[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DIGITAL GI BILL IN DISARRAY: HOLDING
THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION
ACCOUNTABLE FOR VA'S COSTLY
MISMANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-86
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-177 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan JULIA BROWNLEY, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina MIKE LEVIN, California
MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas Pennsylvania
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
Jon Clark, Staff Director
Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin, Chairman
NANCY MACE, South Carolina MIKE LEVIN, California Ranking
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida Member
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Derrick Van Orden, Chairman........................ 1
The Honorable Mike Levin, Ranking Member......................... 2
WITNESSES
Panel I
Mr. Ronald Burke, Under Secretary for Policy and Oversight,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 5
Accompanied by:
Mr. Robert Orifici, Executive Directory, Benefits and
Memorial Services, Office of Information and Technology,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Joseph Garcia, Executive Director, Education Services,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Nicholas Dahl, Deputy Assistant Inspector General, Management
and Administration, Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 7
Mr. Justin Parke, Managing Director, DGIB Program Manager,
Accenture Federal Services..................................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements Of Witnesses
Mr. Ronald Burke Prepared Statement.............................. 29
Mr. Nicholas Dahl Prepared Statement............................. 33
Mr. Justin Parke Prepared Statement.............................. 42
Statements For The Record
The MITRE Corporation Prepared Statement......................... 49
DIGITAL GI BILL IN DISARRAY: HOLDING
THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION
ACCOUNTABLE FOR VA'S COSTLY
MISMANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Derrick Van Orden
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Van Orden, and Levin.
Also present: Representative Rosendale.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DERRICK VAN ORDEN, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Van Orden. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come
to order. I want to thank everyone for being here today to
discuss the Digital GI Bill (DGIB) project. Notice I did not
say to discuss the fantastic way that this project has been
completed on time and on budget. That was not in the script. We
have to approach this in a nonpartisan way, and I am incredibly
thankful for Mike being here and all the rest of my Democrat
colleagues for really adhering to that tradition we have here
in this subcommittee, where we clearly separate politics. This
is one of the reasons why we have to.
During the subcommittee's joint hearing with the
subcommittee on Technology Modernization in July 2023, we
received an update about the digital GI Bill, and we voiced our
concerns about how the project has been designed and
implemented during the Biden Harris administration. Let us be
super clear, these contracts were signed under the previous
administration. I would like to repeat my fellow Chairman Matt
Rosendale's words during his opening statement last July, where
he said, I believe the concept of the digital GI Bill remains
sound, but the bureaucracy managing the project is floundering.
Since then, it is clear that the bureaucracy managing this
project has negatively impacted the success of the digital GI
Bill and has cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars
and ultimately negatively impacts veterans.
We are here today because the report issued by the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Inspector General (IG) in
August 28th, 2024, and it confirms many of the fears that were
expressed on my side. You know what? It is actually our side of
the aisle about how this project was being managed under the
current administration. According to the Office of Inspector
General (OIG), the project was hindered from the outset because
the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) failed to include
staff who had, this is a direct quote. VBA failed to include
staff that had required technical expertise to develop
performance work statements which outlined the necessary steps
to complete the platform development and therefore drive
contract requirements further. The OIG specifically mentioned
that the initial contract requirements were, and I quote,
unclear or unrealistic. This report highlighted the lack of
accountability of leadership at the VA and the design flaws
that will continue to cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
millions of dollars.
VA employees working on this project did not have the
proper expertise to run the program, and the VA failed to
follow traditional contract implementation guidelines. It is
just that simple. Many of these same issues have been raised
and investigated by this committee in previous GI Bill failures
in 2008, `10, and `18. Frankly, gentlemen, it is embarrassing
that we have to do this again. It is professionally
embarrassing, and anybody that has anything to do with this
project should be personally embarrassed. Those are everybody
here and the people that decided not to show up. The life cycle
cost is projected by MITRE, who I will note refused to testify
today, that is the empty chair next to you. Answer questions
about their involvement in these issues to be up to $2.7
billion. That is over a billion dollars more than the estimate
was given to Congress in 2021. This project, which was
originally projected to be finished at the end of 2024, will
not even be done until 2026.
During today's hearing, VA must be accountable for the 2-
year delay and doubling the cost and explain how they are going
to get the GI Bill back on track. Student veterans deserve a
modern system that they can count on. Taxpayers deserve to know
that their investment is worthwhile, and that is why we are
here, period. What is amazing to me is that any private
business or non-government sector of the American economy, if
this were to take place, they all would have been fired. They
all would have never been hired again by anybody with any level
of sanity or business sense or fiscal responsibility or someone
in this case, who actually cares about the people they say they
care about. That is the student veterans.
If civilians were sitting there, they would walk out this
door and their stuff would be in a cardboard box from their
desk and they would be fired, and rightfully so. I am really
looking forward to hearing from the OIG. I had a meeting with
them for like an hour going through these results because this
is, on one hand, so incredibly complicated and on the other
hand, so incredibly easy to figure out what has gone on here
and what continues to go on at the Veterans Affairs
Administration. We are just not going to allow this to fail. We
are not. I would like now to yield to my very good friend and
Ranking Member Levin for his comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Levin. I thank my friend, the Chairman and I definitely
concur. We all want the same thing. We want GI Bill benefits on
time through the digital GI Bill modernization. It is
unfortunate that a number of the witnesses could not have
appear today. I know there were some scheduling conflicts, and
I think there was one at least that had a family commitment. We
need to hear from all these folks who could not attend in the
coming weeks and months. I, too, was very troubled by the
Inspector General Report. I will say that I was not necessarily
surprised because we have been getting updates, you know,
regularly every month from education service. It has been a
common practice since COVID to get those updates and those
meetings. Those updates were necessary because of the
implementation issues that we have had with the forever GI Bill
for some time, and that goes back to the implementation
contract with Booz Allen from a number of years ago. I will
tell you that this is. I have props today. I am very excited.
Usually, they do not let me have props. This is good.
Mr. Van Orden. We are excited.
Mr. Levin. We are excited about----wait until you see what
I am going to show you in a second. Shortly after I was first
sworn into Congress and entrusted with the gavel of the
subcommittee in 2019, I traveled to Muscogee, Oklahoma, to see
firsthand the outdated duct taped together systems that
education services was relying on to administer the digital GI
Bill. This was more than 6 years ago. The photo behind me, it
was very clear that VBA's (IT) Information Technology
infrastructure had been underfunded and left with Band Aid
fixes for 50 years. Frankly, it was a mess. It was just, it was
a mess.
I took time to kind of go off script. I told the VA folks
there I wanted to go speak with the employees of the call
center. They have this converted grocery store out there in the
middle of Muskogee that is a big call center. I wanted to
understand, you know, what was happening with those call center
employees. It was truly incredible that anybody got anything
done at all. They were cobbling together several different
software systems. Some were relying on Common Business-Oriented
Language (COBOL). Some were trying to patch together Microsoft
Windows. They were printing their own stuff on Microsoft Word.
It was crazy. It was just crazy. We spent the day with
President Trump's undersecretary of benefits, Dr. Paul
Lawrence. Really nice, man and we learned what the digital GI
Bill would mean for the agency and what it would mean for
veterans and why it absolutely needs to happen.
Before we departed, we did what you do in Muscogee,
Oklahoma. Where is the next slide? Okay, this is the important
one there. Right there. We got some excellent barbecue. Stay
with me. There is a method to my madness here. I sat there with
a triple meat platter of pulled pork, brisket, and jalapeno
cheddar sausage with this guy here. Thank you, Justin. I had a
chance to reflect as I was sitting there eating the barbecue.
Good barbecue takes a good chef, takes a good recipe, takes
quality ingredients, and takes time, patience, and attention to
detail. You cannot rush perfect barbecue. Forgive my dad joke,
Mr. Chairman, but I fear today that we could risk pulling the
meat from the smoker too soon. I think we all can agree that
the digital GI Bill project has had some big problems, some
major problems due to poor planning. The original scope was too
small, partially because we in Congress initially only provided
$30 million to conduct the modernization. It is before I got
there, so not my fault.
We cannot ignore the fact that IT had been left to languish
under all the administrations in the three to five decades
prior, putting band aids over problems and slapping more
systems on top of the benefits delivery network, also known as
BDN, to mitigate problems in 2018. The VA press secretary, who
is named Curt Cashour, he said the law requires a 50-year-old
IT platform that was designed to do the equivalent of basic
math to instead perform something akin to calculus in short
order. That is what he said in 2018. The March 2021 contract
that was developed originally was scoped only to replace some
of the systems on the list. It has become more and more evident
that most or all of these must be replaced for the digital GI
Bill to work and to make that happen, VA has had to rescope and
modify the contract.
In reading the OIG's report, it is very apparent poor
communication, poor contract management have caused roadblocks.
What I hope to learn today is how we ensure that the lessons
that we should be learning do not keep repeating themselves
right. We cannot keep doing, you know, not learning from our
past mistakes, expecting any better. We have got to get this
right. Why is it so important that we get this right? The
systems that we are here to talk about today serve over 850,000
beneficiaries a year. They pay out nearly $11 billion to
veterans and their families. Discontinuing these systems too
early would put benefit payments at risk. They often provide
the main or only income for veterans and their families
attending school. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is
trying to modernize and replace these systems is very much like
swapping out parts of a jumbo jet while it is in flight. I get
that, at least with the jumbo jet most irregularly serviced and
upgraded while not actively flying.
Look, I just want to make sure that above all the politics,
above all the back and forth, you guys got to fix this. We
cannot keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
different result. I look forward to hearing how you are going
to do that today. As the Chairman said, it is truly
nonpartisan. By the way, I invite the Chairman to, and Matt,
you come to Muskogee. They have great barbecue, and we can have
a whole day out of it. We can see the patchwork system that we
are trying to, you know, have the GI Bill operate under, and
how it is completely ineffective, unacceptable. We have got to
work together to fix it. I will yield back.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Raking Member Levin. If you see
me in the profile, you will realize that I will not turn down
good food. Yes, that was a fat joke. In accordance to committee
Rule 5 Echo, I asked unanimous consent that Representative
Rosendale from Montana be permitted to participate in today's
subcommittee hearing. Hearing no objection. We will proceed.
