    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

                                    AND THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 12, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-53

                                   __________

    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://oversight.house.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    28-781 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

                      Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
    Darrell E. Issa, California              Ranking Minority Member
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina         Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
    Justin Amash, Michigan                   Columbia
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona               Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
    Blake Farenthold, Texas              Jim Cooper, Tennessee
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
    Mark Meadows, North Carolina         Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
    Ron DeSantis, Florida                Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida              Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    Mark Walker, North Carolina          Val Butler Demings, Florida
    Rod Blum, Iowa                       Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia                Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Peter Welch, Vermont
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Will Hurd, Texas                     Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama              Jimmy Gomez,California
    James Comer, Kentucky
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan
    Greg Gianforte, Montana

                       Jonathan Skladany, Staff Director
                      Rebecca Edgar, Deputy Staff Director
                        William McKenna, General Counsel
                   Katie Bailey, Subcommittee Staff Director
                    Troy Stock, Subcommittee Staff Director
                          Julie Dunne, Senior Counsel
                              Kiley Bidelman,Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                     Subcommittee on Government Operations

                     Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair    Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                         Ranking Minority Member
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina         Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
    Ron DeSantis, Florida                    Columbia
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida              Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Rod Blum, Iowa                       Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
                                         Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Information Technology

                           Will Hurd, Texas, Chairman
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan, Vice Chair  Robin L. Kelly, Illinois, Ranking
    Darrell E. Issa, California              Minority Member
    Justin Amash, Michigan               Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Blake Farenthold, Texas              Stephen F. Lynch, Masschusetts
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
                                         Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 12, 2017....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Alan Thomas, Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service,
      General Services Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................     7
        Written Statement............................................    10
    Mr. Rob Cook, Deputy Commissioner and Director of Technology
      Transformation Services, General Services Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    14
        Written Statement............................................    16

                                    APPENDIX

    In-hearing inquiry response from Mr. Alan Thomas to Chairman
      Meadows........................................................    30
    Questions for the Record for Mr. Alan Thomas submitted for the
      record by Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and Mr.
      Lynch..........................................................    34
    Questions for the Record for Mr. Rob Cook, submitted by Chairman
      Hurd...........................................................    45

                        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
                        ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, July 12, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Government Operations, joint with
             the Subcommittee on Information Technology
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
    [chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations]
    presiding.
        Present from Subcommittee on Government Operations:
    Representatives Meadows, Hice, Jordan, Massie, Blum, Connolly,
    Maloney, and Lawrence.
        Present from Subcommittee on Information Technology:
    Representatives Hurd, Connolly, Kelly, Lynch, and
    Krishnamoorthi.
        Also Present: Gowdy
        Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations and
    the Subcommittee on Information Technology will come to order.
    And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time.
        Welcome. I'm pleased to hold this hearing to hear from the
    acquisition and technology leaders at the General Service
    Administration, also called GSA. And in June, GSA announced a
    realignment of the Technology Transformation Service within the
    Federal Acquisition Service that I'd like to really understand
    a little bit better.
        I'd also like to continue up on our conversation that
    started in March of this year in the hearing on the Federal
    Acquisition System challenges and reforms. Annually, FAS is
    responsible for over $50 billion in goods and services bought
    by the Federal Government, while the TTS focuses primarily on
    the technology modernization.
        So in May of 2016, GSA established the TTS as a stand-alone
    service to consolidate technology-related functions and to
    assist other agencies with technology transformation.
        And just over a year later, GSA has realigned TTS so that
    it is no longer a stand-alone service, and the director of the
    TTS now reports to a FAS commissioner. And so I'd like to hear
    more about that from GSA and about the thinking behind that
    realignment.
        Second, I'd like to continue the conversation we started in
    March about the Federal acquisition challenges that make it
    difficult for the government to buy goods and services at the
    best price and in a timely manner. The ever-increasing
    complexity of the system and associated compliance costs have a
    lot to do with these challenges.
        The Federal Acquisition Regulation, or FAR, as it's
    sometimes referred to, has over 2,000 pages, and each agency
    has associated supplements to FAR. Like GSA, which has the
    general service acquisition regulations, we understand that
    these complex compliance issues make it very problematic.
        And so I'm looking forward to hear how we overcome those
    compliance costs. But let me just highlight one area, because
    there's some indication that the compliance costs alone cost
    over $4 billion annually.
        Now, the cost of this complexability--or complexity is
    actually passed through in terms of higher costs for the
    customer. In fact, GSA's own IG found that 75 percent of the
    top selling products on the GSA IT schedule actually could be
    bought 13 percent lower on the open market than the lowest
    price on the schedule.
        Now, you would think if we're buying in bulk and buying in
    volume that we would get the best prices, and yet, that's not
    what it shows. The big $473 billion fiscal year 2016
    contracting spending question is, what do we do about these
    challenges? How do we fix it?
        So in January, the administration issued an executive order
    on reducing regulation and controlling regulatory cost, which
    presents an opportunity to reduce some of this complexity in
    Federal acquisitions. And in May, I dropped a bill that would
    actually codify this executive order, which I invite all of my
    colleagues to join.
        Clearly, this is an issue that both Congress and the
    administration is focused on. Since GSA is a member of the
    rulemaking body for the FAR council, and as a leader of several
    large acquisition programs, they should seize the opportunity.
