[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF GI BILL IMPLEMENTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-103
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-929 WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
Dakota Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
PHIL HARE, Illinois GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DONALD J. CAZAYOUX, Jr., Louisiana
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOHN J. HALL, New York STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
September 11, 2008
Page
Oversight of GI Bill Implementation.............................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 26
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 26
Hon. Bob Filner.................................................. 3
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith Pedigo, Associate
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management,
Veterans Benefits Administration............................... 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo............................. 27
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Hon.
James B. Peake, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, letter dated December 8, 2008, and VA responses..... 31
OVERSIGHT OF GI BILL IMPLEMENTATION
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m., in
Room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Donnelly,
McNerney, Hall, Boozman, Moran, and Scalise.
Also Present: Representatives Filner and Snyder.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, oversight hearing on the implementation of the GI
Bill, as updated in Public Law 110-252, will come to order.
Before we proceed with today's hearing, I would like to
take a moment to remember the lives we lost on the morning of
September 11, 2001. As our country continues to heal from this
tragic event of 9/11, we must never forget that today we have
thousands of troops serving honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan,
many of whom have served in multiple deployments overseas.
I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation
to our men and women in uniform who have answered the Nation's
call to duty, and reinforced my commitment to serve them
honorably as they continue to serve us all.
Keeping this in mind, we must never forget that today's
servicemembers are tomorrow's veterans, who will require the
resources to succeed in life after military service. To this
end, this Subcommittee has held numerous hearings, here in
Washington, DC, and our Congressional districts, on programs
critical to their continued success. One such program in which
we were able to make significant progress is the Montgomery GI
Bill. Public Law 110-252 will provide our veterans the
educational entitlements needed to attend a college or
university of their choice. Certainly this landmark legislation
makes significant improvements, but we must remain vigilant to
ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented, and the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is afforded the resources
to meet the needs mandated by Congress.
Today's hearing will give the Subcommittee the opportunity
to better understand the VA's implementation plan as required
by Public Law 110-252. As many of you may be aware, there have
been numerous concerns over the VA's plan to contract out
services, contracting transparency, and time constraints to
implement the requirements of the newly enacted law. Last
month, we sent a letter inviting Secretary Peake to participate
in today's hearing. This letter specifically states that the
purpose of the hearing today was to have the VA present its
plan on implementing Chapter 33 with as much detail as
possible. I am deeply disappointed that the testimony that was
submitted was not as extensive as we were hoping, although we
did get some additional material at about 12:30 today. I hope
that over the next few weeks we can be properly informed on the
VA's plan to meet Public Law 110-252, including the information
that is presented today.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and
Members of this Subcommittee to provide oversight on the
implementation of the new Montgomery GI Bill requirements.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 26.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I now recognize Mr. Boozman for any
opening remarks he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to
associate my remarks concerning the anniversary of today and
things, and appreciate you taking the time to mention that,
along with the recognition of our people in uniform now.
I would like to concur with the chair's dissatisfaction
with the prepared testimony. I believe the invitation letter
was sufficiently detailed regarding our expectations for
today's hearing. And while I recognize the VA may be
constrained regarding competition-sensitive information,
describing the Department's desires expressed in the statement
of objectives provided to the industry is well within their
authority.
I expect the Department to provide the Subcommittee with a
very detailed briefing on those objectives, and the winning
bidder's plan to meet them, very shortly after the contract is
awarded, at the least. It is ironic and fitting that we are
holding a hearing on the 9/11 GI Bill 7 years after the attack
on America, an event that contributed to today's global
conflict. The Global War on Terror has highlighted the need to
create a new GI Bill that reflects the increased obligations of
today's servicemembers and their families. In addition to
caring for our dead and wounded, there is no more important
benefit to offer a path to personal growth then through a
generous education benefit. As you may remember, the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, under Chairwoman Herseth
Sandlin's leadership, reported a GI Bill that I believe was an
excellent bill, and I think superior in many ways to what
eventually became law. H.R. 5684 was simpler to administrate,
more flexible, and offered $19,000 per year for full-time
enrollment. The bill was eventually passed by the full
Committee, but failed to make it to the floor. So we're here
today to really have the VA describe how they intend to
implement the very complex program in Chapter 33. Frankly, I am
very concerned that despite VA's best efforts, they will not
meet the August 1, 2009, deadline. We are aware that VA intends
to contract out a significant portion of the effort to bring
the program online, but they now have less than 11 months to
get the work done. I hope that we have not given them an
insurmountable task.
I am also aware there is some opposition to VA's intent to
contract out development of the new information technology (IT)
system, and possibly some personnel issues. I would remind
those who oppose using modern information technology to manage
the system that it is the most promising way to shorten the
processing time. While a small number of cases may require
manual intervention, because of the complexity, the vast
majority should lend themselves to automated process. I am
confident that if we ask veterans whether they would prefer the
current method that now takes about 20 days, or an automated
process that could provide an answer in minutes, that they will
choose the latter. I believe there is an example of this at the
Department of Education, and I would ask VA whether they have
looked into that model.
As to whether the IT should be developed in-house or via
contract, those who point to the failure of Core FLS should
also remember that VETSNET is primarily an in-house project
that has been in development since the late eighties, and has
experienced numerous failures, and has cost the Government over
$600 million. From reading VA's testimony, there is ample
opportunity for VA employees to remain employed in the
Education Service or elsewhere within the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA).
My point is that we have given the VA a complex new program
to manage, and until their selected approach to implementing
that program fails, we should not interfere. You should be
about meeting the need of veterans seeking education, and no
other agenda.
Madam Chair, this Subcommittee has worked hard for 4 years
in a bipartisan way to do the right thing by those who have
borne the battle. If VA believes they need any additional
legislation, I hope they will provide that to us in time for us
to act. I look forward to hearing from the Department today,
and I hope their testimony will not only describe the major
features of the proposed contract, but also a frank and candid
assessment of the challenges they face.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 26.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Boozman. I
would now like to recognize the Chairman of the full Committee,
Mr. Filner, for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and
Mr. Boozman for your leadership on these issues over the past
several years. You have been a model of bipartisan cooperation,
and the bill that was passed and signed by the President is a
great bill. And now, of course, timely oversight. So I thank
you for your leadership.
As you stated, this was an opportunity for the VA to tell
us how they were going to meet their deadlines. Like you, when
I saw only four pages of testimony, and a PowerPoint
presentation, I am not sure that gives us enough detail to
understand what is happening. I do not believe that is a
service to all of the stakeholders who are looking to this with
such great optimism and hope. The letter that the Chair and
Ranking Member sent to Secretary Peake stated that the purpose
of the hearing was to present VA's plan with as much detail as
possible. We wanted to have a thorough understanding of what
was going on, and I hope you will do that in the testimony
today.
I have great doubts about contracting out. VA employees
have administered education benefits since the end of World War
II. We know that many changes have been made over the years and
they have been successfully implemented. You have, as I
understand it, about 250,000 employees that are working. You
have a year to do this and you have close to a $100 billion
budget. If I was in charge of all of that, I would not be
asking for more money. I do not know what your ballpark is
because you have not put that in any of the figures before us
today. I do not know why you need to contract out services,
with so many employees, so much money, and so much time.
I do not think that replacing the VA employees with
inexperienced contractors is very good business. Many VA
employees, as you well know, are veterans themselves and
identify with those veterans applying for benefits. VA
employees are there for one reason, to help the veterans. How
can the VA justify replacing employees with contractors, which
I bet in the Request For Proposal (RFP) it does not say, ``Do
you relate to veterans?'' Their primary concern is not serving
veterans. You argue, that the need is to have this in place by
August of 2009. I do not see how you can meet that deadline
when you are spending all of your time seeking bids out to
contract out, implementing a new software program, and training
new staff with very little or zero experience. If the VA has
been improving its processing time for educational entitlements
over the years, why throw away all those gains that have been
made?
I notice in the handout, and I am sure you will explain
this further, your first objective of the RFP is that you will
meet all the requirements. And then, number four says, ``Oh, by
March 2009, we will determine if the solution meets these
requirements.''
What are you giving out in an RFP about meeting the
requirements and what happens in March if they have not met the
requirements? It seems to me that we are back to square one.
Can you give me a yes or no right now? Are there any
penalties if they do not meet these deadlines? Where in the RFP
is a statement of penalties? I did not see any.
Mr. Pedigo. There are penalties in the statement.
Mr. Filner. Like what?
Mr. Pedigo. Statement of objectives----
Mr. Filner. Do they get any money for the contract if they
do not meet the objectives?
Mr. Pedigo. Let me ask Mr. Wilson to address that.
Mr. Wilson. The RFP proposes that the vendor will propose
both monetary incentives and monetary disincentives.
Mr. Filner. Oh, they are proposing?
Mr. Wilson. And the reason that we did that is that will
help us get an understanding of how confident they are in their
proposed solution.
Mr. Filner. Someday I would like you to read what you just
said, and see why the public has so little confidence in people
we call bureaucrats. You want someone, and I do not know how
much money we are going to pay, perhaps millions of dollars, to
meet a deadline, and you want to know about their confidence in
meeting it as part of the RFP? That sounds pretty ridiculous to
me. I am just a layman, but someone is going to get a lot of
money, so why should they be paid if they do not even meet the
objectives that you have laid out here? I do not understand
that at all.