Welcome aboard, sir.
I spoke to Mike previously, and we have agreed to give the
OIG 10 minutes to testify in a row. As I said earlier, this is
an incredibly complicated issue, and it has to be followed
temporally. If we were to break it up into sections and
question and answer, I think we will lose the grand vision. I
spoke to the cats about that previously. They were prepared to
do so, and Ranking Member Levin also agreed to it. I would like
to introduce the witness panel. Our first witness is Dr. Burke,
Deputy Undersecretary for Policy and Oversight at the Veterans
Benefits Administration. Mr. Burke is accompanied by Mr. Joseph
Garcia. Nice to see you again, Mr. Garcia, Executive Director
of Education Services at the Veterans Benefit Administration,
and Mr. Robert Orifici. Right, Orifici.
Mr. Orifici. Orifici.
Mr. Van Orden. Orifici. Yes, sorry, man. I did that last
time, too. Orifici. Sorry, man. That is on me. Benefits and
Memorial Service Portfolio Director at the Office of
Information and Technology (OIT). Our second witness is doctor
or, excuse me, Mr. Nicholas Dahl, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Management and Administration at the Department of
Veterans Affairs OIG. Our third witness is Mr. Justin Parke,
Managing Director of Accenture Federal Services (AFS).
Will all the witnesses please stand and raise your right
hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
provide is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. Please take your seats.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Burke, you are now recognized for 5
minutes to deliver your testimony on behalf of the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
STATEMENT OF RONALD BURKE
Mr. Burke. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and
other members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the VA
digital GI Bill program and VA's continued information
technology system improvements. Accompanying me is Joseph
Garcia, Executive Director of Education Service, and Robert
Orifici, Executive Director of VA's Office of Information and
Technology Benefits and Memorial Services.
VA started its digital GI Bill modernization journey in
2021 to enhance service to VA's customers and equip them with
the tools and resources necessary to achieve academic and
career goals. The new platform streamlines education benefits
delivery and has increased timeliness through automation. Since
implementation of the DGIB platform, automation of original
claims through Fiscal Year 2024 has grown from 0 percent to 32
percent and supplemental claims from 39 percent to 64 percent.
Since our last hearing in July 2023, VA has accomplished quite
a bit. The time it takes to decide an original claim decreased
from 28 days to 10 days, and supplemental claims time has
dropped from 14 days to 4 days. A recent example of this faster
timeliness is active-duty service member Carson, who submitted
his original claim for education benefits. The application
process was streamlined now including prefilled service history
information. After completing a few questions, Carson submitted
his GI Bill application through the new automated platform and
within 15 minutes received his digital certificate of
eligibility, a process which used to take several weeks. His
spouse expressed gratitude for VA's quick decision and what it
means for their growing family's future.
The DGIB platform also reduces security risk for customers
while providing a smoother Chapter 33 claims processing
experience for veteran claims examiners. By integrating claims
processing to a single platform for the first time, VA is able
to synchronize data across platforms. VA has made improvements
to its DGI program governance, leading to its improved customer
experience for the school serving firing officials. In March
2023, enrollment manager launched replacing a dated legacy
system, and since then, VA has successfully processed nearly 8
million enrollments using the modernized system. In July 2024,
VA successfully transitioned payment processing on schedule to
the empower payment platform. This transition release six moved
87 percent of total payments processing from the benefits
delivery network legacy platform, marking the accomplishment of
a major milestone in decommissioning the 50 plus year old BDN
platform. Working with our partners at AFS, release seven will
further streamline the claims processing experience by
introducing the benefits manager application.
Benefits Manager is the first of a series of processing and
workload management features planned for releases eight, nine,
and ten that will permanently optimize the claims processing
workflow. The highest priority for DGIB is improving the
veteran experience. VA uses veteran signal surveys to measure
customer satisfaction through various phases of educational
pursuit. Based on survey results, the overall trust score has
improved by 12.96 percent from Fiscal Year 2022 to Fiscal Year
2024. Although I have highlighted many improvements to the
digital GI Bill modernization effort made over the past 3
years, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the challenge
and lessons learned. The OIG's recent report highlighted
several issues and recommendations which we are leveraging for
continuous improvement.
In addition to their recommendations, OIG identified
increased costs associated with the DGIB contract. VA
acknowledges the true complexity of the modernization vision
was not apparent at the start of the original contract
developed in 2020. The VA technology and data environment has
evolved rapidly since then, and VA has made the course
corrections necessary to meet modernization objectives. VA will
continue to review and update the master planning schedule
through an effective governance review, but we will not take
our foot off the gas.
Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the challenges we have
experienced in implementing DGIB. I believe we are now on the
right path to improve education benefits for veterans and their
families. VA welcomes the feedback from all stakeholders,
including OIG, and appreciates the continuous support of
Congress. This concludes my testimony. My colleagues and I look
forward to responding to any questions you or other members of
the subcommittee may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Ronald Burke Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Your written testimony
will be entered into the hearing record. By the way, it is good
to see you guys too. Mr. Orifici, I am sorry for doing that
twice. Mr. Dahl, you are now recognized for 10 minutes to
deliver your testimony on behalf of the Inspector General.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS DAHL
Mr. Dahl. Thank you Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member
Levin, and Congressman Rosendale, thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the OIG's oversight of VBA's implementation of the
Digital GI Bill platform. VA began modernizing its GI Bill
operations and systems in March 2021 to a digital platform in
order to improve the processing and delivery of educational
benefits to hundreds of thousands of veterans and other
beneficiaries.
This is just one of many significant IT systems critical to
VA operations that the OIG has conducted oversight work on.
OIG personnel have been proactively overseeing VA system
modernization efforts related to financial and acquisition
management, electronic health records, and benefits automation.
However, similar to what we have testified on and reported in
the past, the Digital GI Bill platform effort was impacted by
poor planning, missteps in implementation, and cost overruns.
VBA is not projecting to fully implement the platform until
July 2026, which is 27 months after the original planned
implementation date. VBA's insufficient planning led to
unrealistic developer contract requirements and terms,
resulting in several contract modifications. The original
contract was valued at $453 million. Then, a 2022 modification
added $54 million. A December 2023 renegotiated contract added
another $425 million, bringing the total estimated cost to $932
million. The IG is concerned that weaknesses in contract
management continue to risk further delays and cost
escalations.
VBA missed its target for full operability, largely due to
the rushed contract planning and a lack of IT expertise
involved early on, leading to unclear and unrealistic
requirements. VBA hastily awarded the contract to use
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
funding before it expired. Sufficiently trained and experienced
technical experts could have helped to plan the contract and
develop the requirements. As of May 2023, VBA had made numerous
contract modifications and revisions, contributing to
significant delays.
One of the core contract planning deficiencies was VA's
failure to account for the time and resources needed to
establish three test environments by October 2022. The
contractor was depending on the availability of these
environments to conduct multiple, overlapping tests that would
improve the chance of meeting contract deadlines. However, an
Office of Information and Technology leader told the OIG team
that they informed the contractor they did not have the
funding, resources, or infrastructure to provide more than one
test environment.
More than a year after the initial due date, the single
testing environment was available for the contractor's use. The
OIG acknowledges that, in response, the renegotiated contract
terms in December 2023 only require VA to provide one testing
environment.
To fully implement the Digital GI Bill platform, VBA must
address challenges associated with integrating numerous IT
systems and decommissioning 12 legacy systems. Much of the
decommissioning effort focuses on the Benefits Delivery
Network, or BDN. However, four of its systems cannot be taken
offline until the BDN replacement is complete and the Digital
GI Bill platform is fully functional as envisioned. While some
legacy systems have been decommissioned or consolidated,
including the Long-Term Solution, which was the predecessor to
the Digital GI Bill platform, others are still in use. VBA's
education service had wanted all BDN functions merged into the
Digital GI Bill platform by September 2023, but the service did
not have control over external stakeholders responsible for
decommissioning BDN, which may now not occur until as late as
spring 2025. This will add costs and delays in the platform's
full implementation.
While the contractor and OIT have made progress on
decommissioning legacy systems, significant work remains.
The OIG also found that until February 2023, VBA lacked an
overall integrated master schedule that tracked adjacent and
parallel efforts, some of which affect the Digital GI Bill
platform timeline directly. The schedule being used did not
consider all external dependencies, including modern current
modernization efforts by VBA, that involve decommissioning
other IT systems. The integrated master schedule was also not
consistently shared with the platform's contractor. The process
and communication challenges made it more difficult to identify
dropped or incomplete tasks, also contributing to delays and
higher costs.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) Schedule Assessment Guide, VBA should update its overall
schedule regularly, providing a realistic forecast of start and
completion dates for all related activities, and then
consistently share updates with all applicable parties. In
April 2024, OIT informed the audit team that the integrated
master schedule now combines stakeholder activities across the
program for a holistic view of each product increment. These
efforts will be evaluated during the OIG's routine follow-up
and recommendation implementation.
A fully implemented Digital GI Bill platform should allow
faster decision-making and decrease manual work by education
service staff. It is concerning, however, that the identified
contract planning and management deficiencies are similar to
those identified in other VA IT modernization projects.
While VBA has renegotiated the contract's terms and some of
the platform's functionalities have been implemented, there is
still a long path to full development. Success hinges on
stronger contract management by VBA going forward and close
monitoring of the complex decommissioning efforts of other
related IT systems. The OIG will continue its oversight of
these efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Nicholas Dahl Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Dahl. Your written testimony
will be entered into the hearing record. Quick question, do you
have any people in Wisconsin?
Mr. Dahl. Do we have any employees in Wisconsin?
Mr. Van Orden. No. You Dahl, it is a very common name for.
Mr. Dahl. Well, no, I know a lot of Norwegians are from
that part of the country, but none that I am aware of.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, there is a ton. A lot of them are my
friends. Great, great business people. Mr. Parke, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your testimony on behalf of
the Accenture Federal Services.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN PARKE
Mr. Parke. Chairman Van Orden, members of the subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, thank you for inviting me to testify
today at today's hearing. I am Justin Parke, a Managing
Director at Accenture Federal Services and a member of the
Accenture Federal leadership team. I am also the program
manager of our digital GI Bill engagement, leading the
implementation and operations of Accenture Federal DGIB
systems. I am honored to be here today and to serve veterans
and their families in my role on the DGIB program. For 80
years, the GI Bill has been one of the most impactful economic
programs ever created. In just 3 years, DGIB has transformed
how beneficiaries and stakeholders engage with education
benefits.
