[Senate Report 114-162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      Calendar No. 288
114th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session      }                                      {     114-162
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     



           PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 1550

          TO AMEND TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH
           ENTITIES TASKED WITH IMPROVING PROGRAM AND PROJECT
     MANAGEMENT IN CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                November 3, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
                                  ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

59-010                         WASHINGTON : 2015                 
                
                




                
                
                
                
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                    Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
                  Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
       Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
              Rebecca N. Nuzzi, Professional Staff Member
              Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
           John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
               Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
     Troy H. Cribb, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     
                     
   
   
   
   
   
   
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                                                      Calendar No. 288
114th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session      }                                      {     114-162

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



 
           PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                                _______
                                

                November 3, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1550]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 1550) to amend 
title 31, United States Code, to establish entities tasked with 
improving program and project management in certain Federal 
agencies, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
 II. Background and the Need for the Legislation......................2
III. Legislative History..............................................5
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............8

                         I. Purpose and Summary

    S. 1550, the Program Management Improvement and 
Accountability Act of 2015, seeks to improve program and 
project management practices within the Federal government by 
requiring the development of governmentwide standards, 
policies, and guidelines for program management, establishing 
an inter-agency Program Management Policy Council to focus on 
improving program management, and requiring clearer 
identification of skills and competencies necessary for 
effective program management. The legislation builds upon 
existing guidance and would not affect current agency 
organization structure. S. 1550 will help ensure agency 
leadership focuses on improving processes that are critical to 
effective management of major government projects and programs.

              II. Background and the Need for Legislation

    Many Federal projects and programs are substantially over 
budget, significantly behind schedule, or fall short of meeting 
their original purpose, sometimes because they fail to utilize 
common best practices and standards acknowledged both within 
the government and the private sector.\1\ Many of these 
projects are terminated years after the program was 
implemented, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See, e.g., Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-282, Defense 
Major Automated Information Systems: Cost and Schedule Commitments Need 
To Be Established Earlier (Feb. 26, 2015), available at http://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-282; Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-14-
231, Plutonium Disposition Program: DOE Needs To Analyze the Root 
Causes of Cost Increases and Develop Better Cost Estimates (2014), 
available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-231; Gov't 
Accountability Office, GAO-15-290, High-Risk Series: An Update (2015), 
available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-290.
    \2\See, e.g., Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-524, Information 
Technology: Additional Executive Review Sessions Needed to Address 
Troubled Projects (2013), available at http://gao.gov/assets/660/
655214.pdf; Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-290, High-Risk Series: 
An Update (2015), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Below are just a few examples taken from Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) reports of recent troubled or 
failed major projects at government agencies, specifically in 
the areas of information technology (IT). According to GAO, 
``these and other failed IT projects often suffered from a lack 
of disciplined and effective management, such as project 
planning, requirements definition, and program oversight and 
governance.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Healthcare.gov Preparation and Launch: The 
administration spent $840 million on the creation of 
healthcare.gov and its supporting systems. According to GAO:

        CMS incurred significant cost increases, schedule 
        slips, and delayed system functionality for the FFM 
        [federally facilitated marketplace] and data hub 
        systems due primarily to changing requirements that 
        were exacerbated by oversight gaps. From September 2011 
        to February 2014, FFM obligations increased from $56 
        million to more than $209 million. . . . Because of 
        unclear guidance and inconsistent oversight, there was 
        confusion about who had the authority to approve 
        contractor requests to expend funds for additional 
        work. . . . As a result, CMS launched Healthcare.gov 
        without verification that it met performance 
        requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-290, Healthcare.gov: 
Ineffective Planning and Oversight Practices Underscore the Need for 
Improved Contract Management (2014), available at http://www.gao.gov/
assets/670/665179.pdf.

