[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]