation of GSA's travel operational programs ona a regular basis. Milestones include: 1) develop plan for independent external program reviews with timelines; 2) meet with the IG to discuss whether they can review travel programs on a regular basis; and 3) if the IG cannot accommodate, contract for 3rd party reviews of travel program(s).

Action taken, but not completed The IG can accommodate. In 2006, the IG conducted an effectiveness audit on ETS PMO. In 2007, it is conducting an audit of FedRooms. Previously, in 2005, an independent 3rd party conducted an audit of CPP. This rotation will be maintained for travel operational programs.

Develop a formal governance mechanism to assure that travel operations and services offered by FAS and travel policies set up by OGP are mutually supportive. Milestones include: 1) finalize Governance Model and Executive Committee Membership; and 2) Establish Executive Committee Meeting schedule.

Action taken, but not completed 1. A Travel Policy Executive Steering Committee was established by OGP and is co-chaired by FAS and OGP. This Committee assures that travel operations and services offered by FAS and travel policies set up by OGP are mutually supportive. 2. The Executive Steering Committee's meeting schedule has been set for the third Tuesday of every month.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Direct costs as a percent of revenue

Explanation:Measures how efficiently we control our direct costs in comparison to revenue generated Note FY 2004 and 2005 targets are combinded Travel/Transportation as this was a combined business line in these years. FY 2004 and FY 2005 actuals include only the Travel portions of the buisness line. E-Gov Travel is also excluded from this measure as the program is in its implementation phase.

Year Target Actual
2004 52% 55%
2005 65% 65.6%
2006 64% 37.8%
2007 63% 54.3%
2008 62%
2009 61%
2010 60%
2011 59%
2012 58%
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: External customer satisfaction survey score

Explanation:Based on an external customer satisfaction survey. Three questions on the survey are consistent to the American Customer Satisfaction Index. A combination of these scores is used for overall customer satisfaction. Significant changes have begun to the travel programs with the creation of the E-Gov Travel initiative which was transferred from OGP to FSS in May 2005. The survey prior to FY 2006 represented customer satisfaction related to travel management centers. In FY 2006, the survey was expanded and focused on program effectiveness of the City Pair Program, FedRooms program, E-Gov Travel and the Travel Services Solutions Schedule.

Year Target Actual
2004 74.3 73.6
2005 74.0 73.6
2006 74.0 75.4
2007 75.5 63.2
2008 75.6
2009 75.8
2010 76.0
2011 76.2
2012 76.3
Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of BRM agencies migrating to ETS

Explanation:This is the number of agencies that are implementing and deploying ETS by signing a contract with at least one of the eTS vendors divided by 24, the number of agencies that are covered by the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Business Reference Model (BRM). Migration to eTS is the first step in realizing the outcome benefits sought by this program, such as reduced travel administrative costs and increased use of discount travel services. This first step clearly demonstrates an Agency's commitment to the ETS program. Updated migration targets were/are primarily caused by EDS and CWGT corrective action plans (CAP)

Year Target Actual
2004 33% 8.3%
2005 62.5% 29.2%
2006 58.3% 54.2%
2007 70.83% 75.0%
2008 100%
2009 100%
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: FedRooms percentage off consortia rate

Explanation:This new measure is the FedRooms rate (average room/night rate) divided by the Consortia Rate (average annual discount rate provided to groups of agencies or companies that leverage combined volumes for blanket discounts and amenities). This measure is market driven. The hotel industry is gaining strength. The number of hotels offering the Consortia rate is decreasing thereby lowering the leverage the program has on the market. Trend is toward best available rate. This has been validated by market research and industry knowledge of our vendor partner.

Year Target Actual
2004 NA NA
2005 NA NA
2006 33% 29%
2007 28% 28%
2008 27%
2009 26%
2010 26%
2011 26%
2012 26%
Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of vouchers serviced through eTS

Explanation:This new measure is actual vouchers processed divided by the total voucher population. This measure of agency adoption demonstrates the actual benefits sought as travel program "best value" outcomes.

Year Target Actual
2004 2% 0%
2005 3% 1.0%
2006 12.9% 6.7%
2007 18.4% 18.8%
2008 30.7%
2009 51.2%
2010 63.4%
2011 73.5%
2012 73.5%
2013 73.5%
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: City Pair Program percentage off the lowest published full economy fare

Explanation:This new measure is the CityPair fare divided by the lowest published full economy fare (also known as the Full Economy Fare, Lowest Published Y Fare, Lowest Unrestricted coach fare, Lowest logical unrestricted economy fare, the Walk-Up fare or the Selling Y Fare). GSA has historically calculated the negotiated YCA fare discount from the full published Y fare. Our proposed change will more fully match measures used by major like-sized corporations. This approach for the CPP was substantiated in the 2005 MAI study which states in part, "MAI recommends that the GSA use this lowest unrestricted Y fare when comparing the discount percentage obtained through negotiations. This will match the benchmark used by major corporations...." (MAI study p.5).

