[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 129 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7929-S7933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Coleman, and Mrs. McCaskill):
  S. 3384. A bill to amend section 11317 of title 40, United States 
Code, to require greater accountability for cost overruns on Federal IT 
investment projects; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr President, I rise today with my colleagues on the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to introduce the 
Information Technology Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act 
of 2008.
  With a long name like that, you would hope that it is addressing a 
very serious problem. Well I assure you, that it is.
  Every year agencies spend billions of dollars on IT investments 
that--if planned and implemented properly--can increase productivity, 
reduce costs, and improve efficiency. As everyone knows, information 
technology has become a cornerstone of the way we conduct business. 
Just look at the rise in popularity of Blackberries, not only outside 
these walls, but right here in the Senate.
  In fiscal year 2009, agencies are planning to spend almost $71 
billion to improve their financial systems for better reporting, 
streamline their grant processes, and reduce wasteful paper 
applications. And this is a good thing.
  However, the Government Accountability Office has reported for 
several years that many of these investments are poorly planned, poorly 
performing--or in some cases--both. Yet, agencies continue to fund 
these risky investments without any oversight or accountability. In 
fact, I was surprised to hear GAO report that $25.2 billion is at 
danger of being wasted because agencies failed to properly plan or 
manage their investments.
  Mr. President, $25.2 billion may not be a very large sum of money 
when you compare it to what we spend every year, but I assure you that 
it is a very real sum of money to those families who can't pay for the 
gas they need to get to work, or who are struggling to put food on 
their table.
  To illustrate my point further, this chamber had to include emergency 
funding in the last supplemental appropriations bill to bail out the 
Census Bureau's 2010 operations. They had been planning for more than a 
decade to use advanced handheld computers to verify addresses and 
follow up with households who don't send their census forms in on time. 
My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee heard, however, that Census Bureau officials failed to define 
what they need out of the handheld project and, as a result, the 
contractor was having trouble delivering a product that could work. We 
held two hearings to try and get to the bottom of the problem and find 
a solution but, at the end of the day, the Census Bureau had to scrap 
the handheld project and go with the same expensive and inefficient 
``pen and paper'' counting method that they have used for centuries. 
The cost of this failure on the part of the Census Bureau is expected 
to total in the billions.
  This extra money that the Census Bureau will need to spend between 
now and 2010 could have been used to improve the quality of the final 
count by outreaching to historically-undercounted groups. In fact, it 
could have been used for any number of worthwhile purposes.
  My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which I 
chair, have held three hearings on the issue of troubled IT projects 
now, including one this morning. And what we've learned is that some 
agencies can't keep the expected cost of their investments down or 
deliver on time as promised. Nor do these agencies, in many cases, have 
qualified IT experts they can turn to before a project spirals out of 
control. The bill Senators Lieberman, Collins and I have put forward 
today addresses these issues.
  Our bill starts by requiring agencies to inform Congress when an 
investment begins to see increased costs, schedule delays, or 
performance deficiencies outside of 20 percent of the original plan.
  Our bill would also require agencies to inform Congress if an 
investment exceeds 40 percent of their original plan, and require the 
agency head to conduct an analysis that determines whether we should 
continue to fund this investment or just pull the plug.
  Many agencies today simply rewrite their plans when they run into 
trouble. They don't tell Congress that anything is wrong and the 
troubled projects just keep getting funded year in and year out.
  Finally and perhaps most importantly, our bill recognizes that, many 
times, agencies lack the experience necessary to manage complex IT 
investments. To remedy this, we propose that OMB create what my staff 
and I have come to call an ``IT Strike Team.'' This team would be 
comprised of known individuals inside and outside government who have 
records of successfully managing complex IT projects. If an agency or 
OMB recognizes that an investment is beginning to experience problems, 
the team would come in make sure the project is brought online or 
scrapped before more money is wasted.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important 
and necessary reforms enacted. I think I speak for all of us when I say 
that investing in IT systems is important. But these investments 
shouldn't come with wasted time and money that they all too often 
bring. In tight fiscal times like these, we need to make sure the money 
we do invest is spent wisely.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3384

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Information Technology 
     Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. IT INVESTMENT PROJECTS.

