[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
18F AND U.S. DIGITAL SERVICE OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 10, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-115
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-484 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK, MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Troy D. Stock, Information Technology Staff Director
Sean Brebbia, Senior Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
Subcommittee on Information Technology
WILL HURD, Texas, Chairman
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Ranking
MARK WALKER, North Carolina Member
ROD BLUM, Iowa GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
TED LIEU, California
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair Ranking Minority Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Columbia
KEN BUCK, Colorado WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 10, 2016.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Mikey Dickerson, Administrator, U.S. Digital Service
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
Ms. Phaedra S. Chrousos, Commissioner, Technology Transformation
Service, U.S. General Services Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Mr. David Powner, Director, IT Management Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. A.R. ``Trey'' Hodgkins, Senior Vice President, Public Sector,
Information Technology Alliance for Public Sector, Information
Technology Industry Council
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 60
Mr. David Leduc, Senior Director of Public Policy, Software and
Information Industry Association
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
APPENDIX
Ms. Chrousos-GSA Hearing Follow-up............................... 96
Mr. Dickerson-USDS Response to Questions for the Record.......... 98
Mr. Shive-GSA Response to Questions for the Record............... 102
18F AND U.S. DIGITAL SERVICE OVERSIGHT
----------
Friday, June 10, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Information Technology, joint with
the Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:32 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Will Hurd
[chairman of the Subcommittee on Information Technology]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Hurd, Meadows, Farenthold,
Walberg, Walker, Jordan, Blum, Buck, Carter, Grothman, Chaffetz
(ex officio), Kelly, Connolly, and Maloney.
Mr. Hurd. The Subcommittee on Information Technology and
the Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Good morning, y'all. The IT and Government Operations
subcommittees have constantly highlighted a need for IT reform
at large and the waste, fraud, and abuse that comes along with
it. For real reform to happen, the Federal Government needs
talented, experienced people to work on IT projects that are
bigger than themselves.
There is no question that there's a need to reform outdated
laws, and the current procurement structure prevents the
proverbial two guys or two gals in a garage from selling
technology to the Federal Government when often their product
may be cheaper and more innovative than another solution. It
should be much easier for startups and small companies to sell
to and work with the Federal Government.
We need fresh ideas and an outside-the-box thinking to
permeate all levels of government. 18F was launched just over 2
years ago with 15 staff members. Today, 18F has 185 staff
members and growing and has transformed into an entirely new
division within the GSA, complete with its own commissioner and
budget.
How did that happen? What was its original mission? What is
its current mission? Is it achieving its stated purpose to make
the government's digital services, simple, effective, and
easier for the American people? If not, what can we change to
ensure it does? Because that is the goal I think all of us are
here today to support.
Additionally, I have concerns about the funding mechanism
with which 18F is supported. As the GAO notes, 18F is to
recover costs to the Acquisition Services Fund and is required
to have a plan to achieve full costs recovery. Recent report
suggests that it may be doing just the opposite.
Today, I hope that we can gain a more transparent view of
18F's mission and its full scope of their activities. The
United States Digital Service was formed in the wake of a
failure of the launch of healthcare.gov to procure the outside
talent--tech talent that was needed to make the Web site
operational. The stated mission is to improve and simplify the
digital experience that people and businesses have with their
government.
I'm concerned with potential duplication and overlap. This
committee is well aware of the costs associated with the
duplicative and overlapping programs. And let me assure you, we
don't need two more.
This committee has held numerous hearings this Congress
with agency CIOs as witnesses primarily focused on the state of
IT and cybersecurity at agencies and the implementation of
FITARA, and we will continue to do so and hold agency CIOs
accountable. FITARA is important because it will give CIOs
greater budget authority and empower them to make bold
decisions. But with the power also comes accountability. We
will hold CIOs accountable for their decisions.
Under FITARA, nothing of any significance related to IT
should be happening at agencies without the involvement and
signoff of agency CIOs, period. I'm concerned by reports that
USDS teams may parachute into an agency, fix whatever they
perceive was the problem, and then leave without the full buy-
in and involvement of the agency CIO. That should never happen.
It is contrary to the entire purpose of FITARA.
I hope to hear today concrete steps USDS is taking to
ensure they involve agency CIOs from the beginning when working
on a project at an agency. As usual, Mr. Powner and GAO have
done great work in this area, and I would highly advise both
18F and USDS to implement GAO's recommendations.
As I've said before, taxpayers deserve a government that
leverages technology to serve them rather than one that deploys
unsecured, decades-old technology that places their sensitive
and personal information at risk. They also deserve a Federal
Government that is transparent. We can harness power of the
cloud. We can upgrade our legacy systems. We can get smart
people to come work for the Federal Government. We can do all
this because, despite our problems, America is still a country
of innovators. If 18F and USDS can help us achieve an efficient
and transparent government worthy of its people and do so in a
way that is clear, cost-effective, measurable, and appropriate
for a government role, then I'm very open in supporting them.
However, these conversations will help give us a clearer view
and inform us on whether they need to be restructured,
reformed, or restricted.
And I thank the witnesses for being heard today and look
forward to their testimonies and hearing specific ways we can
bring cutting-edge technology and technology talent into the
Federal Government.
I now would like to recognize my friend, the gentlewoman
from the great State of Illinois and the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Information Technology, for her opening.
Ms. Kelly, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman Hurd, for holding this
important hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for taking
the time to be here this morning.
As we all know, the Federal Government relies on
information technology in countless ways. Most importantly,
Americans rely on IT to access services and connect with the
government, from signing up for health care to applying for
student loans to securing veterans' benefits. And when the
government's IT services aren't working, the government is
isn't working. We've learned this from our experience with
healthcare.gov and other recent IT challenges.
Although the Affordable Care Act is much more than a Web
site, we saw what happened when we try to implement good policy
without the underlying IT structure to support it. That's why
the administration created the U.S. Digital Service and 18F.
The stated goals of USDS and 18F are to improve and
modernize government IT operations and help the government
become better at procuring, developing, and sharing IT going
forward. These are worthy goals. And the USDS and 18F have made
great strides toward reaching them.
For example, USDS has helped the Department of Homeland
Security launch an online immigration review process. This is
the project that DHS has been working on for nearly a decade at
a cost of $1 billion. 18F is in the process of developing a new
IT acquisition process that will make it easier for Federal
agencies to contract with vendors that provide agile software
development services.
I look forward to hearing more about these and other
success stories today. One of the greatest achievements of the
Digital Service and 18F has been the ability to attract and
recruit incredible talent from the tech industry into the
Federal Government.
At almost every hearing we hold, I ask agency heads to list
some of their greatest challenges, and without fail, we hear
about the challenges of recruiting and retaining a talented IT
workforce. I have been impressed by 18F and USDS' ability to
open the door to public service in one of our fastest growing
industries. These employees are using the knowledge, skills,
and experience they've gained in the private sector to help
improve Federal IT.
In addition to recruiting the best and the brightest in
tech talent, we need to continue leveraging the resources and
expertise, that of our partners in the private sector. They are
eager to help bring Federal IT into the 21st century.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and how the
mission of these offices differs from what the private sector
offers through government contracts. What value added do these
programs bring? How are your roles changing? And what
limitations do you face? But in order for the Digital Service
and 18F to fully realize their potential, they need to be
transparent about the good work they are doing. They should
also continue to engage stakeholders and Congress so we can all
understand the important role they play in modernizing Federal
IT and help shape the role going forward.
Thank you, again, to our witnesses for being here and to my
colleagues for holding this important hearing.
I yield back.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you. And I'll hold the record open for 5
legislative days for any members who would like to submit a
written statement.
I will now recognize our panel of witnesses.
I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Mikey Dickerson, Administrator
of the U.S. Digital Service.
Thank you for being here, sir.
Ms. Phaedra Chrousos, a Commissioner of the Technology
Transformation Service at the Government Services
Administration.
Thanks for being here and thank you for the information you
and your staff have provided us in advance of this hearing.
Very important to understand what y'all are doing and help us
with our oversight role and make sure we can support y'all on
the activities. So that kind of back-and-forth is really
important.
Mr. A.R. ``Trey'' Hodgkins, senior vice president, Public
Sector, at the Information Technology Alliance for the Public
Sector.
Thank you for being here.
And Mr. David LeDuc, senior director of policy--public
policy at the Software and Information Industry Association.
Appreciate you being here.
And, last but not least and number one in our hearts, Mr.
David Powner, Director of IT Management Issues at the U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Always a pleasure to have you here today, sir.
Welcome to you all.
And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be
sworn in before they testify.
So please rise and raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. In order to allow time for discussion, I would
appreciate if y'all would limit your testimony to 5 minutes.
Your entire written statement will be made part of the record.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Dickerson for your
opening statement. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF MIKEY DICKERSON
Mr. Dickerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Kelly, Chairman Meadows,
Ranking Member Connolly, and all members of the subcommittees,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Millions of people interact with the United States
Government every day, relying on digital products such as Web
sites, online forms, and mobile apps to access and understand
government services. Americans are accustomed to the high
standards of service set by the private sector, but outdated
technology and complicated user interfaces can sometimes make
interactions with the government frustrating and inefficient.
Americans deserve simple, effective digital services. We
are in a new era of technology and innovation in the U.S.
