    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         DIGITAL G.I. BILL UNDELIVERED:
                         CONTRACTING CHALLENGES AND THE
                          NEED FOR ACQUISITION REFORM
    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION

                                    AND THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-47

                                   __________

           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
    63-304                     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           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
    GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina        Florida
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
    MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas               DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois
    JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York
    JEN KIGGANS, Virginia                MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
    ABE HAMADEH, Arizona                 HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
    KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern       KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
        Mariana Islands
    TOM BARRETT, Michigan

                           Jon Clark, Staff Director
                      Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION

                        TOM BARRETT, Michigan, Chairman

    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois, Ranking
    MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas                   Member
                                         SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
                                             Florida
                                     ------

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                     DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin, Chairman

    JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire,
    ABE HAMADEH, Arizona                     Ranking Member
    KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern       MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
        Mariana Islands                  DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois
    TOM BARRETT, Michigan                TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York

    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

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Tom Barrett, Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology
      Modernization..................................................     1
    The Honorable Nikki Budzinski, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Technology Modernization.......................................     2
    The Honorable Derrick Van Orden, Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Economic Opportunity...........................................     4
    The Honorable Chris Pappas, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Economic Opportunity...........................................     5

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel I

    Mr. Kenneth Smith, Executive Director at Education Service,
      Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
      Affairs........................................................     7

            Accompanied by:

        Mr. Raymond Tellez, Executive Director, Office of Business
            Integration, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

        Mr. Jeffrey Neill, Associate Executive Director, Office of
            Procurement, Acquisition and Logistics, Technology
            Acquisition Center, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

        Mr. Robert Orifici, Executive Director of Benefits and
            Memorial Services, Office of Information Technology, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

                                    Panel II

    Mr. Justin Parke, Managing Director, Digital GI Bill Program
      Manager, Accenture Federal Services............................    22

    Mr. Troy Mueller, Managing Director, Integrated Benefits
      Operations & Technology Division, MITRE........................    24

    Mr. William Hubbard, Vice President for Veterans & Military
      Policy, Veterans Education Success.............................    25

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Mr. Kenneth Smith Prepared Statement.............................    35
    Mr. Justin Parke Prepared Statement..............................    37
    Mr. Troy Mueller Prepared Statement..............................    38
    Mr. William Hubbard Prepared Statement...........................    41

                              APPENDIX--continued
                           Statements For The Record

    National Association of Veterans Programs Administrators Prepared
      Statement......................................................    49
    Student Veterans of America Prepared Statement...................    74

                         DIGITAL G.I. BILL UNDELIVERED:
                         CONTRACTING CHALLENGES AND THE
                          NEED FOR ACQUISITION REFORM

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026

      Subcommittee on Technology Modernization,
          Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
    room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Tom Barrett
    [chairman of the subcommittee on Technology Modernization]
    presiding.
        Present from the Subcommittee on Technology Modernization:
    Representatives Barrett, Budzinski, and Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Present from the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity:
    Representatives Van Orden, HAMADEH, King-Hinds, Pappas,
    Ramirez, and Kennedy.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF TOM BARRETT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION

        Mr. Barrett. Good afternoon. The joint committee hearing
    will come to order.
        Today we are here to talk about the most important promises
    our Nation makes to those who have served. Veterans make a
    commitment to our country. They make the sacrifice. When our
    veterans come home, America needs to help them build the next
    chapter in their life, which is why we are here today.
        For millions of veterans and families, the GI Bill is not
    just a benefit. It is the bridge from military service to
    civilian life. It gives veterans a fair shot at building a
    future. It ensures veterans have the tools they need to get the
    education or job training they want, where they want it, and
    without a bunch of bureaucracy standing in the way, so that
    they can eventually be competitive in the American economy.
    That promise should be simple and it should be reliable.
        Over several years, the Digital GI Bill (DGIB) has
    struggled to meet that standard. The system was meant to
    modernize how education benefits are delivered. It is supposed
    to replace outdated systems, reduce paperwork, make payments
    safer. Instead, what we have seen are delays, confusion, and
    multimillion-dollar rising costs to contracts. That is
    unacceptable.
        The Digital GI Bill system began with unclear requirements,
    moved forward without the right subject matter experts at the
    table. For years, it lacked basic project management discipline
    and a reliable schedule. This is not a modernization mistake.
    This is a mismanagement, plain and simple.
        The Digital GI Bill contract was awarded 5 years ago, in
    2021. It was expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Today, that cost has more than doubled, with a full life cycle
    price now reaching into the billions. Meanwhile, veterans are
    missing housing payments. We have seen delays that have been
    unnecessary. Schools are being left in the dark without clear
    guidance. There is not a single technical error--this is not
    about a single technical error. It is an accumulation of
    multiple errors. It is about leadership decisions, contracting
    strategy, and it ties back to a lack of accountability.
        The benefit system itself should never become a barrier to
    the benefits they are set to give. Veterans earn the GI Bill
    through years of service and sacrifice. They should not have to
    re-earn it by waiting in call queues, navigating backlogs, or
    praying the system works this time, or contacting their Member
    of Congress to work through the problem with them. Today's
    hearing is about understanding what went wrong and, just as
    importantly, what must change going forward because this
    problem is not unique to the Digital GI Bill.
        Across the entire Department, large technology programs
    continue to struggle under vague requirements, weak oversight,
    contracts that balloon and cost taxpayers more, while delaying
    the delivery of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    services to our veterans. When accountability is unclear, the
    costs always end up going up, schedules slip and get delayed,
    and the veterans and their families these systems are meant to
    serve pay the price. That is why this hearing is also about
    acquisition reform. If we do not fix how these systems are
    procured and awarded, we will repeat the same mistakes at the
    expense of veterans and taxpayers.
        I chair the Subcommittee on Technology and Modernization. I
    know my friend and fellow subcommittee chairman, Representative
    Van Orden, shares this message that this does not work for us.
    The status quo is not cutting it. President Trump and Secretary
    Collins share that commitment.
        Thank you again for all being here today. I look forward to
    a productive discussion on how we can move forward to create
    more permanent changes.
        I just want to say that I personally have benefited from
    the GI Bill. Used that in my own personal life and I know
    countless other veterans who have as well, and it stands out as
    one of the biggest pillars of economic opportunity that our
    country has undertaken.
        Before I yield, please be advised that the chairman may
    declare a recess at any time. With that, I want to yield to
    Ranking Member Budzinski for her opening statement as well.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF NIKKI BUDZINSKI, RANKING MEMBER,
                SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION

        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you very much, Chairmen Barrett and
    Van Orden and Ranking Member Pappas. I value the oversight work
    our two subcommittees have done on the Digital GI Bill program
    in recent Congresses.
        As I mentioned back in December, it is unfortunate that the
    program's relative success has been impaired by recent missed
    payments and a lack of communication by the Department. Even
    more unfortunate is that many have pointed the finger at
    Information Technology (IT) hiccups or tech glitches when it
    appears that policy decisions, a lack of planning, and poor
    contract management were actually to blame, issues that plagued
    too many of VA's modernization efforts.
        While I appreciate our conversation today on the
    intricacies of government contracting and project management
    challenges within the Digital GI Bill program, these are
    systemic issues that we see across VA modernization efforts,
    like supply chain modernization, electronic health record
    modernization, the integrated financial and management system,
    or IFAMS, just to name a few. To this end, I would like to
    insert VA's Office of the Inspector General's recent report
    here analyzing VA's major management and performance challenges
    into the record and specifically highlighting its section
    addressing challenges to the information systems and
    innovation.
        Mr. Barrett. Continue.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you. The report highlights the
    critical work VA employees do to provide world-class veteran
    healthcare, disability payments, education and survivor
    benefits, memorial services, and more. However, VA's Office of
    Inspector General (OIG) notes significant challenges in
    effectively deploying IT products within the same implements--
    impediments rearing their heads over and over again. Inadequate
    planning, insufficient resource development, limited
    stakeholder engagement, and failures to promptly fix known
    problems, these are all issues that OIG has identified in their
    August 2024 report about contract management failures within
    DGIB, and there are topics we discussed in September 2024
    hearing about that report.
        Despite the recommendations from that report being closed,
    I have two major concerns. First, I worry about the status of
    these recommendations and the applied resolution in light of
    the significant personnel, contractual, and procedural changes
    that have occurred under Secretary Collins. Second, in light of
    this recent report on management challenges and our continued
    oversight, has VA systemically--systematically addressed these
    issues with contract management and can they apply them to
    future contracts even with a depleted workforce?
        While I highlight this one report from OIG, there are
    dozens of more just like it from OIG, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), and other oversight watchdogs
    assessing VA's capacity for modernization. Many of these
    reports highlight that when these controls and processes break
    down, small errors turn into large losses and erode the public
    trust. Siloed conversations about how VA manages one contract
    will not improve the issues OIG or GAO raised. I believe our
    time would be better spent taking a holistic view at the high-
    level systemic issues that plague VA's IT modernization efforts
    rather than playing whack-a-mole on each individual contract.
        Last, I look forward to hearing from VA, Accenture, and
    Veterans Education Success (VES) today on VA's progress in
    processing beneficiary claims and delivering timely payments.
    While I believe the delays were caused by structural challenges
    in intentional policy decisions within the VA rather than
    contractor performance, I look forward to hearing how VA can
    improve its planning, execution, and communication and prevent
    added confusion, frustration, and further delays in benefits.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Ranking Member Budzinski.
        I now yield to our Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
    chairman, my friend, Chairman Van Orden, for his opening
    statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF DERRICK VAN ORDEN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
                        ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for everybody
    for being here. I mean, I also want to thank the VA for finally
    sending the actual witness that we wanted instead of taking
    their pick. That is our pick, not yours.
        I believe that this topic can and needs to be approached in
    a nonpartisan manner and I appreciate your comments, ma'am. The
    ultimate goal of this hearing is to get down to brass tacks and
    figure out how the VA can continue its efforts to keep the
    Digital GI Bill program--excuse me, I need to correct that. It
    is not keep the Digital GI Bill on program or on track. It is
    get the Digital GI Bill on track.
        As chairman of the Subcommittee of the Economic
    Opportunity, I am committed to providing our veterans with the
    resources that they need to pursue the education or employment
    opportunities. Veterans earn their educational benefits through
    their service to this great country and it is our obligation to
    ensure these benefits are delivered reliably and on time.
        Now, the Digital GI program was supposed to be a
    multimillion-dollar VA effort. It has now turned into a
    multibillion-dollar effort. It is supposed to--intended to
    streamline the education claims processing by consolidating
    out--excuse me, outdated legacy IT systems and automating
    adjudication of most claims. This should make it easier, not
    harder for veterans to access and receive their educational
    benefits. However, the delays in benefit payments continue to
    impact student veterans.
        I swear it was like 2 days ago it was Groundhog Day. This
    is like Groundhog Committee with you guys.
        I will be very clear. The Veterans Affairs Administration
    has a zero, zero, success rate of creating their own
    infrastructure like this. Zero. Have not got one right at all.
    That goes into the health record and everything. It is a
    disaster.
        We are also going to hear about the real-world impacts of
    these delayed payments on students. Today's hearing is going to
    examine how contracting issues and lack of program oversight
    led to these delays, delays in payments, and how we move
    forward.
        The purpose of this hearing is to focus on the solicitation
    and contract administration of the GI Bill, Digital GI Bill.
    Specifically, how contracting decisions made in the early
    stages of this program have impacted delivery of the platform
    that has only ballooned the cost of contracting to over $2
    billion. Imagine what we could do with a billion and a half.
    Let us say you needed $500 million for this. Imagine what we
    could do with the other $1.5 billion to provide services to our
    veterans. It is inexcusable.
        The cost of this project has increased over billions of
    dollars compared to the original estimates. During today's
    hearing, you have got to take responsibility. You have to take
    responsibility for the continued delays and the skyrocketing
    costs on behalf of the American taxpayers. Student veterans
    deserve a reliable modern system and taxpayers deserve
    assurances that their investment is worthwhile, period.
        Today we have witnesses from the Veterans Benefits
    Administration (VBA) and the Office of Information and
    Technology (OIT) and the Office of Business Integration. With
    these different departments within the VA present, sorry, I
    look forward to seeing how all of you can work together to
    ensure the Digital GI Bill is in good hands and finally take
    accountability for the massive years-long failures.
        I want to end with a quote from General Omar Bradley. We
    are dealing with veterans, not procedures. It is their
    problems, not ours. Meaning when you are focused internally on
    your own problem sets, you cannot focus externally to the
    veterans. Again, that is unacceptable.
        With that, I yield to Ranking Member Pappas for an opening
    statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE
                        ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much to both of our
    chairmen and I would also like to echo the comments of Ranking
    Member Budzinski.
        I am glad that we are here talking about VA education
    benefits, but I am confused a little bit about the approach. If
    we are discussing contracting issues, then VA's OIG should be
    at the table as a witness. Our Oversight and Investigation
    Subcommittee should be represented at this hearing, too. If we
    are going to be discussing VA management decisions, failure to
    communicate, and failure to pay benefits on time last fall,
    then we should have witnesses representing veterans, families,
    survivors impacted by these decisions who can testify to tell
    their lived experiences, as well as VA political appointees to
    take accountability for these decisions. Instead we have a
    weird hybrid setup today. I wish that the majority staff had
    engaged with the minority staff before last Friday so that
    these issues could have been worked through and we could have
    had an even more productive hearing today.
        When I look at what happened in the fall with Chapter 35
    benefits, I do not see a contract or a contractor failure. No
    one in VA has accused Accenture of not delivering what they
    were asked to when they were asked to. The issue that sparked
    the delays was the decision to have a human reconcile
    beneficiary data between the old Benefits Delivery Network
    (BDN) and the new VA corporate data bases used by the Digital
    GI Bill.
        That being said, I acknowledge the fact that there were
    legitimate concerns about data integrity and processing of
    claims. VA's failure was not validating the assumption that
    this data reconciliation would only take about 5 minutes per
    beneficiary. In reality, it took up to 3 hours per file.
        A planning failure that compounded this mistake was VA's
    decision to roll out this change before the fall semester, the
    busiest time for VA Education Services and the largest number
    of veterans and survivors applying for education benefits.
    Previous reports and reviews of how VA implements IT upgrades
    have recommended that VA test changes at a small scale first
    and then roll out the full scale change in nonpeak months. VA
    did not do that here.
        I understand why VA made that decision. Education Services
    was trying to get the last group of beneficiaries off BDN
    before the end of the Fiscal Year so that the system could be
    retired and the government would not have to continue to pay
    the contract to sustain it. Nevertheless, we now see the
    consequences of doing it that way.
        Finally, the most impactful and inexcusable decision VA
    made was the failure to communicate with beneficiaries, with
    the public, and with Congress. Again, this was a decision made
    by the administration. Nothing prevented VA from communicating
    what was happening in real time. Saying that the lapse in
    appropriations and government shutdown prevented VA from
    communicating this critical information to beneficiaries is not
    true. Plenty of VA staff were at work. The Secretary was
    tweeting. It was a political decision to hide veterans--to hide
    this information from veteran survivors and the public and from
    Congress in terms of what was going on. That is unacceptable
    and it should be unacceptable to everyone on this bipartisan
    committee.
        Oftentimes, when we discuss events like these, we usually
    say VA did this or VA did that. VA is the organization. The
    decisions are made by individuals. I do not think that people
    who made the decisions that directly led to the failures last
    fall that I have outlined are in the room today. That, too, is
    unacceptable, especially for a committee that prides itself on
    a reputation for focusing on real solutions to help our
    veterans without the partisanship that is seen elsewhere in
    Congress. Even if we want to say that Mr. Smith is the
    responsible decision-maker as the head of Education Services, I
    think Chairman Van Orden will agree with me from his time in
    the service that responsibility can be delegated down, but
    accountability cannot be.
        For the record, we have exactly zero administration
    officials take accountability for these failures to date. I
    have been on this committee since 2019. I have seen all eight
    DGIB releases. I saw the issues with the original contract and
    VA's failure to understand their requirements and write the
    contract correctly under the first Trump administration. I saw
    the issues overseeing the contract under the Biden
    administration, the transition to Accenture, and the growth in
    the scope of the contract. I saw the massive failure to pay
    beneficiaries last fall. I can tell you that VA could have
    absolutely written this contract better to start.
        I can point out that VA has had to re scope the contract
    several times because they did not understand their needs up
    front and did not plan correctly. I can say that the cost
    estimates have been way off as a result. I can also confidently
    say, and I want to underscore this, that the issues in the fall
    were not due to the contract. The issues were a result of
    decisions that VA made and veterans' families and survivors
    were the ones who suffered.
        When are we going to have someone take accountability for
    the decisions that cause harm to veterans? When are we going
    to, as a committee, practice what we preach, rise above the
    partisanship, regardless of who is in the White House, and
    insist on some accountability? When are we going to force that
    accountability? I hope we can hear a little bit more about that
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Ranking Member Pappas.
        We now move on to introduce our witnesses. From the
    Department of Veterans Affairs we have Mr. Kenneth Smith,
    executive director of Education Services, Veteran Benefits
    Administration. Mr. Smith is accompanied by Mr. Raymond Tellez
    from VBA's Office of Business Integration; Mr. Jeffrey Neill
    from VA's Technology Acquisition Center (TAC); Mr. Robert
    Orifici, did I say it correctly or is there a long E in there?
    Orifici from VA's Office of Information and Technology.
        I ask the witnesses please stand and raise your right
    hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you and let the record reflect that all
    witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
        Mr. Smith, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
    your testimony and opening statement on behalf of VA.