       (a) Significant and Gross Deviations.--Section 11317 of 
     title 40, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 11317. SIGNIFICANT AND GROSS DEVIATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this subchapter:
       ``(1) Agency head.--The term `Agency Head' means the head 
     of the Federal agency that is primarily responsible for the 
     IT investment project under review.
       ``(2) ANSI eia-748 standard.--The term `ANSI EIA-748 
     Standard' means the measurement tool jointly developed by the 
     American National Standards Institute and the Electronic 
     Industries Alliance to analyze earned value management 
     systems.
       ``(3) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     `appropriate congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       ``(B) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives;
       ``(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       ``(D) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(E) any other relevant congressional committee with 
     jurisdiction over an agency required to take action under 
     this section.
       ``(4) Chief information officer.--The term `Chief 
     Information Officer' means the Chief Information Officer 
     designated under section 3506(a)(2) of title 44 of the 
     Federal agency that is primarily responsible for the IT 
     investment project under review.
       ``(5) Core it investment project.--The terms `core IT 
     investment project' and `core project' mean a mission 
     critical IT investment project jointly designated as such by 
     the Agency Head and the Director under subsection (b).
       ``(6) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.

[[Page S7930]]

       ``(7) Grossly deviated.--The term `grossly deviated' means 
     cost, schedule, or performance variance that is at least 40 
     percent from the Original Baseline.
       ``(8) Independent cost estimate.--The term `independent 
     cost estimate' means a pragmatic and neutral analysis, 
     assessment, and quantification of all costs and risks 
     associated with the acquisition of an IT investment project, 
     which--
       ``(A) is based on programmatic and technical specifications 
     provided by the office within the agency with primary 
     responsibility for the development, procurement, and delivery 
     of the project;
       ``(B) is formulated and provided by an entity other than 
     the office within the agency with primary responsibility for 
     the development, procurement, and delivery of the project;
       ``(C) contains sufficient detail to inform the selection of 
     a baseline benchmark measure under the ANSI EIA-748 standard; 
     and
       ``(D) accounts for the full life cycle cost plus associated 
     operations and maintenance expenses over the usable life of 
     the project's deliverables.
       ``(9) IT investment project.--The terms `IT investment 
     project' and `project' mean an information technology system 
     or acquisition that--
       ``(A) requires special management attention because of its 
     importance to the mission or function of the agency, a 
     component of the agency, or another organization;
       ``(B) is for financial management and obligates more than 
     $500,000 annually;
       ``(C) has significant program or policy implications;
       ``(D) has high executive visibility;
       ``(E) has high development, modernization, or enhancement 
     costs;
       ``(F) is funded through other than direct appropriations; 
     or
       ``(G) is defined as major by the agency's capital planning 
     and investment control process.
       ``(10) Life cycle cost.--The term `life cycle cost' means 
     the total cost of an IT investment project for planning, 
     research and development, modernization, and enhancement.
       ``(11) Original baseline.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph 
     (B), the term `Original Baseline' means the ANSI EIA-748 
     Standard-compliant cost, schedule, and performance benchmark 
     established at the commencement of an IT investment project 
     contract.
       ``(B) Grossly deviated project.--If an IT investment 
     project grossly deviates from its Original Baseline (as 
     defined in subparagraph (A)), the term `Original Baseline' 
     means the ANSI EIA-748 Standard-compliant cost, schedule, and 
     performance benchmark established under subsection (e)(3)(C).
       ``(12) Significantly deviated.--The term `significantly 
     deviated' means cost, schedule, or performance variance that 
     is at least 20 percent from the Original Baseline.
       ``(b) Core IT Investment Projects.--
       ``(1) Designation.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     each Agency Head and the Director shall jointly designate not 
     fewer than 5 of the agency's most mission critical IT 
     investment projects as `core IT investment projects' or `core 
     projects', after considering, among other factors--
       ``(A) whether the project represents a high-dollar value 
     relative to the average IT investment project in the agency's 
     portfolio;
       ``(B) whether the project delivers a capability critical to 
     the successful completion of the agency mission, or a portion 
     of such mission; and
       ``(C) whether the project incorporates unproven or 
     previously undeveloped technology to meet primary project 
     technical requirements.
       ``(2) Exception.--If the Agency Head and the Director 
     jointly determine that fewer than 5 IT investment projects 
     meet the criteria described in paragraph (1), the Director--
       ``(A) may provide the agency with written authorization to 
     designate fewer than 5 projects; and
       ``(B) shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that contains notice of, and 
     justification for, any such authorization.
       ``(c) Cost, Schedule, and Performance Reports.--
       ``(1) Quarterly reports.--Not later than 7 days after the 
     end of each fiscal quarter, the project manager for an IT 
     investment project shall submit a written report to the Chief 
     Information Officer that includes, as of the last day of the 
     applicable quarter--
       ``(A) a description of the cost, schedule, and performance 