Government, and we are using the latest technology to deliver
better services, engage Americans, and tackle tough challenges.
President Obama launched the United States Digital Service less
than 2 years ago as a means to improve our Nation's most
important public-facing digital services. The U.S. Digital
Service, or USDS, is a collaboration between our country's top
technical talent and product design and software engineering
and the government's brightest leaders and civil servants who
work in partnership to apply private sector best practices to
our digital services.
In 2014, the small team of technologist initially planned
to focus on three projects, but with additional funding and
support of Congress starting in fiscal year 2015, the size and
scope of the USDS has increased. Today, the USDS has small
teams working on high-priority projects with a number of
agencies across the government.
The work of USDS is centered on four main goals. First and
foremost is to transform critical services. The USDS is focused
on improving our Nation's most important public-facing
services. The team helps to manage technology projects working
alongside civil servants and IT contractors.
The second goal is to rethink how we build and buy digital
services. The USDS is working to modernize procurement
processes and practices for the digital era by developing
training programs and tools that enable Federal contracting
officers to apply industry best practices to digital
procurements. By increasing the technical knowledge and
expertise of contracting officers, the Federal Government can
partner more effectively with the IT private sector who will
continue to deliver the majority of the government's digital
services just as they do today.
Our third goal is to initiate the development of common
platforms and standards. The USDS is working to identify pilot
opportunities for common platforms that can improve services
needed by multiple agencies.
And our fourth goal is in support of the others, is to
bring to bring top technical talent into public service. In
support of these goals, the USDS plans to bring 200 digital
service experts into the Federal Government by the end of 2017.
The long-term goal is to build and sustain institutional
capacity within agencies while simultaneously encouraging a
tradition of public service in the tech professions.
In the short amount of time that USDS has been operating,
we have seen success in many projects, especially under the
following circumstances: when the USDS team is small and
focused on a high-priority project; when agency leadership is
engaged and supportive; when the USDS team is tightly
integrated with existing contractors and career staff; when the
project has a hard decline; and when the project has crossed
agency dependencies or many stakeholders across the government.
While the USDS is still a very new program, we've already
seen early results in improving services for the public. For
example, vets.gov is a single unified digital experience to
provide veterans access to the information they need about the
VA's benefits, such as educational assistance, health care, and
economic opportunities. We are also pleased with the college
scorecard, a tool that helps students and their families make
better decisions about where to go to college by publishing
comprehensive, reliable data on students' employment outcomes
and success in repaying their student loans.
By applying the best practices in technology and design to
the Federal Government, the USDS helps enable delivery of more
reliable and effective digital services to the American public.
Through the recruitment of top technology talent from one of
the most competitive industries in the world, the USDS is
inspiring a tradition of public service in the tech professions
which will help the Federal Government continue to deliver
crucial services.
I thank the committee for holding this hearing and for your
commitment to providing top notch digital services to the
American people. I am pleased to answer your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Dickerson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Dickerson.
Now, Ms. Phaedra Chrousos, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PHAEDRA S. CHROUSOS
Ms. Chrousos. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairmen Hurd and Meadows, Ranking Members
Kelly and Connolly, and members of the committee. Thank you for
inviting me to speak with you today. I left the private sector
2 years ago to join the Federal Government's efforts to improve
the public's experience with the government. Having founded and
successfully led to two Internet companies prior to joining
public service, I am particularly excited to speak with you
about 18F, an organization that is helping bring government
closer to the technology practices and methodologies of the
private sector.
As you know, GSA's mission includes providing the best
value and technology to the Federal Government and the American
people. The work of 18F is a vital part of that mission.
In March 2014, recognizing that too many of our
government's digital services are not designed to meet the
needs of the people who use them, are not delivered on time,
and are often over budget, GSA launched 18F, a 15-person
startup within its agencies. In the last 2 years, 18F has grown
to 185 people, attracting cutting-edge technologists from both
the industry and the public sector and has worked on more than
150 projects with 63 Federal entities. The organization has
also evolved its service offering to respond to the technology
needs of its agency customers. This 2-year-old startup is
making progress towards its mission of making the government's
digital services simple, effective, and easier to use for the
American people.
I would like to highlight just one example of 18F's work.
In June of 2014, 18F signed its very first interagency
agreement with the Federal Election Commission that asked for
help in making the 90 million records they housed more readily
accessible to the public. It was the first time FEC had worked
with an agile user-centered team like 18F, and our work has
transformed the way they approach technology today. In the
words of our partners at FEC: We got so much more than a Web
site. We had a complete culture change about how to do user-
centered design in agile. This product embodies the way 18F
works: a focus on data, a close partnership with stakeholders
and users, building in the open, and the opportunity for the
transformation of practices and processes within our customer
agencies.
Early on, during engagement such as this one with the FEC,
18F recognized that a team of in-house technologists and
governments simply cannot on its own rebuild the Federal
Government's vast information technology systems. We also
needed to partner with the private sector.
One of 18F's first joint efforts with GSA's Federal
Acquisition Service was the creation of the Agile Blanket
Purchase Agreement, a new contract vehicle designed to provide
18F and their agency customers access to the innovative
technical talent that exists in the private sector today. 18F's
partnership with the private sector is integral to the success
of its efforts and is crucial for scaling this organization's
impact across the Federal Government.
The promise of 18F's work aside, I recognize that this
young organization has room to improve its operations
significantly. 18F was launched as a startup in government 2
years ago, and the organization is learning while it scales and
matures. The insightful analysis and recommendations put
forward by the Government Accountability Office will contribute
to our learning and help 18F become a stronger organization. We
value transparency and welcome continued oversight of all of
our efforts from GAO, the GSA inspector general, and this
committee.
I would like to close by emphasizing that the scale and
scope of the technology challenges facing Federal agencies is
larger than 18F could ever address on its own. As the committee
noted in a recent hearing, the need for the Federal Government
to improve its technology is imperative to creating a
government that's transparent, effective, responsive, and
secure. Addressing the challenges we face in this area demands
continued leadership and close partnership with the Office of
Management and Budget, Federal agencies, and the private
sector, which will continue to play a critical role in
delivering technology solutions that agencies need.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and
I look forward to answering your questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Chrousos follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hurd. Thank you.
Mr. Powner, you are recognized now for 5 minutes for your
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DAVID POWNER
Mr. Powner. Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Kelly, and
members of the subcommittees, thank you for having us testify
on our ongoing work looking at GSA's 18F and OMB's U.S. Digital
Services. For each of these organizations, I will provide a
brief overview, positive developments, and areas that we
believe need improvements.
Starting with 18F, it was established in March 2014. Its
mission is to transform the way the Federal Government builds
and buys digital services. Agencies come to 18F for their
services and pay for these services since 18F is funded out of
revolving fund within GSA. Therefore, it operates on revenue
generated from its business instead of an appropriation. Their
plan is to start having full cost recovery in 2019. 18F has
over 170 staff and has worked with approximately 20 agencies on
more than 30 projects. These projects include building secure
Web sites, obtaining cloud services, and providing consulting
and training on agile practices.
18F has worked on some major IT projects like the U.S.
immigration transformation and the VA benefits delivery system.
They also have two initiatives where agencies will be able to
quickly access agile and cloud services. Our customer
satisfaction survey showed that most customers were pleased
with their services.
We think they could do a better job on defining outcome-
oriented goals and performance measures. During the course of
our review, they developed these goals and measures. Some of
these are good, like saving $250 million and having a 90-
percent customer satisfaction score, but others, like growing
their staff to over 200, are not outcome-oriented. We also
think there should be measures and targets for full cost
recovery. 18F acknowledges that these goals and metrics need
further development.
Now turning to USDS, it was established in August 2014. Its
mission is to transform the most important digital services for
citizens. USDS typically goes to agencies, and they do not
charge agencies for their services because they have an
appropriation. For fiscal year 2016, they plan to spend about
$14 million.
USDS has about 100 staff within OMB. It has worked with
approximately 11 agencies on about 15 projects. These projects
include information security assessments, system stabilization,
and software engineering.
USDS has worked on seven major IT projects, including U.S.
immigration transformation and SSA's disability case
processing. A much higher percentage of their work is
associated with large IT acquisitions when compared to 18F. Our
customer satisfaction survey showed that all customers that
responded were satisfied with their services.
Similar to 18F, USDS could do a better job defining
outcome-oriented goals and performance measures. During the
course of our review, these goals and measures were developed.
Some are good, like measurably improving five to eight of the
government's most important citizen-facing services, but
others, like increasing the quality and quantity of technical
vendors, are not outcome-oriented.
We also think USDS' continued focus on the highest priority
Federal IT projects that are to be identified quarterly to the
Appropriation Committees is important.
Finally, as USDS establishes agency digital service teams,
it is critical that these relationships with--is consistent
with CIOs and what is currently in FITARA and all the oversight
that your subcommittees have performed to strengthen CIO
authorities. We have concerns about some of these agency teams
doing an end-around the CIO organizations.
In conclusion, it is important that these two organizations
clearly demonstrate their value by improving performance
measures. 18F needs to continue to work toward full cost
recovery while USDS needs to ensure that agency digital service
teams do not undermine the CIO authorities that are being
bolstered with FITARA.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to your
questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Powner.