You should be right now in the process of implementing this
program in-house, training your staff, and giving them a year
of preparation instead of contracting it out. This is a
Government function, and it should continue to be a Government
function. If we have capable employees that have been trained
in this capacity to implement and distribute Montgomery GI Bill
entitlements, and the VA was given money this year for over 800
more employees, why is there a need to outsource the whole
program? The VA's focus should be on building up your internal
success, and not just saying, ``Hey, we cannot do it.''
We have received, on this Committee, letters from VA
employees expressing their concerns. One person wrote that the
VA employees are better equipped to handle the educational
benefits because, number one, they are familiar with the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) documents that need to be reviewed
to establish veterans' benefits eligibility; number two, they
are trained to use various DoD databases to locate and confirm
information; they are trained to process claims when veterans
appeal the decision; they are trained to contact individual
service branches; and, they are trained to contact State
approving agencies, colleges, universities, and veterans
service organizations. Your contractor is going to have to
figure all that out.
In addition, employees need to understand all the benefit
programs, not just the GI Bill. Knowing all of the benefit
programs helps in processing education benefits, because most
veterans are eligible for benefits that they may not know about
or they may be under different categories.
I do not see how you can expect to train new employees, or
the contractors, to know all the ins and outs of the VA, be
familiar with these DoD documents and databases, and be
familiar with the benefit programs, in 1 year.
Finally, I am concerned that the contracting bids are not
as accessible to the public as they should be. There is a need
for transparency, and the VA has not been totally forthcoming
with all the information. I hope you take the opportunity today
to clear up any of these misconceptions, and thoroughly inform
the Committee of your plans to meet the requirements of Public
Law 110-252. It is very discouraging to see how all of this
started. Again, you give us four pages of testimony, and a
PowerPoint presentation. It does not look like you have any
accountability in this whole process. It says you are not going
to determine if they meet the requirements of the GI Bill until
March 1, 2009. What kind of nonsense is that? That you are
giving out an RFP, and you do not even know if it is going to
meet the requirements until next March? And what if it does
not? As I said, we are back to square one. And the penalties,
``they'' are going to suggest the penalties? Come on, guys.
To me, I do not want to pay for this if they do not meet
the requirements that you have set out. But we should not be
doing this anyway, because we have the employees who know how
to do it, and they have been doing it for years and years. Let
them do the job.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now want to welcome our two panelists testifying before
the Subcommittee today. Joining us on the first and only panel
today is Mr. Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for
Policy and Program Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Pedigo is accompanied by Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of the
Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Pedigo, you are now recognized to make your
presentation to the Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
ACCOMPANIED BY KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SERVICE,
VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Mr. Pedigo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. We are happy to be
here this afternoon. I want to take this opportunity to try to
provide as much information as possible about the approach that
we are using to implement the new GI Bill. As I say, we
appreciate the opportunity to be here, to talk to you about the
strategy for implementation of Public Law 110-252, the post-9/
11 GI Bill. And as you said, accompanying me today is Mr. Keith
Wilson, Director of the VA's Education Service.
My testimony will highlight the staffing information and
technology solutions being pursued by VA. Mr. Wilson and I are
also prepared to provide a PowerPoint presentation that
addresses selected element of the procurement process that is
presently underway to identify a contractor to provide a secure
solution to support VA's efforts to administer this new
program.
Our strategy for implementation of this program calls for
contractor support to build upon and accelerate an already
existing strategy to employ a rules-based industry-standard
technology in the delivery of education benefits. VA's numerous
education programs contain eligibility rules and benefit
determinations that work well with rules-based technology that
requires minimal human intervention.
The goal of minimizing human intervention through the
electronic processing of applications and enrollment
information was outlined in both the VA's fiscal 2008 and 2009
budgets. I would like to emphasize that the contractor will not
have full responsibility over the administration of the post-9/
11 GI Bill. Instead, the contractor will be responsible for
development of the information technology solution, and general
administrative and data entry functions. Education claims that
are rejected by the automated process and require manual
eligibility determinations will remain the responsibility of
trained VA personnel.
VA plans to award a contract for support in the very near
future. The contractor will be accountable for providing timely
and accurate education claims processing by completing original
claims in at least 10 days, supplemental claims in at least 7
days, and by achieving an accuracy rate of at least 98 percent.
The technological solution and services provided will be under
close direction and oversight of VA employees.
Since enactment of the post-9/11 GI Bill, VA's Education
Service has been working with other elements of VA to enhance
key existing VA IT systems. For example, the VA application
that allows schools' certifying officials to transmit
enrollment data electronically to VA is being modified to
accommodate the reporting requirements of the new program.
VA is also working closely with elements of the Department
of Defense to establish data requirements and procedures for
implementation of the transferability provisions of the new
program. Our goal is to transition servicemembers and veterans
into the new program with no disruption in the payment of
educational benefits, in accordance with the August 1, 2009,
effective date for the new program.
Based on the implementation strategies being pursued, VA
does not anticipate a loss of Federal employment for any
present employees associated with VA's education programs.
Since the post-9/11 bill will result in tuition and fee
payments being made directly to educational institutions, some
current claims processing resources will the shifted to
increase compliance and oversight responsibilities. VA
employees will continue to staff and operate our nationwide
call center in Muskogee, Oklahoma. VA employees will also
continue to respond to all online inquiries through the VA Web
site, including post-9/11 GI Bill inquiries.
The provisions of the post-9/11 GI Bill require VA to
develop regulations to administer the program. VA is actively
engaged in this process, and we anticipate publishing the
program's final regulations in the Federal Register in May of
2009.
Outreach to veterans and servicemembers is a key objective
of our implementation plan for the new program. The VA's GI
Bill Web site has been updated to include information regarding
the new program, and already over a quarter of a million have
viewed the ``frequently asked questions'' section of that site.
In addition to our web-based outreach, VA is preparing
posters, pamphlets, and direct mailings to veterans,
servicemembers, colleges, and university Executives. Also, in
late 2008, VA will launch a multimedia advertising campaign in
an effort to reach individuals who may have dropped from our
direct mailing rolls. These are individuals who have left the
military and have not used VA benefits, or have relocated since
last using a VA benefit.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo, and the PowerPoint
slides, appears on p. 27.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Did you want to take us through the
PowerPoint presentation at this time, Mr. Pedigo?
Mr. Pedigo. We would be happy to do that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Pedigo. What I would like to do, if it is okay with
you, is I will handle the first couple of slides, and then I
will ask Mr. Wilson to go through the remaining portions of the
presentation. If we could please go to the first slide.
What I want to make sure that the Subcommittee understands
is that our decision to basically provide a secure IT solution
for the new GI Bill is not a new strategy. As I said in my
testimony, that strategy was articulated in both the 2008 and
2009 President's budgets. It has been our intent for at least
the last 2 years to take our existing systems in VA, and
primarily, what we call the TEES system, which is The Education
Expert System, and develop that into a rules-based engine that
would be capable of making most of the decisions on the
existing VA education programs. And when I say ``existing
programs,'' I'm talking about those that existed prior to the
implementation of the new GI Bill.
Under the strategy that we are using to implement the new
GI Bill, we are simply accelerating the already-existing
strategy. And because of the urgency of meeting the August 1,
2009, effective date for this program, we felt the need to seek
vendor support to help build this implementation technology
solution. At the present time, because of the nature of the
procurement that we are using, we do not know the details of
the proposed solution from the vendors to implement the GI
Bill. And that is because the vehicle that we are using is what
is known as a performance-based contract, where essentially we
go out to those who would provide bids to us, and we tell them
what the basic requirements are that we want them to solve, and
then they use industry best practices, and propose a solution
on how we can best implement the new GI Bill.
So at this point in the procurement process, we do not
know, we have not seen the proposals that the bidders are going
to submit to us. But before the end of this month, we will have
a very good idea of what those proposals are.
And I want to emphasize that with respect to VA employees,
we do not have any plans to put any VA employees out on the
street as a result of this new program. Our intention is to use
what will probably be a significant number of the existing
employees to continue to process the programs that existed in
the education area prior to the new GI Bill, and we have five
programs that will have to continue to be administered. We are
going to use these new employees to take all the calls at the
Muskogee, Oklahoma, call center. And these employees will be
particularly involved in--if you could go to the next slide,
please--these employees will be particularly involved with
handling cases that the information technology solution is not
able to handle. It is our expectation that the rules-based
system that we will have will be capable of making most
decisions on veterans' entitlement and eligibility for the new
GI Bill in an automated fashion without human intervention, but
we recognize that because of the complexity of this bill, and
because of the nuances of the service time and nature of
military service for some veterans that the system cannot
handle all cases. And so the exceptions will be handled by
full-time VA staff.