                       STATEMENT OF KENNETH SMITH

        Mr. Smith. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairmans Barrett
    and Van Orden, Ranking Members Budzinski and Pappas, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity today to discuss Digital GI Bill's program
    management and contract. Joining me today are Mr. Raymond
    Tellez, executive director, Veterans Benefits Administration,
    Office of Business Integration; Mr. Jeffrey Neill, associate
    executive director, Technology Acquisition Center in VA's
    Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction (OALC); and
    Mr. Robert Orifici, executive director, Benefits and Memorial
    Service, Office of Information Technology.
        VA's efforts to implement transformational changes through
    the DGIB platform have enabled VA to deliver benefits faster,
    enhance customer service, and strengthen compliance and
    oversight activities. VA has made tremendous advancements
    toward streamlining and automating systems and processes to
    increase efficiency and drive outcomes for veterans and their
    families.
        DGIB was envisioned as a fully integrated solution to
    restructure both claims processing for all education benefits
    programs and to enhance customer service for beneficiaries and
    external partners. To date, the program has successfully met
    mission milestones to maximize service delivery through end-to-
    end automation for millions of education benefits claims.
        Additionally, VA has exceeded initial goals by replacing
    and decommissioning several legacy IT systems, including the
    near half-century old Benefits Delivery Network and the long-
    term solution for Chapter 33, both replaced by DGIB. Along the
    road, VA has also addressed many other unplanned functionality
    changes as required by congressional action and court mandates.
        The progress was not without challenges. The original
    contract underestimated complexity, particularly transitioning
    from legacy Common Business-Oriented Language (COBOL) as
    systems. Delays occurred during integration issues and testing
    environment shortages, and VA acknowledged this in a hearing on
    September 26, 2024.
        Increased scope equals increased costs. For example,
    legislated changes, such as the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe
    Act, the Elizabeth Dole Act, and court decisions, like Rudisill
    v. McDonough and Perkins v. Collins, each require significant
    work and technical reprioritization within the DGIB program.
        Since implementation of the DGIB project, the MITRE
    Corporation has assisted VA with acquisition, planning, and
    program support. To ensure full multiyear understanding of
    costs and the strategic impact of both delay and external
    factors, MITRE prepared a Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE). The
    LCCE enables education service to consider tradeoff decisions,
    such as new claims processor functionality versus greater
    automation. VA monitors these costs closely and prioritizes
    increased service delivery for veterans while ensuring good
    stewardship for taxpayer dollars.
        Since 2021, VA has processed 37 percent more claims and as
    of December 2025, VA is automating and delivering 65 percent of
    all claims without any human action in a day, reducing costs
    and improving service delivery. As of January 22, 2026, the
    average days to complete education claims was 5.6 days. For
    Chapter 33 and 35 claims completed through automation, accuracy
    was 97 percent, which is on par with human processing.
        VA has taken further steps to improve program management.
    First, VA moved from a fixed schedule to a scope-driven
    priority process called the Agile Software Methodology. Second,
    since VA has consistently processed more claims than originally
    forecast, VA was forced to add additional funding annually to
    its claims processing contract, but has now shifted to a fixed
    cost per month to improve predictability.
        Finally, since 2021, the DGIB initiative has successfully
    implemented eight major releases and hundreds of minor
    releases. Our focus has always been on the veteran delivering
    benefits easier and faster through simplified application
    interfaces and increased automation.
        Thank you for your continued support and collaboration as
    we work to honor the service and sacrifice of veterans. My
    colleagues and I are prepared to answer any questions you or
    other members of the subcommittee may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Kenneth Smith Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Smith. The written statement of
    Mr. Smith will be entered into the hearing record and I assume
    your opening statement stands for the rest of the panelists
    with you today, so we will be able to move on to questions.
        I am now going to recognize myself for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Smith or Mr. Orifici, the Program Management Office is
    tasked with requirements planning and developing cost
    assessments prior to solicitations for these contracts. Do you
    believe it would be beneficial if VA established an independent
    office to provide expertise in cost estimates and program
    evaluations for large modernization efforts, like the one
    undertook by the Digital GI Bill?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. If the
    question is whether Program Management Office should be outside
    of the business line, I would say no, because the subject
    matter expertise to deliver that benefit is within the program,
    which is education service.
        Mr. Barrett. Would you say that the program--I mean, what I
    am looking at is the actual implementation of an IT system
    agnostic to the actual area under which it is going to be
    covering, but covering the actual implementation of the
    program, the program management, and the implementation of that
    technology. You know, the computer does not know if it is
    processing education benefits or health benefits. Yet it feels
    like we have drifted from actually getting these things
    implemented in a reasonable amount of time for a cost we can
    anticipate at the beginning.
        To Chairman Van Orden's point, there has not been a
    successful launch of an IT system in a large scale in as far
    back as we can remember. Perhaps part of that is due to the
    localized effort of those that are managing it versus those
    that may have the expertise in implementing systems regardless
    of what they are used for.
        Mr. Orifici. Thank you for that question. In general, we
    believe that we have the necessary support between IT and the
    business program offices as IT works to partner with the
    business on integrated roadmaps, on making sure that we have
    the outcomes that the business needs identified as we enter
    into these. Of course, there is never going to be perfect as we
    look at requirements, as we look at toward schedule, but we
    want to make sure that we do work toward good enough to be able
    to move forward and drive outcomes for veterans.
        Mr. Barrett. Yes, I do not think any of us on this
    committee have perfect as our expectation. We want, you know,
    we want outcomes that are going to benefit the veterans that we
    serve at costs that are not two to three times more than our
    advertiser and sometimes even greater than that with serving
    the people that have earned these benefits. You know, we have
    seen chronic issues within this and it seems to all come back
    to IT systems that are an overhaul, a massive overhaul of a
    legacy system, moving to an IT system, or an accumulation of a
    bunch of different systems in the Digital GI Bill to put this
    under one umbrella and then implement it, and it just seems to
    chronically have issues that arise from that. Moving it out
    into an office dedicated to this purpose perhaps would bring
    about a better result. It sounds like you disagree with that
    though.
        Mr. Smith. Sir, the program has delivered tremendous
    results for veterans. We are currently automating 65 percent of
    all of our claims. This was originally envisioned as a managed
    service contract. This is a managed service contract. It is not
    an IT contract. While we work closely with IT on integration
    with VA systems to issue things like payments and ensure that
    we have integrity across our environment, we work with our
    acquisition staff to make sure that contract has strong
    oversight and we are fair and equitable with the contractor.
    Then the Program Management Service is also responsible for
    making sure that we achieve those outcomes in terms of the
    number of claims that we processed, as well as we have
    decommissioned eight legacy systems and have addressed
    countless other unplanned requirements in our--with it since
    2021.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay. With the 1 minute I have left on my
    time, can you help me understand? You know, a lot of these
    things are siloed between the parts of the Department that they
    are contained within. Is there any collaborative effort or
    sharing of information, best practices, lessons learned? I
    mean, in the Army, we had a whole safety center that shared,
    hey, this thing happened, and now we are going to change our
    protocols. The next time we go and do a scenario or an exercise
    this way. Is that happening within the VA or are there really
    siloed offices and practices going about this that may make the
    same mistake as another office did 2 years ago or 10 years ago?
        Mr. Smith. I would like to ask Mr. Neill or Mr. Orifici to
    respond.
        Mr. Orifici. Sir, thank you for that question. We
    definitely have lessons learned that we share up through the IT
    organization as we work with this effort.
        Mr. Barrett. Is that a formal process or just like a, you
    know, you call somebody you know in the other office and tell
    them?
        Mr. Orifici. It is more of an informal process, but it
    happens where we share lessons learned. We have regular
    meetings between the program offices and portfolios that work
    on these efforts, and there is lessons learned shared across
    these groups.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay. My timing is up. I want to make sure I
    go through the proper protocol of who I am supposed to
    recognize.
        Is it Chairman Van Orden next or Chairman--Ranking Member
    Budzinski? Okay, go ahead, Ranking Member.
        Ms. Budzinski. Actually, I am going to pick up where you--I
    think you left off, Chairman Barrett.
        I just wanted to put a finer maybe point on, I think, his
    questioning. One of the things I am still kind of confused by,
    by your responses, is who is actually leading this acquisition?
    You know, I can understand that VBA, the business line, OIT is
    involved, the Office of Acquisitions, Logistics, and
    Construction. I think what Chairman Barrett might have been
    asking, and I am also still curious about, is that work being
    siloed, who is kind of overarching in charge of the acquisition
    itself?
        Mr. Smith. In terms of the actual acquisition and the DGIB
    system, I, as the executive director for Education Service, I
    am the responsible official.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. I think just asking kind of again, for
    you to maybe further elaborate on, you know, the confusion that
    did seem to have occurred here between these multiple different
    entities that led to some of these issues. In looking back on
    this, was there anything in retrospect you would have handled
    differently that could have mitigated some of the confusions?
        Mr. Smith. I am not sure which confusions you are referring
    to, ma'am. I would say that, as I said in my opening statement,
    there were unclear expectations around the timeline and level
    of effort for decommissioning legacy systems and coming out of
    the COBOL system into a modern data base, as well as unplanned
    scope. We had to address new requirements within the same
    budget.
        Ms. Budzinski. Yes. I guess what I mean is like cost
    overruns, issues with delays, those kind of confusions. If
    there was anything that you might have done differently
    specifically.
        Mr. Smith. In terms of cost overrun, it technically was not
    an overrun. It was a cost expansion. We added costs because we
    added scope to the contract to address new functional
    requirements. These functional requirements were, as I said,
    the Isakson-Roe Act, the Dole Act, Rudisill, and Perkins, to
    name a few.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. I will move on. I think one of the
    issues, though, is getting the scope right is so important so
    that we do not see these projects continue to balloon in cost
    and so confusion and a lack of communication so that the scope
    gets done right the first time and it does not continue to
    expand and taxpayers continue to pay for a larger price tag for
    implementation. I will move on from there.
        Mr. Smith, MITRE, who is joining us on our second panel,
    has been a contractor to conduct the VA's Life Cycle Cost
    Estimate for the DGIB program since 2021. I understand that the
    VA ended that contract after MITRE delivered its last estimate
    in April. How does the VA plan to perform these estimates
    without this contract?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question. We are looking at
    ways to manage that, either to in-house it or find another
    solution.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. It seems like a big part of the cost
    growth with the DGIB program has not been fully understanding
    what you need, again, as I mentioned before, one of the surest
    ways to underestimate acquisition costs. Are you confident the
    VA understands all the elements of your requirements so they
    will stop growing?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I think we do have an understanding of our
    scope. We do understand that there are new requirements that we
    still need to work in while also executing the final components
    of--that we had actually planned in the original contract.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. My next question is, who will be
    responsible for revising the cost estimates going forward? Is
    that you?
        Mr. Smith. It would be under the direction of my office.
    You know, the actual whether we contract it out or do it in-
    house is something we will have to decide still.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Are you confident that whoever that
    will be will have the expertise to actually come up with that
    robust estimate and get it right the first time?
        Mr. Smith. We will come up with a cost estimate, and we
    will be happy to share it with you and the subcommittee.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. How did VA come to decide that taking
    this task in-house is the most appropriate considering numerous
    reports about VA's inability to accurately and reliably perform
    LCCEs?
        Mr. Smith. We believe that having worked with MITRE over a
    number of years, that we should be able to transition some of
    that work. While, again, it may not be perfect the first time
    with government personnel taking over, we would be looking
    forward to, you know, getting that correct.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. I will go ahead and yield back.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Ranking Member Budzinski.
        I want to recognize Representative Hamadeh for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank
    my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, too. I think we
    have got a lot of bipartisan support in trying to make sure
    that the veterans are taken care of here today.
        The Trump administration has prioritized dismantling the
    bureaucratic paralysis and, quote, ``contractor entitlement.''
    Both bureaucratic paralysis and contractor entitlement have
    stalled progress during the previous term. Now these reform
    efforts face a critical test with the Digital GI Bill. Despite
    VA's reported backlog reductions, the program's rollout remains
    a flashpoint for mismanagement and systemic payment failures
    that continue to affect veterans. Secretary Collins has been
    doing a commendable job carrying out President Trump's mandate,
    and I appreciate the VA's timely submission of their written
    testimony by Monday morning for today's oversight hearing.
        Now, Mr. Smith, thank you for being here today. I want to
    focus on August 2024. The VA's Office of Inspector General
    issued a report on the Digital GI Bill platform that found the