Mr. Hodgkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF A.R. ``TREY'' HODGKINS
Mr. Hodgkins. Good morning.
Chairmen Hurd and Meadows, Ranking Members Kelly and
Connolly, and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share our perspectives regarding the U.S.
Digital Service and the General Services Administration's 18F
and their efforts to improve government's approach to
information technology.
My name is Trey Hodgkins, and I am the senior vice
president for the Public Sector at the Information Technology
Industry Council where I manage our public-sector-facing
practice called the IT Alliance for Public Sector, known as
ITAPS.
The tech sector has for some time been leading the focus on
evolving the way the government acquires and manages
information technologies, moving them from practices,
processes, and protocols too often rendered in an era that
predates the Internet to the 21st century. Our members believe
such a transformation is necessary to fully apply today's
technologies to government missions.
Early in the current administration, industry helped
develop goals to kick-start such an evolution. USDS and 18F
embodies some of those pursuits, including bringing about
cultural and process change. These include using agile instead
of waterfall development methodologies, designing system space
on end user needs in the context of the agency mission, and
leveraging a multigenerational workforce. In many ways, 18F and
USDS are positioned to be key enablers in the efforts to
achieve a digital government.
ITAPS regularly advocates for institutional disruption in
the way the government buys and manages IT, and we embrace 18F
and USDS as disrupters in the Federal space. They also manifest
what the tech sector has been saying for some time: breaking
out of the old processes allows innovation to flourish.
Contractors do not have that same flexibility in today's market
with strict contract requirements, static funding cycles, and a
rigid compliance structure. If contractors were to suggest
innovative and perhaps time- and money-saving solutions, their
bids would be deemed nonresponsive because they did not follow
the requirements and essentially be disqualified. Both of these
programs have demonstrated how innovation can be injected into
government if you peel away the layers upon layers of rigid
process now in place. Imagine what could be accomplished if we
were to permit companies to think outside the box in the same
fashion.
We believe that these initiatives, like any new startup,
faces pitfalls and obstacles. In the remainder of my comments,
I will offer recommendations on areas to focus practices to
adjust and outcomes to illuminate in order to sustain them into
the next administration.
People do not always embrace change, and disruption can
also expose programs to risk. We believe the risk facing these
programs can be grouped into three categories, which are
people, management, and technology. And I provide greater
detail on these in my written testimony. These programs should
address these risks and mitigate for them.
Based on our discussions with vendors and government
personnel, there is a general lack of clarity and understanding
about these programs. What are they doing? What are they not?
And how can they be expected to operate? This opaqueness has
created a degree of uncertainty, concern, and suspicion.
To address and counter these perceptions and to ensure that
these programs can be sustained into the future, attention
should immediately be paid to creating a very transparent and
open operating environment. Furthermore, applying comprehensive
metrics will provide oversight to ensure the interests of the
taxpayers and to demonstrate that these programs are not
wasteful of time and resources.
The committee also included the formation of the Technology
Transformation Service, TTS, in today's discussion. As the
operational arm of a list of OMB initiatives and policies, GSA
needs to clearly explain how these new roles and
responsibilities relate to their mission and to the broader
industrial base and how and with whom they will engage.
GSA should also clearly explain how the entity is to be
funded, where their authorities and personnel come from, and
whether these activities must be authorized by statute. Leaving
these and other questions unaddressed will expose 18F and GSA
itself to challenges from uninformed stakeholder communities.
ITAPS believes that a number of adjustments should be made to
the programs to best position them for a clear trajectory into
the next administration. Each program should clarify their
mission. 18F in particular has expanded the reach and scope of
their activities and created a condition where 18F acts as both
the buyer and the seller. This is a conflict of interest, and
such authorities should not be added to their portfolio at this
time.
Both 18F and USDS should remain focused on the original
delivery models. Both programs in the TTS should immediately
embark on an effort to become transparent in their operations
and to ensure that stakeholders have clarity of purpose for the
programs and understand how they can engage. Further, we
believe that until the recommended transparency can take hold
and effective assessment and analysis can occur, GSA should
postpone formalizing TTS.
Finally, both programs must find ways to effectively and
robustly partner and not compete with new and existing
government vendors to deliver better solutions.
The technology industry wants to incubate a transformation
in the Federal IT market that brings about new ways to fund,
develop, procure, deliver, manage, and sustain innovative
technology solutions. We support 18F and USDS and believe that
they can enable elements of such a transformation. We also want
this transformation to improve the technological experience for
everyone: constituents and citizens, taxpayers, government
employees, and vendors. ITAPS remains committed to working with
our government partners to achieve such success.
With that, I conclude my remarks, and I'm happy to address
your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hodgkins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, sir.
Mr. LeDuc, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID LEDUC
Mr. LeDuc. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Chairman Hurd,
Chairman Meadows, and Ranking Member Kelly. On behalf of the
Software & Information Industry Association, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on oversight of the U.S. Digital
Service and 18F.
SIIA is the principal trade association for the software
and digital content industries. SIIA commends the Obama
administration for its work to update and enhance the Federal
Government IT framework, which has strived to evolve Federal IT
to become more modular, agile, and cloud-focused, and we
support much of the core missions of both the USDS and 18F to
help agencies buy and share efficient and easy-to-use digital
services.
But we have reservations with respect to several aspects of
the 18F program.
First, 18F's focus on ``build custom'' departs from the
longstanding reliance on a ``buy, not build'' IT procurement
policy. The ``buy, not build'' or commercial off-the-shelf,
COTS, first approach is a longstanding critical proponent of
Federal IT policy. This approach is underscored in the revised
Circular A-130 and shared-services policies put forward by this
administration.
Choosing vendor-supported solutions recognizes that
agencies often lack and are challenged to maintain consistent
and necessary IT management staff. They also benefit from
economies of scale, among other advantages. When choosing
vendor-supported off-the-shelf solutions, vendors are in the
best position, working with their agency customers, to provide
relevant updates, assurances of security and performance.
However, 18F is focusing on a ``build custom'' approach to
develop new solutions that are likely to require sustained,
meaningful, and experienced support plans, which are not
necessarily available as part of the solutions provided by 18F.
The importance of ongoing support for agency solutions cannot
be overstated, and agencies cannot afford for this to be
overlooked.
Competition from 18F can only be expected to grow stronger
over time for private IT vendors, particularly affecting small
businesses.
Second, 18F has the ability to operate outside of the
traditional procurement process with the dual role of design
agency procurements and to compete for the opportunity to
provide the solutions without sufficient transparency and
oversight. 18F combines policymaking functions, operations, and
promotion of their own products and services sales. This is an
area where there are many questions about the operation of 18F
and not many answers.
It appears that 18F could be deployed to design acquisition
plans and RFPs and then have an opportunity to respond to that
RFP, essentially as a sole-source consultancy. This end result
is not likely to achieve the best value for agencies, and it
can ignore innovative ideas from the government--outside the
government.
Private sector IT solution providers doing business with
Federal agencies must demonstrate their compliance with
critical security requirements such as business security
certifications or the often onerous Federal approval process.
18F should face no less rigorous standards and scrutiny and not
be prioritized over offerings because of its address at 18th
and F Street.
Additionally, a particular concern to this committee
mentioned by Mr. Powner earlier, the risk is that 18F could
negate the steps taken to establish appropriate agency CIO
oversight established in FITARA.
Third, 18F must be required to cover its costs in offering
agency IT services, but transparency is currently lacking in
this area as well. 18F should be required to provide a detailed
assessment of services provided as well as revenues and
expenses to demonstrate whether they are covering costs. And if
they are not, they should be required to provide a plan for
cost recovery in the near future.
Without a sufficient transparency mechanism in this area,
it is difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between
18F services and the private sector services.
Fourth, the unanswered questions and lack of transparency
are particularly concerning given the expansion and recent GSA
reorganization of 18F. 18F launched in March 2014, as we know,
as a 15-person team of innovators and has grown today to a
total of 183 personnel across four nationwide offices. We are
concerned the administration is moving very quickly to embed
and make permanent the 18F program without seeking input from
Congress or working with other agencies and without addressing
the issues we have identified.
As an internal government IT consulting service, 18F should
undergo the traditional oversight and scrutiny by both Congress
and the administration to ensure that it will stay within a
well-defined designated lane.
In closing, following our three recommendations, we offer
to help guide 18F towards the well-intended goals of the
organization: first, greater transparency on costs and process;
second, adherence to the current ``buy first'' approach of
commercial off-the-shelf products, consistent with Federal
Government IT policy; and, third, a requirement to function by
the same rules as other IT vendors, needing to provide for the
same level of scrutiny and comparisons on cost.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today, and
I look forward to answering any of your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. LeDuc follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. LeDuc.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Connolly for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'm sorry I'm late. Mr. Meadows and I were in a postal
reform working group meeting for the committee.
This hearing is exactly the type of oversight, it seems to
me, that we can agree on on a bipartisan basis. Today's hearing
gives us the opportunity to hear from the administration about
two programs that are playing an important role in the
administration's efforts to modernize and improve IT, Federal
IT.
The Federal Government spent, of course, $80 billion in IT
in 2015. Mr. Powner, you testified before the full committee
just 2 weeks ago that agencies are spending up to 70, 75
percent of that money on legacy IT systems. GAO's high-risk
list includes management of IT acquisitions and operations.