We understand the massive importance of our mission to make
it easier for veterans to access and reliably receive the
benefits they have earned. Since the competitive contract award
in March 2021, Accenture Federal has supported VA's DGIB
efforts to deliver benefits faster, easier, and more accurately
while addressing decades of VA legacy system technical debt. To
highlight just a few of the many outcomes already delivered, to
date, DGIB has processed over 11 million claims, delivering
more than $28 billion in veteran benefits to 1.5 million unique
beneficiaries. With 99.99 percent uptime, DGIB ensures that
veterans can reliably access and receive their benefits. We
have accomplished rapid implementation of legislative mandates
like Isakson Roe expanding eligibility to the GI Bill students.
We enabled 14,000 veterans to use the innovative Veteran
Employment Through Technology Education Courses (VET TEC)
program to pursue high tech careers. We created enrollment
manager, which streamlined the work of 18,000 school certifying
officials, making it easier for veterans to get education. For
the first time in GI Bill's 80-year history, we reduced the
time it takes veterans to apply and to receive benefit
eligibility decisions from weeks and days to mere minutes with
automation.
We are proud to say that, since the hearing before the
subcommittee last July, we deployed 19 significant enhancement
releases, including major release six, on the committed
schedule. Release six made 87 percent of veteran claims and
payments more accurate and more secure by integrating DGIB with
Enterprise Management of Payment Workflow and Reports (eMPWR)
and shifting that workload off the BDN mainframe. As a direct
result of the new chapter 33 controls and integrations, monthly
housing allowance payment processing is faster, more reliable,
and 99.99 percent accurate. This is a significant achievement
as VA made multiple attempts over several decades to replace
the 50-year-old BDN mainframe. These repeated attempts
underscore how challenging and complex it is for VA to define
the requirements. Not only that, but VA must also contend with
competing and emerging agency wide priorities.
As with any large IT implementation, additional
requirements may be generated as stakeholders identify business
and technical needs or as external constraints arise. This is
what happened here. Additional requirements expanded the scope
from the original contract and conflicting agency wide
priorities delayed implementation. This drove a cost increase.
As a result of these changes, and per VA change control and
contract processes, last year, an updated DGIB contract
reestablished the path forward to continue meeting VA
priorities and serving veterans. Throughout, we have remained
focused on delivering value and outcomes for veterans. We have
already completed release seven development and VA user
acceptance testing has begun. We are on track for release eight
development and BDN legacy data migration. By November 2025,
the remaining 13 percent of BDN education claims processing and
historical data will be in DGIB with integration to VA eMPWR
for payment. This will enable VA to retire BDN.
With this contract, VA selected an innovative strategy to
enhance the veteran education benefits experience as quickly as
possible. In partnership with VA, we have done that. We are
committed to delivering benefits to veterans faster, easier,
more reliably and accurately. Together with VA, we are
establishing the education services that veterans and their
families deserve. Thank you.
[The Prepared Statement Of Justin Parke Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Parke, your
written statement will be entered into the record. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Peters, PhD from MITRE, to deliver 5 minutes
of testimony of how they screwed up this entire thing to begin
with. Yes, I hope they watch it on television. I now recognize
Ranking Member Levin for 5 minutes to question any witnesses.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Burke, I will start
with you. It is beyond concerning that the digital GI Bill IT
modernization contract was delayed and increased in costs. I
will make sure I got this right. You said $453 million, then
another $54 million, then another $425 million, for a total of
$932 million. I think I got that right. I do not think anybody
would consider that acceptable. I saw the old systems firsthand
in Muskogee. I saw Microsoft Disk Operating System (MS DOS)
prompts that VA employees were using 1970's era systems that VA
had to hire people out of retirement to understand how to use.
I saw the delays that this caused in getting student veterans
their housing allowance, and even simple stuff like change of
address. I mean, it was just remarkable any of it was working
at all. Mr. Burke, can you lay down a little history for us?
How many systems touched GI Bill benefits processing before
modernization in 2018?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. Before modernization, up to 16
different systems were being used.
Mr. Levin. How many have been updated or replaced since
2018?
Mr. Burke. We have replaced two. We are working on
replacing the third, and then we have plans to replace three
more by the time the modernization effort is over.
Mr. Levin. How many does that leave?
Mr. Burke. That leaves 10.
Mr. Levin. Okay, how many do you----so you plan to update
or replace under the current contract, six? 10 still out there.
What was the original Booz Allen contract supposed to replace
in 2018? What happened with that contract?
Mr. Burke. The initial contract was initially put in place
to replace BDN. Then the Colmery Act was passed, and the focus
was kind of shifted to implementing Colmery. That was a failed
effort, and so at that point, the undersecretary for benefits
at that time moved into a completely different direction. That
is when we started to partner with AFS.
Mr. Levin. What was the plan in 2020? We passed the CARES
Act toward the end of the Trump administration. Then in 2021. I
know that, you know, the IG obviously said there were, there
were some rushed judgments that were made, but could you expand
on what you were looking to update with the money from the
CARES Act?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. The intent of using the Cares act was
to actually kickstart the DGIB modernization efforts.
Mr. Levin. Do you agree with the characterization that
there was a rush to judgment with use of those funds?
Mr. Burke. I do. Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. I understand that the
original Digital GI Bill, Request for Proposal (RFP) was
released on the VA Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology
Next Generation. What an acronym. T4NG contract on December 30,
2020. Under the prior administration, OIG report states that,
quote, original contract requirements were unclear and included
unrealistic expectations, which resulted in development and
implementation delays for the digital GI Bill platform. Mr.
Burke, does VA agree with OIG on this?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. We do agree that the original contract
was unclear and included unrealistic expectations. In fact, the
first contract, I think, had somewhere near 153 requirements,
whereas the new contract has nearly 600. It was very complex,
and some of the fidelity of those requirements in the initial
contract were not there.
Mr. Levin. You believe all those original contract issues
have been adequately addressed?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Levin. What would be the consequences for veterans and
beneficiaries if these updates that you are discussing are not
carried out? Can you speak specifically to things like errors
or delays in payments, or anything else you would like to
highlight?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. I would say that had these efforts not
been carried out, or if we do not continue to carry these out,
that we will not experience any improvement in the trust scores
that we have with the very important folks that we are here to
serve, we would not experience any improvements in accuracy,
nor would we see any improvement in the timeliness of our
delivery of benefits. These current actions, the actions that
we are undertaking now will improve benefits delivery
satisfaction scores but will also allow us to better utilize
our human resources and not dedicate manual efforts to things
that will be replaced by or supplemented by automated efforts.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got lots more
questions, so I will hold for now, and we will----
Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields back. We will be doing
a second round of questions, and we are staying here until we
get some real answers. The Chair now recognizes my friend from
the great State of Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I really appreciate you including me in the hearing
today, and representative Levin. $945 million buys a lot of
barbecue, my friend. Mr. Parke, how much has Accenture been
paid through digital GI Bills so far?
Mr. Parke. To date, we have been paid $489 million.
Mr. Rosendale. $489 million. Mr. Parke, what is the total
value of Accenture's two contracts for the digital GI Bill,
including all years and optional tasks?
Mr. Parke. It is $989 million.
Mr. Rosendale. Almost a billion dollars. Does that include,
what have you included in the contract? I would imagine if
there are any change orders, is there any additional language
in the contract that says this is all encompassing? If there is
additional work to be performed that is outside of this
contract, then it will be this other price list will be
applied.
Mr. Parke. There is a component of the contract that
provides for additional scope, as needed, under an agile
capacity construct.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, so change orders. Any kind of
additional work that is outside of the contract. You have a
price list which is attached to the contract that says this is
how we will be compensated if it is for any additional work
that is not described in the contract, correct?
Mr. Parke. Correct.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, so we may not be at 989, almost a
billion dollars. We very easily could exceed that. If there is
additional work that is required by the VA.
Mr. Parke. In the 989 million, there is a portion already
provided for an optional set of tasks meant to account for the
scenario you just described.
Mr. Rosendale. However, any work that is not described and
included in that contract, we have a price list which includes.
Which would be in excess of the 989.
Mr. Parke. If the scope and schedule is as described right
now----
Mr. Rosendale. Outside of the contract, any work that is
being completed outside of the description in that contract
would be in excess of the 989. You have a price list attached
to cover that, correct?
Mr. Parke. Correct.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, Mr. Parke, when your colleague Colin
Mitchell testified on July of last year, we had a lengthy
discussion about contract dependencies, meaning things VA
promised to do or make available to Accenture that Accenture's
pricing was based on. Are you familiar with those dependencies?
Mr. Parke. Yes.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, Mr. Parke, did the VA's failure to
make good on the dependencies lead to the price increases on
your contract?
Mr. Parke. That is a component of the increase of cost,
yes. As well as additional scope.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, once I heard referred, Dr. Burke is
Dr. Burke?
Mr. Burke. It is not.
Mr. Rosendale. It is not.
Mr. Burke. It is not.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, so, Mr. Burke, same question. Are the
dependencies the reason VA agreed to significant price
increases, including the new, more expensive contract?
Mr. Burke. I say it was a part of it, but certainly there
were lack of requirements, additional scope that also
influenced the cost.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, Mr. Parke, have Accenture and VA
completely resolved the dependencies, or some of them still
uncertain or being disputed, potentially leading to more
contract price increases?
Mr. Parke. We have mapped all of the dependencies in the
contract. As we sit here today, there are no discrepancies in
the understanding of dependencies. What remains is simply
executing against that plan.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, so, Mr. Parke, if the digital GI Bill
project encounters more delays, or additional work becomes
necessary that is not currently included. In your contracts
will Accenture commit to finishing the project at cost without
the profit for more change orders?