     of all projects under the project manager's supervision;
       ``(B) the original and current project cost, schedule, and 
     performance benchmarks for each project under the project 
     manager's supervision;
       ``(C) the cost, schedule, or performance variance related 
     to each IT investment project under the project manager's 
     supervision since the commencement of the contract;
       ``(D) for each project under the project manager's 
     supervision, any known, expected, or anticipated changes to 
     project schedule milestones or project performance benchmarks 
     included as part of the original or current baseline 
     description; and
       ``(E) the current cost, schedule, and performance status of 
     all projects under supervision that were previously 
     identified as significantly deviated or grossly deviated.
       ``(2) Interim reports.--If the project manager for an IT 
     investment project determines that there is reasonable cause 
     to believe that an IT investment project has significantly 
     deviated or grossly deviated since the issuance of the latest 
     quarterly report, the project manager shall submit to the 
     Chief Information Officer, not later than 7 days after such 
     determination, a report on the project that includes, as of 
     the date of the report--
       ``(A) a description of the original and current program 
     cost, schedule, and performance benchmarks;
       ``(B) the cost, schedule, or performance variance related 
     to the IT investment project since the commencement of the 
     contract;
       ``(C) any known, expected, or anticipated changes to the 
     project schedule milestones or project performance benchmarks 
     included as part of the original or current baseline 
     description; and
       ``(D) the major reasons underlying the significant or gross 
     deviation of the project.
       ``(d) Determination of Significant Deviation.--
       ``(1) Chief information officer.--Upon receiving a report 
     under subsection (c), the Chief Information Officer shall--
       ``(A) determine if any IT investment project has 
     significantly deviated; and
       ``(B) report such determination to the Agency Head.
       ``(2) Congressional notification.--If the Chief Information 
     Officer determines under paragraph (1) that an IT investment 
     project has significantly deviated and the Agency Head has 
     not issued a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees of a significant deviation for that project under 
     this section since the project was last required to be re-
     baselined under this section, the Agency Head shall submit a 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the 
     Government Accountability Office that includes--
       ``(A) written notification of such determination;
       ``(B) the date on which such determination was made;
       ``(C) the amount of the cost increases and the extent of 
     the schedule delays with respect to such project;
       ``(D) any requirements that--
       ``(i) were added subsequent to the original contract; or
       ``(ii) were originally contracted for, but were changed by 
     deferment or deletion from the original schedule, or were 
     otherwise no longer included in the requirements contracted 
     for;
       ``(E) an explanation of the differences between--
       ``(i) the estimate at completion between the project 
     manager, any contractor, and any independent analysis; and
       ``(ii) the original budget at completion;
       ``(F) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any 
     reasonable alternative system, or reasonable alternative 
     approach to establishing an equivalent outcome or capability;
       ``(G) a statement of the reasons underlying the project's 
     significant deviation;
       ``(H) the identities of the project managers responsible 
     for program management and cost control of the program; and
       ``(I) a summary of the plan of action to remedy the 
     significant deviation.
       ``(3) Deadline.--
       ``(A) Notification based on quarterly report.--If the 
     determination of significant deviation is based on a report 
     submitted under subsection (b)(1), the Agency Head shall 
     notify Congress in accordance with paragraph (2) not later 
     than 14 days after the end of the quarter upon which such 
     report is based.
       ``(B) Notification based on interim report.--If the 
     determination of significant deviation is based on a report 
     submitted under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall notify 
     Congress in accordance with paragraph (2) not later than 14 
     days after the submission of such report.
       ``(e) Determination of Gross Deviation.--
       ``(1) Chief information officer.--Upon receiving a report 
     under subsection (c), the Chief Information Officer shall--
       ``(A) determine if any IT investment project has grossly 
     deviated; and
       ``(B) report any such determination to the Agency Head.
       ``(2) Congressional notification.--If the Chief Information 
     Officer determines under paragraph (1) that an IT investment 
     project has grossly deviated and the Agency Head has not 
     issued a report to the appropriate congressional committees 
     of a gross deviation for that project under this section 
     since the project was last required to be re-baselined under 
     this section, the Agency Head shall submit a report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees and to the Government 
     Accountability Office that includes--
       ``(A) written notification of such determination, which 
     states--
       ``(i) the date on which such determination was made; and
       ``(ii) an indication of whether or not the project has been 
     previously reported as a significant or gross deviation by 
     the Chief Information Officer, and the date of any such 
     report;
       ``(B) incorporations by reference of all prior reports to 
     Congress on the project required under this section;
       ``(C) updated accounts of the items described in 
     subparagraphs (C) through (H) of subsection (d)(2);
       ``(D) the original estimate at completion for the project 
     manager, any contractor, and any independent analysis;