        Finally, a word about a specific acquisition reform
    proposal. Our committee has been working with Chairman
    Thornberry on the online marketplace proposal in the National
    Defense Authorization Act. And we heard from one of the
    witnesses in the March hearing that suggested that we needed to
    go bold in acquisition reform.
        This proposal actually would meet that requirement. And
    under this proposal, GSA would be directed to establish a
    program to buy commercial products by contracting with several
    online marketplace providers. These marketplaces would provide
    a rapid point-and-click transaction dynamic, pricing, and
    delivery of goods under a standard commercial term and
    condition.
        So in order to inform a continued consideration for this
    proposal, I'd be interested in hearing what the GSA thinks on
    this particular proposal given their significant role in
    potentially implementing it.
        I'd like to thank each of you for being here today, for the
    witnesses, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        And with that, I'll recognize my good friend and the
    ranking member from--the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks
    for calling today's hearing on the General Service
    Administration recent reorganizations.
        GSA's Federal Acquisition Service plays an important role
    in Federal procurement policy, procuring government-wide
    solutions to products such as telecommunications, goods and
    services, and technology.
        In past administrations, both Republican and Democratic,
    the Federal Acquisition Service has been led by career civil
    servants to ensure that political considerations were not
    involved in the Federal acquisition process.
        It's important the taxpayers know that when the Federal
    Government spends money on things from office supplies to
    information technology, the contract is negotiated on a
    nonpartisan basis in the best interest--hopefully--of the
    taxpayer.
        GSA also plays an important role in implementing the
    Federal risk and authorization management program, which
    standardizes the way the government is to conduct security
    authorization for cloud products and services.
        Over the past year and a half, after numerous concerns
    expressed by this committee and by the private sector, I
    convened a FedRAMP stakeholders meeting to discuss FedRAMP's
    shortcomings, including costly and delayed certifications.
        Fortunately, those efforts along with the work of the
    program management office, have actually resulted in
    significant progress over the last year and a half. FedRAMP
    Ready, FedRAMP Connect, and FedRAMP Accelerated are helping to
    streamline and speed up the certification process.
        That process had been allowed to stretch out to as much as
    2 years and multimillions of dollars in expenditures for
    applicants. That was not the intent of FedRAMP. We've made
    progress so that that's now down, for most applicants, to 4
    months.
        Although, I met with one this week that is on its third
    year and counting. So we still have progress to make, but I do
    applaud GSA for finally taking this issue seriously and making
    progress.
        GSA recently announced a reorganization effort that
    included changing the commissioner of the Federal Acquisition
    Service from a career position to a political appointment for
    the first time. GSA told committee staff in a bipartisan
    briefing this change came from the White House itself.
        This would raise concerns in any administration. But for
    me, it's downright frightening in this administration.
    President Trump has the ability to fire the FAS commissioner at
    the same time that he has pending business with GSA, existing
    contracts with other agencies, and continues to receive income
    from other Federal--Federal investments with his business
    partners.
        This is a recipe for abuse of power and certainly conflict
    of interest, especially under a President who has no qualms
    about firing lead law enforcement officers investigating his
    own campaign and senior White House officials.
        I want to be clear, Mr. Thomas, and not just because you're
    my constituent, I'm in no way questioning your personal
    integrity. This is not about you personally. It's about
    ensuring that you and any commissioner who follows is protected
    from the political process.
        The GSA reorganization also consolidated the Technology
    Transformation Service into the Federal Acquisition Service.
    GSA told committee staff that the rationale for this change was
    to make it easier to find GSA's 18F program using the
    acquisition service fund.
        It was precisely GSA's use of that revolving fund, however,
    that the Office of Special Council just notified President
    Trump resulting in, quote, ``gross mismanagement.'' OSC's
    notification followed disclosures from former commissioner of
    FAS Tom Sharpe to GSA's inspector general and OSC regarding
    mismanagement and violations of law relating to the funding of
    18F.
        However, moving TTS into the Federal Acquisition Service
    does very little to address the management challenges facing
    the Technology Transformation Service and 18F that have been
    identified by the GSA Office of Inspector General. These issues
    range from disregarding GSA IT security policies for operating
    and obtaining information technology to 18F's mounting
    financial losses.
        Acting special counsel Adam Miles wrote, in a July 5, 2017,
    letter to President Trump, and I quote, ``Without additional
    details on improved management controls, the realignment does
    not address Mr. Sharpe's broader, substantiated concerns about
    mismanagement and his related questions about whether the
    taxpayers are receiving a solid benefit from this program.''
        Unfortunately, my confidence in GSA has eroded further. A
    series of actions have called the Agency's judgment and
    independence into question. GSA has resisted oversight and
    stonewalled members of this committee and other committees in
    Congress, and I'm disappointed that GSA has still not responded
    to inquiries from members of this committee regarding its
    position of President Trump's lease of the Old Post Office
    building.
        Prior to President Trump taking office, GSA expressed
    concern about whether his ownership interest would violate a
    clause in the lease that prohibits an elected official
    explicitly from holding an interest in the lease. GSA urged the
    President to fully divest his financial interest in the Old
    Post Office lease at that time.