Mr. Parke. The contract, as any contract, describes a
scope, schedule, and dependencies. If we can execute
collectively, and I have confidence in this VA team, that we
will do that----
Mr. Rosendale. Okay, so that is a no. You are going to get
your change orders. You are going to be compensated for your
change orders. Now that I am down to my remaining 40 seconds,
what I would like to say is this is the problem that we run
into with virtually every single software company that has come
before me. I cannot pin down whether all the responsibility
lies on the VA for not properly describing what they need or
the software companies or the vendors that hold themselves out
as the experts. You are the experts in the field. We cannot
hire experts within every agency and government to oversee the
vendors that we are hiring. That is what your job is.
When a request comes out that describes work that needs to
be done, if you were holding yourself up as the expert in the
field, you should define and discuss what needs to be included
to perform that task. If you are not, you are either
incompetent or dishonest. If somebody on this committee goes
and purchases an automobile and then takes it home and
discovers that it does not have blinkers and it does not have a
horn and it does not have the devices that are necessary,
windshield wipers, so that you can properly operate it on the
road, if they disclosed that, and the price was reflective of
that before you left the showroom, then that is on the
consumer. If you did not and the consumer comes back and says,
I paid full price for this vehicle and yet it does not have all
of these components that are necessary for me to function, then
that dealer is dishonest. That is how I look at every one of
these programs.
What you do is you end up being compensated to complete
tasks that were never described that you should have if you did
not, that you should have identified that were necessary to be
included in that software program. The whole while that you are
experimenting to develop this, our veterans are being treated
as guinea pigs in the process. It is deeply disturbing to me
because you are getting your profit, you are getting your
salary, and our veterans and their families are suffering and
it is wrong. I cannot tell whether more of the responsibility
lies on you, Mr. Burke, for allowing this to happen and not
better describing what we need or you, Mr. Parke, because of
trying to increase your profits, securing a deal with money
that was available at the time. Easy money was available at the
time, knowing full well that that contract was not going to
increase a little bit. It is more than doubled. It is almost a
billion dollars. I will guarantee you, before this committee
comes back and convenes again, it will be over a billion
dollars. That is completely unacceptable. It is completely
unacceptable. Mr. Dahl, I appreciate all the work that the OIG
has done to help us try to uncover that with that Mr. Chair, I
yield back. I again, thank you for including me.
Mr. Van Orden. You are welcome. The gentleman yields back.
We are going to do a second round. All right. I just. Sorry I
did not want to interrupt you, but you are on this galactic
role. I mean, it was. I was even doing some little tapping over
here, and he almost grabbed you. Thanks for coming by, man. You
are always welcome here. Yep. Take care. The Chair, now I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Burke, you said that Mr.
Parke has been paid how much money? $400.
Mr. Burke. 480 plus million at this point.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Peters, PhD from MITRE. How much money
did you receive to help plan this project? Okay, I guess I will
have to ask you, Mr. Burke. How much money did the Veterans
Affairs Administration give to MITRE to help plan this?
Mr. Burke. Mr. Chairman, that number, I do not know. I will
have to get. I will bring that back.
Mr. Van Orden. Hold on a second. What exactly was Dr.
Peters or Mr. Peters? Yes, PhD, I guess. What was their play in
this whole thing?
Mr. Burke. I will say we have had a great partnership with
all of our partners, whether it be AFS, MTIRE. MITRE is doing
significant work on the lifecycle cost efforts.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Burke, I am going to be really direct. I
am telling you, I am not leaving this committee room. If you
want to do that all day, I will do that all day. Okay. What? By
the way, I would have a fantastic working relationship with you
too, if you gave me $450 million. Let us just put that out.
What exactly specifically was MITRE supposed to do at the
inception of this project?
Mr. Burke. I will start my answer again. We have got
fantastic partnerships with all of our partners, MITRE
included. MITRE has done significant work for us on the
lifecycle cost estimate. I was not around at the beginning of
this project, so I am not sure exactly what was expected at the
beginning that was under prior leadership. If you are looking
for accountability. I am right here, and I am holding our
partners accountable through executive steering committees
setting expectations. I was a part of the renegotiation of the
contract that more clearly laid out expectations. We hold folks
accountable to those milestones and those deadlines.
Mr. Van Orden. Did I just hear correctly that you are
accepting full responsibility for the additional $450 million
that it is going to take to get this done? What did that sound
like?
Mr. Burke. Let me elaborate on my answer with all things
VBA. The undersecretary for benefits is responsible for VBA.
With respect to the effective modernization efforts for DGIB. I
was designated about 3 years ago, two and a half years ago as
the accountable official. I take full accountability for what I
will say is the success of this project. I do not take credit
for the success, but I am accountable for the modernization
efforts.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you. Mr. Orifici, you were there. What
happened? What were they supposed to be doing?
Mr. Orifici. MITRE was brought on board to help us with the
planning of the acquisition for digital GI Bill life cycle cost
assessment and program management support.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, so how I read this and sitting with
the OIG is that, and Mr. Burke, you said VA poor planning. The
VA is not a person. I have had these discussions with you guys
in different parts of the VA frequently. The VA's not a person.
Dr. Peters is a person. He is not here. Mr. Orifici, is a
person. He was here from the beginning. Mr. Burke picked it up
as he was going along. Who exactly did the planning? That as
pointed out very clearly in the OIG report by Mr. Dahl and his
colleagues, who was responsible for the planning? Like who was
that? The VA did not plan it. People at the VA planned it. Who
are those people and why are they still employed? Who are they?
Anybody?
Mr. Burke. I will take that. Mr. Chairman. The individuals
that were involved in the initial planning for these efforts
are no longer with the organization through various means. I
will say that the folks that are involved in the digital GI
Bill modernization efforts now are committed to the people that
we are intended to serve. We have also had six majorly
successful releases and numerous minor releases. The digital GI
Bill modernization. While it had.
Mr. Van Orden. Wait, Mr. Burke.
Mr. Burke. We are aware of the job.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Burke, so I hear what you are saying and
I do not appreciate it. I know that this, Mr. Levin hold up one
thing. This is signed under the previous administration. I know
some of the people you are talking about were political
appointees from the previous administration, but not all of
them. They just, they were not. When we keep saying this, I am
aware of this problem, aware of that, and you are obfuscating
at this point, so my time has expired. We are doing a second
round of questioning. A third and a fourth and a 15th if we
need to. I would now like to yield to Ranking Member Levin for
5 minutes, or you know what? I am going to yield to you for as
much time as you consume, sir.
Mr. Levin. Amazing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not
take up that much. I want to go back to the $932 million
figure, which it is a pretty stunning figure. I want to seek
some clarity here. Is this an increase in cost that is related
to the original scope? In other words, is there a much larger
scope here, or is it the same scope and just much, much more
expensive than you anticipated? Mr. Burke, I will turn to you
for that.
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. First, I
would say the increased cost was due to three major things.
First, the true complexity of this modernization effort was not
realized at the beginning, and it was apparent at the start of
the original contract. The second is the need to install strong
performance metrics to ensure vendor accountability. The third
was to ensure the protection and delivery of VA's intellectual
property. We did not have the transfer of intellectual property
in the initial contract. The requirements were not scoped based
on the complexity that was determined once we got into the
program. Simply put, this was a much larger endeavor than
initially thought.
Mr. Levin. When I met with Dr. Lawrence in 2019, he
indicated, cause, you know, when you go and you see Cobol and
DOS prompts, you say, this really needs to be fixed. What do
you need? At the time, he said $130 million. That was what he
said. There is a big difference between $130 million and $453
million. Can you clarify what accounts for the difference? I
think it is going to be a repeat of your prior answer, but I
want to understand the difference between $130 million and a
$453 million initial contract scope.
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. I think to go back, it is a bit of a
repeat of the prior answer, but I would also like to go back to
the original lifecycle cost estimate. It was done at a 25
percent confidence level, which means even at that time, there
was a 75 percent chance that that number was going to increase.
I think the initial estimation was----
Mr. Levin. I should try that with my home budget, with my
wife. I do not think she would like it very much. What was the
$54 million for?
Mr. Burke. I believe the 54 million was one of the initial
modifications to the original contract.
Mr. Levin. What was that modification?
Mr. Burke. I would have to go back, and I would have to----
Mr. Levin. That is a lot of money. I would like to know.
Take that back for the record. Then what was the $425 million?
That is doubling the size, of the contract. What was that?
Mr. Burke. As part of the growth of the contract, when we
went to increasing the fidelity of the requirements, what we
realized is the initial set of requirements lacked
significantly. Each time we went back and built out the
requirements, when we pulled more subject matter expertise in
which was not there quite as needed in the very beginning, as
we brought the right people and we realized there was a lot
more work to do. As the requirement complexity built, as the
number of requirements built, the scope got bigger.
Mr. Levin. What is your confidence interval today, that the
scope is what you say.
Mr. Burke. Very high confidence.
Mr. Levin. Higher than 25?
Mr. Burke. Much higher than 20. With the life we are at, 50
percent is what we are using a life cycle cost estimate. I
think this collective group thinks our confidence level in
reaching our goals according to the current project milestones
is extremely high. Well above 50 percent.
Mr. Levin. Above 50.
Mr. Burke. 80 percent.
Mr. Levin. 80?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. Going once. Everybody, 80. Everyone agrees. 80
percent. There is a 20 percent chance that Mr. Rosendale's
right, you are going to come back and ask for more money. Is
that correct?
Mr. Burke. You can attribute that quote to me. Yes, sir.
Mr. Levin. Okay, final question on the topic. One issue
also is that we had a program office which has experts on what
the technology needs to provide, but does not have the experts
in technology modernization. How do we need to improve the
partnership between the program offices and OIT to ensure this
sort of thing does not happen again?
Mr. Burke. Great question. I think one of the things that
was lacking significantly and even detected during the IG's
findings was the lack of the communication and lack of
structure. We have added 15 personnel inside of education
service as a formal project management office. We have an
executive steering committee where decision-makers from all
parties, OIT, Accenture, all of our dependent partners. We meet
every 2 weeks. We track every one of our dependencies and
milestones, and so we have increased communication. The
undersecretary for benefits and the Chief Information Officer
(CIO) also hold meetings with us to hold us accountable. Where
we cannot resolve things in the steering committee, they
elevate to the undersecretary and the CIO, and they help us get
to yes or resolve the issues.