    VA did not effectively manage the contract and all of these
    problems started during the planning stages for the project.
    The VA awarded the contract before it understood exactly what
    was needed. This resulted in subsequent contract changes that
    more than doubled its cost.
        Now, going off of what Congresswoman Budzinski was talking
    about, what steps has the VA taken to ensure its cost as
    estimate is accurate, reliable, and complete? Did you rely on
    the Government Accountability Office's estimating guide for
    your determination?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question. MITRE completed the
    last version of the Life Cycle Cost Estimate and, yes, they did
    follow the GAO's guide for that.
        Mr. Hamadeh. It was just inaccurate?
        Mr. Smith. The Life Cycle Cost Estimate has--is a range
    estimate, so there should be an upper bound and lower bound,
    and the DGIB actual costs are within that range.
        Mr. Hamadeh. What part of that range?
        Mr. Smith. I would have to get back to you.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Would it be on the higher end of that range
    for the range that you were discussing?
        Mr. Smith. I cannot recall exactly. I just know it was in
    range, sir.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Please get back to me on that. Now, what steps
    have you taken to ensure all requirements have been identified?
        Mr. Smith. We use an Agile software development methodology
    to ensure that the high-level functional requirements are
    captured and we work in 3-month increments to develop and
    deploy functionality and ensure that we have good integration
    across our system.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Is there a risk that the requirements can keep
    growing?
        Mr. Smith. There always is, particularly as new legislation
    is developed or court cases are found against the VA, and we
    have to make adjustments to systems to account for those
    changes.
        Mr. Hamadeh. In August 2024, the VA OIG report also laid
    out how the VA has repeatedly not been ready to support the
    work of the contractor. Now this includes failing to finalize
    system requirements on time, not developing the test
    environments needed by the contractor, not doing their due
    diligence to make sure the system worked. Can you confirm
    whether any outstanding payments to the VA contractors are
    preventing the release of new capabilities or improvements that
    would directly benefit veterans?
        Mr. Smith. I am sorry, are you asking if there is--if we
    have withheld payment from the vendor?
        Mr. Hamadeh. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. No, we have not.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Does that--for the contractors, so you pay
    them before and the requirements are being delivered on time?
        Mr. Smith. No, we always pay contractors in arrears.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Do you have the staff and expertise you need
    in the Office of Information Technology and the Program Office
    to manage and support the program?
        Mr. Smith. I have high confidence with Mr. Orifici and his
    staff.
        Mr. Orifici. Thank you for that question. We have an
    adequate staff that is supporting this team who is dedicated to
    support the Digital GI Bill for IT infrastructure and related
    concerns.
        Mr. Hamadeh. I know you say that you have adequate staff,
    but it has been delayed, it is over cost. How could you say
    that right now to the committee?
        Mr. Orifici. As we look at the program and where it is
    gone, we have successfully decommissioned BDN, which was this
    50-year-old legacy system. It was a big lift. As we went
    through that implementation, we faced challenges. We worked
    with VBA to adjust for those and we made some adjustments to
    the contract as we went through to make sure we delivered.
        As Mr. Smith said, through this cycle there has been
    expansion of scope in terms of new features that were being
    delivered and were delivered on time. There is also been an
    expansion of claims that are processed underneath this contract
    and that this contract is a managed service contract, which is
    playing for claims outcome, which also goes--accounts for the
    cost increases.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Something seems wrong. If it is on--it is not
    on time, it is over budget. There seems to be an issue.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Hamadeh.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Pappas for 5 minutes. Go
    ahead, sir.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, I have
    behind me a slide that VA provided to Congress that shows a
    timeline of the payment issues last fall. We have placed sticky
    notes on that that show the times that VA communicated with
    beneficiaries specifically. As you can see, a lot of Post-its
    for August, many Post-its for November, and in between we want
    to get into that area where we saw a lack of communication with
    veterans.
        It is clear that you and VA as a whole understood that
    there was a significant issue with Chapter 35 payments in early
    September because you were taking action to speed up the
    process, like waiving enrollment verification requirements on
    the 7th of September, the BDN authoritative data memo on the
    17th, and the reconciliation automation requirements being
    improved on the 23d of September. Yet the only communication
    from VA to beneficiaries that entire month was the GI Bill
    newsletter that hit on December--or that was sent out on
    September 9.
        The next communication does not occur until October 29, and
    even that communication did not address the processing delays.
    It was not until November 14 that VA chose to publicly
    acknowledge the payment delays.
        In September and October, did you want to communicate with
    beneficiaries to explain what was happening?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question. Yes, we would have
    always preferred to communicate, but we were prohibited from
    doing so because of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
        Mr. Pappas. You clearly knew something was wrong back in
    early September, before the shutdown. It took 70 days to
    communicate with veterans, more than halfway through the fall
    semester. What prevented you from communicating the issue to
    the public any earlier? Were you directed not to?
        Mr. Smith. In September, we--as I--as you indicated, we
    developed requirements to automate and reverse the manual
    processing requirement. We thought we would have that solution
    in hand and delivered, and the government shutdown happened and
    we were unable to deliver that. We thought we would be able to
    basically remediate the problem and avoid any payment delays.
        Mr. Pappas. Do you dispute those dates at all? September
    9--I am sorry, September 7, when waiving enrollment
    verification happened through the 17th and the 23d, when other
    steps were taken by the Department to understand this problem
    and work to address it? Do you accept those dates?
        Mr. Smith. The decision to waive enrollment verification
    was not related to the reconciliation process. That was related
    to the unavailability of a web application called Verify Your
    Enrollment. Because that was not available, I made the decision
    to waive verification of enrollment at that time and on that
    basis. We continued to get more information about the
    difficulties of processing due to that manual reconciliation
    requirement. We were prepared to brief Congress when the
    government shutdown happened and that prevented us----
        Mr. Pappas. You fully were aware that there was a problem
    in September and there was not communication that was happening
    from VA. I do not accept the claim that VA could not
    communicate during the shutdown. Number one, the White House's
    own guidance said that employees supporting funded programs
    like VA education benefits were to be considered exempted
    employees and working. Second, the Secretary was communicating,
    he was tweeting during this time. All of that is publicly
    available and I can put that out with the timestamps if you
    want to dispute that fact. Third, VA communicated with veterans
    and beneficiaries during previous shutdowns. The difference was
    a different leadership that was in place.
        I want to know which VA senior leader told you not to
    communicate with veterans' families and survivors?
        Mr. Smith. As I indicated, we were following the anti-
    deficiency provisions required of us by the Anti-Deficiency
    Act. We were only providing information and doing work directly
    tied to protection of life and property.
        Mr. Pappas. This caused a lot of issues with veterans,
    families, beneficiaries. We heard about this directly in our
    office and they are still, frankly, confused about this and the
    direction that VA has taken. I think it has broken trust. We
    have heard from beneficiaries and service organizations about
    widespread confusion around the implementation of enrollment
    verification requirements for Chapter 35. I am wondering what
    is the current requirement and are students receiving their
    benefits? Can you provide us with an update?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. We did enact verification of
    enrollment processes for Chapter 35 starting this month. Those
    communications went out and so far we have had 142,000
    responses out of about 170. Just this week, in fact yesterday,
    we sent notes to help students remember that they have an
    obligation to verify their enrollment. We let 37,000
    individuals know that they needed to verify their enrollment
    still, but we stand ready to verify it for them this month so
    that we can ensure that they adapt to that change.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you. You said in your testimony our focus
    is on the veterans. You are not focused on veterans when you
    are not communicating with veterans. I appreciate the work that
    goes on in the Department, but I cannot get over this lack of
    communication. It is inexcusable.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Ranking Member Pappas.
        I now recognize Representative King-Hinds from the Northern
    Mariana Islands. I assume the weather is much better there than
    it is here today.
        Ms. King-Hinds. It is gorgeous. I wish I was back home.
    Thank you for that.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you for the opportunity to have
    conversation about this issue today because the GI Bill
    represents access to opportunities for so many of the veterans
    in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
        I was going over your written testimony, Mr. Smith, and,
    you know, I think there were outright admission, but there were
    some things that was not immediately addressed. Right? I think
    from what I read, the requirements were not matured at the time
    of award. Schedule discipline did not exist. Scope was allowed
    to grow without governance. The BDN was decommissioned before
    the replacement was complete. Right? In your testimony, your
    testimony describes DGIB as exceptionally successful, yet it
    also acknowledges underestimated complexity, missing systems,
    and displays functionality.
        I just want to know, at what point did the VA acknowledge
    internally that this program was at risk? At what point was
    Congress notified? I am new into the conversation.
        Mr. Smith. I would like to ask Mr. Orifici to assist me
    with that question.
        Mr. Orifici. Thank you for that question. We have had a
    number of hearings and testimonies on this since 2018, when we
    first did the Colmery Act. We have had regular engagements. We
    also meet monthly with staffers and provide them updates on the
    status of the Digital GI Bill and other issues surrounding the
    education service area.
        Through this process, there have been a number of times
    when issues have been raised to staffers, and we have discussed
    this at numerous hearings around this topic.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Okay. Just for me, because I am new to the
    conversation, as I stated, the contract more than has doubled
    in cost. What you are basically saying, it has not doubled in
    cost. You are adding components to the system itself. Right?
    Just for clarity's sake.
        Mr. Smith. We have undoubtedly added costs from the initial
    base contract, but it is due to both complexity of converting
    and decommissioning legacy products, as well as new scope
    related to both congressional initiatives as well as court
    requirements.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Hmm. I guess it is curious to me that the
    decision-making process, right, at which point do you basically
    consider pausing the program rather than engaging in
    renegotiation? I--because that is a significant amount that we
    are talking about. I mean, we are talking about 479 million. In
    addition, that could build the CNMI, a whole new hospital
    system, a whole new police department, and a whole new
    community college. That is a huge amount of money.
        I know that there is an OIG report that was issued with
    regards to this issue. Has the recommendations been fully
    addressed?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, we have closed all the IG's
    recommendations.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Okay. Where are we at in terms of the full
    implementation of the program itself now?
        Mr. Smith. We have just recently implemented Release 8,
    which removed us from dependency on the legacy BDN system. We
    are now working to increase our automation outcomes while also
    making the veteran facing services better so that veterans can
    get the information they need and communicate with us through
    that My Education Benefits program.
        Ms. King-Hinds. At what point can you say that this program
    has been fully implemented where our veterans are not going to
    see the disruptions in these services? I was reading through
    some of the testimonies and, you know, there has been
    complaints to certain members that folks are getting notices of
    eviction because they rely on this money to be able to support
    not just their tuition, but, you know, their cost of living.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. That is a great question. This is why
    we continue to press automation. Currently, we are at 65
    percent automation. We are looking to further increase that. We
    have got planned work this year to continue to drive----
        Ms. King-Hinds. I guess, the timeline, Mr. Smith, because
    it seems that some of these rollouts are happening right when
    school starts. I am just kind of wondering, right, like, what
    full implementation looks like and how we ensure that we do not
    disrupt these benefits from getting to where it needs to go.
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely. We would absolutely prefer to avoid
    high enrollment. You know, like fall enrollment was not our
    design. It was not something we wanted to do. We would look to
    avoid that.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you. I am out of time.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you.
        I now recognize Mrs. Ramirez for 5 minutes. Go ahead.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you. I want to thank the chairs and
    ranking members for holding today's hearing and the very
    familiar faces I have just seen recently. Let me start by
    saying that today's hearing feels a little misdirected. I will
    tell you why. Asking us to look in one place while something
    important is happening elsewhere feels misdirected.
        My colleagues claim they want to conduct oversight, but we
    have not even had a Oversight Committee hearing since July 22d.
    That was 90 degrees, and it is about 20 degrees now. Right?
    They will not invite the Government Accountability Office, the
    GAO, or the VA Office of Inspector General, the OIG, who are
    directly responsible for providing oversight of the VA.
        You see, my colleagues want us to believe that the only
    problem is contracting, but we are not addressing the
    previously identified patterns of failures stemming from
    staffing issues, from acquisition governance, and fragmented
    oversight, and also from a lack of sustained capacity building.
    Look, I think we should be seeking to learn from and correct
    systemic failures that harm veterans and that rob them of their
    benefits, not keep passing around the blame like it is a hot
    potato of some sort.