[[Page S7931]]

       ``(E) a graphical depiction of actual cost variance since 
     the commencement of the contract;
       ``(F) the amount, if any, of incentive award fees any 
     contractor has received since the commencement of the 
     contract and the reasons for receiving such award fees;
       ``(G) the project manager's estimated cost at completion 
     and estimated completion date for the project if current 
     requirements are not modified;
       ``(H) the project manager's estimated cost at completion 
     and estimated completion date for the project based on 
     reasonable modification of such requirements;
       ``(I) an explanation of the most significant occurrence 
     contributing to the variance identified, including cost, 
     schedule, and performance variances, and the effect such 
     occurrence will have on future project costs and program 
     schedule;
       ``(J) a statement regarding previous or anticipated re-
     baselining or re-planning of the project and the names of the 
     individuals responsible for approval;
       ``(K) the original life cycle cost of the investment and 
     the expected life cycle cost of the investment expressed in 
     constant base year dollars and in current dollars; and
       ``(L) a comprehensive plan of action to remedy the gross 
     deviation, and milestones established to control future cost, 
     schedule, and performance deviations in the future.
       ``(3) Remedial action.--If the Chief Information Officer 
     determines under paragraph (1) that an IT investment project 
     has grossly deviated, the Agency Head, in consultation with 
     the Chief Information Officer, shall ensure that--
       ``(A) a report is submitted to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that--
       ``(i) describes the primary business case and key 
     functional requirements for the project;
       ``(ii) describes any portions of the project that have 
     technical requirements of sufficient clarity that such 
     portions may be feasibly procured under firm, fixed-price 
     contract;
       ``(iii) includes a certification by the Agency Head, after 
     consultation with the Chief Information Officer, that all 
     technical requirements have been reviewed and validated to 
     ensure alignment with the reported business case;
       ``(iv) describes any changes to the primary business case 
     or key functional requirements which have occurred since 
     project inception; and
       ``(v) includes an independent cost estimate for the project 
     conducted by an entity approved by the Director;
       ``(B) an analysis is submitted to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that--
       ``(i) describes agency business goals that the project was 
     originally designed to address;
       ``(ii) includes a gap analysis of what project deliverables 
     remain in order for the agency to accomplish the business 
     goals referred to in clause (i);
       ``(iii) identifies the 3 most cost-effective alternative 
     approaches to the project which would achieve the business 
     goals referred to in clause (i); and
       ``(iv) includes a cost-benefit analysis, which compares--

       ``(I) the completion of the project with the completion of 
     each alternative approach, after factoring in future costs 
     associated with the termination of the project; and
       ``(II) the termination of the project without pursuit of 
     alternatives, after factoring in foregone benefits; and

       ``(C) a new baseline of the project is established that is 
     consistent with the independent cost estimate required under 
     subparagraph (A)(v); and
       ``(D) the project is designated as a core IT investment 
     project and subjected to the requirements under subsection 
     (f).
       ``(4) Deadline and funding contingency.--
       ``(A) Notification and remedial action based on quarterly 
     report.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the determination of gross deviation 
     is based on a report submitted under subsection (c)(1), the 
     Agency Head shall--

       ``(I) not later than 45 days after the end of the quarter 
     upon which such report is based, notify the appropriate 
     congressional committees in accordance with paragraph (2); 
     and
       ``(II) not later than 180 days after the end of the quarter 
     upon which such report is based, ensure the completion of 
     remedial action under paragraph (3).

       ``(ii) Failure to meet deadlines.--If the Agency Head fails 
     to meet the deadlines described in clause (i)(II), additional 
     funds may not be obligated to support expenditures associated 
     with the project until the requirements of this subsection 
     have been fulfilled.
       ``(B) Notification and remedial action based on interim 
     report.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the determination of gross deviation 
     is based on a report submitted under subsection (c)(2), the 
     Secretary shall--

       ``(I) not later than 45 days after the submission of such 
     report, notify the appropriate congressional committees in 
     accordance with paragraph (2); and
       ``(II) not later than 180 days after the submission of such 
     report, ensure the completion of remedial action in 
     accordance with paragraph (3).