Mr. Levin. What could we do to further improve and refine
that process to get your confidence interval higher than 80
percent?
Mr. Burke. I think we need to keep drilling down on the
best practices that we have pulled into our current process. We
need to keep briefing Congress on our progress. We need to
continue to hold ourselves accountable, and we need to keep
putting veterans first.
Mr. Levin. I appreciate that you mentioned three testing
environments versus one testing environment. Can you explain
how having only one test environment impacts your work? How
does this impact your ability to complete this contract on
schedule?
Mr. Burke. Yes sir, if I can, I would like to defer that to
Mr. Orifici.
Mr. Levin. You got it, sir.
Mr. Orifici. Thank you for that question. With one testing
environment, you are only able to test one release at a time.
As you are working on development, the solution, if you have
multiple solutions that you are working on at once, you have to
pause efforts in testing that to test something that you are
doing to the production system or that you are doing to one of
the other systems that you are working on in parallel. It
limits your ability to test multiple things at once. That part
of the restructuring of the contract was to build that into the
plan and schedule where we could use one environment to fully
test all the capabilities and sequences in a way where that
would not be a limiter.
Mr. Levin. Is this a fairly common practice, the three
testing environments?
Mr. Orifici. We do not have this practice across any other
portfolio, any other product within the portfolio.
Mr. Levin. Should we?
Mr. Orifici. With the three test environments today? It is
not the three, the number that is the challenge. These are
three environments of all the interconnected systems. A test
environment, that is three dedicated test environments for
Master Person Index (MPI), for VA profile, for Veterans
Benefits Management System (VBMS), for empower, and then the
same exact production data set across all of those systems. It
is the sequencing of keeping all of these things in sync that
causes a challenge, not the number. It is not, it would not be
feasible to scale out or test environments for all other
products to meet this need.
Mr. Levin. Okay, it is clear it was a problem. There was
only one testing environment. Mr. Burke, did OINT not have
enough resources to provide more than one test environment? Was
there an issue other than that with VA's IT infrastructure
accommodating more than one test site? I am trying to
understand how this went wrong.
Mr. Orifici. In terms of where this went wrong, from the
beginning, when this program was originally stood up, the team
who was looking at this was looking at the environments that
are available through the BDM and the connections there. It was
not forward looking at what the end to end meant in terms of
those other systems like MPI, VA profile and Empower, where we
did not have those test environments. The team was used to
working where they were the sole team working within BDN, so
they could buildup as many environments as they want. It did
not have the interconnectivity that the digital GI Bill now
has, which brings the value and integration to be able to
automate and provide the efficiency that that system does. That
was a misinterpreted requirement by our teams.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. In the interest of moving this along,
I am just going to ask one more question. It is an important
one, and it is for you. Mr. Burke, who is in charge of ensuring
everyone on a go forward basis is on the same page and on the
same schedule and adhering to the budget?
Mr. Burke. Ultimately, within VBA, the undersecretary for
benefits is responsible for all things with respect to the
digital GI Bill modernization, that authority was delegated to
me, and I do that through the executive steering committee,
where all of our partners have decision-making authority and
where we do not get to a go or a good point. I elevate that to
the USB and also the CIO. In essence, the undersecretary is
always responsible for everything in VBA. I take accountability
and was delegated authority under this modernization effort.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Burke. With that, I will yield
back.
Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields back. I am going to
yield myself as much time as I would like to consume. I would
also like to invite the Ranking Member to ask anything at any
point, if something comes up. Okay. It will be noted for the
record that the undersecretary, Josh Jacobs, refused to come to
this hearing. He was invited and sent you guys. The person at
the VA who is ultimately responsible, according to you, Mr.
Burke, did not come here. That ranks right along with Mr.
Peters. That is unacceptable. I got to ask you, Mr. Burke. You
are in the service, right? You are a vet?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes? In what service?
Mr. Burke. Marine Corps.
Mr. Van Orden. Marine Corps, Semper Fi. If at any point in
your Marine Corps career, if someone came up to you and said,
we are going to launch a mission with 25 percent confidence
that everyone is not going to die, would you have gone on that
mission?
Mr. Burke. No, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, so then why in the hell did the VA
launch, what is turning into a billion-dollar project with only
25 percent confidence the initial amount of money that is
allocated budgetarily to this program would work?
Mr. Burke. Yes sir. I think it goes back to the fact that
we were trying to do well. There was good intent, and it was
hastily done and it lacked the subject matter, expertise and
the right people involved and the right partnerships, not for
the lack of good intent. It was not, it was not executed
properly.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Burke, it is a biblical principle that
the road tail is paved with good intentions and that is sort of
what happened. What happened was you guys saw a big pot of
money with a expiration date on it. Your department foolishly
launched this project with 25 percent confidence. I posit, sir,
that by you doing that was the same as launching a mission
where people are going to get killed. This is why. How many
home healthcare folks could provide in home health care to our
veterans for $450 million? How many respite care workers that
could give a break to the caregiver in the home so that they
can get psychological care and just physical rest? How many of
those people could be employed for $450 million? How many more
psychiatrists and psychologists and telehealth platforms could
we buy for $450 million? How many veterans' lives could be
saved because they get to speak to somebody and they do not
commit suicide for $450 million?
By incredibly, incredibly foolish series of decisions by
your department, you are de facto responsible for veterans
committing suicide and not getting healthcare and not being
able to die in dignity in their home. That is why we do this.
We do not like picking on you guys, man. We are trying to save
veterans lives. Good intentions mean nothing. When the veteran
is dead, they mean nothing. When my colleague Mr. Levin asked
with what level of fidelity do you think you are at? You said
80 percent, everyone is like 80 percent. You know who did nod
their head? Mr. Dahl. The one guy whose department has gone
through all the stuff that you have been doing, the one dude
that has a better look at all this stuff from an objective
perspective, did not nod his head. Mr. Dahl, what is your level
of confidence that this is going to be completed by 2026 at the
$900 and what thing? I mean it is $942 million. It is monopoly
money at this point. What is your opinion Mr. Dahl?
Mr. Dahl. I would hesitate to offer an opinion. I will say
that we are confident that if VBA is successful in implementing
our recommendations----
Mr. Van Orden. Let me reframe this question. Sir, we have
identified that the Veterans Affairs Administration disregarded
every single known planning factor. They disregarded every
project management thing. They did not even want to give us a
calendar. Remember that? We had to show the Veterans Affairs
Administration what a calendar was and then put plans of
actions and milestones on that. Then, then according to our
brief the other day, they really just did the same thing. Hey,
you got to fix all this stuff. They disregarded all of your
recommendations, or the majority of them, and then they did the
same thing for another $450 million. Keeping that in mind,
which we call a pattern of conduct, please answer that question
again.
Mr. Dahl. I am really not in a position to tell you how
confident I am. The VA has a track record.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Dahl. Go ahead. Please continue, please.
Mr. Dahl. VA does have a track record of difficulty in
implementing major IT systems. They almost, without fail, take
longer. They take replans. I would prefer to just leave it at
that.
Mr. Van Orden. Well, I respect your professional opinion of
your position, but I believe you answered my question. Hey,
hand me that thing there, Kate. Little graphs and stuff. Have
you guys heard of Pell Grant? Anybody? Pell Grant? Okay, so
here is how a Pell Grant works, right here. That is how a Pell
Grant works. You got money and then people in schools. You have
institute of higher learning, and you have a student. The
student has to be vetted. You get all this, you are the right
person, the right time, has a bunch of requirements,
eligibility and whatnot. Then they apply to a school, and then
the school gets paid. Oh, sorry. I forgot. You are not the only
one with this zippy pictures, pal. Yes. Then you like. Then the
school gets paid, and so does the student. The Pell Grant, they
have a 2.83 percent, like, error rate right now. Right? Less
than 3 percent.
Did it occur to anyone at the Veterans Affairs
Administration to maybe go, hey, how do you administer the Pell
Grant? What do you do? What systems do you use? Instead of
blowing a billion dollars that could have been applied to
veterans healthcare to make sure they did not commit suicide?
Did anybody do that in your executive planning sessions? Mr. I
am not asking you, Burke. Excuse me, Mr. Burke. I am asking
you, Mr. Orifici, because you are around. Did you look at
preexisting models that the Federal Government uses to do
essentially exactly the same thing that you are doing?
Mr. Orifici. Before the digital GI Bill program? We
actually did meet with the Department of Education and talked
about their IT solutions that they had in place. I do not know
that they played a part in the planning of the actual program
as we moved the contract forward.
Mr. Van Orden. You went to talk to someone, and trust me,
if I am complimenting the Department of Education, that really,
that is dogs and cats sleeping together at this point. Okay, so
you went to a department that has an existing program that was
working with still 2.83 percent is too big of a failure rate.
Then you used part. I mean, did you just pick the parts that
were not working and then put that. Were those the parts that
you used for your planning factor?
Mr. Orifici. They were exploratory conversations or are
they were not actually part of the research for the contract.
Mr. Van Orden. Are you familiar with something called
Cerner?
Mr. Orifici. I am, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Do you know how much money Cerner is going
to be the electronic medical record. To date, the Veterans
Affairs Administration has spent about $16 billion for
something that does not work. Are you familiar with a system
called Epic?
Mr. Orifici. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, Epic is a COTS. That is a commercial,
off the shelf technology, medical software suite that you can
drive to the headquarters from my house in an hour and a half.
When I go around to my Veterans Integrated Service Networks
(VISN) and I speak to everybody, I speak to the doctors and all
the providers and everybody, they just want to use Epic. It is
a preexisting thing. It bridges all of your platforms. You can
use community care, which some people, the Veterans Affairs
Administration, are hesitant because they are kind of
protecting their own thing, but you can have an immediate
connection from the civilian to the military thing. Problem
solved. The VA chose to do this instead.
They did Cerner instead of Epic, and we did this instead of
paying a 14 year old in pop Tarts and Red Bull. Who could have
had this done in about 6 months in between playing call of
duty. I mean. Okay, where are those other things? This is
baffling to me. Yes. Mr. Parke, what is your communication
feedback loop with the VA at this point?