I want to mention that the VA, especially VBA, the Veterans
Benefits Administration, has a solid record over the last 15
years of making significant consolidations in operations, and
providing a soft landing for the employees who might no longer
be engaged in the activity of that particular consolidated
program. In the VA's insurance program, as well as the
education program, in the early nineties, and the loan
guarantee program in the late nineties and the early part of
this century, we underwent significant consolidations, and no
employee lost VA employment as a result of that.
At this point, Madam Chairwoman, I am going to turn it over
to Keith Wilson, to go through the remainder of the slides.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Keith. Good afternoon.
I would like to go over, first, two timelines; the first
being the acquisition timeline, followed by the project
milestone timelines, once the contract is awarded, starting
with slide four,the acquisition timeline.
This is fairly self-explanatory, but I would like to go
over it anyway. We released a Request for Proposals on August
29th. The vendors have asked for an extension to respond to
that Request for Proposals. We granted that extension, and they
now currently have until this Monday, September 15, to provide
their proposals to us, their written proposals to us.
The events that will occur following that are two things.
First of all, we will have a technical evaluation team that
will review the proposals themselves. Following that, we will
allow oral presentation by the vendors themselves. Once those
two actions are complete, the technical evaluation team will
rate and rank the vendors, and the contracting officer will
award the contract. Tentatively, we are looking at September 26
for that to occur right now.
Once we have a contractor on board, the RFP that we have
put on the street is implemented, and we have several
milestones that provide us what we need in terms of
implementing this program. Obviously, the first thing we will
want from them is a draft project plan, within 10 days. By
October 31, we expect the vendors to submit business
requirements and process flows to VA. And I would like to
clarify a little bit about what that is, because it is going to
be a detailed technical comparison between what VA's business
requirements were articulated as in the RFP, and what the
winning vendors' proposed solution will be, and what will be
needed to interface those two. For example, the technology that
we have transmits data in certain ways, and provides gateways
in certain ways, and we need to ensure that the handshakes to
transmit that data will occur. Those type of things will be
addressed under that business requirements submission.
By March first, the vendors will have to demonstrate the
capabilities of the system itself, and we will begin user
testing. We do not anticipate that at that point the full
system will be available for user testing but we do anticipate
that segments of it will. So we will begin user testing at that
point. On May 1, the solutions have to be available to begin
making eligibility and entitlement decisions. At that point we
do not expect the payment piece to be ready, but we do expect
entitlement determinations to be able to be made. That will
give us the opportunity of running test records through, test
data through, and ensuring that the tool generates the correct
eligibility information.
Soon after that, on June 1, we do expect the full payment
piece to be available. At that point, the functionality needed
for the entire system would be available, and we could begin
testing the system end to end, and then of course as in the
legislation, August 1st of 2009 is our go-live date.
Slide six provides three basic bullets on the performance
elements that we are requiring. And these performance elements
are the same performance goals we have in our strategic plan as
in the President's budget. No more than 10 days to process
original claims, no more than 7 days for supplemental claims,
with 98 percent payment accuracy.
The following several slides lay out two pieces of
information, and these are taken bullet-for-bullet directly out
of the RFP, the Request for Proposal. The first is the
objectives, and the second is the mandatory tasks. Some of
these things sound very simplistic, and they could sound like
no-brainers, and in some respects they are. But we are looking
at a legal document, and we do have to prescribe things
verbatim that we will need for a legal basis. We would expect
them to meet all objectives, obviously, but we do state those
type of things in the objectives so that legally, there is no
confusion about what we are looking for. So in the objectives
we do ask for things like ``the solution will meet all of our
objectives and address interrelations.'' Obviously, that is
laid out in all of the document. That is why we provide
detailed business requirements. But it is a formal legal piece
of the document.
Same with the following issues. Consulting with VA experts,
obviously they will be required to interface with our folks on
a technical level to ensure that data is talking and the
interfaces are occurring. There are IT requirements in here,
too, in terms of industry standards. For instance, objective
three talks about using an XML standard. That is an industry
standard for data transmission. That type of objective would
not come as a surprise to anybody in the industry. But again,
we are looking at a legal document, so it is prescribed in
there.
The rest of the objectives I can go through. I believe they
are self-explanatory, but perhaps not. Yes? Which one was that,
Congressman?
Mr. Filner. Number four.
Mr. Wilson. Not later than March 1st of 2009, VA will
determine if a solution meets post-9/11 GI Bill requirements.
That ties to the March 1 deadline in our timeline, during which
we will validate that the method that they use to do work and
the information that we will be sending them and requiring back
from them match.
Mr. Filner. What if it doesn't?
Mr. Wilson. Then we will have a series of backup plans that
we will have to go to, depending on what the vendor solution
is. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a lot of detail, because we
do not know precisely what the vendor solution will be, and our
contingency strategies are going to be based on what their
solution will be, and how that relates to our existing
strategies.
Mr. Pedigo. Mr. Filner, if I might just add to that. We are
going to be working closely with this contractor from the date
that the contract is executed, until it is completed. And we
are not going to wait until March 1 to take a first look at the
system to make sure that all the data points are in there, that
the interfaces are complete, and that everything works
properly. There will be some testing that goes on as the system
is being developed by the contractor, and that is just typical
for the development of any information technology system. So it
is not as though we are going to get to March 1 and all of a
sudden, receive that system from the contractor, and start
pushing the buttons that day to see if it works. We will have
looked at it considerably before that point in time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. If you do not mind, I think that the
objectives and the mandatory tasks here in the PowerPoint are
fairly self-explanatory. If Members have specific questions as
they review them, they can pose them at that time, but I think
there are a lot of other questions that need to be posed before
we get to the specifics of the RFP. I would like to begin with
the questioning now.
Mr. Pedigo, you mentioned that this is--a secure IT
strategy, is not anything new, this has been in the President's
budget for at least 2 years. This has been the VA's intent, to
have a rules-based engine; you are simply accelerating the
strategy.
What was the timetable for a strategy for the VA to move to
a rules-based engine? If it was in the President's budget over
the last 2 years, why has it not moved forward prior to this
date? Did you always anticipate the need to use an outside
vendor to help you move to that system?
Mr. Pedigo. Well, the plan actually has gotten off track a
couple of times. As I said, it was originally in the fiscal
year 2008 budget, and we did not do it, and it was in the 2009
budget----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Why did you not do it then?
Mr. Pedigo. I would ask Mr. Wilson to comment on the
technical reasons why we did not do it then.
Mr. Wilson. Our TEES initiative is a suite of applications,
and the 2008 budget, and the 2009 budget as well, address the
specific pieces that will be implemented in order to roll out
the entire TEES strategy over a period of time. For example, in
2008, one of the initiatives that we completed was
implementation of the WEAMS application, which is an online
tool for school, understanding which schools and programs are
approved. That would be one piece that would plug into the
overall TEES strategy. The piece that we have not really done
any work on is the rules-based core of what would be considered
the TEES engine.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. What was your original timeframe
before the Post-9/11 GI Bill was passed? What was the timeframe
that you were working on internally to move to develop the
rules-based engine?
Mr. Wilson. I believe it was 2013 for full deployment of
TEES.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We are trying to move to full
deployment 4 years ahead of schedule?
Mr. Wilson. We are hoping to get as much from the industry
as we can in that period, yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Did you anticipate in that timeframe,
to complete it by 2013? Did you anticipate in your plan the use
of an outside vendor to help you develop the IT solution?
Mr. Wilson. I am not as sure of the specifics on that, but
what I would say is that the discussions that we had concerning
the post-9/11 GI Bill internally, including with our IT staff,
it was very clear to us that we internally did not have the
capabilities of standing this up.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. What do you need internally to do so?
Mr. Wilson. I cannot answer that question. I do not know
the answer to it. I will have to provide an answer in writing.
[The response was provided in the Post-Hearing Questions
and Responses for the Record, which appears on p. 42.]
Mr. Pedigo. Madam Chairwoman, could I add something to
Mr. Wilson's response?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes.
Mr. Pedigo. When we had the original plan in place,
obviously, we did not know that we would get the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. So initially, the plan was to build a rules-based system
to overlay existing education programs. Then, when we started
hearing that we might get a totally new program that we would
have to administer, we put the brakes on further development of
the TEES system, because we did not want to start down a road
and invest money and time building out the TEES system into a
rules-based system before we knew whether or not we would have
a new GI Bill.
And initially, we had given ourselves a generous amount of
time to get it completed, by 2013. But when we saw the timeline
on the new GI Bill, we realized that we were going to have to
dramatically accelerate the process. And it is not at all
unusual for VA or any element of Federal Government to use
contractors for support to build an IT systems. In fact, I
would venture to say that the majority of significant systems
in VA and other agencies are built with substantial contractor
support. So that part of our approach is probably not much
different than what we would have utilized had we gone ahead
with a full-blown TEES system.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. For the rules-based system, right? You
did the 2008 piece of developing the TEES system internally. So
it was more anticipating, in the timetable you had set for
yourselves, year 2013, that moving to the rules-based engine
may have required the use of an outside vendor. Is that----
Mr. Pedigo. The 2008 and 2009 initiatives involve
contractor support as well.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. They did?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Could you provide the
Subcommittee, if you can, in writing more detail of the process
you used, and the vendors you used for the 2008 and 2009 piece?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes.