Year Target Actual
2007 66% 67%
2008 66%
2009 66%
2010 66%
2011 66%
2012 66%

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Travel business line provides Federal agencies "best value" travel services to support their mission-related travel needs economically and efficiently. These services include discount air fares through the City Pair Program (CPP) airline contracts, travel agent and consulting services through the Travel Services Solution (TSS) schedule, lodging room rates below per diem through the Federal Premier Lodging Program (FPLP), and reduced travel administrative costs through the eTravel Service (eTS) program.

Evidence: Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Chapters 300-304, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 ( P.L. 105-264), FSS and the Travel program Mission Statement, eTravel Program Charter July 2002, FPLP Press Release 9/24/04

YES 20%

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

Explanation: In FY 04, the federal travel budget totaled approximately $13.2 billion and is projected to remain above $11 billion through FY 06. The Travel business line helps control the government's direct and administrative costs for travel services. The CPP, TSS, FPLP, and eTravel play significant roles in helping agencies achieve travel savings. The CPP provides discount air fares at 74 percent off the standard commercial price; TSS leverages the federal government's purchasing power to obtain discounts for various travel services and offers one-stop shopping for all travel management needs and ensures the travel services agency needs integrate with eTravel. FPLP provided (as of April 2005) 1,795 lodging properties that booked approximately 24,000 rooms for the government at or below the per diem rate. The eTravel program reduces both booking and administrative costs associated with the vouchering process. More important, eTravel eliminates the need for agencies to develop and maintain individual fragmented travel systems.

Evidence: Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Chapters 300-304, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-264), FSS and the Travel program Mission Statement, FY 2004-2006 Congressional Budget Justification Object Class by Agency for Travel and Transportation, eTravel Program Charter July 2002, FPLP Press Release 9/24/04

YES 20%

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

Explanation: Although GSA's travel program offers services similar to services available in the commercial marketplace, these services have features that are unique to the Federal government. For example, the end-to-end technologies that eTS provides civilian government agencies and that DTS provides for DoD are more comprehensive than commercial systems and must meet Federal financial accounting standards. A comparative analysis of the eTS and Defense Travel System (DTS) found that both programs are unique and should coexist for at least the near future. GSA's City Pair program is unique in offering fully-refundable, walk-up government fares at much greater discounts than available to non-Federal travelers. GSA's lodging program offers discount room rates that are generally lower than applicable per diem rates and at properties that meet statutory fire safety requirements.

Evidence: Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-264). eTS Business Case, eTS and DTS Comparative Analysis - Perot Systems Government Services (6/30/03)

YES 20%

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

Explanation: GSA's travel functions have historically been managed, but poorly coordinated, by multiple organizations within GSA, both within FSS and between FSS and OGP. In the past year, GSA has taken several positive steps to improve the definition of travel responsibilities between FSS and OGP and the coordination problems within FSS. GSA also transferred the eTravel program office from OGP to FSS. The detailed organizational design of the new Federal Acquisition Service combines all of GSA's travel operations activities into a single organization; but it is too soon to tell whether this change will be sufficient to improve the long-standing coordination problems associated with this program.

Evidence: Travel and Transportation Management Division Functional Statements

NO 0%

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

Explanation: Travel's civilian and DOD agency customers are the intended beneficiaries of this program. However, this program lacks comprehensive information on the services it provides to specific beneficiary agencies, specifically services provided through the TSS schedules. Therefore, there is no way to know the extent to which program resources are associated with specific beneficiaries or the benefits each agency receives.

Evidence: GSA Update TSS MAS first customer order. FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification (FSS, Travel programs), See also documentation above for 1.1-1.3

NO 0%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 60%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score

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

Explanation: GSA Travel uses the following long-term/annual performance measures to monitor program performance. (See Measures section). 1) Direct cost as a percent of revenue 2) External customer satisfaction 3) FedRooms percentage off consortia rate 4) City Pair Program percentage off the lowest published full economy fare. Although the measures appear to focus on the proper outcomes of GSA's Travel programs, including their efficiency, the initial set of actual results has raised some concerns about the definitions of some measures and the quality of the related data. GSA should give high priority to reassessing these measures and data sources.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification (FSS, Travel programs)., eTravel Business Case, MAI Study page 5, Measures Section of PART