Mr. Parke. As Mr. Burke mentioned, we have a governance
structure. We meet frequently every week with Mr. Garcia. We
also have a biweekly executive steering committee which Mr.
Burke chairs.
Mr. Van Orden. When did that start?
Mr. Parke. From day one.
Mr. Van Orden. All right, Mr. Jacobs, or is Josh. He is not
here. Is Undersecretary Jacobs involved in those meetings?
Mr. Parke. Question to me?
Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
Mr. Parke. He is not.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, so hold on a second. Mr. Garcia, the
last time we were here, you said that you are responsible for
all this stuff. Now Mr. Burke is telling me that he is
responsible for all this stuff. Who is responsible?
Mr. Garcia. Sir. As Mr. Burke said, he is the accountable
official. Like Mr. Parke said, we meet regularly on governance
so that is where I get involved at my level, to make sure
operationally, we are moving the progress forward.
Mr. Van Orden. No one is responsible. If you are
responsible, you are responsible. Under Secretary Jacobs is
responsible, and ultimately Secretary McDonough is responsible,
then no one is responsible. Mr. Dahl, from your perspective, if
you could lay out a line of block chart, who would be
responsible for this? I mean, who is in charge?
Mr. Dahl. The undersecretary for benefits.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, so the one guy that is responsible,
like actually responsible, chose not to attend this meeting.
That is the problem right there. I got to ask you guys some
questions here. There has been a remarkable, demonstratable,
definable, and unquestionable amount of incompetence being
exercised across the board. My question to you is, at what
point does incompetence become malfeasance? At what point does
malfeasance become corruption? You guys keep doing the same
thing again and again and again from Cerner to this to, as Mr.
Dahl so aptly pointed out, like every single IT thing. Like Mr.
Dahl, are you aware of any IT project that is organic to the
Veterans Affairs Administration that was not over budget and
overtime? Please tell me just one thing. I want a good news
story.
Mr. Dahl. Personally, I am not.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I did not think I was going to get a
good news story. Okay, so if we can say Mr. Dahl, who is the
OIG, cannot name a single IT project that was organic to the
Veterans Affairs Administration. We are talking with this and
the Cerner thing, you know, we are pushing $20 billion. No one
has been fired, everyone has been paid, everybody has gone to
every conference, everybody gets a bonus. Have we crossed from
incompetence into malfeasance? Meaning you are doing this on
purpose so that you can continue doing the same thing again and
getting money. That is corruption. That is corruption. I mean,
that is right? Until we root out corruption in our own
government, which is blatant, we point fingers around the world
at everybody else saying you are corrupt. Look at this country
and that country. Look at these guys. It is right here and
again the point of this is making sure when we are all like, we
are the best, we want everything for every veteran, we want to
save every.
It is not true. It is no longer true. When we are wasting
billions of dollars that could be paying someone that can take
care of somebody in Prairie Duchesne, Wisconsin, where I live
in their home so they could be there. It is not true. When my
uncle Bob, Robert Francis Mulligan, whose picture is right back
there, World War Two, Korea war veteran, grievously injured in
Korea, had to go to a nursing home because a bunch of these
programs, no one either knew about them or they are
underfunded. He died alone in a nursing home because of this.
Mr. Parke, Accenture renegotiated his contract at almost double
the cost. You are at, you said 99.9 percent like you are error
free. Correct?
Mr. Parke. For monthly housing allowance? Yes, correct as
of release six.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, then what everything else?
Mr. Parke. I believe VA collects information about total
payment accuracy. I will defer to the VA for that.
Mr. Van Orden. Total payment accuracy, anybody?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. Total payment accuracy is 98 percent.
I also have automation accuracy numbers if you desire, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Van Orden. What is it about?
Mr. Burke. 96 percent for supplemental, the original is
lower at 71, but improving. In fact, with respect to the
original claims processing, with working through our governance
process, we have had seven enhancements with 26 total
improvements and will continue as that accuracy level
increases. Payment accuracy, 98 percent. Our combined accuracy
between originals and supplementals is 92 percent. That is
because the original inventory, for the original inventory only
makes up 7 percent of the overall inventory.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, hold on 1 second. We are doing some
quick math up here. You add all those together, you are 96.25
percent.
Mr. Burke. You are averaging averages, Mr. Chairman. That
is not. You do not average averages.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, well, I was an enlisted guy, so it
looks like, you know, I am just going to say that it is about
95 percent across the board, 96 percent. The timeliness is
going to be improved. How has the timeliness improved again?
Mr. Burke. With respect to timeliness, we have reduced
timeliness significantly. With respect to original claims, it
used to take on average, 28 days to process. It is now down to
ten. With supplementals it was 14. It has now dropped to four.
We are continuing to drive not only the improvements in
timeliness but increase the automation percentage and the
automation accuracy.
Mr. Van Orden. Two things. What is the automation
percentage now and what was the time reduction to get your
certificate of eligibility?
Mr. Burke. The reduction for certificate of eligibility is
now in minutes where it used to be, minutes, okay, to weeks.
Mr. Van Orden. Then reduction in?
Mr. Burke. Reduction in time, for original claims went from
28 days to ten, for supplementals from 14 to four. With respect
to automation percentages from original, it went from 0 percent
to 32, and for supplemental claims from 39 percent to 64. Both
are climbing.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, so we spent $450 million, and we are
at 96 percent across the board. We are going to spend another
$450 million to wrap up the other 6 percent. That makes no
sense at all. We are now at 60 plus percent automation, and we
are climbing. That is good. That means more efficiency and all
that stuff. Right here is my question. How many employees are
you going to fire once you get this automated?
Mr. Burke. The answer is here. We are not firing, ok? We
are repurposing them for other benefits delivered. They are not
fired. They are being reutilized, retrained, and repurposed.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay. That is corruption. Just nailed it. We
are spending a billion dollars, a billion dollars to make
everything more efficient, more cost efficient and streamlined.
We are not going to remove any of the people from that process
when they are redundant at this point. We are going to
repurpose them.
Mr. Burke. I am sorry, sir, to clarify, I thought you were
referring to removal, meaning from Federal Government. That is
not the goal of automation. Remove them from the process. We
are already removing folks from the process. We have a pack
deck that brought in a much larger inventory across all of our
benefits portfolios. We have been repurposing people from one
business line to the next to take on that workload. That is not
corruption. That is benefits delivery, and that is putting
veterans first.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, well, that is just not true. I
appreciate it greatly, but it is nothing. It is not. Starts
from the top. No one is been fired. Nobody. You guys are. You
are batting zero. You are batting zero for IT projects. No one
has been fired. You messed up the planning to begin with. You
messed it up again. You started off this project with 25
percent confidence. You would have killed your entire platoon.
People are dying now because we are wasting money. The money
that the thing that needs to be repurposed is not a person that
is no longer doing a redundant function. It is the money that
you are wasting and throwing into a fire. Mr. Dahl, based on
your investigation, do you believe this system is going to be
successful if they follow the recommendations?
Mr. Dahl. I have confidence that our recommendations will
be helpful to VBA to implement this. What we are hearing today,
it seems like things are heading in a positive direction. Keep
in mind that our fieldwork ended just before the renegotiated
contract. We have not gone in and analyzed what has happened
since the renegotiated contract. Taking what Mr. Burke has
said, it seems that things are moving in a positive direction.
We are hopeful that our recommendations will help them get to
the finish line.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Yes. Here is what I am going to say.
Here is what I am going to ask. Will anybody here commit to
resigning if you spend a single nickel more than what you just
said, Mr. Parke, will anybody here resign? You are not going
to, and you are not going to, and you are not going to, and no
one will be fired. Someone may get a harshly worded email, and
billions of dollars are going to be continued thrown into a
fire as we cannot fund someone to go take care of a veteran in
their home so they can die in dignity, or we cannot fund a
telehealth system and a veteran living in a rural area is going
to commit suicide. That is what is going to happen. That is why
people despise the Federal Government. In this particular case,
I join them. I would like to yield to Ranking Member Levin if
he has any further comments. Sir.
Mr. Levin. Thank the Chairman and I thank all of our
witnesses. I do share the disappointment with the extraordinary
cost overruns here. I am hopeful that your 80 percent
confidence interval will increase rather than decrease. I can
tell you that 80 percent is not good enough for me. You know, I
am hopeful that we can go back to Muskogee as well and actually
see the progress that has been made. What I saw back in 2019
was shocking and disturbing. It was very clear that you had
folks using severely antiquated systems. They were doing their
best. I give great credit to the ingenuity of the VA staff in
Muskogee who were somehow able to cobble together the results
necessary for the basic needs of veterans calling in or writing
in.
Clearly, modernization was needed. At the time, as I said,
the initial estimate from the prior administration, compared to
the 400 plus million that has been spent now, another roughly
half a billion dollars that you are contemplating spending.
This has to work. I share the frustration. I also took your
words at heart, Mr. Burke, that there are a lot of well-
intended people who, very much like us, care about our Nation's
veterans and want to see this work on a bipartisan basis. I
hope in this committee, always will do what is best for our
veterans. I can tell you that I do believe in the adage, if you
are in a hole, you need to stop digging. I am hopeful that in
these meetings that you are having on a regular basis that you
are both reflective of the past in the sense that you are
trying to avoid past mistakes, and mindful that you have to be
good stewards of every single taxpayer dollar that you have
ultimate accountability for.
The lack of direct accountability is also a challenge we
face that my five and a half years in this committee, and
specifically in the subcommittee, we have had so many hearings,
scores of hearings, where we ask who is in charge. Today I at
least commend you, Mr. Burke, for saying with clarity and
certainty that you are in charge. You know, if not on a flow
chart or an org chart, somewhere you go to bed at night
thinking about those veterans that you are trying to serve,
waking up, figuring out how you can be the best steward of the
dollars that VA has responsibility for. I ask you to just, you
know, continue on that path of clarity and certainty that what
is happened here is, it really is unacceptable.
I commend OIG for their report, for their work. I hope
another report is not needed in 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5
years. It seems like, you know, the Federal Government has a
tendency to keep you pretty busy at OIG, I can tell you that.