      The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
Scheduling Replacement Project: Terminated in September 2009 
after spending an estimated $127 million over nine years.\5\ 
Despite spending nearly a decade attempting to modernize the 
department's 25 year old outpatient scheduling system, the VA 
had not implemented any of the planned system's capabilities 
and it was scrapped. VA began a new project for the scheduling 
system, which GAO warns is at risk due to ``weaknesses in 
several key project management disciplines and a lack of 
effective oversight.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-290, High-Risk Series: An 
Update 44 (2015), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-290.
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Department of Defense's Expeditionary Combat 
Support System: Canceled in December 2012 after spending more 
than $1 billion and failing to deploy within five years of 
initially obligating funds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Id. at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Office of Personnel Management's Retirement 
Systems Modernization Program: Canceled in February 2011 after 
spending approximately $231 million on the agency's third 
attempt to automate the processing of Federal employee 
retirement claims.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Department of Homeland Security's Secure 
Border Initiative Network program: Terminated in January 2011 
after obligating more than $1 billion to the program over six 
years, because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability 
standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Department of Agriculture's Modernize and 
Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program: 
Canceled because the Farm Service Agency did not adequately 
implement key program management disciplines on MIDAS and 
``lacks the capacity to effectively manage successor 
programs.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-506, Farm Program 
Modernization: Farm Service Agency Needs to Demonstrate the Capacity to 
Manage IT Initiatives (2015), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-15-506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Major Federal program and project failures are not just 
isolated to IT programs, however. Below are other recent major 
Federal projects that are failing or have failed due to project 
mismanagement:
      Four medical centers at the VA (Las Vegas, 
Orlando, Denver and New Orleans) have realized cost increases 
that ``range from 66 percent to 427 percent and delays range 
from 14 to 86 months.'' In the aggregate, these four projects 
will see cost increases of more than $2.4 billion.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-546T, VA Construction: 
Actions to Address Cost Increases and Schedule Delays at Denver and 
Other VA Major Medical-Facility Projects (2015), available at http://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-564T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Department of Defense (DOD) Weapon Systems 
Acquisition: According to GAO, ``Congress and the DOD have long 
sought to improve the acquisition of major weapon systems, yet 
many DOD programs are still falling short of cost, schedule, 
and performance expectations. The results are unanticipated 
cost overruns, reduced buying power, and in some cases a 
reduction in the capability ultimately delivered to the 
warfighter.''\12\ In 2014, ``the total acquisition cost of 
DOD's fiscal year 2013 portfolio of 80 programs grew by almost 
$13 billion, or about 1 percent, from the previous year.''\13\ 
The overall schedule to deliver initial capabilities to the 
warfighter grew by two additional months.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-290, High-Risk Series: An 
Update 20 (Feb. 2015), available at http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/
dod_weapon_systems/why_did_study#t=1.
    \13\Id. at 197-98.
    \14\Id. at 198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Air Force Global Position System (GPS) Next 
Generation Operational Control System: According to GAO,

          The Air Force has experienced significant 
        difficulties developing the Global Positioning System 
        (GPS) next generation operational control system (OCX) 
        and consistently overstated progress to the Office of 
        the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compared to advisory 
        independent assessments it received. It needs $1.1 
        billion and 4 years more than planned to deliver OCX 
        due to poor acquisition decisions and a slow 
        recognition of development problems.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-657, GPS: Actions Needed to 
Address Ground System Development Problems and User Equipment 
Production Readiness (2015), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
680/672367.pdf.

        GAO also stated, ``[a] combination of many factors, 
        including technical challenges, poor contractor 
        execution and program management, and ineffective 
        acquisition oversight have all put GPS modernization at 
        significant risk.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Id. at 42.

