This bill updates portions of Title 31 to push federal financial management from periodic reporting to an integrated, performance‑and‑cost driven regime. It refocuses agency Chief Financial Officer responsibilities, creates an obligation for agencies to prepare implementation plans, and changes governmentwide planning and reporting cadence and content.
For practitioners, the bill raises the bar for internal controls, audit scope, and public transparency: agencies must tie cost and performance information together, produce metrics and plans, and make several products available to OMB, GAO, Congress, and the public. Expect more written plans, new timelines, and closer alignment between auditors’ testing and agency control assessments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires each agency CFO to prepare a performance‑based implementation plan within 90 days of OMB issuing a governmentwide plan, directs OMB to produce a governmentwide 4‑year financial management plan, and mandates annual financial management status reports submitted with the President’s budget. It also expands audit requirements to evaluate and test agency internal controls tied to financial reporting and key financial management information.
Who It Affects
Executive branch CFOs and their deputies, OMB, federal auditors (internal and external), agency program and IT leads who supply cost and performance data, GAO and congressional oversight committees, and entities that operate agency financial systems.
Why It Matters
The bill pushes agencies to operationalize the link between costs and performance for budgeting and program decisions, creates recurring public transparency expectations, and aligns audit work with agency control self‑assessments—shifting how agencies allocate staff and systems resources for financial management.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill revises the statutory duties of agency Chief Financial Officers so CFOs must lead across budgeting, performance, risk, internal control, financial systems and accounting, and to produce an agency implementation plan that operationalizes OMB’s governmentwide plan. That agency plan must be developed with financial management and other experts, include performance‑based metrics for assessing financial management, and be delivered to agency leadership, OMB, GAO, congressional committees and posted publicly.
OMB’s governmentwide plan changes from a 5‑year to a 4‑year cycle and must be developed in consultation with the federal CFO, CIO, CDO and acquisition communities, IGs and GAO. The plan must be strategic and cost‑effective, describe priorities for improving systems (including eliminating duplication and encouraging shared services), and include explicit strategies for linking cost and performance information and for reporting that information across agencies.The bill tightens timelines and reporting: OMB must provide a governmentwide 4‑year plan and an annual financial management status report submitted concurrently with the President’s budget.
Those status reports must summarize agency performance against the plan’s metrics, list agencies with systems not complying substantially with FFMI A requirements, summarize recent financial statements and audit results, and update cost estimates where appropriate.On the audit and internal control side, agency heads must identify key financial management information required for decision‑making and annually assess the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting and that key information. Auditors performing agency financial statement audits must evaluate those control designs, confirm implementation, perform sufficient tests to support conclusions about operating effectiveness, and report control weaknesses tied to the agency’s own assessments.
Finally, the bill makes the deputy CFO the automatic acting CFO in the event of a vacancy, reducing temporary leadership gaps.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires agency CFOs to prepare an agency implementation plan within 90 days after OMB issues a governmentwide plan and to submit revisions and progress reports to OMB, the agency head, GAO, and relevant congressional committees.
OMB’s governmentwide financial management plan is shortened to a 4‑year cycle and must include strategies for linking cost and performance, eliminating duplicative systems, and encouraging shared systems and services.
The Director of OMB must submit an annual financial management status report to Congress at the same time the President’s budget is transmitted, summarizing agency performance against governmentwide metrics and recent audit and financial statement outcomes.
Auditors conducting agency financial statement audits must evaluate the design and implementation of internal controls over financial reporting and key financial management information, perform sufficient tests to assess operating effectiveness, and communicate material control failures.
If an agency Chief Financial Officer position becomes vacant, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer automatically serves as the acting Chief Financial Officer, notwithstanding competitive service rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the "Improving Federal Financial Management Act." This is purely nominal but frames subsequent statutory citations.