YES 12%

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

Explanation: E-GOV Travel and OMB have partnered to develop ambitious targets and timeframes for the long-term measures in E-GOV Travel. These include the critical areas of external customer satisfaction and direct cost control. E-GOV travel also has a number of ambitious targets and timeframes as outlined in the E-GOV Travel Business Case. GSA faces a major challenge in setting long-term savings targets because of the volatility of prices available in the travel marketplace. Nonetheless, GSA evaluates its long-term measures annually to assure that they are both ambitious, yet realistic given expected market conditions.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification (FSS, Travel programs)., eTravel Business Case ; Travel and Transportation 2006 Strategy and Action Plan

YES 12%

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

Explanation: E-GOV Travel has several annual performance measures and targets that are aligned with the five GSA/FSS Strategic Goals and Outcomes. Discount savings from the Airline City Pair Program and percent of hotels below consortia in the FedRooms program provide customer-centric travel services at increased savings to the Government. Achievement of annual performance measures logically aligns and connects with achievement of long-term goals/outcomes/measures.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System, FSS & Travel Scorecard, Use of Performance Measurement Tool

YES 12%

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

Explanation: Baselines were generally set using the previous year's actual results. Stretch targets for all Travel programs are established, and re-assessed annually, based on the most current assessment of travel market conditions and opportunities.

Evidence: 2005 Travel and Transporation Scorecard; eTravel Charter, eTravel Business Case

YES 12%

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

Explanation: GSA includes performance requirements and related reporting requirements in most of its contracts, e.g., the City Pair contracts, the old TMC contracts, the e-Travel contracts, and the FPLP (lodging) contracts. The more recent TSS schedule contracts also include performance standards or reporting requirements and agencies using the TSS schedule are able to set additional performance requirements of any type in the task orders with the TSS vendors.

Evidence: Travel Services Solutions solicitation and task order. Travel program/OGP agenda, eTravel Service Level Agreements, Agency Letter of Intent and Memorandum of Understanding with GSA on eTS, FPLP Scorecard, March 2005, NASA task order

YES 12%

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

Explanation: In 2002, FSS began using a consultant to conduct customer satisfaction surveys and has continued those surveys annually thereafter. The survey findings become the basis of FSS action plans to correct any problems noted. Though useful for evaluating the travel program from the customers' perspectives, customer satisfaction surveys do not have the depth and scope of the independent evaluations contemplated by this question. From time to time, GSA will commission an outside review of a particular aspect of the travel program, an example of which is the Ruhenzheimer review of the City Pair Program in April 2004. However. but no evaluation of all of the travel program components has ever been made, nor are such evaluations currently planned.

Evidence: IG Audit of FSS's Travel Management Center Services - Industrial Funding Fee, January 2004; IG Audit of FSS's City Pair Program, March 2003; Runzheimer City Pair Program Review; 2004 CFI customer satisfaction surveys on Travel Management, GSA IG FY 2005 Audit Plan, OMB weekly milestone report, OMB dashboard report, GSA QPR materials, eTS/DTS Fare Audit Statement of Work

NO 0%

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

Explanation: The GSA Travel programs utilize the GSA OCFO's Performance Management Process (PMP) to establish it long-term performance goals and measures, as well as to establish its budget estimates. Program budgets are formulated at the operational unit (i.e., Travel and Transportation) level, but not at the activity (e.g., travel) or business line (e.g., city pair, E-Gov Travel, TMC, etc.) level. Although this is sufficient to ensure that appropriate funding levels are established by organizational unit to execute the programs, it is not sufficient for planning specific business strategies.

Evidence: FY 2006 and FY 2007 Congressional Budget Justification (FSS, Travel programs).

YES 12%

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

Explanation: FSS has addressed its strategic planning deficiencies by working with OMB to develop long-term outcome goals and efficiency targets. GSA also linked performance goals to resource requirements for this program in the FY 2007 Congressional budget, and travel and transportation program costs were presented separately. GSA has a strong Strategic Assessment and Strategic Action Plan (SAP) process to support its budget development and a strong Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) process for managing results in accordance with its SAPs.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System, FSS & Travel program Scorecard, FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification (FSS, Travel programs), FY 2006 Travel SAP, eTravel Vendor meetings. FPLP Vendor meetings agenda. FY 05 Financial Plan - Travel and Transportation Programs.

