[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]