        As ranking member of the Oversight and Investigation
    Subcommittee, it is my priority to ensure that the VA is
    fulfilling its mission to support our veterans and provide them
    with the benefits that they have earned. I want to get into
    some of these questions.
        First, I will tell you, modernization only really works if
    the institution itself is ready. There are some really serious
    questions about whether the VA meets that basic threshold. A
    January OIG report formally identified systemic staffing
    vacancies and weak conduct oversight across the VA, even as the
    Department was pushing forward with the Digital GI Bill, the
    DGIB we call it, modernization. At the same time, the VA
    experienced workforce disruptions through Deferred Resignation
    Program, the DRP, Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, the
    VERA, attrition, and furlough decisions during the shutdown.
        Mr. Smith, hi. Good seeing you again. What concrete steps
    did the VA take to confirm it had the staffing and the
    institutional readiness to execute a $2 billion IT
    modernization effort without harming the beneficiaries?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question. You know, obviously,
    staffing was increased. I believe in 2024, we testified that
    they were adding 15 additional people. We do have 15--those 15
    people still on a term assignment. Clearly, we have about 25
    people managing the project.
        Ms. Ramirez. How many?
        Mr. Smith. About 25 people managing the project, but also
    supported by our IT colleagues and, you know, the acquisitions
    team.
        Ms. Ramirez. You think that is enough?
        Mr. Smith. I do, with our contractor support.
        Ms. Ramirez. You said your contractor support is 15 people
    that you have added?
        Mr. Smith. Contractors, no. That would include both MITRE,
    who assists us with acquisitions and planning and project
    management, but also the assistance from the Accenture team.
        Ms. Ramirez. Mr. Smith, you are saying that the tangible
    actions you took is to add some staffing to be able to help
    with the rollout. Let me keep going.
        I want to talk about Strategic Acquisition Management
    Initiative, SAMI. It was created within the Office of
    Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction to build acquisition
    and cost-estimating capacity across the VA itself. We now
    understand that SAMI has been dissolved during this
    reorganization.
        This question is for you, Mr. Neill. Why was an office
    created to address a known GAO finding eliminated before its
    mission was complete?
        Mr. Neill. Thank you for the question, ma'am. I am not
    familiar with the rationale for eliminating that office, but I
    can say that----
        Ms. Ramirez. It does not make sense.
        Mr. Neill. It may make sense if I know the explanation for
    it, but I think I can take that back and I can get an answer to
    that question for you.
        Ms. Ramirez. Yes, I think it is really important, and I do
    want to make sure. I know there are some questions that I have
    asked in the past that we are going to follow up with, but this
    one certainly is one of those.
        I want to also make clear the DGIB is not an isolated
    failure. It reflects systemic acquisition weaknesses. In these
    last 30 seconds, Mr. O, I am sorry, what roles does oversight
    investigation now play in ensuring major IT programs have
    credible cost estimates before acquisition decisions are made?
    How has this changed after SAMI's dissolution?
        Mr. Orifici. Thank you for that question. We still work
    closely with the TAC when we are putting together cost
    estimates, and the TAC helps us validate to make sure that
    those estimates are accurate according to industry standards
    and the expectations around the programs and the acquisitions.
        Ms. Ramirez. We will follow up. I know my time is up, so,
    Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair now recognizes Cherfilus-McCormick for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    guys so much for being here.
        Our oversight, when it comes to IT, is something that has
    been near and dear because for the last 4 to 5 years, we have
    been trying to get it right, and it has not been right. That is
    why we are really hunkering down on how can we make sure that
    when we are going through acquisitions, that we are actually
    thinking it through and making sure we are following steps to
    make sure that we are not going to have systems that are in
    place forever that we cannot get up and running, that are
    hurting our veterans having access, and making sure that no one
    is hurt at the end of the day? Because although we are having
    this conversation about making sure all the procedures are
    here, we know that if we get it wrong, veterans get hurt.
        I wanted to talk more about your Digital GI Bill and the
    oversight that you guys have taken or the steps you have taken
    to make sure that there are not going to be issues that we have
    seen before. Have you guys been using the Acquisition Lifestyle
    Framework when it came to acquiring this contract? That is for
    anybody who can answer it.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, we did.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Please tell me more about it. The
    whole design between the Acquisitions Lifetime Framework is to
    make sure that there is a system in place. When you applied it
    to this specific GI Bill platform, what did it change in how
    you were going to apply it? Did it have any significant
    improvement to what you were doing?
        Mr. Smith. I would like to ask Mr. Neill to help me with
    that question. Obviously, the Acquisition Lifecycle Framework
    is something that is across the entire organization and I think
    he would be best able to address the details of that.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Mr. Neill.
        Mr. Neill. Well, thank you for the question. That is
    something that is in progress. It is being developed currently
    within OALC. If I could speak generally about what the
    Acquisition Lifecycle Framework does.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Before we go into it generally, we
    wanted to make sure that before the acquisition that this was
    actually--the framework was applied. Is there a reason why the
    framework was not applied beforehand?
        Mr. Neill. I would have to go back--thank you for the
    question first, but I would have to go back and understand not
    knowing because the TAC actually did not participate in this
    acquisition. I am not sure how it was coordinated with respect
    to the acquisition life cycle.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. That is very important because a
    lot of times we have different frameworks and we realize that
    they are not working after we apply the next time around. If
    there is any reason why it was not being applied earlier on, I
    think we would want to know that to see if there is anything we
    would want to change.
        In the sense of the actual development of the framework, it
    was to prevent us going into systems, specifically spending a
    whole bunch of money on different platforms or technology that
    was not able to become compatible to the VA. Could you tell me
    more about where you are in steps of the application of this
    framework?
        Mr. Smith. We are actively developing the system right now.
    Some of it is obviously into sustainment, but it is very much
    an active development process right now.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. If you did not use this framework,
    what framework did you actually use to make sure that there was
    basic--which created a well-defined milestone and
    accountability? What framework were you using? I am assuming
    Mr. Neill is going to take that question since you reached for
    it.
        Mr. Neill. Thank you for the question. I was actually
    muting myself, but I do not know the answer. I would like to
    let, you know, Mr. Smith answer that question.
        Mr. Smith. The General Project Management Framework for
    acquisition planning, acquisition development. We worked on the
    requirements. We are in development phase right now, and then
    we will look to move into full-time sustainment and maintenance
    for that application.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Now, is there a reason why you
    chose that framework? That framework has not had success in the
    past of helping us avoid putting a whole bunch of money into
    different programs that did not fit the VA. Is there a reason
    why you chose that framework instead of using the acquisition
    framework?
        Mr. Smith. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, ma'am,
    but I would certainly be happy to get back to you.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Okay, thank you. If there is
    anything else that you wanted to--well, let us get back to Mr.
    Neill. You said that you want to talk about it in general. Now,
    if you talk about it in general, can you tell us how you are
    planning on applying it? You are planning on applying it,
    correct?
        Mr. Neill. Yes, thank you for the question. We are
    intending to apply it to, you know, major programs, and it
    covers a lot of the things that you mentioned where the
    requirements can be better understood, the estimates related to
    those requirements can be more thoroughly explored, and it
    allows greater engagement and consideration of alternatives for
    these services.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Do you have any of those
    quantifiable matrices for the framework that you used before
    acquiring this platform?
        Mr. Neill. Again, thank you for the question, but I was not
    a participant in the acquisitions, so I do not know what was
    utilized.
        Mr. Smith. I am certain that that documentation is
    maintained in both the files for the contracting officer as
    well as our contracting officer's representatives.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. We look forward to receiving it.
    My time is running out, but we would like to see that just to
    make sure we could compare the two.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. You are welcome. I now recognize myself for
    5 minutes.
        Ok. What was the original budget for this supposed to be,
    Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. At 453 million.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. From the time you said you were told
    you had $453 million to develop a Digital GI Bill, how long was
    it from you got that email to you awarded a contract?
        Mr. Smith. I am not certain what the timeline was on that,
    sir.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I want--I am not asking, I am telling
    you. You are going to give me that answer because you guys have
    a 0, zero, percent record of doing this stuff on time. Here is
    what you did again at the VA: you got a ton of money available
    to you and you said, oh, my gosh, I got to spend this money, so
    let us pretend like we did actual mission planning and then
    crap on the American taxpayers. That is exactly what happened.
    You failed to plan again. The American taxpayer and the
    veterans who earn these benefits are paying the price for your
    guys basic inability to do mission planning.
        You mentioned that you there is legislation and some court
    cases that made you have to change what you are doing, correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. What was the first one?
        Mr. Smith. The Isakson-Row Act.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. What was the goal prior to that
    passing?
        Mr. Smith. The goal for the DGIB managed service contract
    is to deliver claims faster to veterans.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Then so you changed that after this
    act?
        Mr. Smith. We had----
        Mr. Van Orden. Was the goal the same?
        Mr. Smith. We had to change how we paid the monthly housing
    allowance.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Then that came into play and you are
    like, oh, okay, we better think of a new thing that we have to
    do or a new goal. What was the goal following the Isakson's
    legislation?
        Mr. Smith. It has always been to replace the benefit----
        Mr. Van Orden. What was the next piece of legislation or
    court action that made you change?
        Mr. Smith. We implemented the Veteran Employment Through
    Technology Education Courses (VET TEC) 1 capability.
        Mr. Van Orden. I think you see what I am--so I do not
    believe that you actually had any type of metric of success. I
    do not think that you did. Then you are pawning this off on
    Congress and the courts because you again failed to do mission
    planning and set attainable, quantifiable goals for this
    program. This has happened again and again and again.
        What is the goal right now? Can you put it on a piece of
    paper other than it is we are going to speedy service?
        Mr. Smith. Again, we are working to deliver claims in 1
    day.
        Mr. Van Orden. I am working to get my hair back, and
    neither one of this is turning out properly, Okay? That is
    unacceptable.
        Now, listen, do you know what this is?
        Mr. Smith. I cannot read that from here, sir.
        Mr. Van Orden. This is the current Veterans Health
    Administration (VHA) organization chart. You have a little bit
    in all of these little things. You are all over the place. You
    are contracting officers, all sorts. All through here, all
    these little noes.
        Now, these guys are moving this to this. See that? Can
    everybody see the difference between the two? Okay. Where is
    your line and block chart?
        Mr. Smith. Sir, I believe we sent that over to your office.
        Mr. Van Orden. I believe I do not have it. No, we need
    theirs. Yes. No, we do not have it. I want to see this because
    everybody here, you know, hey, Bob, I got six bosses. You guys
    got six bosses. We need one boss or maybe two at the most. You
    are never, ever going to get this right until you actually have
    a clean line, until you have a line and block chart where
    everybody knows exactly what they are doing and when they are
    supposed to do it and who they report to and who can be held
    accountable by who. I mean, this is a fundamental issue that we
    have.
        Mr. Tellez, who is responsible for not including the Office
    of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction into the original
    contract negotiation? Who?
        Mr. Tellez. Thank you for your question, sir. I was not--I
    am not--as my role as executive director for the Office of
    Business Integration, I have a small role in the Digital GI
    Bill. I provide support to them.
        Mr. Van Orden. Does anybody know the answer to this
    question? Who is responsible for not including the Office of
    Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction into the original
    contract?
        Mr. Smith. Sir, the Office of Acquisitions was involved in
    that we leveraged their contract vehicle, the Transformation
    Twenty-One Total Technology-Next Generation (T4NG) contract.
    VBA's acquisitions team actually managed the task order.
        Mr. Van Orden. Who put together the team? Who invited
    people to the table?
        Mr. Smith. The team would have been led by the Education
    Service director.
        Mr. Van Orden. That is not leading. I ask you, who put the
    actual team together?
        Okay. My time has expired and out of respect for my
    colleagues here, you are dismissed, this panel, please. If you
    want to stick around, it would be awesome. Then let us have the
    second panel come up. We will readjourn in 7 minutes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Van Orden. The committee will come to order.
        On our second panel, we are going to be hearing from the
    following witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Justin Parke,
    managing director, Digital GI Bill program manager, Accenture
    Federal Services. Our next witness is Mr. Troy Mueller,
    managing director, Integrated Benefits Operations and
    Technology Division at MITRE. Our final witness is Mr. William
    Hubbard, vice president for Veterans and Military Policy,
    Veterans Education Success.
        Please, all rise and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Van Orden. Very well. Let the record reflect that the
    witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
        Mr. Parke, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
    your testimony on behalf of Accenture Federal Services.