        After the election, GSA made a complete volte-face, about
    face, and decided that the President was not in violation of
    the lease and provided no rationale for the decision. I think a
    lot of us, certainly on this side of the aisle, are
    disappointed that GSA refused to take appropriate actions to
    protect against conflicts of interest to protect the President
    as well as the public interest.
        Additionally, just yesterday, GSA decided--God knoweth
    why--to pull the plug on a 10-year effort to consolidate the
    FBI headquarters into a new location. This decision is a
    devastating blow to the hardworking men and women of the FBI
    itself who fight every day to keep this country safe.
        As reported by the GAO and numerous press accounts, the FBI
    headquarters is in disrepair and the building literally
    crumbling around its employees. This is not only devastating
    for the FBI, but it causes GSA's credibility to suffer with the
    private sector, with whom it's been working this last decade.
        A number of private sector entities, as well as local
    jurisdictions, put millions of dollars into the redevelopment
    and planning in response to the bidding process from GSA. GSA
    canceled that project yesterday. It did not notify the private
    partners with which it was working and barely gave us notice up
    here.
        This failed procurement harms GSA's credibility and, I
    think, is going to cast a cloud over the willingness of serious
    private sector entities to want to partner with GSA in any kind
    of complicated turnkey operation such as that involving the FBI
    headquarters.
        Finally, political leadership of GSA has used the Agency as
    a political weapon before, and we don't want to revisit that.
    And it's important that we don't go down that road again in
    this administration.
        It was not even 10 years ago that former GSA administrator
    Lurita Doan was forced to resign. During her tenure, Ms. Doan
    sought to use GSA to help Republican lawmakers win reelection
    and approved a $20,000 no-bid procurement order to a firm run
    by a friend, who had served as her public relations consultant
    in the private sector.
        These are the misdeeds that can occur when those at GSA
    seek to curry political favor instead of working in the best
    interest of the taxpayer. Trying to shield GSA from that
    political influence is the first step.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
        And before I recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Information Technology, I would like to just recognize the
    congressional liaison team that's here. We thank you for being
    here. But specifically, our good friend and colleague, Mr.
    Post, welcome back. I would be remiss. And if you haven't
    prepped him in the right way, you're going to hear from me.
        But I recognize the chairman of the IT Subcommittee, the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be here
    once again in partnership with the Government Operations
    Subcommittee and Chairman Meadows and Ranking Member Connolly.
    This is our third joint hearing together in this Congress, and
    I look forward to many more.
        Back in March, we held a joint subcommittee hearing to
    review challenges in Federal acquisition of IT. What we heard
    was alarming. For example, the number of first-time Federal
    vendors had fallen to a 10-year low, down from 24 percent in
    2007 to 13 percent in 2016.
        The Federal Government is supposed to buy commercial, but
    with 34 different definitions of a commercial item in Federal
    regulation and 138 potentially applicable clauses for such
    transactions, it's hardly a situation conducive to commercial
    viability.
        One of our witnesses at the March hearing, Dee Lee, chaired
    the section 809 panel, urged Congress to go bold. Another
    witness stated that the time was ripe to change the way the
    Federal Government acquired IT.
        I look forward to hearing today how the reorganization of
    TTS will help GSA fulfill its mission. I'm also interested in
    hearing an update on how the FedRAMP program--and ways that we
    can help streamline this cumbersome but important process.
        Lastly, I want to applaud Chairman Thornberry's efforts to
    streamline acquisition within the Department of Defense and
    across the Federal Government. In an era when the click of a
    button can deliver nearly every imaginable consumer good,
    there's no reason why the U.S. Government should be jumping
    through expensive hoops to buy a pack of pencils.
        This is not an easy issue to reform. We have great
    challenges in front of us. But we also have an opportunity to
    significantly streamline our Nation's outdated acquisition
    process.
        Thank you, all, for being here, and I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the chairman.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman, who is truly a
    definition--when you look up that in the dictionary, it should
    have your picture. And so the gentleman recognizes Ms. Kelly
    for her opening statement.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much. My chair doesn't say that
    about me.
        Mr. Hurd. I was thinking it.
        Ms. Kelly. Chairman Meadows and Hurd and my colleague,
    Ranking Member Connolly, thank you for calling today's hearing.
    And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
        There has been a series of major changes within the GSA.
    These changes deserve greater attention from Congress, and I'm
    glad that we have this opportunity to learn more about these
    decisions that directly impact GSA's ability to complete its
    mission.
        In May 2016, GSA launched the Technology Transformation
    Service, or TTS, which combined the Office of Citizens'
    Services and Innovative Technologies, the Presidential
    Innovation Fellows, and 18F to create a one-stop shop to build,
    buy, and share technology solutions. This consolidation makes
    sense but does raise some important questions, and I look
    forward to hearing your answers.
        Last month, GSA announced that TTS would be housed within
    the Federal Acquisition Service or FAS. I look forward to
    better understanding the details of this merger and how it will
    affect the work of FAS and TTS. This reorganizing was also
    accompanied by an announcement that the head of FAS would
    become a political appointee.
        For more than a decade, the FAS commissioner has been a
    career GSA employee which carries real benefits. I have some
    serious concerns about politicization--excuse me. I'm not
    feeling well--of FAS commissioner position, especially given
    the recent decision to expand FAS responsibilities to include
    TTS.