[The Subcommittee staff was subsequently briefed by the
VA.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. I will have additional
questions. I will now defer to the Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman,
for questions he has of the panel.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
What percent of today's education benefit claims require
off-line processing because of complexity?
Mr. Wilson. Could you repeat the question, please?
Mr. Boozman. What percent of today's education benefit
claims require off-line processing because of their complexity?
Mr. Wilson. All of our claims, all of our original claims
now are processed--I am not sure if I understand the term
``off-line,'' but all of our original claims are processed by
humans right now. None are processed automated. About 10
percent of our supplemental claims are processed through an
automated process.
Mr. Boozman. Can you explain why you chose a performance-
based approach to acquiring a new IT system?
Mr. Wilson. I could not. I would have to get--can you?
Mr. Pedigo. Mr. Boozman, one of the reasons we chose a
performance-based approach is because that permits a Government
agency to realize some of the best practices that are being
used in the industry. I mean, the traditional Government
procurement for an automated system is to provide a very
detailed set of prescriptive language, basically a blueprint
for how a contractor would develop every step of an automated
system. And what we have found, based on experience, is that
when we use that approach we sometimes do not get to take
advantage of the best practices that are out there in the
industry, because we channel potential contractors into a
particular approach that does not allow them to utilize the
full extent of the best practices that are out there. So the
performance-based approach does allow us to do that by not
being prescriptive, but by basically giving potential bidders
some broad parameters and some basic rules, and asking them to
give us a proposal that they think incorporates the best
practices that are out there. And then we choose which one we
want to go with.
Mr. Boozman. Along with that, we have been told that the
Department of Education has a system that, an automated system
that processes benefits, that works well. Are there any other
applications in Government that you are aware of? Have we
looked into other applications where they are doing similar
things, that perhaps could be used?
Mr. Wilson. We are aware of the Department of Education's
system. We have had discussions with them. Another similarity
to what we are looking at would be, there are other claims
benefit type things that are automated. For example, Medicare-
Medicaid I understand has a significant rules engine type
capability.
Mr. Boozman. It does make sense to try and look and learn
from some of the other similar applications as to what is going
on?
One of the keys to successful application of IT will be the
databases available to the rules-based system. A key data
component will be the history of a member's service, which will
to a large extent determine the veteran's benefits. How soon
does DoD provide DD-214 information to the VA today, and how do
they provide it?
Mr. Wilson. The feed we receive from DoD is in essence
real-time. Once the information gets to DMDC, the Defense
Manpower Data Center, that information is fed to us. I believe
it is nightly, is the run. I do not know specifically how long
it takes to get from, perhaps, one of the service branches into
DMDC, but the feed that we receive from DoD proper is a real-
time feed.
Mr. Boozman. What would you guess, though, is the
timeframe? How long does it take to push the button?
Mr. Wilson. I would venture to say that it would be no more
than about 2 weeks in most situations, from separation.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. The Chairman
of the full Committee has graciously deferred to Mr. Hall, who
has to be on the floor in a few minutes for a statement. I
recognize Mr. Hall for questions.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Chairman
Filner.
Just a couple of quick questions. When was the RFP expanded
to four vendors? Or is it actually going to four vendors?
Mr. Wilson. The RFP was provided to the four vendors on
August 29.
Mr. Hall. That is the first time it was provided to
anybody?
Mr. Wilson. No, that is not the first time it was provided
to anybody. Originally, we had contacted OPM, and we had begun
work under a different contracting vehicle called the Training
and Management Assistance vehicle. And we had originally put
out an RFP under that vehicle.
Mr. Hall. And are any of the principals in the four vendors
who are currently under consideration former secretaries or
undersecretaries of the VA?
Mr. Pedigo. We do not have any information on that, at this
point.
Mr. Hall. Okay, thank you. What criteria are you using to
pick them? And do these four have a past record doing work for
the VA?
Mr. Wilson. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Hall. What criteria are you using to pick from the four
vendors, and have any of these four vendors any past record
doing any work for the VA?
Mr. Wilson. I am personally not aware of any work that they
have done for VA. The formal evaluation criteria I am not
familiar with, but there is a formal document that defines the
evaluation criteria.
Mr. Hall. Well, that is good to know. A year ago, the
education call center, the 800 number, was contracted out to
``free up employees to do cases.'' It turned into a disaster,
as has been described, bad for vets calling in and more work
for employees since contractors could not answer the questions.
As a result, the VA eventually brought the work back into the
VA and it is now being done by Federal employees at the
Muskogee Regional Office.
The question is this. You contracted out the education
division call center. What did your evaluation of the
contractor's performance show in terms of costs, quality, and
timeliness? And how does the work being done in-house now
compare with the work that was done by the vendor?
Mr. Wilson. The temporary contract call-center that we had
in place was for short-term duration, and it was specifically
designed as such. I think we have been very candid with the
Subcommittee concerning what we were hoping would have been
better quality on some of the answers that were provided to the
callers, and we regret that. However, the core issue that we
were addressing with the contract call center was a timeliness
that we were delivering to veterans in terms of claims
processing. That was what it was designed to address.
At the time we implemented that call-center, we were
processing original claims in 46 days. We had that contract in
place for
6 months. Within a year, we had cut that timeliness in half, to
about 23 days, and we have continued to improve from there. So
I believe it met the core intent of what we were trying to do,
with reducing the call volume, because of the high volume of
pending claims. Our current call volume is the lowest it has
been in 6 years, and I would again attribute that to the fact
that we were able to process a lot more claims. Veterans simply
don't need to call the way they use to find out where their
check is. The current education call center in Muskogee is
performing very well. They have about a 1 percent abandoned
call rate.
Mr. Hall. That is good. That is what we are all looking
for.
The solicitation describes extensive training that contract
employees will need in privacy and in security, as well as
substantive skills relating to education programs. How much
time do you estimate between the time that the contract
employee is brought on board, and when he or she will be fully
trained in all these aspects, to do the job?
Mr. Wilson. Contract employees will not be doing work
commensurate with our adjudicators. So in terms of the training
that they will be required to go through, it will be minimal.
Again, what we are looking for is in essence a rules-based type
process. We would not anticipate significant numbers of bodies,
certainly not at the decisionmaking level. That will simply not
be there.
The work that could perhaps be done by the contractor would
be administrative support work. For example, if documents are
received in a hard copy format, we would expect a contractor to
have those documents scanned into the system and available.
That type of work.
Mr. Hall. And that is also works that could be done by VA
employees, I assume.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Hall. We have, in our offices, as Congressman Snyder
and I were talking about, we have Lockheed Martin computers,
but we have people in our offices who actually work them and
fix them even most of the time, unless they are too broken down
for us to fix them. But you know, the data entry and the
material that is entered into them for their use for our office
is done in-house. So did you consider just buying the IT
system, and having your employees do the data entry for the
rules-based decisionmaking?
Mr. Wilson. What we tried to do is give the contractors as
much flexibility as possible to propose a solution. It could be
that their solution calls for that. Again, we are not going to
know until we know what the proposals are.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Pedigo. Mr. Hall, can I just add one thing to that?
Our expectation, our--I guess you could say, if we could
get the ideal rules-based system, and we think there is a
chance that we could get that, the vast majority of cases will
not require data entry. And that is because what we envision,
if things go according to our understanding of rules-based
systems, is that a veteran would be able to go online when he
or she wants to apply for the education benefits, key in,
themselves, certain basic information; name, maybe Social
Security or some other identifier information, and then send
that. And it goes into the rules-based system.
And that rules-based system then would pull information
from different sources. It would pull some information from DoD
on the service. It would pull perhaps some information from the
U.S. Department of Education on institutions of higher
learning. And all that information would be pulled and then run
through the rules that have been built into that system. And
our hope is that in most cases, in a very short period of time,
maybe even less than a minute, that system will provide to that
individual, while he or she is still online, with the result of
their request. It might tell them that they have been approved
for the education benefit and that the institution of higher
learning that they wish to attend and that the course that they
want to pursue has also been approved. And so that there might
not be any need in many cases for any type of data entry.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Filner?
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would say that I do
not have a lot of confidence that this is not going to be a
disaster, just listening to what has been said. Usually, when
contracting out is argued for, the argument is to save money.
Now, you are not going to fire anybody, so it does not look
like we are going to save any money. What is this going to cost
us roughly, do you think?
Mr. Wilson. The legislation provided $100 million. We are
waiting for the proposals from the vendors, and evaluation
criteria will include consideration of the cost proposals that
they are submitting.
Mr. Filner. And this could go as high as $100 million?
Mr. Wilson. I would not venture a guess. I was just
articulating----
Mr. Filner. So we have no idea what this is going to cost
us, what we are getting here? Everything is--I just find this
to be simply incredible. I mean, I have never heard an RFP go
out with so little--you do not know what you are going to get.
You do not know how much it is going to cost. You do not know
what is going to happen if it fails. I mean, what are you
getting us into here?
Mr. Pedigo. As I explained earlier, Mr. Filner, this is a
different approach than is often used with Government
contracting. And we think it is the best approach because we
have a good chance here of getting the very best practices that
exist in the private sector. And----
Mr. Filner. How do you know? You just said you did not know
how much it is going to cost.