                       STATEMENT OF JUSTIN PARKE

        Mr. Parke. Chairman Barrett, Mr. Van Orden, Ranking Members
    Budzinski and Pappas, distinguished members of both
    subcommittees, thank you for inviting me to testify at today's
    hearing. I am Justin Parke, 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 serve
    veterans and their families in my role on this important
    program.
        Accenture's work with VA education began in 2019, when VA
    decided to reset after a failed Colmery implementation attempt
    with a different vendor. This reset included the release of a
    competitive outcome-based Request for Proposal (RFP) that
    Accenture won. In partnership with VA, we delivered Colmery on
    time and on budget.
        After this, VA released another full and open competitive
    RFP for the Digital GI Bill implementation and operations.
    Accenture won this competition and, since March 2021, we have
    supported VA's efforts to make it faster, and easier for
    veterans to access and reliably receive life-changing education
    benefits.
        We have achieved the main objectives of this contract: to
    process claims uninterrupted and to develop new capabilities
    based on requirements defined by VA while enabling the
    retirement of VA legacy systems. For example, DGIB has retired
    VA's nearly 50-year-old BDN mainframe, which has improved VA's
    operational resilience, and for the first time in GI Bill's 80-
    year history, has enabled fully automated claims processing for
    originals and new chapters.
        Through our DGIB automation efforts with VA, this January
    more than 64 percent of all education claims were processed
    automatically same day, with the vast majority of these in
    seconds with no veteran claim examiner effort. Chapter 35 is
    now running at 69 percent same-day automated claims processing,
    radically improving VA's posture for spring enrollment. Since
    March 2021, DGIB has processed over 16 million claims,
    delivering more than $43 billion in veteran benefits to 2.3
    million unique beneficiaries.
        There have been challenges to overcome. As previously
    detailed by the OIG, additional requirements, like new
    legislative mandates, new judicial interpretations, and
    additional systems integrations, expanded the scope from the
    original contract, and non-DGIB dependencies delayed the BDN
    retirement. During this BDN delay, VA reprioritized several
    other efforts including VET TEC 1.0 and My Education Benefits,
    and we delivered those capabilities ahead of schedule, ensuring
    that new advancements were still delivered to veterans despite
    the BDN retirement delay. Most recently, the DGIB system was
    instrumental in automating one-time BDN claim reconciliation to
    address the fall Veterans Claims Examiner (VCE) Manual Chapter
    35 backlog.
        The DGIB program's Life Cycle Cost Estimate details the
    baseline costs expected for the overall VA program across
    multiple contracts with multiple vendors and other VA expenses.
    A smaller portion of this estimate is for the managed service
    vendor costs, that is Accenture contract costs. The total
    Accenture contract ceiling is currently 1.08 billion inclusive
    of increased scope. Accenture contract cost is squarely within
    the baseline cost range for the scope and schedule ultimately
    required.
        Moreover, DGIB results in significant cost avoidance,
    including an estimated 250 million for the BDN retirement, 400
    million for other VA legacy systems, and 400 million from the
    reduced need for claims processing staff over 10 years. Without
    DGIB, VA would need to spend more on claims processing staff to
    keep up with the increased claim volume. All of these savings
    compound year over year and in total far exceed the 1 billion
    in managed service contract ceiling. As one of VA's most
    successful IT transformations, DGIB has overcome challenges and
    delivered on its commitments.
        Some conclusions to consider. One, VA can achieve ambitious
    transformation even when previous attempts over past decades
    have failed. Two, baseline Life Cycle Cost Estimates should
    include known unknowns, like future legal mandates and other
    future fact-of-life changes that do not exist at program
    inception. Three, procurement organizations can tackle big
    business needs with veteran outcome focused based contracts,
    like DGIB. With the right procurement strategy, VA leadership
    can drive critical mission objectives.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Justin Parke Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Parke. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Parke, you are recognized for 5
    minutes--oh, excuse me. Should probably put these on. Mr.
    Mueller, you are recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your
    testimony.
        Mr. Parke, your testimony will be entered into the written
    record.
        Mr. Parke. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF TROY MUELLER

        Mr. Mueller. Chairman Barrett, Chairman Van Orden, Ranking
    Members Budzinski and Pappas, and other members of the
    subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    you today on matters relating to the VA's Digital GI Bill
    program. Successful modernization of legacy it is critical to
    improving the veteran experience. MITRE very much appreciates
    the opportunity to testify today.
        MITRE is a not-for-profit systems engineering, applied
    research, and advanced technology organization that operates
    federally funded research and development centers for multiple
    Federal agencies, including the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Currently, I am the managing director responsible for our
    support to modernization of benefits and service delivery
    across all VBA lines of business, the VA's Office of
    Information and Technology, and the Social Security
    Administration. MITRE's role is focused on providing strategic
    advice, guidance, and assistance in the areas of systems
    engineering, program integration, and organizational change.
        Our work included completing the annual update of the Life
    Cycle Cost Estimate for the DGIB program from 2021 with Version
    1 through 2025 Version 5.0, which was delivered in April 2025.
    The LCCE calculates the total cost of the government for
    acquiring and owning a system throughout its lifetime, far
    beyond any specific contract, and is updated annually per the
    GAO recommendations and their guidance to reflect changes in
    technical, economic, and programmatic assumptions and fact-of-
    life changes, such as new legislation and court decisions
    impacting the agency, veterans, servicemembers, and
    beneficiaries. It supports financial decision-making and
    informs future budgetary needs.
        As of April 2025, with updated Version 5.0, the program has
    an estimated total cost of 2.3 billion in base year Fiscal Year
    2021 constant dollars over a 10-year period, rising to
    approximately 2.6 billion when adjusted for inflation or then-
    year dollars. The program is large and complex and,
    accordingly, has inevitably encountered challenges,
    unanticipated complexities, the realization of risk. Over the
    past 5 years it has also had many accomplishments, delivering
    eight successful releases, migration of all benefits to the--
    chapters to the platform, and retiring of the BDN 1970's
    mainframe system, and additional automation capabilities that
    result in dramatically faster claims processing.
        Recognizing that there will always be challenges,
    complexity, and risk, I have two recommendations to share with
    you today. First, a dedicated enterprise-level cost estimating
    capability at VA would give Congress and VA leadership
    consistent, independent, and defensible Life Cycle Cost
    Estimates that strengthen budget information, formulation, and
    major investment decisions. By validating program office
    estimates, establishing authoritative cost baselines, and
    providing transparent affordability analysis, the organization
    would reduce cost and schedule risk while improving oversight
    readiness and ensuring resources are aligned to outcomes that
    matter for veterans.
        Second, the cost estimating capability should be paired
    with a streamlined early acquisition model that accelerates
    delivery of capability while generating the structured data
    needed for credible cost estimation. Rapid operational need
    definition, minimum viable requirements, early risk scans, and
    lightweight architecture work would shorten pre-award timelines
    and produce clear inputs, such as preliminary requirements,
    solution concepts, and early cost drivers that feed the
    enterprise cost estimating organization capability. Together,
    these reforms enable VA to deliver modern capabilities faster
    while grounding every major investment in transparent data-
    driven analysis.
        In closing, let me just note that MITRE's roughly 6,500
    personnel, over 1,100 are veterans, including myself. Few
    duties feel more noble to our employees in honoring the service
    and sacrifice of our Nation's men and women in uniform through
    the support that we provide to the VA. On behalf of the entire
    MITRE team, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to come before
    you today and look forward to your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Troy Mueller Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Mueller. The written
    statement of Mr. Mueller will be entered into the hearing.
        Mr. Hubbard, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD

