[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2397-S2398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
        Brown of Massachusetts):
  S. 801. A bill to amend chapter 113 of title 40, United States Code, 
to require executive agency participation in real-time transparency of 
investment projects, to require performance and governance reviews of 
all cost overruns on Federal information technology investment 
projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to join Senators Carper, 
Lieberman, and Brown in introducing a bill that would bring more 
management and oversight of major information technology, IT, 
investments across the federal government.
  In fiscal year 2011 alone, the federal government plans to spend 
nearly $80 billion on IT investments, about half of which is for major 
IT investments. According to the Government Accountability Office, 
nearly 40 percent of those major IT investments, totaling nearly $20 
billion, are at risk for significant cost overruns, schedule delays, 
and performance problems.
  Rampant cost and performance problems in IT investments occur across 
the government. Most recently, we have seen a total breakdown in the 
National Archives and Records Administration's, NARA, Electronic 
Records Archive initiative.
  Since 2001, NARA has tried to develop a system to preserve and 
provide access to a massive volume of electronic records. Originally 
slated for a 2012 rollout at a cost of $317 million, NARA has had to 
repeatedly revise the plan and cost estimate and finally decided to 
produce a scaled-down system this year. Last month GAO estimated the 
project would cost between $762 million and $1 billion--three times 
more than originally planned.
  We see time and time again with these big IT contracts that 
requirements are not clear up front, leading to chaos down the road 
that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Such was the case with the 2010 Decennial Census handheld devices. 
After spending eight years developing a completely new approach to 
census-taking, the Census Bureau scrapped plans for using handheld 
computers and reverted instead back to paper and pencil.
  Problems managing the contractor, major flaws in the Bureau's cost-
estimates, and kicking the can down the road added about $3 billion to 
the census price tag. Three billion!
  The problems keep coming. DHS has tried twice--since 2004--to 
integrate its many-siloed financial management systems. The Department 
spent approximately $52 million on one failed attempt before abandoning 
the project nearly two years later. DHS tried again only to encounter 
severe schedule delays. The Department is now planning to roll out the 
project incrementally, which is of course how they should have started 
years ago, and is what is recommended under the OMB guidance for 
managing large IT projects.
  Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers literally billions 
of dollars in wasted expenditures. While never acceptable, especially 
now given our current fiscal crisis, we just cannot afford to accept 
this type of incompetence and mismanagement one more day. Perhaps 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.
  For the last several years, Senator Carper and I have pushed the 
Office of Management and Budget to improve the management and oversight 
of these IT investments. To help address the concerns we have raised, 
OMB has instituted several new initiatives over the last year and a 
half.
  For example, in June 2009, OMB announced the creation of the ``IT 
Dashboard,'' which is a website that displays cost and schedule 
information about major IT investments, as well as the agency Chief 
Information Officer's, CIO, evaluation of the status of each project. 
OMB has also instituted comprehensive face-to-face reviews of these 
investments, known as ``TechStat'' sessions.
  As a result, OMB has reported reducing the life-cycle costs of 15 
investments by approximately $3 billion by narrowing the scope of some 
projects and even shutting down others and cutting the losses. Added 
transparency from the IT Dashboard, as well as comprehensive reviews 
via TechStat sessions, should improve agency management and 
Congressional oversight of the projects.
  The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today would require agencies 
to use the Dashboard in a standardized way. It would also expand inputs 
to include cost, schedule, and performance data, using a metric called 
Earned Value Management, EVM. EVM prevents the kind of ``hide the 
ball'' game that agencies often play to cover up performance 
shortfalls, cost overruns, or schedule slips.
  The bill institutes triggers so that, if an investment deviates more 
than 20 percent from its original cost, schedule, and performance 
targets, CIOs would be required to conduct the type of comprehensive 
TechStat sessions currently taking place at OMB on a more limited 
scale. These sessions would generate information for Congress as well 
as the public, by requiring agencies to post the results of the 
TechStat sessions on the IT Dashboard. These reports would have to 
describe in detail how the failures occurred, naming names, and 
describing how exactly the shortcomings are going to be fixed.

[[Page S2398]]

  If an investment deviates more than 40 percent, the TechStat session 
would get bumped up to the OMB level, to be run by the Federal Chief 
Information Officer. In addition to information about how to improve 
the performance of the project, OMB would be required to provide to 
Congress a recommendation of whether the project should be pared back 
or cancelled if it cannot be overhauled.
  On top of this aggressive oversight ramp-up, the bill would require 
agencies to identify and heighten the planning and management for a 
handful of top priority, most expensive projects. For these ``core'' 
investments, agencies would submit additional data on performance, key 
milestones, and lifecycle costs.
  Because of their scope and importance to agency missions, these core 
projects would have lower thresholds for oversight triggers and would 
get bumped up to OMB TechStat review with a deviation of 20 percent. 
The ``get-well'' plan would then be sent to Congress and published on 
the Dashboard for maximum accountability. This early intervention at 
the highest level would ensure that these critical projects are either 
saved or scrapped long before they can threaten to waste billions of 
dollars or endanger agency missions.
  If an agency fails to comply with the requirements in the bill for 
any given project, that would be the end of taxpayer support for the 
project until it is brought into compliance.
  If this bill had been law during the past decade, early warning signs 
would have alerted Congress and possibly saved some of the billions 
wasted on so many IT projects currently crowding various high-risk 
lists.
  I urge every Senator to support this much-needed and bipartisan bill.

                          ____________________