        With more and more at stake in this critical office, we
    need an FAS commissioner who can rise above the political
    volatility of our current moment and remain completely and
    totally independent. Furthermore, I'm concerned about the utter
    lack of transparency from GSA in this new administration.
        In December, following the 2016 presidential election,
    members of the Oversight Committee sent a request pursuant to
    the seven-member rule to GSA. For those unfamiliar with the
    seven-member rule, it requires an executive branch agency to
    provide any requested information by any seven members of the
    Oversight Committee.
        GSA provided the documents responsive to the requests
    within 2 weeks, and we thank you. This year, members of the
    Oversight Committee sent GSA another request pursuant to the
    seven member rule. To date, GSA has not responded to either
    request.
        This cannot be the status quo. GSA plays a critical role in
    our government, and the American people deserve answers and
    transparency, especially when those Americans are members of
    this committee.
        In the coming months and years, our committee will be
    working with GSA to continue improving and streamlining IT
    acquisition efforts, reform FedRAMP, and implement the MGTA. We
    need a GSA that is responsive, transparent, and most important,
    accountable to Congress.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. Thank
    you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank you.
        We'll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
    member who would like to submit a written statement.
        We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses. They have just
    called votes, and so what we're going to do is we're going to
    do our best to get both of you to do your opening testimony
    where you can get that out of the way and then we'll take a
    recess for the question and answer portion.
        I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Alan Thomas, commissioner of the
    Federal Acquisition Service for the GSA; and Mr. Rob Cook,
    deputy commissioner and director of Technology Transformation
    Services at GSA. We welcome you, both.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
    before they testify, so if you'll please rise and raise your
    right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
    about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth?
        All right. Thank you. Please be seated. And let the record
    reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Again, in order to allow time for questions and answers and
    hopefully to get us back through this, if you'll limit your
    oral testimony to 5 minutes, but we will provide your entire
    written statement in the record.
        So, Mr. Thomas, you're now recognized.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                        STATEMENT OF ALAN THOMAS

        Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon, Chairman Meadows and Chairman Hurd, Ranking
    Members Connolly and Kelly and members of the Government
    Operations and Information Technology Subcommittees. Thank you
    for the opportunity to come before you today and discuss the
    U.S. General Services Administration's Federal Acquisition
    Service.
        I'm honored to be here today for the first time as
    commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, or FAS, as we
    call it, as today marks my 12th day on the job. Considering my
    new tenure at the helm of FAS, I will start by giving you a
    brief overview of who I am and the perspective I will bring to
    the role of commissioner.
        I come to GSA as an outsider but with a perspective
    informed through multiple interactions with the Agency through
    different roles throughout my career. For example, I've led a
    technology startup in accessing the Federal marketplace using
    IT schedule 70 and built a $7 million business line using that
    access.
        I've participated as a consultant in the merging of the
    Federal supply service and the Federal technology service. I've
    served as a Federal employee and used the GSA managed multiple
    award schedule contract to acquire professional services in
    support of an R&D program in my portfolio.
        Finally, I've managed a rapidly growing business unit for
    one of the most successful alliance small business prime
    contract holders. These roles have shown me GSA from the
    viewpoint of a startup company and established small business
    and that of a Federal employee.
        As commissioner, I aim to keep all these perspectives in
    mind, as GSA's impact on Federal acquisition is wide and deep.
    My philosophy and approach for combining the mission and
    resources of TTS and FAS is to, first, listen intently,
    starting with the internal GSA team and our customers, then
    widening to encompass our industry partners and external
    stakeholders.
        I want to ensure that we are providing the best possible
    products and services to our customers and delivering value for
    the American taxpayer. Observing FAS from my vantage point as
    an outsider will provide valuable insight into how we achieve
    our goals.
        When meeting with programs, I've been asking three simple
    questions: What's most important to keep? What's most important
    to change? And what are the obstacles to change?
        Second, I'm going to utilize key members of the existing
    team, including my colleague and partner Rob Cook, the
    Technology Transformation Services deputy commissioner, whom
    you'll be hearing from shortly, and the rest of our senior team
    at GSA to better understand the organization's culture. The
    only expectation I bring is that our culture is compatible with
    my core values of honesty, courage, and graciousness.
        Third, I'm going to strive to be a leader without
    presumption, who's transparent in my interactions with staff,
    customers, industry, and stakeholders. I've played or coached
    team sports all my life, and I know the only way we're going to
    accomplish ambitious goals is if we all understand and play our
    roles, trust each other to find common ground, and build an
    organization with shared purpose.
        President Truman said it best when he stated, ``It's
    amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets
    the credit.'' So as I delve deeper into my role in FAS over the
    next few months, my focus is going to be on execution and
    performance. I'm confident that we'll build a high-performing
    team that executes on our objectives and delivers results to
    the American people.
        Before I close, I want to tell you that in my short time at
    GSA, I'm excited about what I see and I'm optimistic about what
    we can accomplish because we have great people. I look forward
    to working in partnership with this committee to execute an
    ambitious government reform agenda laid out by the
    administration and implement innovative legislation, such as
    the Modernizing Government Technology Act, the value-based
    procurement bill, and the National Defense Authorization Act.