        Mr. Hubbard. Chairmen Van Orden and Barrett, Ranking
    Members Budzinski and Pappas, and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
    Veterans Education success and thank you for your continued
    oversight of VA on issues that directly affect veterans'
    survivors and their families.
        It is our organization's mission to advance higher
    education success for veterans, servicemembers, and military
    families, and to protect the integrity and the promise of the
    GI Bill and other Federal education programs. It is with this
    perspective that we approach today's hearing with focuses on
    the Digital GI Bill contracts and payment disruptions.
        Modernization at VA is necessary. Nobody disputes that.
    Modernization that fails to deliver benefits on time is not
    progress, it is disruption. The people who pay the price are
    students who plan their lives around the benefits that they
    were told they could rely on. The Digital GI Bill was intended
    to replace aging systems with a more efficient, unified
    platform. Instead, it has joined a long list of technology
    rollouts that VA launched without proper safeguards or
    contingency planning, and the result was all too predictable.
        Recently, housing payments were delayed or reduced without
    warning, leaving thousands of students scrambling to cover
    rent, food, and basic expenses. This pattern has plagued VA's
    technology transformations since the beginning of the post 9-11
    GI Bill, when tens of thousands of veterans went months without
    payments. Then, during the Forever GI Bill rollout in 2018,
    nearly 180,000 students experienced delays to their housing
    payments. In 2023, another modernization effort resulted in
    more than 280,000 students receiving late payments, and VA
    resorted to mailing paper checks to process some of those.
        As you can plainly see, last fall's failures were not an
    anomaly. One student told us that her benefits were missing for
    nearly 3 months, her car was repossessed, and she was facing
    eviction while attending school out of State with no family
    support nearby. Another student received less than $900 for the
    month, barely enough to cover rent, leaving him with almost
    nothing for food and transportation. These are real
    consequences of leadership decisions.
        Adding to the stress of missed payments was the noticeably
    loud silence from VA. VA was aware of the possibility of these
    issues before students felt the impact, yet there was no
    proactive warning and no reliable channel for students to get
    answers. During the government shutdown, the GI Bill hotline
    was classified as nonessential, leaving students unable to ask
    for help.
        It is also important to note the timing of these major
    technology updates, which were inexplicably scheduled to start
    at the beginning of the academic term, when even short
    disruptions can quickly snowball into housing issues or
    enrollment challenges. We implore VA to stop doing significant
    technology deployments at the beginning of major academic
    periods.
        Based on what we have heard from veterans, their families,
    and survivors, we offer the following practical solutions to
    mitigate these issues moving forward. First, education benefits
    delivery must be treated as an essential function. Second, VA
    should be required to conduct rigorous testing and independent
    certification before any update goes live. Third, when VA
    identifies a risk to on-time payments, it should be required to
    notify students, schools, and Congress in plain language.
    Fourth, major system changes should not be scheduled during
    critical academic windows. Fifth and finally, we encourage
    Congress to mandate transparent performance metrics that
    reflect the veteran experience, not VA's internal processes.
        Student veterans and survivors do not view these benefits
    as optional. They plan their lives around them. When payments
    fail, trust in the system erodes. Once lost, that trust is
    difficult to restore.
        Thank you for your attention to these issues and your
    continued oversight. I look forward to your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of William Hubbard Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. The written
    statement of Mr. Hubbard will be entered into the hearing
    record.
        Now we are going to proceed to questionings. The chair now
    recognizes Ranking Member Budzinski for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mueller, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate
    your recommendation that VA should work to strengthen its
    internal enterprise level cost estimating capability. However,
    with VA losing at least 405 contract specialists in Fiscal Year
    2026 so far, I worry the VA does not have the skills in-house
    right now to perform these estimates accurately and reliably.
    What are the dangers of not having enough highly trained staff
    to perform these estimates?
        Mr. Mueller. The need for qualified staff, which are not
    contracting officers for this, these are true professional cost
    estimators, that is a critical need. I think, that it would
    have to be planned and resourced for in order to actually bring
    those in. I cannot speak to what capability exists there today.
    I do not directly support that particular part of the VA
    organization.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Let me move to Mr. Hubbard. Mr.
    Hubbard, we heard at our hearing in December the VA has not
    held a monthly stakeholder call for the DGIB program since
    December 2024. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Hubbard. That is correct.
        Ms. Budzinski. What concerns do you have regarding the lack
    of engagement from the VA with veteran stakeholders as it
    continues to modernize the DGIB program?
        Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for the question. We have
    significant concerns about that. The lack of communication in
    general is--only exacerbates any issue that comes up. As an
    example, this past fall, when we saw these payment delays with
    Chapter 35 and others, if there was an exchange of information,
    organizations that support veterans could have anticipated
    that, planned accordingly, worked with schools even to make
    sure that these students were not, for example, facing
    eviction. Unfortunately, there was no exchange. This year to
    date, there have been zero of these calls.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Let me try to fit in one more quick
    question. Mr. Hubbard, your testimony also highlights numerous
    times that the burden to work around VA contracting and IT
    failures has fallen on veterans and beneficiaries. This is
    simply unacceptable. As I mentioned in my opening, these
    seemingly small errors often result in large losses and
    degraded veteran trust. Can you share more about the impact of
    these delays on your membership and how we as Congress can
    better support veterans and their family members who receive
    these benefits?
        Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for the question. Historically,
    there is a lack of trust when it comes to veterans coming to VA
    for, for example, their mental health needs. Imagine if you are
    a student who does not even get your payment on time when VA's
    got your Social, they have got your home address, your phone
    number, your blood type, probably your favorite color, and yet
    they cannot even deliver the benefits that you deserve and
    earned.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlemen's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes Representative King-Hinds for 3
    minutes.
        Ms. King-Hinds. My question is to Mr. Mueller. You made a
    couple of recommendations, one of which is the creation of a
    sufficiently resource enterprise-level cost-estimating
    capability, and, second, the development of a streamlined early
    acquisition model. For the vets who are listening in, who do
    not speak your language, can you please explain that in
    layman's terms?
        Mr. Mueller. Sure. When you stand up--before you stand up a
    program, there is a certain amount of analytical activity that
    should happen prior to that. That is where you understand your
    mission need, you start to understand your requirements, and
    look at your options of how do you fulfill this need. Part of
    that is you want to obviously determine what is going to be the
    cost to do this, an initial understanding of that cost
    estimate. You need this analytical activity paired with the
    capability to complete those estimates.
        Just to go back to that analytical activity, that would be
    made up of users that use the system, be it your contracting
    people, your contracting professionals, the business leaders
    that are responsible for operating it, the IT organization. All
    these different skill sets come together to help bring this
    program to life in an informed way, so decision-makers can make
    an informed decision and have an idea of what the cost is going
    to be. All of this contributes to a better contract, a better
    acquisition activity as well.
        In the most layman's terms I can put it is you are bringing
    people that understand the ingredients to bring to a great meal
    so you can have a good meal.
        Ms. King-Hinds. I asked that question, right, because we
    are talking about how do we look at contract reforms and
    acquisitions reform. I think I was reading Mr. Parke's
    testimony and he suggests that baseline estimates should
    include known and unknowns. Right? In this process, right, to
    include future legal mandates, because the VA has pointed out
    that there are different components that needs to be tinkered
    with given all these lawsuits, and that has to be all accounted
    for. Where does that fit in with regards to just the
    contracting process and who should bear that risk? Some of this
    cost inflation is directly attributed to that.
        Mr. Mueller. Sure. The early analytical activity will give
    you what the requirements are known in that moment and what is
    the objective for that system. Where this issue--where what Mr.
    Parke brought up comes into play, the known unknowns is
    actually in a cost estimate--you develop an LCCE. I want to be
    clear about an LCCE, not an independent government cost
    estimate for a contract. For the bigger program LCCE, you
    account for that in the range and sensitivity analysis.
    However, you can only account for so much. There are just some
    of those unknowns you are not going to know.
        It comes down to how much do you budget for if you think
    about the range? If we say that we have a confidence level of
    $1 value and we have a range, do you have to budget more on the
    other side? Normally, GAO says budget at the 50 percent
    confidence level to account for some of that, but you are still
    going to have things come up along the way, especially when you
    are thinking----
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Pappas for 3
    minutes.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Parke, did Accenture provide DGIB Release 8 on time and
    on budget?
        Mr. Parke. Thank you for the question. The original
    deadline for BDN retirement, which is equivalent to Release 8,
    was September 2022. We delivered it in August 2025 for the
    reasons that I think you have heard in a number of testimonies.
        Mr. Pappas. How quickly did Accenture respond to VA's
    requests for assistance in automating the data reconciliation
    last September?
        Mr. Parke. If we are talking about September 2025?
        Mr. Pappas. That is right.
        Mr. Parke. As soon as VA was aware that there was an issue
    in the amount of time it was taking to manually reconcile or
    validate BDN data coming into Chapter 35, we were, with the VA,
    taking new requirements for automation. We were able to then
    build that and have it ready for deployment in October. Of
    course, there were some mitigating circumstances that prevented
    folks from validating that it was working as expected.
        Mr. Pappas. It could not go live right away because some of
    the employees VA needed were furloughed. Do you know how long
    the release was delayed while VA waited to get those employees
    back in the office?
        Mr. Parke. The eventual deployment of that improvement to
    automate was November 14th, as I recall, 2 days after, you
    know, November 12th.
        Mr. Pappas. When did you or Accenture writ large become
    aware of the backlog issues with Chapter 35 beneficiaries?
        Mr. Parke. I do not know the exact day, but essentially as
    soon as VA was aware, they came and notified us that we would
    need to be ready to address it with some form of automation.
    That was the best idea we had. As you can see, it worked.
        Mr. Pappas. Mr. Hubbard, in previous hearings, I have
    shared some of the stories that our office has received from
    impacted Chapter 35 beneficiaries from payments being delayed.
    I appreciate you giving voice to that as well. I know you ran
    out of time on a previous answer. I did not know if you want to
    add anything else just to the impacts on veterans' families and
    survivors and the stresses that some of these issues at VA
    cause them. I appreciate you talking about prioritizing the
    veteran experience.
        Mr. Hubbard. Yes, thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking
    Member. The reality is when VA asks you to come to them for
    mental health, but they cannot even--which is a big thing for
    your well being, your existence, and they cannot even get the
    small things right, like getting your payment on time that you
    have already earned and already deserve, how do you expect
    veterans to have that trust in the institution? That is a real
    loss for America and, frankly, it is a disservice to taxpayers
    as well.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much for those comments. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes Mrs. Ramirez for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman.
        We know that the VA is still struggling to meet
    expectations on delivery of the Digital GI Bill we talked about
    in the previous panel. I want to look at the facts a little
    closer. Despite millions of dollars and ample opportunities for
    the Digital GI Bill to be implemented smoothly and efficiently,
    a backlog remains and rollout continues to be a problem. It is
    especially concerning because we know that many veterans rely
    on these GI Bill benefits to remain housed and to access these
    basic necessities. We know this clear, any delay in receiving
    these funds could prove to be dire.
        You know, I find it unacceptable that the public and
    Congress do not have better insights into why the Digital GI
    Bill program continues to face challenges. It is also
    unconscionable that in the face of those challenges, veterans'
    families and survivors were left in the dark facing financial
    instability. Look, I know that setbacks happen, failures are
    learning opportunities, but continuing to allow this program to
    falter when veterans rely on it for stability is not an option.
        I want to talk a little bit about contractor oversight,
    since we have talked about it here quite a bit. The key to
    addressing the challenges that DGIB is facing is by listening
    to the perspectives of all those involved in its modernization
    and integration.
        This question is for you, Mr. Parke. Did Accenture flag
    risks related to release timing, testing capacity, or manual
    reconciliation to the VA? If so, how did the VA respond to you?
        Mr. Parke. Thank you for the question. Certainly, we
    collaborate with VA to identify risks and issues. These types
    of risks and issues were flagged. I think, you know, as an
    overall institution, VA is balancing many different priorities
    and, in some cases, certainty as to whether a risk will be
    realized is not clear.
        You know, as you heard, we did go live in August. It was
    August 4, 2025. The assessment at the time was that that was
    early enough.
        Ms. Ramirez. Is your assessment that the VA responded as
    best as it could to the red flags that you flagged?
        Mr. Parke. Based on the information they had, I think they
    made a reasonable decision. Obviously, with 20-20 hindsight,
    you know, more time would have been helpful. That would have
    pushed the go-live a whole year based on what we were hearing
    from finance.
        Ms. Ramirez. Got it. Let me ask you one last question, I
    have 35 seconds left. Do you believe the process in which you
    communicate the issues you find with the VA is working as it
    should, given the hindsight? In considering how to advance
    acquisition reform, what are the specific areas that you offer
    that have the greatest potential for improvement?
        Mr. Parke. I would say that the process had issues in the
    past. It has improved. There has been, you know, new engagement
    with new leadership, Ken Smith. As you heard, Mr. Ken Smith
    came in recently. I think this has drastically improved some of
    that.
        As it relates to acquisition----
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The chair--I now recognize myself for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Parke, what is the average amount of time where a
    veteran was not paid?
        Mr. Parke. In general, I think the last statistic we have
    is it is an average of 5.6 days to complete each claim. I do
    not have more information than that.
        Mr. Van Orden. Hold on one sec. We are going to do some
    quick enlisted math up here.
        Mr. Parke. Okay.
        Mr. Van Orden. This is going to be really exciting. No
    pressure. How much does the VA spend on education benefits a
    month?
        Mr. Parke. I think it averages to about $1.0 billion.
        Mr. Van Orden. 1.2 billion?
        Mr. Parke. In terms of benefits to veterans.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. 1.2 billion divided by 30 is what?
        Mr. Parke. I would have to get a calculator and make sure I
    do it right in terms of public math.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Check me out. If the average amount of
    time is 5 days where vets are not getting paid, and I
    understand what Mr. Hubbard was saying, there has been
    catastrophic things, but so why cannot the VA have moneys set
    aside for when inevitably you guys screw this up again? It is
    going to happen. Why cannot there be money here to pay to our
    veterans so they do not have to wring their hands? Again, the
    VA has a 0 percent record of getting something done like this
    on time and on budget.
        Mr. Parke. Is the suggestion that there might be some
    contingency money set aside that could be used?
        Mr. Van Orden. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Then
    I do not care if it goes, you know, electronically. Mail them a
    check because, hopefully, by the time the check gets there, the
    system is back online again. If that is--we were just talking,
    Ranking Member Budzinski and I, you know, if we need to, we can
    legislate that, because, I mean, this is just dumb. We keep
    doing it again. Again, what, 2 days ago it was Groundhog Day.
    We keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a
    different result. That is the definition of insanity. I want
    you from your side to look at that and from our side we will
    look at that.
        I do have to say that there is a potential for success,
    however small it is. We have seen on the VHA side a 57 percent
    reduction in the claims under Secretary Collins' leadership.
    That is in a year. Within 1 year, there is almost a single 60
    percent reduction in claims. These things are attainable, but
    you need to have the right people working.
        One of the things, just take this for what it is, who the
    hell has been held accountable for any of this? Who has lost a
    job? Who lost a contract? The first guys? What about you guys?
    You know what I mean? The cost overruns, I think, are
    exponentially greater under your purview than it was under the
    first guys that got fired. I mean, if a civilian company ran
    this like you guys have been running this, they would be out of
    business. Maybe some people need to get out of business in this
    business.
        My time has expired. I want to thank you all for coming,
    being here today. Ms. Budzinski has waved her closing comments,
    and which I thank you very much for coming, everybody.
        We can agree that there is an absolute accountability
    problem. Until people start, you know, worrying about whether
    or not they are going to have a paycheck, our veterans are
    going to have to worry about whether or not they have a
    paycheck. I will remind you, and I am echoing the comments of
    our current Secretary, Mr. Collins, it ain't about you. It is
    about the veteran. That every time you put the bureaucracy
    above the veteran, which has happened consistently since I have
    been in Congress for 25 minutes, it is unacceptable. We are
    going to do everything we can to help the Secretary root out
    this bureaucratic inertia so that our vets get what they
    deserve.
        With that, this hearing is closed.
        [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]
    =======================================================================

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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

                        Prepared Statement of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                      Prepared Statement of Kenneth Smith

        Good morning, Chairmen Barrett and Van Orden, Ranking Members
    Budzinski and Pappas, and distinguished members of the Subcommittees. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the Digital GI Bill's
    (DGIB) program management and contracts. Joining me today is Mr. Robert
    Orifici, Executive Director for Benefits and Memorial Service, Office
    of Information Technology, Mr. Jeffrey Neill, Associate Executive
    Director Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction, and Mr.
    Ray Tellez, Executive Director, Office of Business Integration
        VA's efforts to implement transformational changes through the DGIB
    platform have enabled the Department to deliver benefits faster,
    enhance customer service, and strengthen compliance and oversight
    activities. Our top goals include delivering the highest standards of
    world-class customer service; improving oversight and accountability;
    expanding opportunities for Service members, Veterans and eligible
    family members to pursue their academic and career goals; enhancing the
    Nation's economic vitality with innovative programs; and enriching
    lives by giving beneficiaries the tools and resources they need to
    further their education and achieve their career aspirations. VA has
    made tremendous advancements toward streamlining and automating systems
    and processes to increase efficiency and drive outcomes for Veterans
    and their families and will continue to strive to reach the highest
    level of excellence for our Nation's Veterans.
        The DGIB modernization initiative was envisioned as a fully
    integrated solution to restructure both claims processing for all
    education benefits programs and enhance customer service for
    beneficiaries and external partners by providing direct, online, one-
    stop access to GI Bill benefits and information. To date, the program
    has been exceptionally successful in meeting mission milestones to
    maximize performance through an updated processing platform that has
    delivered end-to-end automation for millions of education benefits
    claims. The success of this initiative has addressed many high risks to
    Veterans and survivors who depend on these benefits. Additionally, the
    initiative has exceeded our initial goals by delivering functionality
    to replace and decommission the near half-a-century-old Benefits
    Delivery Network (BDN) along with many other unplanned functionality
    changes necessary due to both congressional action (new laws passed)
    and court mandates (precedent opinions with monumental impact on claims
    adjudications).