Mr. Pedigo. Well, I said we had a chance of getting that. I
do not know with certainty that we will, but I think there is a
high likelihood that because of the competitive nature of the
vendors out there who will be submitting bids, that they are
going to try their best to come up with a better solution than
their competitors. And we will evaluate those solutions. And
then at that time we will make a decision as to which one is
best, and we will implement that process.
Mr. Filner. I do not know how you are going to make that
decision with the kind of information you have been giving me.
But, did I hear that you gave this to 10 vendors to begin with?
I mean, this does not just go out on the web, this went out to
10 specific vendors?
Mr. Wilson. No.
Mr. Filner. What did you say?
Mr. Wilson. That is not correct.
Mr. Filner. What did you say?
Mr. Wilson. The original Request for Proposals was put out
under a contracting vehicle referred to as a Training and
Management Assistance vehicle. I believe there are 32 industry
vendors that are already approved under that vehicle, and it
was offered to those 32 vendors. And based on the discussions
and the involvement of our Office of Information and
Technology, OI and T staff, our technology staff, that that
represented the vast majority of the universe that would be
capable of delivering this system.
Mr. Filner. So we do not know if the answer is out there on
number 33, or number 80, or some little company in San Diego,
California--in my district--that may have an answer, but they
would not even get this--right?
Mr. Pedigo. You know, utilizing the approach that----
Mr. Filner. If Halliburton gets this, you guys are in
trouble. Do we know if Halliburton was on that list?
Mr. Pedigo. I am not aware that they are, or that they are
not.
Mr. Filner. Who put together--this is your proposal, 165
pages as I count. Who put this together?
Mr. Pedigo. VA staff.
Mr. Filner. Did you go out to a contractor to put out this
RFP? I mean, you guys have the expertise to put out this
incredibly detailed proposal, and you do not have the expertise
to do the job?
Mr. Pedigo. We have utilized expertise from various
elements of VA, from our contracting experts to our general
counsel----
Mr. Filner. Which is what you could do for the----
Mr. Pedigo [continuing]. The staff that is in the education
program, and we had some----
Mr. Filner. So you spend the whole last month putting this
thing together? Instead of figuring out how you would do the
job?
By the way, I saw the timelines. What happens if we wait
until March 1, 2009, to determine if the contractor meets the
objectives, and what if it doesn't?
Have you ever heard of the Deep Water Program for the Air
Force? We did this same thing. We gave out billions of dollars
worth of RFP, and they were supposed to supply cutters and
helicopters for the Air Force. And the whole thing failed. The
cutters that they delivered fell apart because they were not
strong enough.
So there is a chance, a slight chance, that this might not
work. What are you going to do then?
Mr. Pedigo. We are planning for the possibility that it
could fail. Which means that we are putting together a
contingency plan.
Mr. Filner. That means we are going to do it ourselves.
Mr. Pedigo. That means that we are going to do what a good
business operation would do, and that is not put all your eggs
in one basket----
Mr. Filner. I think a good contingency plan should be----
Mr. Pedigo [continuing]. And to develop a contingency plan
that we could implement just----
Mr. Filner. Maybe the contingency plan should be the plan.
I mean, why--if you have a contingency plan for non-use of
contractors, why do we not just use that?
Mr. Pedigo. It will be available for use if we believe
that----
Mr. Filner. Can you give us the contingency plan, please?
Mr. Pedigo. Well, we have not fully developed a contingency
plan. It is under development as we speak.
Mr. Filner. This is going to be a disaster, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Snyder, did you have questions for
the panel?
Mr. Snyder. Thank you.
Mr. Pedigo, you started out the way I--I wanted to ask--a
veteran would go online, enter some fairly basic information.
Is it your expectation that they could enter that information
without knowing what school they may be interested in? Are they
going to be able to--``I just want to check my eligibility for
benefits, enter that information,'' and get that response back
right away?
Mr. Pedigo. They would be able to submit the information
without the school. What we could do at that point is determine
that they would be eligible.
Mr. Snyder. Eligible. And then another part of it is, yeah,
I could say, ``Okay, I have been accepted at the University of
Arkansas, is the University of Arkansas in the system?'' And
then you could--the system could check that and say, ``Yes, the
University of Arkansas, this program is eligible?'' And then I
suppose a third part of that would be, ``I have been
accepted,'' and you hope to have it set up so that the program
would directly interface with the University of Arkansas; is
that correct? So that they could corroborate that ``yes, you
are accepted,'' and set up a payment plan directly to the
university? Is that----
Mr. Wilson. Correct. The final piece, the school would
simply report to us the enrollment information for the veteran.
Mr. Snyder. Now, from the standpoint of the veteran, if I
understand what you all are saying, I am going to go on this
Web site. I assume it will say--may not even have the
contractor's name, just say the veteran's, your eligibility for
the GI Bill. You have talked about a secure location. Geography
of that will be determined by the contractor; is that correct?
You are not requiring them to be under a Federal building
somewhere?
Mr. Wilson. We are requiring them to be in the 50 States,
or the District of Columbia.
Mr. Snyder. And so, as long as everything goes smoothly,
everything is fine. If it comes back indeterminate or something
like that, so what happens then? What will the veteran be told?
Will the veteran be told, ``Go to a different Web site,'' or
will it just say, ``This is taking longer, your claim number
such-and-such is going to be processed by a Veterans employee
at this''--are they going to be given some information of who
to follow up with?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. If the case would be rejected, for lack of
a better term at this point, then we anticipate a notice being
provided to the veteran. And then at that point, that claim is
going to go to a VA employee. And they would be contacting----
Mr. Snyder. And they would--their follow-up at that point
would no longer be through this Web site or this program.
Mr. Wilson. Correct.
Mr. Snyder. They would know who they were supposed to
follow up with? Either a name or a phone number or something?
Mr. Wilson. Correct. we would develop in the same manner in
which we do now. If we need to write a veteran for a specific
piece of information, we would do so.
Mr. Snyder. Is it your anticipation that this will be the
only way for a veteran to access GI Bill benefits, is online?
Mr. Wilson. No.
Mr. Snyder. Okay. What specific challenges do you see out
there with regard to Reserve component members?
Mr. Wilson. I would not anticipate any specific challenges
for them, in terms of ease of applying for the benefit. The
will be entitled now to the same benefit as the active-duty
members.
Mr. Snyder. The challenge is, right, your end of the
contract?
Mr. Wilson. The challenge from our end is ensuring that we
have the most accurate, current data for the Guard and Reserve
member. There are some specific exclusions for active service
in this Bill that we have not had to account for before. We are
working with DoD to receive that information. Additionally,
since the Guard and Reserve members will be accruing perhaps
more active service than they had when they initially applied
for benefits, we will be required to constantly be receiving
updated active-duty information from DoD, because the Guard and
Reserve members especially could be in a situation where--for
instance, when they first applied for benefits, they qualify at
the 40 percent tier, because they have between 3 months of
active duty and 6 months of active duty. If he or she goes on
active service again, they will qualify at a higher tier. So
the next time they go to school they will get more----
Mr. Snyder. You had mentioned earlier about--I forget who
asked the question about access to DD-214 information. You said
about 2 weeks, or real-time. For a Reserve component member,
are you going to have the ability to actually access military
records? There is not going to be a transfer of data; correct?
Their record will be an ongoing record.
Mr. Wilson. We are working actively with DMDC on that issue
right now. Our anticipation is that we will in fact have that
data as part of our feed.
Mr. Snyder. My last question is--I was very supportive, as
is I think everyone on this Committee, of the legislation. But
we were aware it was put together pretty quickly. Sometimes in
the spirit of getting something passed, it can move faster than
you want it to, and I think there was great recognition there
was an opportunity to pass this bill. Have you seen anything in
the legislation, have you gone through it, that you wish
Congress had done a bit differently, that might make your job a
little easier? Or you see some glitches there? Or have you been
in communication at all with the Committee about things that
you see? I mean, things can certainly be fine-tuned.
I will put that another way, which is--if you cannot answer
that, if you see those things I hope you will let us know,
because we do not want to change things while you are in the
midst of a contract proposal. On the other hand, sometimes
improvements need to be made and hearing them from you might be
helpful.
Mr. Wilson. There are some technical issues that we think
would clarify a lot of the points and make it easier to
administer. We have been working with the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee staff along those lines, and I believe there
is a technical amendment in the Senate right now. I do not
believe that there is a companion legislation in the House.
Mr. Snyder. Maybe you could be in touch with our staff here
also.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Dr. Snyder.
Mr. Boozman, did you have additional questions you would
like to pose at this time?
Mr. Boozman. No, I would just like to make a comment. The
$100 million has come up, and the reality is that that was in
the bill. It is not a VA request or VA's doing. It was put in
the Bill because as we went along, there was concern about the
complexity of this thing, and I voted for the bill so I voted
for the $100 million, as all of us did, okay? So again, that
does not have anything to do with you all. So I do not think
you should have to defend that.