        There is still a lot more work that needs to be done, but
    I'm confident that together we're going to make a lasting
    impact delivering value for the American taxpayer. Thank you
    for the opportunity to come here today, and I look forward to
    answering your questions about how best to encourage innovation
    and reform.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. You actually get an A
    for your opening statement on 12 days. Anybody who comes in
    under 5 minutes certainly gets an A from everybody up here on
    our committee. The second part is a Truman quote, it's my
    favorite quote of all time, so you get an A plus.
        Mr. Thomas. Shorter is better, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Meadows. Yeah, amen.
        Mr. Cook, you've got a high bar to accomplish here. You're
    recognized.

                         STATEMENT OF ROB COOK

        Mr. Cook. I'm nervous.
        Thank you, Chairman Meadows, Chairman Hurd, Ranking Members
    Connolly and Kelly. I really appreciate the opportunity to come
    here and talk to you about technology. I like doing that.
        And everyone here is familiar with the problems that are
    facing Federal IT: You know, we have too many legacy systems;
    systems are insecure. They're expensive to maintain; and our
    technology projects are frequently over budget, behind
    schedule, and don't really deliver even at that on what they
    promised.
        So there seems to be a broad agreement on the problem. The
    question is what do we do about it. Fortunately, there have
    been also been a number of government successes in technology
    recently, and we now know what works inside government to
    approach this.
        And it's a combination of three factors: It's getting the
    right talent; it's the partners; and process. So let me talk
    about each of those. First on talent, we'll never solve the
    problem unless we've got great, top tech talent inside
    government.
        We've learned that some great people in technology will
    come to government as career Feds, but a lot more have private
    sector careers. And they don't necessarily want a lifetime
    career in government, but they're happy to come serve for a
    tour of duty. This gives us a bigger pool of applicants, and it
    gives a constant refresh of talent from the front lines because
    technology is constantly changing.
        And let me note that having tech talent inside the
    government does not change the fact that most of the work is
    going to be done in the private sector. What this does is to
    give government the savvy it needs to be a good partner with
    the private sector, so to plan well, to make the decisions, to
    manage projects, to be a better buyer.
        So the second factor, after talent, is partners. The talent
    that's been missing is a key ingredient but it's just an
    ingredient. We cannot move the needle in government without
    people and partners inside government who know government well,
    and that includes in the agencies, in GSA, in OMB.
        And the third is the process. This old, so-called waterfall
    approach was to plan everything out in advance, but technology
    has just gotten too complex for that, and that process just
    doesn't work anymore.
        What's needed instead is an iterative planning approach, so
    you build a bit, get feedback from people who are actually
    going to use it, and course correct, and build a bit more. The
    center of the process has to be the user, and you have to be
    agile so you can change in response to their feedback.
        So we know this combination of talent, partners, and
    process works. An example is the implementation of the DATA
    Act. 18F partnered with Treasury and we took an iterative user-
    centric agile approach.
        Vendors did most of the work, but we were clear about what
    we needed them to build, we managed the process well, and we
    were good partners. The result was a successful project that
    was delivered on time and under budget. That, I hear, is not
    the norm in government, but it should be.
        So government technology has its challenges, but we know
    how to address them. The chance to help in this cause is the
    reason people come to TTS. It's why I came here last fall after
    a long career in the private sector.
        It won't be easy, but this is a moment in time when we can
    actually do it. And there's several reasons that I say that,
    and I'm hopeful: First, there are these recent successes that
    we have that show us how to do it; second, for TTS, our recent
    merger with the Federal Acquisition Service gives us
    flexibilities and structural support we need to do the part
    that we're intended to play; third, FITARA has given CIOs
    authority and encouraged this incremental development
    practices; and fourth, the Modernizing Government Technology
    Act provides vital financial support, and it addresses the
    single-year funding limitation, which has been such a barrier
    to fixing the IT problem. This act is a strong and practical
    indication that we're serious about this.
        And, finally, the strong bipartisan support we've seen for
    this endeavor is crucial. I found it very moving and
    encouraging. It reinforces the fact that this work is just
    plain good for the country.
        This country of ours has largely led the technology
    revolution that's changing almost every aspect of our economy
    and society. This government of ours should not be lagging
    behind. It should be leading the way in using technology to
    provide better service, more efficiency, and more transparency
    for taxpayers.
        So we, at TTS, are excited by the opportunity before us and
    grateful to be part of the effort, and we're looking forward to
    working with agencies, with industry, and with Congress in this
    undertaking. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
        And we will go ahead, at this point, just from a planning
    standpoint, we're going to declare a recess but no more than 15
    minutes before we probably call back in. So you can go wherever
    you want to go for 15 minutes.
        So the subcommittee stands in recess subject to the call of
    the chair.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Meadows. All right. The subcommittees will come back to
    order. Thank you for your graciousness, for your time.
    Obviously, 15 minutes in Congress is a lot longer than 15
    minutes. My apologies.
        And I am going to go ahead and recognize myself for a
    series of questions, and then, as we get into this and some of
    the others come back--typically, when this happens, we lose a
    whole lot of energy. So my apologies. Do not take that as less
    than a--of a priority, just more as a conflict of; schedules.