       ``(ii) Failure to meet deadlines.--If the Agency Head fails 
     to meet the deadlines described in clause (i)(II), additional 
     funds may not be obligated to support expenditures associated 
     with the project until the requirements of this subsection 
     have been fulfilled.
       ``(f) Additional Requirements for Core IT Investment 
     Project Reports.--
       ``(1) Initial report.--If a report described in subsection 
     (e)(3)(A) has not been submitted for a core IT investment 
     project, the Agency Head, in coordination with the Chief 
     Information Officer and responsible program managers, shall 
     prepare an initial report for inclusion in the first budget 
     submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, after the designation of a project as a 
     core IT investment project, which includes--
       ``(A) a description of the primary business case and key 
     functional requirements for the project;
       ``(B) an identification and description of any portions of 
     the project that have technical requirements of sufficient 
     clarity that such portions may be feasibly procured under 
     firm, fixed-price contracts;
       ``(C) an independent cost estimate for the project;
       ``(D) certification by the Chief Information Officer that 
     all technical requirements have been reviewed and validated 
     to ensure alignment with the reported business case; and
       ``(E) any changes to the primary business case or key 
     functional requirements which have occurred since project 
     inception.
       ``(2) Quarterly review of business case.--The Agency Head, 
     in coordination with the Chief Information Officer and 
     responsible program managers, shall--
       ``(A) monitor the primary business case and core 
     functionality requirements reported to Congress for 
     designated core IT investment projects; and
       ``(B) if changes to the primary business case or key 
     functional requirements for a core IT investment project 
     occur in any fiscal quarter, submit a report to Congress not 
     later than 7 days after the end of such quarter that details 
     the changes and describes the impact the changes will have on 
     the cost and ultimate effectiveness of the project.
       ``(3) Alternative significant deviation determination.--If 
     the Chief Information Officer determines, subsequent to a 
     change in the primary business case or key functional 
     requirements, that without such change the project would have 
     significantly deviated--
       ``(A) the Chief Information Officer shall notify the Agency 
     Head of the significant deviation; and
       ``(B) the Agency Head shall fulfill the requirements under 
     subsection (d)(2) in accordance with the deadlines under 
     subsection (d)(3).
       ``(4) Alternative gross deviation determination.--If the 
     Chief Information Officer determines, subsequent to a change 
     in the primary business case or key functional requirements, 
     that without such change the project would have grossly 
     deviated--
       ``(A) the Chief Information Officer shall notify the Agency 
     Head of the gross deviation; and
       ``(B) the Agency Head shall fulfill the requirements under 
     subsections (e)(2) and (e)(3) in accordance with subsection 
     (e)(4).''.
       (b) Inclusion in the Budget Submitted to Congress.--Section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``include in each budget the following:'' and inserting 
     ``include in each budget--'';
       (2) by redesignating the second paragraph (33) (as added by 
     section 889(a) of Public Law 107-296) as paragraph (35);
       (3) in each of paragraphs (1) through (34), by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (4) in paragraph (35) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; 
     and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) the reports prepared under section 11317(f) of title 
     40, United States Code, relating to the core IT investment 
     projects of the agency.''.
       (c) Improvement of Information Technology Acquisition and 
     Development.--Subchapter II of chapter 113 of title 40, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 11319. ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) Establishment of Programs.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, each Agency 
     Head (as defined in section 11317(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code) shall establish a program to improve the 
     information technology (referred to in this section as `IT') 
     processes of the agency overseen by the Agency Head.
       ``(b) Program Requirements.--Each program established 
     pursuant to this section shall include--
       ``(1) a documented process for information technology 
     acquisition planning, requirements development and 
     management, project management and oversight, earned-value 
     management, and risk management;
       ``(2) the development of appropriate metrics for 
     performance measurement of--
       ``(A) processes and development status; and
       ``(B) continuous process improvement;
       ``(3) a process to ensure that key program personnel have 
     an appropriate level of experience or training in the 
     planning, acquisition, execution, management, and oversight 
     of information technology; and
       ``(4) a process to ensure that the applicable department 
     and subcomponents implement and adhere to established 
     processes and requirements relating to the planning, 
     acquisition, execution, management, and oversight of 
     information technology programs and developments.