    Historical Program Management

        On September 26, 2024, VA testified before the House Committee on
    Veterans' Affairs' Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity to discuss DGIB
    progress at that time. VA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) also
    presented testimony to outline its audit of the DGIB program dated
    August 28, 2024. I am pleased to report that VA has satisfied all of
    OIG's recommendations. VA acknowledged that the original 2020-2021
    contract underestimated the complexity of the work, which included
    transitioning from legacy systems created in an obsolete programming
    language known as the Common Business-Oriented Language (COBOL). The
    program experienced delays related to integration requirements with
    external systems that did not deliver on schedule and the need for
    additional VA testing environments that were not delivered, which
    forced prolonged testing cycles. The reasons for these delays were
    prioritization and lack of an integrated approach to governance, which
    have been solved through close communication with external systems and
    a strengthened, VA-level enterprise governance structure.
        In written testimony, VA acknowledged increased contract costs at
    that time, driven by increased scope, which led to a full review and
    restructuring of the contract at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2023.
    Costs increased due to the integration and testing challenges outlined
    earlier. They also increased because VA received more claims from
    Veterans than anticipated.
        Since initial implementation of the DGIB project, the MITRE
    Corporation has assisted VA with acquisition planning and program
    support. To ensure full, multi-year understanding of cost and the
    strategic impact of both delay and exogenous factors such as higher
    claim volumes, MITRE prepared a Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE). An
    LCCE is a best practice described in the Government Accountability
    Office's (GAO) Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide (GAO-20-195G).
    Separate from the program budget, which tracks planned versus actual
    expenses in the budget execution cycle, the LCCE helps forecast all
    program costs over a longer period.
        Covering actuals and projections for the period 2021-2030, the LCCE
    enabled VBA's Education Service to consider tradeoff decisions, such as
    new claims processor functionality versus greater automation, and the
    impact of Fact of Life changes, including new legislation and court
    mandates. Examples of these changes include Coronavirus disease
    provisions in P.L. 116-128, 116-140, 116-159, and 116-315, which forced
    VA to deprioritize planned development for basic claims processing
    functionality. Additionally, the program had to adjust implementation
    plans to account for the numerous provisions of the Johnny Isakson and
    David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of
    2020 (P.L. 116-315). Additional costs were added to the contract to
    support legacy data migration from BDN to the new system and an
    analytical data warehouse to support workload and program management
    needs.
        Unsurprisingly, claims processing labor is a significant driver of
    LCCE cost. VA's claims processing environment has historically rested
    on human labor to process millions of claims for Veterans and
    survivors. Since the 2021 baseline through 2025, VA processed 37
    percent more claims, at a significant savings, when compared to the
    cost of employing new staff. As of December 2025, VA is automating and
    delivering 65 percent of all claims without any human interaction,
    reducing costs and improving service delivery. 53 percent of the LCCE
    10-year cost estimate is VA human labor to complete claims, which does
    not account for recent improvements in automation.
        To support the ultimate goal of automation as well as reduce risk
    of catastrophic failure of the 50-year-old BDN system, VA
    decommissioned the decades-old legacy system, in September 2025. The
    decommissioning involved coordinated development in VA's new payment
    delivery tool as well as replacement for the BDN claims processing
    functionality. The decision to decommission BDN on this timeline
    required VA to re-prioritize functional and automation improvements. It
    cannot be understated just how significant the retirement of the BDN
    mainframe was. The prioritization of the BDN Retirement was a strategic
    move not just to reduce the risk to the enterprise in security
    compliance and cost savings but also as a critical enabler to future
    functionality. For example, any systemic changes to implement Dole and
    Rudisill-compliant features were not technically feasible in the
    previous BDN mainframe ecosystem.
        In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Rudisill v.
    McDonough, which expanded eligibility for GI Bill benefits and
    necessitated rework on significant processes already encoded in DGIB
    with the intent to automate adjudications. In April 2025, the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Perkins v. Collins further
    expanded eligibility for GI Bill benefits, which required rework of
    previously decided claims and further reprioritization of functionality
    for DGIB claims processing. Additionally, Congress enacted the Senator
    Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits
    Improvement Act (P.L. 118-210) (Dole Act) in January 2025, which
    contained 15 separate provisions that impacted education benefits and
    rules concerning adjudications.

    Recent Actions and Future

        VA has taken further steps to improve program management. VA
    recognizes the high likelihood of new scope due to changes in law and
    court decisions. To implement these new requirements without protracted
    contract negotiations, VA implemented two modifications in 2025. First,
    VA moved from a waterfall-schedule-driven process to a scope-driven
    priority process called Agile software methodology. This will allow VA
    to quickly reprioritize to address new requirements, but it does not
    change the basic project management principle known as the Golden
    Triangle--there can be no change to scope, cost, or schedule
    independently. If any one item is changed, at least one other element
    must also change. Second, since VA has consistently processed more
    claims than originally forecasted, additional funding was needed
    annually for its claims processing contract on T4NG during the year of
    execution--a fact reflected in the LCCE, which projected a decrease of
    only 38 claims examiners. VA shifted this task order to a fixed rate,
    representing the fact that additional claims processed each year
    through improvements to automation generally should not increase costs
    to the vendor. VA has reduced claims processing staff through attrition
    without replacement, illustrating the high benefit of automation while
    simultaneously improving service delivery.
        While VA has successfully implemented most Dole Act provisions, we
    are still working to implement sections 208, 210, and 212 (VET TEC
    2.0). VA has committed to VET TEC 2.0 (section 212) implementation in
    the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2026, but as described earlier, this
    has necessitated an offset to the scope of planned improvements this
    year. For example, VA has yet to develop functionality to automate
    Rudisill (and now Perkins) cases to replace the aging workload
    management system (The Image Management System or TIMS) for improved
    functionality for field managers and claims processors or to replace
    the legacy school approval system (Web-Enabled Approval Management
    System or WEAMS), which would integrate data on school approvals for
    quicker school approvals and fraud detection. Prioritization of these
    requirements always entails a cost-benefit analysis of priorities and
    agile adjustments based on the dynamic world of law, policies, and the
    limits of time-scope-and-funding. Nonetheless, the DGIB initiative has
    successfully implemented eight major releases and hundreds of minor
    releases.
        Our focus has always been on the Veteran: delivering benefits
    easier and faster to the Veteran through simplified application
    interfaces and increased automation. Our aspirational, strategic goal
    is an automated, 1-day decision for 90 percent of claims received.
    While this was once a ``pie-in-the-sky'' goal, we are well on our way
    to achieving it: as of January 15, 2026, 69 percent of Chapter 35
    supplemental claims are fully automated. Just 4 months prior, no
    Chapter 35 claims were automated. VA has now automated 58 percent of
    all claims for Chapter 33 originals and supplementals, Chapter 35
    supplementals, and Chapter 30 supplementals for a grand total of more
    than 1,000,000 claims year to date.
        Finally, our performance reflects a return on investment from the
    perspective of the student Veterans we serve. As of January 22, 2026,
    the average days to complete education claims are 5.6 days. While this
    average is similar to prior years, VA has been able to achieve this
    outcome with fewer staff and increasing automation to deliver 43
    percent more within 1 day. All of this was done while maintaining high
    accuracy--for claims completed in November, automation accuracy was 97
    percent, which is comparable to claims processors at 98 percent.

    Conclusion

        Chairmen Barrett and Van Orden and Ranking Members Budzinski and
    Pappas, this concludes my statement. We appreciate the opportunity to
    speak before you today and welcome any questions you or other Members
    of the Subcommittees may have.

                       Prepared Statement of Justin Parke

        Chairmen Barrett and Van Orden, Ranking Members Budzinski and
    Pappas, and distinguished members of both Subcommittees, thank you for
    inviting me to testify 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 serve Veterans and
    their families in my role on this important program.
        Accenture's work with VA Education began in 2019, when VA decided
    to reset after a failed Colmery implementation attempt with a different
    vendor. This reset included the release of a competitive, outcome-based
    RFP that Accenture won. In partnership with VA, we delivered Colmery on
    time and on budget. After this, VA released another full and open
    competitive RFP for the Digital GI Bill (DGIB) implementation and
    operations. Accenture won this competition and since March 2021, we
    have supported VA's efforts to make it faster and easier for Veterans
    to access and reliably receive life-changing education benefits.
        We have achieved the main objectives for this contract: to process
    claims uninterrupted and to develop new capabilities based on
    requirements defined by VA, while enabling the retirement of VA legacy
    systems. For example, DGIB retired VA's nearly 50-year-old BDN
    mainframe which has improved VA's operational resilience and for the
    first time in the GI Bill's 80-year history, has enabled fully
    automated claims processing for originals and new chapters.
        Through our DGIB automation efforts with VA, this January more than
    64 percent of all education claims are processed same-day, the vast
    majority of these in seconds, with no Veteran Claim Examiner (VCE)
    effort. Chapter 35 is now running at 69 percent same-day automated
    claims processing, radically improving VA's posture for spring
    enrollment. Since March 2021, DGIB has processed over 16 million
    claims, delivering more than 43 billion dollars in Veteran benefits to
    2.3 million unique beneficiaries.
        There have also been challenges to overcome. As previously detailed
    by the OIG: additional requirements like new legislative mandates, new
    judicial interpretations, and additional system integrations expanded
    the scope from the original contract and non-DGIB dependencies delayed
    the BDN retirement. During this BDN delay, VA re-prioritized several
    other efforts, including VET TEC 1.0 and My Education Benefits, and we
    delivered those capabilities ahead of schedule, ensuring that new
    advancements were still delivered to Veterans despite the BDN
    retirement delay.
        The DGIB program's lifecycle cost estimate details the baseline
    costs expected for the overall VA program across multiple contracts
    with multiple vendors and other VA expenses. A smaller portion of this
    estimate is for the managed service vendor costs - that is, Accenture
    contract costs. The total Accenture contract ceiling is currently $1.08
    billion, inclusive of increased scope. Accenture contract cost is
    squarely within the baseline cost range for the scope and schedule
    ultimately required.
        Moreover, DGIB results in significant cost avoidance, including an
    estimated $250 million for BDN, $400 million for other VA legacy
    systems, and $400 million of claims processing staff time over 10
    years. Without DGIB, VA would need to spend more on claims processing
    staff time to keep up with increased claim volumes. All of these
    savings compound year over year and in total, far exceed the $1 billion
    in managed service contract ceiling.
        As one of VA's most successful IT transformations, DGIB has
    overcome challenges and delivered on its commitments. Some conclusions
    to consider:

        1. VA can achieve ambitious transformation, even when previous
    attempts over past decades have failed;

        2. Baseline lifecycle cost estimates should include ``known
    unknowns'' like future legal mandates and other future fact-of-life
    changes that do not exist at program inception; and

        3. Procurement organizations can tackle big business needs with
    Veteran outcome-based contracts like DGIB. With the right procurement
    strategy, VA leadership can drive critical mission outcomes in
    partnership with contractors.

        With these lessons in mind, we look forward to working with VA to
    provide even more same-day experiences while complying with legal
    mandates--delivering education benefits faster, easier, and more
    reliably, which is what our Veterans have earned and deserve. Thank
    you, I look forward to your questions.

                       Prepared Statement of Troy Mueller

        Chairman Van Orden and Chairman Barrett, Ranking Members Pappas and
    Budzinski, and other Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today 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) nonprofit systems engineering, applied
    research, and advanced technology organization that operates federally
    Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) in support of Federal
    agencies spanning national security, homeland security, law
    enforcement, cybersecurity, health, transportation, and economic
    competitiveness, including the Department of Veterans Affairs. MITRE's
    technical and subject matter experts have had the privilege of
    supporting many modernization efforts across the Federal enterprise.
    Our workforce of approximately 7,000 is headquartered at campuses in
    McLean, VA, and Bedford, MA.
        Currently, I am a Managing Director in MITRE's Center for
    Government Effectiveness and Modernization, responsible for directing
    our support to modernization of benefits and service delivery across
    all Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) lines of business, the VA's
    Office of Information & Technology, and the Social Security
    Administration.

    A Trusted Partner

        MITRE has been a partner with the VA's Education Service since
    2008, having supported multiple projects focused on improving delivery
    of education benefits, such as the implementation of The Post-9/11
    Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill), Harry
    W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (Forever GI
    Bill), and the Digital GI Bill program.
        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 included completing
    the annual update of the life cycle cost estimate (LCCE) for the
    Digital GI Bill (DGIB) program from 2021 (version 1.0) through 2025
    (version 5.0)., which was delivered in April 2025.

    Life Cycle Cost Estimate

        The Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) calculates the total cost to
    the Government for acquiring and owning a system throughout its
    lifetime, far beyond any contracts. It establishes a program cost
    baseline, aiding resource planning, program justification, and
    decision-making. Required for programs exceeding $50 million\1\, the
    LCCE aligns with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Capital
    Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) framework, as outlined in the
    Capital Programming Guide and OMB Circulars A-11 and A-94.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The White House--OMB Circular A-11. Retrieved from: a11.pdf
    (whitehouse.gov)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The LCCE is updated annually per GAO recommendations to reflect
    changes in technical, economic, and programmatic assumptions, and fact-
    of-life changes such as new legislation or court decisions impacting
    the agency, Veterans, service members, and beneficiaries. It supports
    financial decision-making and informs future budgetary needs. Developed
    using GAO's 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 an 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 2025 update (version 5.0), the DGIB Program has an
    estimated total cost of $2.38 billion in base year Fiscal Year 2021
    constant dollars over a 10-year period, rising to approximately $2.68
    billion when adjusted for inflation (then-year dollars). At a 50
    percent confidence level, the program's estimated life cycle cost
    reaches $2.76 billion in then-year dollars, including a contingency
    reserve of $93 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 (BDN) 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, 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 5.0 (delivered in April 2025). The
    primary areas of cost increase over the lifecycle are the VCE
    assumption and timing of required automation targets ($747M), and the
    transition to the GSA Alliant 2 contract, which has higher rates, to
    extend the platform configuration by 4 years to accommodate schedule
    impacts ($485M).
        VBA's active executive 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.