Agencies need to modernize their systems and their way of
thinking about IT investments. The creation of the U.S. Digital
Service and 18F in 2014 brought some critical focus to those
issues.
In 2014, Congress passed, of course, the FITARA
legislation, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition
Reform Act, better known Issa-Connolly. One of the most
important changes of that bill was to provide agency CIOs with
the authority to make spending decisions related to IT in a
more streamlined and efficient manner. The law also requires
CIOs to certify progress on ongoing IT investments. Congress
gave CIOs that authority and responsibility for a reason. It's
imperative that 18F and Digital Services coordinate with CIOs
to ensure that the agencies have a sense of accountability for
their investment decisions and also ensure agencies adopt and
institutionalize best practices and share them.
There are many success stories over the last 2 years that
we look forward to, Ms. Chrousos and Mr. Dickerson highlighted
in their testimony. It was refreshing to see that the GAO found
positive customer satisfaction with both 18F and Digital
Service.
I'm proud to cosponsor the Information Technology
Modernization Act, which would create a revolving fund for
updating outdated IT systems under the bill. 18F would use its
expertise to ensure that agencies have used best practices such
as agile development.
As Mr. Powner testifies today, there are some areas where
both 18F and the U.S. Digital Service can improve and should
improve their communications, transparency, coordination, and
outreach. I know those are concerns in the private sector,
which looks at 18F maybe with a mixed and jaundiced eye.
GAO found in its review of these programs that the U.S.
Digital Service and agencies could do a better job of
incorporating the agency CIO into the work of Digital Service
terms. We are interested in hearing from the witnesses today
how 18F and the Digital Service can improve communication with
stakeholders and work with the private sector to ensure that
the work of those programs is transparent and that the Federal
IT portfolio is as effective and as efficient as possible.
I appreciate the commitment the employees of 18F and
Digital Service have made to this government. They are bringing
the lessons they have learned from the companies and
organizations they come from to improve Federal IT management
procurement. Just as technology has led to private sector job
growth, it can also inspire Federal Government recruitment of
the best and the brightest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.
Mr. Hurd. I'd like to now start our questioning portion of
this event. And we're going to start with the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Farenthold.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Chairman Hurd.
As a former computer consultant and Web designer, I guess,
on a very small scale, I did some of what 18F and USDS did. So
it's an issue that I'm passionate about.
I do want to start off with the ``buy, not build.'' Again,
even from my days in the '90s, it was always cheaper to buy,
not build.
Mr. LeDuc criticized 18F for not--for building not buying.
And I wanted to give Ms. Chrousos 30 seconds if she wanted to
respond to that.
Ms. Chrousos. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to
that.
One thing that was clearly highlighted in the testimony of
my fellow witnesses is that we haven't done a very good job of
communicating what 18F does. Over the last 2 years, we have
been very responsive to our customer agencies, and we
absolutely take a buy-first approach. We have one service line
that builds out prototypes and lite Web services, but that's
done not in competition with the private sector but as a way to
showcase modern methodologies and practices to agencies.
Mr. Farenthold. Now, you indicated you came out of the
private sector and into government. I want to ask another
broad, general question here. There's a very different mindset,
especially in the startup world in California or even working
in a big company like Google, you know, where you have these
big campuses with bicycles everywhere and free meals. How does
the government compete for IT talent against that?
Ms. Chrousos. In one word, it's patriotism. So all of the
people that come and join us are very mission-oriented, and
they are leaving behind cushier environments, let's say, to
come and work on projects that impact the American people.
Mr. Farenthold. And you look at the technology and startup
world, and there's a mentality of risk taking, and there's a
huge push--the buzz word is ``disruption.'' You change,
fundamentally, the way things are done.
Now, obviously, the government is not in a position to take
risks. And I think you can do technology without risks. Banks
indicated that. I can do my banking on my phone now and feel
relatively safe about it.
But how do you bring into the government a culture of
disruption if that's how we really are going to fundamentally
transform how things are done? And I'll let you answer that,
Ms. Chrousos, and then I'd also like to hear from Mr. LeDuc on
that.
Ms. Chrousos. Thank you. I think that's the delicate
balance that we're always trying to balance.
How do you bring innovation but still make sure that it
complies with all of the government policy is something that I
personally think about every day as the Commissioner of
Technology Service and as I try and mature my organization.
I think 18F faces this. The Digital Service team and
agencies face this. The innovation labs and agencies face this.
Mr. Farenthold. And so do you think that's the reason it
takes so long to get something done in government IT? Is that
the primary reason?
Ms. Chrousos. The balance?
Mr. Farenthold. Yeah. Trying to--yeah, basically that.
Ms. Chrousos. Yeah. I believe it's a delicate balance. Even
in the private sector, large companies in the private sector
haven't figured that out either.
Mr. Farenthold. Okay.
Mr. LeDuc did you want to--I'm sorry to rush you. I only
have 5 minutes.
Mr. LeDuc. No. I mean, I think that makes a lot of sense.
We are supportive of the goals of 18F, you know, and their
approach to, as they say, hack the bureaucracy. You know,
that's necessary in many areas, and we want to see more
innovation, and we want to see more small startups brought in.
Mr. Farenthold. Okay. Great.
And then, so, Mr. Dickerson, Ms. Chrousos, can you each
tell me what you consider to be your group's biggest success
story? You know, just 10, 15 seconds there.
Mr. Dickerson. Sure. It's very difficult to pick just one,
but one success story that we're proud is of vets.gov, which is
a unified experience where veterans can get access to services
that they need.
Mr. Farenthold. What about 18F? What do y'all consider your
biggest success?
Ms. Chrousos. Our biggest success is the Agile Blanket
Purchase Agreement, which is bringing in agile talent from the
private sector into government.
Mr. Farenthold. So, Mr. Dickerson, you talked about
vets.gov. Your top 10 priorities include electronic health
records for Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology
Architecture--that's VistA--a Medical Appointment Scheduling
System, and Veterans Benefit Management System.
I have had countless hearings, and my number one source of
complaints from my constituents is poor service from the VA,
many of which are IT related. Even--you know, even to the point
of suicide calls going to voicemail. Where are we going on
that? Why can't we get that done faster? And what are y'all
doing to fix it?
Mr. Dickerson. Thank you. We are completely sympathetic and
also feel just as acutely as you do the opportunities for
improvement in all those services at the VA.
I have a small focus team at the VA as we speak today
working on a few targeted opportunities in the service space.
Mr. Farenthold. Okay. That doesn't sound like it's big and
bold enough to solve the problem. So I would urge you to--is
18F doing anything with the VA at this point?
Ms. Chrousos. We had worked in partnership with the VA
Digital Service team about a year ago, and we worked on a small
component of their bigger picture.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, I think we need to sit
down with the VA and you guys to see if we can get y'all
working together. Because, again, I think the poor performance
of the VA is a national disgrace. It needs to be addressed.
I have a lot more I could do, but there are a lot of people
here, and I am out of time, so I'll yield back.
Mr. Hurd. I would like to recognize the ranking member, Ms.
Kelly, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Two weeks ago, the full committee held a hearing on the
Federal Government's use of outdated legacy IT systems. We
learned that the Federal Government spent about 80 million on
IT last year, most of which was spent on these old systems.
Clearly, we need to find a better path forward, and that's
where the Digital Service and 18F come in.
Mr. LeDuc, in your written statement you said, and I quote:
``We support much of the core mission of the both USDS and
18F.''
What role do you think the Digital Service and 18F can play
in the Obama administration's efforts to modernize Federal IT?
Mr. LeDuc. Thank you for that question.
As I mentioned, we're very supportive of the different
thought process that 18F brings and their goal bringing in
innovative IT companies, small IT businesses, and integrating
that into agency solutions, working alongside of agencies to
help them in designing their procurements and deciding what
types of technology they need. We think 18F can be particularly
helpful in that role, consulting two agencies to help them
obtain the right technology.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Does SIIA believe that the Digital Service
and 18F are having an overall positive impact on modernizing
the IT acquisition process?
Mr. LeDuc. Yes. I think we could say, you know, overall
positive. But, as I mentioned in my testimony, we just want to
make sure that, you know, it stays within--you know, a well-
functioning lane to assist the agencies.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Hodgkins, in your written statement, you said, and I
quote: ``In some ways, 18F and USDS are positioned to be key
enablers in these efforts to achieve a digital government.'' In
what ways do you think the Digital Service and 18F can enable
the Federal Government to move into the digital age?
Mr. Hodgkins. Well, they are already serving as disrupters,
as we just discussed, around the cultural change that is
necessary. We actually had to change the thought process of the
bureaucracies and how they look at technology, and then that
translates into how they buy it. And they are a leading edge on
many of the elements of those different equations that have to
be changed before we can fully incorporate technologies.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Does ITAPS believe that the Digital Service and 18F are
having an overall positive effect on modernizing the IT
acquisition? It is the same question.
Mr. Hodgkins. I think in certain areas, yes. I think that,
in some areas, as we discussed, it's hard to tell because of
the opaqueness of some of the things they are doing. And then
there's still a lot of stuff left on the table that we can all
continue to focus on.
Ms. Kelly. Thanks.