Expanded CFO duties and agency implementation plans
Amends section 902 to restate CFO duties in active terms and adds an express requirement that each agency CFO prepare an implementation plan to carry out OMB’s governmentwide plan. The agency plan must be completed within 90 days of OMB issuing the governmentwide plan, include performance‑based financial management metrics, be revised as needed by the CFO, and be submitted to OMB, GAO, congressional oversight committees, and published publicly. The provision also requires CFOs to manage the linkage of performance and cost data and coordinate with other senior officials (CIO, CDO, acquisition and evaluation leads) to align strategy and reporting.
Deputy CFO assists and acts as interim CFO
Adds language to section 903 clarifying the Deputy Chief Financial Officer’s role in assisting with CFO duties and makes the Deputy the acting CFO during vacancies regardless of subchapter III of chapter 33 of title 5. In practice this reduces ambiguity around temporary appointments and creates a predictable succession path for financial leadership.
4‑year governmentwide plan, consultation, metrics and timing
Replaces the former 5‑year governmentwide plan with a 4‑year plan, and requires OMB to develop that plan in consultation with the CFO, CIO, CDO, acquisition councils, IGs, and GAO. The plan must be strategic, cost‑effective, include a strategy for linking performance and cost information, propose workforce strengthening strategies, identify metrics to assess agency financial management performance, and encourage shared systems where practicable. The bill also inserts a detailed description of what the annual financial management status report must include and tightens timing: OMB must deliver the status report annually concurrently with the President’s budget.
Audit scope expanded to test agency control design and operating effectiveness
Modifies the statute governing agency financial statement audits to require auditors to evaluate the design and implementation of internal control over financial reporting and the key financial management information that agency heads identify, to perform sufficient tests supporting operating effectiveness conclusions, and to communicate any inadequately designed or ineffective controls. The rewrite ties auditors’ procedures directly to the agency head’s annual control identification and conclusions created in the amended 3512 provisions.
Conforming change to Title 5
Makes a small technical and conforming amendment to 5 U.S.C. 3348(e) to remove an obsolete paragraph and renumber clauses. This is administrative housekeeping to align prior language with the Act’s other changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Congressional oversight committees — receive more timely, consistent, and comparable financial management status reports and agency implementation plans, improving their ability to evaluate agency progress and target oversight.
- Agency Chief Financial Officers — gain clearer statutory authority to lead integration of cost and performance, formal responsibility for agency implementation plans, and a prescribed coordination role with CIOs, CDOs and acquisition leads.
- Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Inspectors General — obtain standardized reporting, public plans and consolidated status information that facilitate cross‑agency reviews and repeatable audit and evaluation work.
Who Bears the Cost
- Executive agencies — must produce new plans, meet faster timelines, expand internal control assessments, integrate cost/performance systems, and potentially rework financial systems, all of which will consume program and IT staff time and budget.
- Auditors (agency and external) — face increased audit scope and testing requirements to assess control design and operating effectiveness tied to agency‑identified key financial information, raising audit hours and possibly contract costs.
- OMB — must develop a more detailed, consultative governmentwide plan on a 4‑year cycle and produce annual status reports timed with the President’s budget, increasing central workload and coordination demands.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is between standardization and flexibility: the bill demands standardized, public plans and metrics to enable oversight and comparability, but federal agencies vary widely in systems, missions, and data maturity—mandating uniform standards without additional funding or specificity risks superficial compliance or uneven implementation that undermines the bill’s transparency and decision‑quality goals.
The bill pushes agencies toward richer integration of cost and performance information and tightens audit alignment with agency control assessments, but implementation will hinge on resource allocation and data readiness. Agencies with fragmented financial systems or immature cost accounting face a heavy lift: preparing an implementation plan and meeting 90‑day and annual reporting cycles may require new hires, contractor support, or system modernization funding that the text does not explicitly appropriate.
The statute prescribes metrics, public posting, and coordination but leaves significant discretion on metric definitions, the granularity of cost‑performance linkages, and how agencies share systems. That discretion allows tailoring to agency missions but risks inconsistent metric design and checkbox compliance—agencies could produce plans that meet formal requirements without delivering usable cost‑performance intelligence.
Auditors’ expanded testing duties are sensible for assurance, but they will increase audit durations and could divert audit resources from substantive program testing unless budgets adjust.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.