    We have 20 half meetings a day, and so hopefully this is a full
    hearing as we go forward.
        So, Mr. Thomas, let me come to you. We have got an issue
    when it comes to this whole procurement side of things. And
    what I mentioned in my opening comments was the fact that I can
    go on Amazon and buy things cheaper than you can buy as a
    government contractor. How do we fix that?
        So just pure and simple, I know give 12 days in--give me 12
    days of wisdom and years of experience, if you could. How do we
    fix that, and are you all committed to getting it fixed where
    the American taxpayer quits reading about the purchase of $500
    hammers.
        Mr. Thomas. So let me first start off by saying, yes, I'm
    committed to fixing it. I mean, it's one of the reasons, when I
    was asked to serve, that I decided to come back, right, to
    streamline and simplify the procurement process.
        I mean, I think--you know, I think you raise a valid issue,
    that that definitely needs to be addressed. We're--we are
    pretty excited about the Thornberry bill and the ability of the
    commercial marketplaces and GSA's role to sort of sponsor and
    broker those and help those make--help make those work within
    the construct of the Federal procurement system. We think
    that's a real step in the right direction.
        And, you know, from our standpoint, I think we're
    supportive. We've enjoyed working with the committee on that--
    with the Congress on that particular bill and helping--you
    know, helping you-all shape that legislation. So, you know, I
    think that--that's a step in the right direction.
        There are other things we're doing to try and make it
    simpler for vendors to get on schedule. So there's the making-
    it-easier initiative we have within GSA which aims to cut the
    amount of time and effort it takes, particularly for small and
    innovative businesses, to get on the schedules, the information
    technology schedule. We've seen some success there in terms of
    reducing the amount of time and effort that it does take.
        So we are committed to it. We are taking steps. It's
    definitely a priority for me. And as you said, 12 days in, I'm
    listening, learning about what we're doing and then also trying
    to come up with thoughtful recommendations for how to get
    better.
        Mr. Meadows. So let me be a little bit more blunt.
        Mr. Thomas. Sure.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So you've got all kinds of pages,
    over 2,000 pages, across agencies on what they need to do. Most
    of that is not read. It's essentially a big dust collector that
    is out there, that gets referred to if it says that we need to
    keep things the way they've always been. They refer to that
    2,000 page document that most of them have never read.
        So how do we change the culture? Because there--I found
    that there's not a whole lot of risk takers out there. And the
    minute that you do it--and I'm one that believes that we should
    be taking some risk and knowing that we will make mistakes,
    that if we do this, there will be times when we've made a
    purchase that is not appropriate.
        At the same time, under what the GSA IG found, every
    purchase is a problem, because if we're there, we certainly can
    do better than the status quo. So how do we--and maybe this is
    a question for both of you. How do we create a--truly a
    condition where they're willing to take some risk and willing
    to get 2,000 pages down to 50 pages and not use it as their
    leverage to not change?
        Mr. Thomas. Sure. So maybe I'll start, Rob, and then if you
    want to jump in. So I think a couple areas to help address your
    question. So one would be--in terms of encouraging people to
    take risk, there's a, kind of, leadership aspect to it, and
    then there's a, you know, statutory-regulatory reform aspect to
    it.
        So from a leadership standpoint, I think, from the top of
    the procurement organization, we've got to, as you said,
    encourage people to go out, think about taking risk, and not
    necessarily punish them when they make a mistake. If you're--if
    you're drilling for oil, it's okay to drill a few dry holes.
    Right? We're not necessarily going to fire you for that as long
    as you're doing your best and making an effort to comply with
    the rules.
        I think from a statutory and regulatory standpoint, you
    know, there's an effort underway. The Section 809 panel
    actually had a chance to talk with Dee Lee, who is leading that
    panel. And I know she's testified before this committee----
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Mr. Thomas. --a couple of times about some of the
    initiatives that they are planning to undertake there and some
    of their interim findings. And I--you know, I told her I'm
    really excited about what they're doing. Obviously it applies
    to DOD, but I think there's a great chance to take some of that
    and apply what they're doing to the civilian side of
    procurement as well. So I think there's opportunity there. So
    leadership and also, then, real concrete statutory and
    regulatory reform.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Mr. Cook.
        Mr. Cook. Yes, I think you're right about the--you're right
    about the risk of risk culture. That's a big factor. I think
    technology can help a lot in this. Technology's changed so many
    aspects of our economy. People are shopping online. Why isn't
    that possible in the Federal Government? It is an area that's
    really ripe for change, and technology can be a big part of
    that--of that change.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you both.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
    Lynch.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the
    witnesses.
        Let's follow up -up on the chairman's question. So he's
    talking about his ability to go on Amazon. And they will--if
    he's looking for a certain item, they will list 10, 20, 30
    vendors, and they'll all have different prices. Some with
    shipping; some with not. But you've got an open marketplace
    there and creates competition and drives prices down, as Mr.
    Cook was saying.
        So I have a terrible problem in my area, in Eastern
    Massachusetts, in my district, where we got some big government
    construction projects going on, and I've got some good-sized
    companies, very, very skilled. These are not mom-and-pop
    outfits. These are 5-, 600 employees. And those contractors
    cannot bid on the work that's going on in their area.
