The Government Accountability Office reported on October 7, 2026, that nearly half of assessed federal IT investments carried higher risk than agency Chief Information Officer ratings indicated. The review found that 24 of 53 assessed federal IT investments carried more risk than the Chief Information Officer ratings indicated.

The federal government spends over $100 billion annually on information technology and cyber investments, making accurate risk assessment a critical component of fiscal management. The Government Accountability Office review covered 53 selected investments at 12 agencies to evaluate the accuracy of these self-reported ratings.

To identify the major IT investments for this analysis, the Government Accountability Office reviewed 26 agencies’ fiscal year 2025 budget data reported to the Office of Management and Budget. The agency selected major IT investments with $35 million or more in development activities for review, ensuring the sample represented substantial financial commitments.

The Government Accountability Office determined its risk assessments based on investment risk documentation provided by the agencies. In contrast to the 24 investments where risk was understated, Government Accountability Office assessments matched Chief Information Officer ratings for 27 of the 53 investments reviewed.

Beyond the mismatch in risk levels, the review identified procedural failures in how agencies maintained their data. Chief Information Officer ratings were not updated in a timely manner for 21 of the 53 investments assessed. Additionally, two agencies used rating processes spanning longer than quarterly intervals, contrary to Office of Management and Budget guidance.

The inconsistency in methodology extended beyond update frequency. Selected agencies reviewed by the Government Accountability Office used different processes to develop their risk ratings. However, most agency rating processes included some or all of six factors suggested by the Office of Management and Budget.

In response to these findings, the Government Accountability Office made 17 recommendations to nine agencies regarding rating quality and frequency. These recommendations aim to align agency practices with federal guidance and improve the reliability of the data used for oversight.

The accuracy of these ratings is tied to the Federal Information Technology Dashboard, which the General Services Administration operates. The Office of Management and Budget launched the Federal Information Technology Dashboard in 2009 to provide transparency on these investments. The Government Accountability Office has been monitoring federal IT investments and their risk ratings since at least 2009, when the dashboard was introduced.

Despite previous oversight efforts, gaps in accountability remain. The Government Accountability Office previously recommended that the Office of Management and Budget improve its oversight of troubled investments identified from Chief Information Officer rating data. The Office of Management and Budget has not acted on the Government Accountability Office recommendation to improve oversight of troubled investments.

The future of the current transparency mechanism is also uncertain. The Office of Management and Budget announced in April 2026 that it was taking steps to sunset the Federal Information Technology Dashboard. The Office of Management and Budget did not provide a timeframe for the release of a new system to replace the Federal Information Technology Dashboard.

Timeline

The Office of Management and Budget launched the Federal Information Technology Dashboard in 2009.

What's New

The Government Accountability Office has been monitoring federal IT investments and their risk ratings since at least 2009, when the Federal IT Dashboard was launched to provide transparency on these investments.

Why It Matters

Inaccurate risk ratings for federal IT investments affect the management of over $100 billion in annual spending, potentially obscuring vulnerabilities in major development projects. The finding that nearly half of assessed investments carried higher risk than indicated suggests decision-makers may lack reliable data to oversee these commitments effectively. These discrepancies persist as the Office of Management and Budget moves to sunset the primary transparency mechanism without a defined replacement timeline.