    While it is difficult to determine whether these failures 
could have been prevented if agencies followed the practices 
and standards established under this bill,\17\ they are 
indicative of a need to strengthen project management across 
the Federal government. Additionally, the portfolio reviews 
required by this bill will shed light on failing projects 
earlier in the process. According to a study by Accenture, 
``[t]he United States alone could save as much as $995 billion 
by 2025 by increasing public-sector efficiency by just 1 
percent a year.''\18\ A 2013 survey sponsored by the Project 
Management Institute found that, ``only 11 percent of 
government organizations (federal, state, and local) have a 
senior-level program management-related role (compared with 22 
percent elsewhere on average), and only 37 percent of 
government respondents have a formal process for developing 
program management competency, 17 percent lower than 
industry.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\GAO has also reported that program managers face challenges 
beyond their control, such as funding instability and shifting agency 
priorities. See, e.g., Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-14-332, 
Homeland Security Acquisitions, DHS Could Better Manage Its Portfolio 
to Address Funding Gaps and Improve Communications with Confressov 
(2014), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-332.
    \18\Bernard Le Masson, Brian J. Moran, & Steve Rohleder, Coup 
D'etat: Radically Rethinking Public Services, Accenture (Nov. 1, 2013), 
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-outlook-radically-rethinking-
public-services-government.aspx.
    \19\National Academy of Public Administration, Improving Program 
Management in the Federal Government, 6 (July 2015), available at 
https://www.pmi.org/***/media/PDF/Business-Solutions/improve-program-
management-federal-government.ashx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the Project Management Institute, the 
following challenges remain for project and program management 
as a profession:
    1)  Laws and policies have been developed over time to 
address specific problems and do not holistically address the 
challenges of program management;
    2)  Program management is not consistently recognized as a 
management discipline that is essential to government 
performance, success and results;
    3)  Agency executives and stakeholders do not clearly 
understand their roles and responsibilities;
    4)  There is no consistency across the government in the 
training and development of program managers; and
    5)  Program managers lack a professional community within 
the Federal government that can provide support and a voice on 
issues affecting the development of program management.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Id. at 9-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 1550 would address these challenges and improve the 
effectiveness of program and project management in the Federal 
government and save taxpayer dollars by establishing a leader 
within each agency focused on project management, creating an 
inter-agency Program Management Policy Council to help drive 
improvements to program management, requiring the development 
of a specific job category with distinct qualifications for 
project managers, and requiring the issuance of project 
management standards to be utilized government-wide.

                        III. Legislative History

    The Program Management Improvement Accountability Act was 
introduced June 10, 2015, by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) and 
Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
    The Committee considered S. 1550 at a business meeting on 
June 24, 2015. Senator Ernst offered a substitute amendment, 
and an additional modification to the substitute, both of which 
were adopted by voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, 
Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and 
Heitkamp present.
    Senator McCain offered an amendment to require the GAO to 
issue a report examining the effectiveness of the legislation 
on improving Federal program and project management in 
conjunction with the annual GAO High Risk list. The amendment 
was adopted by voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, 
Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and 
Heitkamp present.
    The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported 
favorably by voice vote en bloc on June 24, 2015. Senators 
present for final passage of the bill were Johnson, McCain, 
Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and 
Heitkamp.

        IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 establishes the short title of the legislation as 
the ``Program Management Improvement Accountability Act.''

Section 2. Deputy Director for Management

    Section 2 adds additional functions for the Deputy Director 
of Management at the Office of Management and Budget related to 
program and project management. The additional functions 
include the adoption of government-wide standards for project 
management, project portfolio reviews, and other functions to 
improve project management at executive agencies. This section 
also sets a one-year deadline for the establishment of the 
standards.

Section 3. Program Management Improvement Officers and Program 
        Management Policy Council

    Section 3 establishes the Program Management Policy Council 
and requires agencies to designate a senior official as Program 
Management Improvement Officer, creating an accountable 
official for projects and programs agencywide. The policy 
council created under the bill is chaired by the Deputy 
Director for Management and is required to meet at least twice 
each year to share program management best practices and 
coordinate major projects governmentwide.

Section 4. Program and project management personnel standards

    Section 4 requires the issuance of regulations to establish 
program and project management as a distinct job series with a 
specific career path and job requirements.

Section 5. GAO report on effectiveness of policies on program and 
        project management

    This section requires GAO to issue a report, not later than 
three years after the date of enactment and in conjunction with 
the release of the biannual GAO High Risk Report, examining the 
effectiveness of the provisions of the legislation in improving 
project and program management.

                   V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined 
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning 
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional 
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.

             VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                                September 14, 2015.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1550, the Program 
Management Improvement Accountability Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

S. 1550--Program Management Improvement Accountability Act

    Summary: S. 1550 would amend federal law with the aim to 
improve program and project management in the federal 
government. The bill would establish a council to be the 
primary interagency forum related to program and project 
management. The legislation also would add additional 
responsibilities to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and require agencies to designate a senior executive as the 
Program Management Improvement Officer. Finally, S. 1550 would 
establish standards for program and project management 
personnel.
    CBO estimates that implementing S. 1550 would increase the 
administrative costs of federal agencies by a total of $20 
million over the 2016-2020 period; such spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting S. 
1550 could affect direct spending by some agencies (such as the 
Tennessee Valley Authority) because they are authorized to use 
receipts from the sale of goods, fees, and other collections to 
cover their operating costs. Therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures apply. Because most of those agencies can make 
adjustments to the amounts collected as operating costs change, 
CBO estimates that any net changes in direct spending by those 
agencies would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not 
affect revenues.
    S. 1550 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of S. 1550 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall primarily within budget 
function 800 (general government).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                                                     2016   2017   2018   2019   2020  2016-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated Authorization Level.....................................      2      3      5      5      5        20
Estimated Outlays.................................................      2      3      5      5      5        20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 
1550 will be enacted late in 2015 and that spending will follow 
historical patterns for similar activities.
    Some provisions of the legislation would codify and expand 
upon current project management efforts such as the General 
Services Administration's Performance Improvement Council where 
federal agencies and OMB collaborate to improve the performance 
of federal programs. However, based on information from OMB and 
the cost of similar councils, CBO anticipates that the workload 
of the 20 largest federal agencies would increase by as much as 
$500,000 per year to meet the bill's requirements to fund the 
council's activities, prepare new reports, and conduct 
additional management training. CBO estimates that implementing 
S. 1550 would cost about $5 million annually after a phase-in 
period. Over the 2016-2020 period, CBO estimates that 
implementing the bill would cost $20 million for additional 
personal and training expenses; such spending would be subject 
to the availability of appropriated funds.
    Pay-as-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. Enacting S. 1550 could affect direct spending by some 
agencies (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority) because they 
are authorized to use receipts from the sale of goods, fees, 
and other collections to cover their operating costs. 
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Because most of 
those agencies can adjust the amounts collected as operating 
costs change, CBO estimates that any net changes in direct 
spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting 
the bill would not affect revenues.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1550 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Jon Sperl; 
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

       VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
S. 1550 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in 
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is 
shown in roman):

TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 5. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 503. FUNCTIONS OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT

    (a) * * *
    (b) * * *
    (c) Program and Project Management.--
          (1) Requirement.--Subject to the direction and 
        approval of the Director, the Deputy Director for 
        Management or designee shall--
                  (A) adopt governmentwide standards, policies, 
                and guidelines for program and project 
                management for executive agencies;
                  (B) oversee implementation of programs and 
                project management for the standards, policies, 
                and guidelines established under subparagraph 
                (A);.
                  (C) chair the Program Management Policy 
                Council established under section 1126(b);
                  (D) establish standards and policies for 
                executive agencies, in accordance with widely 
                accepted standards for program and project 
                management planning and delivery;
                  (E) engage with the private sector to 
                identify best practices in program and project 
                management that would improve Federal program 
                and project management;
                  (F) conduct portfolio reviews to address 
                programs identified as high risk by the 
                Government Accountability Office;
                  (G) not less than annually, conduct portfolio 
                reviews of agency programs in coordination with 
                Project Management Improvement Officers 
                designated under section 1126(a)(1) to assess 
                the quality and effectiveness of program 
                management; and
                  (H) establish a 5-year strategic plan for 
                program and project management.
          (2) Application to department of defense.--Paragraph 
        (1) shall not apply to the Department of Defense to the 
        extent that the provisions of that paragraph are 
        substantially similar to or duplicative of the 
        provisions of section 810 of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 11. THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1126. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT OFFICERS AND PROGRAM 
                    MANAGEMENT POLICY COUNCIL