Ms. Chrousos, 18F's mission has always been to promote
efficiency and innovation in the way Federal Government
approaches IT. Can you provide a few examples of how the agile
development is leading to more innovation and cost savings in
government? I know you did one, but we want more than one.
Ms. Chrousos. We want more than one. That's wonderful.
We worked on the veterans--sorry. We worked on the
Department of Education's College Scorecard, which--which
unleashed 25 years of data that had never been seen before by
the public. Today, it's being used by people going into college
to make informed decisions about both what college they go to
from an academic perspective but also how much they spend on
college from a budgetary perspective.
That was an example--that was a very small lite build that
took over--that took 3 months, and it showcased agile
development, user-centered design, open data, the usage of APIs
to the Department of Education, allowing them to get a better
idea of what that looks like so that when they go out to
vendors and the procurement community, they can actually talk
about these things and weave that into their RFPs.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. And what are some of the steps you are
taking to advance agile development across the government?
Ms. Chrousos. We showcase agile methodologies with lite
prototypes and discovery sprints when we work with agencies
hand in hand. That's when an agency hasn't done it before. So
we absorb that first-mover risk of taking a leap into a new
technology methodology.
We also are developing procurement vehicles. One--the first
one is the agile development BPA, which used code review by our
engineers to evaluate agile vendors. These are now
prequalified, precertified vendors that we can access to work
on projects and agencies can also access to work on projects.
Ms. Kelly. And two questions. What are some of your biggest
successes, and can you identify some of the failed IT projects
that 18F has helped to turn around?
Ms. Chrousos. One of the--one of our biggest successes is a
turnaround, in my opinion. We worked with HHS to rewrite an RFP
for a child welfare platform. We believe that the platform was
going towards a large kind of waterfall singular buy, and we
were able to break that down, insert modern technology
methodology like agile user-centered design, 2-week sprints,
open data, open code into the RFP. We hope that this yields
savings for HHS, and we hope this also yields savings for
others that can take this RFP, which is out in the open, and
can use it for themselves.
Ms. Kelly. For Mr. Dickerson and Ms. Chrousos, what do your
agencies bring to the Federal IT innovation that can't already
be accomplished by the private sector?
Mr. Dickerson. I think the most valuable role that the USDS
brings into the government is the ability to coordinate and
work across all of the organizational boundaries to solve what
are often very complicated problems with a lot of stakeholders
that involve a lot of the parts of the agency.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Ms. Chrousos. And I believe that we act as an ecosystem
where talented people from the private sector can come in and
learn how to adapt their practices to government and then show
government how to do that.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. And thanks for the extra time.
I yield back.
Mr. Hurd. Now I am honored to recognize the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the panel.
Ms. Chrousos, as you indicated in your testimony, in 2
years, 18F has grown from 15 employees to 185, some significant
growth. You also indicated part of 18F's mission is to help
Federal agencies buy, build, and deploy technology the way the
private sector does today, hopefully with efficiencies that the
private sector does in many cases.
Can you describe the scope of work anticipated by 18F and
how that work overlaps or duplicates capabilities present in
the private sector or are being performed by the agencies
themselves?
Ms. Chrousos. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that
question.
I think we need to do a better job of explaining our
service offerings to both our stakeholders and the private
sector. We do not intend and we do not--in my opinion, we do
not compete with the private sector. We offer five service
offerings to agencies today, and we will be constantly
iterating on those to respond to the needs of our customer
agencies.
The first is to lightly prototype or build small builds to
be able to showcase modern methodologies to agencies, which
often yields in those agencies going out to the private sector
to hire agencies--to higher developers that work like us. We
offer acquisition assistance where we add an engineer or
subject-matter, technical subject-matter expert to the table
next to the contracting officer to help them rewrite request
for proposals so that agencies can buy smarter. We offer some
lite guides and workshops that help agencies understand how to
practice modern technology methodologies in the government. We
offer consultation services to CIOs who want to deploy to the
cloud. These are the kinds of things that we offer, and I
believe that our vantage point from bringing in private sector
individuals into the government and explain to them how the
government works and adapting those technologies out is where
we play in this space.
Mr. Walberg. Going from that, with the rapid growth that
you've had, who are you hiring? Are you hiring programmers,
program managers, acquisition staff? Who are the hires?
Ms. Chrousos. Technical folks, engineers, design thinkers,
usability experts, definitely product managers that can help
product manage teams that are coming in through the Agile BPA.
Those are the types of hires that we're hiring.
Mr. Walberg. Where do they come from?
Ms. Chrousos. They come from both private and public
sector. So we looked across our organization. I actually sign
off on every hire, and we have seen people come from Microsoft,
come from Twitter, come from Booz Allen, come from some like
foundations.
Mr. Walberg. What's their average tenure?
Ms. Chrousos. Their average tenure, well, we hire using
Smarter IT authority, which is a 2-year fellowship with 2
additional years--a 2-year term, sorry, with 2 additional
years. The average tenure in the private sector in this field
is around 13 months, to give you an idea of what this kind of
workforce--how this workforce moves around. So we don't have--I
don't have the average tenure right now on hand, but I suspect
that it's around 2 to 4 years.
Mr. Walberg. So significantly more than in the private
sector?
Ms. Chrousos. I'm sorry. I don't have exact numbers, but I
can work with your staff to get you the numbers.
Mr. Walberg. Okay.
Mr. LeDuc, are there concerns in the software industry
about how agency CIOs are being given information to make
informed choices about who to turn to for help with IT
concerns?
Mr. LeDuc. Yeah. I mean, as we understand, I mentioned this
in my testimony, obviously, the structure put in place by
FITARA and the goal for the CIOs to be able to monitor and
determine the technologies to be used, the process that 18F
could take in going to some of their services provided to
agencies can very well go beyond this process and not
effectively provide CIOs the opportunity to necessarily choose
the technologies that they want to use. So we think that could
be a real challenge area.
Mr. Walberg. What's your biggest concerns about how the two
agencies, 18F and USDS, have evolved in the past couple of
years?
Mr. LeDuc. I think, as I mentioned, the biggest concern is
about an evolution and a rapid growth of an entity like 18F
that's not necessarily really visible in how they are behaving,
you know, if they are making technology decisions quickly
outside the traditional mechanisms. While that can be a really
good thing, you know, as a goal of 18F to be modular and
flexible--and we support that--rapid growth in this area
without significant oversight and transparency could really
lead to just a bunch of single-handed decisionmaking that could
not provide agencies with the best solutions.
Mr. Walberg. I yield back.
Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields back.
Now, I would like to recognize my friend from the
Commonwealth Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Powner, can you help us understand, because I think Mr.
Walberg's line of questioning overlaps my anticipated line of
questioning, which is, what is the value proposition here? Why
do we have 18F and USDS? What is the value to the government,
and how does it avoid competing directly with the private
sector? Why not just issue our fee for these services like we
normally do?
Mr. Powner. Well, you could clearly do that. I think when I
look at 18F and you look at where you could go procure really
quick agile services and consulting in that, there's some value
in that, no doubt. Having agencies innovate on a small-scale
basis and expand it, that makes a lot of sense with 18F.
Mr. Dickerson, we've always supported a SWAT team out of
the White House that could parachute in, help save, help
healthcare.gov. And we know there are a lot of problems with
large acquisitions. There's a top 10 list that goes to the
Appropriations Committee. You guys got an updated report
yesterday. We need to fix those large projects. There's a lot
of opportunity there. The legacy side of things, not just
acquisitions, but swapping out these old legacy, where we have
a lot of data conversion, application conversion, that's where
USDS could really help the Federal Government.
Our concern, these groups, if done right, make a lot of
sense. We want to make sure they are transparent; they
demonstrate value; and we have cost recovery taken care of with
GSA; and then, with USDS, that it's consistent with what we're
trying to do with the CIOs.
Mr. Connolly. Under FITARA?
Ms. Chrousos. Under FITARA, correct.
Mr. Connolly. I'll come back to that. Mr. Hodgkin's, do you
accept that explanation from the private sector point of view,
that this is sort of a bit of a carve out. It's not a direct
threat. Not intended that way. And it's to give us some more,
you know, fast response time capability within the Federal
Government with some kind of presumably limited scope?
Mr. Hodgkins. I think that to some degree I agree with that
answer, although I would share that many of our members
continue to, again, because of the opaqueness of the
operations, they're not entirely clear that this isn't directly
competing with activities that they believe they can deliver.
And as I referenced in my testimony, there's a great degree of
frustration about the narrative of brining in new companies
because we want innovation.
Our members are frustrated because they feel that the
government-unique acquisition process has tamped down their
ability to deliver that innovation rapidly in agile ways. They
do that for their commercial customers. They have those that
are government-unique, or solely in the government space, have
counterparts in the commercial marketplace who do that, and so
to my point in my testimony about unshackling the Federal
Government industrial base, those companies believe that they
can also deliver capabilities to the government market in the
ways that these entities are doing it.
Mr. Connolly. So do you see it as direct competition, or at
least down the road?
Mr. Hodgkins. I think that we have to figure out how to
break these molds that are out there. That we, you know--for
some of them are decades old, and I think this is a great way
to start doing that. But I think we also have to spend a lot of
time and attention on taking the best practices they create and
translating that, because as I've noted, a lot of what they've
done has been to help frame frankly relatively smaller
projects.