[[Page S7932]]

       ``(c) OMB Guidance.--The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall--
       ``(1) prescribe uniformly applicable guidance to the 
     administration of all the programs established under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(2) take any actions that are necessary to ensure that 
     Federal agencies comply with the guidance.
       ``(d) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than the last 
     day of February of each year, the Agency Head shall submit a 
     report to Congress that includes--
       ``(1) a detailed summary of the accomplishments of the 
     program established by the Agency Head pursuant to this 
     section;
       ``(2) the status of completeness of implementation of each 
     of the program requirements, and the date each such 
     requirement was deemed to be completed;
       ``(3) the percentage of Federal IT projects covered under 
     the program compared to all of the IT projects of the agency, 
     listed by number of programs and by annual dollars expended;
       ``(4) the identification, listed by name and position, of--
       ``(A) the person assigned responsibility for implementation 
     and management of the program and the percent of such 
     person's time used to carry out such responsibility; and
       ``(B) the person to whom the person described in 
     subparagraph (A) reports;
       ``(5) a detailed breakdown of the sources and uses of the 
     amounts spent by the agency during the previous fiscal year 
     to support the activities of the program;
       ``(6) a copy of any guidance issued under the program and a 
     statement regarding whether each such guidance is mandatory;
       ``(7) the identification of the metrics developed in 
     accordance with subsection (b)(2);
       ``(8) a description of how paragraphs (3) and (4) of 
     subsection (b) have been implemented and any related agency 
     guidance; and
       ``(9) a description of how continuous process improvement 
     has been implemented and the objectives of such guidance.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections for chapter 
     113 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 11317 and 
     inserting the following:

``11317. Significant and gross deviations.''; and

       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 11318 
     the following:

``11319. Acquisition and development.''.

     SEC. 3. IT STRIKE FORCE.

       (a) Purpose.--The Director of the Office of Management of 
     Budget (referred to in this section as the ``Director''), in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Office of 
     Electronic Government and Information and Technology at the 
     Office of Management and Budget (referred to in this section 
     as the ``E-Gov Administrator''), shall assist agencies in 
     avoiding significant and gross deviations in the cost, 
     schedule, and performance of IT investment projects (as such 
     terms are defined in section 11317(a) of title 40, United 
     States Code).
       (b) IT Strike Force.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the E-Gov Administrator shall 
     establish a small group of individuals (referred to in this 
     section as the ``IT Strike Force'') to carry out the purpose 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Qualifications.--Individuals selected for the IT Strike 
     Force--
       (A) shall be certified at the Senior/Expert level according 
     to the Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and 
     Project Managers (FAC-P/PM); or
       (B) shall have comparable education, certification, 
     training, and experience to successfully manage high-risk IT 
     investment projects.
       (3) Number.--The Director, in consultation with the E-Gov 
     Administrator, shall determine the number of individuals who 
     will be selected for the IT Strike Force.
       (c) Outside Consultants.--
       (1) Identification.--The E-Gov Administrator shall identify 
     consultants in the private sector who have expert knowledge 
     in IT program management and program management review teams. 
     Not more than 20 percent of such consultants may be formally 
     associated with any 1 of the following types of entities:
       (A) Commercial firms.
       (B) Nonprofit entities.
       (C) Research and development corporations receiving Federal 
     financial assistance.
       (2) Use of consultants.--
       (A) In general.--Consultants identified under paragraph (1) 
     may be used to assist the IT Strike Force in assessing and 
     improving IT investment projects.
       (B) Limitation.--Consultants with a formally established 
     relationship with an organization may not participate in any 
     assessment involving an IT investment project for which such 
     organization is under contract to provide technical support.
       (C) Exception.--The limitation described in subparagraph 
     (B) may not be construed as precluding access to anyone 
     having relevant information helpful to the conduct of the 
     assessment.
       (3) Contracts.--The E-Gov Administrator, in conjunction 
     with the Administrator of the General Services Administration 
     (GSA), may establish competitively bid contracts with 1 or 
     more qualified consultants, independent of any GSA schedule.
       (d) Initial Response to Anticipated Significant or Gross 
     Deviation.--If the E-Gov Administrator determines there is 
     reasonable cause to believe that a major IT investment 
     project is likely to significantly or grossly deviate (as 
     defined in section 11317(a) of title 40, United States Code), 
     including the receipt of inconsistent or missing data, the E-
     Gov Administrator shall carry out the following activities:
       (1) Recommend the assignment of 1 or more members of the IT 
     Strike Force to assess the project in accordance with the 
     scope and time period described in section 11317(c)(1) of 
     title 40, United States Code, beginning not later than 7 days 
     after such recommendation. No member of the Strike Force who 
     is associated with the department or agency whose IT 
     investment project is the subject of the assessment may be 
     assigned to participate in this assessment. Such limitation 
     may not be construed as precluding access to anyone having 
     relevant information helpful to the conduct of the 
     assessment.
       (2) If the E-Gov Administrator determines that 1 or more 
     qualified consultants are needed to support the efforts of 
     the IT Strike Force under paragraph (1), negotiate a contract 
     with the consultant to provide such support during the period 
     in which the IT Strike Force is conducting the assessment 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Ensure that the costs of an assessment under paragraph 
     (1) and the support services of 1 or more consultants under 
     paragraph (2) are paid by the major IT investment project 
     being assessed.
       (4) Monitor the progress made by the IT Strike Force in 
     assessing the project.
       (e) Reduction of Significant or Gross Deviation.--If the E-
     Gov Administrator determines that the assessment conducted 
     under subsection (d) confirms that a major IT investment 
     project is likely to significantly or grossly deviate, the E-
     Gov Administrator shall recommend that the Agency Head (as 
     defined in section 11317(a)(1) of title 40, United States 
     Code) take steps to reduce the deviation, which may include--
       (1) providing training or mentoring to improve the 
     qualifications of the program manager;
       (2) replacing the program manager or other staff;
       (3) supplementing the program management team with Federal 
     Government employees or independent contractors;
       (4) terminating the project; or
       (5) hiring an independent contractor to report directly to 
     senior management and the E-Gov Administrator.
       (f) Reprogramming of Funds.--
       (1) Authorization.--The Director may direct an Agency Head 
     to reprogram amounts which have been appropriated for such 
     agency to pay for an assessment under subsection (d).
       (2) Notification.--An Agency Head who reprograms 
     appropriations under paragraph (1) shall notify the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives of any such 
     reprogramming.
       (g) Report to Congress.--The Director shall include in the 
     annual Report to Congress on the Benefits of E-Government 
     Initiatives a detailed summary of the composition and 
     activities of the IT Strike Force, including--
       (1) the number and qualifications of individuals on the IT 
     Strike Force;
       (2) a description of the IT investment projects that the IT 
     Strike Force has worked during the previous fiscal year;
       (3) the major issues that necessitated the involvement of 
     the IT Strike Force to assist agencies with assessing and 
     managing IT investment projects and whether such issues were 
     satisfactorily resolved;
       (4) if the issues referred to in paragraph (3) were not 
     satisfactorily resolved, the issues still needed to be 
     resolved and the Agency Head's plan for resolving such 
     issues;
       (5) a detailed breakdown of the sources and uses of the 
     amounts spent by the Office of Management and Budget and 
     other Federal agencies during the previous fiscal year to 
     support the activities of the IT Strike Force; and
       (6) a determination of whether the IT Strike Force has been 
     effective in reducing the amount of IT investment projects 
     that deviate or significantly deviate.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Carper in 
introducing a bill that will improve agency performance and 
Congressional oversight of major Federal information-technology, IT 
projects.
  The well-publicized cost and performance problems with the Census 
Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census--with its troubling 
implications for the next House reapportionment and for the allocation 
of Federal funds--represent only the most recent and conspicuous 
failure in a long trail of troubles that also includes critical IT 
projects like the FBI's virtual case file initiative. Former IBM 
executive and Carnegie-Mellon University technology expert Watts 
Humphrey makes the point succinctly: ``Software failures are common, 
and the biggest projects fail most often.''
  During the 108th Congress, the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
investigated the botched automated recordkeeping project for the 
Federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan TSP. This project was terminated 
in 2001 after a