        There's a secret handshake thing going on with the DOD. We
    cannot figure out how the hell the--excuse me--how to get into
    that bidding process and open it up to competition. It is just
    shot down. It's a good ol' boy network. And, look, I've been a
    Member of Congress for a while. And we can't seem to penetrate
    that whole--you know, that whole operation.
        You got retired generals that are sort of worked in there.
    And I know we're not getting the best price. We're not getting
    the best price. They're--you know, they're driving it up
    because there's no competition. So let's go back to the
    chairman's initial question. How do we wire a system that, on
    the straight procurement basis, we can use that competition
    that Amazon uses to just put the prices out there, say, ``This
    is what we need. Give us your best price''? It would seem to be
    a fairly simple proposal. And it's working, you know, famously
    in private industry. Why can't we do that?
        Mr. Thomas. So Congressman Lynch, thanks for your question.
    I think we can. It's a short answer. I mean, I share some of
    your concern and frustration. As I mentioned, it's--you know,
    it's one of the things I'd like to focus on in my service at
    GSA. I think the bill--the NDAA bill goes some ways towards
    addressing that. There are, as you know, some specific
    regulatory and policy concerns that the Federal Government has
    that those of us who just buy as private citizens through
    Amazon don't necessarily have to take into account.
        So we want to make sure that those are accounted for in the
    appropriate way. But I do think introducing commercial
    marketplaces like that into the government buying process
    should yield some savings and some speed and offer some
    simplification.
        Mr. Lynch. When are we going to see that happen? Do we need
    to legislate that, or do you have the ability to do that
    already?
        Mr. Thomas. Well, we're supportive of the legislation
    that's before the Congress now, and we're hopeful that it will
    pass. And we--you know, as I said earlier, we'd like to try and
    fully implement it. We think there--we think there are benefits
    there. So, yes, legislation would be helpful.
        Mr. Lynch. All right. Mr. Cook, you got anything on this?
        Mr. Cook. Yes, you're right. The hurdles are--make--make
    the Federal marketplace less competitive. It disadvantages
    small businesses. As you were saying 5-
        or 600 people, which is small, I guess. But it
    disadvantages companies of that size and smaller. And it makes
    things more expensive, because--for the Federal Government
    because there are fewer bidders.
        So we are working on the technology side to try to use the
    power of technology to open things up by doing things like
    making it possible to have people buy things online in the same
    way they do at home. That's the goal, and so that's what we're
    working toward. That's the way it should be.
        Mr. Lynch. Yeah. I see. You know--so Raytheon is a big
    player in the defense industry, and I see them. They have these
    small bidder conferences where they're inviting all these small
    and mid-sized companies in to bid on parts of their contract.
    So, you know, if they can do it, I mean, we should be able to
    do the exact same thing.
        Mr. Cook. We should.
        Mr. Lynch. Yeah. All right. I yield back.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman Cook.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. So let me do a follow
    up with that, because the gentleman and I agree on this.
        So here's what I would ask is--and I think you're referring
    to the language that's in the NDAA that you're hopeful that it
    gets signed into law. Is that correct, Mr. Thomas?
        Mr. Thomas. Section 801, yes.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. So if, indeed, that gets signed into
    law, that's one good area. But here's what I would ask you give
    this committee in the next 30 days is a list of both
    legislative and administrative things that could be done to
    accomplish what Mr. Lynch and I both agree needs to be done.
        And if you can report back to this committee with a list of
    suggestions on where the--you could have an administrative fix
    and where you could have a legislative fix to accomplish that
    task.
        Is that fine with the gentleman?
        Mr. Lynch. That's perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. All right.
        The chair recognizes recollection the gentlewoman from
    Michigan.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    witnesses for being here today to discuss reforms--welcome--
    happening at GSA. Earlier this year, I repeatedly petitioned
    the former chairman Chaffetz to address the, some people will
    say conflict of interest, or some will say the appearance, or
    some will say the concern, of our President's, Trump,
    organization lease with GSA.
        During our organization meeting, I offered up an amendment
    that requires the committee to investigate what I feel is a
    blatant conflict of interest regarding the Trump Hotel. It is
    our committee's responsibility to conduct oversight of the
    Federal Government. Hence, my concern about a political
    appointment.
        While my amendment was defeated at that time, I hope the
    committee's new leadership will reexamine these concerns. This
    is not a Democrat or Republican issue. The purpose of oversight
    committee, as I understand and took my oath to serve here in
    Congress, is that we, as a government, ensure that there are
    tax dollars that are being used in our relationships and lease
    and all of those acquisition and allocation of funds for
    purchases are done without any disrespect of the taxpayer who
    is--has an expectation of government.
        And even though the Trump--our President has moved his
    interests to a trust, placing his sons in charge is still
    deeply concerning.
        While the GSA has cleared the President of any contract
    violation, it's not hard to imagine how any future dispute
    could quickly go off the rails if there's any issue with the
    lease. Hence, a political appointment. So where is the--not
    where. I would say my concern, deep concern, is that you coming
    in--and I hear the turn--looking at this as upstart or a new
    company. And although the vision and experience that you've had
    when you look at a company that's coming in and starting and
    how you can use innovation and all the things that you're
    bringing, which we so need in government. I appreciate it.