The other thing is that what I would like to do is see this
thing move forward, and then look again as you formulate your
plans. I do not think it is fair--and have not really decided
where this thing ought to go, because I have not seen exactly
what you are going to do. But I do not think it is fair to
arbitrarily say that it is bad to not contract out. The
Committee, my office, we do not do in-house, we do not take
care of our computers. We have chosen to contract that out
because we think that that is the best way to take the
taxpayers' money and utilize it most efficiently. In the sense
we could hire a part-time veteran or a part-time person or
whatever to do those functions, but we feel like that would be
much more expensive than doing the route.
So again, what I would like to do is go forward and kind of
see where it goes. But I do think that the hearing today has
been good. You have heard a lot of concern. You heard concern
from the American Legion this morning about the direction that
we were going. I really would like for you also--we are far
enough along in the IT stage that there are other agencies I
think that are doing similar functions. And I really would
encourage your people to be visiting with them, to see how they
have tackled some very complex similar things, to see if you
could put some of their thoughts to work.
And you know, again, I know you want to do it. I know that
you all are working hard. I know you want to come up with a
system that we can all be very proud of, and very efficient,
that will service our veterans in the very best way that we
can, and again, use our taxpayers' money wisely.
Mr. Filner. Will the gentleman yield for 1 minute?
Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Filner. You state a very important point, that
contracting out is not a priori wrong. But we have to come to a
judgment based on the information of the people doing the job.
And in the way VA answered the questions today, or did not
answer the questions, I do not have the confidence that it is
being done right.
You say, ``Well, I hope that it goes on and I hope that it
comes out right.'' You have to make a judgment from the
information that you have. Just from the fact that this is a
very complicated, as you stated, piece of the plan the original
testimony only lasted 3 minutes to tell us what VA is doing.
And then when you all complained, they put together the
PowerPoint presentation. Does that give you confidence that
this is being handled correctly? That does not give me
confidence. That is all I have to say.
I yield back.
Mr. Boozman. We are complaining today, again. Like I said,
what I would like to do is just see the process. I would like
to see the process go forward, and see what is to come. I mean,
this is just the very, very start of the process.
Mr. Filner [continuing]. Tens or $100 million----
Mr. Boozman. Well, again, though----
Mr. Filner. I hope they will tell--can we make that, Madam
Chair, a requirement that before they award any bid, we see
what the bid is?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We are going to have another hearing
in a couple of weeks. It looks like it will be held about the
time that you are looking to formally award the contract. So I
think that it would be, understanding that there are certain
things that you probably can and cannot share with the
Committee in the contracting process, as soon as we get that
hearing scheduled, we would appreciate working with you on your
timeline during that same week or the following week, in making
a decision on a final award, so that we can continue to get
more information from you.
Let me just state for the record that I have had concerns
for a number of months now that this was going to be difficult
to administer, and have repeatedly stated that the job of this
Subcommittee, regardless of what the new GI Bill is going to
be, was going to be an important one to make sure that it was
implemented properly, effectively, and in a timely fashion.
I appreciate, Mr. Pedigo, that you may have a chance to get
the best system in place. I am worried about the timetable. You
essentially wanted this same system by 2013, and you want to
get a system in place that will work by 2009, by the middle of
2009. So, we are going to stay on top of this and keep asking
questions. If we had not had this hearing today, if we had not
been asking questions before this hearing, we were getting some
information but not nearly the kind of information that I think
the entire Congress needs, to make sure that a very important
piece of legislation that we just passed and signed into law
actually works for veterans the way we want it to.
My question is, have you briefed anyone in the Senate,
either formally, in a hearing before the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee, or any Member of the Senate, on your
contracting plans? Or staff?
Mr. Pedigo. Well, there may have been some informal
discussions with an isolated staff member. I have not been
privy to that. But I can tell you there have been no formal
briefings, and no formal discussions with Members on the Senate
side.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right. As I said to the American
Legion earlier today, I want to reserve judgment on what you
are doing here until we get more information, as we did today
and will be over the next couple of weeks. inI share Chairman
Filner's concern, as it relates to what seems like a pretty
quick decision to move to contracting, and yet contingency
plans are yet under development. I think that it is important
for the Subcommittee to understand what the discussions were at
the VA after this law was implemented.
Did you do any kind of cost-benefit analysis as to what
this would take to administer on an accelerated timetable, with
a rules-based engine, getting an IT solution, versus hiring
perhaps more employees to help administer the benefit, taking
advantage of your in-house expertise? Looking at hiring
opportunities of newly returned veterans that might have an
interest in working in the VA in the Veterans Benefits
Administration to help fellow veterans access their education
benefits, and to work on a timetable of moving to your IT
solution over a period of two, three, 4 years versus less than
a year? What were the discussions in your office about those
two options, and any kind of analysis that was done to look at
the possibility of moving to this by August of next year?
Mr. Pedigo. You know, informally, with staff in VA, there
was a lot of discussion, and you know, with the leadership,
with my boss, the Under Secretary, the Acting Under Secretary,
there was some discussion. And the Under Secretary and
Secretary in the senior leadership of the VA, you know,
considered, you know, the various options, and made the
decision that the best approach would be to contract for a
secure IT rules-based solution.
And if I could, I just want to go back to a point I made
earlier. You know, contracting for an IT solution is something
that is done in Government all the time. That has become the
norm for how we build information technology systems. So what
we are doing is really consistent with what other agencies and
other elements of the VA would do, if they had to build a
complex system like we are building.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Pedigo, I do not disagree. I think
I heard your statement earlier in the week about what veterans
might consider. Would they prefer a system that could process
their claim in seconds or minutes, or 10 days to 2 weeks?
Certainly with this new generation of veterans who are so IT-
savvy themselves, they would prefer something that they could
enter in and that they would know.
I do not disagree with that. Here is my concern. You are
trying to accelerate your own internal timetable of doing this
by 2013, to doing it by 2009. As you have described to the
Subcommittee today, it will be based on having to get
information from the Department of Defense for information that
is fed into the system. I have been in Congress for just over 4
years, and every time it seems when we have a problem of
adequate and timely response to healthcare benefits, for people
who are not yet medically discharged, or medically retired from
service, the DD-214s that we have been hearing about in our
field hearings, the memorandum of understanding that took years
to get done with the DoD, and sharing healthcare information.
That is why I am going to invite the Department of Defense.
They have ignored the last two field hearings we have had, to
participate in our follow-up Subcommittee hearing in a couple
of weeks, to see just how well they are working with you,
cooperatively, to make sure that the information that they have
for active duty and Reservists, as Dr. Snyder was pursuing,
that the information is actually available to get into this
feed, and get into this system, and workable by August of 2009.
I think you can appreciate the skepticism that some of us
have. Philosophically, I do not necessarily disagree about the
importance of contracting for specific functions to help design
software, to design a system, especially in IT. My concern is
that you seem to have rushed to this judgment, and we have no
contingency plan. I would respectfully request and ask for a
time that you can give me, either Mr. Pedigo or Mr. Wilson, in
which you can provide the Subcommittee the contingency plan. If
your timetable here for seeing if the IT solution is working,
we need to know what the contingency plan is, obviously before
March 1 of next year. Preferably, I would like to see a
contingency plan developed by the end of this month. Is that
possible?
Mr. Pedigo. We believe that in order to really develop a
full-blown contingency plan, that we need to see first what the
solution is that the winning contractor is going to propose. So
I would----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But will you not have that by the end
of this month?
Mr. Pedigo. We should have that. We plan to award at the
end of the month. And so at that point, we will know what the
solution is, and we will need to put the finishing touches on
the contingency plan that the Education Service has already
begun developing.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Wilson, you have already begun
developing the contingency plan. When do you think you could
provide the Subcommittee a contingency plan?
Mr. Wilson. I would hope that within 30 to 45 days after
award, we would have had enough specificity from the
contractor, enough technical interaction, that we would have
identified the major risks, and identified contingencies for
those risks that point.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But when I say ``contingency plan,''
and you are kind of tying it to what the contractors' bids are
going to look like and who you award it to; is the contingency
plan going to be if they fail to meet certain targets? Or is
the contingency plan going to be an entirely separate way of
administering the benefits, should the rules-based engine not
be fully developed?
Mr. Wilson. I understand. The contingency plan could be
exactly what you described, a separate independent method if
all fails, worst-case scenario type situation, yes. And we are
working on that fail-safe, for lack of a better term I guess.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So you do not necessarily need to wait
for the bid to be awarded before you can develop a plan?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct, yes. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. So that is something you could
get to the Subcommittee maybe before 30 to 45 days after the
proposal is awarded?