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 88%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score

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

Explanation: Travel instituted its own annual customer satisfaction survey in FY 2002, and uses feedback to identify actions needed for continual improvement with its program partners. Regular performance meetings are conducted with some travel contractors to review their performance on key performance measures. FSS and Travel senior management meet quarterly with the Administrator to review performance data, however, GSA's Performance Measurement Tool includes very few measures that apply to travel and those measures do not differentiate between travel and transportation program results. The program's main weakness in collecting performance information is from the TSS vendors which do not appear to be submitting the reports required of them. As the program develops additional performance measures, these will be included in the monthly review process.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System, Administrator's Quarterly Performance Review, 2003 /2004 CFI customer satisfaction surveys on Travel Management, eTravel Vendor meetings, FPLP meeting agenda, Semi-Annual Performance Review agenda, master contract terms on vendor monthly reporting and metrics, eTravel Online Survey; FPLP Scorecard March 2005; TSS Vendor Reporting Requirements from TSS Solicitation

YES 14%

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

Explanation: Managers are held accountable through the annual performance review process, which is directly tied to the Program's Performance Plan and Scorecard, i.e., the Program's measures are the managers' measures. This has been further formalized with the new GSA performance rating system, APPAS. Travel industry partners are held accountable for providing services on time, at negotiated prices, and with satisfactory results. Accountability for Travel contractors is specified in contracts and task orders. Travel programs survey their customers and conduct regularly scheduled partnership meetings to ensure satisfactory performance. The Travel Performance Scorecard contains measures that directly correlate with vendor performance; e.g., customer satisfaction.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System; Travel Services Solutions solicitation and task order, eTravel Standard Level Agreement, eTravel Vendor Meeting Agenda , FPLP meeting agenda, Semi-Annual Performance Review outline, master contract terms on vendor monthly reporting and metrics

YES 14%

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

Explanation: GSA Travel Programs in cooperation with the FSS Controllers office utilize a rigorous financial planning process which establishes resources requirements for all operations prior to the execution of the current year's budget and operations. These plans are tracked throughout the year on a monthly basis and compared with actual spending as funds are utilized to execute program operations. Any large variations between planned and actual spending are researched to ensure that program operations are being executed according to plan.

Evidence: GSA's FY 2004 Annual Performance and Accountability Report, Annual performance on program measures as documented in FY 2007 Congressional Justification

YES 14%

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

Explanation: E-GOV Travel is a performance based platform for FSS travel service programs that manages work activities, projects, milestones and deliverables throughout its execution. The result of this management process is demonstrated by the E-GOV Travel total governmentwide cost savings projected to be approximately$450M over the 10 year lifecycle. The program efficiency and effectiveness is reported through the IT Capital Planning process. The Travel program as a whole has efficiency measures on its performance scorecard: Direct cost as a percent of revenue, percent of agencies migrating to ETS, FedRooms percentage off consortia rate, City Pair Program percentage off the lowest published full economy fare and percent of vouchers serviced through E-GOV Travel. These measures align with OMB's guidance that efficiency measures/targets should focus on per-unit cost of outputs, timing targets, or other indicators of efficient and productive processes germane to the program.

Evidence: GSA FY 2004 Annual Performance Plans and Reports, FY 2005 Travel program Scorecard, eTravel IT Capital Plan (GSA 300). eTravel Plan at a Glance; Quicksilver Recommendation in Support of the President's Management Agenda

YES 14%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: E-Gov Travel is a shared services model which integrates all of GSA's travel programs into one service. This includes lodging, air, travel agency services, travel card and policy. The E-Gov Travel Program Management Office (PMO) is organized and resourced to support this shared service model in five business areas. Each area collaborates with stakeholders that align with their area of operation. 1. Program & Business Management - CIO/CFO Council, OMB, E-Gov Portfolio Manager, GSA CFO, collaboration with other GSA travel programs including air, lodging, travel agency services, travel card and policy 2. Contracts Management & Acquisition Strategy - FSS contracting, E-Gov Travel Service (ETS) vendors, Customer agency contracting officers 3. Outreach & Customer Support - Customer agency Executive sponsors and migration teams, Industry councils (Society of Government Professionals, National Travel Forum, Small Agency Council, Interagency Travel Management Council, Passenger Air Committee), GSA Web support committee 4. Governance & Policy - Office of Governmentwide Policy, ETS Executive Sponsors, ETS User Groups 5. E-Gov Travel Service Management - GSA CIO and Senior Agency Information Security Officer, Information Technology Architecture Planning Committee, CIO Council, Department of Defense collaboration on Business Intelligence

Evidence: Interagency Travel Management Committee, GSA/Airline Partnership meetings, OGP's National Travel Forum 2004 Conference, March 2005 eTravel Narrative Report eTS/DTS

YES 14%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: GSA's financial systems meet statutory requirements and procedures are in place to provide financial information accurately and timely via the NEAR/Pegasys system. Last year, GSA's financial statements received the 17th consecutive "clean audit opinion" with no material weaknesses identified in the Travel program. An OIG review conducted in FY 04 identified deficiences in ourTMC IFF collection efforts and developed an action plan for improvement. We implemented the actions outline in the action plan and have undertaken aggressive measures to collect IFF. Because of our efforts, we experienced a significant increase in our travel revenue and have decreased overdue IFF.