    (a) Program Management Improvement Officers.--
          (1) Designation.--The head of each agency described 
        in section 901(b) shall designate a senior executive of 
        the agency as the Program Management Improvement 
        Officer of the agency.
          (2) Functions.--The Program Management Improvement 
        Officer of an agency designated under paragraph (1) 
        shall--
                  (A) implement program management policies 
                established by the agency under section 503(c); 
                and
                  (B) develop a strategy for enhancing the role 
                of program managers within the agency that 
                includes the following:
                          (i) Enhanced training and educational 
                        opportunities for program managers that 
                        shall include--
                                  (I) training in the relevant 
                                competencies encompassed with 
                                program and project management 
                                within the private sector for 
                                program managers; and
                                  (II) training that emphasizes 
                                cost containment for large 
                                projects and programs.
                          (ii) Mentoring of current and future 
                        program managers by experienced senior 
                        executives and program managers within 
                        the agency.
                          (iii) Improved career paths and 
                        career opportunities for program 
                        managers.
                          (iv) A plan to encourage the 
                        recruitment and retention of highly 
                        qualified individuals to serve as 
                        program managers.
                          (v) Improved means of collecting and 
                        disseminating best practices and 
                        lessons learned to enhance program 
                        management across the agency.
                          (vi) Common templates and tools to 
                        support improved data gathering and 
                        analysis for program management and 
                        oversight purposes.
          (3) Application to the department of defense.--This 
        subsection shall not apply to the Department of Defense 
        to the extent that the provisions of this subsection 
        are substantially similar to or duplicative of the 
        provisions of section 810 of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
    (b) Program Management Policy Council.--
          (1) Establishment.--There is established in the 
        Office of Management and Budget a council to be known 
        as the `Program Management Policy Council' (in this 
        subsection referred to as the `Council').
          (2) Purpose and functions.--The Council shall act as 
        the principal interagency forum for improving agency 
        practices related to program and project management. 
        The Council shall--
                  (A) advise and assist the Deputy Director for 
                Management of the Office of Management and 
                Budget;
                  (B) review programs identified as high risk 
                by the General Accountability Office and make 
                recommendations for actions to be taken by the 
                Deputy Director for Management of the Office of 
                Management and Budget or designee;
                  (C) discuss topics of importance to the 
                workforce, including--
                          (i) career development and workforce 
                        development needs;
                          (ii) policy to support continuous 
                        improvement in program and project 
                        management; and
                          (iii) major challenges across 
                        agencies in managing programs;
                  (D) advise on the development and 
                applicability of standards governmentwide for 
                program management transparency; and
                  (E) review the information published on the 
                website of the Office of Management and Budget 
                pursuant to section 1122.
          (3) Membership.--
                  (A) Composition.--The Council shall be 
                composed of the following members:
                          (i) Five members from the Office of 
                        Management and Budget as follows:
                                  (I) The Deputy Director for 
                                Management.
                                  (II) The Administrator of the 
                                Office of Electronic 
                                Government.
                                  (III) The Administrator of 
                                the Office of Federal 
                                Procurement Policy.
                                  (IV) The Controller of the 
                                Office of Federal Financial 
                                Management.
                                  (V) The Director of the 
                                Office of Performance and 
                                Personnel Management.
                          (ii) The Program Management 
                        Improvement Officer from each agency 
                        described in section 901(b).
                          (iii) Other individuals as determined 
                        appropriate by the Chairperson.
                  (B) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--
                          (i) In general.--The Deputy Director 
                        for Management of the Office of 
                        Management and Budget shall be the 
                        Chairperson of the Council. A Vice 
                        Chairperson shall be elected by the 
                        members and shall serve a term of not 
                        more than 1 year.
                          (ii) Duties.--The Chairperson shall 
                        preside at the meetings of the Council, 
                        determine the agenda of the Council, 
                        direct the work of the Council, and 
                        establish and direct subgroups of the 
                        Council as appropriate.
          (4) Meetings.--The Council shall meet not less than 
        twice per fiscal year and may meet at the call of the 
        Chairperson or a majority of the members of the 
        Council.
          (5) Support.--The head of each agency with a Project 
        Management Improvement Officer serving on the Council 
        shall provide administrative support to the Council, as 
        appropriate, at the request of the Chairperson.
          (6) Committee duration.--Section 14(a)(2) of the 
        Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall 
        not apply to the Council.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  [all]