Mr. Wilson. Correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Wilson. If I may, Madam Chairwoman, just to add a
little bit on to that. You know, once we see the proposed IT
solution, I mean, our contingency plan could involve kind of a
multifaceted plan, where we would say, you know, if there are
five pieces to be--IT solutions being proposed, if piece ``A''
does not work by 6 months into the contract, but the other
pieces are working, then we would need to go one way in terms
of contingency plan. If piece one and three are not working,
our contingency plan might be different because it is entirely
possible that some portions of what the contractor would build
for us will work perfectly well, and we could go ahead and
utilize them but have to go to a contingency plan to support
those functions that have not worked.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I think I understand what you are
saying. I know that Mr. Filner has. For example, if you have
the contractor develop the rules-based engine and the trouble
seems to be with processing reservist claims, maybe because you
are not getting adequate information from the DoD. Just an
example, to transferability issues--again, working with the
DoD--you would have a contingency plan where VA employees--the
only way to process those claims, then, would be through the
system that exists now, or what you would set up in a
contingency to hire an additional individuals to handle those
claims?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Filner?
Mr. Filner. Yes, just briefly. I hope you and Mr. Boozman,
Madam Chair, will join me in a letter to the Secretary that
asks the following: number one, he show us--there are four
finalists, I understand? I do not know how we got there, but
you have four finalists? Is that what I heard?
Mr. Pedigo. We have been advised by counsel that we should
not discuss----
Mr. Filner. All right, I want the letter to say that we
want to see the original list of 32 or 33 bidders and the list
of the bids of the finalists. I want to know who you have
awarded the bid to before it is officially awarded and if that
takes us meeting in Executive session to get that because you
have been advised not to, you can give it to us in Executive
session. I want to see all this stuff. Based on this
performance here, I do not have confidence. So I want to see,
again, the original list of 32. I want to see the finalists, if
there are four, or eight, or 10. I want to see all the bids of
those four or eight or 10, and I want to know who you are going
to award the bid to before you award the bid.
I hope you will join me in a letter to request this
information. If we have to do that in Executive session, we
should do it. We need more information, Madam Chair. We could
pass a Sense of the House resolution and go forward. We could
do that. I am prepared to do something like that. But we do not
have the confidence that is needed here. VA is claiming, ``we
can't give you this stuff.'' Well, I do not trust them. And so
if we have to do it in a secret session, we will do it in a
secret session. But I hope you will join me in that.
You have any problem with that information coming to us?
Mr. Pedigo. I am sure that when that letter gets to the
Secretary, he will consider----
Mr. Filner. Do you have any problem with that, giving us
that information in Executive session?
Mr. Pedigo. I will defer to the Secretary to respond to
your letter that you plan to send.
Mr. Filner. Tell him what is coming.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. The only comment that I would have, Madam
Chair, is that we might consider maybe having--I share the
Chairwoman's concern with sometimes the lack of cooperation
with DoD. But we might consider having perhaps a joint hearing
with Personnel, and then ask them to have DoD and us ask, and
have you guys, and really kind of hash out some of these
potential problems. I think if working with the Personnel--it
would be Personnel, would it not? Is that Ms. Davis? Yes. You
know, working with them, and them sharing concern along with
us, that that might be helpful in everybody working together.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that, Mr. Boozman. I
think regardless of how things unfold from here, whether it is
the perfect system that is developed in the IT solution,
whether it is the contingency plan, or whether it is an
entirely separate manner of implementing the bill, the
legislation, the DoD sharing of information is going to be
essential to any effective way for the VA to administer this
new and complicated benefit. I appreciate the suggestion, and
will look forward to having a joint hearing in that capacity.
If I have additional questions I will submit them in
writing. However, since we do plan to have a follow-up hearing
in just a couple of weeks, we will have another opportunity to
visit with you again. The Committee Counsel, working with your
counsel, will hammer out what can be shared and in what
setting, as it relates to the contracting process that you are
seeking to complete within the next two to 3 weeks. We will
work with you in good faith to meet the needs of the Committee,
as well as respect the needs of the process that you have under
way.
We hope that you will understand why we want to get more
information, to make sure that for our constituents that are
entitled to this benefit, that by August of next year there are
not problems in administering it. We appreciate the testimony
and the information, but we also look forward to additional
information that you will be presenting to us as soon as
possible, and we will work closely with you to get it. Okay?
Thank you, again, for answering our questions today. As
Chairman Filner indicated, we do hope that Secretary Peake is
willing to join us maybe at the next hearing, where certainly
we will be asking questions as it relates to wanting to make
sure he is fully informed of our concerns. We look forward to
following up on the implementation status of the new public
law.
With that, the hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
I would like to take a moment to remember the lives lost on the
morning of the September 11, 2001. As our country continues to heal
from this tragic event of 9/11, we must never forget that today we have
thousands of troops serving honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of
which have served in multiple deployments overseas. I would like to
express my sincere thanks and appreciation of our men and women in
uniform who have answered the call to duty, and reinforce my commitment
to serve them honorably as they continue to serve us all.
Keeping this in mind, we must never forget that today's
servicemembers are tomorrow's veterans who will require the resources
to succeed in life after military service. To this end, this
Subcommittee has held numerous hearings, here in Washington, DC and our
Congressional districts, on programs critical to their continued
success. One such program in which we were able to make significant
progress is the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
Public Law 110-252 will provide our veterans the educational
entitlements needed to attend a college or university of their choice.
Certainly, this landmark legislation makes significant improvements but
we must remain vigilant to ensure Congressional intent is fully
implemented and the Department of Veterans Affairs is afforded the
resources to meet the needs mandated by Congress.
Today's hearing will give the Subcommittee the opportunity to
better understand the VA's implementation plan as required by Public
Law 110-252. As many of you may be aware, there have been numerous
concerns over the VA's plan to contract out services, contracting
transparency, and time constraints to implement the requirements of the
newly enacted law.
Last month we sent a letter inviting Secretary Peake to participate
in today's hearing. This letter specifically states that the purpose of
today's hearing was to have VA present its plan on implementing Chapter
33 with as much detail as possible. I am deeply disappointed by the
testimony that was submitted and hope we can be properly informed about
VA's plan to meet Public Law 110-252.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and Members
of this Subcommittee to provide oversight on the implementation of the
new Montgomery G.I. Bill requirements.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon. First, let me concur with the Chair's
dissatisfaction with VA's prepared testimony. I believe the invitation
letter was sufficiently detailed regarding our expectations for today's
hearing. While I recognize VA may be constrained regarding competition
sensitive information, describing the Department's desires expressed in
the Statement of Objectives provided to industry is well within their
authority. I expect the Department to provide the Subcommittee with a
very detailed briefing on those objectives and the winning bidder's
plan to meet them very shortly after contract award.
It is both ironic and fitting that we are holding a hearing on the
Post 9/11 GI Bill exactly 7 years after that cowardly attack on
America, an event that contributed to today's global conflict.
The war on terror has highlighted the need to create a new GI Bill
that reflects the increased obligations of today's service members and
their families.
In addition to caring for our dead and wounded, there is no more
important benefit to offer a path to personal growth through a generous
education benefit.
As you may remember, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
under Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin's leadership, reported a GI Bill that
I believe was superior in nearly every way to what eventually became
law. Our bill, H.R. 5684, was simpler to administrate, was more
flexible and offered $19,000 per year for full time enrollment. Our
bill was eventually passed by the Full Committee but failed to make it
to the floor. So we are here today to hear VA describe how they intend
to implement the very complex program in chapter 33.
Frankly, I am very concerned that despite VA's best efforts, they
will not meet the August 1, 2009 deadline. We are aware that VA intends
to contract out a significant portion of the effort to bring the
program online, but they now have less than 11 months to get the work
done. I hope we have not given them an insurmountable task.
I am also aware there is some opposition to VA's intent to contract
out development of the new IT system and possibly some personnel
issues. I would remind those who oppose using modern information
technology to manage the system that it is the mot promising way to
shorten the processing time. While a small number of cases may require
manual intervention because of their complexity, the vast majority
should lend themselves to automated processing. I am confident that if
we asked veterans whether they would prefer the current method that now
takes about 20 days or an automated process that could provide an
answer in minutes, they will choose the latter. I believe there is an
example of this at the Department of Education and I will ask VA
whether they have looked at that model.
As to whether the IT should be developed in-house or via a
contract, those who point to the failure of COREFLS should also
remember that VETSNET is primarily an in-house project that has been in
development since the late eighties and has experienced numerous
failures and has cost the Government over $600 million. From reading
VA's testimony, there is ample opportunity for VA employees to remain
employed in the education service or elsewhere within VBA. My point is
that we have given VA a complex new program to manage and until their
selected approach to implementing that program fails, we should not
interfere. This should be about meeting the needs of veterans seeking
an education, and no other agenda.
Madam Chair, this Subcommittee worked hard for 4 years in a
bipartisan way to do the right thing by those who have born the battle.
If VA believes they need any additional legislation, I hope they will
provide that to us in time for us to act. I look forward to hearing
from the Department today and I hope their testimony will not only
describe the major features of the proposed contract, but also provide
a frank and candid assessment of the challenges they face.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary
for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman,
and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
strategy for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33 of
title 38, United States Code). Accompanying me today is Mr. Keith
Wilson, Director, Education Service. My testimony will highlight the
staffing and information technology solutions being pursued by VA. I
will also discuss outreach efforts related to this new education
benefit.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill program will provide veterans,
servicemembers, and members of the National Guard and Selected Reserve
with educational assistance, generally in the form of tuition and fees,
a monthly housing allowance, and a books and supplies stipend, to
assist them in reaching their educational or vocational goals. The
Post-9/11 GI Bill program will also assist in the readjustment to
civilian life, support the armed services recruitment and retention
efforts, and enhance the Nation's competitiveness through the
development of a more highly educated and productive workforce.