There has not been necessarily the attention to the really
big projects which we believe the kinds of 56-year-old systems
this committee exposed are also going to end up being. They're
going to take some time, and they're going to take some
resources. And we have to figure out how to take the good work
that these groups are doing in bringing in those capabilities
and then translate that into that scale we need.
Mr. Connolly. Ironically apparently we have mastered how to
maintain such 56-year-old systems in the Federal Government. We
just don't know how to replace them, so we're going to need
help from the private sector, no question.
Mr. Dickerson, Mr. Powner in his testimony said, or raised
a concern, that the lack of clearly defined roles between CIO's
that we're trying to strengthen, streamline the decisionmaking
under FITARA legislation, and digital service teams, actually
may be inconsistent with the intent of the law under FITARA.
Could you respond?
Mr. Dickerson. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify
that. I believe that all of the USDS activity is completely in
compliance with both the spirit and the letter of FITARA.
Mr. Connolly. Well, you're going to have to do better than
that. Yes. Yes, officer I believe I was completely in
compliance with speeding laws, even though you have stopped me.
GAO thinks otherwise or has at least suggested it could be a
concern.
I'm asking you, are you aware of that concern, and besides
just defending USDS, what are you doing to ensure that you, in
fact, are in compliance with the terms of what is now the law,
FITARA.
Mr. Dickerson. May I have a minute to respond?
Mr. Connolly. Of course. With the consent of the chair.
Mr. Dickerson. Yes, you're right. There are important
oversight and control mechanisms imbedded in FITARA, such as a
significant role for the CIO in making decisions that affect IT
at the agency.
The CIO is always part of the set of agency leadership that
we talk to before we embark on, or go into, a project and
decide how to execute it. We operate completely within the
authority to operate, or ATO mechanism, and also the CIOs
retain the control over the contract decisions, which is
specified by FITARA.
Mr. Connolly. My time is up, Mr. Chairman, but I hope we
get to pursue that just a little bit more.
Mr. Hurd. Mr. Powner, do you have any comments on that last
question?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Powner. I do think, the reason we raised the concern is
we talked to four CIOs where there were digital service teams
established. DHS, we felt pretty good about that; DOD and VA,
fairly good. State Department, the CIO told us initially that
they were not involved with the selection nor the projects
being chosen at that agency. We don't think that's appropriate.
They ought to be working with each other in that situation.
Now, since the State Department kind of backed off of their
initial comments, but when you read our report, that's an
issue, and the question is how many of those departments and
agencies, we just want to make sure we're in sync. We actually
think that if the digital service teams at the agencies
coordinate with the CIOs, they're going to be welcomed more
into those agencies to work on the big problems and everything.
As an example, at DOD, Terry Halvorson--the travel system
at the Department of Defense has been a mess for years. We
haven't been able to deliver on it. So he said, yeah, I want
the digital service team to try to tackle that. That's great.
They agree on what they're working on, and they agree that
that's a priority system that we've had a lot of problems, and
that's where Mr. Dickerson can really help move the ball
forward with those troubled projects. We just need to tighten
it up a little more.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, sir. I'd like to now recognize the
distinguished gentleman and scholar from North Carolina, my
friend, Mr. Walker, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I
think I'm going to stay right here on this line of questioning.
I had another area I wanted to go to. If I have time, I'll come
back to that. I want to dig it just a little bit deeper. Mr.
Powner, are the charters being established between USDS and
Federal agencies accounting for the role agencies, the CIOs,
are required to perform pursuant to FITARA?
Mr. Powner. We think that those charters could be clearer
in terms of the relationship with the CIOs.
Mr. Walker. When you say they could be clearer, can you be
just a touch more descriptive or specific for me.
Mr. Powner. Yes. So if you say that we're going to
establish a digital service team that reports to the agency
head or the dep secretary and that will also work in
conjunction with the CIO, and those teams will be established
consistent with FITARA. That's what I'd like to see.
Mr. Walker. Okay. What role would the CIO play in
coordinating with the USDS and the OMB to establish the agency
digital service teams?
Mr. Powner. I think when you--clearly these CIOs, they
should know what the priority acquisitions and the priority
legacy conversions are. In working with those CIOs, the most
important problems they have, they should be working with these
digital service teams so the digital service teams can help
them solve the most complex things.
These guys are pretty smart that have come in. Okay? Mr.
Dickerson knows how to fix problems clearly. We want to focus
on the big problems that we have in this government because
there's a lot of them in the IT world.
Mr. Walker. Sure. Absolutely. Who is responsible for making
sure these CIOs know? You said they should know. Who is
responsible? Whose job is it to make sure that's communicated?
Mr. Powner. Well I think the CIO's. Clearly Tony Scott
plays a role in that as the Federal CIO. But when you look at
what we're doing with FITARA, if the CIO is to capture all IT
spending in a department and then be responsible for the
execution of this spending, that would include what we're doing
with the digital service teams.
That's under the umbrella. That's what we're trying to fix
with FITARA, that there's not a lot of rogue operations going
on, and I'm not saying we know that's happening with other
services that are being acquired at agencies. We want to get
our arms around the IT spent, and we want to get the
appropriate governance over there so we've got the right
security and the right delivery.
Mr. Walker. All right. So when a USDS team comes into an
agency, who do they report to; CIO, Mr. Dickerson, Tony Scott,
someone else? Who is it?
Mr. Powner. I think there are multiple options that could
work. I mean, you could actually have them, you want to elevate
their position, have them report to the dep secretary, fine.
But we got some CIOs that don't report to the dep secretary. So
I don't think that would be appropriate. As long as they're
both reporting at least equally, or there's multiple
arrangements that could work. We just don't want to have, we
don't want to undermine the authority of the CIOs.
Mr. Walker. All right. I appreciate your frankness on that.
Mr. Dickerson, you touched on this a little bit earlier, and I
want to get back to it if I have time here. Do you think the
charters adequately account for the laws established by FITARA?
Mr. Dickerson. Our charters have evolved over time as we
are learning how best to document and set up these teams. I
completely embrace Mr. Powner's recommendation that we make it
more clear and explicit going forward. Our later charters, as
noted in the GAO report, are more explicit about that we
interact with the CIOs on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Walker. Okay. GSA funds 18F through Acquisition
Services Fund, which operates on the revenue generated from the
GSA's business units and not appropriations from Congress.
Either Ms. Chrousos or Ms. Powner, can you give me a list of
these business units?
Ms. Chrousos. At GSA, sir?
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Ms. Chrousos. Business units include the business units
under the Federal Acquisition Service, like ITS and GSS. It
also includes 18F.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Annually can you tell me how much these
units produce for the ASF?
Ms. Chrousos. I can only tell you the numbers for 18F
unfortunately, but I can work with your staff to get you that
information.
Mr. Walker. And maybe a couple weeks, can you have it, as
long as there's nothing else happens in your life?
Ms. Chrousos. Yes. I will work with your staff to make sure
we get it to you in time.
Mr. Walker. Fair enough. What are the statutory
authorizations to collect such revenue outside of the
appropriations process? That's something, we talk about the
incredible expansion in the last 2 years, something obviously
as the American people see more and more bureaucracy expanding,
so from an accountability standpoint, somebody explain to me,
Ms. Chrousos, Mr. Powner, the statutory authorization to
collect this revenue.
Ms. Chrousos. Well, GSA's mission is to provide the best
value in real estate acquisitions and technology, and GSA uses
this reimbursable fund to invest in programs that can support
that mission and ultimately can support agencies in their
mission.
Mr. Walker. Okay. I've got 20-something seconds. Let me ask
you this way. Do you think it's intentional to have this
revenue placed outside of congressional jurisdiction, control
and oversight? Is it intentional, or why is it?
Ms. Chrousos. I don't believe it's intentional. I don't
believe it's intentional.
Mr. Walker. Then what do you think it is?
Ms. Chrousos. I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with the origins
of the fund. I'm just familiar with my own finances. I
apologize. If you have an answer?
Mr. Walker. With that, my time is expired, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Hurd. The government's messed up. All right? The way we
buy IT goods and services is messed up. We have difficulty
getting smart people that have the technical skills to solve
the problems of the future is difficult. And what I think
should ultimately be happening is everybody that's sitting at
this table right now, you all should be holding hands and
working together, because you all ultimately have the same
goal.
Because the only way that we are going to get a digital
infrastructure within the Federal Government that is, that the
American people deserve, is if we break some things on the
inside, all right, and that we utilize the talents of the
private sector as well.
But the mentality of, the startup mentality in the Federal
Government where it comes to disruption it is important, but
the Federal Government doesn't have the appetite for the level
of risk that the startup community has or the venture world
has, all right. And so that's the one thing that doesn't
transfer between, you know, with that narrative. And we have a
responsibility to all of our constituents, which is the
American people, that we're using their money wisely and
smartly. I think these programs conceptually are great
programs.
And my first question, and maybe we start with you, Mr.
Dickerson, how do you decide what projects you work on?