You know, at the end of the day, I do think we all want the
same thing. I very much appreciate the opportunity to work with
the Chairman these last couple years to try to just, in the
best way we can, do what is right for our Nation's veterans,
make sure they are getting the benefits that they have earned.
That is how it is always going to be in this committee. I trust
that you will take from this hearing that you cannot keep
wasting, you cannot waste another dollar on this. I think all
eyes are on what you are doing right now. You have got to get
this right.
The next time I go to Muskogee, I want to get the good
barbecue. I also want to see a modern, efficient, effective
system where if a veteran moves from State to State, or if a
veteran has new needs or concerns that they are addressed just
as they should have been years ago and were not, I think there
is plenty of blame to go around. We are talking about, you
know, gosh, Cobol's 50 years old again. We are talking about
five decades of employees at VA, again, well intentioned, but
not getting the job done to modernize that system. We are
counting on you to do it. Our veterans are counting on you to
do it. I hope you do. You really need to. With that, I will
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you. Ranking Member Levin. To be
explicitly clear, the intent of these harsh words that we are
using is for the sole purpose of making sure that our veterans
get the care that they deserve, that they have earned. I also
want to make sure that the folks that check me in La Crosse,
Wisconsin, so I can get my healthcare, that instead of wasting
billions of dollars, maybe we can give them a pay raise. Or the
fact that we are having difficulty hiring and retaining doctors
and nurses and nurse practitioners, psychiatrists,
psychologists, counselors. We are having across the board
issues hiring and retaining these people because they can go
into the civilian world and get paid more because we are
wasting billions of dollars.
Being able to apply the moneys that are literally wasted,
that have boldly crossed from incompetence to malfeasance to
corruption, wiping that out, we can compensate the people that
are caring for our veterans, that have given us our freedom,
and that we owe a debt. These programs, the Veterans Affairs
Administration, also makes sure that our gold star spouses have
benefits, that the children. I just walked around. I did a
capitol tour with four of our widows and four of their----
excuse me, three of our widows and four of their children.
Every penny that is wasted cannot be applied to making sure
that our gold star families have what they need. We have to
understand that relationship between us and them is not a
mortgage. That is not a 30-year commitment. That is a lifetime
commitment, and we owe them better. We are talking about
prosthetics the other day. We do not have enough money for
this, but we have enough money because someone cannot follow
basic planning guidelines. That is wholly unacceptable. Year
after year after year after year, and every single IT project
has been a galactic failure from the VA. That is not
acceptable. People need to start losing their jobs or they need
to resign.
I am very clear about this. I got out of the SEAL teams
because I could not carry a rucksack anymore. I retired because
I knew I could not do my job. If I was doing my job at the
level you guys are doing your job, I would resign. I have
proven that. Are you trying to do what is right? Yes, I get it.
With a demonstrated pattern of conduct, which is exactly what
you have, that transcends any good intention. I ask unanimous
consent that all members may have five legislative days to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material. Without objection. So, ordered. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements of Witnesses
----------
Prepared Statement of Ronald Burke
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and other Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Digital GI Bill
(DGIB) program and the continued information technology system
improvements and upgrades. Accompanying me today is Mr. Joseph Garcia,
Executive Director, Education Service, and Mr. Robert Orifici from the
Office of Information and Technology (OIT).
To ensure VA serves all Veterans and their families seeking to use
their GI Bill benefits and equip them with the tools and resources
necessary to reach their academic and career goals, VA is modernizing
the GI Bill's Information Technology (IT) platform to deliver benefits
faster and enhance customer service.
The goal of this effort is to develop a modern digital platform,
leveraging cloud-based automation, digital service transformation,
human-centered design, robust communications, analytics, and other
important IT services. The improvements will provide world-class
customer and benefit services to Veterans and VA's partners, enabling
more timely and accurate delivery of education benefits, providing near
real-time eligibility and benefit information, and allowing for first
contact resolution.
Another aspect of the DGIB effort is to modernize the numerous
legacy systems that are outdated and costly. Updating the benefits
payment platform from the 50-year-old Benefits Delivery Network (BDN)
will reduce costs and enhance the reliability and security of benefits
payments to the Nation's Veterans and beneficiaries.
DGIB Progress to Date
Veteran Claims and Automation
Claims process automation is key for improving a Veteran's GI Bill
experience. VA is significantly closer to meeting the goal of
automating 50 percent of original claims and 80 percent of supplemental
claims. A large number of Chapter 33 original claims can now be
automated. This means a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) can be issued
in a matter of minutes. This allows the Veteran to start an education
program and begin receiving education benefits sooner. Since
implementation of the DGIB platform in March 2021, automation of
original claims has grown from 0 percent to 32 percent, and
supplemental claims from 39 percent to 64 percent (FY 2024 to date, as
of September 11, 2024). Because of this automation and advances to VA's
platform, the time it takes to decide an original claim has decreased
from 28 days to 10 days on average, and supplemental claims time has
dropped from 14 days to only 4 days on average.
Receiving a COE is the first step toward using education benefits.
Prior to the Digital GI Bill modernization, a manual original claim
could take weeks or months before an education benefits decision was
made. For example, in a taping of VBA Education Service's State of
Education video series\1\ on platform and technology enhancements, we
identified an active-duty service member named Carson, who submitted
his original claim for education benefits. Due to the backend system
connection, Carson's application included pre-filled service history
information. After completing a few questions, he submitted his GI Bill
application through the new automated platform. VA immediately received
his application, which was evaluated in the Digital GI Bill system.
Within 15 minutes, Carson received his digital COE, which he can access
at any time on VA.gov. When he is ready to pursue his educational goals
using his G.I. Bill benefits, Carson already has his COE to get
started. His spouse expressed gratitude for VA's quick decision for
Carson and what it means for their growing family's future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.youtube.com/@VAVetBenefits/videos
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The highest priority for DGIB is to improve the Veteran experience.
Customer experience surveys show that the DGIB's improved claims
automation is benefiting individuals like Carson. For example, one
question about timely receipt of the COE demonstrated this commitment
to improving the customer experience. Nearly 92 percent of individuals
surveyed answered affirmatively to the survey item: ``It was easy to
share my Certificate of Eligibility with my school to inform that I
wanted to enroll using my GI Bill benefits.''
The VBA Veteran Signals Surveys, which reflect the trust Veterans
have in Education Service, increased significantly in all categories
from Fiscal Year 2022 to Fiscal Year 2024 (Q3). Applying for benefits
increased from 69.7 percent to 75.7 percent, Enrolling in school
increased from 75.5 percent to 89.9 percent, and Receiving education
benefits increased from 77.4 percent to 87 percent. The overall trust
score based on all the surveys improved by 12.96 percent from Fiscal
Year 2022 to Fiscal Year 2024 (Q3).
New Platform for School Certifying Officials
Enhanced program governance has also led to improved customer
experience for the School Certifying Officials (SCOs). In March 2023,
Enrollment Manager (major release 5) was launched, which replaced the
dated legacy system. Since then, over 7 million enrollments have been
processed using the modernized system.
SCOs are better equipped to counsel and advise student Veterans on
achieving their educational goals. In regular surveys, SCOs answered
98.2 percent affirmatively to the question, ``I feel much more
comfortable submitting enrollments within Enrollment Manager This
feedback is validation of VA's progress in providing SCOs with the
tools they need to better serve Veterans. For example, a new feature
enables the SCO to inform the student Veteran on the initial visit the
amount of G.I. Bill education benefits that are available for
educational pursuits. SCOs have shared that this feature allows better
counseling and advice upfront to student Veterans on achieving their
educational goals.
Through attendance at numerous conferences such as the Western
Association of Veteran Education Specialists (WAVES) and other outreach
events, VA proactively requests additional feedback from the SCO
community concerning Enrollment Manager. VA takes the feedback back to
the managed service vendor to enhance customer experience through
regular system updates.
Improved Data Retrieval and Reporting
VBA's Education Service is currently working to improve data
retrieval and reporting. Examples include enhancing the Education Call
Center support through generative artificial intelligence (AI)
knowledge and supporting School Certifying Officials in addressing
questions regarding VA education benefits and use of the Enrollment
Manager System. Additionally, prior to the launch of DGIB Data Mart in
June 2023, Education Service data was stored across multiple systems,
and it did not have direct ownership of the data. The launch of DGIB
Data Mart Analytics Platform (DMAP) centralized beneficiary outcome
data across all VA education benefits. This enabled self-service
analytics, reduced the time required to review and certify data, and
introduced AI and Machine Learning capabilities. The Approvals,
Compliance, and Liaison staff is leveraging DMAP for improved analysis
to inform risk based surveys.
Enhanced Payment Platform
Additional proof that the modernization efforts are working was the
successful transition to the Enterprise Management of Payments,
Workload, and Reporting VA (eMPWR) payment platform launched on
schedule on July 8, 2024 (major release 6). Release 6 transitioned 87
percent of total payments processing off the Benefits Delivery Network
(BDN) legacy platform, marking the first step toward decommissioning
the 50+ year old BDN, after numerous other attempts to do so.
The change reduces security risks for claimants, while providing a
smoother Chapter 33 claims processing experience for Veteran Claims
Examiners (VCEs), by integrating claims processing to a single
platform. For the first time, data reciprocity and interoperability are
enabled, which allows VA to consolidate its data sources and
synchronize data across platforms. The August 2024 Monthly Housing
Allowance $206 million payment file of 214,333 claimants was
successfully run with 99.99 percent accuracy.
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report
Notwithstanding the progress that has been achieved to date, the
recent report issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
highlights numerous recommendations that VA can leverage to ensure
continuous improvement of the DGIB modernization effort. I will briefly
highlight a few actions VA is taking that are responsive to several of
those recommendations.
Recommendation 1 of the OIG report advised VA to ``Establish a
mechanism to monitor progress of the Digital GI Bill platform
implementation under the renegotiated contract to avoid additional
costs and delays.'' To ensure this recommendation is addressed, VA
continues the progression of the Program Management Office (PMO) to
ensure adequate oversight of DGIB progress. VA has added 15 full-time
equivalent employees to support PMO functions along with supplemental
contractor support.