Evidence: GSA's FY 2004 Annual Performance and Accountability Report, Quarterly Briefings with the Administrator; Use of Performance Measurement Tool; GAO Final Report on Program Fees Need More Oversight (IFF) Action Plan

YES 14%

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

Explanation: Travel managers prepare annual assurance statements, which identify management deficiencies and steps for improvement. GSA implemented a formalized process for addressing GAO and IG recommendations with which the Travel program fully participates. Travel has developed FY 06 Strategic Assessments and Strategic Action Plans to identify and correct deficiencies. In addition, Travel holds at least two management conferences during the year covering a multitude of program issues, with detailed action plans resulting. The eTravel Program component conducts regular forums with federal agencies via various User Groups, the Management Advisory Board, eTravel vendors and the FPLP vendor in order to identify and correct any deficiencies.

Evidence: Management Control Improvement Program (ADM P 5400.41B), FY 2006 Travel SAP, Travel program Business Line Management Meeting agenda, Agendas for eTS User Group, eTS Management Advisory Board, eTS vendor meetings and FPLP, FY 06 Strategic Assessment

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 100%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score

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

Explanation: The program has demonstrated some progress towards meeting its long term performance goal of providing an end-to-end fully integrated management system/solution to increase value for agency customers. E-GOV Travel has awarded contracts to E-GOV Travel vendors, and has met its 2005 target for number of TSS vendors. The FedRooms program is ahead of its projected schedule of securing properties for the program at or below the per diem rate, and at or close to the desired destinations. Customer satisfaction continues to improve. The city-pair program continues to obtain below-market airfares and GSA is developing tools to measure the savings actually achieved by agencies. However, adoption of the E-GOV Travel and FedRooms programs is running behind expectations.

Evidence: 2004Travel Program Performance Scorecard, See Measures Section


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

Explanation: The Travel Program has missed 9 of the 10 annual performance targets set through FY 06.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification, Vendor Meetings, Agenda for SAPR, copy of task order and MOU, eTravel Standard Service Level Agreement, 2004 Travel Program Performance Scorecard

NO 0%

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

Explanation: The Travel Program instituted a hiring freeze in May 2003 as well as strict direct cost controls while business volume and associated customer impact grew to all time high levels in FY 03/04. This helped GSA surpass its efficiency goal for FY 06. Additionally, the program has also negotiated lodging for federal travelers below per diem rates through the FedRooms program and achieved price reductions for travel agent services as a result of the E-GOV Travel project. Agencies that have deployed the E-Gov Travel solution have also realized savings from lower transaction fees as a result of using the on-line booking tool. GSA has achieved efficiency improvements in one of the two years, since these measurements began and currently projects that efficiency will decrease again in FY 07.

Evidence: eTravel Service Pricing (12/3/03 and version 2.6), FPLP Scorecard March 2005, 2004 Travel Program Performance Scorecard


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

Explanation: The City Pair Program (CPP) is the only GSA travel program that has measured savings against other programs. A 2004 analysis of 200 city pair markets commissioned by GSA benchmarked CPP fares against fares obtained by a representative private sector firm, American Express (AE). This analysis found that AE only obtained a 20% discount from the standard coach fare compared to CPP's 70% discount. It is believed that the rates obtained by the other GSA Travel programs will compare very favorably to commercial rates as well, however, these programs are new and no formal comparison of their rates and commercial rates has yet been made.

Evidence: eTravel Business Case, eTS/DTS comparative analysis, FPLP Scorecard March 2005, August 2003 News Release GSA Awards Contracts on FY 04 City Pair Program, 2004 Benchmarking analysis of American Express & CPP

YES 20%

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

Explanation: The City Pair Program (CPP) is the only GSA travel program that has been subjected to a comprehensive independent evaluation and it was generally judged to be effective. No comprehensive evaluation of all GSA travel programs has ever been conducted and none is scheduled.

Evidence: 2004 FOC report, OMB IV&V letter, eTravel IT Capital Planning Score (OMB 300), eTS/DTS Fare Audit Statement of Work, 2004 CFI customer satisfaction surveys on Travel Management. IG Audits and Runzheimer City Pair Program Review

Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 53%

Last updated: 09062008.2006SPR