The public ratings understated risk almost as often as they matched GAO
Federal agencies reported the same risk level as the Government Accountability Office for 27 of 53 major technology investments reviewed across 12 agencies. GAO assigned a higher risk level to 24 investments and a lower level to two.
That means the agency rating matched GAO in 50.9% of cases, understated risk in 45.3% and overstated it in 3.8%. The review covered major investments with more than $35 million in development, modernization and enhancement spending—not a random sample of all federal technology work.
The October 7 report tests whether the federal IT Dashboard gives Congress and the public a current warning signal. What’s the Scoop With Broach calculated the shares from GAO’s 53-investment comparison rather than treating a disagreement as proof that a project failed. Different ratings show different assessments of cost, schedule and performance evidence.
| Result | Investments | Share of 53 |
|---|---|---|
| Same risk level | 27 | 50.9% |
| GAO found more risk | 24 | 45.3% |
| GAO found less risk | 2 | 3.8% |
One in five? The actual late-rating share was closer to two in five
GAO also found that 21 of 53 investment risk ratings were not updated on time. That is 39.6%, meaning nearly two in five of the reviewed dashboard signals failed the required timing test.
Two agencies used update cycles longer than quarterly. A stale rating can mask a deteriorating schedule or cost problem even when the rating methodology itself is sound. Timeliness therefore represents a separate control failure from disagreement over the level of risk.
GAO issued 17 recommendations to nine agencies. The responses were mixed: some agencies agreed, some partially agreed and some disagreed with individual recommendations or assessments. An open recommendation is not evidence that the agency has rejected all corrective action; it means GAO has not yet verified completion.
The dashboard itself is being replaced without a published timetable
The Office of Management and Budget has sunset the existing public IT Dashboard and plans a replacement, but GAO reported no timeframe for that replacement. That creates a second transparency issue: risk ratings need to improve while the public reporting system is in transition.
The report does not total wasted dollars, say that 24 investments will fail or evaluate every government technology system. Its threshold intentionally focuses on large development efforts, and GAO’s judgment is an independent assessment rather than a financial audit opinion.
This investigation adds the percentage distribution and timeliness rate, showing that understatement and lateness are comparable accountability problems. The follow-up is measurable: agencies can update ratings on schedule, resolve the 17 recommendations and OMB can publish a replacement timetable. No interviews were conducted.