Recommendation 2 of the OIG report advised VA to ``Communicate
regularly with the Digital GI Bill platform contractor to ensure that
the project's integrated master schedule or other master scheduling
plan is consistently updated to reflect all schedule changes for
external dependencies.'' To ensure this recommendation is addressed, VA
will continue to review the master planning schedule to ensure all
relevant systems are integrated. This is being accomplished through our
robust governance process and continued communication with the managed
service vendor.
Finally, we will continue collaborative efforts with the OIG staff
and our other partners, such as the Office of Information and
Technology (OIT), to address improvement opportunities and appropriate
closure actions for the specific recommendations. VA commits to
engaging with our OIG partners to ensure the intent of their
recommendations is met by our actions.
In addition to their recommendations, OIG also identified increased
costs associated with the DGIB contract. VA acknowledges that the true
complexity of the modernization vision was not apparent at the start of
the original contract, which was developed in 2020 and executed in
early 2021, and the contract required a full review to ensure that VA
was on track for success. As the program evolved and VA worked through
the major releases within the contract, it became evident that
unanticipated work needed to be added to the original contract to fully
enable the transition from VA's ancient Common Business Oriented
Language (COBOL) system, install strong performance metrics as a
measure of contractor success, meet DGIB's growing needs, and ensure
protection and delivery of VA's intellectual property and data rights.
While working through modernization activities, some external
dependencies were unable to meet committed integration dates, including
the need for an additional testing environment. This required changes
to schedules and additional work to be added. Further, VA secured the
transfer of intellectual property to the VA, which differed from the
scope of the original contract. VA leadership determined the
transferred intellectual property gives VA the flexibility to maintain
developmental and operational control of the platform assets, so that
VA can make faster and safer strategic decisions, independent of
contractor constraints.
At the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, the DGIB program underwent a
successful restructuring and rescheduling to accelerate the
modernization of system interfaces and integrations, improvement of
claims processing automation, and facilitation of legacy system
decommissioning. The DGIB program encompasses the operation,
maintenance, and improvement of the DGIB Platform, Veterans Education
Benefit Tools, and the education legacy systems, which are planned for
the eventual decommissioning of numerous separate systems (including
the Benefits Delivery Network, the Imaging Management System, the Web
Enabled Approval Management System, and Work Study Management System).
These modernizations to VA systems are required to meet the
expectations and demands of GI Bill Veteran students, beneficiaries,
and other key stakeholders. As VA continues to move forward with future
releases and as noted above, VA remains committed to ensuring proper
governance and communication across all entities involved in DGIB
implementation.
Future State
The DGIB team is continuing to make enhancements that contribute to
direct, online, one-stop access to education benefit resources. These
changes will continue the evolution of a Managed Service that increases
efficiency and reduces manual processes, allowing VA to focus more on
serving Veterans and their families.
While Release 6 transitioned 87 percent of total payments
processing off the BDN legacy platform, future Releases 7 and 8,
targeted for 2025, will address the remaining 13 percent for the path
to BDN decommissioning.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, VA has made tremendous strides in the administration
of VA education benefits in recent years through modernization efforts.
VA acknowledges the challenges we have experienced in implementing DGIB
but believe that we are on the right path to improve the education
benefits for Veterans and their families. VA looks forward to the
continued feedback from our stakeholders and commits to continued
partnership with such entities to ensure proper oversight and
accountability. VA appreciates the support of the Committee as VA
continues its effort to modernize VA educational assistance programs.
This concludes my testimony. My colleagues and I look forward to
responding to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Prepared Statement of Nicholas Dahl
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Justin Parke
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statements for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of The MITRE Corporation
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and other Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for
the record on matters relating to the Department of Veteran's Affairs
(VA) Digital GI Bill program. Successful modernization of legacy IT is
critical to improving the Veteran experience. MITRE very much
appreciates the opportunity to share our insight from our work on this
critical program.
MITRE is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation. We are chartered
to operate in the public interest, which includes operating federally
funded research and development centers, or FFRDCs, on behalf of
Federal agency sponsors, including the Department of Defense; the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health
and Human Services; the National Institute of Standards and Technology
which operates the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence; the
Federal Aviation Administration; the Department of Homeland Security;
the Department of Treasury; the Department of Commerce; the Social
Security Administration; and the Veterans Administration. Over the last
25 years, MITRE's technical and subject matter experts who support
these centers have had the privilege of supporting many modernization
efforts across the Federal enterprise.
A Trusted Partner
MITRE has been a partner with the VA's Education Service since
2008. We were initially brought on as a partner to support the
implementation of The Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of
2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill). MITRE worked alongside Education Service, its
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) partners, and the Office of
Information Technology (OIT) to help drive development of a new system
to process Post-9/11 GI Bill claims.
Education Service partnered with MITRE again in 2019 to prepare for
an extensive modernization of their claims processing systems. MITRE
worked with Education Service to draw up the Modernization Value
Proposition to include the path forward for modernizing claims
processing and customer service, providing direct, online, one-stop
access to GI Bill benefits and information. Speed and simplicity are
essential for Veterans trying to access their benefits while facing
college application deadlines. This modernization vision is a
transition to a holistic service that improves user experiences across
the entire internal and external environment.
MITRE's role has focused on providing strategic advice, guidance,
and assistance in the areas of systems engineering, program
integration, and organizational change. Our work includes completing
the annual update of the life cycle cost estimate (LCCE) for the
Digital GI Bill (DGIB) program, and we most recently delivered version
4.0 in April 2024. The next update is planned for April 2025.
Life Cycle Cost Estimate
The life cycle cost estimate (LCCE) provides the total cost to the
Government of acquisition and ownership of the system over its full
lifetime. It encompasses the cost of development, acquisition, support,
and disposal. The primary purpose of this estimate is to establish an
overall program cost baseline, which serves as a critical tool for
resource planning, program justification, and other essential decision-
making activities.
A LCCE is a required artifact for any large program exceeding $50
million\1\. This requirement is specified for IT systems through the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Capital Planning and Investment
Control (CPIC) framework, as detailed in the Capital Programming Guide
and various OMB Circulars, including A-11 and A-94. The LCCE is a vital
tool for supporting sound financial decision-making throughout the life
of a program and informing outyear budgetary requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The White House--OMB Circular A-11. Retrieved from: a11.pdf
(whitehouse.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a living document that GAO recommends be updated annually to
reflect actual expenditures, changes in technical, economic, and
programmatic assumptions, and fact-of-life changes such as new
legislation impacting the agency, Veterans, service members, and
beneficiaries. It is important to note that the LCCE is distinct from a
business case or a return on investment analysis.
The methodology for developing the LCCE adheres to the best
practices outlined in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Cost
Estimating and Assessment Guide (CEAG) \2\. The LCCE functions as an
input-output model, with inputs capturing technical, economic, and
programmatic parameters and assumptions, ultimately producing a point
estimate and a range estimate to establish contingency reserves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide--GAO-20-195G,
Published: Mar 12, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial version of a LCCE is considered the baseline and
typically exhibits a higher level of uncertainty, with the point
estimate having an approximate 25 percent confidence level based on
empirical studies\3\. Version 1.0 of the DGIB LCCE reflected a point
estimate of $1.295 billion (then-year dollars) at the 25 percent
confidence level, meaning there is a 75 percent probability of the
point estimate increasing. GAO recommends using the estimated value at
a 50 percent confidence level for budget projections in mature programs
to establish contingency reserves. With each subsequent iteration, the
uncertainty should decrease, and the point estimate confidence level
should increase. The program cost team diligently tracks changes to the
programmatic and technical environments and associated assumptions to
inform annual updates and provide input to decision-makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Journal of Cost Analysis and Parametrics--Enhanced Scenario-
Based Method for Cost Risk Analysis: Theory, Application, and
Implementation. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/
10.1080/1941658X.2012.734757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of the April 2024 update (version 4.0), the DGIB Program has an
estimated total cost of $2.04 billion in base year Fiscal Year 2021
constant dollars over a 10-year period, rising to approximately $2.28
billion when adjusted for inflation (then-year dollars). This update
reflects the award of a task order to Accenture Federal Services on the
Alliant 2 contract in December 2023, which altered these figures. This
task order makes up a portion of the total life cycle costs. At a 50
percent confidence level, the program's estimated life cycle cost
reaches $2.42 billion in then-year dollars, including a contingency
reserve of $135 million.
The Digital GI Bill program is large and complex and accordingly
has inevitably encountered challenges, unanticipated complexities, and
the realization of risks that have led to schedule delays and increased
costs. Replacing extremely old legacy IT systems that rely on outdated
software languages and hardware, such as the VA's 1970's-era mainframe
Benefits Delivery Network among others, presents a multitude of
challenges. As expected, this effort has required re-engineering that
yields issues that are difficult to anticipate and necessitate
extensive testing and validation to minimize disruption to business
operations such that access to benefits is not delayed.
The impact of challenges associated with modernizing legacy IT
systems that are this dated, as well as updates to assumptions
regarding claims volume, automation, the number of required Veterans
Claim Examiners (VCE) post full implementation, the establishment of
the EDU Program Management Office, and alignment of DGIB with dependent
legacy systems and other large-scale modernization programs schedules
and roadmaps to minimize the disruption of services resulted in the
point estimate increase from LCCE version 1.0 (conducted in 2021) to
version 4.0 (delivered in April of this year). The primary areas of
cost increase over the lifecycle are the VCE assumption and timing of
required automation targets ($500M), and the GSA Alliant 2 contract to
extend the platform configuration by 4 years to accommodate schedule
impacts ($426M).
VBA's active leadership and ongoing evolution of program processes,
tools, and experienced staff will enable the program to continue
identifying challenges, crafting options, and proposing adjustments and
improvements that will increase the probability of future success.
Conclusion
In closing, let me just note that of MITRE's roughly 10,000
personnel, over 1,600 are Veterans. There are few duties that our
employees consider more noble and consequential than honoring, through
our support for the VA, the service and sacrifice of our Nation's men
and women in uniform. On behalf of the entire MITRE team, I greatly
appreciate the Committee's consideration of this statement for the
record.
[all]