[[Page S7933]]

4-year contract produced $36 million in waste that was charged to the 
accounts of TSP participants and beneficiaries. A second vendor needed 
an additional $33 million to bring the system online, years overdue and 
costing more than double its original estimate.
  In a 2004 letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 
to the Governmental Affairs Committee, the board characterized the 
project as ``ill-fated `` and acknowledged the importance of careful 
planning, task definition, communication, proper personnel, and risk 
management--all of which were lacking on that project.
  Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of 
dollars in wasted expenditures. The waste is troubling, but even more 
troubling is the fact that when Federal IT projects fail, they can 
undermine the Government's ability to defend the Nation, enforce its 
laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we 
have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined 
and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk 
management, and lax monitoring of performance.
  Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, tells us 
in a new report, Federal IT projects still fall short in their use of 
effective oversight techniques to monitor development and to spot signs 
of possible trouble.
  The GAO reports that the Federal Government will spend over $70 
billion in fiscal year 2008 on IT projects. Most of that spending is 
concentrated in two dozen agencies that have 778 major projects 
underway. These Federal entities range from Cabinet departments like 
Commerce, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, to agencies like NASA, the 
Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International 
Development.
  The GAO observes that ``Effectively managing projects involves 
pulling together essential cost, schedule, and performance goals in a 
meaningful, coherent fashion so that managers have an accurate view of 
the program's development status.'' This set of goals becomes the 
project ``baseline.''