        My question to you: How does GSA plan on approaching future
    negotiations with the children of the President of the United
    States, and how do we take this beyond this current
    administration? Where is the future for anyone coming into the
    presidential office when it comes to leases with our government
    properties where it says no elected official shall enter into a
    lease.
        And giving that this clause is standard practice to include
    on all leases, how can GSA do--what can you do to enforce
    compliance with this contract?
        Thank you.
        Mr. Thomas. Thanks for your question, Congresswoman
    Lawrence. As you know, I'm the commissioner of the Federal
    Acquisition Service. There's a sister service within GSA, if
    you will, the Public Building Service, that has an acting
    commissioner right now. So the question of leases and how we
    handle leases is really outside of my purview. I'm happy to
    take the question back to my colleagues and follow up -up with
    them with a written response to you, if that's okay.
        Mrs. Lawrence. So if it's outside, who has respond--who
    does that person report to?
        Mr. Thomas. The commissioner of the Public Building Service
    and myself, and commissioner and the Acquisition Service--
    Federal Acquisition Service, we both report to the
    administrator. In this case, it's an active administrator, Mr.
    Tim Horne.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
        Mr. Thomas. You're your welcome.
        Mr. Meadows. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
        Mrs. Lawrence. I yield back, sir.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. The chair recognizes the
    gentlewoman from Illinois.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Thomas, I want to address GSA's lack of cooperation
    with Congress. The Trump administration released an opinion
    issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on May 1st, 2017, arguing
    that agencies and departments could ignore requests for
    documents and other information from members of Congress other
    than Republican committee chairmen.
        On June 7, 2017, Senator Chuck Grassley wrote a letter--
    wrote a scathing letter to President Trump urging him to reject
    the OLC opinion. He said, and I quote, ``every Member of
    Congress is a constitutional officer duly elected to represent
    and cast votes in the interest of their constituents.'' Do you
    both agree with Senator Grassley?
        Mr. Thomas. Congresswoman Kelly, we certainly take the
    committee and the Congress's oversight role seriously. I
    believe it's an essential part of the system. The agency
    evaluates every oversight request on an individual basis, and
    I'm happy to take that concern back and get it addressed for
    you.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Mr. Cook.
        Mr. Cook. This is just way outside my area of expertise,
    and so I'll just leave it to----
        Ms. Kelly. Okay.
        Mr. Cook. --with what Alan.
        Ms. Kelly. Every Member of Congress has a constitutional
    responsibility to conduct oversight of the Executive branch in
    order to inform our legislative actions. Since President Trump
    took office, however, GSA has adopted a new policy. This
    morning, GSA administrator Tim Horne testified before the House
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that GSA will
    only respond to oversight inquiries from committee chairs.
        Have either of you received any guidance, written or oral,
    on how you should respond to requests for information from
    Members of Congress and their staff? And who communicated this
    policy? And how was it communicated?
        Mr. Cook. I have not.
        Mr. Thomas. I have not either.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay. The new policy appears to directly
    contradict the existing GSA policy on communications with
    Congress. On February 20th, 2015, then-GSA administrator Dan
    Tangherlini issued an order to GSA employees setting a policy
    for responding to inquiries from Congress. That order applies
    the same procedures for responding to all Members of Congress
    and their staff regardless of political party.
        Has Administrator Horne issued a new order to overturn that
    2015 order? Are any of you aware of that?
        Mr. Cook. I don't know one way or the other.
        Mr. Thomas. Yeah, I'm area aware. Again, I've only been
    there 12 days. So, I mean----
        Ms. Kelly. Right.
        Mr. Thomas. But I'm not aware of it.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay. In the absence of a new order, that 2015
    order is still in effect. So if you or anyone in your offices
    instructing GSA employees to follow a different policy for
    responding to Congress, you are telling them to violate a
    standing GSA order.
        The Whistleblower Protection Act requires that every
    executive branch policy on communications with Congress include
    language explicitly noting that the police does not affect any
    employee's legal right to communicate with Congress.
        Has GSA included the language required by the Whistleblower
    Protection Act in communications to agency staff about the new
    policy on responding to Congress?
        Mr. Thomas. Congresswoman Kelly, I don't know. I'm happy--
    I'm happy to come back to you with an answer on that, but I
    don't know. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Cook. Same here.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay. Will you commit today to respond to
    requests, like you said you would, from Members of Congress
    regardless of whether they are Republicans or Democrats or
    whether they are in the majority or the minority of Congress?
        Mr. Cook. One thing that we are in the Technology
    Transformation Service is very nonpartisan. We don't care where
    that request comes from.
        Ms. Kelly. I appreciate that.
        In order to adequately address the significant issues that
    currently face GSA, it's going to require cooperation and a
    willingness to be held accountable in order for you to restore
    faith in the agency. And as you--I can see, just from sitting
    here, that all of us can work very well together, the two
    chairs and the two ranking members, to try to get things done
    in this space. So we appreciate all the cooperation we can get.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Jordan. [Presiding]. I thank the gentlelady for her
    questioning and for yielding back.
        And we want to thank our witnesses and the support staff
    who are here today for you taking the time and filling us in.
        And with that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]