Mr. Dickerson. It's a very complex process. I will try to
make it brief. I spend a tremendous amount of time, and my
other members of the leadership team spend a tremendous amount
of time gathering information from all over the government. The
agency leadership, stakeholders everywhere----
Mr. Hurd. Can I make a suggestion? That work is already
being done. There's a GAO high-risk report. That high-risk
report identifies some of the key projects that are a billion
dollars or more that are having issues. All right?
Under FITARA, we have established a number of areas. Data
center consolidation, something as simple as that. We have seen
four agencies realize $2 billion in savings. You know, a man
and a team of your talents would go a long way.
The CISO of the Social Security Administration needs a
whole lot of help, all right, and this is an entity, they
should be able to say, hey, when they get grilled here at this
committee about not following some of the basic practices of
good digital system hygiene, they should be able to reach out
to you, or you all should be able to call them the next day.
Is that concept, is that not--grade my paper. Does that
make sense? Is that, you know, the flexibility and the way that
you all could be used?
Mr. Dickerson. As you say, the OMB and the office of the
Federal CIO conduct broad portfolio oversight of all those
programs across the entire government, and we absolutely rely
on that information as much as we can.
Mr. Hurd. There's nobody in the Federal Government that
understands this better than Tony Scott, all right, and Tony
Scott knows where the problems are and should be able to direct
you all.
But when I look at some of the lists of, you know,
successes, as somebody said earlier, these aren't the tectonic
changes that we likely need in order to see our government get
into the current century, let alone the next century. All
right? Ms. Chrousos, do you have an opinion.
Ms. Chrousos. About our prioritization process?
Mr. Hurd. Uh-huh.
Ms. Chrousos. 18F is a demand-driven, fee-for-service
organization. So our prioritization process uses a
prioritization rubric that looks at both impact and viability,
but we cannot parachute in, or we cannot kind of pull in
customers. They have to come to us and want to work with us.
When we look, when things come into our organization, we look
at impact, which for us is number of people it impacts as well
as potential cost savings, and then we look at viability. For
example, is this something better done by the private sector?
Is this something that we have the talent for? Is it something
we should send to the Federal Acquisition Service or back to
that agency's CIO? That's how we prioritize.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a second?
Mr. Hurd. I would.
Mr. Connolly. Just by way of followup to your point, but,
Ms. Chrousos, okay, great, and Mr. Dickerson. But the chairman
was asking, but we already have a list of very high priorities,
from GAO's high-risk list, and some of the priorities we set
out in FITARA. Do you also look at those priorities as you're
looking at the projects you're going to get involved in?
Ms. Chrousos. The projects that we get involved in are
usually small reference products, like Mr. Hodgkins referred
to, that showcase modern methodologies to agencies, and then
they go and procure a larger team to actually tackle the big
problems. So we don't look necessarily at that GAO high-
priority list. We don't believe that's our function.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hurd. Let's talk a little bit about IT procurement. IT
procurement is something I've spent a lot of time talking
about. And I've said on a number of occasions IT procurement is
not a sexy topic.
IT procurement, you're not going to hold a rally for IT
procurement or a parade. However, you know, this agile delivery
service, blanket purchase agreement concept is a concept that I
think could change this, right? And if we fix this, Ms.
Chrousos, I will hold a parade on IT procurement, and you will
be the grand marshal.
But can you please expand on this agile delivery service
and its use of blanket purchase agreements with vendors?
Ms. Chrousos. Yes. If you had told me as well that IT
procurement was something I'd be passionate about 2 years ago,
I would have told you you were crazy.
Mr. Hurd. Ms. Chrousos could you move this closer----
Ms. Chrousos. Oh sorry. But I personally believe it's the
single most impactful way to impact what we're trying to do in
the government and to move the government forward in
technology.
The Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement shows a lot of promise
because for me it shows what happens in terms of breaking down
some of the procurement barriers that Mr. LeDuc and Mr.
Hodgkins spoke of, when you put an engineer next to a
contracting officer and you let them speak and you let them get
their minds together. We took engineers from 18F and
contracting officers from the Federal Acquisition Services, and
we put them together, and we gave them a problem. Can you find
us a way to access really innovative, modern technical talent?
And they said, yes, if we look at this and say, instead of
asking for pages and pages of documentation and past history,
but instead we ask businesses to submit live code in an open
hub repository and then we have engineers look at that code and
assess it, we'll be able to get to better talent.
Mr. Hurd. So take us through how you choose the vendors.
How many vendors are there, and how does 18F work with agencies
to choose one of these vendors?
Ms. Chrousos. The blanket purchase agreement is like a
preselection of vendors, so we work with engineers and
contracting officers to go through the documentation the way
that you would with any procurement vehicle. That vehicle, you
can then put task orders against that vehicle. Right now
agents, we can access the Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement. We
actually issued a task order this week to a small business, and
agencies can use the Federal Acquisition Service to access this
same blanket purchase agreement.
Mr. Hurd. Mr. Powner, does this exist in other parts of the
Federal government? Is this unique? Look, the VA would benefit
from this ability. I'm sure the organizations that are part of
Mr. Hodgkins' and Mr. LeDuc's association would love to be able
to participate in these things. Your opinion on this?
Mr. Powner. So clearly, I think, you know, this is tied to
FITARA, to your grades on incremental development. Agile is one
way of going really small. Right? These vehicles if done right
and were inclusive of the people who should be doing this, I
think could really work. I mean, talking about shock the
system, we need more agile development. This could actually
help a lot.
I actually think, and I've said this at times on
incremental development, I think Congress and OMB, if you want
to fix this big bang waterfall approach, don't fund anything
unless you deliver within the year, and have a waive-out
process. You know what; that would change a lot. You're not
going to get funding either through the OMB process or through
the appropriation process. We talked to appropriation
committees about this. If you want to really fix it, if you
want to go small fix it, that's the way you would do it. This
would help.
Mr. Hurd. Ms. Chrousos, if all of the agencies that had a D
or an F on the agile development, within our FITARA score card,
came to you and said, hey, help us figure out how to do this,
is that a project that you all would take on?
Ms. Chrousos. I believe so. We have been asked by other
agencies to help them build out their own Agile Blanket
Purchase Agreements. We're not trying to hoard that
information. Our documentation is actually out in the public on
GitHub, so you can build your own agile BPA at your agency if
you so desire, or you can come through our organization. And
that's something we welcome.
Mr. Hurd. I hope all the CIOs that got a D or an F on their
FITARA score card in this area are hitting that Web site as we
speak. I have gone over my time. I know Mr. Farenthold has
additional questions. The gentleman from Texas is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow
up on the blanket purchase agreement. Can you tell me just in
broad general, what type of services are these? I mean, you've
got 17 vendors. What type of services?
Ms. Chrousos. Seventeen vendors is for one of the pools.
We're authorizing two more pools. And software development,
DevOps, our key design thinkers, those types of thinkers that
can work on agile development, user-centered products.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. So how does this help and not
create another barrier? So I'm a software developer, I want to
build a, I don't know, make it simple, an app for the phone to
tap into some Federal agency. Is getting certified through
that, how does that help me and how does that not create
another barrier to entry?
Ms. Chrousos. We're trying to create smarter bridges
between the government and the private sector by putting
engineers and contractors together. We just think this is a
smarter bridge. We're also at the same time working with the
Federal Acquisition Service to try and lower the barriers to
entry. We have had a really interesting project with Schedule
70 where we're looking at creating plain language roadmaps and
lowering the time it takes at Schedule 70 significantly.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. So Mr. Hodgkins, is this helping
your members, or is this just another hurdle?
Mr. Hodgkins. Thank you for the question. We're supportive
of the agile development approach. One of the challenges that
we think of this particular BPA is that it's only accepting
applications of companies who are willing to code in open
source. So all of the companies who have intellectual property
in their products are not eligible to compete on this
particular BPA, and so they're not offering their solutions in
an agile fashion, and that's something we think that, you know,
we can open that up.
Mr. Farenthold. I'm a huge advocate for open source. I
actually do think that's the way the government can address
some security issues as well as make stuff available across
government lines. You also talked, though, about unique
government needs. What are the unique government needs that the
private sector doesn't have? You need good user interface. You
need good price. You need good security. What are the unique
government needs?
Mr. Hodgkins. The government has a lot of unique needs in
scale. It has a lot of unique needs in compliance, and it has a
lot of unique needs regarding the way the company is expected
to operate and shape its business model.
Mr. Farenthold. Ms. Chrousos, do you want to talk about
what unique government needs are as well are? Because I think
they're not as unique as people want to make them to be, other
than size.
Ms. Chrousos. I don't think the government's needs are that
unique, and I actually don't think agency's needs or
subagency's needs are necessarily that unique as well. I think
if you look across, and we have been trying to see patterns
coming in of incoming requests.
We see patterns of common technical components that are
needed throughout government. It's an area that we should have
smart people looking at and looking at how to leverage
efficiencies.
Mr. Farenthold. I mean, that's traditionally the GSA's
role, is to take advantage of the size of government to make
things cheaper. Having used the TSA Web site, I don't know.
Is there a way to expand something like these blanket
purchase agreements to say, all right, this is certified and
secure so we don't have every CIO doing the same evaluations of
very similar software or the same needs in software.
Ms. Chrousos. I believe so. We're a young organization.
We're 2 years old, and this was our first collaboration with
the Federal Acquisition Service. One of the reasons we created
the Technology Transformation Service is to bring some of these
ideas and some of these people together at GSA to do exactly
what you're talking about.