  When the GAO conducted a study of a random sample of those major 
Federal IT projects, however, they found that 85--nearly half the 
sample--had been ``rebaselined.'' Eighteen of those projects have been 
rebaselined three or more times. For example, the Department of Defense 
Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System has been rebaselined four 
times; a Veterans Affairs Health Administration Center project has been 
rebaselined six times.
  Rebaselining can reflect funding changes, revisions in project scope 
or goals, and other perfectly reasonable project modifications. But as 
the GAO notes, ``[rebaselining] can also be used to mask cost overruns 
and schedule delays.'' All major Federal agencies have rebaselining 
policies, but the GAO concludes that they are not comprehensive and 
that ``none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices.''
  The bill that Senator Carper and I are introducing will go far toward 
addressing the weaknesses identified by the GAO and will reduce the 
risks that important Federal IT projects will drag on far beyond 
deadlines, fail to deliver intended capabilities, or waste taxpayers' 
money. We are pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and 
McCaskill join us as cosponsors in this effort.
  Our bill will improve both agency and Congressional oversight of 
large Federal IT projects. For all major investments, the bill requires 
agencies to track the earned value management index, a key cost and 
performance measure, and to alert Congress should that measure fall 
below a defined threshold.
  The bill requires additional reports to Congress as well as specific 
corrective actions should those same indicators continue to worsen. 
Further, because the bill's performance thresholds are based on 
original cost baselines, rebaselining can no longer serve as a tactic 
to hide troubled projects. If severe shortfalls remain uncorrected, the 
bill can even suspend commitment of funds to a project until the agency 
takes the required corrective actions.
  Our bill does not envision making Congress a micromanager of Federal 
projects--especially in so complex a field as information technology. 
But it will ensure that, for these important investments, agencies will 
be required to track key performance metrics, inform Congress of 
shortfalls in those metrics, and provide Congress with followup 
reports, independent cost estimates, and analyses of project 
alternatives when the original projects have run off course.
  The bill also provides that each covered agency identify to Congress 
their top mission-critical projects. Those ``core investments'' would 
be subject to additional upfront planning, reporting, and performance 
monitoring requirements. This will help ensure that agencies apply 
extra vigilance to these projects at the planning stage and not just 
when execution begins.
  In addition to tracking cost and schedule slippage, agencies making 
core IT investments must provide a complete ``business case'' that 
outlines the need for the project and its associated costs and 
schedules; produce a rigorous, independent, third-party estimate of the 
project's full, life-cycle costs; have the agency CIO certify the 
project's functional requirements; track these functional requirements; 
and report to Congress any changes in functional requirements, 
including whether those changes concealed a major cost increase.
  To help agencies deliver IT projects on time and on budget, the bill 
also provides two new support mechanisms.
  First, agency heads would be required to establish an internal IT-
management program, subject to OMB guidelines, to improve project 
planning, requirements development, and management of earned value and 
risk.
  Second, the Director of OMB and its E-Gov Administrator will be 
required to establish an IT strike force of experts and independent 
consultants who can be assigned to help agencies reform troubled 
projects. In addition, the E-Gov Administrator can recommend that 
agency heads mentor or replace an IT project manager, reinforce the 
management team, terminate the project, or hire an independent 
contractor to report on the project.
  These and other provisions will help improve project planning, avoid 
problems in project execution, provide early alerts when problems 
arise, and promote prompt corrective action.
  In projects where difficulties persist, our bill provides strong 
remedies. For projects that exhibit a performance shortfall of 20 
percent or more, the agency head involved must not only alert Congress 
but also provide a summary of a concrete plan of action to correct the 
problem. If the shortfall exceeds 40 percent, agencies have 6 months to 
take required remedial steps or else suspend further project spending 
until those steps are completed.
  If the provisions of this bill had been in force during the past 
decade, early indicators of trouble and prompt warnings to Congress 
might have helped prevent much of the added cost, decreased 
functionality, and increased anxiety we now see surrounding the 
handheld computers that were intended to streamline the 2010 Census. 
The additional scrutiny of plans and costs required by this bill might 
have saved some of the billions wasted on other IT projects that 
ultimately landed on high-risk lists.
  Our bill creates a measured, methodical plan to ensure that Federal 
agencies apply best practices to IT projects, supply timely reports of 
problems, and devise corrective actions sooner rather than later. Our 
Government and our citizens will benefit from these improvements. I 
urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.
                                 ______