    A Record of Accomplishment

        Over the past 5 years, the Digital GI Bill program has had many
    accomplishments delivering eight successful major releases, including
    the migration of all benefits chapters to the platform, retiring of the
    Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) 1970's mainframe, and additional
    automation capabilities resulting in dramatically faster claims
    processing.
        The integrated DGIB team is extremely sensitive to the impact of
    time on Veterans and beneficiaries. Delays in processing could drive a
    semester or entire academic year-long delay for some students as some
    degree completion or accelerated graduate programs only start once a
    year. These delays are not just start dates for school, they are delays
    in pursuing dreams and achieving life goals.

    Recommendations

        Two closely aligned recommendations can strengthen VA's ability to
    deliver modern services while improving the transparency and
    credibility of major investments. The first is the creation of a
    sufficiently resourced enterprise-level cost estimating capability, and
    second, the development of a streamlined early acquisition model that
    produces the data required for informed cost estimates. Together, they
    improve both the speed and rigor of VA's modernization efforts.
        A dedicated, enterprise-level cost estimating capability at VA
    would give Congress and VA leadership consistent, independent, and
    defensible lifecycle cost estimates that strengthen budget formulation
    and major investment decisions. By validating program office estimates,
    establishing authoritative cost baselines, and providing transparent
    affordability analysis, this organization would reduce cost and
    schedule risk while improving oversight readiness and ensuring
    resources are aligned to outcomes that matter for Veterans.
        This capability should be paired with a streamlined early
    acquisition model that accelerates delivery of benefits, healthcare,
    and services while generating the structured data needed for credible
    cost estimation. Rapid operational need definition, minimum viable
    requirements, early risk scans, and lightweight architecture work would
    shorten pre-award timelines and produce clear inputs such as
    preliminary requirements, solution concepts, and early cost drivers
    that feed the enterprise cost estimating organization.
        Together, these reforms enable VA to deliver modern capabilities
    faster while grounding every major investment in transparent, data-
    driven analysis.
        In closing, let me just note that of MITRE's roughly 6,500
    personnel, over 1,100 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 opportunity to come before you today, and I look forward
    to your questions.

                     Prepared Statement of William Hubbard
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

        Prepared Statement of National Association of Veterans Programs
                                 Administrators
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Prepared Statement of Student Veterans of America

        Chairman Barrett and Van Orden, Ranking Member Budzinski and
    Pappas, and Members of the Subcommittees: Thank you for inviting
    Student Veterans of America (SVA) to submit a statement for the record
    on this important hearing titled ``Digital G.I. Bill Undelivered:
    Contracting Challenges and the Need for Acquisition Reform'' today.
        With a mission focused on empowering student veterans, SVA is
    committed to providing an educational experience that goes beyond the
    classroom. Through a dedicated and expansive network of on-campus
    chapters across the country, SVA aims to inspire yesterday's warriors
    by connecting student veterans with a community of like-minded chapter
    leaders. Every day these passionate leaders work to provide the
    necessary resources, network support, and advocacy to ensure student
    veterans, military-connected students, their families, caregivers, and
    survivors can effectively connect, expand their skills, and ultimately
    achieve their greatest potential.
        SVA thanks the Subcommittees for considering this issue that would
    impact student veterans, military-connected students, their families,
    caregivers, and survivors in higher education.

    Introduction

        In 2026, the GI Bill remains one of the most powerful tools for
    veteran success, offering pathways to higher education, economic
    mobility, and long-term well-being. For many transitioning service
    members, the GI Bill serves as their first interaction with Department
    of Veterans Affairs (VA), making it a defining moment that shapes their
    trust in the whole of VA. A smooth, transparent experience encourages
    veterans to explore the full range of VA services, from mental health
    care to career resources, while systemic hurdles discourage engagement.
    If fully optimized, the GI Bill can serve as the ``front door'' to VA,
    ensuring that veterans not only achieve the economic mobility promised
    by their service and education but also remain engaged in the broader
    network of programs designed to support them throughout their lives.
    The past several years have seen significant advancements in the
    administration of the GI Bill, including investments in information
    technology modernization, automation of benefit processing, and
    customer service reform within the Veterans Benefits Administration
    have reduced delays and improved reliability.\1\ These improvements are
    significant precisely because they reduce visibility, in that education
    benefits are most effective when they recede into dependability rather
    than demand constant management by the beneficiary. Such gains,
    however, are not self-sustaining. They require continued oversight to
    ensure that modernization efforts remain responsive to veteran
    experience rather than driven solely by system efficiency. A direct
    example of this oversight happened on December 16, 2025, when the
    Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity had a hearing titled ``Detrimental
    Delays: Reviewing Payment Failures in VA's Education Programs.'' This
    hearing explored the impact that the interruption of Federal funding
    had on our beneficiaries utilizing their Chapter 31 Veteran Readiness
    and Employment or Chapter 35 Survivors and Dependents educational
    benefits starting on October 1, 2025. Chapter 35 beneficiaries
    throughout the Nation started off their Fall 2025 semester without
    receiving their Monthly Housing Allowance (MHA) due to various
    technological issues. These students turned to the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) Education Service for help through their
    counselors or through the GI Bill Hotline. GI Bill users were
    unwillingly placed into a state of uncertainty after having to rely
    heavily on these critical operations to stay enrolled and housed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). Transforming the
    GI Bill experience. Digital VA. Retrieved February 19, 2025, from
    https://digital.va.gov/delightful-end-user-experience/transforming-the-
    gi-bill-experience/.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GI Bill Hotline

        As of February 2024, nearly 840,000 students were receiving some GI
    Bill benefits, with almost 600,000 of them enrolled at campuses with an
    SVA chapter. \2\, \3\ The GI Bill Hotline (GIBH) is the only
    place where a student can speak with a live representative about any
    question they have regarding their GI Bill education benefits. The GIBH
    is open Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET by dialing
    888-GIBILL-1 (888-442-4551).\4\ By calling that hotline, a student can
    speak with a VA representative, knowledgeable in education benefits, to
    verify payments, fix billing errors, and get real-time benefit guidance
    when they are unable otherwise. When the interruptions of Federal
    funding forced the GIBH to close on October 1, 2025, it had potentially
    left roughly 840,000 students using VA education benefits with nowhere
    to turn when their monthly benefits were delayed - risking eviction,
    dis-enrollment, or withdrawal. Students utilizing Chapter 31 Veteran
    Readiness & Employment (VR&E) were impacted even further to the hotline
    closing when all Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors (VRC) were also
    furloughed on October 3, 2025.\5\ Direct communication with VA on
    education benefits came to a halt, leaving AskVA.gov as the sole
    channel. Responses were significantly delayed and often failed to
    provide useful or actionable information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ According to the VBA Annual Benefits Report Fiscal Year 2023,
    updated February 2024, there were 843,135 recipients combined of the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33), MGIB-AD (chapter 30), MGIB-SR (1606),
    DEA (chapter 35), and VEAP (chapter 32).
        \3\ The number of those receiving GI Bill benefits reported by
    campus in the VA's GI Bill Comparison Tool dataset were cross-
    referenced with campuses present in the SVA system of record as having
    an SVA chapter.
        \4\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefit
    Administration Education and Training Contact Us, https://
    www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/contact_us.asp.
        \5\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Human Capital Contingency
    Plan, last updated Oct. 3, 2025, https://department.va.gov/contingency-
    planning/human-capital-contingency-plan/#table-3-va-functions-to-be-
    suspended-by-administration-or-staff-office.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors

        The VR&E program has continually evolved to better serve veterans
    and service members with service-connected disabilities. This unique
    program is designed to help them prepare for, secure, and sustain
    meaningful and suitable employment to obtain economic mobility post-
    service. VRCs are responsible for approving academic plans, authorizing
    reimbursement stipends for educational supplies, and guiding employment
    readiness.
        In December 2024, SVA testified on the crucial role that VR&E plays
    in workforce reintegration and how its inconsistencies in service
    delivery have often left veterans in precarious financial and academic
    situations.\6\ SVA conducted a survey of its members about their
    experiences with the VR&E program,\7\ and a majority of respondents
    said they would recommend the program to other service-connected
    disabled veterans seeking to prepare for, find, and maintain
    employment.\8\ However, the most significant barrier identified was
    communication, nearly one-third reported they could rarely reach their
    VRC, and three-in-four had inconsistent access.\9\ These gaps have led
    to delayed approvals, interrupted stipends, and stalled economic growth
    and career progress.\10\ What was once already a strained system had
    reached a standstill amidst the lapse in Federal funding, and was
    further exacerbated by the closing of the GIBH. This left many disabled
    student veterans uncertain about their ability to continue their
    training, secure meaningful employment, and provide for their families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Student Veterans of America, EXAMINING the EFFECTIVENESS of the
    VETERANS READINESS and EMPLOYMENT (VR&E) PROGRAM, December 11, 2025.
    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR10/20241211/117750/HHRG-118-VR10-
    20241211-SD003.pdf.
        \7\ Student Veterans of America, 2024 VR&E Exploration Survey.
        \8\ Id.
        \9\ Id.
        \10\ Id.

    Chapter 35 Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beneficiaries

        GI Bill beneficiaries utilizing their Chapter 35 VA Educational
    Benefits include children and spouses of veterans or service members
    who have died, been captured or are missing, or are totally disabled
    from a service-connected disability.\11\ The payments help eligible
    students pay for school or cover expenses while training for a job.
    Full-time students enrolled in this program receive nearly $1,600 each
    month from VA. SVA, as well as many other veteran and military serving
    organizations, has heard an increasing number of issues among
    membership on VA system failures that have compounded in light of the
    funding pause causing nationwide delays in education payments for
    dependents and survivors relying on Chapter 35 benefits.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Survivors' and
    Dependents' Educational Assistance, last updated Aug. 4, 2025, https://
    www.va.gov/family and-caregiver-benefits/education-and-careers/
    dependents-education-assistance/.
        \12\ Linda Hersey, Computer `glitch' delays higher-ed payments for
    veterans' dependents and survivors, Oct. 15, 2025, https://
    www.stripes.com/veterans/2025-10-16/veterans-gi-bill-payments-shutdown-
    19448904.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One family reached out to SVA about their communications via the
    GIBH throughout the month of September with the goal of resolving their
    issue before their daughter started their term in November. VA
    instructed the family to continuously check in using the GIBH
    throughout the following weeks of October. However, their calls went
    unanswered once the GIBH halted, resulting in impact to the dependent's
    enrollment. It is without question that these delays have created real
    financial strain and uncertainty; many are now struggling to cover
    basic living expenses such as rent, utilities, and transportation.
    Others are facing the difficult prospect of taking on additional debt
    or withdrawing from classes to avoid falling further behind
    financially.

    Recommendations

        With the GIBH closed and VRC furloughed, students had no direct
    path to resolve payment issues or confirm their benefit status. This
    led to uncertainty, financial strain, and the risk of dis-enrollment or
    withdrawal of students across the country. Even while these services
    were suspended, campuses remained open, classes continued, and student
    veterans pressed forward in pursuit of their education and career
    goals. Below are several recommendations from SVA to improve processes
    and prevent similar disruptions in the future.
        First, it is imperative that VA designate all VRC roles and at
    least a portion of staffing for the GI Bill Hotline as ``essential
    service'' providers and protect these services from future funding
    interruptions. This would ensure that students retain access to support
    services and do not go without the education benefits they earned or
    that were earned for them. Second, SVA urges VA to provide timely
    communications in a transparent and plain manner to students, schools,
    Congress, and veteran/military serving organizations when the risk of
    payment delays are known in advance. Last, SVA recommends VA adopt an
    IT rollout plan that avoids the start of a new academic term and add/
    drop class period. Although not every school's calendar is aligned,
    there are times throughout the year that are high-traffic in terms of
    enrollment, graduation, etc., and VA should understand when these
    periods fall throughout the year. The beginning of a term poses the
    highest risk to students if that system does malfunction. The add/drop
    period are when school certifying officials can confirm a students'
    course enrollment for the term. Implementing changes at a different
    time would allow VA to fully test and stabilize its systems before they
    are implemented to the larger user base.
        These recommendations will ensure that students will continue to
    get their benefits in a timely manner and have a trusted VA resource to
    assist them when they are in a significant time of need. It would
    additionally build trust for VA service users and ensure that the
    ``front door'' is not a barrier to entry. Transparency and
    accountability must be held to the highest standard when the livelihood
    of student veterans, military-connected students, family members,
    caregivers, and survivors are at risk. Modern technology can be used to
    make VA benefits easier, faster, and more reliable to access and
    process. If these upgrades are implemented properly, student veterans
    can focus on their education and career goals rather than spending time
    navigating a broken, outdated system.
        SVA welcomes any communication with VA to assist in disseminating
    timely information to students when an issue arises. Additionally, SVA
    would request that the GI Bill Stakeholder meetings return to their
    regular cadence. These meetings have historically been a valuable and
    effective forum for veteran-and military-serving organization
    engagement and an important tool for highlighting educational benefit
    issues early.
        The continued success of veterans in higher education in the Post-
    9/11 era is no mistake or coincidence. In our Nation's history,
    educated veterans have always been the best of a generation and the key
    to solving America's most complex challenges. Today's student veterans
    carry this legacy forward.
        We thank the Chairmen, Ranking Members, and the Members of the
    Subcommittees for your time, attention, and devotion to the cause of
    veterans, military-connected students, their families, caregivers and
    survivors.

                                     [all]