Mr. Farenthold. I think that creates a level of expertise
and bureaucratic kind of a CYA, oh, this is GSA certified. I
don't have to be afraid to buy this and go through a lengthy
purchase process. I did have one other. I think it was your
group that was working with the census. We had a hearing on the
census. Can you talk a little bit about what your role was and
what value you feel you provided to the Census Bureau? That's
another agency within this committee's direct jurisdiction.
Ms. Chrousos. I'm so sorry to disappoint you. I actually
don't know enough about that to speak to it today, but I'm
happy to get you that information.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. It was just on your list of
things, and I would be interested to do that. That's basically
all I've got for right now. So I yield back.
Mr. Hurd. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Connolly, you're
recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. I want to follow up on just one
aspect of, the question of the role of the CIO. Mr. Powner, you
gave an example of the State Department CIO not being cognizant
or fully aware of what USDS team was doing within the State
Department. Is that correct?
Mr. Powner. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Dickerson, does that make sense from a
good management point of view? I mean, in the private sector
it's almost inconceivable to me that anyone could hire a
private IT team and come in and do some work in the corporation
without the CIO's knowledge and approval. I mean, that would be
tantamount to saying you might as well move on because we don't
have any confidence in you.
How is it possible in the public sector that we're a team,
your team in this case, would be operating in an agency without
the knowledge or express approval of the CIO?
Mr. Dickerson. So I believe, Mr. Powner, after making a
comment about the State Department CIO also followed up by
saying that they brought those comments back a little bit under
discussion. I looked into this with my team a little bit, and
to the best of my knowledge, the CIO at the State Department
was a participant in several meetings in the earlier stages of
our work at the State Department. Now that being said, there's
absolutely a spectrum among the CIOs that we work with of the
amount of time and the interest that they have in the digital
service-type projects, given all their other statutory
responsibilities.
Mr. Connolly. Well would you agree, and Ms. Chrousos,
please comment as well, generally speaking, it's a pretty good
management practice to make sure that your team, or your team,
is operating with the full knowledge and consent of the CIO?
Mr. Dickerson. I certainly agree that it's an excellent
management practice for the CIO and the rest of the agency
leadership to all be aware of what we're doing.
Ms. Chrousos. I agree with Mr. Dickerson.
Mr. Connolly. Well, aware of and giving consent?
Mr. Dickerson. And giving input and consent, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah okay. Ms. Chrousos?
Ms. Chrousos. I agree.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Powner, any last comment on that, because
I--remember in FITARA what we're trying to do without doing it
by fiat, is we're trying to evolve to a system where there is a
hierarchy and that the CIO is empowered to make decisions, and
streamline, and monitor procurement, and pull the plug when it
goes bad and look at things in more bite-sized manageable
pieces and make sure the other things we're talking about,
legacy systems, data center consolidation, going to the cloud,
trying to tap into the domain expertise of the private sector,
where we don't have it in the public sector, all those things
are being encouraged.
What we didn't do is say there should be one CIO, but that
is clearly, what we're kind of hoping is that there will be one
premier CIO, who is aware of what's going on and the various
moving parts.
Mr. Powner, final word on that issue.
Mr. Powner. Well, I think we're heading in the right
direction. Look, we know from many of your hearings, we have a
few CIO organizations that are a bit dysfunctional. They really
don't have the right authorities in the cultures that they grew
up in, and there's some agencies where we really need to
tighten that up and fix it, so I think there's a lot of wheels
here going at the same time. But the long-term solution is
fixing the CIO problem.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. And potentially these two programs can
be tools for them actually to strengthen that, but we just
don't want to have rogue operations that actually unwittingly
detract from the broader goal we're trying to achieve in
FITARA. I thank the chair.
Mr. Hurd. I would like to recognize Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Just quickly, Mr. Dickerson and Ms. Chrousos,
what makes your agencies different from each other in funding
in the projects you do take on, or what are the differences?
Ms. Chrousos. We're a fee-for-service, demand-driven
digital consultancy. And as such, we have a separate, very
separate intake and prioritization process. We offer support
services. We do view the CIO as our most sophisticated
customer. We try and meet their needs by offering support
services from the ground up.
Mr. Dickerson. USDS is not cost recoverable. We operate off
of an appropriation from Congress, so we go directly to where
we're needed as quickly as possible, which means that we are
often useful and best applied in cases where there are
unanticipated needs.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hurd. Ms. Chrousos, aren't you required to achieve full
cost recovery now, and why is it going to take until 2019?
Ms. Chrousos. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that
question. As the TTS commissioner, this is something I think
about and work with my team quite a bit. I work with the 18F
management team as well as the CFO, and we look at key
performance indicators on a weekly basis to try and iterate the
operations of our business to get to full cost recovery.
Mr. Hurd. So are you required to have full cost recovery
right now?
Ms. Chrousos. We're committed, we are required to have a
plan for full cost recovery, and we're committed to achieving
full cost recovery by 2019.
Mr. Hurd. Will you plan on sharing publically 18F's
accounting for cost recovery to include cost structures and
project charges in instances where 18F came in below expected
costs or above?
Ms. Chrousos. I'm happy to work with the CFO's office, and
as long as that's allowed by GSA, I'm very happy to share that
with you.
Mr. Hurd. Mr. Powner, is 18F supposed to achieve full cost
recovery now?
Mr. Powner. I believe that there's a requirement for a plan
to get there. Obviously we want to do it as soon as possible. I
do think that when you have a startup, there is some, you know,
you need to build up to it because the payout is actually
lagging what they're doing.
Mr. Hurd. Is GAO receiving the information that you need in
order to determine that they're on a path to full cost
recovery?
Mr. Powner. Yes, we have received that. I think by 2019,
that's the plan. I mean, they got a worst case, best case, most
likely case. There's some good numbers there, and that is the
most likely case to recover by 2019. I think our report says
the worst case is around 2022.
Mr. Hurd. Good copy. Mr. Dickerson, the USDS is directed to
provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations,
in both the House and Senate, describing current USDS teams and
projects that include the top ten priority programs. Has that
been provided to the Appropriations Committees?
Mr. Dickerson. Our most recent top ten project report was
transmitted yesterday, I believe.
Mr. Hurd. Copy. Now, is that the same document that we
received, titled Report to Congress, Ten High Priority
Programs?
Mr. Dickerson. That's right.
Mr. Hurd. Is that for OMB, or is this directly for USDS?
Mr. Dickerson. The reporting direction from Congress
changed between the last 2 years' appropriations, and so what
you're seeing here is kind of the last production under the
joint OMB, USDS oversight. So you see some projects that USDS
is involved in and some that we are not.
The new direction from Congress with the most recent
appropriation is that USDS report on these projects going
forward, and that is our plan.
Mr. Hurd. Good copy. Do you know what the Joint Legacy
Viewer is?
Mr. Dickerson. In passing familiarity, yes.
Mr. Hurd. Is that true interoperability?
Mr. Dickerson. I think it's an excellent first step. It's
certainly a better place to be that you're able to see records
from two different systems together in the same place. My
understanding is that that is found very valuable by the
clinicians that are trying to serve those veterans. There is
certainly farther to go. More interoperability would still be
better.
Mr. Hurd. And what is USDS' role in the interoperability
between VA and DOD? I know you mentioned something earlier, but
I'd love to hear a little bit more robust answer.
Mr. Dickerson. It's a very big problem, and we have bitten
off some pieces of it that we think we can have a really strong
impact on. One of those is the transmission of the service
treatment record between the DOD and the VA at the end of a
veteran's Active Duty service.
Mr. Hurd. Copy. My last question is to everybody, and
please answer in like 20 seconds. What is your key takeaway
from today?
Mr. Powner, let's start with you. You're the most
experienced witness at the table.
Mr. Powner. Let's continue to fix the CIO problem.
Mr. Hurd. Mr. Dickerson?
Mr. Dickerson. I am very gratified to hear unanimity on the
point that 18F and USDS have an important role to play in
improving our overall government services. I certainly take
away the point that there are many parts to this problem, and
all of us have an important role to contribute to it, and I am
happy to embrace the recommendations from GAO.
Mr. Hurd. Ms. Chrousos?
Ms. Chrousos. The key single takeaway is that we cannot do
this alone. It's a very ambitious and important goal that we
all share between us and that more information sharing is
better.
Mr. Hurd. Mr. Hodgkins?
Mr. Hodgkins. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for letting
us be here.
The takeaway for us is that we support these programs. It's
good to hear they are on a good trajectory. We want to keep
them that way so that these activities can be sustained into
the next administration, but this is a big problem, and they
are part of a solution, but they are not the whole solution.
Mr. Hurd. Mr. LeDuc, you get the last word.
Mr. LeDuc. We're delighted that these subcommittees are
committed to their oversight role. We're very happy about this
hearing today. We're delight that GAO has done a very thorough
review in their work, and we believe that combined these two
things together, can really help to focus 18F and USDS.
Mr. Hurd. I'd like to thank our witnesses, especially Mr.
Dickerson and Ms. Chrousos. You all are testifying for the
first time before Congress. I appreciate all you all taking
time to appear before us today. If there's no further business,
without objection, the subcommittees stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]