Chapter 33 Implementation Strategy
Our strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill relies on
contractor support to buildupon and accelerate what we had developed as
our longer term strategy to employ rules-based, industry standard,
technologies in the delivery of education benefits. Many of our
education programs contain eligibility rules and benefit determinations
that would work well with rules-based technology that requires minimal
human intervention. The goal of minimizing human intervention through
the electronic processing of applications and enrollment information
was outlined in the President's FY 2009 Budget Submission. It is
important to understand that the contractor will not have full
responsibility over the administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Instead, the contractor will be responsible for development of the
information technology (IT) solution, and general administrative or
data entry functions. Claims that are rejected by the automated process
and require a manual eligibility determination will remain the
responsibility of trained VA personnel. The contractor's mission is to
support VA in its implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill by developing
a secure solution so that VA can meet the statutory requirements of the
new educational assistance program.
We plan to award a contract for this support in the very near
future. The contractor will be accountable for providing timely and
accurate education claims processing by completing original claims
within 10 days, supplemental claims within 7 days, and achieving a 98
percent accuracy rate. The technological solution and services provided
will be under the close direction and oversight of Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) employees. VA's solicitation for a contractor has
established June 1, 2009, as the deadline for the contractor to
demonstrate functionality of the IT solution.
Additionally, since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
Education Service has been working with system developers from the VA
Office of Information and Technology, as well as our Office of Business
Process Integration, to enhance key existing VA IT systems. For
example, VA-ONCE, an application that allows school certifying
officials to transmit enrollment data electronically to VA, is being
modified to accommodate the reporting requirements of the new program.
Further, Education Service is working closely with elements within the
Department of Defense, including the Defense Manpower Data Center, to
establish data requirements and procedures for implementation of the
transferability provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program.
Our goal is to transition servicemembers and veterans into the new
Post-9/11 GI Bill with no disruption in the payment of education
benefits in accordance with the August 1, 2009, effective date for the
new program.
Based on the implementation strategies being pursued, VA does not
anticipate the loss of Federal employment for any present employees
associated with VA's Education programs. Since the Post-9/11 GI Bill
will result in tuition and fee payments being made directly to
educational institutions, some current claims processing resources will
be shifted to increased compliance and oversight responsibilities.
VA employees will continue to staff and operate our Nationwide
customer call center in Muskogee. VA employees will also continue to
respond to all online inquiries received through the VA Web site,
including Post-9/11 GI Bill inquiries.
Regulations
The provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill require VA to develop rules
and regulations to administer the new program. Education Service is
actively engaged in the process of developing the required regulations,
and we anticipate publishing the program's final regulations in the
Federal Register by May 2009.
Outreach
The VA's GI Bill Web site was updated to include information
regarding the Post-9/11 GI Bill within hours of the law's enactment. To
date, over 3,500 individuals have signed up to receive automatically
generated e-mails from VA whenever information about the Post-9/11 GI
Bill is updated on the Web site, and over a quarter million have viewed
the Post-9/11 GI Bill ``frequently asked questions.'' In addition to
web-based outreach, Education Service is preparing posters, pamphlets
and direct mailings to veterans, servicemembers, and college and
university Executives. In late 2008, VA will launch a multimedia
advertising campaign in an effort to reach individuals who may have
dropped from our direct mailing rolls. These are individuals who have
left the military and have not used VA benefits or have relocated since
last using VA benefits.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or any of the other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[TEXT VERSION OF VA SLIDE PRESENTATION]
Chapter 33 Implementation Overview
Presented to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity
Introduction
The strategy to implement chapter 33 builds upon and
accelerates the pre-existing strategy to employ rules based technology
for eligibility determinations and claims processing.
Vendor support will be utilized to ensure that the
legislatively mandated August 1, 2009 deadline is met.
Precise strategy dependent on winning vendor's
solution.
VA employees will continue to process other education
benefits and will have a role in chapter 33 processing.
No VA staff will lose Federal employment as a result of
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
VBA has a longstanding history of managing change
without negatively impacting employees.
VA anticipates shifting some resources from claims
processing to increased oversight functions.
Claims decisions will continue to be made by VA staff.
Rules engine criteria defined and controlled by VA
will automatically adjudicate the majority of claims received.
``Rejected'' claims adjudicated individually by VA.
Acquisition Timeline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/29/08 VA released request for
proposal to vendors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/15/08 Deadline for vendor
responses to VA's request
for proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/16/08 VA proposal evaluation team
begins initial review of
vendor written proposals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/22-9/23/08 Vendors present oral
presentations to VA
proposal evaluation team.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/26/08 (tent) Chapter 33 contract formally
awarded to selected vendor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 10 days of contract award Vendor submits Draft Project
Management Plan to VA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/31/2008 Vendor submits Business
Requirements and Process
Flows to VA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/1/2009 Vendor demonstrates solution
capabilities to VA. User
testing begins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/1/2009 Solution must be available
to begin making eligibility
and entitlement decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/1/2009 Solution must be available
to make full benefits
awards, payments,
accounting, and all other
required functionalities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No later than 8/1/2009 Solution must be certified
and fully operational.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vendor Performance Metrics
Process original claims in 10 days or less.
Process supplemental claims in 7 days or less.
Achieve at least 98 percent accuracy.
RFP Objectives
1. Solution shall meet all requirements in all objectives and
address interrelations.
2. Consult with VA subject-matter experts to develop business
requirements and process flows.
3. Data transmissions between solution and VA must use XML
standards and be bi-directional.
4. NLT 3/1/2009 VA will determine if the solution meets Post-9/11
GI Bill requirements.
5. Meet requirements according to section E authorities including
adhering to finance standards and regs, adhering to moderate system
sensitivity categorization, ensure privacy is maintained, and meet all
testing capabilities.
6. Support both paper and electronic submission of claims and
check processing, and provide online access to VA and stakeholders.
7. Demonstrate capability to manage and control change. Ensure
services delivered employ technology that is effective and scalable.
8. Establish and maintain a support capability that adheres to
industry best practices.
9. Adhere to the following performance requirements: 10 days or
less to complete original claims, 7 days or less to complete
supplemental claims, 98 percent administrative and payment accuracy
rate.
RFP Mandatory Tasks
1. Detailed Project Management Plan.
2. Develop business requirements and detailed process flows.
3. Provide a secure solution in accordance with the objectives.
4. Host the Post-9/11 GI Bill solution in a secure facility.
5. Demonstrate an acceptable process that clearly articulates
inputs and outputs of solution.
6. Work with Federal oversight entities and VA's OCIS staff to
remediate any security issues identified in reviews.
7. Propose enhancements that improve efficiency and effectives of
secure solution and meet evolving needs of VA.
8. Propose industry standard best practices for training and other
adoption requirements.
9. Upon termination of the contract, the vendor shall comply with
the Continuity of Services provisions in FAR 52.237-3.
VA Responsibilities
Control authorization of benefits and payments through
established rules for the system and human intervention when automatic
processing is not possible
Provide oversight of the work being accomplished through
the vendor's secure solution
Ensure that performance metrics are being met
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
December 8, 2008
Hon. James B. Peake, M.D.
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Peake:
I am sending you a deliverable in reference to our House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
``Oversight of GI Bill Implementation'' on September 11, 2008. Please
answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later then Tuesday, January
13, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres at by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
VA Response to Chairwoman Sandlin's Letter
December 8, 2008
VA's original IT plan (prior to enactment of P.L. 110-252) included
the development of a rules-based engine to be fully deployed by 2013.
In our hearing, Mr. Keith Wilson mentioned that the VA's IT staff did
not have the capabilities to standing up a rules-based system. What do
you need internally to do so?
__________
Congressional Inquiry
Date: January 5, 2009
Source: Cliff Britton, Office of Information and Technology (OIT)
Inquiry from: Representative Stephanie Sandlin, Chairwoman, House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity
Context of inquiry:
Chairwoman Sandlin sent a letter to Secretary Peake on December 8,
2008, requesting VA respond to a question related to a hearing her
Subcommittee held on September 11, 2008, related to ``Oversight of G.I.
Bill Implementation.''
The Subcommittee understood Mr. Wilson's testimony to be that the
Department of Veterans Affairs does not have the capability to stand up
a rules-based system and wants to know what VA needs internally to have
that capability. The testimony was misunderstood. VA has the capability
through its relationship with SPAWAR.
VA Response (OIT)
Mr. Keith Wilson's testimony meant to convey that the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) did not have the resources to support developing
and deploying a rules-based system in time to meet the legislative
requirement to pay Chapter 33 benefits by August 1, 2009. VA is working
with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), in
Charleston, South Carolina, to design, develop and deploy a rules-based
solution as part of the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill long-term solution. The VA
plans to deploy this rules-based solution in November 2010.
VA Office of Enterprise Development Program Offices: Kai Miller